The confutation of Tortura Torti: or, Against the King of Englands chaplaine: for that he hath negligently defended his Kinges cause. By the R.F. Martinus Becanus, of the Society of Iesus: and professour in deuinity. Translated out of Latin into English by W.I. P.
Refutatio Torturae Torti. English
Becanus, Martinus, 1563-1624.
1610
Approx. 113 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 38 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images.
Text Creation Partnership,
Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :
2005-10 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1).
A06517
STC 1699
ESTC S122416
99857565
99857565
23323
This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of
Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal
. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.
Early English books online.
(EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A06517)
Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 23323)
Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1475-1640 ; 1194:16)
The confutation of Tortura Torti: or, Against the King of Englands chaplaine: for that he hath negligently defended his Kinges cause. By the R.F. Martinus Becanus, of the Society of Iesus: and professour in deuinity. Translated out of Latin into English by W.I. P.
Refutatio Torturae Torti. English
Becanus, Martinus, 1563-1624.
Wilson, John, ca. 1575-ca. 1645?
[6], 65, [3] p.
Printed at the English College Press] Permissu superiorum,
[Saint-Omer :
M.DC.X. [1610]
W.I. P. = John Wilson, priest.
A translation of: Refutatio Torturae Torti.
A reply to: Andrewes, Lancelot. Tortura Torti.
Identification of printer from STC.
With a final errata leaf.
Reproduction of the original in Durham University Library.
Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford.
Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors.
EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO.
EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org).
The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source.
Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data.
Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so.
Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as <gap>s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor.
The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines.
Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements).
Keying and markup guidelines are available at the
Text Creation Partnership web site
.
eng
Andrewes, Lancelot, 1555-1626. -- Tortura Torti -- Controversial literature -- Early works to 1800.
Church and state -- England -- Early works to 1800.
2004-12 TCP
Assigned for keying and markup
2004-12 Aptara
Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images
2005-01 Andrew Kuster
Sampled and proofread
2005-01 Andrew Kuster
Text and markup reviewed and edited
2005-04 pfs
Batch review (QC) and XML conversion
THE
CONFVTATION
OF
TORTVRA
TORTI
:
OR
,
AGAINST
●he
King
of
Englands
Chaplaine
:
for
that
he
hath
negligently
defended
his
Kinges
Cause
.
By
the
R.
F.
MARTINVS
BECANVS
,
of
the
Society
of
IESVS
:
AND
Professour
in
Deuinity
.
Translated
out
of
Latin
into
English
by
W.
I.
●
.
¶
Permissu
Superiorum
.
M.DC.X.
TO
THE
RIGHT
REVEREND
AND
RIGHT
HONORABLE
PRINCE
,
AND
LORD
,
LORD
IOHN
SVICARD
,
Arch-bishop
of
the
holy
Sea
of
Mentz
,
Arch-chancellour
of
the
Sacred
Roman
Empire
through
Germany
,
and
Prince
Electour
:
His
most
Clement
Prince
,
and
Lord
,
Martinus
Becanus
&c.
THere
came
of
late
(
right
Reuerend
and
right
Honorable
Prince
)
two
bookes
out
of
England
;
one
whereof
bare
title
of
the
Renowned
King
Iames
;
the
other
of
his
Chaplain
:
both
which
,
as
manifestly
oppugning
the
Roman
Church
,
I
haue
,
for
the
loue
of
truth
,
refuted
as
modestly
as
I
could
.
As
for
the
former
I
haue
dedicated
the
Confutation
therof
to
the
Inuincible
Emperour
Rodulph
,
and
the
other
renowned
Kinges
,
&
Illustrious
Princes
of
the
Christian
world
(
among
whome
you
are
one
:
)
But
the
later
I
haue
thought
it
not
amisse
to
dedicate
specially
vnto
your
magnificēt
Name
;
and
that
for
two
reasons
.
The
one
,
that
for
so
much
as
I
haue
taken
this
paines
for
defence
of
the
Catholicke
faith
and
Religion
;
it
seemes
vnfit
that
the
same
should
be
published
vnder
the
Patronage
of
any
other
,
then
your selfe
who
are
so
great
a
professor
and
protector
of
the
said
faith
in
Germany
.
The
other
reason
is
,
for
that
your
meritts
and
benefitts
towards
our
Archiepiscopall
Colledge
of
Mentz
,
do
by
a
certaine
right
challenge
,
and
exact
the
same
at
my
hands
.
You
will
,
I
trust
,
take
i●
in
good
part
,
and
fauourably
accept
this
my
sincere
token
of
Duty
and
Reuerence
.
THE
TRANSLATOVR
to
the
Reader
.
WHERAS
(
gentle
Reader
)
in
the
yeare
of
our
Lord
God
1607.
there
being
published
,
both
in
English
&
Latin
,
a
Booke
,
intituled
Triplici
nodo
triplex
cuneus
,
or
,
An
Apology
for
the
Oath
of
Allegiance
,
and
this
without
Name
of
Authour
:
the
same
was
answered
very
briefely
&
modestly
in
both
languages
by
the
Catholicke
party
the
next
yeare
following
.
And
first
in
English
,
by
an
English-man
,
who
also
concealed
his
Name
:
and
then
in
latin
by
Card.
Bellarmine
,
vnder
the
Name
of
Matthaeus
Tortus
;
Who
not
suspecting
the
said
Booke
to
be
his
Maiesties
of
Great
Britany
,
(
as
indeed
it
was
)
but
rather
of
some
of
his
Ministers
about
him
,
thought
it
not
fit
to
publish
this
his
answere
in
his
owne
,
but
in
the
name
of
the
foresaid
Matthaeus
Tortus
.
But
when
in
the
yeare
1609.
his
Maiesty
(
hauing
now
seene
these
answers
to
his
booke
come
forth
)
resolued
to
publish
anew
his
said
Apology
,
with
a
large
Preface
or
Premonition
To
all
Christian
Princes
&c.
he
therwithall
forthwith
gaue
commandement
to
two
of
the
best
learned
(
as
is
thought
)
in
his
Realme
,
that
they
should
separately
make
Answer
to
both
the
fornamed
Books
,
written
against
his
foresaid
Apology
,
which
presently
they
did
.
And
that
in
English
he
committed
to
M.
Doctor
Barlow
,
who
made
Answere
therto
,
and
published
it
the
same
yeare
1609.
but
how
substantially
he
hath
performed
the
same
,
may
perhaps
be
shortly
examined
.
The
other
in
latin
of
the
forsaid
Matthaeus
Tortus
,
he
recommended
to
M.
Doctor
Andrewes
,
a
man
of
great
esteeme
and
litterature
in
our
Countrey
,
who
the
same
yeare
in
like
manner
,
set
forth
an
Answere
therto
,
intituling
it
Tortura
Torti
:
which
Answere
of
his
comming
forth
in
latin
,
F.
Martinus
Becanus
,
of
the
Society
of
Iesus
,
and
Professour
in
Deuinity
,
hath
,
though
briefely
,
yet
substantially
,
confuted
,
this
present
yeare
1610.
And
for
that
the
said
Fathers
Booke
is
very
short
,
&
written
in
latin
,
I
haue
bestowed
a
few
houres
to
translate
the
same
into
our
English
tongue
,
for
such
,
as
eyther
vnderstand
not
the
latin
,
or
els
haue
not
had
the
commodity
to
come
by
any
of
the
said
Copyes
of
the
former
edition
,
published
in
that
language
.
W.
I.
THE
CONFVTATION
OF
TORTVRA
TORTI
:
OR
,
AGAINST
the
King
of
England
his
Chaplaine
.
YOV
haue
written
a
booke
of
late
in
defence
of
your
King
,
against
Matthaeus
Tortus
,
intituled
Tortura
Torti
,
(
or
the
Torture
of
Tortus
.
)
You
discouer
not
your
Name
,
but
insinuate
your self
to
be
a
Chaplaine
,
Alm-nour
,
or
Tormentor
.
I
(
because
it
is
more
honorable
)
wil
cal
you
Chaplaine
.
In
the
said
Book
you
dispute
principally
of
three
heads
.
FIRST
,
of
the
Oath
of
Allegiance
,
which
your
King●
exacteth
of
his
subiects
.
SECONDLY
,
of
the
King●
Supremacy
in
Ecclesiasticall
(
or
Spirituall
)
matters
▪
THIRDLY
,
of
the
Popes
power
.
If
we
consider
your
words
,
yow
are
neat
and
elegant
inough
:
if
you●
labour
and
diligence
,
I
accuse
you
not
of
idlenes
.
But
many
other
things
there
are
,
which
I
do
not
so
wel●
approue
;
especially
these
.
First
,
that
you
are
exceedingly
giuen
to
reproaching
and
taunting
.
Secondly
,
that
you
do
euery
where
insert
many
falsities
and
absurdities
.
Thirdly
,
that
you
rather
ouerthrow
,
then
establish
your
Kings
Supremacy
,
which
you
would
fortify
:
which
is
as
foule
a
fault
as
may
be
.
Of
these
three
heades
then
,
will
I
treat
in
order
.
1.
Of
the
Chaplaines
Reproaches
.
2.
Of
his
Paradoxes
.
3.
Of
the
Kinges
Supremacy
ouerthrowne
by
him
.
I
trust
you
will
pardon
me
,
Syr
,
if
I
modestly
set
before
your
eyes
these
three
thinges
;
as
well
for
your
owne
benefit
as
others
.
For
your
owne
,
that
hereby
you
may
know
your selfe
,
and
,
if
it
be
possible
,
become
hereafter
more
wise
.
For
others
,
that
they
may
learne
not
so
lightly
to
trust
you
,
who
haue
so
often
,
and
so
fouly
faultred
in
things
of
so
great
moment
.
Heare
me
then
patiently
.
THE
FIRST
CHAPTER
:
Of
the
Chaplaines
Reproaches
.
STRAIGHT
then
in
the
entrance
of
your
Torture
,
you
reprehended
Matthaeus
Tortus
,
that
he
is
altogeather
full
of
railings
and
reproaches
.
For
thus
you
writ
of
him
:
Per
librum
totum
ita
petulans
,
ita
immodestè
immodestus
,
ita
totus
in
conuitijs
,
facilè
vt
quiuis
,
Matthaeum
Tortum
esse
,
possit
intelligere
&c.
Throughout
all
his
booke
so
impudent
he
is
,
so
imodestly
immodest
,
so
wholy
giuen
to
reproaches
,
that
euery
man
may
easily
perceaue
him
to
be
Matthew
Tortus
&c.
But
you
,
Syr
,
do
farre
surpasse
Matthaeus
Tortus
in
this
kind
.
You
spare
no
man.
You
prouoke
all
with
some
reproach
or
other
,
where
the
least
occasion
is
offered
.
Pope
Clement
the
8.
you
call
perfidious
,
Cardinall
Bellarmine
,
a
Vow-breaker
,
D.
Sanders
,
the
greatest
lyer
of
all
men
liuing
,
Edmund
Campian
and
others
who
haue
suffered
martyrdome
for
the
Catholick
fayth
,
you
call
Traytors
.
The
Iesuites
,
Authors
of
most
outragious
wickednes
,
the
Catholicks
you
tearme
the
race
of
Malchus
,
who
hauing
their
right
eares
cut
of
,
do
heare
and
interpret
all
with
the
left
.
I
pretermit
,
what
you
haue
malepertly
vttered
against
Matthaeus
Tortus
.
2.
These
and
the
like
reproaches
,
which
are
very
familiar
with
you
,
as
I
perceaue
,
do
not
beseeme
an
honest
man
;
much
lesse
the
Chaplaine
or
Almenour
of
a
King
:
yet
perhaps
do
they
not
altogeather
misbecome
a
Tormentor
.
Neyther
may
you
excuse
your selfe
by
the
example
of
Matthew
Tortus
,
as
though
he
had
first
prouoked
you
to
these
reproaches
.
First
it
is
nothing
so
:
and
secondly
if
it
had
byn
so
:
what
?
do
you
thinke
it
the
part
of
a
Christian
man
to
requite
euill
with
euill
?
Truely
the
Apostle
taught
vs
otherwise
,
Rom.
12.
17.
Nulli
malum
pro
malo
reddentes
,
to
wit
,
that
we
should
not
render
euill
for
euill
to
any
man.
And
lastly
,
if
you
would
haue
done
so
,
why
haue
you
not
spared
others
?
Was
not
one
Tortus
inough
for
you
to
torture
,
vnlesse
with
the
like
liberty
you
railed
vpon
others
also
?
Hereafter
therfore
abstaine
from
the
like
,
and
giue
eare
to
that
of
the
Wiseman
,
Prouerb
.
21.
23.
Qui
custodit
os
suum
,
&
linguam
suam
,
custodit
ab
angustijs
animam
suam
.
He
that
keepeth
his
mouth
and
his
tongue
,
doth
preserue
his
soule
from
distresse
.
And
againe
Matth.
12.
35.
Ex
abundantia
cordis
os
loquitur
.
Bonus
homo
,
de
bono
thesauro
profert
bona
;
&
malus
homo
de
malo
thesauro
profert
mala
.
Of
the
aboundance
of
the
hart
the
mouth
speaketh
.
A
good
man
out
of
a
good
treasure
,
bringeth
forth
good
thinges
:
and
an
euill
man
out
of
an
euill
treasure
bringeth
forth
euill
thinges
.
See
then
what
kind
of
treasure
this
of
yours
is
,
from
whence
come
forth
so
many
reproaches
.
And
beware
,
Quia
maledici
Regnum
Dei
non
possidebunt
,
1.
Cor.
6.
For
that
Raylers
shall
not
possesse
the
Kingdome
of
God.
THE
SECOND
CHAPTER
:
Of
the
Chaplaines
Paradoxes
.
AFTER
your
reproaches
and
railings
,
follow
your
Paradoxes
,
which
are
many
in
your
booke
:
but
especially
these
.
1.
That
the
Puritans
in
England
doe
sincerely
sweare
to
the
Kings
Supremacy
.
2.
That
the
said
Supremacy
is
to
be
giuen
to
the
King
by
all
right
.
3.
That
no
man
hath
yet
denyed
,
but
that
the
Kings
of
the
old
Testament
,
had
Supremacy
in
the
Church
.
4.
That
the
Kinges
of
the
new
Testament
are
Pastors
of
the
flocke
of
Christ.
5.
That
Kinges
are
often
called
in
the
Scripture
Christes
,
or
,
the
Annoynted
of
our
Lord
;
but
Priests
or
Bishops
are
neuer
so
called
.
6.
That
if
the
Pope
were
Head
of
the
Church
,
besides
Christ
;
it
should
be
a
monstrous
,
and
two-headed
Church
.
7.
That
if
the
Pope
should
haue
power
to
depose
Kinges
;
Ethnicks
(
or
Infidels
)
were
better
in
condition
then
Christian
Princes
.
8.
That
if
the
Pope
will
haue
a
Temporall
Kingdome
,
it
were
to
be
persuaded
that
he
went
to
the
Diuell
for
it
.
9.
That
power
to
excommunicate
,
was
not
giuen
to
S.
Peter
,
but
vnto
the
Church
.
10.
That
the
Prophesy
of
the
Reuelation
of
Antichrist
is
already
fulfilled
;
and
therefore
is
cleere
,
and
not
intricate
.
11.
That
the
Kinges
of
Denmarke
and
Sweueland
,
as
also
the
Princes
of
Germany
agree
with
the
King
of
England
in
matters
of
faith
.
12.
That
it
is
not
now
free
for
the
King
of
England
to
change
his
owne
,
or
to
admit
Catholicke
Religiō
in
his
Kingdome
,
for
that
he
hath
sworne
twice
to
the
contrary
.
13.
That
Cardinall
Bellarmine
is
a
Vow-breaker
,
because
of
a
Iesuite
he
is
become
a
Cardinall
.
14.
That
Catholicks
teach
,
fidelity
not
to
be
kept
,
and
falshood
to
be
lawfull
.
15.
That
Catholickes
are
of
the
race
of
Malchus
,
because
they
interprete
nothing
aright
,
but
all
sinistrously
.
These
few
heades
of
many
,
are
now
briefly
to
be
examined
The
first
Paradoxe
.
2.
FIRST
therefore
you
say
,
that
the
Puritans
in
England
do
sincerely
sweare
to
the
Kinges
Supremacy
.
Your
wordes
are
these
pag.
379.
towardes
the
end
of
the
page
:
Quos
verò
Puritanos
appellat
,
si
Regium
Primatum
detestentur
,
detestandi
ipsi
.
Profitentur
enim
,
subscribunt
,
iurant
indies
:
sed
&
illi
,
quod
faciunt
,
ingenuè
faciunt
&c.
Those
whom
he
(
to
wit
Tortus
)
calleth
Puritans
,
if
they
abhorre
the
Kinges
Primacy
,
they
are
to
be
abhorred
.
For
they
doe
professe
,
subscribe
,
and
sweare
dayly
:
And
moreouer
,
what
they
do
,
they
do
sincerely
&c.
that
is
to
say
,
they
sincerely
professe
the
Kings
Supremacy
,
they
sincerely
subscribe
,
they
sincerely
sweare
.
3.
But
your
king
himself
thinketh
far
otherwise
of
them
in
his
Premonition
to
the
Emperour
,
Kings
,
and
Princes
.
For
thus
he
speaketh
:
Praeclara
sanè
laus
,
praeclarum
encomium
,
quo
Puritanos
ornaui
,
cùm
me
plus
fidei
,
vel
in
illis
efferis
,
cùm
montanis
,
tum
limitaneis
latronibus
,
quàm
in
hoc
genere
hominum
inuenisse
professus
sim.
Surely
I
giue
a
fayre
commendation
to
the
Puritans
,
when
I
affirme
,
that
I
haue
found
greater
honesty
with
the
high-land
and
border
theeues
,
then
with
that
sort
of
people
&c.
Behould
now
how
greatly
you
differ
from
your
King
,
your
Head
,
and
Ecclesiasticall
Primate
.
Your
King
professeth
,
that
he
hath
found
more
fidelity
amongst
barbarous
or
cruell
theeues
,
thē
amongst
the
Puritans
:
You
on
the
contrary
side
affirme
,
that
the
Puritans
,
what
they
do
,
they
do
sincerely
.
So
as
those
to
you
are
sincere
men
,
that
to
your
King
are
worse
then
cruell
theeues
.
4.
Againe
,
saith
the
King
:
Ego
à
Puritanis
,
non
solùm
à
natiuitate
continuò
vexatus
fui
;
verùm
etiam
in
ipso
matris
vtero
propemodum
extinctus
,
antequam
in
lucem
editus
essem
&c.
I
haue
byn
persecuted
by
the
Puritans
,
not
only
from
my
birth
,
but
almost
extinguished
also
,
euen
in
my
mothers
wombe
,
before
I
was
yet
borne
&c.
What
say
you
to
this
?
Will
you
still
chaunt
your
wonted
songe
,
That
the
Puritans
,
what
they
do
,
they
do
sincerely
?
To
wit
,
forsooth
,
as
you
interprete
,
they
would
sincerely
haue
extinguished
the
King
in
his
mothers
wombe
,
before
he
was
borne
.
And
is
this
in
your
Chapell
,
to
be
sincere
indeed
?
5.
Moreouer
the
King
saith
:
Ego
in
meo
ad
Filium
Libro
,
multò
acriùs
ac
vehementiùs
in
Puritanos
,
quàm
Pontificios
inuectus
sum
.
I
in
my
booke
to
my
Sonne
,
doe
speake
ten
tymes
more
bitterly
of
the
Puritans
then
of
the
Papists
&c.
So
as
by
the
Kings
owne
iudgment
the
Puritans
are
worse
then
the
Papists
:
But
you
call
Papistes
,
Traytors
:
Ergo
,
the
Puritans
are
worse
then
Traytors
.
And
yet
notwithstanding
you
write
,
that
what
they
do
,
they
do
sincerely
.
6.
Againe
the
King
yet
writeth
thus
:
Mihi
praecipuus
labor
fuit
,
deiectos
Episcopos
restituere
,
&
Puritanorum
Anarchiam
expugnare
.
I
haue
laboured
nothing
so
much
,
as
to
depresse
the
Puritans
Anarchy
,
and
erect
Bishops
againe
&c.
To
wit
,
the
Puritans
affect
an
Anarchy
(
or
to
be
without
a
King
,
)
they
hate
a
Monarchy
,
or
Primacy
:
Contrariwise
the
King
depresseth
this
Anarchy
,
and
establisheth
a
Primacy
.
Now
I
demaund
,
if
the
Puritans
detest
this
Primacy
,
how
do
they
then
sweare
thus
sincerely
thereunto
?
Ergo
,
eyther
the
Puritans
are
no
longer
Puritans
:
or
if
they
be
the
men
they
were
(
to
wit
Puritans
,
)
they
affect
Anarchy
,
and
detest
Primacy
:
and
so
what
they
do
,
they
do
not
sincerely
,
but
fraudulently
.
7.
See
then
,
how
contrary
in
all
these
thinges
you
are
to
the
King.
Whome
he
accuseth
,
you
excuse
;
and
yet
from
impudency
you
cannot
excuse
them
.
And
is
it
not
a
great
impudencie
,
and
(
if
you
will
)
imprudencie
,
that
the
Caluinistes
in
Germany
,
and
Holland
,
who
are
nothing
els
but
Puritans
,
should
dare
so
often
to
reprint
the
foresaid
Premonition
of
your
king
,
wherin
they
are
so
manifestlie
and
sharpely
touched
?
For
what
could
more
belong
to
their
ignominie
or
disgrace
,
then
to
be
accompted
worse
then
theeues
,
&
that
by
the
publike
testimonie
of
a
King
:
For
as
much
as
they
had
conspired
his
death
,
being
yet
in
his
mothers
womb
?
And
is
it
not
impudencie
,
to
diuulge
in
print
againe
and
againe
this
their
shamefull
ignominy
,
nor
yet
heereby
to
feare
their
publicke
infamie
?
And
yet
neuerthelesse
with
you
,
what
they
doe
,
they
doe
sin●urely
.
The
second
Paradoxe
.
8.
THE
Primacy
Ecclesiasticall
,
say
you
,
is
due
to
Kinges
by
all
Right
:
For
these
are
your
wordes
pag.
90.
Primatus
spiritualis
debetur
Regibus
●mni
Iure
.
The
primacy
spirituall
is
due
to
Kings
by
all
right
.
Let
vs
then
see
,
if
it
be
so
.
Right
,
or
power
,
as
you
know
,
is
deuided
into
naturall
,
and
positiue
:
this
Right
againe
is
either
diuine
or
humane
.
Diuine
power
,
is
partly
of
the
old
Testament
,
and
partly
of
the
new
.
Humane
likewise
,
is
partly
Canonicall
,
partly
Ciuill
.
Will
you
then
that
the
Primacy
Ecclesiastical
be
due
to
kings
by
all
these
kindes
of
Right
?
It
seemeth
you
would
.
But
in
another
place
you
confesse
,
that
it
is
due
by
the
only
Right
of
the
old
Testament
:
Ergo
,
not
by
all
the
former
.
For
thus
you
write
pag.
363.
Amore
,
institutoque
Israëlis
orditur
Apologia
:
inde
enim
vim
habet
,
atque
neruos
suos
quaestio
haec
omnis
(
de
Primatu
.
)
In
Israele
enim
populo
suo
regum
instituit
Deus
,
&
Ecclesiam
in
regno
ex
mente
sua
.
Exemplum
inde
nolis
sumendum
est
,
cùm
in
Testamento
nouo
nullam
habeamus
.
Nusquam
enim
in
vnum
coaluerunt
Ecclesia
&
Imperium
;
procul
se
habuit
Imperium
ab
Ecclesia
&c.
From
the
custome
and
in●stitute
of
Israell
(
to
wit
the
old
Testament
)
beginneth
our
defence
:
because
from
thence
hath
all
this
question
her
force
,
and
strength
(
to
wit
of
the
Supremacy
.
For
in
Israel
did
God
erect
a
Kingdome
for
his
people
and
in
that
Kingdome
did
he
found
a
Church
to
hi●
owne
liking
.
From
thence
are
we
to
take
an
example
:
for
so
much
as
in
the
new
Testament
we
haue
none
.
For
no
where
haue
the
Church
and
Empire
byn
ioyned
togeather
in
one
:
The
Empire
hath
kep●
aloofe
of
from
the
Church
&c.
9.
I
doubt
not
,
you
will
acknowledg
these
your
words
,
which
do
condemne
you
.
For
if
the
Question
of
Supremacy
,
as
here
you
affirme
,
hath
no
other
force
,
then
from
the
custome
and
institute
of
the
People
of
Israell
;
then
is
not
this
Supremacy
due
to
Kings
by
naturall
Right
;
nor
by
diuine
of
the
new
Testament
;
nor
by
Canonicall
,
or
Ciuill
.
How
then
is
it
due
by
all
Right
?
Againe
,
if
in
the
new
Testament
the
Church
and
Empire
did
no
where
consist
or
ioyne
togeather
in
one
:
Then
by
right
of
the
new
Testament
,
it
is
not
necessary
,
that
they
should
consist
in
one
:
Ergo
,
it
is
not
due
by
all
right
.
And
truely
,
if
no
where
in
the
new
Testament
they
consisted
togeather
in
one
:
how
commeth
it
to
passe
,
that
now
of
late
in
England
they
be
thus
vnited
togeather
in
one
?
Here
you
haue
plainely
brought
your selfe
into
straites
.
The
third
Paradoxe
.
10.
NO
man
,
say
you
,
hath
yet
denyed
,
but
that
the
kings
of
the
old
Testament
had
Supremacy
in
the
Church
.
For
thus
you
write
pag.
364.
In
Israële
autem
,
nondum
os
reperitam
durum
,
quod
negare
etiam
auderet
,
praecipuas
in
re
Religionis
partes
,
penes
Regem
extitisse
.
In
Israell
(
to
wit
the
old
Testament
)
could
I
neuer
yet
find
any
man
so
impudent
that
durst
deny
,
but
that
the
principall
offices
in
matters
of
Religion
,
were
in
the
Kings
power
&c.
But
I
haue
found
,
not
one
,
but
many
,
that
dare
deny
the
same
.
Of
your
owne
Countreymen
are
found
that
dare
deny
it
,
Nicolas
Sanders
in
his
second
booke
Of
the
visible
Monarchy
of
the
Church
,
and
3.
Chapter
,
in
solution
of
the
5.
obiection
of
Protestants
:
and
Thomas
Stapleton
in
his
fifth
boke
of
Doctrinall
Principles
of
faith
,
the
23.
Chapter
.
Of
our
men
are
found
that
dare
deny
it
,
Cardinall
Bellarmine
in
his
first
booke
Of
Councells
,
and
20.
Chapter
.
Iacobus
Gretzerus
in
his
second
booke
Of
Considerations
to
the
Deuines
of
Venice
,
1.
2.
&
3.
Consider
.
Adam
Tannerus
in
his
first
booke
Of
the
Defense
of
Ecclesiasticall
liberty
the
15.
Chapter
,
and
others
.
11.
All
these
sayd
Authors
in
the
places
here
cited
,
propose
the
argument
,
which
you
are
wont
to
vse
to
proue
the
Kings
Supremacy
in
Spirituall
matters
.
And
it
is
this
:
Moyses
,
Iosue
,
Dauid
,
Salomon
,
Iosias
,
and
other
Kings
of
the
old
Testament
haue
had
the
Primacy
of
the
Church
:
Ergo
,
the
Kings
of
the
new
Testament
haue
it
also
.
In
the
solution
of
which
argument
,
all
deny
the
antecedent
.
They
deny
(
I
say
)
that
the
kings
of
the
old
Testament
(
if
precisely
we
respect
kingly
power
)
had
the
Supremacy
of
the
Church
:
although
they
graunt
,
that
some
of
thē
had
that
power
,
not
by
any
ordinary
Right
,
as
being
Kinges
,
but
for
so
much
,
as
that
they
were
both
Prophets
and
Priestes
,
by
an
extraordinary
concession
or
graunt
.
The
wordes
of
Bellarmine
are
these
:
Respondeo
primo
,
Moysen
&c.
I
answere
first
,
that
Moyses
was
not
only
a
Prince
,
but
a
chiefe
Priest
also
,
as
is
manifest
out
of
the
98.
Psalme
,
Moyses
&
Aaron
in
sacerdotibus
eius
.
Moyses
and
Aaron
were
accompted
amongst
his
Priestes
&c.
Iosue
,
Dauid
,
Salomon
,
and
some
others
,
were
not
only
Kings
,
but
also
Prophets
,
to
whome
God
committed
many
things
extraordinarily
which
otherwise
by
office
and
Right
belonged
to
the
Priests
.
And
in
this
sort
King
Salomon
remoued
Abiathar
from
his
function
of
Priesthood
,
and
appointed
Sadoc
in
his
place
.
And
this
he
did
not
as
King
,
but
as
a
Prophet
,
by
diuine
inspiration
.
Secondly
I
say
(
quoth
Bellarmine
)
that
diuers
other
good
Kings
of
the
Synagogue
,
did
neuer
intermeddle
in
the
affaires
or
offices
of
the
Priests
:
and
if
at
any
time
they
did
,
they
were
sorely
punished
by
God
for
it
&c.
Thus
farre
Bellarmine
.
The
like
haue
the
rest
of
the
forenamed
Authors
.
12.
This
notwithstanding
,
I
adde
moreouer
(
wherein
you
deceiue
,
or
are
deceaued
)
that
some
of
the
foresaid
Authors
do
not
only
deny
the
antecedent
,
but
the
consequence
of
the
former
argument
also
:
and
therfore
they
admit
two
solutions
.
The
first
is
this
:
We
deny
(
say
they
)
that
the
Kings
of
the
old
Testament
had
Supremacy
in
the
Church
.
The
later
this
:
Although
we
should
grant
,
that
Kings
of
the
old
Testament
had
the
Primacy
of
the
Church
;
yet
would
it
not
follow
,
by
consequence
,
that
the
Kings
of
the
new
Testament
haue
the
same
also
&c.
For
which
they
assigne
diuers
reasons
.
Read
what
I
haue
said
in
solution
of
the
same
argument
,
in
my
Confutation
of
the
King
of
Englands
Apology
,
the
2.
Chapter
.
The
fourth
Paradoxe
.
13.
YOV
say
,
the
Kings
of
the
new
Testament
are
Pastors
of
the
flocke
of
Christ.
And
although
those
wordes
Pasce
oues
meas
,
(
Feede
my
sheep
)
were
spoken
to
Peter
;
yet
notwithstanding
do
they
belong
to
Christian
Kings
also
:
And
for
that
there
were
no
Christian
Kings
in
Christs
time
,
to
whome
the
care
of
his
flocke
might
be
committed
,
therfore
they
were
not
spoken
to
them
.
For
thus
you
write
pag.
53.
Rex
noster
est
Dux
gregis
sub
Christo
Pastorum
Principe
.
Sunt
&
alij
Reges
Christiani
ad
vnum
omnes
,
sua
si
iura
nossent
,
&
vel
vires
illis
,
vel
animus
non
deesset
&c.
Our
King
(
to
wit
of
England
)
is
Head
of
the
flocke
vnder
Christ
the
chiefe
of
Pastors
.
And
so
are
all
other
Christian
Kings
,
not
one
excepted
,
if
either
they
knew
their
rights
,
or
that
their
strength
,
or
courage
failed
them
not
&c.
And
yet
more
plainely
pag.
91.
Neque
quiquam
ad
rem
,
quod
de
Christo
addis
,
non
Regem
aliquem
,
sed
Apostolum
gregis
sui
Pastorem
designante
.
Certè
,
vt
nec
Regem
sub
lege
,
quia
nondum
ibi
Rex
vllus
;
at
vbi
iam
Rex
,
tum
nec
ei
Pastoris
nomen
negatum
:
Ita
sub
Euangelio
,
cùm
non
essent
Reges
adhuc
,
qui
tum
nulli
erant
,
Pastores
esse
non
poterant
.
At
vbi
Reges
Christo
nomen
dederant
,
tum
demum
,
non
minùs
pastores
hi
,
quàm
olim
Reges
Israelis
.
Quòd
si
autem
ab
initio
statim
nomen
Christo
dedissent
,
nulla
ratio
,
quò
minùs
Gregis
Christiani
Pastores
designari
potuissent
.
Neither
(
say
you
)
is
that
to
any
purpose
,
which
you
(
to
wit
Tortus
)
adde
of
Christ
,
appointing
not
a
King
,
but
an
Apostle
the
Pastor
of
his
flocke
.
Truly
,
as
he
appointed
no
King
vnder
the
law
,
for
that
there
was
yet
no
King
,
but
when
there
was
a
King
,
then
the
name
of
Pastor
was
not
denied
him
:
Euen
so
vnder
the
Ghospell
when
there
were
not
yet
Kings
,
for
that
being
none
,
they
could
not
be
Pastors
.
But
when
Kings
once
became
Christians
,
then
at
length
were
they
no
lesse
Pastors
,
then
were
of
old
the
Kings
of
Israell
.
And
if
presently
from
the
beginning
,
they
had
byn
Christians
,
there
can
be
no
reason
giuen
,
why
they
should
not
haue
byn
designed
Pastors
of
the
Christian
flocke
&c.
14.
Heere
is
not
one
alone
,
but
many
Paradoxes
,
or
singular
opinions
.
And
first
I
demaund
of
you
,
if
in
Christs
time
there
had
byn
any
Christian
King
,
whether
Christ
would
haue
said
vnto
him
,
Pasce
oues
meas
,
feed
my
sheepe
?
If
you
affirme
,
yea
,
how
proue
you
it
?
Or
who
did
euer
affirme
it
before
your selfe
?
Or
whether
are
you
the
first
that
haue
reuealed
this
mistery
to
the
Christian
world
?
If
you
deny
it
,
yow
do
well
.
But
if
Christ
did
not
say
to
any
Christian
King
,
Feed
my
sheepe
;
by
what
authority
do
you
say
now
to
King
IAMES
Pasce
oues
Christi
;
feed
the
flock
of
Christ
?
VVhat
?
Will
you
depose
Peter
from
his
Pastorall
office
,
who
was
ordayned
therto
by
Christ
,
and
suborne
your
King
,
who
was
not
ordained
by
Christ
?
Surely
,
a
bould
enterprize
:
and
worthy
,
no
doubt
,
such
a
Chaplaine
.
15.
Againe
I
demaund
,
what
meane
these
words
,
Pasce
oues
meas
,
feed
my
flocke
?
You
(
in
the
52.
page
of
your
booke
)
expound
them
of
the
feeding
by
Word
and
Doctrine
.
Be
it
so
.
But
you
your selfe
(
Pag.
380.
)
doe
confesse
,
that
your
King
doth
not
feed
the
sheep
of
Christ
by
Word
and
Doctrine
:
Ergo
,
the
King
,
by
your
owne
graunt
,
is
not
the
Pastor
of
the
flocke
of
Christ.
Neyther
can
those
wordes
,
Feed
my
sheep
,
in
the
sense
that
Christ
spake
them
,
any
way
belong
vnto
the
King.
Heere
you
may
not
so
soone
quit
your selfe
,
I
wot
well
.
For
of
necessity
you
must
eyther
confesse
,
that
these
words
,
(
Feed
my
sheep
)
are
not
vnderstood
of
the
feeding
by
Word
and
Doctrine
;
or
els
that
it
belongs
to
the
King
to
feed
by
Word
and
Doctrine
:
or
verily
,
that
the
King
is
not
the
Pastor
of
Christs
flocke
.
But
all
these
3.
wayes
are
against
you
.
You
will
haue
the
wordes
of
Christ
(
feed
my
sheep
)
to
be
vnderstood
of
feeding
by
Word
and
Doctrine
.
You
will
haue
your
King
not
to
feed
the
flocke
of
Christ
by
Word
and
Doctrine
:
You
will
haue
your
King
to
be
the
Pastor
of
Christes
flocke
.
What
euasion
then
can
you
heere
haue
?
16.
Thirdly
I
demand
,
why
do
not
other
Christian
Kinges
take
vpon
them
this
Pastorall
office
,
if
they
be
truly
Pastors
of
Christs
flocke
?
They
would
doe
it
(
say
you
)
if
eyther
they
knew
their
rights
,
or
that
their
strength
or
courage
fayled
them
not
.
And
what
,
I
pray
you
,
is
this
,
then
as
much
to
say
,
that
the
King
of
England
is
wise
,
and
the
rest
are
fooles
?
He
hath
force
and
strength
,
the
rest
are
weake
and
impotent
?
He
is
couragious
,
the
rest
are
fearefull
and
cowardly
.
Thus
it
commeth
to
passe
,
that
whilst
you
flatter
your
owne
King
,
you
become
contumelious
against
others
.
The
fifth
Paradoxe
.
17.
KINGES
,
say
you
,
in
Scripture
are
often
called
Christes
,
or
the
Annoynted
of
our
Lord
,
but
Bishops
and
Priests
are
neuer
so
called
:
and
therefore
Matthew
Tortus
did
very
ill
to
call
the
Pope
by
that
Name
.
Your
wordes
are
these
pag.
114.
Mihi
verò
multò
magis
improprium
videtur
,
quòd
Pontificem
nouo
nomine
,
nec
ei
in
Scripturis
sacris
vsquam
attributo
CHRISTVM
DOMINI
indigitasti
.
Truly
it
seemeth
to
me
much
more
improper
that
you
haue
intitled
(
or
pointed
out
)
the
Pope
with
a
new
name
,
to
wit
,
The
Annointed
of
our
Lord
,
when
as
the
same
was
neuer
attributed
vnto
him
in
Scripture
.
And
a
little
after
,
say
you
:
Reges
quidem
reperio
sic
in
sacris
litteris
saepè
saepiùs
nominatos
;
Pontifici
nomen
hoc
tributum
ibi
non
memini
:
Iuuet
nos
Matthaeus
,
&
vel
vnum
locum
designet
in
toto
volumine
Bibliorum
,
vbi
nomen
hoc
vlli
Pontifici
,
sacri
illi
scriptores
attribuerint
.
Kinges
do
I
often
find
,
to
haue
byn
often
so
called
in
holy
VVrit
:
but
I
remember
not
,
that
this
name
is
there
attributed
to
the
Pope
.
Let
Matthew
(
to
wit
Tortus
)
helpe
vs
to
find
out
,
though
but
one
place
only
,
in
all
the
volume
of
the
Bible
,
where
this
name
hath
byn
giuen
to
any
Priest
by
any
of
those
sacred
wryters
&c.
18.
But
stay
(
my
friend
)
there
is
no
need
that
Matthew
should
be
sent
for
out
of
Italy
,
to
shew
you
one
place
.
I
my self
,
that
am
neerer
at
hand
wil
assigne
you
more
then
one
.
Heare
me
then
.
First
Exod.
29.
7.
Oleum
vnctionis
fundes
super
caput
eius
(
Aaronis
)
atque
hoc
ritu
consecrabitur
.
Thou
shall
powre
out
oyle
of
Annoynting
vpon
his
head
(
to
wit
of
Aaron
)
and
with
this
cerimony
he
shal
be
consecrated
.
And
Leuit.
4.
3.
Si
Sacerdos
qui
vnctus
est
,
peccauerit
.
If
the
Priest
that
is
annoynted
,
shall
offend
&c.
Againe
Leuit.
8.
12.
Fundens
oleum
super
caput
Aaron
,
vnxit
eum
&
consecrauit
.
Powring
out
oyle
vpon
the
head
of
Aaron
,
he
annointed
and
consecrated
him
.
And
Leuit.
16.
32.
Expiabit
autē
Sacerdos
,
qui
vnctus
fuerit
.
And
the
Priest
that
is
annointed
shall
expiate
,
or
reconcile
.
And
Numbers
3.
3.
Haec
nomina
filiorum
Aaron
Sacerdotum
,
qui
vncti
sunt
,
&
quorum
consecratae
manus
,
vt
Sacerdotio
fungerentur
.
These
be
the
names
of
the
Sonnes
of
Aaron
,
the
Priests
that
were
annoynted
,
and
whose
handes
were
consecrated
to
do
the
function
of
Priesthood
.
And
againe
Num.
35.
25.
Manebit
ibi
donec
sacerdos
magnus
,
qui
oleo
sancto
vnctus
est
,
moriatur
.
He
shall
stay
there
,
vntill
the
high
Priest
,
that
is
annoynted
with
holy
oyle
,
do
dye
.
19.
Behould
heere
,
you
haue
diuers
places
of
Scripture
,
in
which
Priests
are
called
Annoynted
;
and
therefore
Kinges
are
not
alone
so
called
.
This
yow
might
haue
learned
out
of
S.
August
.
vpō
the
26.
Psalme
,
concerning
the
title
therof
,
where
he
teacheth
,
that
in
the
old
Testament
,
Kinges
and
Priests
were
annoynted
,
for
that
both
of
them
did
prefigure
one
Christ
(
or
Annoynted
)
which
was
to
be
both
King
and
Priest.
The
wordes
of
S.
Augustine
are
these
:
Tunc
vngebatur
Rex
&
Sacerdos
.
Duae
istae
illo
tempore
,
vnctae
personae
.
In
duabus
personis
praefigurabatur
futurus
vnus
Rex
&
Sacerdos
,
vtroque
munere
vnus
Christus
;
&
ideo
Christus
à
Chrismate
.
Then
was
annoynted
both
the
King
&
the
Priest.
These
two
persons
at
that
time
were
annoynted
.
In
two
persons
was
prefigured
to
be
both
a
King
and
a
Priest
,
one
Christ
in
both
offices
:
&
therfore
was
Christ
so
called
,
of
Chrisme
,
&c.
And
againe
vpon
the
44.
Psalme
about
those
words
,
vnxit
te
Deus
,
God
hath
annointed
thee
&c.
he
writeth
thus
:
Vnctum
audis
:
Christum
intellige
:
Etenim
Christus
à
Chrismate
.
Hoc
nomen
quod
appellatur
Christus
,
vnctionis
est
:
Nec
in
aliquo
alibi
vngebantur
Reges
&
Sacerdotes
nisi
in
illo
regno
,
vbi
Christus
prophetabatur
&
vngebatur
,
&
vnde
venturum
erat
Christi
nomen
.
Nusquam
est
alibi
omnino
,
in
nulla
gente
,
in
nullo
regno
.
Thou
hearest
(
saith
S.
Augustine
)
Annoynted
:
vnderstand
Christ
:
For
Christ
is
deriued
of
Chrisme
.
This
name
that
is
called
Christ
,
is
a
name
of
Annointing
,
or
vnction
.
Neyther
were
Kings
and
Priests
annoynted
in
any
sort
any
where
,
then
in
that
Kingdome
,
where
Christ
was
prophesied
and
annoynted
,
and
whence
the
name
of
Christ
was
to
come
.
In
no
other
place
is
it
at
all
,
in
no
other
nation
,
in
no
other
Kingdome
&c.
So
S.
Augustine
.
20.
Therefore
by
the
iudgment
both
of
Scripture
and
S.
Augustine
,
no
lesse
Priests
then
Kinges
,
are
called
Annointed
.
But
you
will
say
they
are
not
called
the
Lords
Annoynted
,
as
Kings
are
.
First
I
answere
,
that
that
's
no
matter
.
For
we
dispute
not
of
wordes
,
but
of
the
matter
signified
by
words
.
Moreouer
these
two
wordes
Christ
and
Annoynted
do
signify
one
and
the
same
thinge
:
and
,
as
S.
Augustine
speaketh
,
This
Name
which
is
called
Christ
,
is
a
Name
of
vnction
.
And
secondly
I
say
,
you
assume
falsly
.
For
that
Priests
are
not
called
in
Scripture
Annoynted
only
,
but
also
Christs
.
And
so
we
read
in
the
second
of
Machabees
1.
10.
Populus
qui
est
Ierosolymis
,
&
in
Iudaea
,
Senatusque
&
Iudas
Aristobolo
Magistro
Ptolomei
Regis
,
qui
est
de
genere
Christorum
Sacerdotum
,
&
his
,
qui
in
Aegypto
sunt
,
Iudaeis
,
salutem
&
sanitatem
.
The
people
of
Ierusalem
,
&
Iudea
,
the
Senate
and
Iudas
,
do
send
greeting
to
Aristobolus
Maister
to
King
Ptolomey
,
who
is
of
the
race
of
Christes
(
or
Annoynted
)
Priests
,
and
to
the
Iewes
that
be
in
Aegipt
,
&c.
Behould
heere
,
Aristobolus
is
of
the
race
of
Christes
Priests
,
therefore
Priests
are
called
Christs
,
that
is
to
say
,
Annoynted
.
21.
But
you
will
yet
obiect
:
All
these
things
are
vnderstood
of
Priests
of
the
old
Testament
:
but
I
would
fayne
see
a
place
(
say
you
)
where
the
Priest
of
the
new
Testament
(
to
writ
the
Pope
)
is
called
Christ
,
or
Annoynted
.
Marry
hearke
you
:
And
I
in
like
māner
would
as
fayne
see
a
place
where
Kinges
of
the
new
Testament
are
called
by
that
Name
.
Is
it
lawfull
(
trow
yee
)
for
you
to
transferre
this
Name
,
which
was
of
old
giuen
to
ancient
Kinges
and
Priests
by
the
holy
Ghost
,
to
the
King
of
England
:
and
shall
it
not
be
lawfull
for
vs
likewise
by
the
same
right
to
transferre
it
to
the
Pope
?
Heere
you
take
vpon
you
too
much
.
22.
Moreouer
I
say
,
that
once
only
this
Name
of
Christ
,
or
Annoynted
is
to
be
found
in
the
new
Testament
,
in
that
sense
whereof
we
now
treat
,
to
wit
in
the
2.
Chapter
of
S.
Luke
vers
.
29.
where
it
is
said
:
Responsum
acceperat
Simeon
à
Spiritu
Sancto
,
non
visurum
se
mortem
,
nisi
priùs
videret
Christū
Domini
.
Simeon
had
receiud
an
answere
of
the
Holy
Ghost
,
that
he
should
nor
see
death
,
vnlesse
he
first
saw
the
Christ
(
or
Annoynted
)
of
our
Lord.
Here
our
Sauiour
is
called
the
Christ
of
our
Lord
,
to
wit
,
Annoynted
of
our
Lord.
He
was
annoynted
both
King
and
Priest
as
S.
Augustine
aboue
noted
,
not
with
corporall
oyle
,
as
were
the
Kings
and
Priests
of
the
old
Testament
;
but
with
spirituall
oyle
,
to
wit
,
of
the
holy
Ghost
.
For
▪
vpō
him
rested
the
spirit
of
our
Lord
,
the
spirit
of
wisdom
&
vnderstanding
,
the
spirit
of
counsell
and
fortitude
,
the
spirit
of
knowledg
and
piety
,
as
it
is
written
in
Isay
the
11.
Chapter
vers
.
3.
And
this
is
that
which
Dauid
foretold
Psalme
44.
8.
Vnxit
te
Deus
,
Deus
tuus
,
ole●
laetitiae
prae
consortibus
tuis
.
God
hath
annoynted
thee
,
yea
thy
God
,
with
the
oyle
of
gladnes
,
before
all
thy
companions
:
That
is
to
say
,
God
hath
annoynted
thee
Priest
and
King
in
a
peculiar
manner
,
before
all
other
Kings
&
Priests
.
For
he
annoynted
thee
with
the
holy
Ghost
,
and
them
with
corporall
oyle
only
.
Heerehence
I
gather
,
that
wheras
the
Kings
&
Priests
of
the
old
Testament
,
were
therefore
annoynted
with
corporall
oyle
,
that
they
might
be
a
Type
or
figure
of
the
Messias
to
come
,
who
was
to
be
annoynted
both
King
and
Priest
with
spirituall
oyle
:
so
much
the
more
doth
this
Name
Annoynted
,
or
,
Christ
our
Lord
,
agree
to
Priests
,
then
vnto
Kings
,
by
how
much
Christ
tooke
vpon
him
the
office
of
a
Priest
in
this
life
,
more
then
of
a
King.
Or
els
,
if
he
equally
tooke
vpon
him
both
offices
:
then
by
equall
right
,
Priests
as
well
as
Kings
may
be
called
Annoynted
,
or
,
Christs
of
our
Lord
And
therfore
I
see
no
cause
,
why
yow
should
attribute
this
Name
only
to
Kings
,
and
take
it
away
from
Priests
,
vnlesse
it
was
,
because
it
pleased
your
fancy
so
to
do
.
The
sixt
Paradoxe
.
23.
YF
besides
Christ
(
say
yow
)
the
Pope
should
also
be
head
of
the
Church
,
it
should
be
a
mōstrous
and
two-headed
Church
.
For
thus
you
write
pag.
331.
of
your
Booke
.
Monstrosum
verò
corpus
,
cui
plus
vno
sit
capite
.
That
is
a
monstrous
body
,
that
hath
more
heads
then
one
.
And
then
againe
pag.
398.
Vnicum
est
caput
vni
corpori
:
Ecclesia
vnum
corpus
.
Nisi
bicipitem
aquilam
fingas
,
autem
tricipitem
Geryonem
,
cui
tot
capita
sunt
,
quot
in
mitra
Pontificia
coronae
.
Christus
ergo
solus
Ecclesiae
caput
,
non
Papa
.
There
is
but
one
only
head
to
one
body
:
The
Church
is
one
body
.
Except
you
imagine
her
to
be
a
spread
Eagle
,
or
a
triple
Geryon
,
who
hath
as
many
heades
,
as
there
be
Crowns
in
the
Popes
myter
.
Christ
therfore
alone
is
Head
of
the
Church
,
and
not
the
Pope
.
24.
But
if
it
be
so
,
as
heere
you
would
beare
vs
in
hand
,
that
it
is
;
why
do
you
otherwhere
affirme
(
not
a
little
forgetting
your selfe
)
that
the
King
is
Head
of
the
Church
?
Do
you
not
feare
least
the
Church
should
be
double
headed
,
if
not
Christ
alone
,
but
your
King
also
be
head
thereof
?
For
thus
you
say
pag.
338.
Iam
verò
vt
nomen
capitis
ad
Regem
reuocetur
,
arte
mirabili
non
est
opus
.
Praeiuit
nobis
voce
Spiritus
Sanctus
1.
Reg.
15.
17.
Nonne
cùm
peruulus
esses
in
oculis
tuis
,
caput
in
tribubus
Israel
factus
es
?
Inter
tribus
verò
Israel
,
tribus
Leui.
Caput
ergo
Rex
vel
tribus
Leuiticae
;
qua
in
tributum
Pontifex
Achimelech
sub
Rege
capite
suo
.
Chrysostomus
camdem
hanc
vocem
Capitis
reuocauit
ad
Theodosium
,
eumque
dixit
,
non
solum
caput
,
sed
quod
in
ipso
capite
maximè
sublime
est
,
capitis
verticem
,
idque
omnium
in
terris
hominum
.
Now
that
the
Name
of
Head
may
be
giuen
to
the
King
,
there
shall
need
no
great
art
.
The
holy
Ghost
hath
gone
before
vs
in
this
word
,
1.
Reg.
15.
17.
saying
:
When
thou
wast
a
little
one
in
thine
owne
eyes
,
wast
thou
not
made
head
in
the
Tribes
of
Israel
?
Amongst
the
tribes
of
Israel
,
is
the
tribe
of
Leui.
Therfore
the
King
is
head
at
least
of
the
Leuiticall
tribe
:
in
which
Tribe
was
then
the
chiefe
Priest
Achimelech
vnder
the
King
his
Head.
Chrysostome
in
like
manner
attributed
this
Name
of
Head
vnto
Theodosius
,
and
called
him
not
only
Head
,
but
(
which
is
most
high
in
the
head
it selfe
)
the
top
or
crowne
of
the
Head
,
and
that
of
all
men
on
earth
&c.
25.
I
wonder
at
your
inconstancy
:
A
little
before
you
said
,
that
only
Christ
was
head
of
the
Church
.
And
why
so
?
That
you
might
exclude
the
Pope
,
whom
you
hate
.
Now
you
will
also
haue
the
King
to
be
head
,
and
not
only
head
,
but
the
top
or
crowne
of
the
head
also
.
Why
so
?
Because
yow
seeke
to
please
and
flatter
the
King.
And
so
it
cōmeth
to
passe
,
that
you
will
easily
endure
a
two-headed
Church
,
if
the
King
may
be
one
,
but
in
no
wise
,
if
the
Pope
should
be
any
.
And
when
you
haue
placed
Christ
and
the
King
of
England
as
two
Heads
of
this
Church
,
then
it
seemes
to
you
a
faire
and
comely
Church
:
but
if
Christ
and
the
Pope
be
placed
togeather
,
then
is
it
deformed
&
monstrous
.
Get
you
hence
with
this
your
Head
,
wherin
the
Church
hath
one
while
one
head
,
another
while
two
.
It
seemes
that
,
that
of
Ecclesiasticus
27.
12.
may
be
fittly
applied
vnto
you
:
Stultus
vt
luna
mutatur
.
A
foole
is
changed
like
the
moone
.
And
that
also
of
S.
Iames
1.
8.
Vir
duplex
animo
inconstans
est
in
omnibus
vijs
suis.
A
double
dealing
fellow
is
inconstant
in
all
his
wayes
.
The
seauenth
Paradoxe
.
26.
YOv
say
,
that
if
the
Pope
should
haue
power
to
depose
Kinges
;
Ethnickes
or
Infidels
,
were
better
in
condition
then
Christian
Princes
:
to
witt
,
for
that
these
may
be
deposed
by
the
Pope
,
the
other
may
not
.
For
thus
you
write
pag.
36.
of
your
booke
:
Hac
doctrina
semel
promulgata
,
non
multa
pòst
sceptra
,
credo
,
Christo
subijcientur
.
Quid
enim
?
Rex
Ethnicus
non
potest
deponi
à
Papa
,
Christianus
potest
:
Meliori
ergo
iure
regnatur
apud
Ethnicos
.
Quis
non
dehin●
iem
(
sic
vt
est
)
manebit
Ethnicus
?
Subditi
,
qui
Ethnicisunt
,
officio
suo
in
Reges
laxari
nequeunt
:
at
Christiani
queunt
.
Quis
non
subditos
suos
malit
Ethnicos
quàm
Christianos
?
Quis
Christianus
Rex
esse
velit
?
This
Doctrine
(
to
wit
of
deposing
Princes
)
being
once
set
abroach
,
I
beleeue
few
Scepters
will
hereafter
be
subiected
to
Christ.
For
why
?
An
Ethnicke
King
cannot
be
deposed
by
the
Pope
,
a
Christian
King
may
be
:
therefore
it
is
better
to
be
a
King
amongst
Ethnickes
.
Who
will
not
hēceforward
now
(
if
he
be
so
)
remayne
still
an
Ethnicke
?
Subiects
,
if
they
be
Ethnickes
,
cannot
be
absolued
frō
their
obedience
to
their
Kinges
,
but
Christian
Subiects
may
.
Who
would
not
then
haue
his
subiects
Ethnickes
rather
then
Christians
?
Who
would
be
a
Christian
King
?
27.
You
neyther
speake
warily
,
nor
Christianlike
.
Not
warily
:
for
first
what
you
haue
sayd
,
may
be
thus
retorted
vpon
you
.
Yf
the
King
of
England
should
haue
power
to
depose
Bishops
(
which
you
affirme
;
)
then
were
the
Bishop
;
in
Spayne
,
France
,
and
Poland
better
in
condition
then
the
Bishops
of
England
:
For
that
heere
they
may
be
deposed
at
the
Kings
pleasure
,
and
there
not
.
Secondly
,
for
as
we
say
that
Christian
Princes
may
be
deposed
by
the
Pope
,
if
they
offend
,
&
not
Ethnicks
:
so
do
you
likewise
confesse
,
that
Christian
Princes
may
be
excommunicated
,
and
not
Ethnicks
:
Yet
is
it
not
wel
inferred
of
this
your
Doctrine
,
that
Ethnickes
are
better
in
condition
then
Christians
,
seing
that
it
is
a
greater
euill
to
be
depriued
of
the
spirituall
goods
of
the
Church
by
excommunication
;
thē
of
a
temporall
Kingdome
by
deposition
.
And
therefore
can
that
be
much
lesse
inferred
out
of
our
opinion
.
28.
You
speake
not
Christianlike
.
For
it
is
not
a
Christian
mans
part
thus
to
dispute
:
The
offences
of
Kinges
are
punnished
amongst
Christians
,
but
not
amongst
Ethnickes
,
Ergo
,
I
had
rather
be
an
Ethnick
Prince
,
where
I
may
not
be
punnished
,
if
I
offend
,
then
a
Christian
Prince
,
where
I
shall
be
punnished
,
if
I
doe
offend
.
Thus
truly
you
dispute
.
If
(
say
you
)
Christian
Kinges
,
when
they
deserue
it
,
may
be
deposed
,
and
Ethnicks
,
although
they
do
offend
,
cannot
be
deposed
;
I
had
rather
be
an
Ethnicke
King
then
a
Christian.
And
so
truly
,
you
playnly
shew
,
that
you
more
esteeme
a
temporall
Kingdome
,
which
you
would
not
loose
,
then
a
heauenly
Kingdome
,
which
you
doe
not
greatly
care
for
.
The
eight
Paradoxe
.
29.
YF
the
Pope
(
say
you
)
will
haue
a
Temporal
Kingdome
,
it
were
to
be
perswaded
,
that
he
went
to
the
Diuell
for
it
:
seing
that
he
hath
power
to
dispose
of
the
Kingdomes
of
this
world
.
For
thus
yow
write
pag.
36.
Quod
si
Pontifici
animus
est
ad
regna
mundi
;
est
in
Euangelio
(
memini
)
mentio
de
quodam
,
qui
regna
mundi
penes
se
esse
,
eaue
disponendi
ius
habere
se
dixit
.
Eum
adeat
censeo
;
cum
illo
transigat
.
And
if
the
Pope
haue
a
mynd
to
a
temporall
kingdome
,
there
is
mention
in
the
Ghospel
(
I
remember
)
of
a
certayne
fellow
(
to
wit
the
Diuell
)
who
sayd
,
that
all
the
kingdomes
of
the
world
were
in
his
power
,
&
that
he
had
right
to
dispose
of
them
.
I
thinke
it
best
he
go
vnto
him
,
and
couenant
with
him
&c.
30.
Say
,
my
friend
,
speake
you
this
in
iest
or
in
earnest
?
In
whether
manner
you
doe
it
,
you
eyther
become
iniurious
to
your
own
King
,
or
els
contumelious
to
the
Pope
neyther
whereof
doth
well
beseeme
you
.
The
iniury
you
offer
to
your
King
,
yow
cannot
deny
.
For
durst
you
(
without
iniury
)
haue
answered
your
king
,
eyther
in
iest
or
earnest
,
when
as
,
after
the
death
of
Queene
Elizabeth
,
he
demaunded
the
Crowne
of
England
,
with
these
words
:
If
you
will
raigne
in
England
,
go
to
the
Diuell
,
and
couenant
with
him
,
who
is
the
distributer
of
all
Kingdomes
?
I
thinke
you
durst
not
.
For
if
you
had
,
then
farewell
Chaplaineship
.
Wherfore
then
dare
you
be
so
saucy
to
speake
thus
to
the
Pope
,
but
for
that
you
list
to
raile
vpon
him
?
31.
But
,
you
will
say
,
the
Pope
seekes
a
temporall
Kingdome
,
which
is
not
due
vnto
him
.
Let
him
cōtent
himselfe
with
a
spirituall
Kingdome
.
But
what
if
in
like
manner
I
should
say
of
your
King
?
He
seeks
a
spirituall
Kingdome
.
Let
him
content
himselfe
with
a
temporall
.
Moreouer
I
adde
,
that
the
Pope
hath
far
more
right
to
temporal
Kingdomes
,
then
you
King
hath
to
the
Church
:
which
thing
I
am
to
declare
more
largely
in
another
place
.
The
ninth
Paradoxe
.
32.
YOv
say
,
that
power
to
excommunicate
was
not
giuē
vnto
S.
Peter
,
but
vnto
the
Church
:
to
wit
,
by
those
wordes
,
Dic
Ecclesiae
&c.
Tell
the
Church
:
and
if
he
will
not
heare
the
Church
,
let
him
be
to
thee
as
an
Ethnicke
.
As
also
by
those
other
wordes
:
Quaecumque
solueris
&c.
Whatsoeuer
you
shall
loose
vpon
earth
,
shall
be
loosed
in
heauen
and
whatsoeuer
you
bynd
vpon
earth
,
shal
be
bound
in
heauen
&c.
And
yet
notwithstanding
you
adde
,
that
the
Church
may
transferre
this
power
to
whome
she
please
.
For
thus
you
write
pag.
14.
of
your
booke
.
Potestas
haec
ibi
,
cui
data
?
Non
Apostolo
Petro.
This
power
there
,
to
whome
was
it
giuen
?
Not
to
Peter
the
Apostle
.
And
againe
:
Vt
autem
Petro
potestas
ibi
non
data
censuram
hanc
vsurpandi
;
ita
nec
Petro
,
si
vsurparet
,
ratihabitio
promissa
.
Dicitur
enim
:
Quoscumque
ligaueritis
.
Non
Petro
igitur
vel
Papae
,
sed
Ecclesiae
.
And
as
power
was
not
there
giuen
to
Peter
,
to
vse
this
censure
;
so
neyther
if
he
had
vsed
it
,
was
the
ratihabition
(
or
approuing
thereof
)
promised
to
Peter
.
For
it
is
said
:
Whomesoeuer
ye
shall
bind
:
therfore
it
was
not
giuen
to
Peter
,
or
to
the
Pope
,
but
to
the
Church
.
And
yet
againe
,
pag.
42.
Res
ipsa
,
rei
ipsius
promissio
,
ratihabitio
,
vsus
denique
Ecclesiae
datur
:
ab
Ecclesia
,
&
habetur
,
&
transfertur
in
vnum
,
siue
plures
,
qui
eius
pòst
vel
exercendae
,
vel
denunciandae
facultatem
habeant
.
The
thing
it selfe
,
the
promise
of
the
thing
it selfe
,
the
approuing
of
it
,
yea
the
vse
therof
is
giuen
to
the
Church
.
From
the
Church
it
is
both
had
,
and
transferred
to
one
or
more
,
who
shall
afterward
haue
the
faculty
to
exercise
,
or
denounce
the
same
.
33.
Out
of
this
your
Doctrine
it
followeth
:
first
,
that
in
the
time
of
the
Apostles
,
power
to
excommunicate
was
immediatly
giuen
to
the
Church
of
the
Corinthians
,
and
from
thence
transferred
to
S.
Paul
the
Apostle
,
that
he
might
exercise
and
publikely
denounce
the
same
vpon
the
incestuous
person
.
But
this
very
point
you
openly
deny
in
the
same
place
,
in
these
wordes
:
Paulus
congregatis
Corinthijs
,
potestatem
censurae
denunciandae
facit
.
Paul
hauing
gathered
togeather
the
Corinthians
,
giues
power
to
denounce
the
Censure
.
Certes
,
if
S.
Paul
giue
power
to
the
Congregation
or
Church
of
Corinth
to
denounce
the
Censure
(
vpon
the
incestuous
person
)
as
heere
you
affirme
;
how
had
he
then
receaued
the
selfe
same
power
from
the
same
Church
?
Or
what
necessity
was
there
,
I
pray
yow
,
to
giue
that
power
to
the
Church
,
if
the
Church
had
receaued
it
before
from
Christ
,
by
those
words
,
Dic
Ecclesiae
,
tell
the
Church
?
These
things
do
not
agree
togeather
.
34.
Secondly
it
followeth
:
that
now
at
this
present
in
England
the
power
to
excommunicate
is
immediately
in
the
English
Church
,
and
not
in
the
Bishops
:
and
from
the
Church
the
same
may
be
transferred
to
Bishops
.
But
if
it
be
so
,
why
doth
not
the
Church
of
England
giue
this
power
to
the
King
,
her
Head
,
and
Primate
?
Why
doth
she
rather
giue
it
to
the
Bishopes
,
then
to
the
King
;
when
as
the
Bishops
are
subordinate
vnto
the
King
in
spirituall
Iurisdiction
,
as
you
will
needs
haue
it
?
And
is
it
not
an
absurd
thing
,
that
you
(
to
wit
the
Church
of
England
)
should
giue
power
to
the
Bishops
,
to
excommunicate
,
and
cast
out
of
the
Church
their
King
,
their
Head
,
their
Pastor
and
their
Primate
,
and
yet
would
not
giue
the
same
power
to
the
King
to
inflict
the
same
Censures
vpon
his
subiects
,
to
wit
the
Bishops
?
Surely
,
you
are
eyther
very
cruell
towardes
your
King
,
or
els
you
do
not
seriously
,
and
in
good
earnest
giue
him
the
Supremacy
.
One
of
the
two
must
needs
follow
.
Therfore
looke
well
with
what
spirit
,
you
wrote
these
wordes
following
in
the
151.
pag.
of
your
booke
;
Nos
Principi
Censurae
potestatem
non
facimus
:
We
do
not
giue
power
to
our
King
to
exercise
Censures
vpon
vs.
And
wherfore
do
ye
not
,
if
you
truly
acknowledg
him
for
your
Pastour
&
Primate
?
But
let
vs
go
forward
.
The
tenth
Paradoxe
▪
35.
YOv
say
,
that
the
Prophesy
of
the
reuelation
of
Antichrist
,
is
already
fulfilled
and
therefore
it
is
so
cleere
,
that
it
may
be
seene
with
the
eyes
.
For
thus
you
write
pag.
186.
Minimè
verò
mirum
,
si
ista
,
quae
dixi
,
tam
vel
claram
,
vel
certam
in
scripturis
Patrum
interpretationem
non
habeant
:
signatus
adhuc
liber
huius
Prophetiae
erat
.
It
is
no
meruayle
,
if
these
things
which
I
haue
sayd
,
be
neyther
cleere
nor
certayne
in
the
writinges
of
the
Fathers
.
For
as
yet
the
booke
of
this
Prophesy
was
not
vnsealed
&c.
And
a
little
after
,
say
you
:
Mirari
tamen
non
debeat
quis
,
si
non
illis
tam
adeo
explicita
omnia
fuerint
,
quàm
Nobis
per
Dei
gratiam
iam
sunt
,
qui
consummatam
iam
Prophetiam
illam
quotidie
oculis
vsurpamus
.
But
yet
let
no
man
meruayle
,
if
all
thinges
were
not
then
so
vnfoulded
vnto
them
,
as
now
by
Gods
grace
they
be
to
vs
,
who
dayly
see
with
our
eyes
that
prophesy
(
to
wit
of
Antichrist
)
to
be
already
fulfilled
&c.
36.
And
is
it
so
indeed
?
But
your
King
thinketh
the
contrary
:
For
that
in
his
Premonition
he
playnely
auerreth
,
that
,
That
Prophesy
of
Antichrist
,
is
yet
obscure
,
and
intricate
;
and
that
by
only
coniectures
it
may
be
disputed
of
.
His
wordes
are
these
:
Sanè
quod
ad
definitionem
Antichristi
,
nolo
rem
tam
obscuram
&
inuolutam
,
tamquam
omnibus
Christianis
ad
credendum
necessariam
,
vrgere
.
As
for
the
definition
of
Antichrist
,
I
will
not
vrge
so
obscure
a
point
,
as
a
matter
of
faith
to
be
necessarily
beleeued
of
all
Christians
&c.
And
shall
we
thinke
that
,
that
which
is
obscure
and
intricate
to
your
King
,
is
dayly
manifest
to
you
?
No
▪
It
followeth
in
the
Kings
words
.
Id
autem
maximè
mihi
in
votis
est
,
vt
si
cui
hanc
meam
de
Antichristo
coniecturam
libebit
refellere
,
singulis
disputationis
meae
partibus
ordine
respondeat
.
And
my
only
wish
shal
be
,
that
if
any
man
shall
haue
a
fancy
to
refute
this
my
cōiecture
of
Antichrist
,
that
he
answere
me
orderly
to
euery
point
of
my
discourse
&c.
But
for
you
,
Syr
,
it
shall
not
be
necessary
,
to
answer
thus
to
euery
point
:
you
may
dispatch
the
matter
in
one
word
,
if
you
shall
but
say
to
your
King
:
And
it
shall
please
your
Maiesty
,
you
are
deceyued
in
your
coniecture
:
that
which
is
seene
with
the
eye
,
needs
no
coniecture
.
We
all
dayly
see
with
our
eyes
this
Mystery
of
Antichrist
:
And
are
you
the
only
man
in
England
that
seeth
it
not
&
c
?
Yf
you
do
but
thus
,
you
haue
gotten
the
goale
.
37.
But
indeed
,
you
are
not
onely
contrary
to
the
King
heerin
,
but
to
your selfe
also
.
For
if
the
Prophesy
of
Antichrist
were
now
already
reuealed
,
and
cleere
in
all
mens
eyes
(
as
you
affirme
:
)
who
is
then
this
Antichrist
,
whome
the
prophesy
meaneth
?
The
Pope
,
you
wil
say
.
And
this
also
doth
your
King
coniecture
,
though
he
see
it
not
with
his
eyes
.
Well
,
be
it
so
.
But
then
in
another
place
you
say
,
That
your
King
may
be
excommunicated
by
the
Pope
,
though
not
deposed
,
or
depriued
of
his
Kingdome
:
Can
therefore
Antichrist
excommunicate
your
King
?
Take
heed
what
you
say
,
and
beware
least
whilst
you
please
your
King
by
flattery
,
you
displease
him
through
imprudency
.
The
eleauenth
Paradoxe
.
38.
THE
Kinges
of
Denmarke
(
say
you
)
&
Suetia
,
as
also
the
Princes
of
Germany
with
many
others
,
do
agree
with
the
King
of
England
in
matters
of
faith
.
For
thus
you
write
pag.
53.
of
your
booke
.
Quod
si
praesentis
instituti
foret
,
edoceriposses
,
Serenissimum
Magnae
Britanniae
Regem
,
&
qui
cum
eo
sentiunt
,
Reges
Daniae
,
&
Suetiae
,
Germaniae
Principes
,
Respublicas
Heluctiae
&
Rhetiae
,
quiue
per
Galliam
,
Belgium
,
Poloniam
,
Hungariam
,
Bohemiam
,
Austriam
,
Ordines
à
nobis
sunt
,
partem
esse
Dominici
gregis
:
nec
minorem
,
nec
minùs
illustrem
partem
,
quàm
quae
est
pars
Pauli
Quinti
.
But
if
it
were
our
present
purpose
heere
to
declare
,
you
(
to
wit
Tortus
)
might
be
taught
to
know
,
that
the
Kinges
excellent
Maiesty
of
Great
Britany
,
and
they
which
agree
with
him
,
to
wit
,
the
Kings
of
Denmarke
and
Suetia
,
the
Princes
of
Germany
,
the
Comon-wealthes
of
Suitzerland
and
Rhetia
,
&
all
other
States
,
that
adherre
vnto
vs
,
throughout
France
,
the
Low
Countryes
,
Polonia
,
Hungary
,
Bohemia
,
and
Austria
,
are
part
of
the
Lords
flocke
:
and
not
a
meaner
,
nor
a
lesse
famous
part
,
then
that
of
Paul
the
fifth
&c.
39.
Yea
although
it
were
your
present
purpose
,
you
could
neuer
be
able
to
teach
vs
,
that
which
you
hereaffirme
.
And
this
I
will
shew
you
particulerly
.
For
first
you
say
,
your
King
agreeth
(
in
matters
of
faith
)
with
the
Kings
of
Denmarke
and
Suetia
.
But
how
can
this
be
?
They
be
Lutheran
Princes
,
and
acknowledge
Christes
Reall
Presence
in
the
Eucharist
,
which
your
King
doth
vtterly
deny
.
Secondly
,
you
affirme
the
same
of
the
Princes
of
Germany
,
and
States
of
other
Countryes
.
But
these
do
not
agree
amongst
themselues
,
some
being
open
Lutherans
,
and
others
Caluinistes
.
How
then
can
they
,
being
deuided
amongst
thēselues
,
agree
with
your
King
?
except
your
king
(
as
you
insinuate
he
doth
)
professe
Caluinian
Religiō
with
Caluinists
,
and
Lutheran
,
with
Lutherans
:
Omnibus
omnia
factus
,
vt
omnes
lucrifaciat
,
being
all
to
all
that
he
may
gaine
all
.
Thirdly
,
suppose
this
were
so
,
though
it
be
not
:
and
that
all
Princes
and
States
,
as
well
Lutherans
,
as
Caluinistes
did
agree
among
themselues
,
and
togeather
with
your
king
;
how
can
it
be
verified
,
that
they
are
a
part
of
the
Lords
flocke
?
This
I
vnderstand
not
.
I
vnderstand
it
not
(
I
say
)
how
they
are
a
part
of
the
flocke
,
and
not
the
whole
flocke
:
For
eyther
there
be
yet
others
,
besides
those
you
haue
named
which
belong
to
the
Lords
flocke
,
or
none
.
If
there
be
others
,
why
then
did
you
not
name
them
?
or
who
be
those
others
?
I
suppose
,
by
your
owne
iudgement
,
they
are
neyther
Papists
nor
Anabaptistes
.
For
these
you
reiect
.
If
there
be
no
others
,
besids
those
you
haue
named
before
,
wherefore
did
you
then
call
them
a
part
,
&
not
the
whole
flocke
of
Christ
?
I
will
speake
yet
more
cleerely
.
If
the
kinges
of
England
,
Denmarke
,
and
Suetia
,
and
other
Princes
and
States
which
agree
with
them
,
be
but
a
part
of
Christs
flocke
,
and
not
the
whole
flocke
;
then
followeth
it
of
necessity
,
that
besides
those
,
there
is
another
part
of
Christes
flocke
which
agreeth
not
with
them
:
and
so
Christs
flocke
must
consist
of
two
partes
,
wherof
one
is
deuided
from
the
other
.
Do
you
thinke
so
indeed
?
If
you
do
not
,
then
explicate
your selfe
better
.
40.
But
let
vs
graunt
this
also
,
that
they
are
a
part
of
Christs
flock
that
agree
with
your
King
in
Religiō
:
with
what
face
dare
you
yet
affirme
,
that
part
to
be
no
meaner
,
nor
lesse
famous
a
part
,
then
that
of
Pope
Paul
the
fifth
?
This
I
vnderstand
lesse
then
the
other
.
For
with
Paul
the
fifth
,
agree
Rodulph
the
Emperour
,
the
Kinges
of
Spaine
,
France
,
Polonia
,
the
Archdukes
of
Austria
,
the
Princes
Electors
of
Mentz
,
Treuers
,
Cullen
,
the
Dukes
of
Bauaria
,
Lorayne
,
Brabant
,
Franconia
,
Tuscany
,
the
Bishops
of
Bamberge
,
Constance
,
Spire
,
Wormes
,
Paderborne
&c.
to
omit
many
others
:
and
yet
dare
you
be
so
bould
as
to
affirme
that
this
is
a
more
meane
,
and
lesse
famous
part
,
then
that
which
agreeth
with
your
King
in
matters
of
Religion
?
You
are
totoo
intemperate
in
auouching
:
and
I
doubt
not
,
but
your
King
,
who
is
of
no
dull
wit
,
will
easily
perceaue
,
that
you
very
grossely
flatter
him
.
The
tweluth
Paradoxe
.
41.
YOV
say
,
that
it
is
not
now
free
for
the
King
of
England
to
change
his
Religion
,
or
permit
the
Catholicke
in
his
Kingdome
,
because
he
hath
sworne
twice
to
the
contrary
.
For
thus
you
write
pag.
81.
of
your
booke
,
speaking
to
Tortus
.
Nec
in
eo
Regi
audiendus
,
qui
consilium
das
de
religione
liberè
habenda
:
integrum
hoc
iam
illi
non
est
.
Nam
non
semel
periurus
sit
,
quin
bis
,
si
te
audiat
.
Qua
enim
(
siqua
est
fidei
bis
data
conscientia
)
vel
conscientia
,
vel
fide
,
ferret
in
regnis
suis
ritus
vestros
,
vel
vsum
eorum
publicum
,
qui
susceptâ
primùm
Scotiae
,
susceptâ
deinde
Angliae
Coronâ
Regiâ
,
vtrolique
solemni
ritu
,
Deo
iusiurandum
praestitit
de
conseruanda
in
Statu
suo
illa
colendi
Dei
formula
,
nec
alia
,
quàm
quae
in
regnis
suis
tum
publicè
recepta
,
&
vtriusque
Gentis
legibus
stabilita
esset
?
Neither
in
this
point
are
you
to
be
heard
of
the
King
,
in
that
you
giue
him
counsaile
to
permit
the
free
exercise
of
religion
;
this
being
not
lawfull
for
him
now
to
do
.
For
that
therby
he
shall
not
be
once
,
but
twice
periured
,
if
he
heare
you
herin
.
For
with
what
fayth
or
conscience
(
if
there
be
any
conscience
of
fayth
twice
giuen
)
can
he
admit
your
cerimonies
,
or
the
publike
vse
therof
,
who
when
he
was
first
Crowned
in
Scotland
,
and
after
in
England
,
did
most
solemnely
sweare
to
God
in
both
places
,
to
mantaine
in
his
Dominions
that
forme
of
Religion
,
and
no
other
,
which
was
then
receaued
publikely
in
his
Kingdomes
,
and
established
by
the
lawes
of
both
Realmes
&
c
?
42.
Truly
I
perceaue
you
threaten
your
King
,
that
he
shall
be
accompted
periured
,
if
he
permit
the
Catholicke
Religion
in
his
Kingdome
,
or
forsake
his
owne
,
&
imbrace
another
.
What
?
do
you
not
thinke
it
lawfull
for
him
to
change
his
Religion
,
if
he
haue
sworne
he
will
not
do
it
?
So
it
seemes
,
belike
.
But
,
how
if
the
Religion
be
false
which
he
hath
sworne
to
mantaine
?
What
shall
he
then
do
?
Shall
he
persist
rather
in
his
false
Religion
,
then
breake
his
oath
?
Take
heed
what
you
say
.
An
oath
(
say
the
Lawiers
)
is
no
band
of
iniquity
,
and
I
may
adde
,
nor
of
falsity
.
And
therfore
notwithstanding
an
oath
neuer
so
often
made
,
a
man
may
change
his
Religion
if
it
be
false
:
he
may
annull
his
pact
or
couenant
,
if
it
be
vniust
.
This
is
most
certaine
.
What
would
you
do
if
your
King
should
say
,
that
the
Religiō
is
false
which
he
now
professeth
?
Would
you
vrge
him
vpon
his
oath
?
That
,
in
an
euill
act
,
is
annulled
.
What
?
Would
you
persuade
him
to
forsake
his
false
Religion
,
&
imbrace
the
true
?
I
thinke
you
would
.
Why
do
you
then
dissemble
?
Why
do
you
so
much
vrge
the
King
vpon
his
oath
,
as
though
vpon
no
occasion
or
euent
soeuer
it
were
lawfull
to
chang
a
Religion
that
is
once
confirmed
by
an
oath
,
although
it
be
impious
and
false
?
Go
too
,
gather
your
wittes
togeather
a
little
better
,
and
then
speake
.
43.
One
thing
I
would
yet
demaund
of
you
,
and
that
is
this
:
Your
King
in
his
booke
of
Premonition
,
doth
exhort
Catholicke
Kings
and
Princes
,
that
they
should
forsake
the
faith
and
Religion
,
which
hitherto
they
haue
professed
vnder
the
Pope
,
and
imbrace
the
English
Religion
which
the
King
professeth
.
Now
,
it
is
well
knowne
,
that
most
of
these
Princes
,
in
their
Coronation
do
sweare
,
that
they
will
neuer
do
it
,
to
wit
,
change
their
Religion
.
Heere
I
demaund
(
I
say
)
whether
your
King
hath
lawfully
and
prudently
exhorted
them
to
do
it
,
or
no
?
If
he
hath
done
it
lawfully
and
prudently
,
why
do
you
accuse
the
Catholickes
,
who
do
but
the
like
in
a
better
cause
?
If
he
did
it
vnlawfully
and
imprudently
;
why
did
you
not
admonish
him
,
to
surcease
from
such
an
,
Exhortation
:
seeing
yow
are
his
Chaplaine
,
and
perhaps
in
this
matter
,
his
Secretary
?
Thus
you
stumble
at
euery
blocke
.
The
thirtenth
Paradoxe
.
44.
YOv
say
,
that
Cardinall
Bellarmine
is
a
Vow-breaker
,
because
of
a
Iesuite
he
is
become
a
Cardinall
.
For
thus
you
write
pag.
56.
At
votum
non
video
cur
à
Mattheaeo
(
Torto
)
nominari
debuit
,
nisi
si
interposita
voti
mentione
,
Domino
suo
(
Bellarmino
)
gratificari
voluit
,
quo
olim
Iesuita
factus
,
voti
se
reum
fecit
,
&
hoc
votum
iam
fregit
,
postquam
ostrum
induit
.
But
I
do
not
see
how
it
can
be
called
a
vow
by
Matthew
(
Tortus
,
)
vnlesse
,
in
mentioning
of
the
same
,
he
would
needes
gratify
his
Maister
(
Bellarmine
)
,
who
being
somtime
a
vowed
Iesuite
,
hath
now
broken
that
vow
by
putting
on
purple
&c.
45.
It
seemes
you
vnderstand
aswell
what
it
is
to
be
a
Vow-breaker
,
as
a
periured
person
.
And
euen
as
a
little
before
you
did
pronounce
your
King
to
be
forsworne
,
if
he
should
admit
Catholicke
Religion
in
his
Kingdome
:
So
now
you
pronounce
Cardinall
Bellarmine
to
be
a
Vow-breaker
,
because
against
his
will
he
admitted
the
Dignity
of
a
Cardinal
.
Truly
you
are
very
ready
to
vpbraid
and
taunt
.
And
why
,
I
pray
you
,
doe
you
not
call
Luther
,
a
Vow-breaker
,
who
of
a
Monke
became
a
married
man
(
if
he
may
be
called
a
married
man
,
and
not
rather
a
sacrilegious
fornicator
and
adulterer
?
)
Why
not
also
a
periured
person
,
that
reiecting
the
ancient
faith
,
which
he
had
receyued
from
Christ
,
the
Apostles
,
and
his
Ancestours
most
holy
and
learned
men
,
and
sealed
with
an
oath
,
did
imbrace
a
new
Religion
,
repugnant
to
Christ
and
the
truth
?
46.
That
you
may
therefore
vnderstand
the
matter
,
heare
then
what
followeth
:
It
is
one
thing
to
vow
,
or
promise
to
God
any
thing
absolutely
and
simply
;
and
another
thing
to
doe
it
with
a
certayne
limitation
.
He
that
voweth
after
the
first
manner
,
is
bound
to
performe
that
which
he
promiseth
:
he
that
voweth
after
the
second
māner
may
be
quit
of
his
band
,
when
the
limitation
therof
doth
suffer
the
same
.
Exāples
herof
we
haue
in
the
old
Testamēt
.
For
the
Daughters
&
Wiues
did
vse
to
vow
with
this
limitation
,
to
wit
,
if
their
Parents
and
Husbāds
did
consent
therto
.
(
Numb
.
30.
)
The
Nazaraeans
in
like
manner
vowed
with
this
limitation
,
to
wit
,
they
bound
themselues
for
a
certaine
time
only
,
&
not
for
their
whole
life
.
(
Numb
.
6.
)
So
likewise
doe
we
in
our
SOCIETY
.
He
that
bindeth
himself
by
a
simple
vow
,
is
not
thought
to
be
otherwise
obliged
thē
at
the
arbitrement
of
his
Superiours
:
So
as
if
he
should
be
by
them
,
for
a
iust
cause
,
dismissed
out
of
the
SOCIETY
,
the
band
or
obligation
ceaseth
.
But
he
that
bindeth
himselfe
by
a
solemne
vow
,
dependeth
on
the
arbitrement
of
the
Pope
,
who
may
take
him
from
the
SOCIETY
,
and
place
him
in
any
other
Degree
or
Dignity
.
And
what
new
thing
is
this
now
I
pray
you
?
The
like
is
dayly
exercised
amongst
you
.
You
promise
your
King
Allegiance
and
Obedience
,
but
with
this
double
limitatiō
.
First
,
as
long
as
you
remaine
in
England
.
Secondly
,
as
long
as
the
King
doth
not
chang
his
Religion
.
For
if
it
be
otherwise
,
you
thinke
you
are
not
bound
thereunto
.
The
fourteenth
Paradoxe
.
47.
YOV
say
,
the
Catholickes
teach
,
fidelity
not
to
be
kept
,
and
falshood
to
be
lawfull
.
For
thus
you
write
pag.
156.
of
your
booke
.
Vos
qui
fidem
non
seruandam
,
id
est
,
perfidiam
licitam
,
legitimamque
docetis
;
etiámne
vos
quicquam
de
perfidia
audetis
hiscere
?
&
in
turpitudinem
vestram
,
etiam
vel
nomen
nominare
?
You
,
that
teach
fidelity
not
to
be
kept
,
that
is
to
say
,
falshood
to
lawfull
;
dare
you
(
I
say
)
as
much
as
once
open
your
lippes
against
falshood
or
perfidiousnes
?
or
to
name
the
thing
to
your
owne
shame
?
48.
But
stay
,
my
friend
;
who
be
they
with
vs
that
teach
this
doctrine
?
If
your
set
purpose
be
nothing
els
,
but
to
deale
falsely
and
to
calūniate
,
it
is
no
great
meruaile
,
if
you
write
thus
.
For
(
be
it
spoken
with
your
good
leaue
)
this
is
a
loudlye
,
and
a
manifest
calumniation
.
But
if
you
be
desirous
of
truth
(
as
it
becommed
you
to
haue
byn
;
)
why
did
you
not
examine
the
matter
first
,
before
you
wrote
it
downe
?
No
doubt
,
but
you
should
haue
found
another
kind
of
doctrine
amongst
Catholicks
.
And
if
you
yet
please
,
you
may
see
,
what
I
haue
formerly
written
of
this
argument
in
my
Disputation
,
Of
keeping
faith
(
or
promise
)
to
Heretickes
:
and
in
my
Sundry
mixt
Questions
of
the
same
matter
.
And
there
shall
you
find
,
what
the
Catholickes
truly
and
really
thinke
of
this
point
;
and
vvhat
our
Aduersaries
do
falsely
calumniate
.
The
fifteenth
Paradoxe
.
49.
YOV
say
,
that
the
Catholicks
are
of
the
race
of
Malchus
,
for
that
they
heare
and
interprete
all
with
the
left
eare
,
and
nothing
with
the
right
.
For
thus
you
write
pag.
92.
of
your
booke
:
Interea
tamen
dextrâ
datum
,
dextrâ
positum
,
quicquid
in
Iuramento
positum
.
Quod
dextrâ
datum
est
,
vos
sinistrâ
accepistis
,
&
de
Malchi
prosapia
estis
,
cui
praecisa
auris
dextra
:
nec
vlla
vobis
auris
reliqua
,
nisi
sinistra
,
qua
auditis
omnia
;
omnium
,
quae
à
nobis
dicuntur
,
sinistri
auditores
&
interpretes
.
In
the
meane
while
notwithstanding
,
whatsoeuer
is
put
in
an
oath
,
is
giuen
with
the
right
,
is
put
with
the
right
.
That
which
is
giuen
with
the
right
,
you
receaue
with
the
left
,
and
are
of
the
race
of
Malchus
,
who
had
his
right
eare
cut
of
:
Neither
haue
you
any
right
eare
,
but
a
left
,
wherwith
you
heare
,
all
things
;
and
become
the
sinister
hearers
and
interpreters
of
all
things
,
that
are
said
by
vs
&c.
50.
Thus
you
hould
on
,
after
your
wonted
manner
,
either
to
trifle
,
or
calumniate
.
But
I
care
not
.
Let
vs
graunt
,
what
you
say
,
to
wit
,
that
the
Catholiks
are
of
the
race
of
Malchus
.
What
get
you
by
this
?
Truly
nothing
that
makes
against
vs.
For
do
you
not
know
,
out
of
the
Ghospell
,
that
assoone
as
Malchus
his
right
eare
was
cut
of
,
it
was
againe
presently
restored
by
Christ
?
And
to
this
end
,
that
he
should
heare
or
interpret
nothing
with
the
left
,
but
all
with
the
right
eare
?
If
you
therfor
wil
haue
vs
to
be
of
the
race
of
Malchꝰ
,
you
must
confesse
,
that
this
was
so
brought
to
passe
by
Christ
for
vs
,
that
we
should
heare
and
interpret
all
with
our
right
eares
,
and
nothing
with
our
left
alone
.
51.
But
if
I
listed
in
like
sort
to
iest
,
I
would
not
say
,
that
you
were
of
the
race
of
Malchus
,
whose
eare
was
cut
of
;
but
rather
of
the
race
of
the
Iewes
,
who
haue
eares
,
and
yet
heare
not
,
according
to
that
of
S.
Matthew
13.
14.
Auditu
audietis
&c.
You
shall
heare
with
you
eares
,
and
you
shall
not
vnderstand
;
and
seeing
,
you
shall
see
,
and
shall
not
see
.
For
the
hart
of
this
people
is
waxed
grosse
,
and
with
their
eares
they
haue
heauily
heard
:
and
their
eyes
they
haue
shut
&c.
and
the
rest
that
followeth
.
But
I
will
not
deale
so
with
you
.
THE
THIRD
CHAPTER
:
Of
the
Kinges
Supremacy
badly
defended
by
his
Chaplaine
.
SEING
you
haue
once
determined
to
flatter
the
King
,
you
go
about
to
defend
and
approue
whatsoeuer
you
imagine
will
please
him
.
And
with
this
mind
&
desire
,
you
are
imboldned
to
defend
the
Primacy
of
the
Church
,
which
he
vsurpeth
to
himselfe
.
But
truly
very
vnluckily
:
For
in
this
kind
you
commit
a
double
fault
.
First
because
you
bring
many
Arguments
which
do
ouerthrow
the
Kings
Supremacy
,
which
yet
you
do
for
lacke
of
foresight
.
SECONDLY
because
the
Argumentes
you
bring
for
proofe
of
the
said
Supremacy
in
the
King
,
are
of
so
small
reckoning
or
accompt
,
as
they
seeme
contemptible
.
I
will
lay
them
both
open
before
you
:
and
for
that
which
belongeth
to
the
first
head
or
point
,
these
Arguments
may
be
deduced
out
of
your
owne
Principles
,
against
the
Kings
Supremacy
.
The
first
Argument
,
against
the
Kings
Supremacy
,
taken
out
of
the
Chaplaines
owne
Doctrine
.
2.
THE
first
Argument
I
frame
thus
:
He
hath
not
the
Primacy
of
the
Church
,
who
hath
no
iurisdiction
Ecclesiasticall
,
neither
in
the
interiour
Court
,
nor
exteriour
:
But
the
King
,
out
of
your
owne
Doctrine
hath
no
iurisdiction
Ecclesiasticall
,
neither
in
the
interiour
Court
,
nor
exteriour
:
Ergo
,
he
hath
not
the
Primacy
of
the
Church
.
The
maior
proposition
is
cleare
of
it selfe
,
because
by
the
name
of
Primacy
,
we
vnderstand
nothing
els
in
this
place
,
but
supreme
Iurisdiction
Ecclesiasticall
.
He
then
who
hath
no
iurisdiction
Ecclesiasticall
,
neither
internall
nor
externall
,
hath
not
the
Primacy
of
the
Church
:
But
the
King
,
by
your
doctrine
hath
none
,
neither
internall
,
nor
externall
.
3.
Not
internall
:
For
that
this
Iurisdiction
consisteth
in
the
power
of
the
Keyes
,
or
in
the
power
or
authority
of
forgiuing
sinnes
in
the
Court
of
Consciēce
,
which
the
King
hath
not
,
as
you
confesse
pag.
380.
of
your
booke
,
in
these
words
:
Rex
non
assumit
ius
Clauium
.
The
King
doth
not
assume
,
or
take
vpon
him
,
the
power
of
the
Keyes
.
And
worthily
.
For
that
Christ
spake
not
to
Kings
,
but
to
the
Apostles
,
when
he
said
,
Accipite
Spiritum
Sanctum
&c.
Receyue
the
holy
Ghost
:
whose
sinnes
you
forgiue
,
shal
be
forgiuen
them
:
and
whose
sinnes
you
retaine
,
shal
be
retained
&c.
4.
Not
externall
:
For
this
I
will
euidently
euince
out
of
your
owne
Principles
,
which
are
these
three
.
The
first
,
that
the
Iurisdiction
Ecclesiasticall
of
the
exteriour
Court
,
is
not
founded
vpon
any
other
place
,
then
that
of
S.
Matthew
18.
17.
Dic
Ecclesiae
&c.
Tell
the
Church
:
if
he
will
not
heare
the
Church
,
let
him
be
vnto
thee
,
as
an
Ethnicke
and
Publicane
.
Your
second
Principle
is
,
that
the
Iurisdiction
which
is
founded
on
that
place
,
is
nothing
els
,
then
the
Right
of
Censuring
,
or
power
to
excommunicate
.
Your
third
is
,
that
the
King
hath
not
the
Right
of
Censuring
,
or
power
to
excommunicate
.
I
doubt
not
,
but
you
will
acknowledg
these
your
three
Principles
.
And
the
last
,
you
set
downe
pag.
151.
of
your
booke
in
these
words
:
Nos
Principi
potestatem
Censurae
non
facimus
.
We
do
not
giue
power
,
or
authority
to
the
King
to
vse
Censures
.
And
againe
pag.
380.
Rex
non
assumit
ius
Censurae
.
The
King
doth
not
take
vpon
him
the
Right
or
power
of
vsing
Censures
.
The
former
two
Principles
you
in
like
manner
set
downe
pag
41.
thus
:
Censura
duplex
est
;
Publicani
&
Ethnici
;
minor
&
maior
.
Minor
à
Sacramentis
excludit
modò
.
De
maiore
verò
,
quae
arcet
Ecclesia
ipsa
,
quae
perinde
reddit
,
vt
Ethnicos
,
vix
quisquam
est
,
quin
fateatur
,
institutam
eam
à
Christo
,
Matth.
18.
per
verba
,
Dic
Ecclesiae
;
si
Ecclesiam
non
audierit
,
sit
tibi
sicut
Ethnicus
.
De
exteriori
foro
ibi
agitur
.
Exterioris
fori
Iurisdictio
,
illo
,
nec
alio
loco
fundata
est
.
A
Censure
is
two-fold
;
to
witt
of
the
Publican
&
Ethnick
;
the
lesser
and
the
greater
.
The
lesser
doth
exclude
frō
Sacraments
for
the
present
.
But
as
for
the
greater
,
which
casteth
out
of
the
Church
it selfe
,
and
maketh
men
like
vnto
Ethnicks
,
there
is
scarce
any
man
,
but
will
confesse
,
that
it
was
instituted
by
Christ
Matth.
18.
by
these
words
.
Tell
the
Church
;
if
he
will
not
heare
the
Church
,
let
him
be
vnto
thee
as
an
Ethnicke
.
And
in
that
place
is
it
meant
of
the
exteriour
Court
:
the
iurisdiction
of
which
exteriour
Court
is
grounded
on
that
,
and
no
other
place
&c.
Marke
well
what
heere
you
say
.
The
iurisdiction
of
the
externall
Court
,
where
is
it
founded
in
the
Ghospell
?
In
no
other
place
,
(
say
you
)
then
in
Matth.
18.
It
is
wel
.
I
desire
no
more
.
5.
Hence
then
do
I
thus
now
conclude
:
All
Iurisdiction
Ecclesiasticall
of
the
externall
Court
,
is
founded
in
that
only
place
,
Dic
Ecclesiae
,
tell
the
Church
:
But
the
King
hath
not
the
Iurisdiction
that
is
founded
in
that
place
:
Ergo
,
he
hath
no
iurisdiction
founded
in
the
Ghospell
of
Christ
,
but
in
the
braynes
of
his
Chaplayne
.
Consider
now
well
,
how
you
will
deale
with
your
King
,
who
by
your
own
Doctrine
is
deuested
of
all
Ecclesiasticall
power
:
and
recall
those
wordes
of
yours
,
that
you
wrote
pag.
90.
of
your
Booke
,
Primatus
spiritualis
debetur
Regibus
omni
iure
.
The
spirituall
Primacy
is
due
vnto
Kinges
by
all
right
.
No
truly
,
not
by
all
right
:
for
,
as
now
yow
confesse
,
they
haue
it
not
by
right
of
the
Ghospell
,
or
new
Testament
.
The
second
Argument
.
6.
THE
second
argument
which
I
produce
,
no
lesse
forcible
then
the
former
,
is
this
:
He
hath
not
the
Supremacy
of
the
Church
,
who
cannot
(
by
his
power
Spirituall
)
expell
out
of
the
Church
,
any
man
,
although
he
be
neuer
so
guilty
or
faulty
:
and
yet
himselfe
,
if
he
be
guilty
,
may
be
expelled
by
others
:
or
(
which
is
the
same
thing
)
cannot
excommunicate
any
man
,
and
yet
may
be
excommunicated
himself
by
others
.
But
your
King
,
by
your
owne
Doctrine
cannot
excommunicate
,
or
cast
out
of
the
Church
any
mā
;
and
yet
himself
may
be
excommunicated
,
and
cast
out
by
others
:
Ergo
,
according
to
your
Doctrine
,
he
hath
not
the
Primacy
of
the
Church
.
7.
The
Maior
is
certayne
,
and
is
manifest
by
a
like
example
.
For
as
he
is
not
accompted
a
King
,
who
cannot
banish
or
exile
out
of
his
Realme
any
man
,
though
neuer
so
wicked
;
and
yet
himselfe
notwithstāding
may
be
banished
and
exiled
by
others
,
if
he
offēd
:
euen
so
standeth
the
matter
in
this
our
case
.
Now
I
subsume
thus
:
But
the
King
can
excommunicate
,
or
cast
out
of
the
Church
no
man
,
because
he
hath
not
the
Right
or
power
to
censure
,
as
your self
speaketh
:
&
yet
notwithstanding
may
he
be
excommunicated
himself
,
or
driuen
out
of
the
Church
,
as
you
confesse
pag.
39.
of
your
Booke
in
these
words
:
Aliudest
priuare
Regem
bonis
Ecclesiae
communibus
,
quod
facit
sententia
,
&
potest
fortè
Pontifex
:
aliud
priuare
bono
proprio
,
idest
regno
suo
,
quod
non
facit
sententia
,
nec
potest
Pontifex
.
Priuabit
censura
Pontificis
societate
fidelium
,
quâ
fideles
sunt
:
bonum
illud
enim
spirituale
&
ab
Ecclesia
.
Non
priuabit
obedientia
subditorum
,
quâ
subditi
sunt
:
bonum
enim
ciuile
hoc
,
nec
ab
Ecclesia
&c.
It
is
one
thing
to
depriue
a
King
of
the
cōmon
(
or
spirituall
)
goods
of
the
Church
which
the
sentence
(
of
Excommunication
)
doth
,
&
perhaps
the
Pope
can
:
It
is
another
thing
to
depriue
him
of
his
owne
proper
good
,
to
wit
,
his
Kingdome
,
which
the
sentence
(
of
Excommunication
)
doth
not
,
nor
the
Pope
can
.
The
Popes
Censure
shall
depriue
,
or
exclude
him
from
the
society
of
the
faithful
,
in
that
they
be
faithfull
:
for
that
is
a
spirituall
good
and
dependeth
of
the
Church
.
But
it
shall
not
depriue
him
of
the
obediēce
of
his
subiects
,
in
that
they
be
his
subiects
:
for
this
is
a
ciuil
(
or
temporal
)
good
,
nor
doth
it
depend
of
the
Church
&c.
Then
I
conclude
thus
:
Ergo
,
the
King
by
your
owne
sentence
hath
not
the
Supremacie
of
the
Church
.
8.
And
by
this
Argument
,
which
is
taken
out
of
your
owne
Doctrine
,
I
not
onlie
proue
,
the
King
to
haue
no
Supremacie
Ecclesiastical
:
but
also
that
himselfe
doth
thinke
far
otherwise
,
in
this
point
,
then
you
do
.
For
you
confesse
out
of
your
former
wordes
,
that
the
King
may
be
excommunicated
by
the
Pope
:
Ergo
,
you
must
also
confesse
,
that
the
King
in
this
case
is
inferior
to
the
Pope
.
But
your
King
in
his
Premonition
to
all
Christian
Princes
,
denieth
it
in
these
words
:
Nā
neque
me
Pontifice
vlla
ex
parte
inferiorem
esse
credo
,
pace
illius
dixerim
.
For
neither
do
I
think
my selfe
any
waie
inferiour
to
the
Pope
,
by
his
leaue
be
it
spoken
.
Yf
he
be
no
waie
inferiour
vnto
him
;
how
can
he
then
be
excommunicated
or
punished
by
him
?
See
then
by
what
meanes
you
will
heere
defend
your
King.
The
third
Argument
.
9.
MY
third
Argument
is
drawne
from
your
own
wordes
pag.
177.
of
your
Booke
,
which
are
these
:
Duo
haecregna
,
Reipublicae
&
Ecclesiae
,
quamdiu
duo
manent
,
hoc
ab
illo
diuisum
,
duos
habent
:
postquam
in
vnum
cealescunt
,
non
vt
in
ducbus
duo
,
sed
vt
in
vno
vnus
Primus
est
.
These
two
Kingdomes
,
to
wit
,
of
the
Common-wealth
and
the
Church
,
so
long
as
they
remaine
two
,
this
deuided
from
that
,
they
haue
two
Heades
:
but
after
they
become
one
,
not
as
two
in
two
,
but
as
one
in
one
,
there
is
but
one
Chiefe
&c.
This
you
would
say
:
There
be
two
distinct
Kingdomes
in
this
world
,
one
of
the
Ciuil
Comon-wealth
,
another
of
the
Church
of
Christ
:
These
Kingdomes
so
long
as
they
remaine
two
,
haue
two
Primates
,
or
Heades
:
but
when
they
grow
into
one
,
they
haue
but
one
Primate
or
chiefe
Head.
I
accept
that
which
you
graunt
,
and
do
subsume
thus
:
But
in
the
new
law
,
which
Christ
instituted
,
there
remayne
two
Kingdomes
;
nor
are
they
become
one
:
Therefore
in
the
new
Law
,
there
must
be
two
distinct
Primates
,
or
Heads
,
one
whereof
must
rule
the
Church
,
the
other
the
Ciuill
Commonwealth
:
Ergo
,
the
King
of
England
,
if
he
belong
to
the
new
Law
,
doth
not
rule
both
at
once
.
10.
What
can
you
heere
now
deny
?
Tell
me
,
I
pray
you
,
in
Christes
time
,
when
the
new
Law
was
instituted
,
were
these
two
Kingdomes
deuided
,
or
were
they
one
?
This
later
,
you
neyther
can
,
nor
dare
affirme
.
For
if
the
Church
and
Common-wealth
had
byn
one
in
Christes
tyme
,
then
should
there
haue
byn
but
one
Chiefe
or
Head
of
both
,
according
to
your
owne
doctrine
.
And
therefore
eyther
Christ
should
haue
byn
Chiefe
both
of
the
Church
&
common
wealth
,
which
you
will
not
graunt
;
or
els
he
should
haue
byn
Chiefe
or
Head
of
neyther
,
which
is
against
Scripture
.
It
remayneth
then
,
that
in
Christs
tyme
those
two
Kingdomes
were
distinct
&
deuided
,
and
had
two
different
Primates
or
Heads
;
to
wit
Christ
,
Head
of
the
Church
,
and
the
King
or
Emperour
,
Head
of
the
Common-wealth
.
11.
But
now
if
in
Christs
tyme
,
there
were
not
one
and
the
same
Chiefe
,
or
Head
,
both
of
the
Church
and
Common-wealth
,
which
you
ought
to
graunt
;
how
then
dare
your
King
,
who
professeth
the
Institution
of
Christ
,
vsurpe
vnto
himselfe
both
Primacies
,
to
wit
,
both
of
the
Church
,
&
commonwealth
:
vnlesse
you
will
say
,
that
he
followeth
herin
the
custome
of
the
Iewes
,
and
not
of
the
Christians
,
&
so
in
this
point
is
more
like
a
Iew
then
a
Christian.
For
this
you
doe
seeme
to
insinuate
,
when
as
pag.
363.
of
your
Booke
you
say
:
A
more
,
institutoue
Israelis
orditur
Apologia
&c.
From
the
custome
and
institute
of
Israel
(
to
witt
the
old
Testament
)
our
Apology
or
defence
beginneth
,
and
from
thence
hath
all
this
question
her
force
and
strength
(
to
wit
of
the
Supremacy
.
)
For
in
Israell
did
God
erect
a
Kingdome
for
his
people
,
&
in
that
Kingdome
he
founded
a
Church
to
his
owne
liking
.
From
thence
are
we
to
take
example
:
for
so
much
,
as
in
the
new
Testament
we
haue
none
.
For
no
where
haue
the
Church
and
Empire
byn
ioyned
,
or
vnited
togeather
in
one
&c.
12.
Out
of
this
your
so
cleare
and
manifest
confession
I
gather
two
things
.
The
one
is
,
that
your
King
of
England
doth
vsurpe
vnto
himselfe
the
Primacy
both
of
the
Church
and
Cōmon
wealth
,
without
any
example
therof
in
the
new
Testament
.
The
other
:
that
either
your
King
of
England
must
needs
be
deceaued
,
or
els
that
other
Kings
and
Emperours
are
in
errour
.
For
if
,
as
you
say
,
the
Church
and
Empire
no
where
in
the
new
Testament
haue
conioyned
togeather
in
one
;
&
that
yet
now
in
England
they
are
vnited
in
one
:
it
followeth
necessarily
,
that
hitherto
all
Kings
and
Emperours
haue
erred
in
this
point
,
&
your
King
only
is
the
first
that
is
vvise
:
or
els
,
truely
,
(
which
is
more
credible
)
that
other
Kings
and
Princes
haue
heerin
beene
wise
,
and
your
King
to
haue
beene
deceaued
,
and
missed
the
marke
.
13.
But
I
see
well
,
what
may
be
heerto
obiected
,
and
that
is
this
:
That
the
Pope
,
forsooth
,
in
some
part
of
Italy
doth
vsurpe
also
the
Primacy
both
of
the
Cōmonvvealth
and
Church
.
I
confesse
it
to
be
so
.
But
this
conioining
(
to
vvit
,
of
temporall
and
spirituall
states
)
hath
beene
introducted
by
humane
right
only
:
but
you
contend
that
your
King
hath
both
Primacies
by
diuine
right
.
And
this
you
cannot
proue
.
The
fourth
Argument
.
14.
THE
fourth
Argument
,
is
taken
out
of
the
wordes
of
your
Booke
,
pag.
35.
&
36.
where
you
say
:
Christus
enim
,
cuius
hic
vicem
obtendis
,
non
sic
praefuit
,
dum
in
terris
fuit
.
Regnum
quod
de
mundo
fuit
,
non
habuit
.
Regni
,
quod
non
habuit
,
vices
non
commisit
.
Christ
,
vvhose
office
you
pretend
,
did
not
so
rule
,
when
he
liued
vpon
earth
:
he
had
no
Kingdome
which
vvas
of
this
world
:
He
gaue
not
another
his
place
in
a
Kingdome
,
which
he
had
not
&c.
And
thē
againe
a
litle
after
say
you
:
Est
ille
quidem
Rex
Regum
,
sed
quâ
Regum
Rex
est
,
immortalis
est
;
mortalem
nullum
Proregem
habet
.
Papa
mortalis
ipse
,
non
aliter
Christi
vicarius
,
quàm
quâ
mortalis
Christus
.
He
truly
(
to
wit
Christ
)
is
King
of
Kings
,
but
in
that
he
is
King
of
Kings
,
he
is
immortall
:
he
hath
no
mortall
Viceroy
(
or
Vicar
.
)
The
pope
is
mortall
;
nor
he
is
otherwise
the
Vicar
of
Christ
,
then
in
that
Christ
is
mortall
&c.
15.
In
these
words
you
go
about
to
proue
,
that
the
Pope
,
although
he
be
Christs
Vicar
;
yet
hath
he
no
temporall
Kingdome
.
You
suppose
Christ
to
be
considered
two
manner
of
waies
.
First
,
as
he
is
immortall
,
or
according
to
his
Diuinitie
:
Secondly
,
as
he
is
mortall
,
or
according
to
his
humanity
.
This
done
,
you
argue
thus
:
Christ
according
to
his
Diuinity
,
or
,
in
that
he
is
immortall
,
is
King
of
Kings
,
and
hath
all
the
Kingdomes
of
this
world
in
his
power
,
yet
notvvithstanding
hath
he
no
mortall
Vicar
or
Substitute
:
But
the
Pope
is
mortall
:
Ergo
,
he
is
not
the
Vicar
of
Christ
,
in
that
Christ
is
immortall
,
or
God.
Againe
:
Christ
according
to
his
Humanity
(
say
you
)
or
,
as
he
is
mortall
,
hath
no
temporall
Kingdome
:
and
therfore
cannot
haue
any
Vicar
or
Substitute
in
a
temporall
Kingdome
:
Ergo
,
the
Pope
,
although
he
be
his
Vicar
,
yet
is
he
not
so
in
his
temporall
Kingdome
,
but
in
his
Spirituall
.
16.
This
is
the
force
of
your
Argument
.
But
do
you
not
see
that
this
may
be
in
like
manner
retorted
backe
vpon
your
King
?
Yea
by
the
very
same
argument
your
King
may
be
deuested
,
both
of
his
temporall
Kingdome
,
and
his
Supremacy
in
the
Church
.
Which
I
proue
thus
:
If
your
King
haue
a
temporall
Kingdome
,
he
hath
it
either
as
the
Vicar
of
God
immortall
(
which
he
pretendeth
,
)
or
els
as
the
Vicar
of
Christ
mortall
.
But
neither
of
these
may
be
said
.
Not
the
first
:
Because
God
,
as
he
is
immortall
,
hath
no
mortall
Vicar
,
as
you
freely
affirme
:
But
your
King
,
without
all
doubt
is
mortall
:
Ergo
,
he
is
not
the
Vicar
of
God
immortall
.
Not
the
later
:
Because
Christ
,
as
he
is
mortall
,
hath
no
temporall
Kingdome
,
and
consequently
no
temporall
Vicar
:
Ergo
,
your
King
is
not
the
Vicar
of
Christ
,
in
his
temporall
Kingdome
.
And
so
,
he
is
either
deuested
of
all
temporall
dominion
:
or
if
he
haue
any
,
he
must
needes
be
some
other
bodies
Vicar
,
then
Gods
immortall
,
or
Christs
mortall
.
This
,
I
know
:
you
will
not
graunt
,
therfore
the
other
must
be
graunted
.
17.
Hence
do
I
further
conclude
:
Your
King
doth
not
vsurpe
vnto
himselfe
the
Primacy
of
the
Church
,
by
any
other
title
,
then
that
he
is
a
temporall
Prince
and
the
Vicar
of
God
:
But
now
I
haue
shewed
out
of
your
owne
doctrine
that
he
is
not
a
temporall
King
,
nor
the
Vicar
of
God
:
Ergo
,
by
the
title
of
a
temporall
Prince
,
he
cannot
claime
the
Primacy
of
the
Church
.
Heere
you
had
need
to
succour
him
,
if
you
can
.
The
fifth
Argument
.
18.
THE
fifth
Argument
may
be
taken
out
of
your
owne
wordes
,
before
rehearsed
,
pag.
39.
of
your
booke
thus
:
Aliud
est
priuare
Regem
bonis
Ecclesiae
communibus
&c.
It
is
one
thing
to
depriue
a
King
of
the
commō
(
or
spirituall
)
goods
of
the
Church
,
which
the
sentence
(
of
excommunication
)
doth
,
&
perhaps
the
Pope
can
.
It
is
another
thing
to
depriue
him
of
his
owne
proper
good
,
to
wit
,
his
Kingdome
,
which
the
sentence
(
of
excōmunication
)
doth
not
,
nor
the
Pope
can
.
The
Popes
Cēsure
shal
depriue
or
exclude
him
frō
the
society
(
or
cōmunion
)
of
the
faithfull
,
in
that
they
be
faithful
,
for
that
is
a
spiritual
good
,
&
depēdeth
of
the
Church
.
But
it
shal
not
depriue
him
of
the
obediēce
of
his
subiects
,
in
that
they
be
subiects
;
for
this
is
a
ciuil
(
or
tēporall
)
good
,
nor
doth
it
depend
of
the
Church
&c.
19.
Heere
you
distinguish
two
sorts
of
good
things
which
belong
to
the
King.
Some
you
call
Spirituall
,
which
depend
of
the
Church
:
others
Ciuill
,
which
depend
not
of
the
Church
.
You
adde
:
These
(
to
wit
Ciuill
)
are
proper
to
the
King
,
of
which
he
cannot
,
by
Censure
,
be
depriued
:
The
other
,
are
the
common
goods
of
the
Church
,
of
which
he
may
be
depriued
.
Now
I
demaund
whether
the
Primacy
of
the
Church
,
which
the
King
vsurpeth
,
belonge
to
the
common
goods
of
the
Church
,
or
rather
to
his
owne
eiuill
or
temporall
goods
?
One
of
these
two
must
you
graūt
,
if
your
distinction
be
good
and
sufficient
.
If
this
Primacy
belong
to
the
common
goods
of
the
Church
,
it
followeth
then
,
that
euery
faithfull
Christian
,
that
is
in
the
Church
,
is
no
lesse
Head
of
the
Church
,
then
your
King.
For
that
the
goods
,
which
be
common
to
all
Christians
being
in
the
Church
,
may
no
lesse
be
vsurped
of
one
then
of
another
.
But
if
this
Primacy
belong
to
the
Ciuill
goods
of
the
Church
;
then
it
followeth
,
that
the
King
cannot
be
depriued
of
the
Primacy
of
the
Church
by
any
Ecclesiasticall
Censure
:
and
therfore
after
that
he
is
excommunicated
,
and
cast
out
of
the
Church
,
as
an
Ethnicke
,
vet
in
him
remaineth
the
Primacy
of
the
Church
:
which
is
most
absurd
.
20.
The
like
Argument
is
taken
out
of
your
words
following
,
which
are
these
pag.
40.
of
your
booke
.
Rex
quiuis
cùm
de
Ethnico
Christianus
fit
,
non
perdit
terrenum
ius
,
sed
acquirit
ius
nouum
;
put
â
,
in
bonis
Ecclesiae
spiritualibus
.
I
tidem
cùm
de
Christiano
fit
sicut
Ethnicus
,
vigore
sententiae
amittit
nouum
ius
,
quod
acquisierat
in
bonis
Ecclesiae
spiritualibus
;
sed
retinet
tamen
terrenum
ius
,
antiquum
ius
in
temporalibus
quod
fuerat
illi
proprium
,
priusquam
Christianus
fieret
.
Euery
King
when
of
an
Ethnicke
he
is
made
a
Christian
,
doth
not
therby
loose
his
temporall
right
,
but
getteth
a
new
right
,
to
wit
,
in
the
spirituall
goods
of
the
Church
.
In
like
manner
,
when
of
a
Christian
he
is
made
an
Ethnicke
(
to
wit
by
Excommunication
)
he
,
by
force
of
the
Censure
,
leeseth
his
new
right
,
which
he
had
gotten
in
the
spirituall
goods
of
the
Church
:
but
yet
notwithstanding
he
keepeth
his
temporall
right
,
his
ancient
right
in
temporalities
,
which
was
proper
vnto
him
,
before
he
was
a
Christian.
21.
Heere
also
do
you
distinguish
the
double
right
of
a
King
:
the
one
ancient
and
temporall
,
which
a
King
hath
before
he
be
a
Christian
;
the
other
new
and
spirituall
,
which
he
getteth
,
when
he
is
made
a
Christian
.
Now
in
like
manner
I
demaund
,
whether
doth
the
Supremacy
of
the
Church
which
your
King
vsurpeth
,
belong
to
that
ancient
&
temporall
right
,
or
rather
to
this
new
and
spirituall
?
If
it
belong
to
the
ancient
and
temporall
right
;
it
followeth
,
that
Ethnicke
Kings
before
they
be
made
Christians
,
haue
the
Supremacy
of
the
Church
,
which
is
absurd
.
If
it
belong
to
the
new
and
spirituall
right
;
it
followeth
,
that
Kings
,
when
in
baptisme
they
be
made
Christians
,
or
members
of
the
Church
,
do
receaue
more
in
their
baptisme
then
other
men
;
which
in
another
place
of
your
Booke
you
deny
.
For
you
contend
,
that
all
men
,
of
what
sort
or
degree
soeuer
they
be
,
are
equall
vnto
them
,
in
those
things
,
which
are
obteined
through
baptisme
.
The
sixt
Argument
.
22.
THE
sixt
Argument
you
insinuate
pag.
53.
of
your
booke
,
when
you
say
:
Nec
enim
Regum
subditi
,
quâ
subditi
,
Ecclesiae
pars
vlla
sunt
,
sed
Regni
.
Antequam
de
Ecclesiae
essent
,
subditi
erant
;
cùm
extra
Ecclesiam
sunt
,
nihilominus
manent
subditi
.
Quâ
fideles
sunt
,
pars
Ecclesiae
sunt
:
quâ
subditi
sunt
,
Regni
ac
Reipublicae
p●rs
sunt
.
Neyther
are
the
subiects
of
a
King
,
in
that
they
be
subiects
,
any
part
of
the
Church
,
but
of
the
Kingdome
.
Before
they
were
of
the
Church
,
they
were
subiects
:
when
they
are
out
of
the
Church
,
notwithstanding
they
remaine
subiects
.
In
that
they
be
faithfull
,
(
or
Christians
)
they
are
a
part
of
the
Church
:
In
that
they
be
subiects
,
they
are
a
part
of
the
Kingdome
and
Commonwealth
.
23.
Heerhence
do
I
argue
thus
:
The
Iurisdiction
of
a
King
,
doth
not
extend
it selfe
but
to
the
subiects
of
the
King
,
in
that
they
are
subiects
(
for
if
we
regard
them
,
in
that
they
be
not
subiects
,
they
cannot
be
vnder
the
Iurisdiction
of
the
King
:
)
But
the
subiects
of
a
King
,
in
that
they
be
subiects
,
are
not
a
part
of
the
Church
,
but
only
of
the
commonwealth
,
as
you
affirme
:
So
as
the
Iurisdiction
of
a
King
which
he
hath
ouer
his
subiects
,
in
that
they
be
subiects
,
cannot
be
Ecclesiasticall
,
but
Ciuill
only
:
Ergo
,
they
are
not
subiect
to
the
King
in
Ecclesiasticall
affaires
,
but
only
in
Ciuill
.
Nothing
is
more
certaine
out
of
this
your
owne
Principle
.
THE
CHAPLAINES
Argument
for
the
Kinges
Supremacy
.
24.
HItherto
haue
I
shewed
,
that
out
of
your
owne
doctrine
strong
Argumentes
may
be
drawne
to
ouerthrow
the
Kings
Supremacy
:
Now
let
vs
see
,
if
your
others
be
as
forcible
to
the
contrary
,
wherwith
you
goe
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
principall
to
your selfe
,
I
will
heere
discusse
.
Thus
then
you
propose
it
,
in
the
157.
page
of
your
Booke
.
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
mouere
voluerunt
de
Aegypto
,
vt
Deo
sacrificarent
.
Idem
Cyro
,
cuius
itidem
absque
veniâ
nec
excedere
Chaldaea
,
vt
templum
aedificarent
&c.
The
people
sometyme
sayd
vnto
Iosue
,
that
they
would
obay
him
in
all
thinges
,
as
they
had
obeyed
Moyses
,
but
they
obeyed
Moyses
in
Ecclesiasticall
matters
.
Nor
did
the
high
Priest
Eleazarus
then
meddle
,
no
not
in
any
thing
,
but
in
temporall
.
But
if
any
man
shal
thinke
this
more
to
auayle
,
because
Iosue
was
a
true
worshipper
of
God
,
and
least
this
right
should
seeme
to
haue
place
in
only
Orthodoxall
,
or
right-beleeuing
Kinges
;
Behould
then
the
King
of
Babel
,
equall
to
an
Hereticke
,
to
wit
an
Idolater
,
whome
notwithstanding
the
Prophet
not
only
not
dissuaded
the
people
to
obay
,
but
also
was
Author
,
that
they
submitted
their
neckes
vnder
his
yoke
,
&
serued
him
.
The
like
was
done
to
Pharao
,
without
whose
leaue
,
they
(
to
wit
the
Iewes
)
would
not
mooue
a
foot
out
of
Aegypt
,
that
they
might
sacrifice
to
God.
And
the
same
to
Cyrus
without
whose
leaue
in
like
māner
,
they
would
not
depart
out
of
Chaldaea
,
that
they
might
build
their
Temple
&c.
25.
The
force
of
your
Argument
is
this
,
that
not
only
Orthodoxall
Kings
in
the
old
Testament
,
but
Gentiles
also
&
Idolaters
had
the
Primacy
of
the
Church
▪
Ergo
,
the
same
is
to
be
said
of
Kinges
of
the
new
Testament
.
The
former
part
of
the
antecedent
you
proue
by
the
example
of
Iosue
,
to
whome
the
people
of
the
Iewes
said
(
Ios.
1.
17.
)
As
we
haue
obeyed
Moyses
in
all
thinges
,
so
will
we
obey
you
.
But
they
obeyed
Moyses
,
not
only
in
temporall
matters
,
but
also
in
Ecclesiasticall
:
Ergo
,
did
they
so
obey
Iosue
.
The
later
you
proue
by
the
example
of
the
three
Gentile
Kinges
,
Nabuchodonosor
in
Babylon
,
Pharao
in
Egipt
,
and
Cyrus
in
Chaldaea
,
to
whome
the
Iewes
were
subiect
,
euen
in
Ecclesiasticall
matters
,
because
without
their
leaue
,
they
durst
neyther
offer
Sacrifice
,
nor
build
their
Temple
.
26.
That
you
may
then
see
,
of
what
small
moment
this
your
Argument
is
;
I
will
briefely
examine
euery
part
therof
.
And
first
I
will
speake
something
of
Moyses
:
secondly
of
Iosue
,
who
succeeded
him
:
and
thirdly
of
the
Gentile
Kings
which
you
haue
cited
.
Concerning
Moyses
then
,
it
is
certaine
,
that
he
was
not
only
a
Temporall
Prince
,
but
an
Ecclesiasticall
also
:
or
if
we
speake
all
,
he
susteyned
a
quadruple
person
,
or
the
person
of
foure
men
.
The
first
of
a
Temporall
Prince
,
the
second
of
a
Law-maker
,
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
Moyses
in
the
end
,
where
he
saith
:
Haec
est
vita
,
hic
exitus
Moysis
,
Regis
,
Legislatoris
,
Pontificis
,
Prophetae
.
This
is
the
life
and
death
of
Moyses
,
a
King
,
a
Law-maker
,
a
high
Priest
,
and
a
Prophet
.
And
the
same
is
plainly
euinced
out
of
the
Scripture
.
That
he
was
a
temporall
Prince
or
Iudge
,
it
is
manifest
by
that
of
Exodus
18.
13.
Altera
die
&c.
And
the
next
day
Moyses
sate
to
iudg
the
people
,
who
stood
by
Moyses
from
morning
vntill
night
:
which
thing
S.
Augustine
mentioneth
in
his
68.
quaest
.
vpon
Exodus
thus
:
Sedebat
(
inquit
)
iudiciaria
potestate
solus
,
populo
vniuerso
stante
.
He
sate
(
saith
S.
Augustine
)
alone
with
power
to
iudge
,
all
the
people
standing
.
That
he
was
a
Law-maker
,
it
is
manifest
,
as
well
by
other
places
,
as
that
of
S.
Iohn
1.
17.
Lex
per
Moysen
data
est
.
The
law
was
giuen
by
Moyses
.
That
he
was
a
Bishop
or
high
Priest
,
is
partly
gathered
out
of
that
of
the
Psalme
98.
6.
Moyses
&
Aaron
in
Sacerdotibus
eius
.
Moyses
and
Aaron
are
numbred
amongst
his
Priests
:
and
partly
also
by
the
Priestly
fūction
,
that
he
exercised
.
For
that
(
as
it
is
written
Leuit
.
8.
)
he
consecrated
Aaron
a
Priest
,
he
sanctified
the
Tabernacle
and
the
Aultar
,
he
offered
Sacrifice
,
Holocaustes
,
and
Incense
to
our
Lord.
And
this
was
not
lawfull
for
any
to
do
,
but
Priests
,
according
to
that
of
2.
Paralip
.
26.
18.
Non
est
officij
tui
,
Ozia
,
vt
adoleas
incensum
Domino
,
sed
sacerdotum
.
It
is
not
your
office
,
Ozias
,
to
offer
incense
to
our
Lord
,
but
the
office
of
Priestes
.
Lastly
,
that
he
was
a
Prophet
,
is
manifest
by
that
Num.
12.
6.
Si
quis
fuerit
inter
vos
Propheta
Domini
&c.
Yf
there
shal
be
among
you
a
Prophet
of
our
Lord
,
in
vision
will
I
appeare
to
him
,
or
in
sleep
will
I
speake
vnto
him
.
But
my
seruant
Moyses
is
not
such
a
one
,
who
in
all
my
house
is
most
faithfull
:
for
mouth
to
mouth
I
speake
to
him
,
and
openly
,
and
not
by
riddles
and
figures
doth
he
see
the
Lord
&c.
27.
Now
as
for
Iosue
,
he
succeded
not
Moyses
in
all
these
offices
.
For
he
succeded
him
not
in
Bishoply
degree
,
or
high
Priesthood
:
Nor
yet
in
law-making
.
In
Prophesy
,
whether
he
did
or
no
,
I
dispute
not
.
But
that
he
succeeded
him
in
temporall
Principality
,
it
is
manifest
out
of
Num.
27.
18.
Dixitue
Dominus
ad
Moysen
,
tolle
Iosue
filium
Nun
&c.
And
our
Lord
said
to
Moyses
,
take
Iosue
the
sonne
of
Nun
&c.
And
put
thy
hād
vpō
him
:
who
shall
stand
before
Eleazar
the
Priest
,
&
al
the
multitude
:
&
thou
shalt
giue
him
precepts
in
the
sight
of
al
,
&
part
of
thy
glory
that
all
the
Synagogue
of
the
Children
of
Israell
may
heare
him
.
For
him
,
if
any
thing
be
to
be
done
,
Eleazar
the
Priest
shal
consult
the
Lord.
At
his
word
shal
he
go
out
,
&
shal
go
in
,
and
al
the
Children
of
Israel
with
him
,
and
the
rest
of
the
multitude
&c.
In
which
words
three
things
are
to
be
noted
which
make
to
our
purpose
:
the
first
,
that
Iosue
,
was
designed
the
successour
of
Moyses
:
the
second
,
that
Moyses
gaue
him
part
of
his
glory
,
that
is
to
say
,
he
gaue
him
not
all
the
power
he
had
,
aswell
Ecclesiastical
,
as
temporall
,
but
temporall
onely
:
the
third
,
that
he
should
be
subiect
to
Eleazar
the
High
Priest
,
and
do
euery
thing
at
this
commandement
.
For
this
do
those
wordes
signify
,
Pro
hoc
&c.
For
him
(
to
wit
Iosue
)
if
any
thing
be
to
be
done
,
Eleazar
the
Priest
shall
consult
the
Lord.
At
his
word
(
to
wit
of
Eleazar
)
shall
Iosue
go
out
,
and
in
&c.
28.
Heere
may
you
playnely
see
,
in
how
different
a
sense
you
alleaged
that
place
,
Sicut
in
istis
obediuimus
Moysi
,
ita
obediemus
&
tibi
:
As
in
these
thinges
we
obeyed
Moyses
,
so
will
we
obey
you
.
For
you
vnderstand
it
thus
;
as
who
should
say
,
the
people
of
the
Iewes
ought
to
obey
Iosue
,
in
all
thinges
both
Ecclesiasticall
and
ciuill
,
as
they
had
obeyed
Moyses
.
But
you
are
deceyued
.
First
,
for
that
in
Ecclesiastical
affayres
they
were
to
obey
Eleazar
the
Priest.
Secondly
,
because
those
words
(
as
we
haue
obeyed
Moyses
)
were
not
vttered
of
all
the
people
,
but
only
of
the
Rubenites
,
Gaddites
,
and
of
halfe
the
Tribe
of
Manasses
.
Neyther
did
they
say
,
that
they
would
obey
Iosue
in
all
thinges
simply
,
wherin
they
had
before
obeyed
Moyses
(
although
somtymes
they
murmured
against
him
,
&
did
not
obay
him
:
)
but
in
those
thinges
only
,
which
were
appointed
them
by
Moyses
,
to
wit
,
that
they
should
leaue
their
wiues
,
childrē
,
&
cattle
in
the
place
where
they
then
were
,
and
arming
themselues
,
togeather
with
the
rest
of
the
Tribes
,
should
passe
ouer
Iordan
,
and
fight
against
their
enemies
,
vntil
they
being
vanquished
,
the
rest
of
the
Tribes
should
there
make
their
quiet
possession
.
And
this
is
euident
out
of
the
context
of
Scripture
it selfe
Iosue
1.
12.
in
these
wordes
:
Rubenitis
quoque
&
Gadditis
,
&
dimidiae
tribui
Manasse
ait
&c.
To
the
Rubenites
also
and
Gaddites
,
and
to
halfe
the
tribe
of
Manasses
,
Iosue
said
:
Remember
the
word
which
Moyses
the
seruant
of
our
Lord
commanded
you
,
saying
:
Our
Lord
your
God
hath
giuen
you
rest
,
and
all
this
land
,
your
wiues
and
children
,
and
cattle
shall
tarry
in
the
land
,
which
Moyses
deliuered
vnto
you
beyond
Iordan
:
but
passe
you
ouer
armed
before
your
brethren
,
all
that
are
strong
of
hand
,
&
fight
for
them
,
vntill
our
Lord
giue
rest
to
your
brethren
,
as
to
you
also
he
hath
giuen
;
and
they
also
possesse
the
land
,
which
our
Lord
your
God
will
giue
them
,
and
so
returne
into
the
land
of
your
possession
:
and
you
shall
dwell
in
it
,
which
Moyses
the
seruant
of
our
Lord
gaue
you
beyond
Iordan
,
against
the
rising
of
the
sunne
&c.
Thus
Iosue
to
the
people
.
So
as
that
which
immediately
followeth
(
to
wit
,
Omnia
quae
praecepisti
nobis
&c.
All
thinges
that
thou
hast
commanded
vs
,
we
will
do
,
and
whithersoeuer
thou
shalt
send
vs
,
we
will
go
.
And
as
we
obeyed
Moyses
in
all
things
,
so
will
we
obey
thee
also
,
)
is
referred
to
that
which
went
before
.
But
there
is
no
mention
made
of
Ecclesiasticall
matters
,
but
only
of
taking
armes
against
their
enemyes
,
who
possessed
their
land
.
29.
On
this
syde
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
Kinges
,
I
do
not
see
what
force
it
may
haue
.
For
that
those
three
Kinges
,
which
you
mention
,
were
by
your
owne
confession
eyther
Primates
of
the
Church
of
God
,
or
they
were
not
.
I
hope
you
will
not
say
that
they
were
,
because
yow
affirme
the
contrary
more
then
once
in
your
Tortura
:
and
that
worthily
:
to
wit
,
that
they
who
be
out
of
the
Church
of
God
,
cannot
be
Princes
and
Rulers
in
the
same
Church
.
Yf
they
were
not
Primates
of
the
Church
,
as
certes
they
were
not
,
how
then
will
you
proue
by
this
their
example
,
that
the
King
of
England
is
head
or
Primate
of
the
Church
?
This
only
you
may
conclude
,
that
as
the
Iewes
durst
not
go
forth
of
Egypt
,
to
sacrifice
to
God
,
without
King
Pharao
his
leaue
,
who
had
brought
them
into
cruell
bondage
vnder
his
yoke
:
So
in
like
manner
the
Catholickes
,
that
liue
in
England
,
dare
not
go
out
to
other
Catholicke
Countries
,
where
they
may
receiue
the
holy
Eucharist
after
the
Catholick
manner
,
without
King
Iames
his
leaue
,
who
will
not
suffer
them
so
to
do
,
without
his
licence
,
vnder
payne
of
death
or
imprisonmēt
.
And
the
like
may
be
said
of
the
other
two
Idolatrous
Kings
.
But
what
is
this
to
the
Primacy
of
the
Church
?
I
should
rather
thinke
it
belonged
to
tyrāny
or
impiety
.
The
Conclusion
to
the
Chaplayne
.
30.
YOvv
haue
heere
briefly
,
what
I
haue
thought
concerning
your
Booke
,
which
you
haue
written
in
defence
of
your
King
:
You
haue
heere
(
I
say
)
these
three
pointes
:
First
,
that
you
haue
oftentimes
handled
the
matter
not
so
much
in
Argument
,
as
in
raylings
or
exprobrations
.
Secondly
,
that
you
haue
defyled
euery
thing
with
Paradoxes
,
and
false
opinions
.
Thirdly
,
that
you
haue
rather
ouerthrowne
then
established
the
Kings
Primacy
,
which
you
sought
to
fortify
:
and
all
these
things
haue
you
done
through
a
certayne
desire
you
haue
to
flatter
the
King.
Therefore
if
you
shall
represse
this
your
desire
,
and
behould
the
onely
truth
of
the
thing
it selfe
,
it
will
be
very
easy
for
you
to
amend
your
former
faultes
,
which
I
altogeather
counsell
you
to
doe
.
And
if
you
set
God
before
your
eyes
(
who
is
the
first
and
principall
verity
)
you
will
doe
it
.
AN
APPENDIX
,
Of
the
Comparison
betweene
a
King
and
a
Bishop
.
IN
your
booke
you
do
so
compare
a
King
and
a
Bishop
togeather
,
that
you
manifestly
depresse
the
Authority
of
the
one
,
and
extoll
the
Dignity
(
higher
then
is
sitting
)
of
the
other
.
And
therefore
what
others
haue
thought
before
you
concerning
this
point
,
I
will
briefly
lay
before
your
eyes
,
that
you
may
choose
whether
,
changing
your
opinion
,
you
will
stand
to
their
iudgmentes
,
or
els
retayning
it
,
still
persist
in
your
errour
.
Thus
then
haue
others
thought
and
taught
before
you
.
Num.
27.
21.
Pro
Iosue
si
quid
agendum
erit
&c.
Yf
for
Iosue
any
thing
be
to
be
done
,
let
Eleazar
the
Priest
consult
with
the
Lord.
At
his
word
(
to
wit
Eleazars
)
shall
he
goe
out
,
and
go
in
,
and
with
him
all
the
sonns
of
Israel
,
and
the
rest
of
the
multitude
&c.
So
as
heere
the
secular
Prince
is
commanded
to
do
his
affaires
at
the
descretion
of
the
Priest.
Deuter.
17.
12.
Qui
superbierit
&c.
He
that
shall
be
proud
,
refusing
to
obay
the
commandement
of
the
Priest
,
who
at
that
time
ministreth
to
our
Lord
thy
God
&c.
that
man
shall
dye
,
and
thou
shalt
take
away
the
euill
out
of
Israel
&c.
1.
Reg.
22.
27.
Ait
Rex
Saul
Emissarijs
&c.
King
Saul
said
to
his
Seruants
that
stood
about
him
:
Turne
your selues
,
and
kill
the
Priests
of
the
Lord
&c.
And
the
Kings
seruants
would
not
extend
their
hands
vpō
the
Priests
of
the
Lord.
So
as
,
they
made
greater
esteeme
of
the
Priests
authority
,
then
of
their
Kings
commandement
.
4.
Reg.
11.
9.
Fecerunt
Centuriones
iuxta
omnia
&c.
And
the
Centurions
did
according
to
all
things
,
that
Ioida
the
Priest
had
commaūded
them
:
and
euery
one
taking
their
men
&c.
came
to
Ioida
the
Priest
&c.
And
he
brought
forth
the
Kings
sonne
,
and
put
vpon
him
the
diademe
,
and
the
couenant
&c.
And
Ioida
commanded
the
Centurions
,
and
said
to
them
:
Bring
forth
Athalia
(
the
Queene
)
without
the
precincts
of
the
Temple
,
and
whosoeuer
shall
follow
her
,
let
him
be
stroken
with
the
sword
&c.
2.
Paralip
.
19.
11.
Amarias
Sacerdos
&
Pontifex
vester
&c.
Amarias
the
Priest
and
your
Bishop
shall
be
chiefe
in
those
things
,
which
pertayne
to
God.
Moreouer
Zabadias
,
the
sonne
of
Ismael
,
who
is
the
Prince
of
the
house
of
Iuda
,
shal
be
ouer
those
works
,
which
pertaine
to
the
Kings
office
&c.
2.
Paralip
.
26.
16.
Cùm
rob
oratus
esset
&c.
When
Ozias
the
King
was
strengthened
,
his
hart
was
eleuated
to
his
destruction
&c.
and
entring
into
the
temple
of
our
Lord
,
he
would
burne
incense
vpon
the
altar
of
incense
.
And
presently
Azarias
the
Priest
entring
in
after
him
,
and
with
him
the
Priests
of
our
Lord
&c.
they
resisted
the
King
and
said
:
It
is
not
thy
office
,
Ozias
,
to
burne
incense
to
our
Lord
,
but
the
Priests
&c.
Get
thee
out
of
the
Sanctuary
,
contemne
not
,
because
this
thing
shall
not
be
reputed
vnto
thee
for
the
glory
of
our
Lord
God.
And
Ozias
being
angry
&c.
threatned
the
Priests
.
And
forthwith
there
arose
a
leprosy
in
his
forehead
before
the
Priests
&c.
and
in
hast
they
thrust
him
out
&c.
Ioan.
21.
32.
Feede
my
sheepe
&c.
Matth.
16.
19.
To
thee
will
I
giue
the
Keyes
of
the
Kingdome
of
heauen
&c.
Act.
20.
28.
The
holy
Ghost
hath
placed
Bishops
(
not
secular
Kings
)
to
gouerne
the
Church
of
God
&c.
1.
Cor.
4.
1.
So
let
a
man
esteeme
vs
,
as
the
ministers
of
Christ
,
and
the
dispensers
of
the
mysteries
of
God
&c.
2.
Cor.
5.
20.
We
are
Legates
for
Christ
&c.
S.
Gregory
Nazianzen
,
writing
to
the
Emperours
of
Constantinople
apud
Gratian.
dist
.
10.
can
.
7.
saith
:
Libenter
accipitis
&c.
You
do
willingly
heare
,
that
the
law
of
Christ
doth
subiect
you
to
Priestly
power
.
For
he
hath
giuen
vs
that
power
:
yea
,
he
hath
giuen
vs
a
Principality
,
much
more
perfect
,
then
that
of
yours
&c.
S.
Gregory
the
Pope
writing
to
Hermannus
Bishop
of
Metz
dist
.
96.
can
.
6.
saith
:
Quis
dubitat
&c.
Who
doubteth
,
but
that
the
Priests
of
Christ
are
to
be
accompted
the
Fathers
,
and
maisters
of
Kinges
,
and
princes
?
Ioan.
Papa
,
dist
.
96.
can
.
11.
Si
Imperator
Catholicus
est
&c.
If
the
Emperour
be
a
Catholike
;
he
is
a
Sonne
,
and
not
a
Prelate
of
the
Church
.
What
belongeth
to
Religion
,
he
ought
to
learne
,
and
not
to
teach
.
And
then
againe
afterwards
:
Imperatores
&c.
Christian
Emperours
;
and
Kings
,
ought
to
submit
their
imployments
vnto
Ecclesiasticall
Prelates
,
and
not
preferre
them
.
Innocentius
3.
in
decret
.
de
maior
.
&
obed
.
can
.
6.
Non
negamus
&c.
We
deny
not
,
but
that
the
Emperour
doth
excell
in
temporall
things
:
but
the
Pope
excelleth
in
spirituall
;
which
are
so
much
the
more
worthy
,
then
temporall
,
by
how
much
the
soule
is
preferred
before
the
body
&c.
Hosius
Bishop
of
Corduba
in
Spaine
,
to
the
Emperour
Constantius
,
sayth
:
Desine
,
quaeso
,
Imperator
&c.
Giue
ouer
,
I
beseech
you
,
o
Emperour
:
do
not
busy
your selfe
in
Ecclesiasticall
affaires
,
nor
in
such
things
do
not
teach
vs
,
but
rather
learne
of
vs.
To
yow
hath
God
committed
the
rule
of
the
Kingdome
,
but
vnto
vs
hath
he
deliuered
the
affaires
of
his
Church
&c.
S.
Ambrose
in
his
33.
Epistle
to
his
Sister
Marcellina
,
writeth
,
that
he
had
sayd
to
the
Emperour
Valentinian
:
Noli
te
grauare
Imperator
&c.
Do
not
trouble
your selfe
,
o
Emperour
,
to
thinke
that
you
haue
any
Imperiall
right
in
those
thinges
which
are
diuine
.
To
the
Emperour
do
pallaces
belong
;
but
Churches
pertaine
vnto
Priests
&c.
Valentinianus
the
Emperour
said
:
Mihi
qui
vnus
è
numero
laicorum
&c.
It
is
not
lawfull
for
me
,
that
am
but
one
of
the
number
of
laymen
,
to
interpose
my self
in
such
businesses
,
(
to
wit
Ecclesiasticall
.
)
Let
Priests
and
Bishops
meet
,
about
these
things
,
wheresoeuer
it
shall
please
them
,
to
whome
the
care
of
such
affaires
belong
&c.
This
is
related
by
Zozomenus
lib
▪
6.
hist.
c.
7.
and
by
Nicephorus
lib.
11.
cap.
33.
by
Ruffinus
lib
▪
1.
cap.
2.
Eleanor
Queene
of
Englād
in
an
Epistle
she
wrote
to
Pope
Celestine
,
hath
these
wordes
:
Non
Rex
,
non
Imperator
à
iugo
vestrae
Iurisdictionis
eximitur
.
Neyther
King
,
nor
Emperour
is
exempted
from
the
yoke
of
your
Iurisdiction
,
or
power
.
More
of
this
matter
in
another
place
.
FINIS
.
Faultes
escaped
in
the
Printing
.
Pag.
7.
lin
.
vlt.
in
some
copies
dele
is
17.
lin
.
7.
shall
read
shalt
19.
lin
.
21.
to
write
read
to
wit
36.
lin
.
4.
in
some
copies
Mattheaeo
read
Matthaeo
38.
lin
.
8.
to
lawfull
read
to
be
lawfull
40.
lin
.
7.
in
some
copies
you
read
yours
57.
lin
.
15.
in
some
copies
the
read
he
58.
lin
.
1●
.
in
some
copies
this
read
his
LAVS
DEO
.