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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
of the writers mynd to beguyle For first in the chapter by him named the intention was not only to improue the right of deposing Princes in the Pope but also of excommunicating them as appeareth by the tytle of the Chapter it selfe which is this That â—or more then 1000. yeares after Christ the Papall pretended iurisdictioÌ„ ouer Kings hath bene controlled Now then this Papall pretended Iurisdiction as all men know contayneth as well excommunication as â—eposition the one being the efficient cause of the â—ther so as for M. Morton to runne to onely deposiâ—ion of Princes is guylfully to slyde from his matâ—er and from his owne Authours for that both Friâ—â—ngensis and Tolosanus haue as well the words excomâ—unicated as depryued oâ— his Kingdome though Mortonâ—ath â—ath cunningly stricken them out in cyting their â—ords â—5 SecoÌ„dly his excuse of hauing alledged Otto Friâ—â—â—gensis against his owne meaning from the witnesse 〈◊〉 Tolosanus cannot stand or be cleared of deceiptfull â—â—eaning for in the English text which was writâ—en for deceiuing the English common Reader was â—othing said at all of Tolosanus but thus in disgrace â—f Pope Gregory the 7. I read and read againe sayth your Otto Frisingensis and I find that Pope Gregory the 7. â—â—lled Hildebrand in the yeare 1060. was the first Pope that â—â—er depriued any Emperour of his Regiment And to this â—estimony he adioyneth Claudius â—spâ—nseus a Parisianâ—octor â—octor and writer in our time oâ— very small acâ—oÌ„pt whome he calleth Bishop but I neuer heard â—et of his Bishopricke and to him he adioyneth â—ambertus Schasnalurgensis against his owne meaning â—s he did this of Frisingensis And with this only he â—ndeth all that Chapter instituted by him to improue all Papall authoritie of excoÌ„municating and deposing Princes Onely in the margent he setteth downe in latin the wordes of Frisingensis with citing â—he booke and Chapter and then addeth vt resert Tolosanus lib. 26. 96. Heere then I would aske whether ther were not fraud supposing FrisingeÌ„sis to be alleadged against â—his meaning to put downe his testimony in the English text without relation or mention of Tolosanus only in the margent and in latin to make reference vnto him Would the currant English reader euer reflect vpon that or mistrust that the wordes of Frisingensis were of doubtfull credit and related only by heare-say Why had not M. Morton put downe that refereÌ„ce in his English text which most imported But the truth is that it was a double cunning shift to let it runne in the text as he would haue it belieued by the Reader as though FrisingeÌ„sis had testified against Pope Gregory the 7. and yet in the margent to haue some refuge vnder-hand when he should be pressed with the falshood of the allegation as now he is 97. I let passe as of small moment the erroneous pareÌ„thesis which he putteth in of the yeare 1060. which caÌ„not be true for that all English men know that VVilliam Conquerour vpon the yeare 1066. entred into Engalnd with a hallowed banner sent him from Pope Alexander the second who was predecessour to Pope Gregory the 7. and coÌ„sequently Pope Gregory could not excommunicate the Emperoâ—r Henry vpoÌ„ this yeare assigned by M. Morton for that he was not yet Pope for diuers yeares after but this I impute to errour and so insist not vpon it but rather vpon other pointes of willing deceiptfulnes which now I am to go forward in noting 98. I cannot persuade my selfe but that M. Morton had read Frisingensis himselfe for it were absurd to write bookes out of other mens notes as afterwards vpon diuers occasions he doth confesse of himselfe when otherwise he cannot auoid the obiection of falshood vsed but howsoeuer this were that eyther M. Morton related the words of Frisingensis as he found them in himselfe or in Tolosanus he hath not faithfully related them as Tolosanus did for thus they lye Lego sayth he relego Romanorum Regum Imperatorum gesta nusquam inuenio quemquaÌ„ eorum ante hunc Henricum quartum à Romano Pontifice excoÌ„municatum vel Regâ—â— priuatum nisi sortè quis pro anathemate hahendum ducat â—â—òd Philippus ad breue tempus à Rom. Episcopo inter poenitenâ—â— collocatus Theodosius à B. Ambrosio propter cruentam â—â—deÌ„ à liminibus Ecclesia sequestratus sit I do read read â—gaine the acts of the Roman Kinges Emperors â—â—d I do neuer find any of them before this Henryâ—â—e â—â—e 4. to haue bene excoÌ„municated or depriued of â—â—s Kingdome except perhaps some man will hold 〈◊〉 an excommunication that the Emperour Philipâ—as â—as for a short time placed by the Bishop of Rome 〈◊〉 og such as did peÌ„nace Theodosius the Emperor â—as debarred the limits of the Church by S. Ambrose â—â—ishop of Millane in regard of a bloudy slaughter coÌ„â—itted by his order â—â— These are the wordes of Frisingensis related punâ—â—ually by Tolosanus as heere they lye but it pleased 〈◊〉 M. Morton to relate them eyther as they are â—â—und in the one or other And as for the first part â—â—erof the Reader will see the difference by that â—hich I haue already set downe and in one poynt â—â—e fraud is manifest that where Frisingensis saith â—â—squam inuenio quemquam eorum excommunicatum vel â—â—gno priuatum I neuer fynd any of the Emperours to â—aue byn excoÌ„municated or depriued by the Bishop of â—ome he leaueth out the word excommunicated both â—n latin and in English as though it made not to â—he purpose and secondly he cutteth of both in laâ—in and English all exception of the Emperours Phiâ—â—p and Theodosius though both his Authors haue it And could this be playne dealing â—00 But heere now yow shal heare how he answereth this omission I left them out of purpose I confesse saith he otherwise I should haue bene like to your selfe in this other such cauills who desire to say much though nothing to the purpose for to what purpose I pray you had this beene seeing our question was not to shew what Emperors had byn excommunicated but who being excommunicated had bene deposed from their regalityes Yea Sir and will you escape so why then doth your Authour Frisingensis say that he fyndeth none excommunicated or depryued of his kingdome before Henry the 4. by Gregoy the 7 you see that he includeth both the one the other and so doth Tolosanus relate him also and you haue strooke out the former from Tolosanus his latin text set downe in your margeÌ„t because it should not be seene and then also both the foresaid exceptions of the Emperours Philip and Theodosius he cutteth of suppresseth as nothing to the purpose and yet you know that depositioÌ„ of Princes is an effect of excoÌ„munication and can neuer happen by Ecclesiasticall authority but where excoÌ„munication hath gone before And I would aske M. Morton in good earnest out of his Deuinity when a Christian
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
must go accoÌ„panied with iudgemeÌ„t discretion and moderation which are other branches also of the same most excellent vertue of prudence For if they be wanting they do make prudeÌ„ce vnprofitable yea oftentimes pernicious turning it into malignant suspitions mistrustfullnesse frights feares iealosies other like effects which do worke the greatest infelicitie that in the world can be imagined And of these pestilent effects are efficient causes for the most part in Princes the cunning sycofancy subtility malitious informations suggestions eggings of flatterers makebates about theÌ„ who for their owne gaine priuate endes care not what seedes of iealosyes they sow in Princes heades against others so they may reape fauours theÌ„ selues by seeming to be prouident and benâ—uolous noâ— do they weigh what eating and consuming cares and sollicitudes they plant in the mindes of their Maisters so themselues may rest at ease as one said well of Dionysius the King of Sicily his spye when after supper he had secretly filled his Princes head with many false imaginations and iealosies himselfe went merily to the tauerne and after liberall drinking he slept souÌ„dly all that night but his Lord going to bed could sleepe nothing at all 11. But to returne to our present case I doe not denie nor euer did that due prouidence prouision ought to be held for â—uture cases as M. Morton doth heere most vntruly affirme theron fraudulâ—ntly doth found his whole discourse but my saying is that it must haue due limitts least it become hurtfull to witt a vaine vexing iealosie I say morcouer that euery may be is not a mâ—st be to fill Princes eares with possibilities onely of dangers without some particuler circumstaÌ„ces of probabilities or credibilities is an officious wounding them vnder pretence of fawning good will As for example if one should doe nothing els but lay before his Maiestie that now raigneth the disasters and perills that haue happened to his noblâ— aunceâ—â—ors in our Land without â—urther particuler ground of likelihood against himselfe but onely that they haue happened and therfore may happen againe it were an importune babling King VVilliam Ruâ—us was slaine in hunting his elder brother Richard as also his nephew of the same name sonne of Robert Duke of Normandie had like disasterous ends in hunting therfore his Maiesty must hunt no more The children of King Henry the first were drowned on the sea therfore no more Princes children must passe the seas vpon no occasion Some Kinges of England were pursued by their owne Children as King Henry the second and â—dward the second and the last also by his wife the Queene thereâ—ore his Maiestie must stand in iealosie of his owne bloud King Stephen King Richard the secoÌ„d Edward the second Henry the 6. and some others are thought to haue bene betrayed by some of theiâ— owne Counsellours and King Iohn was pursued by his owne Barons and Nobility therfore his Maiesty at this day must rest in iealosie both of the one other sort of subiectes do not you see how farre this lyeth open to iniurious calumniation and sedition 12. But I will giue an example more proper yet to the matter If a seditious fellow in England that had great authority with the people and small affection towards the Prince should continually cry and beat into their heads that they looke well about them and stand vpon their guard for that their King may abuse his Authority and become a Tyrant and may oppresse them at his pleasure when they thinke not of it alleadging no other probabilities and arguments of likelihood but only that he may do it or that some such thing hath fallen out before as here M. Morton doth against the Popes authority and Catholickes that acknowledge the same and when any one should say to that turbulent fellow pretending to be so studious of the Common-wealth and iealous of the Kings proceedings that he vrgeth only a may be and that there is no great likelihood of any will be or that such euents will follow as he threatneth and draweth into suspition he should fall into choler rage as M. Morton doth saying that he caÌ„not laugh for wonder horror to see any Englishman conceyte so basely of the wittes and worth of his countâ—eymen as to imagine that they can be deluded with so senseles so shameles so perniciouâ— so impious a Miâ—igaâ—ion as this is not to preuent ensuing dangers c. And yet further that this is a stupiâ—ying receipt casting the state and people into a slumber of not regarding ensuing dangers c. 13. This exclamation I say of this troublesome fellow that would put in iealosie the people and Common-wealth against their King or Monarch only vpon a may be or possibilitie were it not iustly to be reprehended Were not the partie to be cast out as a tumultuous make-bate But he will say peâ—hapes that there is more then may be in this our case there want not probabilities and nearer arguments of intended troubles These then if you please let vs examine breifly and see of what weight or worth they are 14. And truly in this point I see not what probabilities there may be in reason to perswade his Maiestie that his Catholike subiects would not liue quietly and confidently vnder him if they might â—e vsed as subiects and haue that Princely and Faâ—herly protection from him which both lawes do â—llow to freeborne subiects and they may hope and â—xpect from his benignity where no personall or â—ctuall delict shall haue made theÌ„ vnworthy therof There are now no quarrels or differeÌ„ces of titles no â—ed Rose or white no Lancaster or Yorke within the â—and to draw men into partes or factions or passionate courses his Maiestie hath vnited both Realmes â—ogeather is the sonne and heire of the most dearest Princesse vnto English Catholickes that euer liâ—ed in many ages hath goodly issue of his owne which our Lord blesse is setled in his Crowne ioyâ—ed in freÌ„dship and league with all Princes in Chriâ—tendome round about him both of the one and â—he other Religion hath beene hitherto beloued â—nd highly esteemed for many yeares though a Protestant Prince euen by the very spirituall Head himselfe of Catholicke Religion what cause then what reason what motiue what hope what probability may English Catholickes haue to seeke or atteÌ„pt alteâ—ations in State if any tolerable coÌ„dition of Christian subiects may be permitted vnto them 15. I will not adde the experience of so many ages throughout Christendome and of ours that is present nor the comparison or antithesis betweene the doctryne and practice of Catholicke and Protestant subiects in this behalfe which I haue handled more largely in my former treatise tending to Mitigation and well knowne and experienced also by his Maiestie in sundry pointes occasions only I must say that M. Morton here hath dealt very partially in that he taking vpon him to lay before his
true explanation of your meaning with a cleare confutation and reiection of the same and consequently these Rhetoricall shifts are idly brought in by you nothing nâ—edfull for me For P. R. tooke you in your true meaning wherin you desire to make Catholicke Doctours contemptible in generall for their blindnesse though to some yow will seeme to graunt the opinion of learning but yet with such restraint and limitation as you make it not better for instruction of Christian soules then the learning of the Diuell himselfe For this is your wise and graue conceipt Let them be as greatly learned say you as they are and would seeme to be yet must there be a con I meane an hart zealous of the truth to be ioyned with science to make vp a perfect conscience which is the true Doctour indeed otherwise we know that the serpent by being the most subtile of all the beasts in the field will deserue no better commendationâ— then to be accoÌ„pted the skillfullest seducer By which discourse of yours a man may easily see whether your meaning were generall in your former speach about ignorant Doctours or no and how impertinently you bring it in heere for an argument of wilfull falshood against me for that I vnderstood you in your owne sense I will not discusse your concept of your science with your con which was borrowed of Iohn Reynolds and of others before you and though I be loath to tell it you least it may seeme to sauour of reuenge yet I must say it for your better information that many men thinke very little of the one or other to be in your selfe as they should be either science or good conscience alleadging your writings for testimony of both HIS FOVRTH obiected falshood against P. R. §. IIII. NEXT vnto this he produceth for a falshood in me that I say in my booke of Mitigation that he taketh vpon him to iustifie the writings and doings of the Protestants of our dayes for their seditious doctrines and practizes against Princes who please them not and among others M. Goodman in particuler that wrote the most scandalous booke against the Regiment of women in Q. Maries dayes and assisted Knox Buchanan and others in troubling and turning vpside downe Scotland wheras M. Morton saith that he condemned him and consequeÌ„tly that I dealt iniuriously with him Thus he citeth my words in a different letter as though they stood so in my text He Thomas Morton doth particulerly iustifie Goodman 21. But first you must vnderstand that it is his common vse neuer lightly to alleadge truly and sincerely any text that he will vse to his profit either in Latin or English and let the Reader make prooâ—e of it if in twenty places alleadged by him he find foure without all alteration let him say that I do offer him iniury My words talking of the parts of M. Mortons Reply called the Full satisâ—action were these Secondly he taketh vpon him yet more fondly in the second part of this his Reply to make a publicke iustification of all Protestants for rebelling against their Princes in any countrey whatsoeuer but more particulerly and especially in England and therin doth so iustifie Cranmer Ridley Syr Thomas VVyatt and others that conspired against Q. Marie in England Knox Buchanan Goodman and like Ministers in Scotland turning vpside downe that State against their Soueraignes the rebellions raised in Suetia Polonia Germany Switzerland France and other countries as his iustification is a more condemnation of them and their spirits and doctrine in that behalfe then if he had said nothing at all as partly shall afterward appeare by some instances that we shall alleadge therof 22. By which words of mine you may see that I did not single out Goodman alone as particulerly iustified by M. Morton as he would make the Reader belieue by his crafty and corrupt manner of citing my words but that among many others he did go about also so farre as he durst to excuse and iustifie him saying as presently you shall heare that albeit he approued him not for this he durst not do my L. of Canterbury hauing written so terribly against him in his booke of Dangerous positions yet that the examples alleadged against him by the Moderate Answerer might excuse him which were of most intollerable speaches of his against Princes and heere againe in this his Preamble that in respect of Romish Priests he might be thought excusable wherby a man may see his inclination to iustifie him and his writings if with security he might haue donne it How then is it such a falsity in me to say that among so many others before named whom he cannot deny but that he seeketh to iustifie them he sought also to excuse and iustifie Goodman though not in so absolute a manner as the other Saints of his yet in some degree conuenient to his estate and merit Let vs see what I do write afterward more about this iustification of Goodman my wordes these 23. The moderate Answerer say I alleageth first the wordes of Goodman in his booke against Q. Mary wherin he writeth expresly that it is lawfull by Gods law mans to kill both Kings and Queenes wheÌ„ iust cause is offered her selfe in particuler for that she was an enemie to God and that all Magistrâ—ts and Princes transgressing Gods lawes might by the people be punished condemned depriued and put to death as well as priuate transgressours and much other such doctrine to this effect cited out of the said Goodman All which the Bishop of Canterbury his second booke of Dangerous positions hath much more largely both of this Goodman and many other English Protestants chiefe Doctours of their primitiue Church residing at that time in Geneua And what doth T. M. now reply to this You shall heare it in his owne wordes If I should iustify this Goodman saith he though your examples might excuse him yet my hart shall condemne my selfe But what do you professe to proue all Protestants teach positions rebellious prooue it heere is one Goodman who in his publike booke doth mantaine it I haue noe other meanes to auoid these straites which you obiect by the example of one to conclude all Protestants in England rebellious then by the example of all the rest to answere there is but one So he 24. And this is his Full satisfaction and faithfull reply as he calleth his booke but how poore satisfaction this giueth and how many points there be heere of no faith or credit at all is quickly seene by him that will examine them For first how do the examples alleaged against this Goodman by the moderate answerer excuse him as heere is said seeing the wordes he alleageth against him out of his owne booke are intollerable and my Lord of Canterbury alleageth farre worse as for example that it is most lawfull to kill wicked kings when they fall to tyraÌ„ny but namely Queenes
person to Venice there by his presence to draw togeather more aboundantly and with greater speed a Christian army VVherfore being arriued vnto Ferrara and aduertised first by common rumour of an vnfortunate fight had with the Infidels and then afterward vnderstanding more certainly the truth therof he fell into such sorrow as caused an Ague and soone after death it selfe through the force of griefe 37. Thus wrote Blondus And with him agree the rest of the Authors cited many others by me pretermitted And now consider M. Mortons words VVhat is now wanting saith he but an example to be produced of one Pope vpon whom the vengeance of God seized because of his rebellious opposition against tâ—mporall Lordes Was it a vengeance of God to dye peaceably in his bed through the feruour of holy desires to see the holy Land recouered But I will pose M. Morton no further in thâ—se matters for that euery man seeth what necessity driueth him to speake and write so absurdly as he doth THE THIRD Charge of falshood against M. Morton which he pretendeth to answere §. III. IN the third place it pleaseth M. Morton to choose out another imputation of mine against him in tâ—e same 2. Chapter 4. Paragraph of my booke which is about the egregious abusing of a place of D. Bâ—ucher the French-man De iusta abdicatione c. thâ—rby to make all English Catholicks odious as allowing his doctrine The controuersy is clearly set downe in my reprehensioÌ„ of his fraud expressed in these wordes The Charge 29. An other like tricke he plaieth vs some few pages before this againe citing out of D. Bouchers booke De iusta abdicatione these wordes Tyrannum occidere honestum est quod cuiuis impunè facere permittitur quod ex communi consensu dico And then he Englishâ—th the same thus Any man may lawfully murder a Tyrant which I defend saith he by common consent But he that shall read the place in the Author himselfe shall find that he houldeth the very contrary to wit that a priuate man may not kill a Tyrant that is not first iudged and declared to be a publicke enemy by the common wealth And he proueth the same at large first out of Scriptures by the decree of the generall Councell of Constance his wordes be these Neque verò eo iure quod ad regnum habet nisi per publicum Iudicium spoliari potest c. Neither can a tyrant be depriued of that right which he hath to a Kingdome but only by publicke iudgmeÌ„t yea further also so long as that right of kingdome remayneth his person must be held for sacred wherof ensueth that no right remaineth to any priuate man against his life And albeit any priuate man should bring forth neuer so many priuate iniuries done by the said Tyrant against him as that he had whipped him with iron rodds oppressed him afflicted him yet in this case must he haue patience according to the admonition of S. Peter That we must be obedient not only vnto good and modest Lordes but also vnto those that be disorderly and that this is grace when a man for Gods cause doth sustayne and beare with patience iniuries vniustly done vnto him c. 40. And in this sense saith he is the decree of the Councell of Constance to be vnderstood when they say Errorem in fide esse c. It is errour in faith to hold as Iohn VVickliffe did that euery Tyrant may be slayne meritoriously by any vassall or subiect of his by free or secret treasons c. Thus writeth that Author holding as you see that no Tyrant whatsoeuer though he be neuer so great a tyrant may be touched by any priuate man for any priuate iniuryes though neuer so great nor yet for publicke though neuer so manifest except he be first publickly condeÌ„ned by the Commonwealth which is an other manner of moderation and security for Princes then the Protestant doctrine before rehearsed and namely that of Knox vttered in the name of the whole Protestant congregation both of Scotland and Geneua If Princes be tyrants against God and his truth his subiects are freed from their Oathes of Obedience So he 41. And who shall be iudge of this The people for that the people saith he are bound by oath to God to reuenge the iniâ—ry done against his Mâ—iesty Let Princes thinke well of this and let the Reader consider the malicious falshood of this Minister T. M. who in alleagâ—ng that litle sentence before meÌ„tioned about killing of a Tyrant strooke out the wordes of most importance quem hostem Resp. iudicauerit whome the common-wealth adiudged for a publick enemy adding that other clause which I say by common consent which is not there to be found and with such people we are forced to deale that haue no conscience at all in cosenage and yet they cry out of Equiuocation against vs where it is lawfull to be vsed making no scruple at all theÌ„selues to lie which in our doctrine is alwaies vnlawfull for any cause whatsoeuer Thus farre were my wordes of charge reprehension to him in my former Treatise of Mitigation The pretended discharge 42. And now you hauing heard this large Inditement it is reason you heare also what the prisoner at the barre can bring forth for informing the Iury to his discharge You must stand attent for he would gladly slyde away vnder a veile of wordes Wherfore first he layeth forth at larg the drift of D. Bouchers discourse saying that he maketh a double consideration of a Tyrant one as he doth any iniury to any priuate man and that for this he may not be slaine of a priuate man the other as he doth commit publicke iniurie and violence either in case of religion or the ciuill state and this Tyrant may be slaine by the common wealth yea also and by any priuate man when the common wealth hath declared him for a publicke enemy And then he inferreth thus for himselfe VVe see now that Boucher hath defâ—nded both that no priuate man may kill a Tyrant for priuate iniuries done against priuate men and also that any priuate man may kill a Tyrant for common iniuries I haue alleaged the later and P. R. hath opposed the former both of vs haue affirmed a truth where then is the falshood Thus seeketh M. Morton to escape and goeth about by two similitudes to confirme this manner of answering The first that if an Esquire haue a sonne that is a knight he shall sit aboue him in publike meetings but not in priuate that is that he shall fit aboue him and not sit aboue him and so Christ commaunding â—aith he that we should do as the Pharisies did ordaine but not as they did in their lifâ— manners he willed vs to do not to do as the Pharisies do in different respects and senses c. And thus thinketh to haue quitted himselfe
Henry the fourth quite contrary to the wordes meaning of the said Historiographer who defendeth the cause of the said Pope speaking much good of his lyfe vertue And M. Mort. is so farre of froÌ„ being able to quit himself from false dealing in this behalf as he is forced partly to lay the fault vpon others as vpon Doctor Toloâ—anus partly to abuse the name and testimony of Claudius Espencaeus and make him to say and auerre that which he doth not but relateth out of others And in no one Imputation hitherto touched was he more graueled then in this as the Reader may see by turning to the place it self So as it is strange that M. Morton will bring in this againe but only to make vp a nuÌ„ber and yet leaue out so great store of other of farre greater importaÌ„ce as hath bene said But now leauing this let vs peruse another defence of his which he hath choseÌ„ to make as the last prize of his maistery in this behalfe and it being reserued by him for the last place we may imagine it will be a good one THE FOVRTEENTH and last Imputation of falshood pretended by M. Morton to be triumphantly answered §. XIIII FOR the last place and vpshot of this Combat M. Morton hath made choice of an Imputation which he pretendeth not only with great aduantage to be able to repell and shake of from himselfe but to retort the same in like manner vpon his aduersary therfore he intertaineth himselfe longer therin then in any other hitherto named deuideth his answere both into a seuerall preface foure distinct heads or paragraphs promising in the one to shew the falsity of this obiected ImputatioÌ„ in the second the foolishnes in the third the vnâ—ortunatnes in the â—ourth the blasphemy And surely if he can not only cleere himself from the imputation but proue also these foure points against me for obiecting the same or any one of them which is more liberality then he demaÌ„deth I will say that he hath shewed manhood indeed in this last atteÌ„pt to recompeÌ„ce the Childhood we haue found in all the rest 109. But yet before we passe to the particuler triall I must needes tell him friendly that this adueÌ„trous anymosity of his is not allwaies either coÌ„meÌ„dable or fortunate as we shall shew in our eight Chapter where we shall be forced to treat somewhat of his coÌ„fident audacious oâ—fers protestatioÌ„s And for that he termeth the Charge made by me of this imputation an InditemeÌ„t I shal vse the same Metaphor in this my Answere aduertismeÌ„t vnto him which is that I haue heard of sundry in England who being called into suspition about criminall imputations bound ouer only vpoÌ„ sleight bandes to appeare at the next Assises haue vpon like animosity to daunt the aduersary with voluntary appearing defending their owne cause remayned condemned executed notwithstanding their indiscreet courage in presenting themselues at the barre when it needed not somtimes perhaps the sooner for that they shewed therby so little respect to the Seaâ— of IudgmeÌ„t as to thinke themselues able to delude the same And eueÌ„ so fareth it in our case M. Mort. hauing seene the parts of his inditemeÌ„t as himselfe calleth it pondered no doubt of what weight they are would notwithstanding needs call the matter into question againe before a new â—ury haue al particulers râ—â—iâ—wed more exactly looked into whereas the thing might haue biâ— passed ouer with silence or at least with lesâ—e publicity if himself had not prouoked the contrary 110. VVell then for so much as he will needes haue iâ— so let vs bring forth our Charge set down in the Treaâ—ise of Mitigation which he callâ—th an Indiâ—emenâ— the subiect wherof is about egregious false dealing in alleaging the authority of the GermaÌ„ historiographer Lambertus Scafnaburg against Pope Gregory the 7. whom Lambertus doth highly commend euen as the same M. Morâ— had done bâ—fore in alleaging Otto Frisingensis but yet with more audacity for that he would seeme to excuse the other fact by laying the fault vpon Doctor Tolosanus as you haue heard But heere he doth not only not lay it vpon another nor excuse the fact nor acknowledg any error or ouer sight but auerreth both falsity â—olly infelicity and blasphemie to be in the imputation Let vs come theÌ„ to the discussion of the whole My former wordes were these The Charge 111. But the next fraud after that of misalleaging Friâ—ingensis or impudency or rather impudent impiety said I is that which ensueth within foure lynes after in these words Pope Gregory the 7. saith your Chronographer was excommunicate of the Bishops of Italy for that he had defamed the Apostolike Sea by Symony other capital crymes And then cyteth for proof hereof Lambertus Schasnaburg Anno 1077. As if this our Chronographer had related this as a thing of truth against the said Pope or that it were approued by him and not rather as a slanderous obiection cast out by his aduersaries that followed the part of Henry the Emperour Let any man read the place and yeare heere câ—ted and if he be a modest man he will blush at such shameles dealing For that no Author of that time doth more earnestly defend the cause vertuous life of Pope Hildebrand theÌ„ this man whose words are Sed apud omnes sanum aliquid sapientes luce clariùs constabat falsa esse quae dicebantur Nam Papa tam eximie tamque Apostoliâ—è viâ—am instituebat c. But with all men of sound wisdome it was more cleere then the sunne that the things which were spoken against Pope Hildebrand were false for that the Pope did lead such an excellent Apostolicall life as the sublimity of his conuersation did admit no least spot of wicked rumour against him he lyuing in that great Citty open concourse of men it could not haue byn hidden if he had coÌ„mitted any vnlawfull thing in his life And moreouer the signes miracles which by his prayers were often times done his most feruent zeale for God in defenâ—e of Ecclesiasticall lawes did sufficiently defend him against the poysoned tongues of his detractours And againe Hildebrandi constaÌ„tia et inuictus aduersus auaritiaÌ„ animus omnia excludebat argumenta humanae â—allaciae The constancie of Pope Hildebrand and his inuincible mind against the corruption of auarice did exclude all arguments of humane fallacie and deceipt So Lambertus 112. And now let the Reader consider with what conscience fidelity T. M. hath cyted him for coÌ„demnatioÌ„ of Pope HildebraÌ„d He relateth indeed what certaine Noblemen Captaines others that came with the Emperour to the Casâ—le of Canusium would not haue had him made peace with the Pope in that place said in their rage afterward for that against their CouÌ„sell he had submitted himself vnto the said Pope And when a certaine Bishop named Eppo
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.
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
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
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
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