himselfe many waies to get out He saith that though Nauclerus doth not affirme it yet Abbas Vrspergensis related by Nauclerus doth But why had not M. Morton mentioned Vrspergensis at the firsâ— and sincerly haue told his Reader that he did only relate the matter with this clause vt fertur as it is said Why if he would haue dealt plainly had he not confessed that Nauclerus did mislike and improue the said report that by the testimony of all Italian writers that he could read Nay why doth he now againe being taken in flagrante delicto misalleage Nauclerus words after that he had seene and read him saying Verùm cùm multi Itali nullam de hoc mentionem faciunt c. but wheras many Italians do make no mention of this wheras Nauclerus true words are Verùm cùm Itali quos legere potui nullam de hoc faciant mentionem Ioannes Flasboriensis alijque multam de Adriano reserant honestatem c. But wheras the Italian writers which I could come to see do make no mention of this matter Iohn of Salisbury and other Authors do relate much good of Adrian c. Haeâ— et alia ambiguum me reddunt quid potiùs eligendum quidùe credendum sit Scribimus enim res gestas affectu nonnunquam plusquam veritatis amore ducti Verùm vnum hoc adijcimus AdrianuÌ„ Virum â—uisse integrum c. These and other such things do make me doubtfull what were to be chosen or what were to be beleiued For that we do write other mens acts more oftentimes by affection then led therunto by the loue of truth VVhich wordes are euidently meant by Nauclerus of Vrspergensis taxing him that he wrote much of passion against Pope Adrian in behalfe of the Emperour Fredericke with whome he held against the Pope and that do the next ensuing wordes of Nauclerus shew which are cut of by M. Morton in relating them here in his Preamble Verâ—m hoc adijcimus Adrianum Virum â—uisse integrum c. but we adde notwithstanding to this that Pope Adrian was an irreprehensible man So as in this small speach oâ— Nauclerus by vs now related M. Morton insteed of Itali quos legâ—re potui reciteth his wordes to be Câ—m multi Itali he striketh out also Ioannes Flasboriensis alijque multam de Adriano reâ—erant honestatem he addeth of his owne that he was maledictus à Deo and finally he cutteth of the last of Nauclerus which containe his owne iudgment Adrianum Virum â—uisse integrum So as if now after he confesseth to haue seene Nauclerus he doth relate him so corruptly what great credit can be giuen to his former protesâ—ation that he had not seene nor read him Or what importeth whether he saw him or no for so much as he was resolute to corrupt him and to make him speake no more nor lesse then he would haue him to do as now you haue seene 28. So as to conclude this accompt wee see that M. Morton in going about to cleere himselfe fâ—om this charge of treacherie doth intangle himselfe with two or three other treacheries more And last of all not hauing what to say runneth to a coÌ„mon place that foure other Popes are reported to haue had disastrous ends to wit Anastasius 2. Ioannes 10. IoaÌ„nes 12. Vrbanusâ— as if wee defended that all Popes had good liues or prosperous deaths or that among our Kings of â—ngland Scotland who haue been peraduenture fewer then Popes many lamentable endingâ— were not to be found and yet may we not argue therof against the lawfullnesse of Kingly power or due respect to be borne to their persons and places or that it might be taken for an argument that God did abandon them and their digâ—ity for suffering them to dye disastrously as this man would inferre of Popes And finally how many Popes soeuer did dye vnfortunatly this doth not excuse M. Morton in belying Adrian and his Author Nauclerus from which it seemeth that he cannot be excused 29. And this in case all were true which he writeth of these other foure Popes whom impertinently he bringeth in to accompany Adrian but as in the one we haue found him manifestly false so in these also you shall not find him exactly true in any one thing lightly that he saith of them but still there must be some mixture of sleightfull tricks to disguise matters And to help out the dye to vse his owne phrase he beginneth thus But why should it be thought a matter incredible that suth a dismall end should befall a Pope Whervnto I answere that the question is not whether it be incredible that a dismall end may befall a Pope but whether such an end as yow describe did befall Pope Adrian or no And whether you haue vsed true dealing in the manner of recounting the same 30. It followeth in your narration out of one of our Doctors as you say Bene legitur Anastasium diuino nutu percussum interijsse It is read that Pope Anastasius was stroken with the hand of God and perished you cite for it Ioannes de Turrecremata lib. de summa Eccles de Anastasio VVhich citation is so set downe as I perswade my selfe that at the next reply he will haue the like euasion as before in citing of Nauclerus to witt that he saw not the worke it selfe For that Turrecremata doth not write only one booke de summa Eccles. as heere is insinuated but foure ech one of them hauing many chapters and one only hath more then a hundred which is this wherout this sentence is preâ—ended to be taken And yet doth M. Mortons citation specify neyther booke nor Chapter wâ—ich allwayes you must imagin hath some mystery in it He quoteth also de Anastasio as though the Author had some such Chapter wheras he only speaketh of this Pope Anastasius by way of answering certayne obiections about the cause of infallibility of not erring in the Bishop of Rome when he is to decree any thing for the Church wherabout some said that albeit a Pope might fall into heresy yet God would not permitt him to decree any thing hereticall wherof an example was brought of this Pope Anastasius 2. that being inclined as some thought by instance of the hereticall Emperour of his owne name Anastasius then lyuing to admitt vnto his communion the heretike Acatius and expecting only for that purpose as was thought the returning of his legate Festus from Constantinople God tooke him away before his returne Turrecremata his wordes are these Tertium etiam hic inducunt eâ—emplum de Anastasio qui licèt voluerit reuocare Acatium non tamen potuit quia Diuino nutu percussus est They bring in also heere a third example of Pope Anastasius who albeit he had a will to recall the heretike Acatius yet he could not do it for that he was stroken by the hand of God and dyed 31. This
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
This is his demaund and for ground heerof he citeth these latin words of Bellarmine out of the forenamed place Pelagiani docebant non esse in hominibus peccatum originale praecipuè in filijs fidelium Idem docent Caluinus Bucerus The Pelagians did teach that there was not Originall synne in men especially in the children of the faithfull And the same do teach Caluin Bucer which words if you conferre them with the words themselues of Bellarmine before cited who accuseth not Caluin Bucer of all the Pelagian doctrine in this poynt but only Zuinglius and as for the other two to wit Bucer Caluin he accuseth them for a part only Zuinglius denying originall synne in all and these later only in Christian Infantes two trickes at least of wilfull falsity are discouered the first that in his charge he wiâ—leth Bellarmine to be examined in confession about Caluin wheras he â—pake of three togeather to wit Zuinglius Bucer and Caluin the second that he accuseth Bellarmiâ—e as though he had charged Caluin with all the Pelagian heresie in this matter wheras he expresly profâ—ssâ—th to charge him only with one point therof coÌ„cerâ—ing the infantes of the faithfull Wherfore these words â—deÌ„ docent Caluinus Bucerus and this may be the third false tricke are not to be found in Bellarmine but are thrust in by M. Morâ—on nor cannot agree with the distinction of Cardinall Bellarmine before set downe these things then I leaue to the Readers discretion For though the points themselues for their substance be not of great weight yet is the mynd of the writer as much discouered in false tricks of small moment as of great see more of this matter before Cap. 3. num 62.63.64 c. 13. It followeth pag. 55. of this his preamble that treating of the prohibition made by the ancient Councell of Eliberis in Spayne consisting of 19. Bishops not to set vp Images in the Churches the diuers expositions of Catholicke doctours about the same what the causes and motiues might be of this prohibition for that tyme of the fresh and new conuersioÌ„ of that nation from Idolatrie to Christian Religion among other expositors he citeth the opinion of Sixtus Senensis for the last vpshot of the whole matter â—aying thus So that whatsoeuer the occasion of forbidding might haue beene this is a confessed conclusion of Senensis that the Councell of Eliberis did absolutly forbid the worship of Images And then â—etteth down the same in latin in his margent as out of Senensis alâ—o in these wordes Idcirco omnino veâ—uit Synodus Elibertina imaginum calâ—um But he that shall looke vpon the text of the Authour himself shall not fynd any such confessed conclusion or any such words of absolutly forbidding and consequently this is conuinced to be an absolute vntruth for it appeareth cleerly in Senensis that the prohibition was only for a time vntill the new conuerted Spaniards should be better instructed in Christian Religion and made to vnderstand better the difference betweene Pagan Idols and sacred Images so as heere are two grosse falsityes first in obtruding as the latin sentence of Senensis that which Senensis hath not in words or sense and then in translating the same so punctually into English setting it down in a different letter as though it were exactly so in good earnest and can there be any excuse for these sortes of procedings Let the Reader see more before c. 3. nu 38. 14. Gregorius de Valentia is brought in by M. Morton against Bellarmine as allowing of a sentence of Tertullian vsed by Bullinger the Caluinist as orthodoxall and iustifiable to wit Tres sunt in Diuinitate personae non statu sed gradu non substantia sed forma non potestate sed specie differentes and M. Morton stoutly cyteth in his margent for approuing therof Gregorius de Valentia Iesuita de vnitate Trinitate c. 9. § item Bullingerus meaning therby to oppose the one of theÌ„ against the other in this matterâ— but when the thing is examined the wordes of Gregorius de Valentia are found to be these Bullingerus Sacramentarius c. Bullinger the Sacramentary affirmeth that there are three persons in Deity which differ not in state but degree not in substance but forme not in power but kind by which wordes sayth Valentia he doth not only ouerthrow the Godhead of the sonne but euen the whole Mystery of the most holy Trinity 15. So sayth ValeÌ„tia against Bullinger for whose defeÌ„ce against Cardinall Bellarmins accusation of Arianisme he is produced And let the reader iudge whether this be an allowancâ— of that sentence for orthodoxall which Valentia sayth as yow see to be so blasphemous as it doth ouerthrow the whole mystery of the Blessed Trinity And the lyke lye yow may behold vttered by M. Morton against Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe in this very matter affirming him to expound as orthodoxall and iustifiable the forsayd hereticall paradox of Tertullian wheras he expoundeth only in good senâ—e the former part therof So as heere are two conuinced falsiâ—yes wherof yow may read more largely cap. 3. num 88.89 c. 16. There falleth out a question betweene M. Morton and Cardinall Bellarmine whether the forme of arguing vsed by S. Cyprian were good and sufficient or no whâ—Ì„ he defended the errour of rebaptizing hereticks à sufficientia scripturarum exclusiuè to wit this or that is not in the Scripture ergo it is not to be defended it being the common forme of arguing in the Protestants of our dayes and Bellarmine sayth no alleaging S. Augustine for his Authority who defending the negatiue against S. Cyprians error to wit that men returning froÌ„ heresy were not to be rebaptized which was the opinion of the whole Church in his time grounded vpon vnwritten tradition of the sayd Church reprehended that forme of arguing in S. Cyprian as not goodâ— and sufficient shewing both that many thinges bâ—sydes this are taught and belieued in the Church by tradition which are not in Scripture that S. Cyprian himselfe wheÌ„ he was out of necessity of defending this article made recourse vnto vnwritten traditions wherunto M. Mortoâ— answereth thus But whosoeuer shall consult with S. Augustine in the Chapter specifyed shall fynd that this point by himselfe is excellently commended saying that wheras Cyprian warneth vs to runne vnto the fountayne that is vnto the traditions of the Apostles from thence to deriue a coÌ„duct vnto our times is chiefly good and doubtles to be performed So he 17. But when S. Augustines discourse is examined it is found wholy against M. Morton for though he do allow and prayse recourse vnto Scriptures when things may euidently be proued from thence yeâ— doth he not hold that only such things are to be belieued as are expresly therin conteyned but rather both in this controuersie of râ—baptization wherin S. Cyprian doth pretend to hold
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
togeather with Caluin for so many falshoods shiftes errors of history malicious fictions and other like abuses as is a shame to read And finally not to name more authors for this poynt Cardinall Baronius as last of all so with more exact examination historicall theâ— any of the rest hath cleared the whole matter in his fifth Tome of his Ecclesiasticall History vpon the yeare 419. to whome I remit the studious Reader 26. Well then in all these six Authors at least I do suppose that M. MortoÌ„ as a learned man had seene this obiection discussed and answered though not perhaps to his contentment why then if he had meant playnly as often he protesteth had not he eyther mentioned these Authors or refuted them or at leastwise told his Reader that there had bene some such answers before though not sufficient to ouerthrow the obiection wherby the said Reader might haue sought to haue a view therof For if a Marchant that professeth much sincerity and vpright dealing should offer coyne for good and cuâ—rant that himselfe had knowne to haue bene six times at least reiected for couÌ„terfait by skilfull men and yet he should obtrude the same againe the 7. time without saying any one word that it had bene called into question and refused before none would say that this mans sincerity is worth a rush The application I leaue to M. Morton himselfe 27. Wherfore in a word or two to answere the substance of the matter thus it passed A certayne Priest of Sicca in Aâ—rick named Appiarius hauing a controuersy with his owne Bishop Vrbanus after diuers disagreements passed betweene them wherin he thought himselfe hardly dealt with all he appealed to Rome to Pope Zozimus bringing with him coÌ„mendatory letters from the Primate of all Africk Zozimus hauing heard his cause thought best to send him â—acke againe into Africk and with him two Legates â—ith instructioÌ„s that they should see procure not â—nly this man to be restored to his right but moreâ—uer that 3. Canons of the Councell of Nice the â—â—rst about Appeales of Bishops the second of Priests â—â—e third of Bishops following the Court to be obâ—â—rued Whereupon the African Bishops gathered a â—ationall CoÌ„ncell at Carthage of 217. Bishops about â—â—e satisfying of the Order of Pope Zozimus â—8 But when this Councell had examined their â—â—pyes of the Councell of Nice they found not those 〈◊〉 Canons therin Wherupon they sending into the â—ast partes to seeke other Copies they receyued both â—om S. Cyrill Patriarch of Alexandria and Atticus of â—onstantinople other Copies which in like manner â—â—anted these 3. Canons as also they did want diuers â—ther Canons cyted by sundry ancient Fathers to â—aue bene made in the Councell of Nice as by S. â—ierome S. Augustine S. Ambrose and diuers later â—ouncels which Canons notwithstanding were â—ade decreed in the first Councell of Nice though â—ot extant in the Copies that were in Africa which â—oth D. Harpsfeild Bellarmine do particulerly proue â—t large and it appeareth playnly that these copâ—ies sent out of the East had 20. Canons only of â—he said Councell of Nice which Ruffinus in his story â—oth recount wheras both S. Athanasius and many â—ther Fathers that were preseÌ„t in the same Councell of Nice do testify that there were more which are â—et downe in the first tome of Councells as translaâ—ed out of the Arabian language though not found in the Greeke 29. But indeed â—ll the errour or mistaking was this that there begin a generall Councell gathered togeather at Sardica very soone after that of Nice which Sardicense ConciliuÌ„ conteyned more Bishops in number then were in that of Nice for that in thiâ— there were 3OO out of the West only and 70. frâ—â— the East as both Athanasius Socrates Zozomonus other Authors do affiâ—me for that the most of these Fathers were the selfe same that had bene in the Councell of Nice and had determined nothing concerning faith differing from the Nicene Councell but only seemâ—d to be called â—or better manifestation and confirmation of the said Nicene Councell it was held especially in the West Church for a part or appendix of the said first Nicene Councell in which regard S. Gregorie and other Fathers when they do mention the first 4. Generall Councells do leaue out this of Sardica though it were as Generall and more great then the first Nicene as hath bene said 30. Wherefore this Councell of Sardica hauing set downe the foresaid three Canons as conforme to the decrees of the first late Councell of Nice and going vnder the name of the said Nicene Councell as a member therof in those copyes that Pope Zozimuâ— in the West Church had he did name them CanoÌ„s of the Nicene Councell as made by the authority of the selfe same Fathers that sate at Nice and the naming of one for the other was no greater an errour in effect then when S. Matthew doth name Hieremy the Prophet for Zachary for so much as the thing it selfe was true and so was the allegation of Pope Zozimus for that in the Councell of Sardica these three Canons are extant nor euer was there any least suspition or speach of forging vsed in the Church by eyther Catholicks or Hereticks for so many ages before the Lutheranes and Caluinists vpon meere hatred and gall of stomake began those clamours in this our age against so holy aÌ„cient Fathers as those 3. Bishops of Rome were to wit Zozimus Boniâ—acius and Celestinus by the testimony of Saint Augustine and other Fathers that lyued with them who also I meane S. Augustine at that very tyme when the controuersy was in treating about the Copyes of the Councell of Nice and matter of appellation did appeale himselfe to the later of these three Popes to wit to Celestinus in the cause of Antonius Bishop of Fessala as appeareth out of his owne Epistle about that matter And so this shal be sufficient and more then was necessary to answere vnto â—his stale impertinent obiectioÌ„ of counterfaiting the Canons of the first Nicene Councell which is nothing â—o our purpose in hand as hath bene seene and yet â—ncoÌ„bred with so many vntruthes as would require â— seuerall Treatise to display them Let vs come then â—o his second instance HIS SEC0ND EXAMPLE of wilfull fraud falsely obiected against sundry moderne Catholicke writers about the Councell of Eliberis in Spayne §. III. BEFORE he coÌ„meth to set downe this instance about the Councell of Eliberis he falleth agayne to boast and bragge exceedingly saying P. R. is more merciâ—ull requiring three sensible instaÌ„ces as it were 3. witnesses against any one of his writers before he be condemned yet this also is horribly vnmerciâ—ull on their part I wish he had but named any one whose credit he valueth most that I might haue answered his challenge in that one Howsoeuer it wil be no more easie a
they were not taken with armes in the field nor brought into publicke iudgment and tryall for the same Wherof D. Sanders in his booke de Schismate yeeldeth this reason for that Q. Marie being a zealous Catholick Princesse would haue them rather called in question for heresie which is treason against God then for conspiracie or commotion which is treason against her person â—o as there can be no doubt but that considering the forsaid authors and especially Holinshead M. Mortons aduocate who affiâ—meth expressely that this conspiracie of VViats was generally agreed vpon among most Protestants and that for Religion as well as for marriage though breaking forth before tâ—e time by the apprehensioÌ„ of a certaine gentleman whome he nameth to haue byn cast into the Fleet for another matter there can be no doubt I say but the chief Protestants to wit Bishops and Ministers had as deeply their harts hands heads in this as in the former of the Duke of NorthumberlaÌ„d much more so did Q. Marie vnderstand it as D. Sanders declareth though she proceeded rather against them in matters of Religion for the causes now rehearsed so as in this third point also M. Morton is conuinced of falsitie yea of falshood in like maÌ„ner as may appeare both by that we haue related and for that in this his last Reply he hath wholie left this matter out and past it ouer with silence 48. And finally the fourth point is also most false that there was nothing meant by that rebellion against the State or the Queene but rather for them both and that her Highnesse preheminencie and soueraigntie might not be impaired which Iohn Fox also contradicteth and not only he but Holinshed in like maner M. Mortons owne deare Author for that both of them ioyntly relating Q. Maries Oration doe affirme VViats answere to haue bene vnto two of the Counsell sent to him by the Queene to know the cause to wit Syr Edward Hastings and Syr Thomas Cornwallys which VViat confessed also at his arraignement that he and his would not be contented except they had the gouernement of the said Queenes person the keeping of the Tower and the placing of her Counsailours which was in effect to take the Royalty of her Crowne from her I will rather be trusted then trust sayd he and therfore demaund the custodie of the Tower and her Grace within it and the displacing oâ— some Counsailours about her and to haue others placed in their roomes So writeth Holinshed of Syr Tho. VViats words to Syr Edward Hastings And yâ—t sayth M. Morton that it is plaine that VViats commotion was not against the Q. or State but rather for both and to the end that her Highnesse preheminencie and soueraignty might not be impaired And can any man forbeare to laugh or rather not conceaue indignity at the vttering of such palpable vntruthes yea knowne vntruthes to the wryter when he wrote them For it is vnpossible but that M. Morton insisting so much vpon Holinshed as he doth should haue seene and read him in this place and yet is not ashamed as you see to coÌ„tradict him and face out the matter as though all were smooth and verifiable which he vttereth shamelessely affirmeth to wit that there was nothing attempted by VVyat against Q. Maries person when he demanded her to be his prisoner and to dispose of her forces State and Counsell 49. These foure voluntary falsities then were layd vpon M. Morton and proued as you haue heard in my last Treatise will it not be well to examine now how he hath bene able to discharge himself thereof in this his last Preambling Reply Let vs heare then if you please his owne defence in these foure lyes obiected 50. The first lye sayth he which P. R. noteth against me is in relating of the OratioÌ„ of Q. Marie wherein I said there was no scruple concerning Religion and I cited for witnesse Holinshed This author as we may perceyue P. R. hath examined and could find nothing in him against me for this point touching Q. Maries oration therefore he seeketh other euidence and bringeth against me the testimony of M. Fox wherin there is mention of Religion VVhat therfore Therefore I am by him condemned for a lyer Nay But rather by this opposing M. Fox P. R. hath wilily imitated the fraud of a â—ox which creature men say doth vsually prey furtheâ—t from home So likewyse P. R. if he would haue prooued me a lyer should haue donne it out of Holinsheds relation of Q. Maries Oration which was the witnesse whome I produced but he wanting cause of reproofe heerin doth therefore range further to coÌ„uince me of lying by the testimony which I mentioned not 51. Do you see what a kind of proofe he bringeth that for so much as Holinshed either omitted or guilefully concealed the mention of Religion in the Proclamation of VViat and oration of Q. Marie therfore I might not prooue the same out of Iohn Fox that was before and nearer to the matter then Holinshed who taketh out of him doth not one affirmatiue witnesse constantly auouching any thing prooue more then ten that hold their peace say nothing Or is Iohn Fox become of so little credit now with M. Morâ—oÌ„ as to be shaken of so slieghtly as heere he is Or is he become such a stranger vnto Protestants their cause as the citing of his authority must be accompted for wily foxlike ranging and preying â—urthest from home as though he were no longer any domesticall â—riend or writer Or is not Iohn Foxes credit in history as good as that of Holinshed especially when he affirmeth the other saith nothing 52. But yet further if you remember two points or wilfull falshood were obiected out of M. Morton and prooued out of Fox which heere are shufled vp into one and the third that no Minister of the ghospell was brought in question about this Commotion is wholy omitted heere by him without any mention therof at all and much lesse without any answere And as for the fourth which he calleth the second that there was nothing meant against the Q. or State he hath a strange defence therof saying that euen in that purpose of VViat to keep the Tower wanted not the supposed intention which was the preseruation of the Q. and State which say I must needes be vnderstood also of the violent keeping of her person holding of the Tower and forces therof and appointing her Counsaylors And these be the good intentions and meanings that M. Morton defendeth in the rebellions of his Protestants holding them notwithstanding for very good subiects though by armes they forced them to these conditions And the successe and issue may be seene by the practise of the Hollanders in the low Countries and of Duke Charles of Suetia and others who began their taking of armes in the names of their true Kings Soueraignes pretending protesting
was sent to their Camp by the Pope and Emperour to informe them of the agreement submission made Fremere omnes saith this Storie seuire verbis manibus coeperunt Apostolicae legatioâ—i irrisorijs exclamatâ—onibus â—bstrepere conuitia maledicta turpissima qâ—aecâ—mque fâ—â—or suggâ—ssisset irrogare All of them began to fret and wax â—ierce both in words and casting their hands with scornfull outcries to contradict this Apostolicall legation sent vnto them to cast vpon the Pope all the most foule reproaches maledictions that furie could suggest vnto them Thus saith Lambertus and then setteth downe the particuler slanderous reproaches heere cyted by T.M. which he approueth not but condemneth as you haue heard and highly commendeth not only the vertue but sanctity also of the Pope And will euer any man credit T.M. any more in any thing that he alleageth when this coÌ„scienceles falsification is once discouered in him yea though it were but once throughout his whole Booke it were sufficieÌ„t to proue that he dealeth not out of any faith or conscience at all 113. If an enemy would discredit both Christ Christian Religion and say your owne Euangelistes do recount foule things against him as here this Minister saith our historiographer doth of Pope Gregory and namely that he was accused by the Scribes Pharisies for casting out diuells in the power of Beelzebub for deceauing the people for denying tribute to be paid to Cesar for mouing sedition and other like crymes which our Euangelistes doe recount indeed but do condemne them also as false and calumnious were not this as good and faithfull a manner of reasoning as this other of Thomas Morton out of Lambertus and Friâ—ingensis against pope Hildebrand who is by theÌ„ both most highly coÌ„mended as you haue heard and his aduersaries condemned Truly if any man can shew me out of all the Catholicke writers that be extant English or other that euer any one of them vsed this shamefull fraud in writing where no excuse can free them from malicious and witting falshood then will I grant that it is not proper to the Protestant spirit alone Hithertâ— I must confesse that I neuer found it in any and if I should though it were but once I should hold it for a sufficient argument not to belieue him euer after And this shall suffice for a tast only of M. Mortons manner of proceeding for that to prosecute all particulers would require a whole volume and by these few you may ghesse at the mans veyne and spirit in writing So I wrote then in my Treatise of Mitigation The pretended Discharge 114. To this Charge M. Mort. beginneth his Discharge thus Thou seest Christian Reader I haue had patience to heare my Inditement deliuered vnto the full and suffred my Aduersary without any interruption to say so much in this accusation as that by this tyme he may seeme to hâ—â—e runne himself out oâ— breath c. Now therâ—ore I turne my self vnto thee good Reader as to my Iudge who may seeme by this tyme to exact of me an answere and of whome I must desyre and expect a iust censure Vouchsafe thereâ—ore I pray thee an intenâ—iue examination and I dare presume thou wilt acknâ—wledg this accusation to be both so false and foolish and vnfortunate to his cause and indeed blasphemous as though he had studied to be eyther â—aithlâ—s or fond or vnluckie or impious c. So M. Mort. And you see how passionate the man is in these his speaches and how needfull it was for me to intitle this Answere A quiet and sober Reckoning for that otherwise we might haue fallen from all reckoning of reason and moderation But to come to the matter what saith he to the point it self of iustifying his allegation of the vnâ—ruth of Lambertus against Pope Gregory You shall heare it deliuerâ—d by himself 115. In the beginning saith he I am charged with impudent impiety for citing Lambert Schafnaburge to affirme that The Bishops of Italy did excommunicate Pope Gregory for capitall crimes But why is this impudencie As if saith P. R. this our Chronographer had related this as a thing of truth or that it were approued of him and not rather as a slanderous obiection cast out by his Aduersaries that followed the part of Henry the Emperour c. The point now in question is whether this Author Lambertê° Schafnaburge was of this opinioÌ„ Which P. R. denieth calling my assertion an impudent impiety Let vs be iudged by the euidence of the Author himself who in the place alleadged hath these words Postquam per Itâ—liam fama percrebuisset c. After that the fame was spread abroad throughout Italie that K. Henrie had set his foot in their coastes certatim omnes Italiae Episcopi c. All the Bishops of Italy did flocke by troups vnto him receauing him with all honour worthy the magnificence of such a person and within a few daies after an army of an infinite multitude was gathered vnto him for from the first time that he was King the longed for his comming into Italy because at this time Italy was pestered with the euery And what els It followeth a litle aâ—ter Besides they viz. the Bishops people did coÌ„gratulate his coÌ„ming because it was reported that he came with a resolute courage to depose Gregory the Pope Heere we see it graunted by Lambert that all the Bishops of Italy were desirous to haue this Pope Gregory deposed Thus far are M. Mortons wordes 116. But to beginne with that which he last mentioneth of all the Bishops of Italy the word all is fraudulently vrged by him as you will see so that scarsly in any thing doth he deale sincerely for albeit these wordes be in Lambertus Certatim ad eum omnes Italiae Episcopi Comiâ—es confluebant All Bishops and Earles of Italy did flock vnto him yet that they were only certaine Italian Bishops Earles that dwelt about the Alpes is euideÌ„t by the narration it selfe For the very next precedent words leâ—t out by M. Morton are Superatis asperrimis rupibus iam inâ—ra Italiae fines consistere certatim ad eum omnes Italiae Episcopi After that it was vnderstood that the Emperour had ouercome the high rockes and was within the borders of Italy all the Italian Bishops Earles flocked vnto him And what sort of Bishops these were he expoundeth with in few lâ—nes after saying Qui fe iampridem ab â—cclesiastica communione suspenderat they hated Pope Gregoryâ— as him that had suspended them from Ecclesiasticall CoÌ„munion And againe a litle after about the cause of their suspension Passimiactantibus Regis saâ—â—â—ribus preâ—ipuè Cleriâ—is quibus iâ—iciâ—a conâ—ra sâ—ita Canonum contâ—acta coniugia prohibeâ—at The Emperours â—auorers did cast abroad especially Clergimen vnto whom Pope Gregory had forbidden vnlawfull marriages contracted against the Decrees of the Canons that he liued dissolutely c. 117.
These theÌ„ are the Bishops of Italy whome he meÌ„tioneth to wit some of Lobardy that liued about the Alpes were of dissolute life and excommunicated by Pope Gregory who were the first that ranne to the exommunicated Emperour hoping as the said Lambert saith by his meanes vt iniuriam suam idoneè vindicarent that they should fitly be able to reuenge by his power their iniury receiued as they acompted it And albeit in respect of the multitude of German Bishops and also of BurguÌ„diâ— and other Countries that came with the Emperour some for him and some against him Lambertus doth call them Italâ—s Italiae Episcopos yet doth hâ— noâ— meane that all the Bishops of Italy nor yet all of the Northward partes therof and much lesse of the Southerne were against Pope Gregory or fauoured the Emperour For that expresâ—ely he sheweth that the Countesse Mathildes which was Lady of the most and greatest Staâ—es bordering vpon those Countries of Lombardy was wholy with the Pope against the Emperour so as all those Italian Bishops in which word M. Morton standeth much that did make Conuenticles against Pope Gregory were only those and of that sort which I haue mentioned And this did M. Morton craftely conceale as his fashion is though it lay in the very same lynes from whence he tooke the rest 118. But this is not the chief question that now we must handle whether these Bishops were all the Bishops of Italy or not which no man will imagine that shall read the endeauours oâ— S. Anselmus of Luca and of many other holy Bishops of Italy for the Pope but whether Lambertus did affirme or approue that those Schismaticall Bishops did depose Pope Gregory or noâ— For if he did not teâ—tify both these points â—â—en was he no fit witnes for M. Morton to disgrace Pope Gregory withall yet doth he to auoid this illation propose the matter otherwise in theâ—e words 119. The point in question is quoth he whether this Author Lambertus did thinke that those Bishops of Italy had condemned this Pope Gregory for whether they did it iusty or iniustly is the second question for such crimes or no. I haue affirmed that Lambertus was of this opinion but P. R. denieth it So he 120. VVherto I answere that this is not the point in question whâ—ther Lambertus did thinke that they had excoÌ„mâ—nicated him or no Neâ—ther did we euer ioyne issue therupon as doth appeâ—re in my charge before set downe though Lamberâ—us is not found any where to affirme that they did excomunicate him but only relaâ—eth that some of his enemies in their fury rage and passion did obiect â—uch things against him but the true question is Whether Lambertus supposing such a thing had byn done were of opinion that it was iustly or iniustly rightly or wrongâ—ully done for otherwise he should impertinently be brought in for the coÌ„demnation of Pope Gregory for so much as if he had bin wrongfully and iniuriously so condemned it would haue bin more for his praise as by the examples of S. Athanas. S. Chrys. other holiâ— men so coÌ„demned by multitudes of either bad or deceyued Bishops may appeare 121. Wherfore we see M. Morton brought heere into great straites and forced first to chang the whole state of the question and then to say that I did deny that which I did not and himselfe to affirme that thing which is neither to the purpose nor can be proued to be true For neither did I deny that Lambertus knew of such a condemnation nor is M. Morton able out of him to proue that he knew it And if it were yet is it a very absurd and iniurious manner of proceeding vpon another mans relation only without approbation or liking the fame to infame condemne so greaâ— a man as P. Greg. was Let vs set down the Case in true tearms 122. A Sonne complayning that his Father hath byn iniustly infamed saith that his enemies amongst other things did slaunderously accuse him of murder stealth adultery and the like but that all was false done of hatred against him Wherupon notwithstanding somâ— of them hauing no authority therunto did depriue him of an high office which he bare in the Comonwealthâ— and his coÌ„plaint remaining in Record some enemy of his house many yeares after should alleadg these things for true against him and should cite the â—estimony oâ— his owne Sonnâ— for witnes therof might not he be accompted for a notable bad fellow malicious calumniator that would do this M. Mort. Case is iust the same towards P. Greg. and Lambertê° alleaging the later for infaming the first wheras he doth defend prayse and extoll him Can there be more wilfull malice then this But let vs examine yet further some wordes of his defence 123. Besides this saith he the said Bishops and people did congratulate the Emperours comming because it was reported that he came with a resolute courage to depose Gregory the Pope And theÌ„ he inferreth thus Here we see it graunted by Lambertus that all the Bishops of Italy were desirous to haue this Pope Greg. deposedâ— But we haue shewed a little before what manner of Bishops those were And now if M. Morton would haue dealt plainly and without fraud as scarce he doth in any thing and haue continued the wordes of Lambertus but a little further as they ly in his text we should hauâ—â—eene the causes of this their desire for thus Lâ—â—bertus writeth Praeterea quia fama vulgauerat ad deponendum Papam â—erâ—cibus eum â—nimis properare which M. Morton translateth with a resolute courage admodum gratulabantur oblatam sibi occasionem esse qua in cum qui se iamprideÌ„ ab Ecclesiâ— commâ—â—ione suspenderat c. Moreouer â—or so much as the same was now publike that the Emperour came hastening his iorney with a â—yerce mynd to depose the Pope they did greatly congratulate that they had an occasion offered whereby they might fitly reueng their iniury vpon him that had before suspended them frâ— Ecclesiast CoÌ„munion And by this you see the true case why these delinquents were glad to see a potent enemy come to vex him that was their lawful iudg was this any dispraise to him but let vs see yet further in M. Mort. defeÌ„ce 124. After all this saith he the Emperour goeth to Rome seeketh absolution of the Pope returneth backe againe and the Bishop Eppo is sent after to signify to the Italians this submission to the Pope VVhat now Now followeth the testimony which was alleaged Qui cum causaÌ„ Italis expofuisset c. VVhen Eppo had told his message to the Italians all of them began to rage and fret c. casting vpon the Pope all opprobrious reproaches whom all the Bishops of Italy had before iustly excoÌ„municated because by Symony he had defiled the Sea Apostolicke Could this Cronologer but acknowledg that the Pope had byn excoÌ„municated by the Bishops of Italy who
as he coÌ„fessed in the beginning did reioice at the coÌ„ming of the Emperour because he came with a resolution to depose the Pope 125. To this now I haue answered that this is not the point in question whether this Cronologer acknowleged the Pope to haue byn excoÌ„municated by soÌ„e schismaticall Bishops of Italy or no but whether he approued the same or no by alleaging a cause for so saith M. Mortons first accusation in these words before alleaged Pope Greg. the 7. saith LaÌ„bertus was excoÌ„municated of the Bishops of Italy for that he had defamed the Apostolicke Sea by Symony other Capitall crymes By which words it is euident that M. Mortons intent was to make his Reader belieue that Lambertus knew there was such a deposition and besids reproued not the same in that he alleaged so graue a cause and motiue therof In both which points M. Morton doth maliciously deceaue his Reader for neither doth Lambertus expressely affirme the thing it self that is to say that he was excommunicated by those bishops but only that his passionate enemies in their fury rage said so neither did he any way approue or allow thereof but impugâ—e it Neither doth he assigne this Reason for that he had defamed the Apostolike Sea by Simony as M. Morton affirmeth and after againe in other words because by Simony he had defyled the Sea Apostolick For making vp of which sense M. Morton corrupteth againe the text of Lambertus putting in quia for qui so as euer he must help the die in somewhat The words of Lambertus may be sene a litle before in our Charge to wit That those seditious Italian people that were banded against the Pope and grieued with the peace made betwene the Emperour and him did fret and wax fierce both in words and casting their hands and with scornefull outcries to contradict his Apostolicall legation sent vnto them and did cast vpon the Pope all the most foule reproaches and maledictions that fury could suggest vnto them VVhich words for the most part M. Morton leaueth out as you may see in his English citation he adioyneth whome all the Bishops of Italy had before iustly excoÌ„municate because by Symony he had deâ—yled the Sea Apostolik But the words of LaÌ„bert are Sese excoÌ„municationem illius nihili aestimare c. that they did esteme nothing his excoÌ„munication whom all the Bishops of Italy for iust cause had excoÌ„municated who had by violence obteyned the Sea Apostolike by the heresy of Simony and had defiled the same by murthers adulteries and other Capitall crimes In which words we find nothing spoken against the Pope on the part of LaÌ„bertus or as approued by him but vtterly reproued as proceding from rage furie of those schismaticall people And is this a good witnes secoÌ„dly we fynd no causatiue for that or because by Simony he had defiled c. vttered either on the part of LaÌ„bert or of the Schismatikes but a thing made out of the malice of M. Morton who turneth Qui Sedem ApostolicaÌ„ into Quia Sedem Apostolicam per SymoniaÌ„ c. to make it seme to be a reasoÌ„ of their deposing Pope Greg. wheras Lamb. doth not recite it as a reasoÌ„ which allwais supposeth some ground of truth but oÌ„ly as a meere malicious caluÌ„niatioÌ„ coÌ„tumely reproach proceeding from men put in fury by suddaine discontentment and despaire And thus hath M. Mort. deliuered himself in the first point from falsity according to his fashioÌ„ in adding more falsityes to the former Let vs see his second point which he termeth the foolishnes soâ—tishnes of his Accuser 126. This â—olly he foundeth vpon this principle That an Author may be cited to testify some fact without regard of his approouing or reproouing the thing and that so he cited Lambertê° as testiâ—ying that Pope Gregory was excoÌ„municated by the Bishops of Italy though not approouing the same as lawfully donne Wherunto first we answere that wheÌ„ nothing is fought but the bare testimony of the fact this ground may be admitted as in the example before alleaged of the Child in the case of his Father if a man would only make knowne that such and such crimes had byn obiected against the Father which there we meÌ„tioned he might with sincerity alleage the testimony of his sonne that complained of the same as we are wont to do in the history of Saints liues putting downe their reproches published against them by aduersaries but in this if we will proceed with Christian truth and sincerity we must alleadg such facts in such sense as the Relator or witnes meant them to wit shewing that they were falsly wrongfully and iniuriously obiâ—cted And so in this our Case if M. Morton had only alleaged the testimony of Lambertus for the fact and speaches of these passionate men against Pope Gregory and had added more ouer sincerely for the discrediting therof that which the Author addeth to wit that it it was false and spoken in passion and fury of anger c. and had told in like maÌ„ner the contrary vertues that were in Pope Gregory which Lambertus recounteth it might well haue passed but doing the plaine contrary and endeauoring to defame Pope Gregory by him that greatly defeÌ„deth and coÌ„mendeth both his person and cause it may be wit in M. Morton as wit goeth with him that calleth me a foole for holding the contrary But sure I am honesty it can not be which is neuer separated from truth plaine dealing 127. And this shal suffice for this point pÌ„termitting soÌ„e other trifles which M. Mort. toucheth in this place vpon some stomake of reuenge as it semeth though meerly false without any â—oundation And therfore passing to his third point of infelicity which he will needs lay vpoÌ„ me for obiecting this matter of Lambertê° against him we shall see whether he hath any more substance in this then in the former 128. First of all noteth me not only for not acute as his words are but for absurde in that I do say that Lambertus doth highly commend not only the vertue but also the sanctity of Pope Gregory as though saith he vertue and sanctity were different things and might be separated Wherin I know not how acute M. Morton may seeme to the iudicious Reader for so much as euery man knoweth lightly that vertue is commonly held but for the way to sanctity that via terminus are different things And I presume M. Mort. himselfe will make profession of some kind of vertue though not pretend perchance to be yet a full Saint at leastwise in this common sense of Sanctity wherin it is taken vnderstood ordinarily for aggregation of all vertues in their perfection 129. Well I know that the word Sanctity is takeÌ„ also in some other sense as namly for that Sanctity which we receaue by our redeÌ„ption vocation by Christ in which sense all baptized ChristiaÌ„s are called Saints by
witnesses be not sufficient against the Pope wherof one is a Monke another an Abbot the third a Card. let vs further vnderstand that fourthly Seuerinus Binius in his new EditioÌ„ oâ— the Councells confesseth that the Bishops in a Councell at Wormes An. 1076. declared that Gregory was to be deposed And that the Councell at Papia An. 1076. did excommunicate â—im and that the CouÌ„cell of Bishops at Brixia did depose him the Asts of which CouÌ„cell as they are recited by VrspergeÌ„sis shew these causes because he was an vsurper oâ— the Sea c. And the CouÌ„cell at Mentz An. 1085. declared him to be iustly deposed Thus we see that P. R. by denying one CouÌ„cell of Bishops of Italy in Papia to haue opposed theÌ„selues against this Gregorie hath contrary to his desire gayued with that one of Papia three other Councells one of Brixia another of Wormes the last of Mentz So vnlucky hath he byn c. 136. To this I answere first that the whole supposall of this narratioÌ„ to wit that I did deny the CouÌ„cell or ConciliabuluÌ„ of Pauia to haue excoÌ„municated Pope Gregory is vtterly false For that this was not in questioÌ„ betweene vs as hath appeared by the former discourse but whether Lambertus did relate and allow of the same or no wherof neyther point is found in him to wit neither that he relateth the fact as out of his owne asseueration but only as obiected by passionate enemies much lesse doth he approue the lawfulnes therof but impugne it This was the state of our question which now M. Morton seing his errour would willingly chang but nothing falleth out more aptly for his conuiction then the bringing in of Seuerinus Binius in this place to be a fourth witnes with Benno Vrspergensis and Sigebertus for disgracing of Pope Gregory by affirming that he was condemned in foure seuerall Councells here meÌ„tioned But what if Binius do expressely say that all these CouÌ„cells were but factious metings and no Councells and set vp by the Emperour the Antipope made by him for malice against the true Pope that they were wicked and schismaticall Bishops that met there in conspiracy against their true head doth this serue to M. Mortons purpose for disgracing of Pope Gregory by Binius his testimony Or doth he deale plainly with his Reader in telling him that Binius is a 4. witnes that ioyneth with Benno Vrspergensis Sigebert in condemning Pope Greg 137. As for Benno the counterfait Card. no man denieth but that he did condemne Pope Gregory if that Booke be his that goeth in his name the like we must vnderstand of Vrspergensis and Sigebert if we belieue M. Morton who saith that they wrote out of their owne iudgment against him wherof notwithstanding we haue shewed the contrary how then can he coople Binius as a fourth witnes to these three which Binius he confesseth to be contrary in iudgement and to defend Pope Gregory most â—arnestly calling these Councells Conciliabula factious and schismaticall conspiracies Let vs set downe here a comparison for better coÌ„ceauing the matter If a Iew of our time should take vpon him to disgrace the Apostle S. Paul as many of them haue sought to do for enuy that he was first a zealous follower of their law and should reckon vp the conspiracies made against him in diuers tymes different places how he was condemned by sundry metings of principall men both Iewes Gentiles often layd in pryson often escaped by flying and the like inferring therof that he was a troublesome euill man should for witnes hereof bring forth the testimonies not only of some ancient hereticall enemy of his that liued with him but other two also who in the accuâ—ers opinion were not his frends and then for a fourth witnesse should ioyne vnto them the testimony of S. Luke himself that recounteth these things but in the Apostles high praise and then should vaunt tell his Reader as heere M. Morton doth that now he had foure witnesses conspiring togeather in the same matter would you say that this man dealt otherwise then as a Iew indeed that is to say perfidiously 138. Let vs heare then what this Binius cited here for the fourth witnes saith against or rather for in the behalfe of Pope Gregory First he speaking of a certaine pious embassage or Legation sent by the said Pope to the excommunicated Henry he saith thus Quam cùm numinis contemptor cultor perâ—idiae excepisset c. VVhich embassage when the Emperour that contemned God followed perfidiousnes had receiued coÌ„trary to the law of NatioÌ„s had beaten with wâ—ips the Legates that brought the same had afflicted theÌ„ with most grieuous iniuries he presently thereupon gathered together at Wormes in Germany a CoÌ„uentiâ—le of excommunicated Schismaticall Bishops against the Pope in which CoÌ„uenticle with the greatest coÌ„tumâ—ly that could be deuised were appointed set forth published those things which Lambertus Schaffnaburge doth relate in his history to wit about the deposing of Pope Gregory c. This is his narration And is not this a good fourth witnâ—sse to ioyne with the former for discrediting of Pope Gregory and may not a man aswell alleage S. Luke against S. Paul as Binius against this Pope in this cause Or might not wee obiect the sacred sufferings and persecutions of that holy Apostle out of S. Luke by the same sort of argumeÌ„ts that M. Morton doth here the conspiracies of the wicked Emperour schismaticall Bishops against Pope Gregory their Apostolicall gouernour though I do not compare the person of Pope Gregory with the person of S. Paul as M. Morton will presently calumniate but the manner of proceding and arguing in their supposed aduersaries the Iew M. Morton But we shall haue occasion to speake more of this in the next point concerning blasphemy for needs he will haue this my reprehension of him not only to be false foolish vnlucky as you haue heard but also blasphemous this point then we must in this last place consider of 139. In the end of my former charge I do set downe an example to shew the absurdity of M. MortoÌ„s disgracing of Pope Gregory out of the writings of Lambertê° Frisingensis by a comparison takeÌ„ out of the new Testament in these words If an enemy said I would discredit both Christ ChristiaÌ„ religion say Your owne Euangelists do recount foule things against him as heere this Minister saith that our Historiographer doth oâ— Pope Gregory namely that he was accused by the Scribes Pharisies for casting out diuells in the power of Beelzebub c. which our Euangelistes do recouÌ„t indeed but do condemne theÌ„ also as false calumnious were not this as good as faithfull a manner of reasoning as this other of T. Morton out of Lambertus Frising against Pope Hildebrand who is by them most
to haue their consent and approbation in so publike an action as that was 33. The fourth and last cause was sayth Bellarmine for that in those dayes albeit the B. of Rome were Head in spirituall matters ouer the Emperours themselues yet in temporall aâ—fairs he did subiect himselfe vnto them as hauing no temporall State of his owne and therefore acknowleging them to be his temporall Lords he did make supplication vnto them to commaund Synods to be gathered by their authority and licence At post illa tempora istae omnes causâ— mutatae sunt But since those dayes all these foure causes are changed ipse in suis Prouincijs est Princeps supremus temporalis sicut sunt Reges Principes alij And the Pope himselfe now in his temporall Prouinces is supreme temporall Lord also as other Kings and Princes are which was brought to pasâ—e by Gods prouidence sayth Bellarmyne to the end that he might with more freedome liberty reputatioÌ„ exercise his office of generall Pastourship 34. And this is all that Bellarmyne hath of this matter And now may we consider the vanity of M. Mortons triumph ouer him beâ—ore and how falsely he dealeth with him alleaging him against his owne drift and meaning leauing out also those foure causes by merâ— cited then cutting of frauduiently the particle istae these causes are now changed which includeth reference to these foure and furthermore speaking indefinitely as though â—ll causes and matters were now changed seeketh therby to deceaue his Reader and to extort from Bellarmyne that confession of antiquity on his syde which he neuer meant and much lesse vttered in his writings What dealing what conscience what truth is this c. 35. Thus I insisted then and was not this sufficient to draw some answere from M Morton if he had resolued to answere the points of most moment and most insisted vpon as he professeth But it shameth me to see him thus taken at euery turne Let vs go forward THE SEAVENTH Pretermitted falshood by Thomas Morton §. VII AFTâ—R Bellarmine yt shall not be amysse to bring in Salmeron another Iesuit whome M. Morton will needs shake also by the sleeue and shew him a tricke or two of his art in sundry places of his Booke wherof one is somewhat largely handled by me in this manner 37. In the second page quoth I of his pretended Confutation M. Morton hath these words In the old Testament the Iesuits are forced to allow that the King was supreme ouer tâ—e Priâ—sts in spâ—riâ—uall aâ—faires and ordering Priests For proofe wherof he citâ—th in the margent Salmeron a Iesuite a very learned man that hath left written in our dayes many volumes vpon the Gospells Epistles of S. Paul and othâ—r partes of Scripture and was one of the first ten that ioyned themselues with the famous holy Man Ignatius de Loyola for the beginnyng of that Religious Order in which citation diuers notable corruptions are to be seene First for that Salmeron proueth the quite contrary in the place by this man quoted to wit that neuer Kings were Head of the Church or aboue Priests by their ordinary Kingly authority in Ecclesiasticall matters in the new or old Testament and hauing proued the same largely he commeth at length to set downe obiections to the contrary and to â—olue and answere them saying Sed contra hanc solidam veritatem c. But now against this sound truth by me hitherto coÌ„firmed I know that many things may be obiected which we are diligeÌ„tly to confute First theÌ„ may be obiected that Kings in the old Testament did sometymes prescribe vnto Priests what they were to do in sacred things as also did put some negligeÌ„t Priests froÌ„ the executioÌ„ of their office To which is answered Vbi id euenisset mirum esse non debere If it had so fallen out yt had byn no meruaile for that the Synagogue of the Iewes albeit it conteyned some iust men yet was it called rather an earthly then â—n heauenly Kingdome in so much as S. Augustine doth doubt whether in the old Testament the Kingdome of heauen was euer so much as named and much lesse promised for reward and therfore those things that were then done among them foreshewed only or prefigured diuine things that were to succeed vnder the new Testament the other being not diuine but humane and earthly So Salmeron 38. Here then are sundrie important corruptions and frauds vttered by T. M. the one that the Iesuits and namely Salmeron are inâ—orced to allow the temporall King to haue byn supreme ouer the high Priest in spirituall matters vnder the old law whereas he doth expressely affirme and proue the contrary both out of the Scripture it selfe by the sacrifice appointed more worthy for the Priest theÌ„ the Prince and many other Testimonies as that he must take the law and interpretation therof at the Priests hands that he must ingredi egredi ad verbum Sacerdotis go in and out and proceed in his affaires by the word direction of the Priest and the like as also by the testimonie of Philo and Iosephus two learned Iewes and other reasons handled at large in this very disputation and in the selfe same place from whence this obiection is taken And this is the first falsyfication concerning the Authors meaning and principall drift 39. The secoÌ„d corruptioÌ„ is in the words as they ly in the latin copy as by me before mentioned Vbi id euenisset miruÌ„ esse non debere If any such thing had falleÌ„ out as was obiected to wyt that Kings sometimes had prescribed to the Priests what they should do in Ecclesiasticall things deposed some c. yt had byn no maruaile for so much as their Ecclesiasticall Kingdome or Synagogue was an earthly imperfect thing but yet this proueth not that it was so but only it is spoken vpoÌ„ a suppositioÌ„ which suppositioÌ„ this Minister that he might the more cuÌ„ningly shift of and auoid left out of purpose the most essentiall words therof vbi id euenisset if that had happened c. as also for the same cause to make things more obscure after those words of Salmeron that stand in his text Synagoga Iudâ—orum dicebatur terrenuÌ„ potiùs quà m caeleste regnum The Synagogue or Ecclesiasticall gouerment of the Iewes was called rather an earthly then an heauenly Kingdome where as contrarywise the Ecclesiaâ—ticall power in the Christian Church is euery where called Celestiall after those words I say this man cutteth of againe many lynes that followedâ— togeather with S. Augustines iudgment before touched which serued to make the Authors meaning more plaine and yet left no signe of c. wherby his Reader might vnderstand that somewhat was omitted but ioyneth againe presently as though it had immediatly followed Itaque cum populus Dei constet corpore animo carnalis pars in veteri populo primas tenebat Wheras Gods people
either in the one or the other point is not proued by any one of all these examples nor by them altogeather though they were granted to be true as here they lye For that they do not proue that either our Kings here mentioned did assume to theÌ„selues to haue Supreme authority in spirituall affaires or to take it from the Pope nay the Catholike Deuine in answering to Syr Edwards obiections herein doth euidently shew and proue yea conuinceth that these fiue English Kings here mentioned to wit King Edward the first Edward the third Richard the second Henry the fourth Edward the fourth vnder whom these Cases fell out did all of them most effectually acknowledge the Popes supreme authority in Ecclesiasticall matters and were obedient Children to the same as he shewed by sundry most cleare and apparant examples of their owne actioÌ„s towards the Sea Apostolike and that these particuler Cases supposing they were all true and fell out as heere they are set downe to wit that the publishing of a Bull of Excommunication in some Causes and vnder some King might be held for Treason as also that the Archbishops lands might be seysed vpon for refusing to admit the Kings presented Clerke that in Parlament it was said that the Regality of the Crowne of England depended not of Rome and that in certaine Cases no suites might be made thither without recourse first to the Ordinaries of England 72. Albeit I say that these things were all granted as they lie yet do they not inferre by any true coÌ„sequence that which the Knight and Minister should proue to wit that for this either these kings were or held themselues for supreme in spirituall authority at that tyme or that it was denied vnto the Pope Wherof this one is a most conuincent argument that the like Cases do or may fall out at this day in other Catholicke Countries and Kingdomâ—s as in France Spaine Naples and Sicily where â—here be diuers Concordates resâ—rictions limitations agreed vpon for auoyding further inconuenieÌ„ces betweene the Pope and Catholicke Kings and Princes concerning the manner of execution of Ecclesiasticall authority without any derogation to the Supremacy therof in the Pope And so might men be punished by the said Princes for breaking rashly the said agreements as they may and are dayly in the said Kingdomes especially in the last and yet do not these Kings thereby either deny the Popes supreme authority or take it to themselues as M. Attorney M. Morton do falsely ininferre in these our cases And thus it is manifest that albeit these exaÌ„ples were in all râ—spects truly alleaged yet are they impertinent to proue that which is pretended And this for the first point 73. But neither is it all true that heere is set down nor as it is set downe which is the second point to be considered For which cause though I find these fyue Cases sufficiently answered by the Catholicke Deuine in his late Booke against M. Attorney yâ—t for tâ—at the said Knight in his last Preface to the sixt part of his Reports doth say that he fyndeth him vtterly ignorant in the lawes of the Realme though as a Deuine he made no profession to be skilfull in the same yet shall I adde somewhat to the reuiew of these Cases whereby it may appeare at leastwise whether he to wit the Deuine or M. Attorney or M. Morton haue vsed the skill of their professions with more sincerity in this matter 74. The first Case thâ—n is thus set downe by M. Morton out of the Attorneys booke though not altogether as it lyeth in his booke but with some aduantage as the Attorney did out of his Bookes whereof he tooke his Case So as here is helping the dye on all haÌ„ds as you see In the Raigne of King Edward the first saith M. Morton a Subiect brought in a Bull of excommunicatiâ— against another Subiect of this Realme and published it But it was answered that this was then according to the ancient lawes of England treason c. as before is set downe 75. Wherein I must note first before I come to examine the answere already made that M. MortoÌ„ can not choose as it seemeth but to vse a tricke or two of his art of iugling euen with M. Attorney himself For whereas he relateth to with the Attorney that this Bull of excommunication was published to the Treasurer of England M. Morton clyppeth of all meÌ„tion of the Treasurer which notwithstaÌ„ding in this Case is of great moment for so much as it semeth that if he had published the same to the Archbishop or Bishops appointed to haue the view of such things and had brought their authenticall testimonies for the same it seemeth by the very booke it self of Iustice Thorpe who recounteth this Case by occasion of the Case of Syr Thomas Seaton and Lucy 30. E. 3. that it had byn litle or no peril at all vnto the publisher for that this reason is alleaged for the offence therein committed that for so much as the partie to wit Lucie against Syr Thomas Seaton did not shew any writ of excommunication or any other thing sealed by the Archbishop of England nor any other Seale that was authentike prouing this therfore the Bull was not allowed c. 76. This then was a fine tricke to cut of all mentioÌ„ of the Treasurer the other also immediatly following hath some subtilitie in it though not so much as the former to wit that it was answered that this was Treason c. for that in none of the bookes cited either of Thorpe or Brooke is any mention of such answere giuen as M. Morton feygneth nor any such iudgment of Treason passed theron as M. Attorney would make his Reader belieue as preseÌ„tly shall be proued So as these are the first two trickes of M. Morton to helpe his dye all the rest for the substance of the matter is like to fall vpon M. Attorney 77. First then the Answere of the Deuine vnto this Case not hauing commoditie at that time to see the two bookes of Thorpe and Brooke cyted in the margent was that it could not possibly be imagined by reason that the Case stood altogeather as M. Attorney did set it downe espâ—cially with this note in the margeÌ„t that the bringing in of a Bull against a subiect was Treason by the ancient coÌ„mon lawes of England before any Statute law was made therof for that the Deuine demandeth what this Common law was not made by Statute How was it made By whome Where At what time Vpon what occasion How introduced and commonly receiued for all this a Common law supposeth especially for so much as the said Deuine had shewed and aboundantly proued now that all precedent Kings of England both before and after the Conquest were most Catholicke in this very point of acknowledging the Popes supreme and vniuersall authority in spirituall affaires wherof the power
award they made him abiure the Land though this also was not due vnto him by rigour of law to pacify thereby the Kings wrath And it is not vnlike to that Case that fell out in England Anno Domini 1578. vnder Q. Elizabeth when in her anger she would haue had Peter Bourchet to haue byn put to death by Martiall law when he had wounded Syr Iohn Hawkins insteed of Syr Christopher HattoÌ„ but the Iudges would not yeald therunto as being against law therefore found out this temperament that he should be committed to the Tower and accused of matters of Religion as Puritanisme and the like Where afterwards he gaue them a iust cause of putting him to death by killing his keeper But as the Queenes will passion made this no law so neither did that other vnder K. Edward the first So as M. Attorney did much abuse his Reader in auerring it to be treason by the common law adiudged for such out of this Case 84. And if he will vrge that the punishment of haÌ„ging and drawing implieth treason it is answered no but that this rather maketh much for vs. For that the punishment of treason I meane high treason is not only hanging and drawing but quartâ—ring also excepting only the Case of counterfeyting of money Stat. de 25. Edâ— 3. de proditionibus as appeareth by Stanford in his Booke of the Pleas of the Crowne fol. 182. but petty treasons as of killing the maister or Mystresse by the seruant or of any Prelate by his subiect c. which in effect are but fellonies are punished by hanging drawiâ—g oâ—ly wheâ—eof is consequent that albeit K. Edwards will and commandment had byn according â—o law as â—t was not yet had it inâ—erred no treason at all 85. And further to satisfy this matter and make it more cleere that the Reader was abused in this assertion I will adde foure seuerall Reasons argumeÌ„ts more out of the law-books themselues The first is concerning the abiuring the Realme for pacifying the King awarded in iuâ—tice Thoâ—ps Case which proueth euidently that it was not an offence of treason in the delinquent for that abiuraâ—ce is no punishment for treason but only for fellony as appeareth by the said Iustice Standâ—ord in his said Booke fol. 116. where he setteth downe the beginning of abiurance how it was first ordeyned by S. Edwaâ—d before the Conquâ—st and was grounded vpon mercy when a maÌ„ had committed fellonie and fled to a Church or Churchyard for safety of his life and did choose rather perpetuall banishment then to stand to the law So as abiurance by the old lawes of England was at tâ—e election of the Offendours and not at â—he will of the Prince And afterward the said Stanford shewing for what offences in particuler a mâ—n might abiure the Realme saith that abiuration doth not lye â—or hâ—m that hath offended in high treason 86. The second Reason is that the said Stanford in his said booke of the Pleas of the Crowne fol. 182. inteÌ„ding to set down all offencâ—s of treason which were either by the Common-law or Statute-law doth not relaâ—e any such matter to be treason as the bringing into the Realme Bulles of excommunication by one Subiect against an other which he would neuer haue concealed if he had found it held for such in any law booke before him 87. The third Reason is to the same effect that the Statute of 25. Ed. 3. being made for declaration of treasons doth â—et downe what offences were treasons by the Common law In this Statute I say no mention at all is made that the bringing in of Bulls of excommunication was treason or any other offence which of likelyhood cannot be presumed that they would haue pretermitted to touch or mention if any such thing had bin 88. The fourth Reason and most concludent is that we read in many Bookes of law as 31. Ed. 3. â—xcommunicat 6. Fitzh tit Excom pl. 6.14 â—en 4. â—ol 14.8 Hen. 6. fol. 3 and ells where that diuers Excommunications were pleaded in the Kings Courts and no matter of treasoÌ„ or other offence made therof by the Iudges which no doubt they would neuer haue passed ouer so negligently carelesely if it had bin treason by the common-law Neither would any Counsel haue presumed to plead the same so often in the said Courts if there had byn such perill or offence therein at that tyme as M. Attorney now pretendeth Neither doth the authority of Brooke here cyted by M. Attorney patronize him in his voluntary mistaking misconstruyng of the law-books a foresaid For that Brooke doth not say that the bringing in of Bulls was iudged treason by law as M. Attorney doth but onâ—y maketh this note So see punishment of that before the Statute of Premunire which maketh nothing for M. Attorn purpose and if it did yet were it not to be equalled with so many graue authorities euideÌ„t coÌ„uincing reasons as before we haue alleaged to the contrary 89. Wherfore we must conclude that in this first Case M. Attorney hath sundry wayes dealt vnsincerly and gone about to deceiue his Reader making him belieue that the bringing in pleading of the Popes Bulles in ancient time was treason according to the Common-lawes which being now proued to be false yet doth he so often repeate the same vpon all occasions against Catholikes both in wryting speaking pleading and vbrayding as if it were a most certaine truth or principle and not to be controlled Let vs see somewhat of the other Cases TO THE OTHER FOVRE CASES obiected by M. Morton out of Syr Edward Cooke §. VI. IT were ouer long to answere so largely vnto all the other Cases as we haue done to this first especially for so much as the Deuine hath done it very sufficiently and fully before the second Case conteyning only a temporall matter about Advowsons and authority thereby to present Clearks to benefices which was an ancient custome of the Church of England where teÌ„porall men hauing founded Churches and benefices reserued to themselues the nominatioÌ„ and presentation of the persons that should enioy the same who if they were found fit and nothing to be proued against theÌ„ that might iustly be opposed for their exclusion then the Bishop of the diocesse was bound to admit them And if he did not the Aduowsoner might haue an Action against the said Bishop at the Commonlaw of Quare non admisit as in a temporall Case and if the Bishop could not excuse his not admitting of the Clerke of the Recouerer by some sufficient cause then the Plaintif should recouer domages against the Bishop or els he might haue vpon the not executing the first writ to the Bishop an Alias or a Pluries against him And if these were not serued or sufficient excuse made vpon the return thereof why they were not serued then the partie grieued might haue an Attachment against the Bishop
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
out of the Chancery against some that tooke away the said tythes c. and then after some altercation to what Court the said sute belonged the plaintiâ—e that is the Prouost prayed execution but Thorp the chiefe Iustice said that it was wont to be law when there is a certayne place that is not of any parish as in Engelstwood and such like that the king should haue the tythes and not the Bishop oâ— the place to graunt them to whom he should thinke good as he hath graunted them vnto you notwithstanding saith he the Archbishop of Canterbury hauing sued vnto the kings Counsel to haue those tythes for that the matter is not yet tryed vntil it by tryed you shall not haue execution So he And this is all the Case wherin you see that albeit Iustice Thorp said that it was wont to be law that the king should dispose of the tythes of such places as wâ—re newly assertâ—d and cultiuated that were of his inheritance yet doth he not so resolutly affirme it that he would giue seÌ„tence of execution against the defendants albeit they had made default after they had pleaded to the issue as there is manifest but would haue the Archbishop of CaÌ„terburies sute to the coÌ„trary to be heard also And indeed he could not but know but that in the booke of 7. Ed. 3. fol. 5. which was 16. yeares before this case was treated the opinon of Herle chiefe Iustice was that the Bishop should haue such tythes and much lesse doth Iustice Thorp assign the cause of right of those tythes vnto the king for that he hath supreme Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction as our Iudge doth now but for that commonly such new wast asserted landes appertained vnto the king albeit as now hath beene said they might haue appertayned also to a particuler subiect if he had beene Lord of the place as is most perspicuously declared and set forth in an ancient Treatise intituled Oâ— the power of the Parliament annexed to the Old Doctour and Student or booke so intituled where it is said as followeth 96. If wast ground saith the Booke wherof was neuer any profit taken and that lay in no parish but in some forest or that which is newly wonne from the sea were brought into arable land if the freehold therof were to the king he might assigne the tythes to whom he would and if the freehold were to a common person he might do the like For though tythes be spirituall yet the assignement of tythes to other is a temporall act For before parishes were deuided and before it was ordayned by the lawes of the Church that euery man should pay tythes to his owne Church euery man might haue payed his tythes to what Church he would might one yeare haue giuen his tythes to one Church and another yeare to another or haue graunted them to one Church for euer if he would And like as euery man before the seuering of the parishes might haue giuen the tythes to what Church he would because he was bound to no Church in certayne so may they do now that haue laÌ„des that lie in no parish for they be at liberty to assigne theÌ„ to what Church they will as all men were before the sayd law was made that tythes should be payd to their proper Churches 97. So farre this Law-booke which doth not ascribe anything to the kings Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction as heere you see as neyther doth Iustice Brooke who in his Abridgement abridgeth the foresaid caâ—e of 22. E. 3. lib. assis vnder the tytle of the Kings Prerogatives signifying therby that the said tythes are due to the king if they be due in regard of his prerogatiue Royall and not of his spirituall supreme power aâ—d iurisdiction See Booke 22. Ed. 3. tit Prerogatiue pl. 47. 98. And as for the law mentioned in the foresaid Treatise wherby men were appointed to pay their Tythes to their peculiar parishes wheras before thâ—y were free to pay them where they would it is meat of a Canon of the great Generall Councell of Latâ—ran held at Rome vnder Pope Innocentius 3. in the dayes of K. Iohn of England vpon the yeare 1216 which was aboue a hundred yeare before this other case fell out in 22. E. 3. in which Councell it was ordayned That euâ—ry man should pay his Tythes to his proper Church and parish To which Ordination of the Pope and Councell the kingdome of England submitted it self and the temporall lawes therof and so the matter endured vntill the breach of K. H. 8. So as in all this tyme the Popes supreme Authority and spirituall iurisdiction was acknowledged and obeyed about this matter of Tithes in England as is euident also â—y these books ensuing to wit 7. E. 3. fol. 5.44 Ed. 3. f. 5.10 H. 7. fol. 16. but yet for that the said Canon of Lateran did not comprehend expresly all such landes as were then wast and should after be asserted K. Edward 3â— in the case proposed might according to the former ancient law that was vsed before the said Canon giue and appoynt the tythes of these newly asserted lands of Rockingham to whom he would as he did though not vnder the title of his supreme spirituall iurisdiction as the Attorney very falsely doth pretend but as temporall patron of that land for the causes before specified And so much of this Case 99. Another he cyted out of 38. E. 3. lib. Ass. pl. 22. in these wordes The king dâ—d by his Charter translate Chaâ—ons secularâ— into Regular and religious persons which he did by his Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction and could not do it vnlesse he had had iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall So he And heere is false dealing againe for all that is said in that booke is this that it was pleaded for the king that by his Charter he did graunt that the Prior CoueÌ„t of Plymouth might transferre Secular into Regular ChanoÌ„s which was but a grant or licence as you see Nor did the king translate Chanons Secular into Regular which belonged vnto the Pope but graunted only and gaue licence that they might be so transferred nor hath the law-booke any one word of the kings Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction but all this is feigned by M. Attorney himselfe 100. Agayne he cyteth out of 49. Ed. 3. lib. Ass. pl. 8. where the Abbot of VVestminster saith he had a Prior Couent who were Regular and mort in law yet the king by his Charter did deuide that corporation and made the Prior and Couent a distinct and capable body to sue and to be sued by theÌ„selues whereof M. Attorney would inferre the kings supreme spirituall authority and iurisdiction But his booke fauoureth him not at all heerin for albeit Candish said that the possessions of the Abbot Prior of VVestminster were seuered the one from the other and that this began with the Charter of the king yet is it playne by the law 11. H. 4.