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
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.
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.
heare a more graue and grieuous charge made against him for worse abusing of the same Carerius Thus it lyeth in my booke 49. The next sentence quoth I or obiection after the former preface which is the very first of his discourse is framed by him but yet in our name vnder the title of the Roman pretence in these words The high Priests in the old â—estament sayth he were supreme in ciuill Causes Ergo they ought to be so also in the new For which he câ—teth one Carerius a Lawyer that wrote of late in Padua de potestate Romani Ponâ—ificis defending the former opinion of Canonists for direct dominion and citeth his words in Latyn thus Dico Pontificem in veteri Testamento suisse Rege maiorem and Englisheth the same as before you haue heard That the high Priest was supreme in Ciuill causes which words of Ciuill causes he puâ—teth in of his owne and if you marke them do marre the whole market For that Carerius hath them not either in words or sense but teacheth the plaine coÌ„trary in all his discourse to wit that he meaneth in matters appertayning to Religion and Priesthood not of temporall Principality which temporall principality this Author granteth to haue byn greater in the old Testament in dealing with Ecclesiasticall men and matters then in the new and to that effect is he cited presently after by the Mynister himselfe contrary to that which here he feigneth him to say But let vs heare the words of Carerius Tertiò dico saith he etiam in Testamento veteâ—i fuisse Pontiâ—icâ—m Rege maiorem quod quidem probatur c. Thirdly I say that the high Prieâ—t was greater aâ—so in the old Testament then the King which is proued first out of the 27. Chapter of Numbers where it is appointed by God that Iosue and all the people should be directed by the word of the high Priest Eleazar saying WheÌ„ any thing is to be done let Eleazar the high Priest coÌ„sult with God at his word aswell Iosue as all the Children of Israell and whole multitude shall go forth and come in c. And secondly the same is proued out of the fourth of Leuiticus where foure kind of Sacrifices being ordayned according to the dignity of the persons the first two are of a Calse for the high Priest and Common wealth the third and fourth of a hee and shee-goat for the Prince and priuate persons Wherby Carerius inferreth a most certaine dignitie and preheminence of the Priestes state aboue the temporall Prince though he say not in Ciuil causes as this Mynister doth bely him 50. And whereas Carerius had sayd in two former answers first that in the old Testament Ecclesiasticall and secular iurisdiction were not so distinct but that both might be in some Cases in the King secoÌ„dly that in the law the new spirituall power was more emyneÌ„t theÌ„ in the old he coÌ„meth thirdly to say that in the old law the high Priest in some respects was greater also then the King which cannot be vnderstood of Ciuill â—ower except the Author wil be contrary to himselfe And therâ—ore that clause was very â—alsely perfidiously thrust in by the Mynister this with so much the lesse shame â—or that in the end of the same Capter he citeth the same Author to thâ— plaine coÌ„trary seÌ„se saying In veteri lege RegnuÌ„ erat subsâ—antiâ—um Sacerdoâ—iuÌ„ adiectiuuÌ„ c. That in the old Law the Kingdome was the substaÌ„tiue that stood of it selfe and Priesthood was the adiectiue that leaned theron but contrarywise in the new law Priesthood and spirituall iurisdiction is the substantiue or principall in gouernment and temporall principality is the adiectiue depending therof for direction and assistance the one both by nature and Gods law being subordinate to the other to wit the temporall to the spirituall And thus much concerning this guyle by flat falshood Now to a tricke or two of other sortes of shifting by him vsed for deluding the Reader 51. This was my reprehension and complaint then and if M. Morton had dealt really he would rather haue thought how to haue answered somewhat to this substantiall imputation then to haue trifâ—ed so often with the other of verò verè out of the same Author but that he had some shadow how to shift of that by a shew of a later erroneous print of Cullen but none at all for this THE ELEVENTH Falshood dissembled by Thomas Morton §. XI AFTER the Paduan Doctor of law Carerius followeth the famous Religious Doctor of the Order of S. Dominicke named Franciscus de Victoria whome in like manner he doth egregiously abuse as by my former complaint may appeare which I deliuered in these words 53. It followeth in the 16. page thus Your deuise sayth M. Morton of exemption of Priests from the â—urisdiction of temporall Princes in certaine Cases is too crude to be disgested by any reasonable Deuine for as â—our Victoria sayth Priests besides that they are Mynisters of the Church they are likewise members of the Common wealth a King is aswell King of the Clergy as of the Laity therfore the Clergie is subiect to the Ciuill authority in tâ—mporall things for such matter is not ruled by any power spirituall A plaine demonstratioÌ„ So he And I say the same that indeed it is a plaine demonstration of M. Mortons egregious falshood and abusing his Reader First in making him belieue that the learned man Franciscus de Victoria doth fauour him or his in this matter of exemption of Priests whereas in this very place heere cyted by T.M. his first propositioÌ„ of all in this matter is this Ecclesiastici iure sunt exempti c. I do affirme that Ecclesiasticall men are by law exempted and frâ—ed from Ciuill power so as they may not be conuented before a secular Iudge either in criminall or Ciuill causes and the contrary doctrine to this is condemned for hereticall among the articles of Iohn Wickliffe in the Councell of Constance So he And now see whether Victoria make for him or no or whether he disgested well this crude doctrine of Priesâ—es exemptioÌ„ as this Mynisters phrase is 54. Secondly if we consider either the English translation heere set downe out of the words of Victoria or his Latin text for ostentation sake put in the margent by M. Morton we shall find so many monstrous foule corruptions intercisions geldings and mutilations as is a shame to behold and I beseech the learned Reader to haue patience to conferre but this one place only with the Author he will rest instructed in the mans spirit for the reâ—t but he must find them as I haue now cited them heere in the margent and not as T. M. erroneously quoteth them if not of purpose to escape the examine For that Victoria hauing set downe his precedent generall proposition for the exemption of Clergy
graÌ„t the said immunityes and priuiledges And also those words of King Edwyn which of his Catholike predecessors S. Leo King Kenulphus were granted And againe By â—orce of the Letters and Bulles aâ—oresaid the said village of Culnam was a Sanctuary and place priuiledged 63. And hereby also is euident that the King did not by his Charter in Parlament for it appeareth to be made by the Counsaile and consent of his Bishops and Senators not by Parlamâ—nt as M. Attorney doth misreport it neither was there any Parlament held at that time in the land or many hundreth yeares after for as it appeareth by Holinsheads Chronicle pag. 34. the first vse of Parlaments in England was in the tyme of King Henry the first it is cleare I say that the King did not discharge and exempt the said Abbot from Iurisdiction of the Bishop nor did grant vnto the said Abbot Ecclesiasticall IurisdictioÌ„ within the said Abbey neyther had that abbot any Ecclesiasticall IurisdictioÌ„ deriued froÌ„ the Crowne But as it appeareth by the autheÌ„tike report of the Case the Pope the King did ioyne both in making the said Sanctuary according to their seuerall powers authorityes So that the exemptioÌ„ from Episcopall IurisdictioÌ„ proceeded duly from the grant of Pope Leo as likewise the exeÌ„ption froÌ„ all Regall temporall Iurisdiction proceeded froÌ„ the Charter of King Kenulphus Note also that King Edwins Grant was only that the said Monastery should be free from all earthly seruitude toucheth not any spirituall immunities or Iurisdiction at all 64. Thus far my friend out of England and by this now you may see how well M. Attorney hath obserued his foresaid protestation that he had cyted the very wordes textes of the Lawes without any inference argument or amplification at all And this being my friends aduertisment from England with like obseruation of manie other places cyted by M. Attorney with like fydelity I thought good to produce this one amongst manie being the first in order for a tast in this place reseruing the rest to a fitter or at leastwise to a second edition of the foresaid answere of the Catholike Deuine where euery thing may be referred to his due place and with this will I end this Chapter Thus far wrote I at that tyme in charg of Syr Edward THE DISCHARGE AND Reckoning about the former Charge made to Syr Edward Cooke §. V. YOV haue heard now this Charge how important substantiall yt is and who would not haue thought but that either Mâ— Morton or Syr Edward himself would haue answered somwhat to the same in their Replyes made since the publishing hereof or at leastwise would haue asmuch as mentioned yt especially M. Morton who in a certaine manner and law of vrbanitie was more obliged to take the patronage of Syr Edwards wrytings then himself for so much as the Charge was giuen in a Booke against M Morton and he had so highlie commeÌ„ded the sayd worke of his Reports as he calleth them The allwaies reportable and memorable Reports taking out of them sundrie heads of examples as his words are that improue the Popes Supremacie in causes Ecclesiasticall ascribe it to the king which that yow maie see how substantiall they are I shall take the paynes to set them downe here as they stand in his Book 66. I will point at some â—ew heads oâ— examples saith he oâ— our ancient ChristiaÌ„ kings which Syr Edward Cooke his Maiesties Attorney generall in his allwaies reportable memorable Reports hath lately published In the Raigne oâ— king Edward the fyrst saith he a Subiect brought in a Bull of excommunication against another Subiect oâ— this Realme published it But yt was answered that this was thâ—n according to the ancient lawes oâ— England Treason against the King and the Offendor had byn drawen and hanged but that by the mercie of the Prince he was only abiured the Realme c. 67. At the same tyme the Pope by his Bull had by way of prouision bestowed a benefice vpon one within the Prouince of â—orke the King presented another the Archbishop reâ—useth the Kings presentation and yelded to the Popes prouision This Archbishop then by the common law oâ— the land was depriued oâ— the lands oâ— his whole Bishopricke during lyâ—e And in the Raigne of king Edwâ—rd â—he third the king presented to a Benâ—â—ice his Presentee was disturbed by one who had obtayned a Bull from Rome for the which cause he was condemned to perpetuall imprisonment c. 68. In the Raigne oâ— Richard the second yt was declared in the Parliament R. 2. c. 2. that England had allwayes byn â—ree and in subiection to no Realme but imediatly subiect to God to none other and that the same ought not in any thâ—ng touching the Regaltie of the Crowne to be submitted to the Bishop of Rome nor the lawes of their Realme by him frustrated at his pleasure c. 69. In the Raigne of King Henry the fourth it was confirmed that Excommunication made by the Pope is oâ— no force in England c. In the Raigne of King Edward the fourth the opinion of the Kings Bench was that whatsoeuer spirituall man should sue another spirituall maÌ„ in the Court of Rome for a matter spirituall where he might haue remedy beâ—ore his Ordinary within the Realme did incur the danger of â—remunire being an heynons offence against the honour of the King his Crowne and dignity 70. Thus far M. Morton out of Syr Edward Cooke then he addeth Many other examples of like nature I pretermit and remit the Reader desirous to be further satisfied vnto the booke oâ— Reportes habet enim ille quod det dat nemo largiùs For he hath to giue and no man giueth more aboundantly This is his Encomium But what doth he giue truth or falshood sincere or wrested allegatioÌ„s matter to the purpose or impertinent That we shall here now discusse shew that neither the exaÌ„ples themselues are altogeather true as here they are set downe nor if they were yet doe they not prooue the purpose for which they are alleaged And first we shall proue the second which most importeth and it is easily proued 71. For first Syr Edwards purpose obligation was to proue that Q. Elizabeth by force of her temporall Crowne had all manner of Supreme authority in spirituall affaires no lesse then any person euer had did or could exercise in England as the words of the Statute haue alleaged by him and the purpose of M. Morton was as appeareth by the title of his Treatise to improue the Popes supreme authority in Causes Ecclesiasticall So as both their ends and purposes were by different meanes to proue that the Pope had no supreme authority in Ecclesiasticall matters for time past in England the one by ascribing all to the King the other by denying it to the Pope But this purpose of theirs
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
6. His first reason of Impossibility and that confessed as he saith by me is for that Catholicke subiectes do belieue that in some cases there is power left by God in the Church and head therof the Bishop of Rome ouer Princes to vse not only spirituall Censures for restraint of exorbitant excesses but temporall remedies also eyther directly or indirectly when vrgent necessity of the Common-wealth should require and no other sweeter meanes could preuaile Wherof M. Morton will needs inferre that our combynation in ciuill concord and obedience to our temporall Prince can not stand no more sayth he then Iewes and Iebuzites in one kingdome Isaac and Ismael in one house Iacob Esau in one â—ombe and then a litle after that our concord staâ—deth of no more possibility then Pope no Pope Kings Supremacy and not Supremacy which opposites saith he can neuer be reconciled togeather Wherto I answere that in beliefe and doctryne they cannot be reconciled but in cyuill life and conuersation and practice of due temporall obedience they may be no lesse for any thing touching this point then if they were â—ll of one ReligioÌ„ iâ— such make-bates as these would â—ease to set sedition for that all Catholicke subiects also of other Countryes do hold and acknowledge this doctryne without any preiudice at all of their fidelity affection or dutifull Allegiance towardes their Soueraigne Princes liege Lordes though ther be sundry cases wherin their said Princes may be obâ—oxious to the execution of this doctryne besydes difference of Religion which one poynt of different Religion this Stickler doth only vrge in this our caâ—e as most odious 7. But iâ— all those Christian Princes that haue bin censured by the Church froÌ„ Christes tyme downeward were layd togeather whether Emperours Kings or others the far greater part of them would be found to haue byn chastised and pursued not so much for any difference of Religion as for other causes and crymes And if we looke vpon our tymes since Protestant Religion hath byn named in the world we shal fynd only two to haue beene proceded against by the Church and many other neuer touched as the King of Denmarke the Intruder of Suetia the Duke of Saxony the Count Palatine of Rhene the Marques of Brandeburge and diuers other Princes and States as also those of Holland and Zeland and lastly his Maiestie that raigned aboue 30. yeares in Scotland professing Protestant Religion and now some good number of yeares in England without that any Pope hath gone about to vse that authority against them which is heere made by M. Morton so perilous and pernicious as though it were impossibâ—e for his Kingdome and Crowne to be in safety while this doctrine is beleiued or extant in bookes which being throughout all Christendome receiued by the whole Catholicke world will be hard for the Minister to remoue or extinguish coÌ„sequeÌ„tly he laboureth but in vaine or rather far worse then in vaine endeauoring to intangle his Princes mind with a perpetuall restles remediles iealosy suspitioÌ„ solicitude impossible euer to be cured as himselfe striueth to proue by those his impossibilityes though they proue not indeed the point it selfe which he would perswade that there is no meane of ciuill quiet vnion in life whilest this doctrine of the Popes authoritie is belieued of his subiects 8. His other two next reasons of impossibilitie for he hath foure in all are so obscurely and intricately set downe as if he vnderstand them himself it is much in my opinon for as for me I confesse I see not what inference can be made out of them though I haue perused them ouer with much attention more then twice and the same I suppose the common Reader will say when he hath in like manner considered of them For they concerne onely the excoÌ„munication of Q. Elizabeth and of King HeÌ„ry the fourth of France which Censure was promulgated by two seuerall Popes of this our age and consequently the doctrine is dangerous saith he But I haue shewed now that more then three times so many Protestant Princes were tolerated by other Popes how theÌ„ do these two examples inferre so generall a necessitie of disobedience in all Catholicke subiects yea and an impossibilitie of the contrarie that they can be obedient â— His fourth and last reason of impossibility â— wherin saith he may be obserued a sportâ—ull or rather exâ—crable impostureshipp of P. R. consisteth in this that wheras I do write in my Treatise of Mitigation that â—ut of Catholicke doctrine concerning Papall auâ—hority in some cases to wit when we talke what â—opes may absolutly do M. Morton argueth and will â—eedes inferre that such such great dangers may â—â—sue to Princes thereby I do answere him thus â—hat all this arriueth but to a may so as the questiâ—n being but de fuâ—uris contingentibus of things continent and to come wherof the Philosopher sayth â—â—ere is noâ— sâ—ieÌ„ce all remaineth in doubtfull vncerâ—â—inty but only the suspitioÌ„ enuy hatred which â—â—e Minister would rayse against vs. But on the conâ—â—ary what the ProtestaÌ„ts doctrine hath donne and â—oth at this day against lawfull Princes in their â—â—almes their armies do shew c. This in effect I â—id then and vpon this M. Morton entreth now into â—reat choler saying not only that this my answere 〈◊〉 an execrable impostureshipp as before you haue heard â—ut also he further breaketh into these patheticall â—ordes of ridiculous exaggeration I cannot laugh saith â—e for wonder horrour to see any English man conceyt so basely 〈◊〉 the wits worth of his Countrymen as to imagine they could 〈◊〉 delâ—ded with so senslesse so shamelesse so pernicious so impiâ—â— a mitigation as this is to be perswâ—ded therefore not to â—â—bour â—or preuenâ—ing ensuing dangers because they be continâ—ent that is such as may happen what can be more senseles Do you see this mans heat and do you marke how â—ocond and prachant he is when he getteth a little matter wherat he may make a shew to speake somewhat probably 10. Heere then he inueigeth and insulteth against me as though I did hold that there were no prouideÌ„ce or care to be had of future perills that are contingent saying Doth not nature in beasts reasoÌ„ in man precept of God teach vs the law of prouidence euen thâ—rfore to â—eeke to preuent ensuing dangers because they are contingent and may be heraâ—ter But M. Morton doth either willfully misâ—ake me or els I cannot conceyue so well of his wit and worth as he would haue me if he vnderstand me not For I doe not dispute against prouidence in generall in things that are contingent and may fall out for I know conâ—esse that prouidence is a principall part of the high vertue of prudeÌ„ce surnamed Cardinall wherby man is likned to God surpasseth all other terrene creâ—tures yet say I therwithall that it
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
learnedly by a distinction for that as he saith the selfe same Tyrant may be killed and not killed by a priuate man in regard of publicke or priuate iniuries 43. But this euasion is ouerthrowne by the words whole discourse of Doctor Boucher now alledged for that he speaketh not only against killing a TyraÌ„t for priuate iniuries by a priuate man but also in publicke iniuries for so doth shew his allegation of the Decree of the Councell of Constance that condemned as an errour in faith to hold with Iohn VVickcliffe that euery Tyrant may be slayne meritoriously by any vassall or subiect of his by open or secret treasons which is vnderstood as well for publicke as priuate iniuries 44. But it is graunted by D. Boucher saith M. Morton that when the common wealth hath condemned and declared any Tyrant for a publick enemy he may be slaine by a priuate man Wherto I answere that then he is no priuate man for that he doth it by a publike authority of the Common Wealth as doth the exâ—cutioner that cutteth of a Noble mans head by order and authority of the publicke Magistrate so as in this M Morâ—ons distinction seâ—ueth him to no purpose for that neither for priuate or publicke iniuries can a priuate man as a priuate man that is to say by priuate authoritie kill any Prince though he were a Tyrant for any cause either priuate or publicke whatsoeuer So as in this principall charge M. Morton remaineth wholy conuicted as you see 45. There do rest the two other wings of falshod obiected vnto him the first that he stroke out the wordes of most importance froÌ„ D. Bouchers discourse which made the matter cleare to wit quem hostem Respublica iudicauerit whome the Common-wealth hath adiudged for a publicke enemie him may a priuate man kill and the second that he addeth the other clause of his owne that are not found in Bouchers wordes VVhich I say by common consent The first of these two falshoods he would excuse by saying that albeit that D. Boucher in the place before alleadged out of his third booke doth set downe this position with the foresaid restriction priuato etiam cuiuis Tyrannum quem hostem Respub iudicauerit occidere licitum esse that it is lawfull also to any priuate man to kill a Tyrant whome the Commonwealth hath iudged for a publike enemy for then he doth it not by priuate authority yet that in his fourth booke he hath a whole Chapter to proue that in some vrgent cause the matter may be preuented as when the thing is so notorious instant and perilous as the said publicke iudgement cannot well be expected and may be presumed as graunted especially saith he in poâ—na priuatiua in priuatiue punishment that is to say when subiects in punishmeÌ„t of open and manifest tyranny do withdraw their due respect and obedience by seeking only to defend themselues though not in positiua in positiue punishment of actuall rebellion or warre offensiue But this doth not any way satisfy the falshood obiected in striking out thesâ— wordes in the former booke place where D. Boucher set them downe for declaration of this doctrine that a priuate man was not licenced to kill a Tyrant by his owne priuate authority for when Subiects are forced to vse this way of preuention by armes defensiue before the common-wealth can make publicke declaration in such cause they do it not as priuate men but as the body of the Common-wealth So as considering what heere is in question he must needs be condemned of a nihil dicit if not also of â—alsum dicit 46. And the very like may be said about the second accessory vntruth for adding the wordes which I say by common consent for excuse wherof he runneth to the other Chapters wherin he saith that D. Boucher auoucheth Mirum esse in affirmandâ— consensuÌ„ there is woÌ„derfull coÌ„sent in allowing this doctrine and then in another Chapter that he who denieth this that he sayth is destitute of common sense But these are of other matters and spoken vpon other occasioÌ„s and not annexed to the former sentence of D. Boucher produced and corrupted by M. Morton and consequently they are mere impertinent euasions that do more confirme and establish then any way remoue the fraudes and falshoods obiected against him And so much of this matter which would grow ouer long if we should prosecute the same as M. Mortons manner of answere would inuite vs. THE FOVRTH Charge of falshood pretended to be answered or rather shifted of by M. Morton and cast vpon R. C. §. IIII. AMONG other examples that I alleaged of M. Mortons spirit in dealing vnsincerely by calumniating our Catholicke writers therby to get some shew of aduantage against them and the Catholick cause I produced a place out of M. VVilliam Reynolds his booke de Reipublicae authoritate most notoriously abused and peruerted to make him seeme to abase the authority of Kings and Princes in that very place where M. Reynolds did specially imploy himselfe in aduancing their dignity I shall heere lay forth the fraude you shall iudge what manner of consciences these men haue and whether they defend their cause as a cause of truth or no. This then was my former repreheÌ„sion about his dealing in this point The Charge 48. In his booke of Discouery pag. 8. hauing set downe this false proposition that all Catholick Priests did proâ—esse a prerogatiue oâ— the people over all Princes for prooâ—e therof he cyâ—ed this position of M. Reynoldeâ— in the place aforsaid Rex humanâ— creatura est quia ab hominibus constiâ—uta and englisheth it in this manner a King is but a creature of mans creation where you see first that in the translation he addeth but mans creation of himselfe â—or that the latin hath no such aduersatiue clause as but nor creation but rather the word constitution Secondly these words are not the words of M. Reynolds but only cited by him out of S. Peter and thirdly they are alleaged heere by Thomas Morton to a quitte contrary sense from the whole discourse and meaning of the Author which was to exalt and magnify the Authority of Princes as descending from God and not to debase the same as M. Reynolds is calumniated to say For proofe heerof whosoeuer will looke vpon the booke and place it selfe before mentioned shall fynd that M. Reynolds purpose therin is to proue that albeit earthly Principality power and authority be called by the Apostle humana creatura yet that it is originally from God and by his commandement to be obeied His words are these Hinc enimest c. Hence it is that albeit the Apostle do call all earthly principality a humane creature for that it is placed in certayne men from the beginning by suffrages of the people yet election of Princes doth flow from the law of Nature which God created and from the vse of
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
impiety 59. Secondly I say that these words of his are corruptly set downe as ouer commonly els where and that both in latin and English In latin for that he leaueth out the beginning of the Canon which sheweth the drift therof whose title is Damnatur Apostolicus qui suae â—raternae salutis est negligens The Pope is damned which is negligent in the affaire of his owne saluation and oâ— his brethren and then beginneth the Canon Si Papa suae fraternae salutis negligens c. shewing that albeit the Pope haue no Superiour-iudge in this world which may by authority check him vnles he fall into heresie yet shall his damnation be greater then of other synners for that by reason of his high dignity he draweth more after him to perdition then any other Wherby we may perceiue that this Canon was not writteÌ„ to flatter the Pope as Protestants would haue it seeme but to warne him rather of his perill togeather with his high authority 60. After this the better to couer this pious meaning of S. Boniface T.M. alleaging two lines of the same in Latin he cutteth of presently a third line that immediatly ensueth to wit Cum ipso plagis multis in aeternum vapulaturus that such a Pope is to suffer eternall punishmeÌ„ts and to be scourged with many stripes togeather with the Diuell himselfe if by his euill or negligent life he be the cause of others perdition which threat this man hauing cut of he ioyneth presently againe with the antecedent words these as following immediatly in the Canon Huius culpas redarguere praesumet nemo mortalium This mans faultes to wit the Pope no mortall man shall or may presume to reprehend and there endeth In which short phrase are many â—raudes For first he leaueth out iâ—tiâ— here in this life and then for praesumit in the present tense that no man doth presume to checke him in respect of the greatnes of his dignity this man saith praesumet in the future tense that is no man shall presume or as himselfe translateth it may presume to cotroll him which is a malicious falshood And lastly he leaueth out all that immediatly followeth conteining a reason of all that is sayd Quia cunctos ipse iudicaturus à nemine est iudicandus nisi depreâ—endatur à fide deuius c. for that whereas he is Iudge of all other men he cannot himselâ—e be iudged by any except he be found to swarue from the true faith Here then is nothing but fraudulent cyting abusing of Authors 61. But now thirdly remayneth the greatest corruption and abuse of all in his English translation which is that which most importeth his simple Reader that looketh not into the Latin and this is that he translateth the former sentence of the Canon thus as before you haue heard Though he should carry many peoâ—le with him to hell yet no mortall creature may presume to say why do you so But in the Latyn neither here nor in the Canon it selfe is there any such interrogation at all as why do you so And therefore I may aske T. M. why do you lye so Or why do you delude your Reader so Or why do yow corrupt your Author so Or why do yow translate in English for the abuâ—ing of your Reader that which neither your selfe do set downe in your Latin text nor the Canon yt selfe by yow cited hath yt at all Is not this wilfull and malicious fraud Wherin when you shall answere me directly and sincerely it shal be a great discharge of your credit with those who in the meane space will iustly hold you for a Deceiuer 62. Thus I pleaded with M. Morton at that tyme and was earnest inough as you see if not ouer earnest but all will not get an answere Now we shall expect that in his promised Reioinder he will answer all togeather and that he may the better remember to do it I thought conuenient to giue him this new record for remembring the samâ— THE THIRTEENTH falshood wittingly pretermitted by Thomas Morton §. XIII FROM S. Boniâ—ace an Archbishop and the Popeâ— Legate we shall passe to a Pope indeed namely S. Leo the first a man of high esteeme in the Churcâ— of God as all Christians know and therefore the abuse offred to him by M. Morton is the more reprehensible wherof I wrote thus in my last Treatise 63. The eight Father sayth M. Morton is Pope Leo writing to a true Catholike Emperour saying You may not be ignorant that â—our Princely power is giuen vnto you not only in worldly regiment but also spirituall for the preseruation of the Church As if he said not only in Causes teÌ„porall but also in spirituall so far as iâ— belongeth to the outward preseruation not to the personall administration of them and this is the substance of our English Oath And further neither do our Kings of England challeng nor Subiects condescend vnto In which words you see two things are conteined first what authority S. Leo the Pope aboue eleuen hundred yeares agone ascribed vnto Leo the Emperour in matters spirituall and Ecclesiasticall â— The second by this mans assertion that neither our Kings of England challeng nor do the Subiects condescend vnto any more in the Oath of the Supremacy that is proposed vnto them which if it be so I see no cause why all English Catholickes may not take the same in like manner so farre forth as S. Leo alloweth spirituall authority to the Emperour of his tyme. Wherfore iâ— behoueth that the Reader stand attent to the deciding of this question for if this be true which here M. Morton auoucheth our controuersie about the Supremaâ—y is at an end 64. First then about the former point let vs coÌ„sider how many wayes T. M. hath corrupted the foresaid authority of S. Leo partly by fraudulent allegation in Latin and partly by false translation into English For that in Latin it goeth thus as himselfe putteth it downe in the margent Debes incunctanter aduertere Regiam potestatem non solùm ad mundi regimen sed maximè ad Ecclesiae praesidium esse collatam You ought o Emperour resolutly to consider that your Kingly power is not only giuen vnto you for gouerment of the world or wordly aâ—â—aires but especially for defence of the Church and then do ensue immediatly these other words also in S. Leo suppressed fraudulently by the Mynister for that they explicate the meaning of the Author Vt ausus nefarios comprimendo quae bene sunt statuta defendas veram pacem hijs quae sunt turbata restituas To the end that yow may by repressing audacious atteÌ„pts â—oth defend those things that are well ordeined and decreed as namely in the late generall Councell of Calcedon and restore peace where matters are troubled as in the Citty and Sea of Alexandria where the Patriarch Proterius being slayne and murdered by the conspiracy of the
Morton but it would not come It must be our patience to expect the same at his more commodity hereafter THE FIFTEENTH Falshood pretermitted by Thomas Morton §. XV. FROM Sepulueda we passe to another Spanish Doctor his equall or rather much better learned named Sotus whom M. Morton erroneously taketh for Scotus vnder the title of subtil Doctor and abuseth him egregiously as I do shew in my former booke of Mitigation in these words 72. Behold sayth M. Morton one Doctor amoÌ„g you so subtile that for that faculty he hath by figure of excellencie byn called The subtile Doctor who doth conclude all your Equiuocators for Lyars saying To say that I did not that which I know I haue done although I speake it with this lymitation or reseruatioÌ„ of mind vt tibi significem it is not Equiuocation but a lye And then he quoteth Sotus in his books De iure iusâ—itia setting downe also in margent the Latin words conforme to this But all is treachery falshood and lying in this impertinent impugner of Equiuocation For first by the subtile Doctor according to the phrase of Catholike Schooles euery child knoweth to be meaÌ„t Ioan. Scotus not Dominicus Sotus who liued more then 200â— yeares after the other was of the order of S. Dominicke the other being of S. Francis so as this is folish ridiculous errour if it be errour but the other is cleerly false and malicious that these words as here they are cited are in Sotuâ— which M. Morton will neuer be albe to shew for â—auing his honestie in this point and much lesse will he be able to proue that Sotus doth conclude all Equiâ—â—cators for lyars which is an other incredible impudency in him to affirme For that Sotus in this very booke question and article by him cited doth teâ—ch and proue largely the plaine contrary â—o wit tâ—at to equiuocate is lawfull in diuers Cases to which eâ—â—ect wee haue citâ—d him before when he saith in generall Possâ—nt debent sic contra ius requisiti quacâ—â—que vti amphibologia They which are vnlawfully required to speake or sweare as we haue declared may and ought to vse any kind of Amphibologie or Equiuocation 73. This is his generall assertion but aâ—terward in particuler he putteth many examples to proue the same And first he setteth downe this proposition Dum testis de alieno actu interrogatur potest riâ—â— respondere Se nescire When a witnes is vnlawfully demanded of another mans actioÌ„ which he knoweth he may iustly answere he knoweth nothing the reason wherof he sayth is this Quia oratio illa nescio recipere hunc sensum citra mendacium potest nescio vt tibi modò dicam For that the answere I know nothing therof may without falsyty admit this sense I know it not â—o tell it yow at this tyme. Sicut silius hominis nescit diem iudicij vt dicat as Christ knew not the day of iudgment to tell or vtter yt to his disciples And doth it seeme to you that Sotus in this place doth go about to conclude all Equiuocators for lyars as M. Morton affirmeth If he did he concludeth one Sauiour Christ also in his sense What extreme impudencie is this in a Myniâ—ter But let vs heare Sotus yet further in this matter 74. In his booke De tegendo Secreto the third member and third question he repeateth againe the very same Conclusion heere mentioned That a witnes being iniustly demaunded whether he knoweth such such a thing of another may answere he knoweth nothing though he secretly know it and then going further he demaundeth Whether I hauing seene Peter kill Iohn and being after examined vpon the same iniustly whether I may say I know nothing therof To which he giueth this answere Respondetur quod iure possum respondere nescio quia iure intelligitur nescio vt dicam aut nescio eo modo quo iure debeam diâ—ere I affirme saith he that I may rightly ansâ—ere I know nothing therof â—or that by law it is vnderstood that I know it not to tell it or I know it not in such manner as by law I ought to vtter the same And prâ—sently he reâ—utâ—th T. Moâ—tons Doâ—tor Genesius Sepulueda that calleth this pulchrum commeÌ„tum a faire gloze and putting him in number of Iuniores quidam certaine yonger fellowes that would reprehend that which they vnderstood not sayth Hij aut non capiunt aut dissimulant vim argumenti These yonglings either do not vnderstand or do dissemble the force of the argument for this our doctrine c. 75. Thus wrote I in my former booke and hauing conuinced so euident falsificatioÌ„s as â—ere haue byn layed downe quite contrary to the meaning sense of the Author alleaged I meruaile that some litle place had not byn allowed for some piece of answere to this also among the rest But belike M. Morton was not ready THE SIXTEENTH Falshood pretermited by Thomas Morton §. XVI FROM the Spanish Doctor Sotus we come to the Flemish Doctor Cunerus for that from all sortes of men and from all Countries M. Morton draweth tâ—stimonies either gathered of himself or by others but allwayes bestoweth some sleight of his owne bugget to peruert them from their owne meaning Now then heare good Reader what I alleaged in my late Treatise as practized against a place of Cuâ—erus noe lesse iniuriously then against the former 77. Within few lynes after this M. Morton beginneth his third Chapter with these words That is only true Râ—ligion say your Romish Doctors which is tauâ—ht in the Romish Church and therfore whosoeuer mainteynâ—th any doctrine condemned in that Church must be accompâ—ed â—n obstinate hereticke And in the margent he citeth Cunerus alleaging his Latin words thus Haec est Religionis sola ratio vt omnes intelligant sic simpliciter esse credendum atque loquendum quemadmodum Romana Ecclesia credendum esse docet ac praedicat which words if they were truly alleaged out of the Author yet were they not truly translated For if only true Religion a corrupt translation of Religionis solaratio be applied to particuler positions and articles of Religion then we grant that such true Religion may be also among hereticks not only taught in the RomaÌ„ Church for that as S. Austine well noteth Hereticks also hold many articles of true Catholiâ—ke Religion But here the corruption and falsifycation goeth yet further and it is worthy the noting for that Cunerus hauing treated largly against the insurrections and rebellions of those of Holland and Zâ—land for cause of Religion and other pretences against their lawfull King taketh vpon him in his thirteenth Chapter to lay downe some meanes how in his opinion those dissentions may be compounded giuing this title to the sayd Chapter Quae sit vera componendi dâ—ssiâ—ij ratio what is the true way of composing this dissention And then after some discourse setteth downe
either in the one or the other point is not proued by any one of all these examples nor by them altogeather though they were granted to be true as here they lye For that they do not proue that either our Kings here mentioned did assume to theÌ„selues to haue Supreme authority in spirituall affaires or to take it from the Pope nay the Catholike Deuine in answering to Syr Edwards obiections herein doth euidently shew and proue yea conuinceth that these fiue English Kings here mentioned to wit King Edward the first Edward the third Richard the second Henry the fourth Edward the fourth vnder whom these Cases fell out did all of them most effectually acknowledge the Popes supreme authority in Ecclesiasticall matters and were obedient Children to the same as he shewed by sundry most cleare and apparant examples of their owne actioÌ„s towards the Sea Apostolike and that these particuler Cases supposing they were all true and fell out as heere they are set downe to wit that the publishing of a Bull of Excommunication in some Causes and vnder some King might be held for Treason as also that the Archbishops lands might be seysed vpon for refusing to admit the Kings presented Clerke that in Parlament it was said that the Regality of the Crowne of England depended not of Rome and that in certaine Cases no suites might be made thither without recourse first to the Ordinaries of England 72. Albeit I say that these things were all granted as they lie yet do they not inferre by any true coÌ„sequence that which the Knight and Minister should proue to wit that for this either these kings were or held themselues for supreme in spirituall authority at that tyme or that it was denied vnto the Pope Wherof this one is a most conuincent argument that the like Cases do or may fall out at this day in other Catholicke Countries and Kingdomâ—s as in France Spaine Naples and Sicily where â—here be diuers Concordates resâ—rictions limitations agreed vpon for auoyding further inconuenieÌ„ces betweene the Pope and Catholicke Kings and Princes concerning the manner of execution of Ecclesiasticall authority without any derogation to the Supremacy therof in the Pope And so might men be punished by the said Princes for breaking rashly the said agreements as they may and are dayly in the said Kingdomes especially in the last and yet do not these Kings thereby either deny the Popes supreme authority or take it to themselues as M. Attorney M. Morton do falsely ininferre in these our cases And thus it is manifest that albeit these exaÌ„ples were in all râ—spects truly alleaged yet are they impertinent to proue that which is pretended And this for the first point 73. But neither is it all true that heere is set down nor as it is set downe which is the second point to be considered For which cause though I find these fyue Cases sufficiently answered by the Catholicke Deuine in his late Booke against M. Attorney yâ—t for tâ—at the said Knight in his last Preface to the sixt part of his Reports doth say that he fyndeth him vtterly ignorant in the lawes of the Realme though as a Deuine he made no profession to be skilfull in the same yet shall I adde somewhat to the reuiew of these Cases whereby it may appeare at leastwise whether he to wit the Deuine or M. Attorney or M. Morton haue vsed the skill of their professions with more sincerity in this matter 74. The first Case thâ—n is thus set downe by M. Morton out of the Attorneys booke though not altogether as it lyeth in his booke but with some aduantage as the Attorney did out of his Bookes whereof he tooke his Case So as here is helping the dye on all haÌ„ds as you see In the Raigne of King Edward the first saith M. Morton a Subiect brought in a Bull of excommunicatiâ— against another Subiect of this Realme and published it But it was answered that this was then according to the ancient lawes of England treason c. as before is set downe 75. Wherein I must note first before I come to examine the answere already made that M. MortoÌ„ can not choose as it seemeth but to vse a tricke or two of his art of iugling euen with M. Attorney himself For whereas he relateth to with the Attorney that this Bull of excommunication was published to the Treasurer of England M. Morton clyppeth of all meÌ„tion of the Treasurer which notwithstaÌ„ding in this Case is of great moment for so much as it semeth that if he had published the same to the Archbishop or Bishops appointed to haue the view of such things and had brought their authenticall testimonies for the same it seemeth by the very booke it self of Iustice Thorpe who recounteth this Case by occasion of the Case of Syr Thomas Seaton and Lucy 30. E. 3. that it had byn litle or no peril at all vnto the publisher for that this reason is alleaged for the offence therein committed that for so much as the partie to wit Lucie against Syr Thomas Seaton did not shew any writ of excommunication or any other thing sealed by the Archbishop of England nor any other Seale that was authentike prouing this therfore the Bull was not allowed c. 76. This then was a fine tricke to cut of all mentioÌ„ of the Treasurer the other also immediatly following hath some subtilitie in it though not so much as the former to wit that it was answered that this was Treason c. for that in none of the bookes cited either of Thorpe or Brooke is any mention of such answere giuen as M. Morton feygneth nor any such iudgment of Treason passed theron as M. Attorney would make his Reader belieue as preseÌ„tly shall be proued So as these are the first two trickes of M. Morton to helpe his dye all the rest for the substance of the matter is like to fall vpon M. Attorney 77. First then the Answere of the Deuine vnto this Case not hauing commoditie at that time to see the two bookes of Thorpe and Brooke cyted in the margent was that it could not possibly be imagined by reason that the Case stood altogeather as M. Attorney did set it downe espâ—cially with this note in the margeÌ„t that the bringing in of a Bull against a subiect was Treason by the ancient coÌ„mon lawes of England before any Statute law was made therof for that the Deuine demandeth what this Common law was not made by Statute How was it made By whome Where At what time Vpon what occasion How introduced and commonly receiued for all this a Common law supposeth especially for so much as the said Deuine had shewed and aboundantly proued now that all precedent Kings of England both before and after the Conquest were most Catholicke in this very point of acknowledging the Popes supreme and vniuersall authority in spirituall affaires wherof the power
of excommunication throughout the world vpon iust causes is a principall member so as except they would introduce a law contrary to their owne beliefe or suffer a law to grow and be made coÌ„mon in their Realme without their knowledge or assent it is absurd to imagine that there could be such a Common law against the Popes ExcoÌ„munications before the dayes of King Edward the first and before any Statute was made against the same as M. Attorney auoucheth 78. Secondly he sheweth out of the testimony of Matth. VVestmonast that this King Edward being in a great heat of offence against the Cleargy of England for that they denied to giue him the halfe of their Rents and goods towards his warres vpon the expresse prohibition of Pope Bonifacius to the contrary which prohibition some Cleargie men vpon feare transgressing had compounded made their peace with the King in that behalfe he doubting least some of the other part of the Cleargy would bring in an ExcoÌ„municatioÌ„ against him or against some of those that had compounded with him made a Decree saith VVestmonaster commanding vnder payne of imprisonment that no man should publish any sentence of Excommunication against the King himselfe or those that had newly sought his protection he making also a prouocation or appeale as well for himselfe as those that stood on his side to the Court of Rome Thus he And now let the prudent Reader consider saith the Deuine that if the King euen in his passion of choler did appoint but imprisonment to be the punishment for bringing in an Excommunication against himselfe and Cleargy men that stood with him how vnlike is it that by the common law it was treason against the King his Realme Crowne and dignity as M. Attorneys thundring words are to bring in an excommunication against a Subiect which is much lesse then against the Kings person himselfe 79. Thirdly the said Deuine though he had not perused the law bookes at that time yet did he yeld the true Cause why priuate men might not bring in excoÌ„munications and publish them at their pleasure as now also is prohibited in other before named Catholicke Kingdomes but they were to be shewed first to a Bishop vnder his Seale were to be certified vnto the Kings Courts which since that time I haue fouÌ„d to be set down expresly in the law-bookes themselues and craftily concealed by M. Attorney for thus is it found written 11. Henr. 4â— fol 64. Hancford the chieâ—e Iustice said that he found in his bookes that in the time of VVill. â—erle who was Iudge in the beginning of the raigne of K. Edward the third euery officer or coÌ„missary of the Bishop might certify excoÌ„municatioÌ„ in the K. Court and for the mischeefe that ensued therof it was aduised by the ParlameÌ„t that none ought to certify excoÌ„munication but only the Bishop soe it is vsed at this day Thus far are Hanckefords words wherby we may see why the partie that published a Bull to the Treasurer of England without the Bishops approbatioÌ„ incurred so high displeasure 80. Fourthly the said Deuine doth conuince M. Attorney out of a Case alleaged by himself afterward in the 31. yeare of the Raigne of King Edward the third where he saith that in an attachment vpon a prohibition the defendant pleading the Popes Bull of excommunication of the Plainâ—iâ—e the Iudges demanded of â—he defendant if he had not the Certificate of some Bishop within the Realme testifying this excommunication c. VVhereby saith he it is made euident first that priuate men were obliged to shew their Bulles vnto some Bishop before they published the same and secondly it appeareth most clearly by the answers of the Iudges that they held it not for treasoÌ„ in those daies nor made any such infereÌ„ce therof for that their only resolution was this that for lacke of this Certificate the partie excoÌ„municated was not thereby disinabled to follow his plea in that Court without saying any one word of danger or punishment against him that had pleaded the Popes Bull of excommunication which they would neuer haue omytted to do if 50 yeares before that vnder K. Edward the first it had bin held for treason by the CoÌ„mon-law to bring in or publish any Excommunication against a Subiect 81. This then was the substance of the Deuines answere at that tyme which though it doth sufficiently conuince M. Attorney to haue abused his Reader egregiously in auouching with such resolution that in K. Edward the first his tyme yt was by the ancient law of England adiudged treason against the king his Crowne and dignytie to publish any Bull of the Popes against any Subiect of the Realme yet hauing synce that tyme had better commodity to informe my self of the lawbooks here meÌ„tioned I wil adde some more proofes to those which now you haue heard 82. First then I must let the Reader vnderstand that neither of those two bookes cited by M. Attorney lib. Ass. pl. 19.30 Ed. 3. and Brooke tit Premunire pl. 10. neither of them I say doth affirme that it was Treason or that there was any iudgment of Treason giuen in that Case which Case is related by Iustice Thorpe 30. Edwardi 3. thus That wheras Syr Thomas Seaton sued a Bill in the Exchequer against a woman named Lucie for calling him Traytor fellon and robber in the presence of the Treasurer and Barâ—ns of the Exchequer in contâ—mpt of the King and slaunder of the Court. Hereupon the said Lucy shewed forth the Popes Bull prouing the plaintiâ—e to be excommunicate and therfore demanded Iudgement whether he should be answered or not And for that she did not shew any writ of excommunication nor any other thing sealed by the Archbishop c. the Bull was not allowed whervpon she was forced to answere and â—leaded not guilty And in that plea Thorpe Iustice said that in the tyme of the Grandfather of the King which was K. Edward the first â—or that one did notify an excommunication of the Apostle to the Treasurer of the King the King would he should haue byn drawne and hanged notwithstaÌ„ding that the Chanceloâ—r and Treasurer did kneele before the King â—or him yet by award he did abiure the Realme and said that the woman was in a hard Case â—or shewing forth this excommunicatioÌ„ if the king would Thus far the said Book 83. VVherein we see first that here is no answere made about treason as M. Morton affirmeth nor iudgment giuen as M. Attorney auoucheth nor any such inference made by the Iudges but only a case related of what K. Edward the first in his anger would haue had to be done to a man that presented an excommunication to the Treasurer to wit he would haue had him hanged and drawne about the same which seming to his Iudges not to be iust or according to law did intreat the King not to put it in execution but rather by way of
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
for his contempt And if he were attached and would obstinateâ—y reâ—use to obey the Kings commandment in admitting the saiâ— Clerk then might the King for his contempt seyse vpon his tempoâ—alities which were oâ— tâ—e Kings endowment And this was the vttermosâ— that the King could by law do against him for that he could neither imprison nor depose or degrade him there being no presideÌ„t to be found as I suppose of the first And for the second the law it selâ— semeth cleare against it as may appeare by Bracton fol. 401. Stanford â—ol 130. c. But howsoeuer it be this proueth nothing against the Popes spirituall Iurisdicâ—ion in England this matter of Aduowsons being meere tempoâ—all things and of the kings temporall inheritance wherein as in all other temporall affaires Bishops were bound to obserue the temporall lawes 91. The other point also that happened out vnder K. Edward the 3. when one was condeÌ„ned to perpetuall prison for hauing disturbed the Kings Presentee by Bulls from Rome is nothing to the purpose at all for that it apperteined not to the Pope but to the Kings temporall inheritance as hath byn said to present Clerkes to such benefices as were of his peculiar patronage and therfore it was ordeined in the Statute of Carliâ—le in the 25. of Edw. the first that such as went about to disâ—urbe the same vniustly by false informations and negotiations at Rome should be punished at the discretion of the Prince so it were not with losse of lyfe meÌ„ber or of his liuood And what inferreth this Are not the like lawes at this day in Spaine and Sicily and els where against them that traÌ„sgresâ—e ordinations of those Realmes about like affaires Or doth this proue that those Catholike Realmes do not acknowledge the Popes Ecclesiasticall Supremacy Euery child may see the weaknes of these inferences and yet vpon these and the like doth all M. Aâ—torneys Treatise layne and consist 92. As for the other Case vnder K. Richard 2. where it was propounded by the Commons in a certaine narration that the Crowne of England hath byn at all tymes â—ree and in subiection to no Realme nor to the B. of Rome touching the Regality of the Crowne c. it is so fully answered by the Deuine in his Reply to the Reports as no more needeth to be said For that they speake but of temporall regalities and haue some reference also as may be supposed vnto the time when the Sea Apostolicke after the concession of K. Iohn preteÌ„ded teÌ„porall right also in that Crown And the answere oâ— the Bishops in that Parliament with distinctioÌ„ that they would â—eld to that Statute so far forth as they did not preiudicâ— the ancient iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall of the said Sea Apostolicke in spirituall affaires doth euidently shew that this obiection maketh nothing to the purpose to denie thereby any part of the Popes supreme Ecclesiasticall authority and consequently as it was impertinently alleaged by M. Attorney to that effect in his Reports so much more fondly was it chosen out by M. Morton as a matter of moment to furnish his Booke withall 93. And as for the last Case vnder K. Edward the fourth where he saith That it was the opinion of the Kings Bench that whatsoeuer spirituall man should sue another spirituall man in the Court of Rome for a maâ—ter spirituall where he might haue remedy before his Ordinary that is the Bishop of the diocesse within the Realme he incurreth the danger of Premunire being an heynous ofâ—ence against the honor of the King his Crown dignity though the former answeâ—e of the Deuine be very sufficient in this case yet must I needes adde â—n this place that it is rather an heinous offence in such a man as M. Attorney is or should be to misreport and misconster his law-bookes therby to make someâ— shew oâ— probability against the ancieâ—t power Ecclesiasticall of the Sea Apostolicke in England whereas the said Books being rightly alleaged vnderstood do make wholy for it As for example heere in this case alleaged out of 9. Ed. the 4. â—ol 3. the saying is only of Yeluerton of the kings Bench and his Report is meant when a spirituall man shall sue an other that is a temporall man in the Court of Rome for a thing meere temporaâ—l he shall incurre the said punishment For that for one spirituall man to sue another spirituall man in the Court of Rome in spirituall Causes was a thing all waies lawfull and vsuall both before the tyme of K. Ed. 4. and after vntill it was forbid by King Henry the eight And that this is true that it was lawfull by the CoÌ„mon-law in K. Henry 4. tyme appeareth expressely by the Booke of 14. H. 4. fol. 14. Neither can I thinke M. Attorney alleage any example where the same is prohibited either by CommoÌ„ or Statute law during the tyme aforesaid 94. And whereas for strengthning this his false assertion he citeth in his Margent vide Fitzh in Nat. Breu. fol. 45. lit â— agreeing herewith And further adâ—eth a Notandum for the same as a matter notorious he doth notoriously abuse his Reader For that Fitzh speaketh not at all of a Premunire but only That if one sueth another out of the Realme for debt or other cause wherof the kings Court may haue conusance he shall haue a prohibition against him And so if one Clearke sue an other vpon title of Collation oâ— any Prebendary out of the Realme c. he shall haue also this prohibiâ—ion And if a man purchaseth out of the Court oâ— Rom against any Clerk or others any Citation directed vnto the Archbishop of Canterbury or any others to cite such a person to appeare beâ—ore the Pope c. to answere for the Collation or Presentation vnto any benefice or Prebendary a prohibition shall lye in this Case Hitherto Fitzher in his writt of prohibition And this is all that he hath in that place of this matter So you see that all that Fitzherbert saith is but that a prohibitioÌ„ shall lye for suyng in the Court of Rome for debt or title of Patronage or such other temporall Causes wherof the Kings Court may haue conusance and he maketh no mention of any Premunire And yet euery puny StudeÌ„t in the Law can tell how much difference there is betwixt a Premunire and a Prohibition that Syr Edward delt not sincerely wheÌ„ he brought in the one for the other 95. So then we soe what striuing wresting worse vsage M. Attorney offereth to his law-bookes to make them seeme to say somwhat against vs and for Protestant religion against which most of them were written as all of them before our times without exception in fauour of the Catholicks We see also the pittifull choice that M. Morton hath made of these fiue Cases out of all M. Attorneys Reportable Reports against the Popes supreme Ecclesiasticall authority
other Princes being of contrary beliefe haue also made the contrary lawes 16. These heads of demonstration togeather with foure more not vnlike to these which for breuity I do pretermit being laid forth at large by the Deuine with the manifest proofes and declarations out of the ancient and irrefragable histories of our Nation to make this euident inference that our Christian Kings before the Conquest did all of theÌ„ acknowledge the Popes supreme Iurisdiction in spirituall affayres and consequently they acknowledged also that it appertayned not to themselues And wheras the Attorney to proue his assertion alleageth two examples before the Conquest the one of K. Kenulphus about a Priuiledge he gaue to the Abbey of Abingdon the other of K. Edward the Conâ—essour that sayth That a King as Vicar of the highest must defend the Church it is answered by the Deuine that both of these examples do make against M. Attorney The first for that there is expresse mention that this Priuiledge was giuen by Authority from the Pope and the second that it is nothing to the purpose K Edward speaking of temporall Authority wheÌ„ he sayth That the King is Vicar of the highest and in the very same place insinuating most manifestly that in spirituall affayres the Pope is supreme and consequently that both these authorities were frandulently brought in by M. Attorney yea the former most willâ—ully corrupted as I do shew more largely and particulerly in the end of my twelfth Chapter of my booke of Miâ—igation And was not all this to the purpose Or will M. Attorney call this a Nihil dicit wheÌ„ the cause shall come before him in seat of Iudgment 17. Lastly the Deuine comming downe from the tyme of the Conquest vnto our dayes to wit to the raigne of K. Henry the viij sheweth largely in the seuerall liues of euery one of those Kings that in this point of the Popes supreme Ecclesiaâ—ticall Authority they were all vniforme in one the selfe same beliefe and acknowledgment which he proueth out of their owne wordes factes lawes histories other authenticall proofes And if at any time there fell out any disagreement or disgust betweene any King and the Pope that liued in his tyme it was only vpon particuler interests complaints of abuses by officers euill informers or the like for remedy wherof some restrictions agreements or concordates were made as now they be also in other Catholick Countries not for that any English King from the very first Christened vnto K. Henry the 8. nor he neyther for the first 20. yeares of his raigne did euer absolutly deny the Popes supreme Iurisdiction in Ecclesiasticall causes 18. And secondly the sayd Deuine answereth fully to all those pieces and parcels of lawes that M. Attorney produceth which are shewed either fraudulently to be alledged or wholly misconstred or vtterly to be impertinent to the conclusion which they should inferre And shall this in like manner be iudged from the purpose and a Nihil dicit where now is that Iudge that gaue sentence â—or him in this behalfe will he come forth stand to his sentence Or will Syr Edward Cooke be so vnreasonable in this behalf as to request any man to belieue him that such a Iudgment was giueÌ„ for him Or that he fouÌ„d so vniust a Iudge as would giue such a sentence so contrary to all conscience sense and reason But yow must note that many men haue noted this to be somewhat singular in Syr Edward Cooke as many other points be that when he talketh of Catholicks or their aâ—fayres he is so confident resolute precipitant in his asseuerations against them especially when he preacheth on the Bench or giueth his Charge that except we belieue him at his bare word contrary to all liklihood of truth the most part of that he speaketh will seeme to be wilfull vntruthes spoken against his owne conscience so litle he remembreth the saying of the prophet Pone ostium circumstantiae labijs meis I do not say they are lyes for that were inurbanity considering his present dignity but that they may seeme such to the wyser sort for that they lacke this doore of true circumstances to make them probable wherof we shall haue occasion to touch some more examples afterward Now we shall passe on to examine whether this Nihil dicit obiected to his Aduersary do not fall more iustly vpon himselfe and therwith also an opposite charge called a Nimium dicit which is to speake more then is true THAT THE Imputation of Nihil dicit doth fall more rightly vpon M. Attorney as doth also the Nimium dicit or euerlashing in his assertions §. II. HAVING shewed now that the Nihil dicit cannot be ascribed to the Catholicke Deuine for that he left written so much and so effectuall to the purpose he had in hand it would be an easie mâ—tter to shew in regard of the contrary effectes that the saâ—e remaineth with M. Attorney both for that he answered litle or nothing and that wholy from the purpose The â—irst is manifest by this new Preface of his wherin he answereth scarce halfe a page to more then 400. pages of my booke written against him The second also is not obscure by that I haue written in the precedent Paragraph of the impertinencie of proofs produced against vs which afterward perhaps may be better examined and consequently for both these respects the Nihil dicit lighteth vpon himselfe 20. Now then lâ—tting passe this Nihil dicit we shall contemplate a while the Nimium dicit when more is vttered then the truth with shall be the proper argument and subiect of this present section or Paragraph and this only about such matters as he hath now freshly and lasâ—ly vttered in this Preface that in all conteyneth but one only printed sheet wherby appeareth how great a volume it would arise vnto on our behalfe if we should examine the vntâ—uthes of all his other writings against vs. 21. To begin then with that which before we touched he auoucheth in this his Preamble That he could not fynd in all the booke any autâ—ority out of the bookes of Common lawes oâ— this Realme Acts of Parlaments or any legall and Iudiâ—iall records quoted or cyted by the Catholiâ—ke Deuine for the mantenance oâ— any of his opinions or conceipts wherupon as in Iustice sayth he I ought I had iudgment giuen for me vpon a Nihil dicit Thus farre the Knight wherby you perceaue that the immediate cause of this iudgment giuen in his fauour was grounded vpon this presumption that the Deuine neyther quoted nor cyted any one such witnesse throughout all his booke which if it be euidently false as now I shall proue it then must the Iudge confesse if he will not be Iudex iniquus that the sentence of Nihil dicit is to be reuoked as vniust 22. Let vs see then how true or false this assertion is or rather how many seuerall falshoods
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