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, [Page 7] 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?

[Page 8] 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, [Page 9] 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, instituto (que) 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 [Page 10] 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, [Page 12] 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 [Page 13] 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 [Page 14] 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 [Page 15] 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 [Page 16] 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 [Page 17] 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 shalbe 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) [Page 18] 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 thats no matter. For we dispute not of wordes, but of [Page 19] 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, [Page 20] 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 [Page 21] 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 mō ­strous 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. [Page 22] 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, eum (que) dixit, non solum caput, sed quod in ipso capite maximè sublime est, capitis verticem, id (que) 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 [Page 23] 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 [Page 24] 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 [Page 25] 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, eaue 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 [Page 26] 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 cō ­tent 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, shalbe 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 [Page 27] 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 [Page 28] 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 [Page 30] 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 shalbe, 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, quiue per Galliam, Belgium, Poloniam, Hungariam, Bohemiam, Austriam, Ordines à nobis sunt, partem esse Dominici gregis: nec minorem, nec minùs illustrem partem, quàm quae est pars Pauli Quinti. ‘But if it were our present purpose heere to declare, you (to wit Tortus) might be taught to know, that the Kinges excellent Maiesty of Great Britany, and they which agree with him, to wit, the Kings of Denmarke and Suetia, the Princes of Germany, the Comon­wealthes 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 [Page 32] 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 thē ­selues, 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.

[Page 33] 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 [Page 34] 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? [Page 35] 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?

[Page 37] 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, legitimam (que) 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 [Page 40] 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.