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 quà m 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
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 institutoue Israelis orditur Apologia c. From the custome and institute of Israel to witt the old Testament our Apology
or defence beginneth and from thence hath all this question her force and strength to wit of the Supremacy For in Israell did God erect a Kingdome for his people in that Kingdome he founded a Church to his owne liking From thence are we to take example for so much as in the new Testament we haue none For no where haue the Church and Empire byn ioyned or vnited togeather in one c. 12. Out of this your so cleare and manifest confession I gather two things The one is that your King of England doth vsurpe vnto himselfe the Primacy both of the Church and 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 quà m 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
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 quà m 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 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
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 quà m 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 quà m 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
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 quiue per Galliam Belgium Poloniam Hungariam Bohemiam Austriam Ordines à nobis sunt partem esse Dominici gregis nec minorem nec minùs illustrem partem quà m 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 quà m 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