togeather with Caluin for so many falshoods shiftes errors of history malicious fictions and other like abuses as is a shame to read And finally not to name more authors for this poynt Cardinall Baronius as last of all so with more exact examination historicall theâ— any of the rest hath cleared the whole matter in his fifth Tome of his Ecclesiasticall History vpon the yeare 419. to whome I remit the studious Reader 26. Well then in all these six Authors at least I do suppose that M. MortoÌ„ as a learned man had seene this obiection discussed and answered though not perhaps to his contentment why then if he had meant playnly as often he protesteth had not he eyther mentioned these Authors or refuted them or at leastwise told his Reader that there had bene some such answers before though not sufficient to ouerthrow the obiection wherby the said Reader might haue sought to haue a view therof For if a Marchant that professeth much sincerity and vpright dealing should offer coyne for good and cuâ—rant that himselfe had knowne to haue bene six times at least reiected for couÌ„terfait by skilfull men and yet he should obtrude the same againe the 7. time without saying any one word that it had bene called into question and refused before none would say that this mans sincerity is worth a rush The application I leaue to M. Morton himselfe 27. Wherfore in a word or two to answere the substance of the matter thus it passed A certayne Priest of Sicca in Aâ—rick named Appiarius hauing a controuersy with his owne Bishop Vrbanus after diuers disagreements passed betweene them wherin he thought himselfe hardly dealt with all he appealed to Rome to Pope Zozimus bringing with him coÌ„mendatory letters from the Primate of all Africk Zozimus hauing heard his cause thought best to send him â—acke againe into Africk and with him two Legates â—ith instructioÌ„s that they should see procure not â—nly this man to be restored to his right but moreâ—uer that 3. Canons of the Councell of Nice the â—â—rst about Appeales of Bishops the second of Priests â—â—e third of Bishops following the Court to be obâ—â—rued Whereupon the African Bishops gathered a â—ationall CoÌ„ncell at Carthage of 217. Bishops about â—â—e satisfying of the Order of Pope Zozimus â—8 But when this Councell had examined their â—â—pyes of the Councell of Nice they found not those 〈◊〉 Canons therin Wherupon they sending into the â—ast partes to seeke other Copies they receyued both â—om S. Cyrill Patriarch of Alexandria and Atticus of â—onstantinople other Copies which in like manner â—â—anted these 3. Canons as also they did want diuers â—ther Canons cyted by sundry ancient Fathers to â—aue bene made in the Councell of Nice as by S. â—ierome S. Augustine S. Ambrose and diuers later â—ouncels which Canons notwithstanding were â—ade decreed in the first Councell of Nice though â—ot extant in the Copies that were in Africa which â—oth D. Harpsfeild Bellarmine do particulerly proue â—t large and it appeareth playnly that these copâ—ies sent out of the East had 20. Canons only of â—he said Councell of Nice which Ruffinus in his story â—oth recount wheras both S. Athanasius and many â—ther Fathers that were preseÌ„t in the same Councell of Nice do testify that there were more which are â—et downe in the first tome of Councells as translaâ—ed out of the Arabian language though not found in the Greeke 29. But indeed â—ll the errour or mistaking was this that there begin a generall Councell gathered togeather at Sardica very soone after that of Nice which Sardicense ConciliuÌ„ conteyned more Bishops in number then were in that of Nice for that in thiâ— there were 3OO out of the West only and 70. frâ—â— the East as both Athanasius Socrates Zozomonus other Authors do affiâ—me for that the most of these Fathers were the selfe same that had bene in the Councell of Nice and had determined nothing concerning faith differing from the Nicene Councell but only seemâ—d to be called â—or better manifestation and confirmation of the said Nicene Councell it was held especially in the West Church for a part or appendix of the said first Nicene Councell in which regard S. Gregorie and other Fathers when they do mention the first 4. Generall Councells do leaue out this of Sardica though it were as Generall and more great then the first Nicene as hath bene said 30. Wherefore this Councell of Sardica hauing set downe the foresaid three Canons as conforme to the decrees of the first late Councell of Nice and going vnder the name of the said Nicene Councell as a member therof in those copyes that Pope Zozimuâ— in the West Church had he did name them CanoÌ„s of the Nicene Councell as made by the authority of the selfe same Fathers that sate at Nice and the naming of one for the other was no greater an errour in effect then when S. Matthew doth name Hieremy the Prophet for Zachary for so much as the thing it selfe was true and so was the allegation of Pope Zozimus for that in the Councell of Sardica these three Canons are extant nor euer was there any least suspition or speach of forging vsed in the Church by eyther Catholicks or Hereticks for so many ages before the Lutheranes and Caluinists vpon meere hatred and gall of stomake began those clamours in this our age against so holy aÌ„cient Fathers as those 3. Bishops of Rome were to wit Zozimus Boniâ—acius and Celestinus by the testimony of Saint Augustine and other Fathers that lyued with them who also I meane S. Augustine at that very tyme when the controuersy was in treating about the Copyes of the Councell of Nice and matter of appellation did appeale himselfe to the later of these three Popes to wit to Celestinus in the cause of Antonius Bishop of Fessala as appeareth out of his owne Epistle about that matter And so this shal be sufficient and more then was necessary to answere vnto â—his stale impertinent obiectioÌ„ of counterfaiting the Canons of the first Nicene Councell which is nothing â—o our purpose in hand as hath bene seene and yet â—ncoÌ„bred with so many vntruthes as would require â— seuerall Treatise to display them Let vs come then â—o his second instance HIS SEC0ND EXAMPLE of wilfull fraud falsely obiected against sundry moderne Catholicke writers about the Councell of Eliberis in Spayne §. III. BEFORE he coÌ„meth to set downe this instance about the Councell of Eliberis he falleth agayne to boast and bragge exceedingly saying P. R. is more merciâ—ull requiring three sensible instaÌ„ces as it were 3. witnesses against any one of his writers before he be condemned yet this also is horribly vnmerciâ—ull on their part I wish he had but named any one whose credit he valueth most that I might haue answered his challenge in that one Howsoeuer it wil be no more easie a
of theÌ„ but coÌ„meth in with an impertinent instance that there was a prohibition of Appeales made vnder King Henry the second by Act of Parliament in the tenth yeare of his Raigne whereas yet there was no Parliament in vse nor Statute law was begone vntill the 9. yeare of King Henry the third which was aboue 60. yeares after as appeareth both by the Collection of Iustice Rastall and other Law-bookes 76. I do not deny but that King Henry the second entring into passion against S. Thomas Archb. of Canterbury made a decree at a certayne meeting of the Nobility at Claringdon rather moderating as himselfe pretended then taking away Appeales to Rome not denying that they ought to be made in respect of the Popes supreme authority Ecclesiasticall but for restrayning of abuses in appealing thither without iust cause or necessity especially in temporall affaires he ordeyned that matters should first orderly be handled in England in the Bishops and Archbishops Courtes and if that way they could not be ended they should not be carried to Rome without the Kings assent which declaratioÌ„ of the kings intention is set downe by Roger Houeden out of the Epistle of Gilbert Bishop of London to Pope Alexander the third written by the kings own Commission which not being admitted afterward by the said Pope the king recalled the same with an Oath vnder his owne hand wherof the said Houeden writeth thus Iurauit etiam quòd neque Appellationes impediret neque impediri permitteret quin liberè fierent in Regno suo ad RomanuÌ„ Pontificem in Ecclesiasticis causis He swore also that he would neither let AppellatioÌ„s nor suffer them to be letted but that they might be made in his kingdom to the Bishop of Rome in causes Ecclesiasticall c. 77. All which things could not but be knowne to Syr Edward before he wrote this his Preface and that the Catholicke Deuine in his aÌ„swer to the fifth part of his Reports had produced so many euident arguments and probations that King Henry the 2. was most Catholick in this point in acknowledging the Popes supreme Ecclesiasticall authority notwithstanding the coÌ„tention he had with S. Thomas about the manner of proceding therin for the execution as none of his Ancestours were more which in like manner is euidently seene and confessed in effect by Syr Edward himself in that in his whole discourse of Reportes for improuing the said Popes Supremacy he alleageth not so much as one example or instaÌ„ce out of the raigne of this King which in reasoÌ„ he would not haue pretermitted if he could haue found any thing to the purpose therin 78. But yet now finding himselfe in straytes how to answere the Students demand about the aÌ„tiquitie of prohibiting Appeales to the Sea of Rome he was forced to lay hands on this poore example which was neither to his purpose in regard of the time being after the conquest as now you haue heard nor of the thing it selfe for that it was against him as being only a moderation of abuses yea and that in temporall things as Bishop Gilbert of London expresly aâ—oucheth recalled by the same King afterwardâ— and finally is wholy from the purpose chiefe question about the Popes supreame authority whereof this of Appeals is but one little member only And thus we see both how well and subâ—tantially Syr Edward hath mainteyned his assertion of the supereminent antiquity and excellency of his Municipall lawes and how direct and demonstratiue answers he hath made to the foure Questions or Cases deuised by himselfe for confirmation of the â—ame 79. And whereas he inserteth a note of Record of the decree of Claringdone that this recognition was made by the Bishops Abbots Priors c. of a certaine part of the Customes and liberties of the Predecessours of the king to wit oâ— King Henry the first his Grandfather and of other Kings which ought to be obserued in the kingdome wherby it semeth the Knight would haue vs imagine though he vtter it not that the same prohibition of Appeales might haue byn made and practized by other former Kings liuing before the Conquest it is found to be but a meere Cauill both by the Catholicke Deuine that shewed out of authenticall histories the coÌ„trary practise vnder all our Catholicke Kinges both before after the Conquest as here likewise it is conuinced by the words and confession of this King Hâ—Ì„ry the second himself that these pretended liberties of his Ancestours were brought in by himself only and in his tyme as is testifyed by Houeden in two seuerall Charters one of the Pope and the other of the King as also by an authenticall Record of the Vatican set downe by Baronius in his tweluth Tome So as here the Iudge hath nothing to lay hands on but to giue sentence against himself both of the Nimium and Nihil dicit as now yow haue seene And so much for this matter HOW THAT THE foresaid Nimium dicit as it importeth falsum dicit is notoriously incurred by Syr Edward Cooke in sundry other assertions also apperteyning to his owne faculty of the law which were pretermitted by the Catholike Deuine in his Answere to the 5. Part of Reportes §. V. FOR so much as the most part of this seauenth Chapter hath beene of omissions and pretermissions as you haue seene and these partly oâ— M. Morton in concealing such charges of vntruthes as had byn laid both against him as also against his Client Syr Edward partly of Syr Ed. himself in not answering for himself when he ought to haue done I thought it not amisse in this place to adioyne some other omissions in like manner on the behalfe of the Catholike Deuine who passed ouer in silence sundry notable escapes of his aduersary M. Attorney which he coÌ„mitted in cyting law-books and lawyers authorities against the Popes ancient iurisdictioÌ„ in spirituall cases in England and this partly for that he had not as then all the Bookes by him which were quoted and partly vpon a generall presumption that in this poynt M Atâ—orney would be exact for that he had so solemnly protested the same in his booke of Reportes as before hath byn touched to wit that he had cyâ—ed truly the verâ— words and textes of the lawes resolutions iudgments Acts of Parlament all publike and in print without any inference argumeÌ„t or amplification quoting particulerly the bookes yeares leaues chapters and other such like certaine references as euery man at his pleasure may see and read them 81. This is his protestation who would not belieue a man especially such a man and in such a matter at his word or rather vpon so many words so earnestly pronouÌ„ced especially if he had heard his new and fresh confirmation therof which he setteth â—orth in this other Preface to his sixt part wherin he sayth that euery man that writeth ought to be so careâ—ull of setting downe
himselfe many waies to get out He saith that though Nauclerus doth not affirme it yet Abbas Vrspergensis related by Nauclerus doth But why had not M. Morton mentioned Vrspergensis at the firsâ— and sincerly haue told his Reader that he did only relate the matter with this clause vt fertur as it is said Why if he would haue dealt plainly had he not confessed that Nauclerus did mislike and improue the said report that by the testimony of all Italian writers that he could read Nay why doth he now againe being taken in flagrante delicto misalleage Nauclerus words after that he had seene and read him saying Verùm cùm multi Itali nullam de hoc mentionem faciunt c. but wheras many Italians do make no mention of this wheras Nauclerus true words are Verùm cùm Itali quos legere potui nullam de hoc faciant mentionem Ioannes Flasboriensis alijque multam de Adriano reserant honestatem c. But wheras the Italian writers which I could come to see do make no mention of this matter Iohn of Salisbury and other Authors do relate much good of Adrian c. Haeâ— et alia ambiguum me reddunt quid potiùs eligendum quidùe credendum sit Scribimus enim res gestas affectu nonnunquam plusquam veritatis amore ducti Verùm vnum hoc adijcimus AdrianuÌ„ Virum â—uisse integrum c. These and other such things do make me doubtfull what were to be chosen or what were to be beleiued For that we do write other mens acts more oftentimes by affection then led therunto by the loue of truth VVhich wordes are euidently meant by Nauclerus of Vrspergensis taxing him that he wrote much of passion against Pope Adrian in behalfe of the Emperour Fredericke with whome he held against the Pope and that do the next ensuing wordes of Nauclerus shew which are cut of by M. Morton in relating them here in his Preamble Verâ—m hoc adijcimus Adrianum Virum â—uisse integrum c. but we adde notwithstanding to this that Pope Adrian was an irreprehensible man So as in this small speach oâ— Nauclerus by vs now related M. Morton insteed of Itali quos legâ—re potui reciteth his wordes to be Câ—m multi Itali he striketh out also Ioannes Flasboriensis alijque multam de Adriano reâ—erant honestatem he addeth of his owne that he was maledictus à Deo and finally he cutteth of the last of Nauclerus which containe his owne iudgment Adrianum Virum â—uisse integrum So as if now after he confesseth to haue seene Nauclerus he doth relate him so corruptly what great credit can be giuen to his former protesâ—ation that he had not seene nor read him Or what importeth whether he saw him or no for so much as he was resolute to corrupt him and to make him speake no more nor lesse then he would haue him to do as now you haue seene 28. So as to conclude this accompt wee see that M. Morton in going about to cleere himselfe fâ—om this charge of treacherie doth intangle himselfe with two or three other treacheries more And last of all not hauing what to say runneth to a coÌ„mon place that foure other Popes are reported to haue had disastrous ends to wit Anastasius 2. Ioannes 10. IoaÌ„nes 12. Vrbanusâ— as if wee defended that all Popes had good liues or prosperous deaths or that among our Kings of â—ngland Scotland who haue been peraduenture fewer then Popes many lamentable endingâ— were not to be found and yet may we not argue therof against the lawfullnesse of Kingly power or due respect to be borne to their persons and places or that it might be taken for an argument that God did abandon them and their digâ—ity for suffering them to dye disastrously as this man would inferre of Popes And finally how many Popes soeuer did dye vnfortunatly this doth not excuse M. Morton in belying Adrian and his Author Nauclerus from which it seemeth that he cannot be excused 29. And this in case all were true which he writeth of these other foure Popes whom impertinently he bringeth in to accompany Adrian but as in the one we haue found him manifestly false so in these also you shall not find him exactly true in any one thing lightly that he saith of them but still there must be some mixture of sleightfull tricks to disguise matters And to help out the dye to vse his owne phrase he beginneth thus But why should it be thought a matter incredible that suth a dismall end should befall a Pope Whervnto I answere that the question is not whether it be incredible that a dismall end may befall a Pope but whether such an end as yow describe did befall Pope Adrian or no And whether you haue vsed true dealing in the manner of recounting the same 30. It followeth in your narration out of one of our Doctors as you say Bene legitur Anastasium diuino nutu percussum interijsse It is read that Pope Anastasius was stroken with the hand of God and perished you cite for it Ioannes de Turrecremata lib. de summa Eccles de Anastasio VVhich citation is so set downe as I perswade my selfe that at the next reply he will haue the like euasion as before in citing of Nauclerus to witt that he saw not the worke it selfe For that Turrecremata doth not write only one booke de summa Eccles. as heere is insinuated but foure ech one of them hauing many chapters and one only hath more then a hundred which is this wherout this sentence is preâ—ended to be taken And yet doth M. Mortons citation specify neyther booke nor Chapter wâ—ich allwayes you must imagin hath some mystery in it He quoteth also de Anastasio as though the Author had some such Chapter wheras he only speaketh of this Pope Anastasius by way of answering certayne obiections about the cause of infallibility of not erring in the Bishop of Rome when he is to decree any thing for the Church wherabout some said that albeit a Pope might fall into heresy yet God would not permitt him to decree any thing hereticall wherof an example was brought of this Pope Anastasius 2. that being inclined as some thought by instance of the hereticall Emperour of his owne name Anastasius then lyuing to admitt vnto his communion the heretike Acatius and expecting only for that purpose as was thought the returning of his legate Festus from Constantinople God tooke him away before his returne Turrecremata his wordes are these Tertium etiam hic inducunt eâ—emplum de Anastasio qui licèt voluerit reuocare Acatium non tamen potuit quia Diuino nutu percussus est They bring in also heere a third example of Pope Anastasius who albeit he had a will to recall the heretike Acatius yet he could not do it for that he was stroken by the hand of God and dyed 31. This
notwithstanding this reseruation euen by the iudgement of P. R. a flat lye 39. This is his last and greatest argument wherof as presently you shall heare he vaunteth exceedingly conquering me first in his margent writing there An euident conuiction of P. R. And then againe A plaine demonstration to say no thing of the fetters shackells in the text it selfe And I haue thought best to lay forth his whole discourse as it lyeth togeather in his booke that heereby you may see with what manner of substance he filleth vp paper and what sort of shackells he hath to fetter men withall which are as strong as the netts of cobwebbes for that in this place his whole discourse and argument is founded vpon a manifest false ground and principle to wit vpon the meâ—re mistaking or fond supposition that the two answers of the Priest and the woman viz. I am no Priest with obligation to tell it vnto â—ou and I sould it for no more with obligation to giue vnto you are of equall falsity which still we deny he cannot proue and yet himselfe doth often heere repeat â—hat I do hould the answere of the Priest to be true â—nd hers to be false for that his was made to an inâ—ompetent Iudge and hers to a competent so as she was bound to haue answered directly to S. Peters meaning which being so what needed all this long obscure speach of M. Morton which might haue been â—poken in 4. lynes For I grant that the answers of â—he Priest and the woman do make ech of them in â—hemselues being mixt with their reseruation a whole perfect proposition as if they had byn vtâ—ered without reseruation 40. It is euident also that the womans proposition that she had sould her land for no more with obligation to giue it to S. Peter or to be spent in coÌ„mon this being the true effect and substance of her answere was a lye whether it had beene vttered wholy togeather in playne wordes or part in speach and part in mentall reseruation And M. Morton doth childishly suppose and affirme that euery one knoweth that it had bene a true speach For albeit the wordes of S. Peter in the text of the Actes of the Apostles be Tell me woman if you sould the â—eild for so much and her answere was Yea for so much yet is it euideÌ„t by the drift and circumstance of the place that S. Peâ—â—râ— meaning was whether they sold it for so much and no more and therfore if she did Equiuocate as M. Morton will haue her her secret meaning must needs be that she sould it for no more so as she was bound to vtter it or giue it vnto him or bring it to the coÌ„mon purse All which was false a lye in respect both of â—er vow to bring the whole to the common purse and for that S. Peter was her lawful and competent Iudge and she obliged therby to tell him the truth 41. Now then wee see after so many vaunts and braggs what M. Morton hath beene able to effect by these his arguments It shall not be perhaps amisse to add his confident conclusion wherin he doth recapitulate as it were the summe of all comparing these two answers of the Priest and the woman togeather Let vs saith he for conclusion parallele both these examples which are very neere a kinne For if we do compare speaker with speaker that is the woman and a Priest both will be thought to be Votaryes If outward speach with outward speach that is I haue sold it but for so much and I am no Priest both are negatiues If reseruation with reseruatioÌ„ as to tell it vnto you or to giue vnto you both are mentall If the forme with forme both equally ananswerable to the mynd of the speaker If finally end with end both are to deceiue the hearer Wherfore P. R. granting that no clause of reseruation could saue her specah from a lye must by irrepugnable consequence be forced to confesse that his I am no Priest vttered by a Priest to whomsoeuer it be spoken notwithstanding any mentall reseruation of to tell it vnto you is a Satanicall and damnable lye 42. The wordes of Satanicall and damnable are very frequent with M. Morton as you see God send him saluation and vs all freedome from Sathan and Sathanicall spirits which in no one thing are more discryed then by the facility of wilfull lying but to the matter His collection in his conclusion is like the making of a latin without the principall Verbe For wheras he gathereth in the said conclusion sundry points of likenesse and neernes of kinne as he calleth them to make the speaches of the Priest and the woman to seeme semblable he pretermitteth of purpose the chiefe and essentiall difference indeed of competent incompetent Iudge and obligatioÌ„â—rising theroÌ„ wherin we principally do insist for their difference and diuersity yet he saith as you haue heard that I granting that no clause of reseruation â—ould saue the womans speach from a lye must by irrâ—pugnaâ—le consequence be forced to grant also the same of the Prieâ—â—s answere But wheron I pray you is this irâ—epugnable consequence grounded Haue you seene any demonstration alleadged by him for it besides his â—nly imagination and fond â—upposition And yet â—s though he had done wonders indeed he inâ—ulâ—eth exceedingly in the very last lynes of this Paraâ—raph which are these â—3 And where is now saith he P. R. his boast of â—criptures Fathers Reasons Where is his Chalâ—enge of Canonists and School-deuines Where is â—â—s apeale vnto both our Vniuersities Nay where 〈◊〉 this man P. R. himselfe the new select Aduocate â—or this cause may he not say heerafter I was aâ—amed and therefore I hid my selfe So naked doth his â—eformity appeare He hath said That his Aduerâ—ary T. M. is like one who when the game is desâ—erate well notwithstanding play it out and see the â—â—st man borne Heere he himselfe hath made such a â—lot as cannot but be the vnfallible losse of his â—hole game who being pressed with this example â—ut of Scripture is driuen to such a vertigo and giddiâ—esse that euen when he would defend his art of Equiuocating from a lye is by coÌ„sequence from Gods word forced to confesse an outward speach which no clause of reseruation could saue from a lye whereby his owne Magi I doubt not will be brought to acknowledg that digitus Dei hic est this is the power of Gods truth And thus being contented for this present to haue my whole cause in both questions of Equiuocation and Rebellion so iustifyable that my Aduersarie his owne confessions may free me from his imputation of slaÌ„der I do with better alacrity proceed vnto his next challenge Thuâ— goeth this solemne vaunt 44. And truly he hath great cause to proceed with alacrity indeed if with so litle labour lesse learning â—e can make himselfe so victorious in both the
to haue their consent and approbation in so publike an action as that was 33. The fourth and last cause was sayth Bellarmine for that in those dayes albeit the B. of Rome were Head in spirituall matters ouer the Emperours themselues yet in temporall aâ—fairs he did subiect himselfe vnto them as hauing no temporall State of his owne and therefore acknowleging them to be his temporall Lords he did make supplication vnto them to commaund Synods to be gathered by their authority and licence At post illa tempora istae omnes causâ— mutatae sunt But since those dayes all these foure causes are changed ipse in suis Prouincijs est Princeps supremus temporalis sicut sunt Reges Principes alij And the Pope himselfe now in his temporall Prouinces is supreme temporall Lord also as other Kings and Princes are which was brought to pasâ—e by Gods prouidence sayth Bellarmyne to the end that he might with more freedome liberty reputatioÌ„ exercise his office of generall Pastourship 34. And this is all that Bellarmyne hath of this matter And now may we consider the vanity of M. Mortons triumph ouer him beâ—ore and how falsely he dealeth with him alleaging him against his owne drift and meaning leauing out also those foure causes by merâ— cited then cutting of frauduiently the particle istae these causes are now changed which includeth reference to these foure and furthermore speaking indefinitely as though â—ll causes and matters were now changed seeketh therby to deceaue his Reader and to extort from Bellarmyne that confession of antiquity on his syde which he neuer meant and much lesse vttered in his writings What dealing what conscience what truth is this c. 35. Thus I insisted then and was not this sufficient to draw some answere from M Morton if he had resolued to answere the points of most moment and most insisted vpon as he professeth But it shameth me to see him thus taken at euery turne Let vs go forward THE SEAVENTH Pretermitted falshood by Thomas Morton §. VII AFTâ—R Bellarmine yt shall not be amysse to bring in Salmeron another Iesuit whome M. Morton will needs shake also by the sleeue and shew him a tricke or two of his art in sundry places of his Booke wherof one is somewhat largely handled by me in this manner 37. In the second page quoth I of his pretended Confutation M. Morton hath these words In the old Testament the Iesuits are forced to allow that the King was supreme ouer tâ—e Priâ—sts in spâ—riâ—uall aâ—faires and ordering Priests For proofe wherof he citâ—th in the margent Salmeron a Iesuite a very learned man that hath left written in our dayes many volumes vpon the Gospells Epistles of S. Paul and othâ—r partes of Scripture and was one of the first ten that ioyned themselues with the famous holy Man Ignatius de Loyola for the beginnyng of that Religious Order in which citation diuers notable corruptions are to be seene First for that Salmeron proueth the quite contrary in the place by this man quoted to wit that neuer Kings were Head of the Church or aboue Priests by their ordinary Kingly authority in Ecclesiasticall matters in the new or old Testament and hauing proued the same largely he commeth at length to set downe obiections to the contrary and to â—olue and answere them saying Sed contra hanc solidam veritatem c. But now against this sound truth by me hitherto coÌ„firmed I know that many things may be obiected which we are diligeÌ„tly to confute First theÌ„ may be obiected that Kings in the old Testament did sometymes prescribe vnto Priests what they were to do in sacred things as also did put some negligeÌ„t Priests froÌ„ the executioÌ„ of their office To which is answered Vbi id euenisset mirum esse non debere If it had so fallen out yt had byn no meruaile for that the Synagogue of the Iewes albeit it conteyned some iust men yet was it called rather an earthly then â—n heauenly Kingdome in so much as S. Augustine doth doubt whether in the old Testament the Kingdome of heauen was euer so much as named and much lesse promised for reward and therfore those things that were then done among them foreshewed only or prefigured diuine things that were to succeed vnder the new Testament the other being not diuine but humane and earthly So Salmeron 38. Here then are sundrie important corruptions and frauds vttered by T. M. the one that the Iesuits and namely Salmeron are inâ—orced to allow the temporall King to haue byn supreme ouer the high Priest in spirituall matters vnder the old law whereas he doth expressely affirme and proue the contrary both out of the Scripture it selfe by the sacrifice appointed more worthy for the Priest theÌ„ the Prince and many other Testimonies as that he must take the law and interpretation therof at the Priests hands that he must ingredi egredi ad verbum Sacerdotis go in and out and proceed in his affaires by the word direction of the Priest and the like as also by the testimonie of Philo and Iosephus two learned Iewes and other reasons handled at large in this very disputation and in the selfe same place from whence this obiection is taken And this is the first falsyfication concerning the Authors meaning and principall drift 39. The secoÌ„d corruptioÌ„ is in the words as they ly in the latin copy as by me before mentioned Vbi id euenisset miruÌ„ esse non debere If any such thing had falleÌ„ out as was obiected to wyt that Kings sometimes had prescribed to the Priests what they should do in Ecclesiasticall things deposed some c. yt had byn no maruaile for so much as their Ecclesiasticall Kingdome or Synagogue was an earthly imperfect thing but yet this proueth not that it was so but only it is spoken vpoÌ„ a suppositioÌ„ which suppositioÌ„ this Minister that he might the more cuÌ„ningly shift of and auoid left out of purpose the most essentiall words therof vbi id euenisset if that had happened c. as also for the same cause to make things more obscure after those words of Salmeron that stand in his text Synagoga Iudâ—orum dicebatur terrenuÌ„ potiùs quà m caeleste regnum The Synagogue or Ecclesiasticall gouerment of the Iewes was called rather an earthly then an heauenly Kingdome where as contrarywise the Ecclesiaâ—ticall power in the Christian Church is euery where called Celestiall after those words I say this man cutteth of againe many lynes that followedâ— togeather with S. Augustines iudgment before touched which serued to make the Authors meaning more plaine and yet left no signe of c. wherby his Reader might vnderstand that somewhat was omitted but ioyneth againe presently as though it had immediatly followed Itaque cum populus Dei constet corpore animo carnalis pars in veteri populo primas tenebat Wheras Gods people
either in the one or the other point is not proued by any one of all these examples nor by them altogeather though they were granted to be true as here they lye For that they do not proue that either our Kings here mentioned did assume to theÌ„selues to haue Supreme authority in spirituall affaires or to take it from the Pope nay the Catholike Deuine in answering to Syr Edwards obiections herein doth euidently shew and proue yea conuinceth that these fiue English Kings here mentioned to wit King Edward the first Edward the third Richard the second Henry the fourth Edward the fourth vnder whom these Cases fell out did all of them most effectually acknowledge the Popes supreme authority in Ecclesiasticall matters and were obedient Children to the same as he shewed by sundry most cleare and apparant examples of their owne actioÌ„s towards the Sea Apostolike and that these particuler Cases supposing they were all true and fell out as heere they are set downe to wit that the publishing of a Bull of Excommunication in some Causes and vnder some King might be held for Treason as also that the Archbishops lands might be seysed vpon for refusing to admit the Kings presented Clerke that in Parlament it was said that the Regality of the Crowne of England depended not of Rome and that in certaine Cases no suites might be made thither without recourse first to the Ordinaries of England 72. Albeit I say that these things were all granted as they lie yet do they not inferre by any true coÌ„sequence that which the Knight and Minister should proue to wit that for this either these kings were or held themselues for supreme in spirituall authority at that tyme or that it was denied vnto the Pope Wherof this one is a most conuincent argument that the like Cases do or may fall out at this day in other Catholicke Countries and Kingdomâ—s as in France Spaine Naples and Sicily where â—here be diuers Concordates resâ—rictions limitations agreed vpon for auoyding further inconuenieÌ„ces betweene the Pope and Catholicke Kings and Princes concerning the manner of execution of Ecclesiasticall authority without any derogation to the Supremacy therof in the Pope And so might men be punished by the said Princes for breaking rashly the said agreements as they may and are dayly in the said Kingdomes especially in the last and yet do not these Kings thereby either deny the Popes supreme authority or take it to themselues as M. Attorney M. Morton do falsely ininferre in these our cases And thus it is manifest that albeit these exaÌ„ples were in all râ—spects truly alleaged yet are they impertinent to proue that which is pretended And this for the first point 73. But neither is it all true that heere is set down nor as it is set downe which is the second point to be considered For which cause though I find these fyue Cases sufficiently answered by the Catholicke Deuine in his late Booke against M. Attorney yâ—t for tâ—at the said Knight in his last Preface to the sixt part of his Reports doth say that he fyndeth him vtterly ignorant in the lawes of the Realme though as a Deuine he made no profession to be skilfull in the same yet shall I adde somewhat to the reuiew of these Cases whereby it may appeare at leastwise whether he to wit the Deuine or M. Attorney or M. Morton haue vsed the skill of their professions with more sincerity in this matter 74. The first Case thâ—n is thus set downe by M. Morton out of the Attorneys booke though not altogether as it lyeth in his booke but with some aduantage as the Attorney did out of his Bookes whereof he tooke his Case So as here is helping the dye on all haÌ„ds as you see In the Raigne of King Edward the first saith M. Morton a Subiect brought in a Bull of excommunicatiâ— against another Subiect of this Realme and published it But it was answered that this was then according to the ancient lawes of England treason c. as before is set downe 75. Wherein I must note first before I come to examine the answere already made that M. MortoÌ„ can not choose as it seemeth but to vse a tricke or two of his art of iugling euen with M. Attorney himself For whereas he relateth to with the Attorney that this Bull of excommunication was published to the Treasurer of England M. Morton clyppeth of all meÌ„tion of the Treasurer which notwithstaÌ„ding in this Case is of great moment for so much as it semeth that if he had published the same to the Archbishop or Bishops appointed to haue the view of such things and had brought their authenticall testimonies for the same it seemeth by the very booke it self of Iustice Thorpe who recounteth this Case by occasion of the Case of Syr Thomas Seaton and Lucy 30. E. 3. that it had byn litle or no peril at all vnto the publisher for that this reason is alleaged for the offence therein committed that for so much as the partie to wit Lucie against Syr Thomas Seaton did not shew any writ of excommunication or any other thing sealed by the Archbishop of England nor any other Seale that was authentike prouing this therfore the Bull was not allowed c. 76. This then was a fine tricke to cut of all mentioÌ„ of the Treasurer the other also immediatly following hath some subtilitie in it though not so much as the former to wit that it was answered that this was Treason c. for that in none of the bookes cited either of Thorpe or Brooke is any mention of such answere giuen as M. Morton feygneth nor any such iudgment of Treason passed theron as M. Attorney would make his Reader belieue as preseÌ„tly shall be proued So as these are the first two trickes of M. Morton to helpe his dye all the rest for the substance of the matter is like to fall vpon M. Attorney 77. First then the Answere of the Deuine vnto this Case not hauing commoditie at that time to see the two bookes of Thorpe and Brooke cyted in the margent was that it could not possibly be imagined by reason that the Case stood altogeather as M. Attorney did set it downe espâ—cially with this note in the margeÌ„t that the bringing in of a Bull against a subiect was Treason by the ancient coÌ„mon lawes of England before any Statute law was made therof for that the Deuine demandeth what this Common law was not made by Statute How was it made By whome Where At what time Vpon what occasion How introduced and commonly receiued for all this a Common law supposeth especially for so much as the said Deuine had shewed and aboundantly proued now that all precedent Kings of England both before and after the Conquest were most Catholicke in this very point of acknowledging the Popes supreme and vniuersall authority in spirituall affaires wherof the power
then I suppose his skill in Philosophie or history will be able to auerre or beare him out For that ancient Pliny in his naturall history treating of the nature of the Salamander which lyueth in fyre sayth not that he is hoat fiery but contrary wise so extreme cold of nature as he resisteth the very force of the fire if selfe So as whiles M. Attorney goeth about to accuse his aduersary of too much heate his example inferreth that he is ouer could that he mistooke quid pro quo And was not this a Nimium dicit in like manner 25. Another excesse though of meaner marke including also a NimiuÌ„ dicit is coÌ„mouly noted in Syr Edward all his speaches writings not wanting also in this litle preface which is a heaping together of many latin senteÌ„ces without Englishing or rightly applying them therby to seeme more admirable to the ignorant when they heare so frequent phrases and sentences which they vnderstand not and in other Countries it is accompted Pedanteria or playing the petty Schoolemaister nothing fit for graue men to vse wherof notwithstanding yow haue some store also in this litle Preface though but of one printâ—d sheet of paper as hath beene sayd for both in the first and last page he beginneth and endeth with that and few other pages pasâ—e without some respeâ—sion therof as ille didicit maledicere ego maledicta contenmere which sentence is euidently false in the eye and eares of all men that either haue read our books or heard him speake For as he cannot produce any maledictons of ours against him so haue we as many witnesses of his most bitter rayling against Catholicks Catholick Religion whose cause euery good man ought to esteeme a thousand times more theÌ„ his own as he hath writteÌ„ books scroles or libels against vs or hath giueÌ„ coÌ„tumelious Charges on the Bench which are continuall but especially and by name I remit my selfe to the most insolent inuectiue which he made against vs in his own CouÌ„trey at Norwich on the 4. of August anno Domini 1606. set forth afterward in print and againe in the same place at sundry tymes in the ensuing years in all which iniurious speaches besydes his other poeticall inuentions to make vs odious or ridiculous he triumphed also in this kynd of Grammaticall Pedanteria of alleaging sundry laâ—in sentences against vs wherof I may chance to haue occasion to treate more afterward 26. But I am departed vnawares from the examples of his present Preface and therefore shall returne thither againe When he saw himselfe ouerloaden with the multitude and variety of testimonies for prouing the principall question of the Popes supreme authority spirituall he answered thus For his Deuinitie and histories cyted by him only published in the sayd Booke ad faciendum populum I will not answere for then I should â—ollow him in his errour And is not this a goodly answere Was yt errour in the Deuine or vanity ad â—aciendum populum to proue by grounds of Deuinity Scriptures Fathers practice of the Primitiue Church and other lyke Theologicall proofes that Q. Elizabeth in right could not haue supreme Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction and out of all sortes of histories beloÌ„ging to England to conuince that none of her Ancestours did euer in fact pretend the same Was this only ad â—aciendum populum to hunt after popular applause How impertmently is this Grammaticall phrase applyed by Syr Edward 27. But let vs see the next In reading these and other of my Reportes sayth he I desire the Reader that he would not reade and as it were swallow too much at once for greedy appetites are not of the best digestion the whole is to be attayned by partes and nature which is the best guyde maketh no leape Natura non facit saltum In which words as I acknowlege the aduertisment to be good that a man ought not to reade too much togeather least he confound his memory So why this phrase of Natura non facit saltum is brought in but only for the forsaid Grammaticall oftentatioÌ„ I see not Nature maketh no leape but she procedeth orderly digesting one thing after an other it is true but what is this to proue that a man may not reade to much at one tyme Surely this leape of M. Attorney was somewhat wyde from the purpose and if his wrytings in law-matters be no more gracious and attractiue then are his discourses in Deuinity and Controuersies I presume the Reader that esteemeth his tyme worth the bestowing will not haue need of this aduertisment that he read not ouer much at once in his Reportes for that wearines will soone bring him to that moderation 28. And thus much haue I thought good to say briefly to such points of this Preâ—ace as concerne his Reply to the Catholicke Deuine for in effect Syr Edward answereth no more to all his large Booke theÌ„ now yow haue heard albeit in the â—ormer part of this his Preface he taketh another matter in hand which is first to auerre that the antiquity and excellency of our Municipall lawes in England which he calleth the Common do exceed all other humane lawes whatsoeuer in the world Then for proofe of this he bringeth in a Student of the sayd CoÌ„mon law to propose vnto him foure particuler Cases wherof the laâ—t for which all the other were brought in is whether the ancienâ— lawes oâ—â—ngland did admit any Appeales to Rome in Causes spirituall or Ecclesiasticall and then vaunteth presently thus I had no soâ—uer seene these questions saith he but instantly I found direct and demonstraâ—iue answere vnto the same But by his leaue Syr Edward must haue patieÌ„ce to let me tell him that his Answers are so far of from being demonstratiue that is to say euident certaine and irrepugnable as that they are not so much as Logicall that is to say probable nor haue any true forme or force of a lawfull argument in them for that they go about to proue vniuersalls by particulers and yet do not so much in effect as proue those seely particulers which they pretend These two points then are to be examined first about the supposed antiquity excelleÌ„cy of his Municipall lawes and secondly his proofe and confirmation therof by his Answers to the Students foure questioÌ„s deuised by himselfe For that no Student I suppose of any meane tallent of wit or learning would hauâ— proposed such questions for confirmation of so great a matter as is pretended or would haue byn content with so symple Answers as here are set downe VVHETHER THE Common Municipall Lawes of England be more ancient and excellent than any other humane Lawes of the world §. III. FOR better vnderstanding of this point I shall first set downe some lynes of Syr Edwaâ—ds narration which beginnâ—th thus Since the publishing of the fifth part of my Reports a good Student of the Common Lawes desyred to be
of beasts imprinted in their flesh by launcing cutting the same first to the end that the sayd painting with terrible colors might the better sinke in and Pliny doth adde that the very women also did obserue the same custome which seemeth also to haue continued somes ages after for that the Poet Claudianus vnder the Emperours Arcadius and Theodosius about foure hundred yeares after Christ speaking of the Britans of his time sayth of them Inde Caledonio velata Britannia monstro Ferro picta genas cuius vestigia verrit Caerulus oceaniqueâ—stum mentitur amictus In which verses the words ferro picta genas and caerulus amictus signifying that their faces were paynted with the dint of iron their habit blew do importe that this law and custome was long continued among them yet neuer receyued by the Romans Saxons nor Danes And Caesar yet goeth further shewing their Lawes and Customes about their wiues and Children Vxores habent deni inter se communes c. Ten men agreeing among themselues haue their wiues and Children in common 35. The same Caesar also and Diodorus Siculus and Strabo which two lyued soone after him vnder Augustus Caesar do recount other Lawes and Customes of the Britans of their dayes wherof we see no signe in ours as their order of fight in Chariots and Coaches with other thinges belonging to Chiualry And Pomponius Mela lyuing vnder the Emperour Claudius that went with an imperiall army into England some fyftie yeares after Christ saâ—th of the Britans in those dayes Inculti omnes tantùm pecore â—inibus dites that they were all withoâ—t poâ—icie and only rych by their cattle and pastures which importeth thaâ— they had no good Lawes to lend the RomaÌ„s in those daies and much lesse to deliuer them ouer to posterity 36. And yet further an hundred fyfty yeares after that againe wrote Cornelius Tacitus vnder the Emperour Domitian as also Solinus before mentioned who do both concurre in this that in their dayes the Britans were a people as on the one syde stout and valiant so on the other very rude and vnciuill for policy without discipline and order as also Counsaile or good direction especially in their warres Whervpon Tacitus sayth Dum singuli pugnant vniuersi vincuntur whiles euery one fighteth a part after his owne fancy they are all ouercome And I might hereunto adde diuers Greeke Historians as well as Latyn specially Herodian Dio Nicetus Xephilinus and others writing oâ— the Brytans their manners and customes vnder the Raigne of Seuerus the Emperour who went thither in person and dyed in Yorke two hundred yeareâ— after Christ and almost 300. after the Brytans had byn vnder the Roman gouerment and yet do the sayd Historiographers recount such extreame want of pollicy and Lawes among the Britans at that tyme which I take to be meant principally of the Northerne as scarce of any Countrey the like Nec moenia habent say they nec Vrbes nudi sine calceis vestis vsum ignorantes c. they had neither walles nor townes bâ—t weÌ„t naked without shoes not being acquainted with the vse of apparrel And to the end we may not think that the Southerne pâ—rtes were in much better state for policy Dio Nicetuâ— recouÌ„teth the speach of the Qu. Brundeuica vnder the Raigne of Nero which Queene dwelt in the most ciuill wealthy partes of Britany and yet obiected to the Romans that they were delicate and could not liue without corne meale wyne oyle shelter of house and other lyke commodities Nobis autem sayth shee quaeuis herba radix â—ibus est quiliâ—et succus oleum omnis aqua vinum omnis arbor domus But vnto vs and let vs marke that she putteth her seâ—fe among the â—est being a woman Captaine and Queene euery herb and roote is meate euery ioyce is oyle euery water is wyne and euery tree is a house Thus shee 37. And now here Syr Edward perhaps will say aâ— before he did of Theologicall authorities that I do alleage all these Histories ad faciendum populum which I do not but rather to shew that he hath no cause to vaunt that either himselfe or his fellow-Iustice are such Antiquaries as here he mentioneth not hauing seene as it seemeth nor considered this variety of auncient Histories wherby is proued that the lawes and customes of the Brytans were not such from the beginning and before Rome was builded as they may be preferred for their antiquity and excellency before the Roman Lawes whereas almost a thousand yeares after that the Roman Lawes had byn receyued in the world the Brytans had scarce any vse of policy or common Ciuility though afterward when by the benefit of Christian Religion especially they receiued the same they exceeded perhaps many otheâ— Countries in piety and religious polycie 38. Thus then is the first medium of Syr Edwards probation ouerthrowne about the antiquity of the Brytan Lawes before the Romans which is neyther true nor yf it were yet maketh it nothing to his purpose to pâ—oue that the CoÌ„mon Muâ—â—cipall Lawes of England were of that antiquity as prâ—sently shal be shewed And as for the other two instances that the sayd British Lawes are more anâ—ient then the Lawes of the Venetians which are most ancient of any othâ—r Nation of the world that worshipped God this I say is litle lesse thâ—n ridiculous For that first the Venetians as Blondus theiâ— owne Countrey man and Historiographer testifieth writing of their antiquity began â—irst to build their Citty and Common wealth vpon the yeare oâ— Christ foure hundred fiâ—ty and six which was vpon the point of twelue hundred yeares after the building of Rome and consequently the Venetian Lawes cannot be imagined to be oâ— more antiquity then the Romaâ— and much lesse then of other Nations more ancient then the Romans as the Carthaginians Grecians Aegiptians Medians Persians Syrians and the like 39. And secondly wherâ—as to temper the matter somewhat he addeth that the British Lawes are more anciâ—nt then of any naâ—ion of the world that worshipped God this addition of worshiping God is both from the purpose vntrue From the purpose for that Syr Edward exprely heere preteÌ„deth to speake only of humane Lawes so as whether the people whose Lawes they are do worship God or not is from the question Besides that M. Cooke I thinke will not deny but that the Romans worshipped God and were Christians at least many of them before the Britans if this made any thing to the purpose and yet will he haue the Britans Lawes to be more ancient then those of the Romans so as this circumstance of worshipping God is neyther true or to the purpose 40. Secondly it is vntrue that the British Lawes were before the Lawes of any Nation that worshipped God for that the Iewes worshipped God and may be presumed also to haue had some politicall Lawes for