graÌ„t the said immunityes and priuiledges And also those words of King Edwyn which of his Catholike predecessors S. Leo King Kenulphus were granted And againe By â—orce of the Letters and Bulles aâ—oresaid the said village of Culnam was a Sanctuary and place priuiledged 63. And hereby also is euident that the King did not by his Charter in Parlament for it appeareth to be made by the Counsaile and consent of his Bishops and Senators not by Parlamâ—nt as M. Attorney doth misreport it neither was there any Parlament held at that time in the land or many hundreth yeares after for as it appeareth by Holinsheads Chronicle pag. 34. the first vse of Parlaments in England was in the tyme of King Henry the first it is cleare I say that the King did not discharge and exempt the said Abbot from Iurisdiction of the Bishop nor did grant vnto the said Abbot Ecclesiasticall IurisdictioÌ„ within the said Abbey neyther had that abbot any Ecclesiasticall IurisdictioÌ„ deriued froÌ„ the Crowne But as it appeareth by the autheÌ„tike report of the Case the Pope the King did ioyne both in making the said Sanctuary according to their seuerall powers authorityes So that the exemptioÌ„ from Episcopall IurisdictioÌ„ proceeded duly from the grant of Pope Leo as likewise the exeÌ„ption froÌ„ all Regall temporall Iurisdiction proceeded froÌ„ the Charter of King Kenulphus Note also that King Edwins Grant was only that the said Monastery should be free from all earthly seruitude toucheth not any spirituall immunities or Iurisdiction at all 64. Thus far my friend out of England and by this now you may see how well M. Attorney hath obserued his foresaid protestation that he had cyted the very wordes textes of the Lawes without any inference argument or amplification at all And this being my friends aduertisment from England with like obseruation of manie other places cyted by M. Attorney with like fydelity I thought good to produce this one amongst manie being the first in order for a tast in this place reseruing the rest to a fitter or at leastwise to a second edition of the foresaid answere of the Catholike Deuine where euery thing may be referred to his due place and with this will I end this Chapter Thus far wrote I at that tyme in charg of Syr Edward THE DISCHARGE AND Reckoning about the former Charge made to Syr Edward Cooke §. V. YOV haue heard now this Charge how important substantiall yt is and who would not haue thought but that either Mâ— Morton or Syr Edward himself would haue answered somwhat to the same in their Replyes made since the publishing hereof or at leastwise would haue asmuch as mentioned yt especially M. Morton who in a certaine manner and law of vrbanitie was more obliged to take the patronage of Syr Edwards wrytings then himself for so much as the Charge was giuen in a Booke against M Morton and he had so highlie commeÌ„ded the sayd worke of his Reports as he calleth them The allwaies reportable and memorable Reports taking out of them sundrie heads of examples as his words are that improue the Popes Supremacie in causes Ecclesiasticall ascribe it to the king which that yow maie see how substantiall they are I shall take the paynes to set them downe here as they stand in his Book 66. I will point at some â—ew heads oâ— examples saith he oâ— our ancient ChristiaÌ„ kings which Syr Edward Cooke his Maiesties Attorney generall in his allwaies reportable memorable Reports hath lately published In the Raigne oâ— king Edward the fyrst saith he a Subiect brought in a Bull of excommunication against another Subiect oâ— this Realme published it But yt was answered that this was thâ—n according to the ancient lawes oâ— England Treason against the King and the Offendor had byn drawen and hanged but that by the mercie of the Prince he was only abiured the Realme c. 67. At the same tyme the Pope by his Bull had by way of prouision bestowed a benefice vpon one within the Prouince of â—orke the King presented another the Archbishop reâ—useth the Kings presentation and yelded to the Popes prouision This Archbishop then by the common law oâ— the land was depriued oâ— the lands oâ— his whole Bishopricke during lyâ—e And in the Raigne of king Edwâ—rd â—he third the king presented to a Benâ—â—ice his Presentee was disturbed by one who had obtayned a Bull from Rome for the which cause he was condemned to perpetuall imprisonment c. 68. In the Raigne oâ— Richard the second yt was declared in the Parliament R. 2. c. 2. that England had allwayes byn â—ree and in subiection to no Realme but imediatly subiect to God to none other and that the same ought not in any thâ—ng touching the Regaltie of the Crowne to be submitted to the Bishop of Rome nor the lawes of their Realme by him frustrated at his pleasure c. 69. In the Raigne of King Henry the fourth it was confirmed that Excommunication made by the Pope is oâ— no force in England c. In the Raigne of King Edward the fourth the opinion of the Kings Bench was that whatsoeuer spirituall man should sue another spirituall maÌ„ in the Court of Rome for a matter spirituall where he might haue remedy beâ—ore his Ordinary within the Realme did incur the danger of â—remunire being an heynons offence against the honour of the King his Crowne and dignity 70. Thus far M. Morton out of Syr Edward Cooke then he addeth Many other examples of like nature I pretermit and remit the Reader desirous to be further satisfied vnto the booke oâ— Reportes habet enim ille quod det dat nemo largiùs For he hath to giue and no man giueth more aboundantly This is his Encomium But what doth he giue truth or falshood sincere or wrested allegatioÌ„s matter to the purpose or impertinent That we shall here now discusse shew that neither the exaÌ„ples themselues are altogeather true as here they are set downe nor if they were yet doe they not prooue the purpose for which they are alleaged And first we shall proue the second which most importeth and it is easily proued 71. For first Syr Edwards purpose obligation was to proue that Q. Elizabeth by force of her temporall Crowne had all manner of Supreme authority in spirituall affaires no lesse then any person euer had did or could exercise in England as the words of the Statute haue alleaged by him and the purpose of M. Morton was as appeareth by the title of his Treatise to improue the Popes supreme authority in Causes Ecclesiasticall So as both their ends and purposes were by different meanes to proue that the Pope had no supreme authority in Ecclesiasticall matters for time past in England the one by ascribing all to the King the other by denying it to the Pope But this purpose of theirs
other Princes being of contrary beliefe haue also made the contrary lawes 16. These heads of demonstration togeather with foure more not vnlike to these which for breuity I do pretermit being laid forth at large by the Deuine with the manifest proofes and declarations out of the ancient and irrefragable histories of our Nation to make this euident inference that our Christian Kings before the Conquest did all of theÌ„ acknowledge the Popes supreme Iurisdiction in spirituall affayres and consequently they acknowledged also that it appertayned not to themselues And wheras the Attorney to proue his assertion alleageth two examples before the Conquest the one of K. Kenulphus about a Priuiledge he gaue to the Abbey of Abingdon the other of K. Edward the Conâ—essour that sayth That a King as Vicar of the highest must defend the Church it is answered by the Deuine that both of these examples do make against M. Attorney The first for that there is expresse mention that this Priuiledge was giuen by Authority from the Pope and the second that it is nothing to the purpose K Edward speaking of temporall Authority wheÌ„ he sayth That the King is Vicar of the highest and in the very same place insinuating most manifestly that in spirituall affayres the Pope is supreme and consequently that both these authorities were frandulently brought in by M. Attorney yea the former most willâ—ully corrupted as I do shew more largely and particulerly in the end of my twelfth Chapter of my booke of Miâ—igation And was not all this to the purpose Or will M. Attorney call this a Nihil dicit wheÌ„ the cause shall come before him in seat of Iudgment 17. Lastly the Deuine comming downe from the tyme of the Conquest vnto our dayes to wit to the raigne of K. Henry the viij sheweth largely in the seuerall liues of euery one of those Kings that in this point of the Popes supreme Ecclesiaâ—ticall Authority they were all vniforme in one the selfe same beliefe and acknowledgment which he proueth out of their owne wordes factes lawes histories other authenticall proofes And if at any time there fell out any disagreement or disgust betweene any King and the Pope that liued in his tyme it was only vpon particuler interests complaints of abuses by officers euill informers or the like for remedy wherof some restrictions agreements or concordates were made as now they be also in other Catholick Countries not for that any English King from the very first Christened vnto K. Henry the 8. nor he neyther for the first 20. yeares of his raigne did euer absolutly deny the Popes supreme Iurisdiction in Ecclesiasticall causes 18. And secondly the sayd Deuine answereth fully to all those pieces and parcels of lawes that M. Attorney produceth which are shewed either fraudulently to be alledged or wholly misconstred or vtterly to be impertinent to the conclusion which they should inferre And shall this in like manner be iudged from the purpose and a Nihil dicit where now is that Iudge that gaue sentence â—or him in this behalfe will he come forth stand to his sentence Or will Syr Edward Cooke be so vnreasonable in this behalf as to request any man to belieue him that such a Iudgment was giueÌ„ for him Or that he fouÌ„d so vniust a Iudge as would giue such a sentence so contrary to all conscience sense and reason But yow must note that many men haue noted this to be somewhat singular in Syr Edward Cooke as many other points be that when he talketh of Catholicks or their aâ—fayres he is so confident resolute precipitant in his asseuerations against them especially when he preacheth on the Bench or giueth his Charge that except we belieue him at his bare word contrary to all liklihood of truth the most part of that he speaketh will seeme to be wilfull vntruthes spoken against his owne conscience so litle he remembreth the saying of the prophet Pone ostium circumstantiae labijs meis I do not say they are lyes for that were inurbanity considering his present dignity but that they may seeme such to the wyser sort for that they lacke this doore of true circumstances to make them probable wherof we shall haue occasion to touch some more examples afterward Now we shall passe on to examine whether this Nihil dicit obiected to his Aduersary do not fall more iustly vpon himselfe and therwith also an opposite charge called a Nimium dicit which is to speake more then is true THAT THE Imputation of Nihil dicit doth fall more rightly vpon M. Attorney as doth also the Nimium dicit or euerlashing in his assertions §. II. HAVING shewed now that the Nihil dicit cannot be ascribed to the Catholicke Deuine for that he left written so much and so effectuall to the purpose he had in hand it would be an easie mâ—tter to shew in regard of the contrary effectes that the saâ—e remaineth with M. Attorney both for that he answered litle or nothing and that wholy from the purpose The â—irst is manifest by this new Preface of his wherin he answereth scarce halfe a page to more then 400. pages of my booke written against him The second also is not obscure by that I haue written in the precedent Paragraph of the impertinencie of proofs produced against vs which afterward perhaps may be better examined and consequently for both these respects the Nihil dicit lighteth vpon himselfe 20. Now then lâ—tting passe this Nihil dicit we shall contemplate a while the Nimium dicit when more is vttered then the truth with shall be the proper argument and subiect of this present section or Paragraph and this only about such matters as he hath now freshly and lasâ—ly vttered in this Preface that in all conteyneth but one only printed sheet wherby appeareth how great a volume it would arise vnto on our behalfe if we should examine the vntâ—uthes of all his other writings against vs. 21. To begin then with that which before we touched he auoucheth in this his Preamble That he could not fynd in all the booke any autâ—ority out of the bookes of Common lawes oâ— this Realme Acts of Parlaments or any legall and Iudiâ—iall records quoted or cyted by the Catholiâ—ke Deuine for the mantenance oâ— any of his opinions or conceipts wherupon as in Iustice sayth he I ought I had iudgment giuen for me vpon a Nihil dicit Thus farre the Knight wherby you perceaue that the immediate cause of this iudgment giuen in his fauour was grounded vpon this presumption that the Deuine neyther quoted nor cyted any one such witnesse throughout all his booke which if it be euidently false as now I shall proue it then must the Iudge confesse if he will not be Iudex iniquus that the sentence of Nihil dicit is to be reuoked as vniust 22. Let vs see then how true or false this assertion is or rather how many seuerall falshoods
6. His first reason of Impossibility and that confessed as he saith by me is for that Catholicke subiectes do belieue that in some cases there is power left by God in the Church and head therof the Bishop of Rome ouer Princes to vse not only spirituall Censures for restraint of exorbitant excesses but temporall remedies also eyther directly or indirectly when vrgent necessity of the Common-wealth should require and no other sweeter meanes could preuaile Wherof M. Morton will needs inferre that our combynation in ciuill concord and obedience to our temporall Prince can not stand no more sayth he then Iewes and Iebuzites in one kingdome Isaac and Ismael in one house Iacob Esau in one â—ombe and then a litle after that our concord staâ—deth of no more possibility then Pope no Pope Kings Supremacy and not Supremacy which opposites saith he can neuer be reconciled togeather Wherto I answere that in beliefe and doctryne they cannot be reconciled but in cyuill life and conuersation and practice of due temporall obedience they may be no lesse for any thing touching this point then if they were â—ll of one ReligioÌ„ iâ— such make-bates as these would â—ease to set sedition for that all Catholicke subiects also of other Countryes do hold and acknowledge this doctryne without any preiudice at all of their fidelity affection or dutifull Allegiance towardes their Soueraigne Princes liege Lordes though ther be sundry cases wherin their said Princes may be obâ—oxious to the execution of this doctryne besydes difference of Religion which one poynt of different Religion this Stickler doth only vrge in this our caâ—e as most odious 7. But iâ— all those Christian Princes that haue bin censured by the Church froÌ„ Christes tyme downeward were layd togeather whether Emperours Kings or others the far greater part of them would be found to haue byn chastised and pursued not so much for any difference of Religion as for other causes and crymes And if we looke vpon our tymes since Protestant Religion hath byn named in the world we shal fynd only two to haue beene proceded against by the Church and many other neuer touched as the King of Denmarke the Intruder of Suetia the Duke of Saxony the Count Palatine of Rhene the Marques of Brandeburge and diuers other Princes and States as also those of Holland and Zeland and lastly his Maiestie that raigned aboue 30. yeares in Scotland professing Protestant Religion and now some good number of yeares in England without that any Pope hath gone about to vse that authority against them which is heere made by M. Morton so perilous and pernicious as though it were impossibâ—e for his Kingdome and Crowne to be in safety while this doctrine is beleiued or extant in bookes which being throughout all Christendome receiued by the whole Catholicke world will be hard for the Minister to remoue or extinguish coÌ„sequeÌ„tly he laboureth but in vaine or rather far worse then in vaine endeauoring to intangle his Princes mind with a perpetuall restles remediles iealosy suspitioÌ„ solicitude impossible euer to be cured as himselfe striueth to proue by those his impossibilityes though they proue not indeed the point it selfe which he would perswade that there is no meane of ciuill quiet vnion in life whilest this doctrine of the Popes authoritie is belieued of his subiects 8. His other two next reasons of impossibilitie for he hath foure in all are so obscurely and intricately set downe as if he vnderstand them himself it is much in my opinon for as for me I confesse I see not what inference can be made out of them though I haue perused them ouer with much attention more then twice and the same I suppose the common Reader will say when he hath in like manner considered of them For they concerne onely the excoÌ„munication of Q. Elizabeth and of King HeÌ„ry the fourth of France which Censure was promulgated by two seuerall Popes of this our age and consequently the doctrine is dangerous saith he But I haue shewed now that more then three times so many Protestant Princes were tolerated by other Popes how theÌ„ do these two examples inferre so generall a necessitie of disobedience in all Catholicke subiects yea and an impossibilitie of the contrarie that they can be obedient â— His fourth and last reason of impossibility â— wherin saith he may be obserued a sportâ—ull or rather exâ—crable impostureshipp of P. R. consisteth in this that wheras I do write in my Treatise of Mitigation that â—ut of Catholicke doctrine concerning Papall auâ—hority in some cases to wit when we talke what â—opes may absolutly do M. Morton argueth and will â—eedes inferre that such such great dangers may â—â—sue to Princes thereby I do answere him thus â—hat all this arriueth but to a may so as the questiâ—n being but de fuâ—uris contingentibus of things continent and to come wherof the Philosopher sayth â—â—ere is noâ— sâ—ieÌ„ce all remaineth in doubtfull vncerâ—â—inty but only the suspitioÌ„ enuy hatred which â—â—e Minister would rayse against vs. But on the conâ—â—ary what the ProtestaÌ„ts doctrine hath donne and â—oth at this day against lawfull Princes in their â—â—almes their armies do shew c. This in effect I â—id then and vpon this M. Morton entreth now into â—reat choler saying not only that this my answere 〈◊〉 an execrable impostureshipp as before you haue heard â—ut also he further breaketh into these patheticall â—ordes of ridiculous exaggeration I cannot laugh saith â—e for wonder horrour to see any English man conceyt so basely 〈◊〉 the wits worth of his Countrymen as to imagine they could 〈◊〉 delâ—ded with so senslesse so shamelesse so pernicious so impiâ—â— a mitigation as this is to be perswâ—ded therefore not to â—â—bour â—or preuenâ—ing ensuing dangers because they be continâ—ent that is such as may happen what can be more senseles Do you see this mans heat and do you marke how â—ocond and prachant he is when he getteth a little matter wherat he may make a shew to speake somewhat probably 10. Heere then he inueigeth and insulteth against me as though I did hold that there were no prouideÌ„ce or care to be had of future perills that are contingent saying Doth not nature in beasts reasoÌ„ in man precept of God teach vs the law of prouidence euen thâ—rfore to â—eeke to preuent ensuing dangers because they are contingent and may be heraâ—ter But M. Morton doth either willfully misâ—ake me or els I cannot conceyue so well of his wit and worth as he would haue me if he vnderstand me not For I doe not dispute against prouidence in generall in things that are contingent and may fall out for I know conâ—esse that prouidence is a principall part of the high vertue of prudeÌ„ce surnamed Cardinall wherby man is likned to God surpasseth all other terrene creâ—tures yet say I therwithall that it
learnedly by a distinction for that as he saith the selfe same Tyrant may be killed and not killed by a priuate man in regard of publicke or priuate iniuries 43. But this euasion is ouerthrowne by the words whole discourse of Doctor Boucher now alledged for that he speaketh not only against killing a TyraÌ„t for priuate iniuries by a priuate man but also in publicke iniuries for so doth shew his allegation of the Decree of the Councell of Constance that condemned as an errour in faith to hold with Iohn VVickcliffe that euery Tyrant may be slayne meritoriously by any vassall or subiect of his by open or secret treasons which is vnderstood as well for publicke as priuate iniuries 44. But it is graunted by D. Boucher saith M. Morton that when the common wealth hath condemned and declared any Tyrant for a publick enemy he may be slaine by a priuate man Wherto I answere that then he is no priuate man for that he doth it by a publike authority of the Common Wealth as doth the exâ—cutioner that cutteth of a Noble mans head by order and authority of the publicke Magistrate so as in this M Morâ—ons distinction seâ—ueth him to no purpose for that neither for priuate or publicke iniuries can a priuate man as a priuate man that is to say by priuate authoritie kill any Prince though he were a Tyrant for any cause either priuate or publicke whatsoeuer So as in this principall charge M. Morton remaineth wholy conuicted as you see 45. There do rest the two other wings of falshod obiected vnto him the first that he stroke out the wordes of most importance froÌ„ D. Bouchers discourse which made the matter cleare to wit quem hostem Respublica iudicauerit whome the Common-wealth hath adiudged for a publicke enemie him may a priuate man kill and the second that he addeth the other clause of his owne that are not found in Bouchers wordes VVhich I say by common consent The first of these two falshoods he would excuse by saying that albeit that D. Boucher in the place before alleadged out of his third booke doth set downe this position with the foresaid restriction priuato etiam cuiuis Tyrannum quem hostem Respub iudicauerit occidere licitum esse that it is lawfull also to any priuate man to kill a Tyrant whome the Commonwealth hath iudged for a publike enemy for then he doth it not by priuate authority yet that in his fourth booke he hath a whole Chapter to proue that in some vrgent cause the matter may be preuented as when the thing is so notorious instant and perilous as the said publicke iudgement cannot well be expected and may be presumed as graunted especially saith he in poâ—na priuatiua in priuatiue punishment that is to say when subiects in punishmeÌ„t of open and manifest tyranny do withdraw their due respect and obedience by seeking only to defend themselues though not in positiua in positiue punishment of actuall rebellion or warre offensiue But this doth not any way satisfy the falshood obiected in striking out thesâ— wordes in the former booke place where D. Boucher set them downe for declaration of this doctrine that a priuate man was not licenced to kill a Tyrant by his owne priuate authority for when Subiects are forced to vse this way of preuention by armes defensiue before the common-wealth can make publicke declaration in such cause they do it not as priuate men but as the body of the Common-wealth So as considering what heere is in question he must needs be condemned of a nihil dicit if not also of â—alsum dicit 46. And the very like may be said about the second accessory vntruth for adding the wordes which I say by common consent for excuse wherof he runneth to the other Chapters wherin he saith that D. Boucher auoucheth Mirum esse in affirmandâ— consensuÌ„ there is woÌ„derfull coÌ„sent in allowing this doctrine and then in another Chapter that he who denieth this that he sayth is destitute of common sense But these are of other matters and spoken vpon other occasioÌ„s and not annexed to the former sentence of D. Boucher produced and corrupted by M. Morton and consequently they are mere impertinent euasions that do more confirme and establish then any way remoue the fraudes and falshoods obiected against him And so much of this matter which would grow ouer long if we should prosecute the same as M. Mortons manner of answere would inuite vs. THE FOVRTH Charge of falshood pretended to be answered or rather shifted of by M. Morton and cast vpon R. C. §. IIII. AMONG other examples that I alleaged of M. Mortons spirit in dealing vnsincerely by calumniating our Catholicke writers therby to get some shew of aduantage against them and the Catholick cause I produced a place out of M. VVilliam Reynolds his booke de Reipublicae authoritate most notoriously abused and peruerted to make him seeme to abase the authority of Kings and Princes in that very place where M. Reynolds did specially imploy himselfe in aduancing their dignity I shall heere lay forth the fraude you shall iudge what manner of consciences these men haue and whether they defend their cause as a cause of truth or no. This then was my former repreheÌ„sion about his dealing in this point The Charge 48. In his booke of Discouery pag. 8. hauing set downe this false proposition that all Catholick Priests did proâ—esse a prerogatiue oâ— the people over all Princes for prooâ—e therof he cyâ—ed this position of M. Reynoldeâ— in the place aforsaid Rex humanâ— creatura est quia ab hominibus constiâ—uta and englisheth it in this manner a King is but a creature of mans creation where you see first that in the translation he addeth but mans creation of himselfe â—or that the latin hath no such aduersatiue clause as but nor creation but rather the word constitution Secondly these words are not the words of M. Reynolds but only cited by him out of S. Peter and thirdly they are alleaged heere by Thomas Morton to a quitte contrary sense from the whole discourse and meaning of the Author which was to exalt and magnify the Authority of Princes as descending from God and not to debase the same as M. Reynolds is calumniated to say For proofe heerof whosoeuer will looke vpon the booke and place it selfe before mentioned shall fynd that M. Reynolds purpose therin is to proue that albeit earthly Principality power and authority be called by the Apostle humana creatura yet that it is originally from God and by his commandement to be obeied His words are these Hinc enimest c. Hence it is that albeit the Apostle do call all earthly principality a humane creature for that it is placed in certayne men from the beginning by suffrages of the people yet election of Princes doth flow from the law of Nature which God created and from the vse of
of humble subiection which we haue receiued from our Fathers of the first six hundred yeares and not so only but which as your Barkley witnesseth the vniuersall Christian world imbraced with common consent for a full thousand yeares So he 28. And do yow see how this Mynister tryumpheth Who would thinke that men of conscienâ—e or credit could make such ostentation vpon meere lyes deuised by themselues as now we shall shew all this brag to be And as for D. Barkley alleadged â—n the last lynes let any man read him in the bookâ— Chapter cyted and he will wonder at the impudency of this vaunter for he speaketh no one word of gathering Councells or comparison of spirituall authority betweene the Pope and Emperour concerning their gathering of Councells or Synods but of a quite different subiect of taking armes by subiects against their lawfull temporall Princes And what will our Minister then answere to this manifest calumniation so apparently conuinced out of D. Barkley But let vs passe to the view of that which toucheth Cardinall Bellarmine against whom all this tempest is raised 29. First then we shall set downe his words in Latyn according as T. M. cyteth him in his margent Tunc Concilia generalia sievant sayth he non sinâ— Imperatorum sumptibus eâ— tempore Pontifex subijcieâ—at se Imperatoribus in temporalibus ideo non poterant inuito Imperatore aliquid agere idcirco Pontiâ—ex supplicaâ—at Imperatori vt iuberet conuocari Synodum At post illa tempora omnes causae mutatae sunt quia Pontifex qui est Caput in spiritualibus non est subiectus in temporalibus Then in those daies generall Councells were made not without the charges of Emperours and in that tyme the Pope did subiect himselfe vnto Emperours in temporall affaires and therefore they could do nothing against the Emperours will for which cause the Pope did make supplication to the Emperour that he would commaund Synods to be gathered but after those tymes alâ— causes were changed for that the Pope who is head in spirituall matters is not subiect in temporall affaires So he 30. And here let vs coÌ„sider the varietie of â—leights and shifts of this our Mynister not only in cyting Bellarmynes wordes falsely and against his meaning and drift in Latin wherof we shall speake presently but in peruerting this Latin that he hath so corruptly set downe in his former English translatioÌ„ For first hauing said according to the latin that generall Councells in these daies were not gathered without the cost of Emperours he addeth presently of his owne were made by their consents which is not in the Latin then he cutteth of the other words immediatly ensuing which conteine the cause to wit for that the Popes subiecting themselues in those dayes touching temporalities vnto the Emperours as hauing no temporall States or dominion yet of their owne could do nothing without them and therefore did make supplication to the said Emperours that they would coÌ„maund Synods to be gathered which T.M. translateth that they would gather Synods as though Bellarmine did affirme that it lay in the Emperours by right to do it but after those tymes omnes causae mutatae sunt all causes were changed but he should haue said are changed as Bellarmyns true words are omnes istae causae all these causes are changed to wit foure sortes of causes which he setteth downe why generall Councells could not be well gathered in those dayes without the Emperours help and authority with causes are guilfully cut of by this deceiuer as in like manner the last words put downe here by himselfe Pontifex non est subiectus in temporalibus are falsely translated cannot be subiect in temporall And againe afterward Popes might not be subiect in temporall matters which is to make Bellarmine contrary to himselfe who saith a litle bâ—fore that the Popes did subiect themselues for many yeares wherby is proued that they could do it But Bellarmyns meaning is that in right by the prehemynence of their spirituall dignity they were exempted and not bound therunto 31. And thus much now for the corruptions vsed in the words heere set downe both in Latin and English But if we would go to Bellarmyne himselfe and see his whole discourse and how brokenly perfidiously these lynes are cut out of him and heere patched togeather as one entire context contrary to his drift and meaningâ— we shall maruaile more at the insolencie of Tho. Morton tryumphing ouer his owne lye as before hath byn sayd For that Bellarmyne hauing proued at large and by many sortes of arguments and demonstrations throughout diuers Chapters togeather that the right of gathering generall Councells belongeth only to the B. of Rome and hauing answered all obiections that could be made against the same in the behalfe of Emperours or other temporall Princes granting only that for certaine causes in those first ages the same could not be done in respect of temporall difficulties without the help and assistance of the said Emperours that were Lords of the world he commeth to make this conclusioÌ„ which heere is cyted by T. M. but in farre other words and meaning then here he is cyted Yow shall heare how he setteth it downe and therupon consider of the truth of this Mynister Habemus ergo sayth he prima illa Concilia c. Wee haue then by all this disputation seene how those first Christian Councells were commanded by Emperours to be gathered but by the sentence and consent of Popes and why the Pope alone in those dayes did not call Councells as afterward hath byn accustomed the reason wasâ— not for that Councells gathered without the Emperours coÌ„seÌ„t are not lawful as our aduersaries would haue it for against that is the expresse authority of S. Athanasius saying QuaÌ„do vnquaÌ„ iudicium Ecclesiae ab Imperatore authoritatem habuit When was it euer seene that the iudgment of the Church did take authority from the Emperour But for many other most iust causes was the Emperours consent required therin c. So Bellarmyne 32. And heere now see that Bellarmins drift is wholy against M. Mortons assertion for that he denieth that euer the Emperours had any spirituall authority for calling of Councells but only that they could not well in those daies be made without them and that for foure seuerall causes wherof the first was for that the old Imperiall lawes made by Gentills were yet in vse wherby all great meetings of people were forbidden for feare of sedition except by the Emperours knowledge and license The second for that Emperours being temporall Lords of the whole world the Councellâ— could be made in no Citty of theirâ— without their leaue The third for that generall Councells being made in those daies by the publike charges and contributions of Cytties and especially of Christian Emperours themselues as appeareth by Eusebius Theodoretus and other writers it was necessary
Dioscorian hereticks lately condemned in the sayd Councell all things are in most violent garboyles which require your Imperiall power to remedy compose and compresse the same 65. This is the true meaning of S. Leo his speach to the good and religious Emperour of the same name as appeareth throughout the whole Epistle here cited and diuers others Nonne perspicuum est sayth he quiâ—us Pâ—eâ—as Vestra succurrere qâ—â—buâ— obuiare â—e Alexandrina Ecclesia c. â—s it not euident whome your â—mperiall piety ought to assâ—st and succour and whom yow ought to resist and represse to the end the Church of Alexandria that hitherto hath byn the â—ouse of prayer become not a denne of theeues Surely it is most maniâ—est that by this late barbarous and most furious cruelty in murdering that Patriarch all the light of heauenly Sacraments is there extinguished Intercepta est Sacrificiij oblatio defecit Chrismatis sanctificatio c. The oblation of Sacrifice is intermitted the hallowing of Chrisme is ceasedâ— and all diuine mysteries of our religion haue withdrawne themselues â—rom the parricidiall hands of those hereticks that haue murdered their owne Father and Patriarch Proterius burned his body and cast the ashes into the ayre 66. This theÌ„ was the cause occasioÌ„ wherin the holy Pope Leo did implore the help secular arme of Leo the Emperour for chastising those turbulent hereticks to which effect he saith that his Kingly power was not only giuen him for the gouerment of the world but also for the defence of the Church which our Mynister doth absurdly translate not only in worldly regiment but also spirituall for the preseruation of the Church turning ad into in and praesidium into preseruation and then maketh the Commentary which before we haue set downe As if he had said quoth he not only in causes temporall but also in spirituall so far as it belongeth to outward preseruation not to the personall administration of them 67. Thus far I wrote hereof before and proceded also further shewing not only that he had corrupted both the text sense and meaning of S. Leo but also that fondly he had affirmed that the Oath of Supremacie exacted by King Henry and some of his followers in England was nor is any thing els but the acknowledging of so much authority spirituall as S. Leo granted to the Emperour of his dayes Wherupon I do ioyne isâ—ue with him and promise that if he can proue it to be no other then that all Catholicks in my opinion will accept the same and so come to vnion and concord in that point And therupon I did vrge very earnestly that this assertion might be mainteyned saying among other things Me thinks such publike doctrine should not be so publikely printed and set forth without publike allowance and intention to performe and make it good If this be really meant we may easily be accorded yf not then will the Reader see what credit may be giuen to any thing they publish notwithstanding this Booke commeth forth with this speciall commendation of published by authority c. Which words in my iudgmeÌ„t should haue moued M. Morton to haue sayd somwhat to the matter in this his answere and not to haue passed it ouer so slyly as though neuer mention had byn made therof But euery man will ghesse at the cause and so we shall expect it at some other time THE FOVRTEENTH Pretermitted falshood by T. M. §. XIIII LET vs come backe from Pope Leo vnto another priuate Doctor named Genesius Sepulueda whom M. Morton in words calleth ours but yet would make him his if he could in the question of Equiuocation and for that he will not come of himselfe so farre as he would haue him he giueth him a wrinch or two to force him to draw neerer wherof my former accusation was this that ensueth 69. And lastly quoth I where M. Morton concludeth the whole matter by the testimony of our Doctor Genesius as he calleth him I haue told before how he is ours and how in some sort he may in this controuersie be called his though he detested his Religion as by his works appeareth Ours he is as in all other points of Religion so in the subsâ—antiall and principall point of this question for that he defendeth the vse of Equiuocation in concealing some secrets but denieth it in others wherein he fauoreth somewhat the aduerse party with small ground as in the next Chapter shal be declared But what saith this Doctor Genesius He will tell yow sayth M. Morton that this sense of this text of Scripture which yow conceale is not only contrary to the sentence oâ— all Fathers but also against all common sense And is this possible Will Sepulueda deny all those Fathers alleadged by me before for our interpretatioÌ„ to be Fathers Will he say that their exposition is coÌ„trary to all common sense doth not Genesius himselfe in the very Chapter here cited alleage both S. Hierome and S. Augustine for this interpretation and alloweth the same What shameles dealing then is this of our Mynister to charge Genesius with such folly or impiety which he neuer thought of For Genesius denieth not either the sense or interpretation of the place and much lesse sayth that it is coÌ„trary to the sentence of the Fathers and least of all to coÌ„mon sense but denieth only the application therof for vse and practise to certaine Cases wherin he admitteth not Equiuocation and saith that vpon this interpretation to bring in such a new law were greatly inconuenient wherin afterwards notwithstanding we shall shew him to haue byn greatly deceiued his Latin words are Contrà non modò veterum grauissimorum Doctorum sed communem hominum sensum quasi legem inducere to bring in as it were a law not only against the iudgment of ancient most graue schole Doctors for of theÌ„ only he speaketh in that place but also against the common sense or opinion of men 70. This is Genesius his speach wherin though his iudgment be reiected by other Scholmen as singular and paradoxicall in this point as after shal be declared yet is he egregiously abused by M. Morton who first maketh him to say of the interpretatioÌ„ sense of this place of scripture that which he speaketh only of the applicatioÌ„ therof to vse practice in tribunalls And secondly he maketh him to discredit the Fathers which himselfe alleageth then he englisheth ancient Fathers for ancieÌ„t Schoole doctors last of all addeth consensum of his own leauing out hominum to make it sound common sense and other such abuses which any man may see by conferring the place And these are other manner of synnes then symple Equiuocation yf the art of falsifying or forgery be any synne with him at all And so much for this place of Scripture Thus wrote I in my said Treatise being earnest as you see to draw some answere from M.
of excommunication throughout the world vpon iust causes is a principall member so as except they would introduce a law contrary to their owne beliefe or suffer a law to grow and be made coÌ„mon in their Realme without their knowledge or assent it is absurd to imagine that there could be such a Common law against the Popes ExcoÌ„munications before the dayes of King Edward the first and before any Statute was made against the same as M. Attorney auoucheth 78. Secondly he sheweth out of the testimony of Matth. VVestmonast that this King Edward being in a great heat of offence against the Cleargy of England for that they denied to giue him the halfe of their Rents and goods towards his warres vpon the expresse prohibition of Pope Bonifacius to the contrary which prohibition some Cleargie men vpon feare transgressing had compounded made their peace with the King in that behalfe he doubting least some of the other part of the Cleargy would bring in an ExcoÌ„municatioÌ„ against him or against some of those that had compounded with him made a Decree saith VVestmonaster commanding vnder payne of imprisonment that no man should publish any sentence of Excommunication against the King himselfe or those that had newly sought his protection he making also a prouocation or appeale as well for himselfe as those that stood on his side to the Court of Rome Thus he And now let the prudent Reader consider saith the Deuine that if the King euen in his passion of choler did appoint but imprisonment to be the punishment for bringing in an Excommunication against himselfe and Cleargy men that stood with him how vnlike is it that by the common law it was treason against the King his Realme Crowne and dignity as M. Attorneys thundring words are to bring in an excommunication against a Subiect which is much lesse then against the Kings person himselfe 79. Thirdly the said Deuine though he had not perused the law bookes at that time yet did he yeld the true Cause why priuate men might not bring in excoÌ„munications and publish them at their pleasure as now also is prohibited in other before named Catholicke Kingdomes but they were to be shewed first to a Bishop vnder his Seale were to be certified vnto the Kings Courts which since that time I haue fouÌ„d to be set down expresly in the law-bookes themselues and craftily concealed by M. Attorney for thus is it found written 11. Henr. 4â— fol 64. Hancford the chieâ—e Iustice said that he found in his bookes that in the time of VVill. â—erle who was Iudge in the beginning of the raigne of K. Edward the third euery officer or coÌ„missary of the Bishop might certify excoÌ„municatioÌ„ in the K. Court and for the mischeefe that ensued therof it was aduised by the ParlameÌ„t that none ought to certify excoÌ„munication but only the Bishop soe it is vsed at this day Thus far are Hanckefords words wherby we may see why the partie that published a Bull to the Treasurer of England without the Bishops approbatioÌ„ incurred so high displeasure 80. Fourthly the said Deuine doth conuince M. Attorney out of a Case alleaged by himself afterward in the 31. yeare of the Raigne of King Edward the third where he saith that in an attachment vpon a prohibition the defendant pleading the Popes Bull of excommunication of the Plainâ—iâ—e the Iudges demanded of â—he defendant if he had not the Certificate of some Bishop within the Realme testifying this excommunication c. VVhereby saith he it is made euident first that priuate men were obliged to shew their Bulles vnto some Bishop before they published the same and secondly it appeareth most clearly by the answers of the Iudges that they held it not for treasoÌ„ in those daies nor made any such infereÌ„ce therof for that their only resolution was this that for lacke of this Certificate the partie excoÌ„municated was not thereby disinabled to follow his plea in that Court without saying any one word of danger or punishment against him that had pleaded the Popes Bull of excommunication which they would neuer haue omytted to do if 50 yeares before that vnder K. Edward the first it had bin held for treason by the CoÌ„mon-law to bring in or publish any Excommunication against a Subiect 81. This then was the substance of the Deuines answere at that tyme which though it doth sufficiently conuince M. Attorney to haue abused his Reader egregiously in auouching with such resolution that in K. Edward the first his tyme yt was by the ancient law of England adiudged treason against the king his Crowne and dignytie to publish any Bull of the Popes against any Subiect of the Realme yet hauing synce that tyme had better commodity to informe my self of the lawbooks here meÌ„tioned I wil adde some more proofes to those which now you haue heard 82. First then I must let the Reader vnderstand that neither of those two bookes cited by M. Attorney lib. Ass. pl. 19.30 Ed. 3. and Brooke tit Premunire pl. 10. neither of them I say doth affirme that it was Treason or that there was any iudgment of Treason giuen in that Case which Case is related by Iustice Thorpe 30. Edwardi 3. thus That wheras Syr Thomas Seaton sued a Bill in the Exchequer against a woman named Lucie for calling him Traytor fellon and robber in the presence of the Treasurer and Barâ—ns of the Exchequer in contâ—mpt of the King and slaunder of the Court. Hereupon the said Lucy shewed forth the Popes Bull prouing the plaintiâ—e to be excommunicate and therfore demanded Iudgement whether he should be answered or not And for that she did not shew any writ of excommunication nor any other thing sealed by the Archbishop c. the Bull was not allowed whervpon she was forced to answere and â—leaded not guilty And in that plea Thorpe Iustice said that in the tyme of the Grandfather of the King which was K. Edward the first â—or that one did notify an excommunication of the Apostle to the Treasurer of the King the King would he should haue byn drawne and hanged notwithstaÌ„ding that the Chanceloâ—r and Treasurer did kneele before the King â—or him yet by award he did abiure the Realme and said that the woman was in a hard Case â—or shewing forth this excommunicatioÌ„ if the king would Thus far the said Book 83. VVherein we see first that here is no answere made about treason as M. Morton affirmeth nor iudgment giuen as M. Attorney auoucheth nor any such inference made by the Iudges but only a case related of what K. Edward the first in his anger would haue had to be done to a man that presented an excommunication to the Treasurer to wit he would haue had him hanged and drawne about the same which seming to his Iudges not to be iust or according to law did intreat the King not to put it in execution but rather by way of
for his contempt And if he were attached and would obstinateâ—y reâ—use to obey the Kings commandment in admitting the saiâ— Clerk then might the King for his contempt seyse vpon his tempoâ—alities which were oâ— tâ—e Kings endowment And this was the vttermosâ— that the King could by law do against him for that he could neither imprison nor depose or degrade him there being no presideÌ„t to be found as I suppose of the first And for the second the law it selâ— semeth cleare against it as may appeare by Bracton fol. 401. Stanford â—ol 130. c. But howsoeuer it be this proueth nothing against the Popes spirituall Iurisdicâ—ion in England this matter of Aduowsons being meere tempoâ—all things and of the kings temporall inheritance wherein as in all other temporall affaires Bishops were bound to obserue the temporall lawes 91. The other point also that happened out vnder K. Edward the 3. when one was condeÌ„ned to perpetuall prison for hauing disturbed the Kings Presentee by Bulls from Rome is nothing to the purpose at all for that it apperteined not to the Pope but to the Kings temporall inheritance as hath byn said to present Clerkes to such benefices as were of his peculiar patronage and therfore it was ordeined in the Statute of Carliâ—le in the 25. of Edw. the first that such as went about to disâ—urbe the same vniustly by false informations and negotiations at Rome should be punished at the discretion of the Prince so it were not with losse of lyfe meÌ„ber or of his liuood And what inferreth this Are not the like lawes at this day in Spaine and Sicily and els where against them that traÌ„sgresâ—e ordinations of those Realmes about like affaires Or doth this proue that those Catholike Realmes do not acknowledge the Popes Ecclesiasticall Supremacy Euery child may see the weaknes of these inferences and yet vpon these and the like doth all M. Aâ—torneys Treatise layne and consist 92. As for the other Case vnder K. Richard 2. where it was propounded by the Commons in a certaine narration that the Crowne of England hath byn at all tymes â—ree and in subiection to no Realme nor to the B. of Rome touching the Regality of the Crowne c. it is so fully answered by the Deuine in his Reply to the Reports as no more needeth to be said For that they speake but of temporall regalities and haue some reference also as may be supposed vnto the time when the Sea Apostolicke after the concession of K. Iohn preteÌ„ded teÌ„porall right also in that Crown And the answere oâ— the Bishops in that Parliament with distinctioÌ„ that they would â—eld to that Statute so far forth as they did not preiudicâ— the ancient iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall of the said Sea Apostolicke in spirituall affaires doth euidently shew that this obiection maketh nothing to the purpose to denie thereby any part of the Popes supreme Ecclesiasticall authority and consequently as it was impertinently alleaged by M. Attorney to that effect in his Reports so much more fondly was it chosen out by M. Morton as a matter of moment to furnish his Booke withall 93. And as for the last Case vnder K. Edward the fourth where he saith That it was the opinion of the Kings Bench that whatsoeuer spirituall man should sue another spirituall man in the Court of Rome for a maâ—ter spirituall where he might haue remedy before his Ordinary that is the Bishop of the diocesse within the Realme he incurreth the danger of Premunire being an heynous ofâ—ence against the honor of the King his Crown dignity though the former answeâ—e of the Deuine be very sufficient in this case yet must I needes adde â—n this place that it is rather an heinous offence in such a man as M. Attorney is or should be to misreport and misconster his law-bookes therby to make someâ— shew oâ— probability against the ancieâ—t power Ecclesiasticall of the Sea Apostolicke in England whereas the said Books being rightly alleaged vnderstood do make wholy for it As for example heere in this case alleaged out of 9. Ed. the 4. â—ol 3. the saying is only of Yeluerton of the kings Bench and his Report is meant when a spirituall man shall sue an other that is a temporall man in the Court of Rome for a thing meere temporaâ—l he shall incurre the said punishment For that for one spirituall man to sue another spirituall man in the Court of Rome in spirituall Causes was a thing all waies lawfull and vsuall both before the tyme of K. Ed. 4. and after vntill it was forbid by King Henry the eight And that this is true that it was lawfull by the CoÌ„mon-law in K. Henry 4. tyme appeareth expressely by the Booke of 14. H. 4. fol. 14. Neither can I thinke M. Attorney alleage any example where the same is prohibited either by CommoÌ„ or Statute law during the tyme aforesaid 94. And whereas for strengthning this his false assertion he citeth in his Margent vide Fitzh in Nat. Breu. fol. 45. lit â— agreeing herewith And further adâ—eth a Notandum for the same as a matter notorious he doth notoriously abuse his Reader For that Fitzh speaketh not at all of a Premunire but only That if one sueth another out of the Realme for debt or other cause wherof the kings Court may haue conusance he shall haue a prohibition against him And so if one Clearke sue an other vpon title of Collation oâ— any Prebendary out of the Realme c. he shall haue also this prohibiâ—ion And if a man purchaseth out of the Court oâ— Rom against any Clerk or others any Citation directed vnto the Archbishop of Canterbury or any others to cite such a person to appeare beâ—ore the Pope c. to answere for the Collation or Presentation vnto any benefice or Prebendary a prohibition shall lye in this Case Hitherto Fitzher in his writt of prohibition And this is all that he hath in that place of this matter So you see that all that Fitzherbert saith is but that a prohibitioÌ„ shall lye for suyng in the Court of Rome for debt or title of Patronage or such other temporall Causes wherof the Kings Court may haue conusance and he maketh no mention of any Premunire And yet euery puny StudeÌ„t in the Law can tell how much difference there is betwixt a Premunire and a Prohibition that Syr Edward delt not sincerely wheÌ„ he brought in the one for the other 95. So then we soe what striuing wresting worse vsage M. Attorney offereth to his law-bookes to make them seeme to say somwhat against vs and for Protestant religion against which most of them were written as all of them before our times without exception in fauour of the Catholicks We see also the pittifull choice that M. Morton hath made of these fiue Cases out of all M. Attorneys Reportable Reports against the Popes supreme Ecclesiasticall authority
impertinent 3. As for example to pâ—â—termitt his two â—pistles the one to my L. of Salisâ—urie the otâ—er to my selfe wherof I may chance to haue occasion to speake more in my next ensuing Epistle to him he dâ—uideth this whole Preamble into three seuerall parts which he termeth Inquiries I do deuide saith he this PreaÌ„ble into three Inquiries The first is what sufficiency excellency there is in P. R. to make so great an insultatioÌ„ the second whether he may be thought a sufficient Proctor in this case or no the third whether he hath sufficiently performed his taske eyther for the defence of his cause or iustification of his coÌ„science with a Challenge against him for them both 4. This is the diuisioÌ„ of his Worke wherby I doubt not but you will discouer also the vaniâ—ie though I should say nothing therof For â—hat he being pressed with a Worke of such â—eight as the argument of my former booke did import vrged therin not only with an ouerthrow of his whole cause but charged furthermore with a monstrous number of playne wilfull vntruthes not possible as they seemed to be answered or excused the iudicious Reader will easily consider whether this were a tyme to tryfle as he doth making himselfe an Inquisitour without commission to â—rame his first Inquiâ—y of the sufficiency excellency of his Aduersarie and to spend eyght whole Paragraphes as he doth therin Inquiring first of his witt then of his memorie thirdly of his learning in Logicke fourthly of his skill in Greeke Hebrue fifthly of his kind of charitie sixtly of his modestie with other like poynts speÌ„ding large discourses vpon euery one of them Is there any man I say so simple or sottish as not to see the impertinency of this manner of proceeding 5. His other two Inquiries are as wisely imploied and prosecuted as this For that the second Whether P. R. may be iudged a competent Aduocate or no is but a silly discourse conteyning not full two leaues in all and the argumeÌ„t therof is a ridiculous Dialogue feigned between the Mitigator and the Answererâ— The third coÌ„preheÌ„deth the rest of the booke which is of foure partes three which may be not vnfittely deuided into the termes of offensiue and dâ—fensiue warres For that first to impresse some opinion of manhood in defending himselfe from the imputations layd against him of wilfull falshoods he taketh vpon him quite from the argument of the controuersy in hand to impugne others of like dealing as namely Cardinall Bellarmine my selfe and others and then hauing made this florish he coÌ„meth lastly to his owne defence in fourteene vntruthes layd against him and culled by himselfe out of more then fourty obiected by his aduersary and no one of them well dissolued by him as after will appeare And after all â—his he imagining the feild to râ—mayne wholy to himselfe he concludeth all with a new vaunt and fresh ChalleÌ„ge in the ninteenth and last Paragraph of this his booke phantasying himselfe to haue had the victory in euery thing that he hath taken in haÌ„d to treat And this being the suÌ„me of M. Mort. new worke I shall breifly lay forth to your iudgment the methode which I haue thought good to vse for his confutation 6. First I haue bin content to follow him into those follyes of his first Inquiry about my wit memory learning skill in Logicke and the like confessing willingly the mediocrity therof in all things but yet shewing by the substance of the poâ—nts handled if I be not deâ—eyued that if M. Mortons wit had byn excelâ—ent or learning emineÌ„t he would neuer haue â—yn drawen to haue leapt ouer grauer matters to handle such light toyes as these be For what â—mporteth me the disestimatioÌ„ which M. Mort. â—rofesseth of my wit memory or learning for â—o much as the things themselues that are handled wherin wit and learning are to be shewed will be better witnesses and of more credit with the prudent Reader then eyther his or my bare wordes or vaunts Wherfore to them I remit me 7. In the second place I haue had pacience in like manner for without pacience it could not be done to peruse ouer his second Inquirie consisting of a meere idle fancy and fiction of a Dialogue as hath bene said deuised betweene me his Aduersary the Moderate Answerer as though he had fallen out about answering his booke and me he bringeth in speaking very rudely and vnciuilly thus Nay I haue not beene arrogant but thou hast beene rash and prâ—cipitant For is thou by thy former Answere migâ—test haue beene thought sufficient for a reply what needed such posting to me beyond the seas for a supply of a more exact and learnâ—d Reioynder Thus goeth his fiction and it is a very fiction indeed For the truth is that when I began my Treatise of Mitigation against M. Mortons fiâ—st exasperating discouery I knew of no other that was in hand to answere the same as more largely I haue shewed in the third Chapter of my sayd Treatise 8. Moreouer he feigneth vs to reason togeather about itching and scratching as though the Moderate Answerer had vsed these wordes I thinke yow are troubled which the disâ—ase of sâ—me of our Catholicke lawyâ—rs of whome you haue said they itch to be doing and answering M. Attorney this was also my disease but I after found a scratch and so may you Wherby he seemeth to insinuate as you see a certayne threat of scratching his aduersarie wâ—en other weapons of more force do faile him But this I haue answered afterwards in due place shewed that aswell these scratches meant perhaps of those scolding skirmishes before mentioned about witt mâ—morie learning and the like as also deeper wounds of conuiction of falshoods and manifest impostures are like to fall vpon himselfe and that in so euident a sort as all the standers by may cleerly see it and take compassion on him and of his maÌ„ner of fight wherof I am content to make your selues also my learned CountrymeÌ„ both Iudges and vmpires 9. Wherfore fynding so litle substance in these two former Inquiries for what is added and brought in by me in the second which are but two particuler cases only concerning our subiect and argument of Rebellion and EquiuocatioÌ„ was borrowed froÌ„ the third to make vp some matter wherof to treate I do passe to the said third Inquirie wherin one only exploit being requiâ—ed on M. Mortons behalfe two are attempted â—ut with very euill successe in them both The â—xploit required was that for so much as M. Morton in this his last Preamblatory reply by abaÌ„â—oning the principall argument and subiect of â—ur former controuersy had changed the whole state of the Question by occasion of great multitudes of witting vntruthes obiected against him he should now haue gone roundly to the matter and directly plainly substantially haue answered the said imputations but
louing Countreyman wishing you all good that is truly good P. R. THE EPISTLE ADMONITORY TO M. r THOMAS MORTON IF your self had not giuen me the example M. Morton by wryting to me a seuerall Epistle termyng it Preamblatorie it is likely I should not haue troubled you with this Admonitory of mine as hauing wrytten sufficiently in my precedent Dedicatorie to our two Vniuersyties concerning the subiect of this our whole CoÌ„trouersy But for so much as you doe fyrme subscribe your said letter thus Yours to warne and to be warned Thomas Morton and haue put in execution the first part therof by warning me I presume you wil be content the second part be put also in vre and that you be warned by me To which â—ffect I haue thought best to style this my Epistle an Admonitorie Now then to the matters that are to be handled therin The pointes whâ—rof you haue warned me be two which you call two Romish maladies The one the traÌ„scendent Iurisdiction of the Pope to vse your wordes troubling or subuerting all Princes people of contrarie Religion the othâ—r our professed art of mentall Equiuocation which by your Mynisteriall phrase you tâ—rme the â—aude to all Rebellion But hâ—w vayne and â—riuolous this aduertisâ—mâ—nt is and fyt only to fyll vp paper without sâ—nse euery mâ—ane capacity will â—asâ—ly conceiue and witnâ—ssâ—s are at hand For who doth not see that Protâ—stant Princes and people of diffâ—râ—nt Sâ—ctes haue byn now in the Christian world for almost an hundred years both in Germany DeÌ„marke Sweâ—land ScotlaÌ„d EnglaÌ„d France Flanders yet no subuâ—rsion â—â—mâ— vnto thâ—m by the Popes transcendent authoritie Who doth not know in like mannâ—r that the grâ—atâ—st Rebellions that haue falleÌ„â—ut in this age haue not byn procured by Equiuocation as the â—aude but by Heresy as the Harlot hâ—r sâ—lf that by craftie dâ—ceipts lying shifts which ys quite opposite to the nature of Equiuocation that allwaiâ—s spâ—akâ—th truth though allwaies not so vndâ—rstood by the â—earâ—r But for that of these two heades of Rebellion and Equiuocation I haue spoken aboundantly in my fâ—rmer Treatise sâ—mwâ—at also in this â—specially in my second Chapter to yâ—ur sâ—câ—nd Inquiry wâ—â—re you insert some fâ—w pages about the same I will leese no more tyme in repâ—ating thâ—rof but râ—mit thâ— Reader thither only aduâ—rtisâ—ng him by the way that whereas you make a florish in this your Epistle Preamblatorie with two authorities of S. Augustine noted in the margent the one against Petilian the other against RogatiaÌ„ both of them Donatists who feygned clemencie and practized crueltie where they durst against Catholikes let him but take the paynes to read the plaâ—es in the Author himself and compare their cause with the cause of M. Morton and his fellow Protestants in these daies aswell in making and following Schisme against the generall body of the Catholike Church as in particuler actions recounted by Optatus and others to wyt in breaking downe Altars casting the B SacrameÌ„t to dogges in coÌ„temnyng holy Chrisâ—â—e breaking the sacred vessells wherein yt was â—ept in prophaning Chalices in scraping Priests â—â—ownes for hatred of sacred vnction in persecuting â—onkes in letting out Nunnes of their Monasteâ—â—es and the like which proceeded from their partiâ—â—ler spirit of pretended perfection and he will see â—â—ether they agree more to ProtestaÌ„ts or Catholicks â—our daies consequently whether you M. Morâ—â—n did aduisedly in bringing in mention of these 〈◊〉 and of their contention with S. Augustine â—â—out the true Church and manners both of hereâ—â—ks Catholicks Wherin they are so like vnto Proâ—estants both in words actions S Augustine 〈◊〉 a Papist as that there needeth nothing but the â—hange of names to distinguish or agree them with â—ou or vs at this tyme. I would wish also the said Reader to coÌ„sider the last â—art of this your Epistle where you say that you do conuince me out of my owne Confession granting that there is an Equiuocation which no clause of mentall reseruation can saue from a lye and you set yt downe in a different letter as though they were my wordes But if the said Reader go to the place where I do handle this matter both in the second and seuenth Chapters of this my Answere he will fynd that I say no such thing either in word or sense but rather the quite contrarie to wyt that there is an externall speach as that of Saphyra in the Actes of the Apostles for therof was the question which no mentall reseruation can iustify from a lye and consequently nor make properlie an Equiuocation for that it is false in the mynd of the speaker and so cannot stand with the nature of Equiuocation that allvvayes must be true as hath byn largely demonstrated in our Treatise of that matter Which point being once well noted poÌ„dered by your Reader he will wonder at your strange vaunting illation made hereupon that is to say vpoÌ„ your owne fiction when you wryte That this one Confession of myne is sufficient to conuince all meÌ„tall Equiuocators to be apparaÌ„t lyars And yet further That by this you haue obtayned your whole cause in both quâ—stioÌ„s of RebellioÌ„ EquiuocatioÌ„ which is a short compendicus Conquest if it be well consâ—dâ—râ—d such as â—uâ—rie man may frame vnto himself by â—alse charging his Aduersary And this shall suffice for aduertisement to your Reader in this place vpoÌ„ this your epistle to me For albeit sundry other things might be obserued yet is the studie of breuitie to be preferred what remayneth to be aduertised to your self wil be common also to your Reader vntill I returne vnto him againe as a little after in this Epistle I meane to doe to the end not to weary you ouer much with so manie admonitions to your self Now then shall I passe to the principall pointes wherof I thinke you to be admonished Among which the first chief is that you seâ—me greatly to mistake my meaning or at leastwise my affection in writing against you as though it were malignaÌ„t contemptuous despitefull full of hatred auersioÌ„ of mind which Almighty God I hope knoweth to be far otherwise and that I do loue you in Christ Iesus with all my hart wishing you all good in him for him but especially the best good for the saluatioÌ„ of your soule for which I would be coÌ„tent to vndergo any paines or perill whatsoeuer esteeming also as they deserue your good parts talents if they were rightly imploied by you to the aduancemeÌ„t of Gods truth as hitherto they seeme to me to haue â—in to the coÌ„trarie And if in our contentioÌ„ about this matter I haue seâ—med soÌ„times to haue bin ouer sharp â—r earnest in my writing I do assure you that it proceedeth not from hatred or contempt of your person but rather from some griefe or indignation of mind to see you so greatly deceiued or
endeuour to deceiue Three things also I must confesse to haue bâ—ne the speciall causes of this griefe and indignation sâ—metimes conceiued The first to see a yong man as they say you are so lately come from the Schooles so lightly furnished and so little expâ—rienced in greater studies as scarsely you could haue life or leasure to looke at the varietie of Bookes Authors that haue written therof especially concerning the Catholick religion for a thousand yeares togeather which you grant to be ours to come forth as it were in his hose and dublet challeng the whole Church of God and the whole ranke of profound learned men therof whose bookes for deep learning iudgement and varietie of reading you can not but confesse in truth and modestie that you are not able to beare after them And fynallie they are thousands and you are but one thy were ould you are yong their beards were hoarie and gray yours is yet red they wore out their ages with studie you haue yet but lately begone they haue had the continuance of many ages the wit learning experience diligence of all Christian Nations that held the same Religion with them your prescription of tyme is small your association of fellowes Fathers Doctors or Councells lesse For if you goe out of the little Iland of Britany where all that professe themselues Protestants in all things are not wholy with you you shall fynd abroad all the rest in most things against you And yet do you so confidently tryumph and insult euery where as though you alone were able to ouercome and vanquish whatsoeuer was established before you in our ReligioÌ„ different from yours saying euery where with contempt when you speake of this ranke of learned men and when any thing displeaseth you in them your owne Bishops your owne Doctors your owne CouÌ„cells your owne Fathers your owne Popes say this or that yea though they were neuer so ancient and holie As of three Popes togeather Zozimus Bonifacius Celestinus that liued with S. Augustine and were highly commended by him aboue twelue hundred yeares agoe you speake so contemptuouslie as if they had byn some three petty Ministers of your owne ranke And this I confesse to haue byn one principall cause of my sharpe wryting against you which yet if you would once amend on your part you should quiâ—klie fynd correspondence on myne And so I suppose â—ou will perceaue that I haue begone in this Booke â—hough whiles you perseuâ—re in your old vayne of preâ—â—mption and insolencie you are like to drawe forth â—nsweres nothing pleasing your owne humor which â—ing of pryde as in all Sectaries as accustâ—med to be 〈◊〉 liketh humility and patience in all people but only 〈◊〉 themselues Another cause was the circuÌ„stance of tyme when 〈◊〉 wrote your first Discouerie against Catholikes 〈◊〉 not being contented to haue set abroad diuers â—â—â—tings of yours in Latin touching fâ—ygned absurdâ—â—â—es and contraries of dâ—ctrine fâ—und as you preâ—â—â—â— in their wrytings wherof you are like shortlie â—heare out of Germany to receiue the said abâ—â—â—dities and falshoods doubled vpon your self as â—â—u will perceiue by that piece of the latyn Epistle â—â—itten from thence which I haue imparted with â—â—u in the last Chapter of this my râ—â—koning not â—â—ntented I saie with this iniurie offered vs â—ou watching a tyme of pressure and tribulation fynding the same to fall out in full measure by the hatefull accident of the powder-treason you raÌ„ne as the Rauen to the fallen sheep to picke out her eyes that is to say to adde exasperation to exasperation affliction to affliction calumniation to sycophancy against all sortes of Catholicks And then came forth in hast your litle infamous bloudie Lybell without a name which out of your charitie would needs make all Catholiks Traytors in the very roote of Catholicisme it self that is to say in the fundamentall doctrine of their Religion So as euerie one of them must be forced to denie his faith in that ReligioÌ„ or else acknowledge himself trayterous in his duty of temporall allegiaÌ„ce and subiection Which paradox to make somewhat probable you were forced to accompanie with so manie fraudulent shiftes deceipts and falsities as haue byn conuinced against yow in my former Treatise coÌ„firmed now in this which though of it self it moued no small indignation to see so many manifest falshoods so bouldly auouched and ratified againe by you afterwards as in this fynall reckoning will apeare yet must I confesâ—e that the forsaid circumstance of time did principally mooue me to be more sharpe in my CoÌ„futation And it made me also to remember a certaine historie that I had read in old Lactantius Firmianus in his first booke intituled De Iustitia which I shall recite as I fynd it in hym yow may apply vnto your self so much therof as yow maie thinke to fit you The storie is of a certayne heathen Philosopher who in tyme of persecution tooke occasion to write against Christian religion Ego saith Lactantius cùm in Bithynia Oratorias litteras accitus docerem c. When as I being sent for taught Rhetoricke in Bithynia and the Churches of Christians by the Edicts of Diocletian Maximinian were commanded to be ouerthrowne a certaine chief Philosopher taking the occasion of that tyme nescio vtrum superbiùs an importuniùs iacenti atque abiectae veritati insultaret did insult ouer the truth of Christes Religion oppressed and trodden vnder foot I know not whether with greater pryde or importunity c. And then he describeth at large the manners of this Philosopher which were ouerlong to repeate heere I meane of his Lybertine life of his good fare of his ambiâ—ion with the Magistrate and Princes And fyâ—ally he saith of him Disputationes suas moribus destruebat mores disputationibus arguebat ipse aduersus se grauis censor acerâ—imus accusator He ouerthrew his disoutations â—ith his manners and condemned his owne manners by his disputations being a graue Censurer and most sharp accuser against himselfe And theÌ„ saith further Eodem ipso tempore quo iustus populus nefariè lacerabatur tres Libros euomuit contra Religionem nomenque Christianum In the very self same time that the innocent Christian people were impiously torne in pieces by the persecutor he cast forth three Bookes against the Religion and name of Christians And Lactantius addâ—th that albâ—it he was effusus in PrincipuÌ„ laudes and flattered the Emperors then liuing no lâ—sse thâ—n M. Morton hath done ours yet all sortes of men aswell Hâ—athen as others did mislyke and detest his cruell deuise to wryte against themâ— when as they lay vnder so heauie a yoke of present persecution Id omnes arguebant saith he quòd illo potissimùm tempore id opeâ—is esâ—et agressus quo furebat odiosa crudelitas All sortes of men did condemne this that he had taken in hand to put forth his bookes at that
ascribe vnto me all those odious characters which M. Morton before hath layd to my charge 89. And for more cleare conceauing the matter you must know that M. Morton who in this his preamble would make some shew of probable defeÌ„ce in some few accusations of many great and heinous layd against him for falsity hath thought good to choose out this example of Otho Frisingensis from the midst of two other much more greiuous then this the one of falsifying and abusing Cardinall Bellarmine immediatly going before and the other of Lamberâ—us SchasnaburgeÌ„sis immediatly following after wherof the â—ormer he attempteth not at all to answere the oâ—her he seeketh to shake of afterwards but in vaine â—s you will see when we come to the place of exaâ—inatioÌ„ And heere this being a speciall place choâ—en by him for defending his truth and impugning â—yne he shoud haue touched them togeather as â—hey lye togeather in my booke but that as one acâ—used and brought before a Iustice for theft or falâ—â—ood will be loath to haue many matters disclosed â—â—geather but rather to answere one in one place â—nd another in another for that many ioyntly â—â—geather would giue suspition and credit the one 〈◊〉 the other so dealeth heere M. Morton not so much 〈◊〉 mentioning the first and the third which are the â—ore greiuous but singling out that which lay in â—â—e midst which notwithstanding he can no way 〈◊〉 truth of plaine dealing defend as now you shall 〈◊〉 Thus then lyeth my Charge against him in â—y former booke The charge by P. R. â—0 In the very next page say I after the abuses â—ffered to Cardinall Bellarmines alleadged testimony M. Morton talking of the great and famous contention â—hat passed betweene Pope Gregorie the 7. called Hildeâ—rand and Henry the 4. Emperour of that name â—bout the yeare 1070. he cyteth the Historiograâ—her Otto Frisingensis with this ordinary title Of our Otto for that he writeth that he found not any Emperour actually excommunicated or depriued of â—is kingdome by any Pope before that tyme except saith he that may be esteemed for an excommunication which was done to Philip the Emperour by the Bishop of Rome almost 1400. yeares agone when for a short tyme he was inter poenitentes collocatus placed by the said Pope among those that did pennance as that also of the Emperour Theodosius who was sequestred froÌ„ entring into the Church by S. Ambrose for that he had commanded a certayne cruell slaughter to be committed in the Citty of Thessalonica both which exceptions though set downe by the authour Frisingensis this Minister of simple truth leaueth out of purpose which is no simplicity as yow see but yet no great matter with him in respect of the other that ensueth which is that he alleageth this Frisingensis quite contrary to his owne meaning as though he had condemned Pope Gregorie the 7. for it wheras he condemneth that cause of the Emperour and commendeth highly the Pope for his constancy in punishing the notorious intolerable faultes of the said Henry Hildebrandus saith he semper in Ecclesiastico vigore constantissimus suit Hildebrand was euer the most constant in defending the rigour of Ecclesiasticall discipline And agayne in this very Chapter heere alledged by T. M. Inter omnes Sacerdotes Romanos Pontifices praecipui zeli et auctoritatis fuit He was among all the Priestes and Popes that had byn of the Roman Sea of most principall zeale and authority How different is this iudgment of Frisingensiâ— from the censure of T. M. who now after fiue hundred yeares past coÌ„pareth the cause of Pope Gregory to that of pyrates theeues and murtherers and so cyteth our Otto Frisingensis as though he had fauoured him in this impious assertioÌ„ Can any thing be more frauduleÌ„tly alleadged Is this the assurance of his vpright conscience wherof he braggeth to his Maiestie 91. But the next fraud or impudeÌ„cie or rather impudeÌ„t impiety is that which ensueth within foure lynes after in these wordes Pope Gregorie the seauenth saith your Chronographer was excoÌ„municate of the Bishops of Italy for that he had defamed the Apostolicke Sea by Simony and other capitall â—rimes and then citeth for proofe heerof Lambertus Schafnaburg anno 1077. As if this our Chronographer had related this as a thing of truth or that it were approued by him not rather as a slanderous obâ—ection cast out by his aduersaries that followed the part of Henry the Emperour â—2 Hitherto I haue thought good to recite my wordes which are some few lynes more then M. Morton cyteth in his booke for that you should see the connectioÌ„ of things togeather to wit how these obiected falsities about alledging af Frisingensisâ—re â—re craftily culled out froÌ„ between the examples before cited of Bellarmine and Lambertus but yet in this place we shall handle onely that which M. Morton hath made choice of to be treated and discussed to wit whether my former Charge against him for abusing the Authoritie of Otto Frisingensis be rightfull and well founded or not for that he that shall read this reply of M. Morton will thinke that he hath iniurie offered him for that I had guylfully vrged matters against him further then truth and reason would require and therfore he noteth against me in his argument these wordes Foure excellent trickes of falshood in one page which after we shall discusse and shew them to be rather fraudes and shiftes of his then trickes of myne Now then let vs come to the examination of this Charge which of vs is to be found in falsity and still I must aduise the reader that to the end he may receaue some vtility by this coÌ„fereÌ„ce he haue an eye to the spirit of false dealing and not so much to errours of ouersight and this he shall easily descry if he stand attent to the discussion THE EXAMINATION OF this controuersie more at large § IX FIRST vnto my whole Charge before layd downe M. Morton answereth thus In my full Satisfaction saith he parte 3. cap. 11. pag. 28. that which was intended to be proued was this that not till 1000. yeares after Christ did euer any Prelatâ— or Pope atteÌ„pt the deposing of Emperours and depriuing them of their Crownes For proofe heerof I brought in the testimony of Otto Frisingensis from the witnes of Tolosanus lib. 26. de Repub. cap. 5. in these wordes I read and read againe fynd that Pope Hildebrand in the yeare 1060. was the first Pope that euer depriued an Emperour of his Regiment wherin now haue I wronged my conscience Is it because Otto Frisingensis is cyted coÌ„trary to his meaning yet could it not preiudice my conscience because I cyted not the authour himselfe but only Tolosanus a Romish Doctour who reported that sentence of Frisingensis 94. This is the first part of his answere which is so full of wyles sleightes shiftes as doth easily shew the disposition
Prince is lawfully excommunicated and shut out from all society of Christian communion and he persist impenitent how can he be head of a Christian coÌ„mon wealth for so much as he is no member nor hath any place or part at all in the whole body the headship being the chiefe part of all others 101. Much then it importeth to know the authority and antiquity aswell of excommunication as of deposition from which cause the examples alledged by Frisingensis ought not to haue bene suppressed or imbezeled and Tolosanus here alleadged by M. Morton produceth an other example both of excommunication and deposition aboue an hundred yeares before this of Frisingensis saying Antea quidem Gregorius tertius c. Before this Gregory the third being made Pope vpoÌ„ the yeare 759. did depriue Leo the third Emperor of Constantinople both of his Empire and the â—ommunion of Christians for that he had cast holy â—mages out of the Church and defaced them and â—eld a wicked opinion against the B. Trinity thus â—e And that Tolosanus in this sayth truth is testified â—â—so by Zonoras a greeke historiographer in the life â—f the sayd Emperour Leo Isauricus And before that â—gaine Pope Innocentius the first that liued with S. â—ugustine is read to haue excommunicated the Empeâ—our Arcadius and the Empresse Eudoxia for their 〈◊〉 iust persecution of S. Chrysostome though no deâ—riuation followed therof but amendment rather â—f the fault as is to be seene in Nicephorus Heere â—en the â—uasion of M. Morton by saying that the â—atter of excommunication pertayned not to his â—urpose is wholy impertinent for so much as that 〈◊〉 the only immediate cause of deposition by Eccleâ—â—asticall power But now let vs passe to the other â—hiefe point to consider whether Frisingensis was alâ—edged wholy against his owne purpose or not â—02 M. Morton being pressed with my former anâ—weare wherin I do shew that Frisingensis being alleaged by him to disgrace Pope Gregory aliâs Hildebrand â—s much wronged for that he coÌ„meÌ„deth him highâ—y and his doings seeketh this shift now by saying â—hat he alleadged him only in the questioÌ„ of antiquity concerning â—he tyme when first any Pope did take vpon him to depose Emperors But this is manifestly false for he alleadgeth him to both endes to wit for antiquitie and for disgrace but principally to disgrace him For hauing shewed as he perswaded himselfe that Pope HildebraÌ„d was the first that vsed such proceeding against Emperours he addeth preseÌ„tly that it was a new act that it is naught also will appeare saith he by the Actor for Pope Gregorie the 7. as your Chronographer saith was excoÌ„municated of the Bishops of Italy for that he had defamed the Apostolikâ— Sea by Symony and other capital crymes So he And to this calumniation he ioyneth the saying of Claudius Espencaeus in these wordes Hildebrand â—as the first Pope saith your Bishop â—spencaeus who by making a new rent beâ—â—ene Kingdome and Popedome did rayse â—orce against the Imperiall diademe arming himselfe by his example exciâ—ed oâ—her Popes against Princes excommunicate 103. These two testimonies then of Espencaeus and Schasnaburgensis being ioyned with the tâ—ird of Fâ—isingensis which are all that M. Morton alleadgeth let the prudent Reader consider whether they be not brought to disgrace Pope Hildebrand in his action against the Emperor Henry or not and yet do the first and last which are the more ancient Authors very earnestly commend the said Pope and defend his action of deposing the Emperor and consequeÌ„tly are brought in by meere preuarication of M. Morton to disgrace him 104. And as for the third which is Espencaeus though he were neyther Bishop to my knowledg nor otherwise of any great estimation among vs yet is he handled heere no lesse iniuriously fraudulently by M. Morton then the other two which I note now more especially then in my first answere both for that his authority is named and vrged againe in this place and for that I could not then get any sight of this his second booke of disgressioÌ„s vpon the first Epistle of S. Paul to Timothy though I had other bookes of his but now hauing found the same I haue discouered withall such fraud as was fit for such a spirit as M. Mortons seemeth to be that rarely vseth exact truth in citing of any thing for that these words alleadged against the Pope are not the wordes of Claudius â—spencaeus himselfe as in vntruly affirmed by M. Morton but related by him out of a certaine angry and impatient Epistle written 〈◊〉 certaine schismaticall Priests of Liege that were â—â—mmanded by Pope Paschalis the second to be chaâ—â—sed by Robert Earle of Flanders and his souldiers â—â—wly come from Hierusalem about the yeare 1102. â—â—r their rebellious behauiour which Priests with â—enry their schismaticall Bishop wrote a very passioâ—â—te inuectiue complaynt against this act and comâ—â—ssion of Pope Paschalis inueghing also against the â—â—ing of Pope Hildebrand not long before decâ—ased for 〈◊〉 like cause all which M. Morton concealeth and â—â—eth the words of â—spencaeus himselfe Your Bishop â—â—â—encaeus saith he writeth of Hildebrand c. which he â—â—ould not but know to be false if he read the â—â—oke and place by himselfe ciâ—ed for that Espencaeusâ—oth â—oth not only in the beginning of his citation vse â—â—is entrance extat in 2. â—omo ConcilioruÌ„ edit Coloniensis â—â—leri Leodiensis ad Paschalem secundum querimonia There 〈◊〉 extant in the second tome of Councells a complaint â—f the Clergie of Liege to Pope Pascaliâ— the second but 〈◊〉 the end also of all his speach which conteyneth a â—ong discourse he concludeth thus Hactenus Leodiâ—â—sium verba sensa Hitherto haue I related both â—he wordes sense of those Priests of Liege preâ—ently for himselfe saith that he will not meddle with the controuersie of fighting betweene Popes and Emperâ—rs though he proue by sundry examples both out of the Scrpture Fathers and Councels that in some cases it is lawfull for Priestes to vse teÌ„porall armes also so as for M. Morton to come and â—uouch as he did in his former booke of full Satisfaction that our Bishop Espencaeus affirmed this of himselfe against Pope Hildebrand wheras he must needs know that he saith it not but relateth it only out of others without approuing the same is to ad preuarication to preuarication and neuer to make an end of wilâ—ull lying especially seeing that iâ— this his last Preamblatory reply he is so farre of froÌ„ amending the matter as that he turneth vpon the same agayne saying I produced Claudius Espencaeus their owne Romish Bishop that doth playnly auerre that Hildebrand was the first Pope who without any example of antiquitie made a schisme beâ—wene Emperors and Popes c. Good Syr will you stand to this that Claudius Espencaeus doth playnely auerre it Is this true Is this sincere And how doth he playnely auerre it if he do
demand performance and that the Reader giue his iudgmeÌ„t And as for these fourteene obiections now brought against me they might be aswell foure hundred of that kind which they are as foureteene that is to say of no force in the world to the question heere handled of witting and wilâ—ull falshood For as for the most part of them he cannot so much as pretend any such malice to be in them For what malice could there be in interpreting the letters T. M. for Thomas Morton in my Dedicatory Epistle written after the Treatise ended which is his first charge against me and yet saying before that vntill that time I had not knowne that Name to haue bene meant by these letters What profit might my cause gaine therby As also by wilfull erring if it had bene an errour in counting how many times M. Morton had set downe the Clause of reseruation in latin What gayne might I pretend by applying that to all Catholicke Priests teachers in their degrees which M. MortoÌ„ scornfully obiected to his Aduersary as to a Priest in contempt of all Priests 96. And with these he beginneth his charge and endeth with no better For what do make to the purpose those other last obiections as that I reprehended him for placing as his poesy in the first page of his booke against Catholicks Stay your selues for they are blind and make others blind where as neither the originall Hebrew nor Syriack Greek or Latin ancient translations haue it so That I noted him to haue vsed and vrged Verè for Verò out of Carerius contrarie to the edition which I had of that booke And like to these are the other three that ensue in him which are but verie light vaine toyes And if they should be all granted as they ly they would proue nothing of moment concerning the question in hand And yet doth he repeat them againe and againe and some of them three times as though they were great matters against me Can there be any more poore and miserable dealing then this 97. But besides this I presume not only to haue cleared my self in all these trifles obiected by him but further also to haue conuinced my aduersarie commonly in euery one of his obiections to haue coÌ„mitted some new manifest falsities himselâ—e And as for his last three witnesses learned and famous Iesuits I doubt not but so to haue turned them against himself as he hath receiued much conâ—usion by bringing them in There remaineth nothing then for the ending of this accompt but that the Reader as chieâ—e Auditour laying before his eyes what he hath seene brought in in charge and answered in discharge do giue his sentence where the debt remayneth or rather who is banquerupt either I or my Aduersary Which yet he shal be better able to do after he hath heard in likewise what new Charges are to be laied vpon him in the ensuing Chaptâ—rs For that hitherto hath bene handled only what he hath pretended to be able to say against Catholicke writers and me his aduersary which hath bene so weake poore and pittifull as now you haue seene euery battery of his recoyling commonly vpon his owne head But the next three Chapters are to conteine the fight made vpon himselfe for three sorts of falsities First such as he goeth about to defend and cannot the second such as he disâ—embleth and pretermitteth to mention for that he could not cleare himselfe therin and the third such as he hath committed a new in going about to defend and cleare the old and then after that you are to see and behould his multitude of new braggs and Challenges as though notwithstanding all this he had had the victory in the former so confident the man is in his owne concepts THE FIFTH CHAPTER CONCERNING THE CHEIFE POINT INTENDED BY M. MORTON In this his last Reply which is the clearing of himselfe from many notorious vntruthes obiectâ—d as willfull witting by his Aduersary P. R. And how insufficiently he performeth the same PREFACE I FIND the saying of the Philosophers That the thing which is last in execution is first in our intention to be verified in this PreaÌ„ble of M. Morton for that his principall intentioÌ„ being to quit himselfe so farre as he might of the odious imputation of so many wilfull vntruthes obiected vnto him by P. R. in his Treatise of Mitigation and that the importance of the matter oâ— satisfying somwhat or staying at leastwise the iudgment of the Reader with some speedy Apologie in that behalfe required that presently in the first place he should excuse himselfe from those maniâ—est imputations laid against him Yet hath he delaid the matter as you see vnto this last place intertaining himselfe first in certaine idle and impertinent skirmishes with his Aduersary As whether he be a man oâ— sufficiency wit memory skill in Logiâ—ke Greeke and Hebrew and the like and then taking in hand to touch two or three litle points about the argument and subiect of his Aduersaryes Booke and thirdly obiecting falsities to others that he alone might not seeme to be culpable and so finally he commeth by litle and litle though vnwillingly as it appeareth like a beare to the stake to the point first intended which is to deliuer himselfe from some small number of a greater multitude of manifest vntruthes obiected against him out of which multitude he saith That he hath singled out fourteene not such as might seeme vnto him most easily answered but those which P. R. hath most vehemently pressed and vrged 2. In both which assertions he swarueth againe from the truth as presently will appeare for that the Reader by taking the view aswell of those that he hath pretended to answere as of the rest that he hath willingly pretermitted will see and so shall we also demonstrate in the next Chapter that those which he hath ouerpassed are much more both in number and force then these which he hath produced and consequently hath singled out such as might seeme vnto him most easily answered the other part also of his assâ—rtion is false that P. R. hath most veâ—emently pressed vrged against him these which he hath answered for that he presseth and vrgeth most the corruptions against Bellarmine Azor Sayer Sotus Cicero Victoria and others which shall be set downe more particulerly in the next Chapter and therby conuince M. Morton of ouerlashing in this behalfe 3. Of all which M. Morton hath made heere no mention and besides this hath laid togeather in these fourteene diuers of small weight and momeÌ„t and some handled before vpon other occasions As for example about the place of Esay the 29. which was but lightly obiected vnto him for an ouersight And the like in vrging verè for verò out of Carerius brought in heere by him the third tyme to make vp a number And the like about a citation of Dolman that was handled before His 12.
meaning and of desyre to deceaue And so much for this to prooue in M. Morton mentem reaÌ„ a guilty mind that according to S. Augustins iudgement maketh him mendacij reum guilty of willfull lying though it be but in smaller things where malyce is more theÌ„ the matter it self 102. Hytherto M. Morton hath gone vp and downe seeking and picking out the weakest sort of imputatioÌ„s layd against himâ— wherunto he thought himself best able to make some shew of probable answere wherin notwithstanding you haue seene how litle he hath beene able to performe in any substance of truth and how in three or foure of these eyght aready proposed he hath beene forced eyther to confesse that he saw not the Authour which he cited or to remit vs to other men for answering the falshoodes therin obiected And now he betaketh himselfe to another shift for making vp a number of imputations as satisfyed by him for it seemed somewhat to touch his credit to answere fourteene imputations which was the nuÌ„ber he obiected against me though he leaue more then twice fourteene vnanswered and this new shift is to repeate and bring in agayne in this place fiue seuerall imputations treated both by him and vs before and some of them twice at least and yet would he nedes fetch them in the third tyme not for want of other layd against him of much more force difficulty to be answered but for that these being things of small moment and lightly obiected for such by me they do serue him to make a bulke of worke as though he had dispatched much matter and solued great difficultyes wheras indeed they are nothing but wordes on his behalfe and ostentatioÌ„ without substance Let vs see then what they are THE NINTH Imputation twice handled before and now againâ— brought in by M. Morton §. IX THIS is about a place of Isay the Prophet in the 29. Chapter and 9. verse where it is said in the common Latin traÌ„slation of S. Hierome Obstupescite admiramini fluctuate vacillate inebriamini non à vino mouemini non ab ebrietate Be ye astonished and wonder wauer yee and reele yee are drunke but not with wine ye are moued but not with drunkennesse and coÌ„forme to this are the other texts also both in Hebrue Greeke VVhich sentence M. Morton translateth into English setteth it forth for his poesie in the first page of his booke in these wordes But stay your selues and wonder they are blind and make you blind applying it to our Catholicke Doctors and doctrine for which I noted him only in the end of my second Chapter for falsly alleaging corrupting and mangling this place the Reader will se my reason by looking vpon the text And how little he hath bene able to say for himselfe in iustification of this his fancy may be seene in the two Chapters before mentioned And so we passe to another as trifling as this THE TENTH Imputation twyce also handled before and now againe brought in by M. Morton §. X. THIS also is a Colewort twice already sodden and now brought in agayne the third tyme for lacke of better victualls to witt about the text of Carerius the Paduan Doctor whether it should be Nuperrimè verè Celsus or nuperrimè verò Celsus wherof I spake but a word or two in my Treatise of Mitigation censuring it for a trifle and now M. Morton hath so stretched out the matter for that he may seeme to haue some litle patronage for his errour by the later errour of another prynt as hauing brought it in twice already in two seuerall Chapters for an ostentation of his manhood he coÌ„meth now againe the third tyme with the same thing as you see wheras my booke might haue lent him a great many of other more reall Charges wherin his said manhood might better haue beene tryed But he desired only to make a florish THE ELEVENTH Imputation pretended to be answered which is handled also before §. XI THIS Imputation was for that M. Morton had affirmed that Doleman doth pronounce seÌ„tence That whosoeuer shall consent to the succession of a Protestant Prince is a most grieuous and damnable synner VVhich sentence I do affirme in my Treatise of Mitigation that it is neyther in wordes nor in sense to be found in Doleman which I do proue by producing his whole text that hath no such wordes though M. Moâ—ton hath sett them downe in a different letter as Dolemans propeâ— wordes Nor are they there in true sense as more preiudiciall to Protestants then to men of other religion for that the discourse is generall for all sortes of men of what ReligioÌ„ or sect soeuer that they do sinne grieuously if willingly they doe concurre to the making of a King whome they thinke in their conscience to be contrary to Gods true religion Where M. MortoÌ„ saying nothing to the substance of the matter it selfe indeuoureth to shew that as a man may sometymes alleage the sense of Scriptures only and not the very wordes citing for the same diuers examples as Ephes. 5.14 Heb. 1. 1. Heb. 3.5 Act. 10.43 and so might he alleage the sense of Doleman though he varied from his wordes But I deny that eyther the true wordes or true sense of Doleman was related by him and consequently it cannot be excused from a witting falshood See this matter handled before Cap. 1. § 7. THE TWELVTH Imputation handled before Chap. 1. and pretended now againe to be answered §. XII THIS Imputation was about false dealing on M. Mortons behalfe in setting downe a generall asâ—ertion that all Popish Priests vpon the pretended supremacy and prerogatiuâ— of Pope and People ouer Princes do vtterly abolish the title of succession in all Protestant Prinâ—es Wherin he is conuinced of diuers falshoods handled before by vs in the first Chapter of this Treatise where we haue shewed euidently that he cannot defend his position but with multiplying more falâ—ityes one vpon another for view wherof I remitt the Reader to the place quoted for so much as M. Morton in this last Reply writeth only fiue lines therof in this place remitting vs in like maÌ„ner to that which before hath bene handled THE THIRTEENTH Imputation handled also before and now brought in againe by M. Morton §. XIII IT is a great argument of M. Mortons penury that he is forced to repeat things so often thereby to make some shew of answering to somwhat though in truth it be nothing in effect for that he dissembling aboue 30. weighty and maine Charges giuen him by his Aduersary as will appeare in the next Chapter he seeketh to intertaine his Reader heere with smaller matters twice or thrice repeated And now this thirteenth Imputation if yow remeÌ„ber was about alleaging the authority of the Historiographer Otto Frisingensis against the cause of Pope Gregory the seauenth in fauour of the Emperour
of him that sweareth by Equiuocation which example M. Morton bringeth in as condemned by Azor for periurious lying What will you say or what will you do with such men And do you note also that in the former words of Azor he cutteth of Laâ—roni Tyranno and this to peruâ—nt a Case resolued against him afterward by Ciâ—â—ro predonibus piraâ—is to theeues and pirats periury is not committed what then I say is to be thought or said or done with such men Himselfe setteth downe a rule in his epistle Dedicatory to the Kings Matie cyted out of â—ully which is that such are as taken once in lying may neuer after be credited againe which he applieth against the Catholicks but how iustly it ought to be practised in him and his followes that are taken at euery turne in such notorious willfull lying is euident to the discreet Reader c. 21. So wrote I in my laâ—t Treatise laying downe the falsity and indignity of this manner of dealing And this I thinke also to haue byn sufficiently insisted vpoÌ„ by me which might haue moued M. Morton to haue yelded vs some peece of answere if he had pleased or had thought himselfe able Wherunto he was specially bound for that in the precedent Chapter as you haue heard he cyted Azor for one of his three Iesuits that condeÌ„ne all Equiuocation but it semeth that he careth litle what he saith in one place so he may scape out in another where he is most pressed And yet after all this in the very end of his book he maketh new ChaleÌ„ges of sincere integrity as freshly as if he hadneuer bene taken in the turnings windings and contradictions which now you haue heard and wondered at I doubt not THE FIFTH Pretermitted falshood by M. Morton §. V. LET VS passe from these two Iesuits to a third for â—t seemeth that M. Morton hath a speciall grace in â—iâ—gracing these men though with his owne litle grace credit The falshood obiected against him in this place is about a 〈◊〉 of the wâ—â—ds sense of Cardinall â—olet by a sleight or two of M. Morton thus by me recorded in my Treatise of Mitigation 23. If followeth presently in the same text said I where M. Morton continueth his pleasant veyne of playiâ—g with vs. But iâ— may â—e saith he that he which doubteth is ignorant â—ill no ignorance excuse him Wherunto he â—rameth of himselfe this answere cyting Tolet in the margent for the same Affected ignorance doth argue him an obstinate Heretick Which if you marke doth not answere the demaund for he demaundeth whether no ignorance at all doth excuse him and then answereth that affected ignorance doth not excuse him but doth rather argue him an heretick Now those that be learned do know that there be diuers sortes of ignorance and of diuers dâ—grees wherof affecâ—ed is the most culpable so as this is very impertinent For that albeit affected ignorance do not excuse him yet some other lesse faulty may do yt And this for the sense But if we looke vpon the words themselues of Tolet cyted by this man in the margent we shall discouer much more impertinency or impudencie rather for they are these Ignorantia crassa non excusat aliquem à pertinacia Grosse ignorance doth not excuse a man from pertinacy Now grosse ignorance and affected ignorance are two different things which may be vnderstood by this example That one may be ignorant oâ— Catholicke Râ—ligion by grosse ignoraÌ„ce in that attending to worldly aâ—â—airs he doth not care to informe himsâ—lâ—e but he is ignorant by affected ignorance that doth purposely fly to be informed So as here still our ignoraâ—â— Mynister either ex ignorantia crassa or affâ—ctata telleth vs quid pro quo in translating affected iâ—norance for grosse ignorance And then againe in engâ—â—shâ—ng non exâ—uâ—at aliquem à perâ—inacia doth argue â—â—m â—n obâ—â—â—â—â—â—â—ereticke â—or that it is one tâ—ing to argue and another not to excuse And whâ—râ—s â—eâ—ore â— M. held that pertâ—nacie appertained not at all to the nature of heresy here contrary wise he translateth peâ—tinacia an obstinate hereâ—ick making it to signify both substaÌ„tiue adiâ—ctiue subsâ—aÌ„ce qâ—aâ—ity But yet further then this you must note that in cyting this senteÌ„ce out of Tolet he cunninglie dissebleth the Authors assertioÌ„ set downe clerely not six lynes before these wordâ— Pertinacia necessaria est ad constiâ—uendum homineÌ„â—aeâ—eâ—iâ—um Pertinacie is necessary to make a man an hereticâ—e being the quite contrary proposition to that of this man before set downe in the first example of his corruptions in the former part of his Reply c. 24. This was myformer discourse and conuiction against him And was not this worthy of some consideration in his answere But we must go forward for there resteth much to recount THE SIXT Pretermitted falshood by Thomas Morton §. VI. AFTER Cardinall Tolet may succeed Bellarmine of the same dignity and of no lesse fame for learning and vertue whome as you haue heard him abused before by M. Morton in the precedent Chapter though he weÌ„t about to excuse it so more notably shall yow see it heere which I insisted vpon so earnestly moued with the indignity of the abuse as I cannot but maruaile that M. Morton with any credit could pretermit to answere somewhat therunto My words are these 26. But yet in the very next page after he vseth a farre greater immodestie or rather perâ—idie in my opinioÌ„ in caluÌ„niation of Cardinall Bellarmine whom he abuseth both in allegatioÌ„ translatioÌ„ application and vayne insultation for thus he citeth in his text out of him Ancient generall Councells sayth the Romish Pretence were not gathered without the cost of good and Christian Emperours and were made by their consents For in those dayes the Popes did make supplication to the Emperours that by his authority he would gather Synods but after those tymes all causes were changed because the Pope who is Head in spirituall matters cannot be subiect in temporall Bellarm. lib. 1. de Concil c. 13. § Habemus ergo 27. And hauing alledged this resolution of Bellarmine the Minister insulteth ouer him in these wordsâ— Who would think this man could be a Papist much lesse a Iesuite how much lesse a Cardinall who thus disableth the title of the Pope granting to vs in these words After these tymes that is aâ—ter six hundred yeares the truth of purer antiquities challenging Popes to be subiect vnto Christian Emperours And yet who but a Papist would as it were in despite of antiquity defend the degenerate state saying After those tymes Popes might not be subiect in temporall matters as if he should haue sayd Thou gracious fauour of ancient Christian Emperours Thou sound iudgment of ancient reuerend Fathers Thou deuout subiection of ancient holy Popes in summe Thou ancient purity and pure antiquity adieu But we may not so bastardly reiect the depositum and doctrine
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
we may boldly say that he hath left out heere aboue threescore witting voluntary vntruthes which he knew could hardly or neuer handsomly be answered And besides these â—e hath purposely also left out the mention of other matters no lesse weighty then the former though not in the same kind of falshood and lying yet no lesse cuÌ„ningly pretermitted subtracted or concealed to the aduantage of his cause in this last Reply of his theÌ„ any lightly of the former which we are to lay forth in the Chapter that ensueth THE SEAVENTH CHAPTER WHERIN ARE SET DOVVNE DIVERS SORTS OF M. MORTONS OMISSIONS besides the former and namely in not defending certaine Clients of his whose credit was coÌ„mended to his protectioÌ„ in the Trâ—atise of Mitigation And among others SYR EDWARD COOKE now L. Chiefe Iustice of the Common Pleas. THE PREFACE HITHERTO haue we beheld the omissions or rather pretermissioÌ„s to wit omissions voluÌ„tary vsed by M. Morton in answering the chiefe accusations layd against him in matter of falsity and vntrue dealing now you are to see others of another kind which though in my opinion they do proceed out of the same motiue which was by delaying the answere to auoid the necessity of answering at all yet are they in a different subiect or matter not so much concerning corruptioÌ„s falsifications immediatly as the other but about suÌ„dry principall partes of my Treatise yea all in effect no lesse craftily concealed then the rest though with a certaine pretence and faint promise to answere them afterward But for that I haue iust cause to suspect this promise as a dilatory shiâ—t and subtile â—uaâ—ion wherby to deteine from the Readers knowledg what I wrote in may said Treatise making him to thinke by the perusall of this his Preamble of Reply that I had handled nothing therin worthy the relation or confutation besides those trifles which himself pleased before to lay forth for this cause I say I am forced heere to detaine my selfe a litle longer in repeating againe some chiefe points of my said Booke which M. Morton hath passed ouer with silence leauing only a hope as hath bene said that in time he will satisfie them 2. But in this case I meane to proceed as Creditors do with old doubtfull debtors which is to examine the accoÌ„pts make vp the Reckoning while the debts ar yet soÌ„what fresh in memory For better declaration wherof I will vse this example or comparison If a marchant in London or els where hauing many charges of debts laid vpoÌ„ him should promise that at such a time when accompts are wont to be clered made streight he would answere al theÌ„ the prefixed time approaching he should suddainly withwraw himselfe leauing some small scattered suÌ„mes those also of very bad coines to satisfie for great many obligations promising further that in time he would yeeld abouÌ„dant satisfactioÌ„ for all the rest 3. In this case I would demauÌ„d what the prudent Creditors would do think or suspect especially finding the suÌ„mes of money left to be so small of so bad coine as now hath byn said Two things do occur vnto me that they would do for their better assurance First to informe theÌ„selues well what store of debts the said party was to be charged withall Secondly quid habeat in bonis what substaÌ„ce he might be presumed to haue for satisfying therof And this I take to be the very Case also betwene me M. Mort. who being charged with very many debts and obligatioÌ„s of answering matters obiected against him in my foresaid Treatise he tooke a respite vntill the ordinary time of payment which was the time of his Reply which time comming he gaue vs insteed of a booke a Preamble only though a large one answering not to the tenth part of that he was indebted this so weakely frauduleÌ„tly handling matters impertinent as no way it can passe for currant coine as now in part you haue seene and shall do more in that which ensueth 4. Wherfore I am coÌ„strained to performe the parts of the forsaid Creditors making first a suruey of the chiefe debts lyable against him and which he is to answere then to examine what liklihood of paiment or satisfaction he may be thought to haue for effectuating the same both which points you haue in part seene already put in execution by me in my former discourse For you haue heard the many charges laid against him for falsity vntrue dealing you will hâ—rdly I thinke conceiue where he will haue the substance to answere them Now we are to make the search in another sort of debts wherin I perswade me that the like in many points though not altogâ—ather the same will fall out to wit that the debts will be found cleare the satisfactioÌ„ not easy wherin I referre my selfe to that which is to ensue OF THE PRETERMISSION of the chiefest points concerning the argument and subiect of Rebellion in my Treatise of Mitigation §. I. VVELL then according to this designement let vs looke into the principall heads of matters treated by me coÌ„cerning the first part of our argument about Rebellion to wit whether Catholick people aboue others be fouÌ„d obnoxious to that heinous crime this also by force of their Catholicke doctriâ—e beliefe for that this was the chiefe but wherat M. Mortons first seditious libell of Discouery did leuell bringing in ten pretended reasons but indeed caluÌ„niations for some shew of proofe therof which being confuted largely by me for almost twenty pages togeather couinced not only not to be reasons of any substance or force against vs but plaine caluÌ„niations arguments rather against himselfe his people did impose as you see a great obligation vpoÌ„ him for answering the same in this his Reply but he thought good volutarily to pretermit theÌ„ inâ—â—eed therof to institute almost ten other different Paragraphes about the wit learning memory skill in Logicke Greeke Latin charity modesty truth of his Aduersary P. R. as before you haue seene handled So as this first maine debt remaineth in effâ—ct vndischarged what probability there is or may be how well it will be paid heerafter is not hard to ghesse at least I as his Creditor haue cause to suspect the matter that this putting of or delay vpon expectation of a â—urther Reioynder to come forth was but a deuise to euacuate the payment 6. And for so much as the first of these ten reasons againâ—t vs is â—ounded by him vpon the pretended opinioÌ„ that he saith we haue of English Protestants that they are Heretiks that ProtestaÌ„cy is damned heresy consequeÌ„tly are lyable obnoxious to all the Canonicall penaltyes which are set downe against men conuicted of that crime by the Canon law albeit I shewed vnto him that this coÌ„sequence in rigour was not necessary for that all Protestants were not nominatim excoÌ„municati denunciati
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
there are conteyned in one First then page 163. The Deuinâ— doth cite the seuerall lawes of William Conquerour out of Roger Houeden parte 2. Annalium in vita Henrici 2. â—ol 381. and by them doth proue that the Conquerour acknowledged the Popes supreme Authority in causes Ecclesiasticall And is not this a legall record And in the next two leaues following he doth cyte aboue twenty diâ—ferent places out of the Canon law and Canonists which though perhaps M. Attorney will not cal legall in respect of his Municipall lawes yet iudiciall records they cannot be dâ—nyed to be Moreouer pag. 245. 246. he doth alleage the testimony of Magna Charta cap. 1. made by king Henry the third as also Charta de â—oresta made vpon the ninth yeare of his raigne Charta de MertoÌ„ made in the 18. of the same Kings raigne as other lawes also of his made vpon the 51. yeare oâ— his Gouernement all in proofe of the Popes iurisdiction and are all legall authorityes And furthermore he doth cyte pag. 248. statut anno 9. Henrici 6. cap. 11. and pag. 262. he citeth againe the said Great Charter and Charter of the Forest made by K. Henry the 3. and confirmed by his sonne King Edward the first diuers tymes And pag. 271. he citeth two lawes anno 1. Edward 3. stat 2. cap. 2. 14. eiusdem statut 3. pro Clero and doth argue out of them for profe of his principall purpose against Syr Edward And how then or with what face doth or can the Knight auouch heere that the said Deuine alleageth no one Act or law of Parlament or other iudiciall record throughout his whole booke doth he remeÌ„ber his owne saying in this his Preface That euery man that writeth ought to be so carefull of setting downe truth as if the credit of his whole worke coÌ„sisted vpoÌ„ the certainty of euery particuler period Doth he obserue this How many periods be there heere false of his But let vs see further Pag. 277. in the life of king Edward the first the said Deuine doth cite an expreâ—se law of King Edward 3. Anno regni 25. as also pag. 283. he doth alleage statut de consult editum anno 24. Edwardi 1. and another Anno 16. Edwardi 3. cap. 5. and all these things are cited by the Deuine before he commeth to treat peculierly of the lyfe of King Edward the third but vnder him after him he doth not alleage as few as 20. legall authorities and statutes of Acts of Parlaments so as for M. Attorney to auouch here so boldly peremptorily as he doth that the Deuine in all his booke did not alleage so much as any one authority eyther out of the coÌ„mon lawes or Acts of Parlament or other legall or iudiciall record is a strange boldeneâ—se indeed And yet he sayth that he found the Author vtterly ignorant and exceeding bold But if he could conuince him of such boldnes as I haue now conuinced himselfe for affirming a thing so manifestly false I should thinke him bold indeed or rather shameles for that heere are as many vntruthes as there are negatiue assertions which is a Nimium dicit with store of witnesses 23. It is another Nimium dicit also yf yow consider it well that which he writeth in the same place that when he looked into the booke euer expecting some answere to the matter he found none at all Wheras he found all that is touched in the former Paragraph and much more which was so much in effect as he saw not what reply he could make therunto which himselfe confesseth a litle before in these wordes saying Expect not from me good Reader any reply at all for I will not answer vnto his Inuectiues and I cannot make any reply at all vnto any part of his discourse yet doth he endeauour to mitigate this also saying That the Deuine answereth nothing out of the lawes of the Realme the only subiect sayth he of the matter in hand And a litle afâ—er againe I will not sayth he depart from the State of the question whose only subiect is the Municipall lawes of this Realme But this reâ—uge will not serue both for that I haue now shewed that the Deuine hath alleagâ—d many testimonies out of the Municipall lawes as also for that this is not true that the question is only about these lawes for that as before hath beene shewed the true state of the question betweene vs is VVhether supreme Ecclesiasticall authority in spirituall afâ—aâ—res did remayne in Queene Elizabeth and her Ancestours by right of their temporall Crownes or in the Bishop of Rome by reason of his primacy in the Chaire of S. Peter which great matter is not to be tryed only as in reason yow will see by the Municipall lawes of England or by some few particuler cases deduced from them but by the whole latitude of diuine and humane proofes as Scriptures Fathers Doctors histories practises of the primitiue Church lawes both Canon and Ciuill and the like as the Deuine doth teach in differeÌ„t occasions of his booke adding further That albeit it should be graunted to Syr Edward that this matter should be discussed by the common Municipall and Statute lawes of England only yet would he remayne wholy vanquished as largely doth appeare by the deduction of the said Deuine throughout all the succession of English Kings from Ethelbert the first Christened to King Henry the 8. that first fell into schisme against the Church of Rome This then was a notorious Nimium dicit 24. Another is when he sayth in reproofe of the Deuines answer to his Reports that the booke is exceeding all bounds of truth and charity full of maledictions and calumniations nothing pertinent to the state of the question and that it becommeth not Deuines to be of a fiery and Salamandrine spirit soming out of a hoat mouth c. which indeed will seeme to any indifferent man a stange passionate exaggeration of Syr Edward exceeding all tearmes of simple truth for that there is nothing found in that booke but temperatly spoken and with respect as it seemeth both to his Office and Person but yet when he saw the exobitant intemperance of the Attorneyes hatred against Catholicks to draw him to such acerbity of bloudy calumniations that he would needes inuolue them all in the heynons cryme of treason by meere sycophancy malicious collections vpoÌ„ false supposed groundes and fictions of Pius quintus his Bull and such like impertinent imputations no meruaile though he were more earnest in the repulsion of such open wronges but yet with that moderation as I perswade my selfe no iniurious or contumelious speach can be alleaged to haue passed from him in all that booke much lesse such inuâ—ctiues as heere M. Attorney chargeth him withall as also with that fierie Salamandrine spirit foming out of a hoat mouth wherein besydes the contumely which he will easily pardon Syr Edward speaketh more
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
satisfyed in one speciall point of my Epistle to the second part of my Reports where I affirmed that yf the ancient Lawes of this noble â—and had not excelled all others speaking of humane it could not be but some of the seuerall Conquerours â—ouernours therof that is to say the Romans Saxons Danes or Normans and especially the Romanes who as they iustly may do boast of their Ciuill Lawes would as euery of them might haue altered or changâ—d the same And sayth he some of another proâ—â—ssion are not persuaded that the Common Lawes of England are of so great antiquity as there superlaâ—iuâ—ly is spoken So he And in these last words I presume he vnderstood the Deuine that impugâ—ed this excessiue imaginary antiquity of our Municipall â—awes in his Answere to the Reports and Syr Edward hauing seene the same should in reason haue answered somewhat therunto if he had byn prepared for it 30. But he thought that course not best but rather to help himselfe with the pretendâ—d authority of Syr Iohn Fortescue chiefe Iustice of England in the Raigne of King Henry the 6. saying that he was a great Antiquary he was a notable man indeed though more as it seemeth in the skill of our Common Lawes then in matters of Antiquity out of whome Syr Edward to help his cause and assertion citeth the words following As touching the antiquity of our Common Lawes sayth he neither are the Roman Ciuill Lawes by so long continuance oâ— ancient tymes confirmed nor yet the Laâ—es oâ— the Venetians which aboue all other are reporâ—ed to be of most antiquity â—or so much as their Island in the beginning of the Britans was not then inhabited as Rome also then vnbuilded neither the Lawes of any Nation of the world which worshipped God are of so old and ancient yeares wherâ—ore the contrary is noâ— to be said nor thought but that the English customes are very good yea oâ— all other the very best Thus he if he be rightly cited for I haue not his booke by mâ— 31. And though I do respect and reuerence both these mens professions and much more their state place of Iudges yet doth force of truth oblige me to contradict their errour which seemeth to me very grosse and palpable or rather their errours and mistakinges in sundry points here downe As first in that yt is auerred that the Ciuill law and Roman lawes are not of so long continuance of ancient tymes as the ancieÌ„t Municipall Lawes of England are which he goeth about to proue by two seuerall meanes wherof both do conteine aswell falsyties as absurdities if I be not greatly deceiued therin 32. His â—irst meanes of proofe is â—or that in the beginning oâ— the Britans Rome was then vnbuylded and conquently that the British Lawes are more ancient then those of the Romans And then supposing further that those British Lawes which were in the beginning of the Britans were neuer changed but recâ—iued in England fâ—oÌ„ time to time haue indured to our dayes are the Common Lawes of our Realme at this day Wherin there are many suppositions as yow see strange to heare but harder in my opinion to be proued As first that the Britans in their beginning euen before Rome was buylt had such good Lawes as the Romans in EnglaÌ„d seauen huÌ„dred years after the said building of Rome were coÌ„tent to accept for their Lawes in that land And the lyke after them the Saxons other CoÌ„querous people that ensued which is such a paradox vnto men of reason learning as the very naming therof cannot but cause laughter For albeit the British nation be more ancient then the Roman according to the Story of Geffrey Monmouth that affirmeth theÌ„ to discend from Brutus a Nephew of Aeneas from whom Romulus the founder of Rome some ages after descended and that they were a valiant warlike nation from the beginning yet that they had such good politicke and ciuill Lawes themselues being vnciuill in those dayes is a matter incredible which I proue thus That wheras the Roman Lawes began from Romulus himselfe from Numa Pompilius other ancient Law-makers among them and this soone after the building of Rome I meane the more older Lawes of the twelue Tables and the lyke continued from tyme to tyme afterwards vntill the coÌ„ming of Iulius Caesar into Britany which was aboue 600. yeares after Rome was built aboue a thousand after Brutus had byn in England in which tyme yt is probable that the British Lawes would haue growne to greater perfectioÌ„ theÌ„ they were in the beginning yet I say that the said Lawes customes of the Britans are recorded to be such in Iulius Caesar his daies set downe by his owne penne as also by the writings of diuers other Roman Greeke Authors that succeded for two or three hundred years after him as must needs be incredible that they should be continued by the Romans Saxons and other people that followed them And then if they were such and so rude so many ages after their beginning what may we imagine they were at their very begynning it selfe which was a thousand yeares before from which tyme our two Knights heere do inferre their antiquity and eminency aboue the Roman Lawes 33â— Let vs see then what ancient Histories do report of the British Lawes and Customes in Iulius Caesar his tyme and afterwards Caesar the Roman-Captaine hauing made two iourneys into England and informed himselfe diligently about the Lawes and Customes of the Brytans in those dayes which was about 60. yeares before the Natiuity of our Sauiour setteth downe many things of their small policy in that time As first the description of their manner of consultations in their warre wherin he sayth that in commune non coâ—sulunt they haue no common Counsells and then describing the chiefe Citty of the Realme where their K. CassiuelaÌ„ that was head of all the rest had his Court Counsaile somewhat about the Thames though not where London was afterward built he sheweth that it was in a wood and that the walles were trees cut downe round about insteed of fortresses within which they inclosed both themselues and their Cattle and this was the symplicity of that tyme. 34. After this he setteth downe many Lawes and customes of theirs farre vnfit to be receiued by the Romans other people after them as Nummo aereo aut annulis ferreis ad certuÌ„ pondus examinatis pro numâ—o vtebantur Their money was of brasse and rings of yron giuen out by weight And then againe that they had a law and custome luto se inficere quod caeruleum efficit colorâ—m to paint themselues with a certaine earth that made a blew colour And Solinus wryting more then an hundred yeares after Caesar againe sheweth this law and custome to haue byn so inuiolable among them in his dayes that the very Children had the figures and shapes
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
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
happines who being as I am a poore despised hated scorned and vnrespected souldiour so vnfortunate as no commended meanes though many vsed with confirmation both of loue and loyalty can be of power to raise a spirit drowned in the worst of misery froÌ„ despayres gulfe c. Wherby it may appeare that Prickets chief endeauour was rather indirectly by laying forth his owne temporall needs to draw somewhat from Syr Edwards purse and by writing the story of his glorious speach at Norwich to gayne vnto himself his good will and affection for his reliefe then any way to shew malignity against him wherof I fynd no cause or probability but rather his pricking stomake against vs whom Syr Edward also impugned and consequently if any thing be found in his narration that at this present displeased Syr Edward it must be thought to proceed eyther from the errour of the others memory that directed not well his pen or from some change of mynd in Syr Edward himselfe who now perhaps reprehendeth that which before he misliked not but was well content to haue it published And to this later coniecture I am the rather induced to incline for that there are now two yeares past more since Pricket set forth in print this speach and I neuer heard that Syr Edward did mislike it vntill at this present I see it so greiuously reprehended by him in this last Preface for in the former that was prefixed before his sixt part of Reports which seemeth to haue come forth after Prickets relation no complaynt or mention is made therof 105. But you will aske me perhaps why so great a charge should be found in Syr Edward that he should so sharpely and vehemently inueigh against that which before he liked or at leastwise tolerated for so long tyme wherunto truly I know not what other thing to answere but that it may be that the exceptions I tooke in my answer to M. Morton against diuers things in that narration as notorious vntruthes might displease or stinge somewhat Syr Edward who hauing no list to answere the matters theÌ„selues thought best to fall aboard the relator to lay the fault on him saying that he hath not related matters aright wherin as I meane not to excuse him so on the other side it seemeth very hard vnto me that the substance of those points wherin I touched Syr Edwards vntrue dealing and many other wherin I might haue said much more should be feigned or deuised by Pricket or related by him more maliciously against vs then they were meant or vttered by the Iustice himself which is euident partly by that which I haue heard to be continued still by him both there and in other places where since that tyme he hath giuen Charges to the Iurie wherin the greatest part and most bitter of his speach is allwayes commonly against the Catholicks as though they were the greatest malefactours of the realme to be inquired of And in this very Charge and speach related by Pricket his malicious inâ—ectiue against them conteyneth aboue a dozen leaues printed the whole thing it self scarce being as much againe 106. And if you will behold the impertinency vanity therof considering the auditory of Norwich his Countrey where he would needs triumph gloriously in that first Charge if I be not deceyued after he was Iudge you shall fynd it not only like to be Syr Edwards but worthy also of his veyne in that vanity for that hauing first by a seuerall Exordium set down a tale of a Noble yong Roman that was by the Senate made a Iudge in his tender yeares and for diuers reasons and considerations of the dignity therof made some delay and difficulty in admitting the same he did notwithstanding vpon some friends persuasion yeald at length to accept therof all which Parable the Iustice applying to himselfe beginneth his Charge with such plausible Oratoricall wisedomes eloquence to vse the words of his Relatour M. Pricket as first he expounded vnto them vpon his fingers the Grammaticall verse Quis quibus quid quomodo and de quibus that is who sent this Commission to wit his Maiesty To whom to Syr Edward and others vnder him What did it coÌ„teyne Great and high authority How must it be executed By doing iustice Of whom and what causes must inquiry be made Principally and in the first place against Catholiks that do professe the Roman religion and obedience of the Pope 107. And is not this a goodly deduction Was there euer any English Iudge before the Apostacy of Martyn Luther that gaue a Charge from the bench against such men for being such If all the Iudges lawiers of our Nation that euer gaue Charges to inquire of malefactours for nine hundred yeares together and more in our Iland after Christian religion receyued did giue such a Charge for such a crime then hath Syr Edward somewhat to excuse his insolency heerin But if there be none as most certainly there is not how then doth he performe his promise made heere in this new Latin Preface of auoyding fiue things in setting downe his Reports Wherof the fourth he termeth Nouitatem Nouelty which he defyneth to be then when si ad amussim nostrorum librorum antiquorum exempla applicentur nequaquam quadrant If the things which he speaketh being applyed to the exact rule of their law-bookes and examples of their ancients do not agree therunto Which he holdeth for a thing most vnworthy of their profession indignissimam studiis nostris VVherefore eyther he must bring forth such ancient bookes lawes and examples for himself and his cause that precedent Iudges haue giuen such Charges or els he conuinceth himselfe to be most vnworthy of that place and dignity of law which he holdeth 108. But to returne to the Charge giuen at Norwich after he had expounded the verse of Quis Quibus c. according to his manner of ostentation he beginneth his narratioÌ„ thus Our worlds admired Queene renowned Elizabeth did as you do know in the beginning of her Raigne change the State of religion in this kingdome in her first Parliament by the consent of her Lordes Spirituall Temporall c. and then he goeth forward to shew the continuall reclayme and resistance made by Catholicke men from tyme to tyme for their religion wherby thinking to disgrace them as rebellious for their reluctation doth in deed giue them the highest coÌ„mendation that can be giuen to Christian men which is to stand firme constaÌ„t to the worlds end in their Religion once receiued and continued to their tyme. And for himselâ—e doth insinuate therby that for the gayning of aduancement and pleasing a worlds admired Queene or any other worldly Prince it were no hard matter to make him admit any change of Religion whatsoeuer for so much as he alloweth so easily of this which this VVoman-Queene made with admiration and wonder oâ— the world yet doth he vtter
a notorious vntruth in that he saith she did it by the coÌ„sent oâ— her Lordes Spirituall and Temporall for that all her Lords Spirituall which make the chieâ—e part of the Parlament resisted the matter as appeareth by their depriuations depositions restraints or imprisonments that theron ensued So as this is as true as that other which followeth in the very next page and hath beene handled by me in other places to wit that as well these that were restrayned or imprisoned as generally all the Papists of this Kingdome did come to the Protestants Church nor any of them did resuse during the first ten yeares of the said Queenes gouernment which I haue coÌ„uinced before by hundreds of witnesses to be most shamefully false as also the other deuised fable that Pius Quimê° did offer to approue the Communion Booke of English seruice by his owne letters to Q. Elizabeth if she would do him the honour as to accept it from him 109. I do pretermit willingly as vnworthy of my pen those scoffes and contemptible derisions which it hath pleased his L. to vse against that holy man and high priest of our soules Pope Pius Quintus calling him Pope Impius V. his hellishnesse his horriblenesse and the like which seemeth much to sâ—uour of the spirit of those that in Iudge Pilates house did scoffe at our Sauiour bowing their knees and crying Aue Rex Iudaeorum but yet there the maister Iudge did not descend to such scurrility But surely I am sory to see a Lord Iudge vse the same in publike auditory which were fitter for one of his Kitchin amongst his Companions and when such things as these are related vnto strangers they seeme incredible to men of eâ—timation and honour 110. But Syr Edward passing on in this manner throughout his whole speach bringeth in all the accidents fallen out froÌ„ the beginning of that Raigne vnto the end of the Irish warres Doctor Sanders his being there Steukley his going to Rome and afterward to Portugall the Duke of Guise his actions and of MeÌ„doza called by him Iesuite though he were a Noble man and Ambassadour of the K. of Spaine in EnglaÌ„d Campian Persons Heywood Shirwyn and other Priests comming into England vpon the yeare 1580. and many other such like things little appertayning to them of Norwich but that my L. would needs speake like a great Counsellour that day and be Propheta in Patria and fill mens eares with tales and terrours and yet in the end after all sayd and much therof knowne to be false to the greatest part of discret men in his auditory he commeth at length to be somewhat morâ— mild and placable saying by this then our English Papists eyther Iesuits or Seminaries may learne to know that it is not Religion that they striue for but only to mayntaine the Antichristian head of Romes vsurped Supremacy And if there be in this presence any Roman Catholiks or so many oâ— them as shall heare of that which now hath beene spoken I intreat theÌ„ as my deare and louing Country-men that they will not any longer be seduced by any lying spirit sent from Rome seing that the Pope whome they belieue hath himsâ—lfe allowed as before we have shewed that in our Church we haue a doctrine of faith and religion suâ—ficiently necessary to saluation Deare Country-men we haue then inough need not the help of any Pope sithence all the Papists generally came vnto our Churches beâ—ore our late Q. Elizabeth was excoÌ„municated c. Thus he 111. And do you see this Conclusion all grouÌ„ded vpon suppositions that are manifestly false or rather ridiculous in theÌ„selues for that first he would haue vs suppose as a thing by him proued before that it is not religion for which we striue but to maintayne the Popes supreme Authority in spirituall Causes as though the article of supremacy were no poynt of Religion at all among vs which is a great absurdity to imagine For doth not the Catholicke Deuine in the Preface of his Answere vnto him and we before haue also repeated the same shew demonstrate that this point of supreme spirituall authority is so principall an article of Religion as all other controuersies may be determined therby How then doth the Iustice trifle so in this matter Is he not ashamed to say in the face and ears of such an Auditory that Catholiâ—kes striue not for religion wheÌ„ they striue for their supreme Pastours spirituall Authority It is as good an argument as if a man should say that Syr Edward when he was a Counsellour pleaded not for money but for gold as if gold were no money 112. His second supposition is that we belieue Pope Pius Quintus to haue allowed the Protestant CoÌ„munion Booke for that Syr Edward saith and sweareth it vpon his credit saying and this vpon my credit and as I am an honest man is most true which I haue els where shewed to be most vntrue and that no Catholicke of crâ—dit doth or will giue credit vnto it Thirdly he supposeth that we belieue his former assertion that all Catholickes generally did come to the Protestants Câ—urch for the first ten yeares of Q. Elizabeths raigne which they do not only thinke but know to be most false 113. Fourthly he supposeth it to be a good consequence that if Catholicks did come to their Churches for the first ten yeares they haue inough for their saluation and need not the help of any Popes authority for absolution of their sinnes or other spirituall power For such is his inference when he sâ—ith Deare Country-men we haue then inough and need not any help of any Pope sithence all the Papists generally came to our â—hurches beâ—ore the late Queene was excommunicated which inference and consequence is both false and absurd For albeit some Catholicks came to the Church for feare or otherwise yet therby haue not Syr Edward and his partners inough for their saluation for that the other came to their Churches for they might come with a repugnant mynd condemning and detesting inwardly their Religion no lesse or perhaps more then they that were Recusants and openly refused to come as no doubt but at this day also many do who are forced to Church against their consciences 114. And it is to be noted that Syr Edward saith VVe haue a doctrine of â—aith and Religion sâ—fficiently necessary to saluation So as he ascribeth no perfection to his Religion nor any aboundant sanctitie latitude or degrees of holines one aboue the other but if it be sufficiently necessary it is inough for him And yet doth our Sauiour say that there be many mansions in the house oâ— my Father and exhorteth men to perfection Perfecti estote which importeth somewhat more then sufficiently necessarie But if seemeth that Syr Edward would be content with a litle and go no further then necessarily he must God grant he go so farre and keepe him in charitie
only true and Catholike Religion and that by false and indirect meanes whereof God is an enemie Not to our Country for that these Reports of law being contrary to all auncient lawes and written with a contrary spirit to all our ancient lawiers Iudges law-makers before this our present age can profit nothing our Country but set greater breaches and diuisions therein To Me also that am the Reader or Student it can neither profit nor import any thing but losse of time and breaking my head with conâ—radictions For so much as all this must once againe be cast of and forgotten as nouelties when our old course of Commonlaw must returne to follow her ancient streame againe 124. Wherfore a much more honourable and profitable course had it bene for so great a witt learned a man in our lawes as my L. is said held to be that to the end his labours in writing might haue remayned gratefull and commodious to posterity he had conformed himselfe his spirit knowledge and penne to that of ancient precedent lawyers of our land as Plowden did and some others whose wrytings for that cause wil be immortall But Syr Edward taking to himselfe a contrary new course by wrenching and wresting lawes to a contrary meaning froÌ„ the common sense both of the lawes themselues law-makers as also of the times wherin they were made and torrent of authority that gouerned the the same his labours must needs in the end proue to bâ— both vnprofitable and contemptible 125. For I would demand him what sound common lawier will ioyne with him in this point which he so reâ—olutly auerreth in his last Preface that all bookes coÌ„ming à Roma vel à Romanistis from Rome or Romanists that is from any sort of Catholicks haue punishment according to our ancieÌ„t lawes for of those I suppose he speaketh of losse of goods liberty and life Will any man belieue him that this is conforme to any ancient law of England Doth he not know as I doubt not but he doth much better then I the old ancient honour that was wont to be borne to Rome and Romanists by our English Common lawes Can he deny but that the Bishop of Rome is tearmed Apostolus and Apostolicus almost euâ—ry where in the same ancient lawes yea Prince of the Church and that our Archbishop of Canterbury the greatest Peere and Prelate of England is called in our law Apostoli Legatus Legate of the Apostle and Roman Bishop And that his spirituall Court is but a member of the Court of Rome which Court in England is called Curia Christianitatis the Court Christian or Court of Christianity throughout our Common law-bookes as I might shew by multiplicity of authorities if it were not a matter so notoriously knowne as no meanest lawier will or can denie it And is it likely then that according to those lawes it may be prooued that it is Praemunire and treason to bring in a Booke from Rome or Romanists to read it to praise it or to lend it to another as heere our new Iustice doth tell men with terrour against iustice especially when he addeth Hi sunt illi libri qui splendidos c. These are those bookes which doe carry goodly and religious titles which do professe to help and comfort the infirme consciences of men that are in trouble These are they that take vpon them to bring miserable and sinfull soules vnto the desired port of tranquillity and saluation By which words it seemeth that Syr Edward hath a chiâ—â—e mislike of spirituall Catholick bookes which treat the argument of quieting of soules Which if it be so then I hope that our bookes of Controuersies may passe with some lesse danger though indeed I doe suspect that he meaneth these when he speaketh of the other for that they doe most coÌ„cerne him For what doe spirituall bookes trouble Syr Edward which I suppose that either he neuer readeth or litle esteemeth the argument they handle his cogitations being imployed about farre other obiects of this world for the present Albeit I doe not doubt but if in some other circumstance of time state and condition of things he should read them or they should be read vnto him as namely on his death-bed when flesh and bloud and worldly preferments doe draw to an end and himselfe neare to the accompting day they would make other impression in him Which being so true wisdome would that what we must doe in time perforce and perhaps to late or with out profit we should out of good will and free choice preuent by Christian industrie Which almighty God graunt vs his holy grace to doe And this is all the hurt I wish to Syr Edward for all his asperity against vs. 126. Now let vs returne to M. Morton againe whome we haue left for a long time to giue place to this piece of Reckoning with Syr Edward It followeth then in consequence after the precedeÌ„t Chapter of his omissions and concealments in diuers and different charges layd against him for vntruthes wherwith he was charged in the Treatise of Mitigation that we see what new vntruthes he hath super-added in his defence therof for increasing the burden THE NINTH CHAPTER WHICH LAYETH TOGEATHER ANOTHER CHOICE NVMBER of new lyes made wilfully BY Mr. MORTON ouer and aboue the old in this his Preamble whilst he pretendeth to defend or excuse the sayd old being aboue fifty in number WE haue made a large intermissioÌ„ as you see of M. MortoÌ„s affayres by interlacing some of Syr Edwards now must we returne to our principal scope which is to shew more new and fresh vntruthes of later date in this last Reply of M. Morton And albeit those that are to be touched in this Chapter haue beene for the most part handled discussed before yet to the end that they may more effectually be represented to the eye and memory of the Reader by putting the principall of them togeather in ranke vnder one muâ—â—er I haue thought it expedient to take this paynes also wherby may appeare how ruinous and miserable a cause M. Morton hath in hand that cannot be defended but by addition of so many new lyes vnto his old and euen then when he standeth vpon his triall for the sayd old and seâ—keth by all meanes possible to hide and couer the same in such manner as before yow haue heardâ— And no maruaile for that both truth reason and experience do teach vs that an old lye can neuer be well cloathed or couered but by a new Let vs passe then to the suruey of this Chapter noting by the way that we are rather to touch certayne heades or principall branches that conteine commonly sundry and seuerall lyes vnder them then simple single vntruthes if they be well examined nor is it our purpose to name all for that would imply too large a prolixity for this place especially for so much as I am to remit the Readâ—r commonly to
This is his demaund and for ground heerof he citeth these latin words of Bellarmine out of the forenamed place Pelagiani docebant non esse in hominibus peccatum originale praecipuè in filijs fidelium Idem docent Caluinus Bucerus The Pelagians did teach that there was not Originall synne in men especially in the children of the faithfull And the same do teach Caluin Bucer which words if you conferre them with the words themselues of Bellarmine before cited who accuseth not Caluin Bucer of all the Pelagian doctrine in this poynt but only Zuinglius and as for the other two to wit Bucer Caluin he accuseth them for a part only Zuinglius denying originall synne in all and these later only in Christian Infantes two trickes at least of wilfull falsity are discouered the first that in his charge he wiâ—leth Bellarmine to be examined in confession about Caluin wheras he â—pake of three togeather to wit Zuinglius Bucer and Caluin the second that he accuseth Bellarmiâ—e as though he had charged Caluin with all the Pelagian heresie in this matter wheras he expresly profâ—ssâ—th to charge him only with one point therof coÌ„cerâ—ing the infantes of the faithfull Wherfore these words â—deÌ„ docent Caluinus Bucerus and this may be the third false tricke are not to be found in Bellarmine but are thrust in by M. Morâ—on nor cannot agree with the distinction of Cardinall Bellarmine before set downe these things then I leaue to the Readers discretion For though the points themselues for their substance be not of great weight yet is the mynd of the writer as much discouered in false tricks of small moment as of great see more of this matter before Cap. 3. num 62.63.64 c. 13. It followeth pag. 55. of this his preamble that treating of the prohibition made by the ancient Councell of Eliberis in Spayne consisting of 19. Bishops not to set vp Images in the Churches the diuers expositions of Catholicke doctours about the same what the causes and motiues might be of this prohibition for that tyme of the fresh and new conuersioÌ„ of that nation from Idolatrie to Christian Religion among other expositors he citeth the opinion of Sixtus Senensis for the last vpshot of the whole matter â—aying thus So that whatsoeuer the occasion of forbidding might haue beene this is a confessed conclusion of Senensis that the Councell of Eliberis did absolutly forbid the worship of Images And then â—etteth down the same in latin in his margent as out of Senensis alâ—o in these wordes Idcirco omnino veâ—uit Synodus Elibertina imaginum calâ—um But he that shall looke vpon the text of the Authour himself shall not fynd any such confessed conclusion or any such words of absolutly forbidding and consequently this is conuinced to be an absolute vntruth for it appeareth cleerly in Senensis that the prohibition was only for a time vntill the new conuerted Spaniards should be better instructed in Christian Religion and made to vnderstand better the difference betweene Pagan Idols and sacred Images so as heere are two grosse falsityes first in obtruding as the latin sentence of Senensis that which Senensis hath not in words or sense and then in translating the same so punctually into English setting it down in a different letter as though it were exactly so in good earnest and can there be any excuse for these sortes of procedings Let the Reader see more before c. 3. nu 38. 14. Gregorius de Valentia is brought in by M. Morton against Bellarmine as allowing of a sentence of Tertullian vsed by Bullinger the Caluinist as orthodoxall and iustifiable to wit Tres sunt in Diuinitate personae non statu sed gradu non substantia sed forma non potestate sed specie differentes and M. Morton stoutly cyteth in his margent for approuing therof Gregorius de Valentia Iesuita de vnitate Trinitate c. 9. § item Bullingerus meaning therby to oppose the one of theÌ„ against the other in this matterâ— but when the thing is examined the wordes of Gregorius de Valentia are found to be these Bullingerus Sacramentarius c. Bullinger the Sacramentary affirmeth that there are three persons in Deity which differ not in state but degree not in substance but forme not in power but kind by which wordes sayth Valentia he doth not only ouerthrow the Godhead of the sonne but euen the whole Mystery of the most holy Trinity 15. So sayth ValeÌ„tia against Bullinger for whose defeÌ„ce against Cardinall Bellarmins accusation of Arianisme he is produced And let the reader iudge whether this be an allowancâ— of that sentence for orthodoxall which Valentia sayth as yow see to be so blasphemous as it doth ouerthrow the whole mystery of the Blessed Trinity And the lyke lye yow may behold vttered by M. Morton against Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe in this very matter affirming him to expound as orthodoxall and iustifiable the forsayd hereticall paradox of Tertullian wheras he expoundeth only in good senâ—e the former part therof So as heere are two conuinced falsiâ—yes wherof yow may read more largely cap. 3. num 88.89 c. 16. There falleth out a question betweene M. Morton and Cardinall Bellarmine whether the forme of arguing vsed by S. Cyprian were good and sufficient or no whâ—Ì„ he defended the errour of rebaptizing hereticks à sufficientia scripturarum exclusiuè to wit this or that is not in the Scripture ergo it is not to be defended it being the common forme of arguing in the Protestants of our dayes and Bellarmine sayth no alleaging S. Augustine for his Authority who defending the negatiue against S. Cyprians error to wit that men returning froÌ„ heresy were not to be rebaptized which was the opinion of the whole Church in his time grounded vpon vnwritten tradition of the sayd Church reprehended that forme of arguing in S. Cyprian as not goodâ— and sufficient shewing both that many thinges bâ—sydes this are taught and belieued in the Church by tradition which are not in Scripture that S. Cyprian himselfe wheÌ„ he was out of necessity of defending this article made recourse vnto vnwritten traditions wherunto M. Mortoâ— answereth thus But whosoeuer shall consult with S. Augustine in the Chapter specifyed shall fynd that this point by himselfe is excellently commended saying that wheras Cyprian warneth vs to runne vnto the fountayne that is vnto the traditions of the Apostles from thence to deriue a coÌ„duct vnto our times is chiefly good and doubtles to be performed So he 17. But when S. Augustines discourse is examined it is found wholy against M. Morton for though he do allow and prayse recourse vnto Scriptures when things may euidently be proued from thence yeâ— doth he not hold that only such things are to be belieued as are expresly therin conteyned but rather both in this controuersie of râ—baptization wherin S. Cyprian doth pretend to hold
of Perfidiae Reus I am content to remit my selfe to the Iudgement of any two ciuill learned men of either of the Vniuersities to giue sentence in this behalfe though neuer so alienated from vs in opinion of Religion And thus much of the men Now of the matter booke and cause it selfe â— CONCERNING his Booke and Cause it selfe foure other of M. Mortons Challenges §. III. IN the last place M. Morton maketh new Challenges about the Cause and matter it self wherin he threatneth great things to be performed by him that vpon great and seuere penalties if he achieue not all that is put downe in his Challenges to wit That his Treatises be purged with fire and himselfe forced to recantation Which conditions if his Aduersary should accept I doubt not but he would quickly find himselfe in inextricable brakes if we may frame a Iudgment of things to come by things past and of his prowesse what he can doe by that which he hath done in time of most necessity For if euer he could do much it was time to do it now and shew his valour when he was most pressed as you see he hath byn in these precedent Chapters wherin he found himselfe ouerloaden with multiplicity of apparent witting and inexcusable vntruthes so fastned vpon him and so earnestly exacted as all his credit honour and honesty lay vpon it to defend himselfe or giue satisfaction Which not being able to do but by pretermitting wholy the most and chiefe points and falling downe vnder the burthen of the other we may imagine what he will be able to do for the time to come especially seing that he is so recharged with new Charges in the last precedent Chapter as if before he shrunke vnder the burthen he must needs now both sinke fall downe And yet let vs heare him crow once more at this very last cast like a battered Cocke of the game beaten out of the Cock-pit as before we haue likened him vnto 27. Lastly saith he for the cause if I do not auouch the Discouery of Romish positions and practises of Rebellion to be iust Iâ— I proue not the Treatise of Miâ—igation to be like an Apothecaries box of poisoâ— with the outward inscâ—iptioÌ„ of Antidote If I manifest not his specious and glozing reasons for defence of their Mentall Equiuocation to be no better then the apples of Sodome which vanish into ashes at the first â—ouch If lastly I shew not that the chieâ—est aduaÌ„tage of Romish aduersaries doth consist in falsifications all which this Preamble hath but touched and my Incounter god willing must handle then let my Treatises be purged wiâ—h fyre and my selfe challenged to a recantation So he And these conditions I accept willingly but well knoweth M. Morton that bargaine promise or leesse he what he will there wil be no execution made against him and therfore he may be as liberal as he list in offering large conditions But let vs examine in a word or two the particulers 28. If I do not auouch saith he the Discouery of Romish positions and practises of Rebellion to be iust If he do not But when What time will he take What day will he appoint He hath had now three or foure boutes and hath done nothing For â—irst he proposed his coÌ„tumelious Discouery alleaging ten fond reasons for the same which were beaten backe and turned against himâ—elfe by his first â—duersary the moderate Answerer which he taking vpon him to dâ—fend in his reply intituled his full Satisfactiâ—Ì„ did so fully ouerthrow his owâ—e cause as hath byne seene by my Reioyndeâ— or Trâ—atise tending to Mitigation but much more by this his Preambling answere which lightly passeth and walkâ—th ouer all and toucheth scarce any one point of moment appertaining to the matter And for this I alleage â—or witnesses the former Chapters wherin the exact view of all hath byn made 29. Secondly saith he â—f I proue not the â—reatise of Mitigation to be like an Apothecaries box oâ— poison with outward inscription of Antidote then c. But what poison there may be in mitigation of exasperating proceedings toward subiects that desire to liue quietly and dutifully reason teacheth not and much lâ—sse I thinke Religion wherof this man in word is a great professor And what ruynes and rufull ends the contrary hath wrought vpon sundry occasions experience the best Mystresse of â—â—ue prudence hath tâ—ught the whole woâ—ld 30. I do shew and demonstrate in the first Part of my said Treatise that M. Mortons malicious humour in sowing diffidence and distrust betweene Prince and people and in egging forward the Magistrate by Sycophancy to exaspeâ—ation is neither holy nor wholsome nor profitable nor secure nor any way fitting a Christian Common-wealth And that whatsoeuer he obiecteth to moue enuy against either doctrine or practise of Catholike Religion for disobedience to temporall Princes is false first in it self in regard of Catholickes and then is found infinitely more in those of his Religion Why had he not answered to these things in this his last Reply opened his Apothecaries box which now he promiseth 31. Thirdly saith he If I manifest nâ—â— his specious glozing Reasons for deâ—ence oâ— their mentall Eqâ—iuocation to be no better then the apples of Sodome which vanish into ashes at the first touch then will I be challenged tâ— recantation c. But many touches yea and many batterings hath M. Morton made to these my Reasons proofes for the lawfulnes of Mentall Equiuocation and neuer a one of them hath vanished or yelded to his batteriâ— For if it had we should haue byn sure to haue seenâ— it in this his last Reply when it stood so much vpon him to ouerthrow but any one of them if he had byn able But we haue now beholden their strength and his weaknes For that I hauing set downe my Reasons for the sayd mentall Reseruation out of Scriptures Fathers doctors Scholemen exaÌ„ples and other proofs for aboue two hundreth and fifty pages together M. Morton hath not found out any one instance wherof to treate in this his Reply or to fasten his pen vpon the same but only the EquiuocatioÌ„ of the poore woman Saphyra in the Actes of the Apostles which yet I told him before was no Equiuocation but a flat lye as commonly his and his fellowes Equiuocations are wherof I haue giuen many examples in the last Chapter of my Treatise of Mitigation both in himselfe and his antecessours M. Iewell M. Horne M. Fox Hanmer Charke Perkins Syr Francis Hastings Syr Edward Cooke and some others whereof M. Morton thought not best to take vpon him the defence of any one in this his last Reply but by silence rather to condemne them all and consequently heere were no apples of Sodome to be found that vanish at the first touch but all are dusands and hard wardens that will weary his fingers to bruze them if I may trifle with him
of Equiuocation ibid. nu 20. 22 he is much troubled about the example of Saphyra ibid. n. 26.27 his childish mistaking ibid. n. 36. his miraculous victory cap. 2. num 44. The excesse of M. Mort. malice c. 3. n. 3. He vseth fiue seuerall false shiftes and voluntary corruptioÌ„s in one accuâ—ation of Card. Bellar. ibid 72 73 c. his three fraudes concerning the Manichean heresy obiected by Bellarm. to the Protestants ibid num 79 c. he calleth diuers of the Fathers Knights of the posts ibid. n. 136 his false accusation of Catholicke writers n. 137. He is much pressed with wilfull lying about the matter of Purgatory n 139 M. Morton in obiecting a contradiction to P. R. lieth himself cap 4 n. 6 he denieth Syr Thomas VViats attempt to haue bene against either Queene or State ib. nu 48. Fox conteÌ„ned by M. Morâ—â— and Holinshead belied ibid n 50 c. He vseth 5. different fraudes at one time about Azor cap 4 n. 74 His fraud in alleaging Emanuel Sà n. 75 76 c. the like he vseth in citing Maldonate n. 82 83 M. Morton citeth diuers authors for that thing which they expressely do refuâ—e in the same places cap 5 nu 34 he confesseth an exorbitant fault casteth it on my L. of Canterburie nu 88 for want of more matter he doth handle the selfe same things diuers times to fill vp paper cap 5 nu 103 104 c. M. Mortons corruptions in citing Cassander and Bellarm. cap. 6 n 79. What substantiall matters handled in the Mitigation are wholy pretermitted by him cap. 6. nâ— 116. M. MortoÌ„s debts and accoÌ„pts cap 7 n 2 3 c. n 29. his bad dealing n 31 he defendeth not Syr Edw. Cooke n 48. his helping the die n 75.76 c his fiue cases out of Syr Ed. Cookes Reports at large discussed and answered ib n 74 75 c. his fond comparings n 95 96. his pretermissions cap 6 per totum his new lies added in his Preamble cap 9 per totum His vanting chalenges c. 10. per totuÌ„ N NAucleruâ— abused by M. Morton about the death of Pope Adrian the fourth cap 5 n 20 22. The Nicene Councell not falsified by Zozimus cap 3 n 30. For a Nihil and Nimium dicit see in Syr Edward Cooke Two causes of a Nihil dicit c 8. nu 2 3 c. Nouatian heresy in ProtestaÌ„ts see Bellarmine O OTho Frifingensis abused c 1 n 87 88. P PElagianisme in Protestants See Bellarmine Persecuting Iudges come to ill ends ca 8 nu 117. S. Peters answer to thâ— mayd concerning Christ. cap 2 n 33. Pius V. scoffed at by Syr Edw. Cooke cap 8 nu 108. Polidore Virgil belied c 5 n 12. Preamble of M. Morton vayne obscure confused cap 2 n 1. It is a great head with litle wit ca 2 num 19. M. Mortons vaine descants vpon the letters P. R. cap 10 nu 18 19 P.R. his iust demaund to haue M. Mortons bookes purged by fire cap 10 n 3â— Pricket pricked by Syr Edw. Cooke for seting forth in print his Charge giuen at Norwich cap 8. num 101. He is cleared from all malice against the Knight n 102 103. Protestant Princes neuer censured by the Sea Apostolike c. 2 numero 7. Protestants agree with the Nouatian heretikes cap 3 n 71 inexcusable in matters of rebellion cap 4 n. 39. Prouidence a principall part of prudence cap 2 nu 10. Purgatory prooued by Cocâ—ius out of many Fathers cap. 3 n 130. Q THe Question betweene M. Morton P. R. cap. 2. n 17. Of Queene Marie see VViat Of Queene Elizabeth see the Appendix against King the Minister In fine operis R REbellion by what religion most taught and practized c 7 n 13 14 Rebellion of Protestants c 4 num 39 Rebellion of VViat See VViat M. Reynolds exorbitantly abused cap 5. n. 88. the blame and shame cast vpon the B. of Canterbury Ibid. S THe Salamanders nature ca 8. n. 20. Saphyra See Morton The sleeping souldiers at our Sauiours Sepulcher cap 1 § 1 n. 2. c. The distinctiue signe of true false spirits cap 3 n 5. The Stage-play of M. Morton cap 2 num 1 2 3 4 c Stratagemes in warre lawful although they be Equiuocations cap 4 num 88. The Popes Supremacy confirmed by an inuincible argumeÌ„t of Costerus cap 3 num 13. see more in S. Leo. Suspitions without grounds breed nothing but vexations iealousies in Princes mindes cap. 2 n 11 c. Sutcliffs manner of answering Catholike bookes cap 6 n 57. The absurd Sillogisme of T. Morton againe examined cap. 1. num 27â—28 c. T THe case of Tythes examined cap. 8. num 92 93. c. ToleratioÌ„ of diuers ReligioÌ„s see M. Morton Traditions vnwritten allowed by S. Cyprian cap 3 nu 111 V VNtruthes vrtered by M. Morton See cap 6 and 8 alibi passim Vntruthes of other ProtestaÌ„ts See vnder the names of Iewell Horne Fox c. Vowes of voluntary pouerty approued by the Fathers cap â— num 23. Pope Vâ—banus his death See Binius W THe sweet waters of Meribah grosly mentioned by M. MortoÌ„ for the bitter waters of Marah cap. 10. n 3 VVh the Minister his Equiuocation in Append. n. 2 3. c. VVitaker reiecteth all the Fathers at once cap. 7. n. 45. VVilliam Conquerour changed our English lawes cap. 8. nu 50.51 Misreported about appropriatioÌ„s by Syr Edward Cooke n. 82.83 The VVit of P. R. taxed by M. Morton cap. 1 n. 2 3 c. The lying VVoman and lying Priests foolishly paralleled by M. Morton cap 2 n 38. VViats rebellion falsely defended by M. Morton cap 4 nu 48. c. See more in M. Morton FINIS In his Epistle dedicatory La preface de la sixiesme paâ—t des Reports Preamb. pag. 2. M. Mort. diuisioÌ„ of his worke Impertinent proceeding The methode vsed for M. Mort. confutation First Inquiry Witlesse contentioÌ„ about wit Second Inquiry See his Preamble pag. 31. Preamble pag. 32. Threates of scratches What was principally required of M. Mort. and what he performeth The contâ—ary succesâ—e of M. Mort. expectation The suÌ„mâ— of all this my Answere in 10. Chapters The reasoÌ„ of the tytle of this booke Two calumniations August lib. 2. coÌ„t Petil. cap. 83. ep 48. ad Vinâ—ent Rogat Optatus l. 2. cont Paâ—m lib. 6. August cont Donat in psalm 132. cont Petil. lib 3. c. 40. lib. 4. Preamb. p. 43. 48. About the Equiuocation of Saphyra That I am in charity with M. Morton Three causes of exasperation M. Mort. great presumptioÌ„ Preamb. p. 51. The secoÌ„d cause of exasperation A story out of Lactantiê° about the circuÌ„staÌ„ce of time which an enemie of Christian Religion tooke for his aduaÌ„tage The third cause of exasperation M. Mort. prouocatory speaches Act. 5. Preamb. pag. 48. A fond insultatioÌ„ Preamble p. 48. M Morton taken in an open contradictioÌ„ M. Mort. epistle to the Earle of
Tho Mortons Case of Couentry Azor l. 11. iâ—st c. 4. §. Primò quidem Azor. ib. §. tertia regula Syl Verb. Iuramentum 3. q. 2. Nauar. in Manual c. 12. nu 196. Tolet. in Instruct. Sacâ—r c. 21. l. 4. Rodâ—r in sum p. 1. c. 1â—1 con 4 Cosâ—us Phil. p. 2. l. 3. c. 14. Sayâ—r l. 5. c. 4. â—1 22 Egregiouâ— impudency of T. M. Diuers Grâ—sse vntruthes of T.M. T. M. Metroâ—olitan of his lying Metropolis Azor falsyfied as reiecting a Case which he plainely alloweth Exod. 20. Mitig. 450 §. 18. Pag. 60. 61. Azor notably belied by T. Morton lib. 11. c. 4. §. Quinto quaeritur Azor lib. 11. â— 4. §. Primò quidem Wilfull and perfidious deâ—ling Tullies 〈◊〉 agaâ—â—st liers Cardinall Tolet abused about grosse and affected ignorance Mitig. 225. Tolet abused Lib. 1. Instr Sac. c. 19. Cardinall Bellarm. egregiously iniured about the question of ancient gathering of Councells Mitig. pa. 208. A childish insultatioÌ„ of T. M. ouer Card. Bellarm. Barkleius l. 6. aâ—â—â— s. Monarch c. 26. Bellar. l. 1. de Conc. c. 13. §. Habemus ergo Diuers sorts of corruptioÌ„ The summe of Cardinall Bellarmins discourse falsifyed by â— M. Bellar. l. 1. de Conc. c. 13. § Habemus ergo Athan. in Ep. ad solitar vit agentes Foure causes why Emperours consents were necessary for gathering of Councells in old time See ff de Col. ill l. conuent de Episâ— presbyteris Euseb. l. 3. de vit CoÌ„st Thâ—od l. 1. Hist. c. 16. The Iesuit Salmeron much peruerted in sundry points Miâ—ig pa. 191. Pag. 2. Salmeron disp 12. in Ep. Pauli in gen §. Sed coÌ„tra Aug. l. 19. coÌ„t Faust. cap. 31. in princ 1 Corruption about the meaning Disp. 12. pag. 324. 325. Leuit. 4. Deut. 17. Num. 27. Philo. l. de victimis par 2. circa med Ioseph l. 3. antiq cap. 10. 2 Corruption about the words Sundry sleights 3 Corruption about the translation Confut. pag. 2. Malicious interpretations to make vs odious Salmeron againe abused by egregious cauillatioÌ„ Mitig. pag. 143. Salm. disp 12. in Ep. Paul Carerâ— l. 2. cap. 1. Heb. 4. How the old Testament was a figure of the new 1. Cor. 9. Deut. 25. 1. Cor. 10. Confut. pa. â—â— CauillatioÌ„ of T.M. About Dolman and other writers abused by him Mitig. pag 65. Dolman par 1. pag. 13. â—yted in Discou pag. 9. About Dolmanâ— text abused in words sense Carerius iniuriously haÌ„dled about his opinion of Priesthood and Kingly authority Mitig. c. 6. nu 60. pag. 234. Miâ—ig pag. 141. Pag. 2. Carer l. 2. de Rom. Pont. c. 18. Sander in visib monarch The dignity of Priesthood proued to be more theâ— Regall False dealing against Carerius Confut. p. 2. Carer l. 2. cap. 1. Franc. de Victoria abused touching the exemption of Cleargy men Mitig. pag 199. Franc. de Vict. relect 1. de potest Ecclâ—â—iae sect 4. Variety of corruptions Relect. 1. sect 4. noâ— sect 7. Victoria his propositions about exemption of Clergy men and and â—â— M. his corruptions therin â— Boniface Archb. falsifyed notably in the question Whether a Pope may be an hereticke Mitig. page â—â—â— Shamles facing of vntruthes A note of M. Sutcliffs manner of answering Warn-word Encounter 2. c. 13. n. 18.19.20 c. The errour about S. Boniface the English Martyr Great impudency S. Leo deceitpfully alleadged about the Oath of Supremacy Mitig. pag. 203. Pag. 26. Many falshoods Leo ep 75. ad Lâ—onem Augustiâ—â— Ibid. c. 5. The Christian sacrifice ceased in AlexaÌ„dria Notable corruptioÌ„ of S. Leo his meaning Mitig. pagâ— 208. Sepulueda abused about Equiuocation Mitig. pag. â—84 nâ— 57. Genes Sepuluâ— l. deâ—rat dicend testim â— 3. Genesius much abused by M. Morton Sotus manifâ—stly preuerted against his owne assertion about Equiuocation Mitig. pag 433. Sotus l. 5. de iust q. 6. art 2. Sotus falsely abused by T. M. Matthâ— 13â— Sotus expressely impugneth T. M. Lib. de teg Seâ—r nu 3. q. 3. Concl. 4. T. Mortons Doctor Genesius refuted by Sotus Cunerus â—asifyed against his owne meaning about the nature of religion pagâ—23 â—23 Cunerus de offic Prinâ— cap. 13. Aug. in Psal. 54. in verb. Psal. In multis erant mecum Ep. 48. B. Cunerus egregiously peruerted Cassander and Bellarmyne abused at once about the meanes of concord betweene Catholiks heretiks Mitig. pag 238. Pag. 55. Bellarm. l. de laicis cap. 19. Câ—ssand l. de offiâ— pij viri Eusebius 5. Hist. c. 13. Euag. l. 3. Hist. c. 14. 30. Cassander what maÌ„ner of man he was Mitig. pag 239.241.242 Index expurg in l. Cassandr De Offâ—â—io pij â—iâ—i fol. 314. Bellarmin l. de laicis cap. 19. Full Satisfact pag. 55. Cassanders iudgment not allowed by English ProtestaÌ„tâ— The â—leight of his English traÌ„slation Bellarmins opinion falsified Royardus and Cunerus peruerted against their words meaning about obedience to temporall Princes Mitig. p. 232. Pag. 30 3â—.34 Royard Serm. 1. in Domin 1. Aduent Serm. 2. in Domin 23. post Pentecost Royardus and Cunerus abused Act. 25â— Cap. 8. Sayer grossely abused about Haereticus pertinax Mitig. pag. 227. Sayer in â—asâ—b consc l. 1. c. 9. §. 30. A notable falsificatioÌ„ of Sayer The definition of contumacy The difference betwene coÌ„tumacy pertinacy Many false sleights Pag. 4. Cicero falsyfied in the question of swearing to a theefe c. Mitig. p. 462. Full satisf p. 90. p. â— The cause sâ—t downe by â—icero of prisonâ—rs let forth vpoÌ„ their oath by â—â—niball L. 3. Offi. §. Regulê° Cic. 3. Offic. §. Regulê° Â§. Sed si T.M. pressed with Punica fides about falsification Cicero most plainly against T. M. and for Catholicke doctrine T. Mort. coÌ„uincâ—d of egregious cosenage Of two abuses offered in citing D. Barkley Mitig. pag. 198. Enumeration of falsities Ibid. c. 11. Mitig. p. 202. Full satisfact p. 24. Barkleus l. 3. c. 5. Ambr. l. 5. Ep. 33. A cleare authority of S Ambrose imbezeled by T. M. Of diuers authors falsified about the depositioÌ„ of Popes Mitig. 235. Full satisfact p. 38. Bellarm. l. 4. de Rom. Pon. c. 2. Carer l. 1. c. 24. Azor. l. 5. c. 14. Grat. can Si Papa dist 40. That Popes may fall into heresy and be deposed for the same â—â—llarmin l. 2. de Pontif c. 30. Foure notorious lies togeather Greg. de Val. anal l. 8. cap. 3. Salm. com in Gal. 2 disp 24. Can. l. 16. loc Theol. cap. 8. Stapl. doct Tâ—inâ— l. 6. initio Coster de Pontif. in â—nâ—â—iâ— â—ap 3. Though Popes may fall into heâ—esy yet shall not they be pretermitted to decree it Full satisf p. 38. Ten lyes made at once How prudent creditours doe proceed with doubtfull debtors Mitig. c. â—â— What is heresy according to S. Austin Stancar l. de Trinit Mediatore Philip Nicolaus l. coÌ„t Caluinum in prafat c. p. 1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10 c. Luth. lib. Contra Sacrâ—mentâ—r in Ep. ad Marchion Pruss Mitig. p. 58.59.60.61.62 c. Item