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
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
of the writers mynd to beguyle For first in the chapter by him named the intention was not only to improue the right of deposing Princes in the Pope but also of excommunicating them as appeareth by the tytle of the Chapter it selfe which is this That â—or more then 1000. yeares after Christ the Papall pretended iurisdictioÌ„ ouer Kings hath bene controlled Now then this Papall pretended Iurisdiction as all men know contayneth as well excommunication as â—eposition the one being the efficient cause of the â—ther so as for M. Morton to runne to onely deposiâ—ion of Princes is guylfully to slyde from his matâ—er and from his owne Authours for that both Friâ—â—ngensis and Tolosanus haue as well the words excomâ—unicated as depryued oâ— his Kingdome though Mortonâ—ath â—ath cunningly stricken them out in cyting their â—ords â—5 SecoÌ„dly his excuse of hauing alledged Otto Friâ—â—â—gensis against his owne meaning from the witnesse 〈◊〉 Tolosanus cannot stand or be cleared of deceiptfull â—â—eaning for in the English text which was writâ—en for deceiuing the English common Reader was â—othing said at all of Tolosanus but thus in disgrace â—f Pope Gregory the 7. I read and read againe sayth your Otto Frisingensis and I find that Pope Gregory the 7. â—â—lled Hildebrand in the yeare 1060. was the first Pope that â—â—er depriued any Emperour of his Regiment And to this â—estimony he adioyneth Claudius â—spâ—nseus a Parisianâ—octor â—octor and writer in our time oâ— very small acâ—oÌ„pt whome he calleth Bishop but I neuer heard â—et of his Bishopricke and to him he adioyneth â—ambertus Schasnalurgensis against his owne meaning â—s he did this of Frisingensis And with this only he â—ndeth all that Chapter instituted by him to improue all Papall authoritie of excoÌ„municating and deposing Princes Onely in the margent he setteth downe in latin the wordes of Frisingensis with citing â—he booke and Chapter and then addeth vt resert Tolosanus lib. 26. 96. Heere then I would aske whether ther were not fraud supposing FrisingeÌ„sis to be alleadged against â—his meaning to put downe his testimony in the English text without relation or mention of Tolosanus only in the margent and in latin to make reference vnto him Would the currant English reader euer reflect vpon that or mistrust that the wordes of Frisingensis were of doubtfull credit and related only by heare-say Why had not M. Morton put downe that refereÌ„ce in his English text which most imported But the truth is that it was a double cunning shift to let it runne in the text as he would haue it belieued by the Reader as though FrisingeÌ„sis had testified against Pope Gregory the 7. and yet in the margent to haue some refuge vnder-hand when he should be pressed with the falshood of the allegation as now he is 97. I let passe as of small moment the erroneous pareÌ„thesis which he putteth in of the yeare 1060. which caÌ„not be true for that all English men know that VVilliam Conquerour vpon the yeare 1066. entred into Engalnd with a hallowed banner sent him from Pope Alexander the second who was predecessour to Pope Gregory the 7. and coÌ„sequently Pope Gregory could not excommunicate the Emperoâ—r Henry vpoÌ„ this yeare assigned by M. Morton for that he was not yet Pope for diuers yeares after but this I impute to errour and so insist not vpon it but rather vpon other pointes of willing deceiptfulnes which now I am to go forward in noting 98. I cannot persuade my selfe but that M. Morton had read Frisingensis himselfe for it were absurd to write bookes out of other mens notes as afterwards vpon diuers occasions he doth confesse of himselfe when otherwise he cannot auoid the obiection of falshood vsed but howsoeuer this were that eyther M. Morton related the words of Frisingensis as he found them in himselfe or in Tolosanus he hath not faithfully related them as Tolosanus did for thus they lye Lego sayth he relego Romanorum Regum Imperatorum gesta nusquam inuenio quemquaÌ„ eorum ante hunc Henricum quartum à Romano Pontifice excoÌ„municatum vel Regâ—â— priuatum nisi sortè quis pro anathemate hahendum ducat â—â—òd Philippus ad breue tempus à Rom. Episcopo inter poenitenâ—â— collocatus Theodosius à B. Ambrosio propter cruentam â—â—deÌ„ à liminibus Ecclesia sequestratus sit I do read read â—gaine the acts of the Roman Kinges Emperors â—â—d I do neuer find any of them before this Henryâ—â—e â—â—e 4. to haue bene excoÌ„municated or depriued of â—â—s Kingdome except perhaps some man will hold 〈◊〉 an excommunication that the Emperour Philipâ—as â—as for a short time placed by the Bishop of Rome 〈◊〉 og such as did peÌ„nace Theodosius the Emperor â—as debarred the limits of the Church by S. Ambrose â—â—ishop of Millane in regard of a bloudy slaughter coÌ„â—itted by his order â—â— These are the wordes of Frisingensis related punâ—â—ually by Tolosanus as heere they lye but it pleased 〈◊〉 M. Morton to relate them eyther as they are â—â—und in the one or other And as for the first part â—â—erof the Reader will see the difference by that â—hich I haue already set downe and in one poynt â—â—e fraud is manifest that where Frisingensis saith â—â—squam inuenio quemquam eorum excommunicatum vel â—â—gno priuatum I neuer fynd any of the Emperours to â—aue byn excoÌ„municated or depriued by the Bishop of â—ome he leaueth out the word excommunicated both â—n latin and in English as though it made not to â—he purpose and secondly he cutteth of both in laâ—in and English all exception of the Emperours Phiâ—â—p and Theodosius though both his Authors haue it And could this be playne dealing â—00 But heere now yow shal heare how he answereth this omission I left them out of purpose I confesse saith he otherwise I should haue bene like to your selfe in this other such cauills who desire to say much though nothing to the purpose for to what purpose I pray you had this beene seeing our question was not to shew what Emperors had byn excommunicated but who being excommunicated had bene deposed from their regalityes Yea Sir and will you escape so why then doth your Authour Frisingensis say that he fyndeth none excommunicated or depryued of his kingdome before Henry the 4. by Gregoy the 7 you see that he includeth both the one the other and so doth Tolosanus relate him also and you haue strooke out the former from Tolosanus his latin text set downe in your margeÌ„t because it should not be seene and then also both the foresaid exceptions of the Emperours Philip and Theodosius he cutteth of suppresseth as nothing to the purpose and yet you know that depositioÌ„ of Princes is an effect of excoÌ„munication and can neuer happen by Ecclesiasticall authority but where excoÌ„munication hath gone before And I would aske M. Morton in good earnest out of his Deuinity when a Christian
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
true explanation of your meaning with a cleare confutation and reiection of the same and consequently these Rhetoricall shifts are idly brought in by you nothing nâ—edfull for me For P. R. tooke you in your true meaning wherin you desire to make Catholicke Doctours contemptible in generall for their blindnesse though to some yow will seeme to graunt the opinion of learning but yet with such restraint and limitation as you make it not better for instruction of Christian soules then the learning of the Diuell himselfe For this is your wise and graue conceipt Let them be as greatly learned say you as they are and would seeme to be yet must there be a con I meane an hart zealous of the truth to be ioyned with science to make vp a perfect conscience which is the true Doctour indeed otherwise we know that the serpent by being the most subtile of all the beasts in the field will deserue no better commendationâ— then to be accoÌ„pted the skillfullest seducer By which discourse of yours a man may easily see whether your meaning were generall in your former speach about ignorant Doctours or no and how impertinently you bring it in heere for an argument of wilfull falshood against me for that I vnderstood you in your owne sense I will not discusse your concept of your science with your con which was borrowed of Iohn Reynolds and of others before you and though I be loath to tell it you least it may seeme to sauour of reuenge yet I must say it for your better information that many men thinke very little of the one or other to be in your selfe as they should be either science or good conscience alleadging your writings for testimony of both HIS FOVRTH obiected falshood against P. R. §. IIII. NEXT vnto this he produceth for a falshood in me that I say in my booke of Mitigation that he taketh vpon him to iustifie the writings and doings of the Protestants of our dayes for their seditious doctrines and practizes against Princes who please them not and among others M. Goodman in particuler that wrote the most scandalous booke against the Regiment of women in Q. Maries dayes and assisted Knox Buchanan and others in troubling and turning vpside downe Scotland wheras M. Morton saith that he condemned him and consequeÌ„tly that I dealt iniuriously with him Thus he citeth my words in a different letter as though they stood so in my text He Thomas Morton doth particulerly iustifie Goodman 21. But first you must vnderstand that it is his common vse neuer lightly to alleadge truly and sincerely any text that he will vse to his profit either in Latin or English and let the Reader make prooâ—e of it if in twenty places alleadged by him he find foure without all alteration let him say that I do offer him iniury My words talking of the parts of M. Mortons Reply called the Full satisâ—action were these Secondly he taketh vpon him yet more fondly in the second part of this his Reply to make a publicke iustification of all Protestants for rebelling against their Princes in any countrey whatsoeuer but more particulerly and especially in England and therin doth so iustifie Cranmer Ridley Syr Thomas VVyatt and others that conspired against Q. Marie in England Knox Buchanan Goodman and like Ministers in Scotland turning vpside downe that State against their Soueraignes the rebellions raised in Suetia Polonia Germany Switzerland France and other countries as his iustification is a more condemnation of them and their spirits and doctrine in that behalfe then if he had said nothing at all as partly shall afterward appeare by some instances that we shall alleadge therof 22. By which words of mine you may see that I did not single out Goodman alone as particulerly iustified by M. Morton as he would make the Reader belieue by his crafty and corrupt manner of citing my words but that among many others he did go about also so farre as he durst to excuse and iustifie him saying as presently you shall heare that albeit he approued him not for this he durst not do my L. of Canterbury hauing written so terribly against him in his booke of Dangerous positions yet that the examples alleadged against him by the Moderate Answerer might excuse him which were of most intollerable speaches of his against Princes and heere againe in this his Preamble that in respect of Romish Priests he might be thought excusable wherby a man may see his inclination to iustifie him and his writings if with security he might haue donne it How then is it such a falsity in me to say that among so many others before named whom he cannot deny but that he seeketh to iustifie them he sought also to excuse and iustifie Goodman though not in so absolute a manner as the other Saints of his yet in some degree conuenient to his estate and merit Let vs see what I do write afterward more about this iustification of Goodman my wordes these 23. The moderate Answerer say I alleageth first the wordes of Goodman in his booke against Q. Mary wherin he writeth expresly that it is lawfull by Gods law mans to kill both Kings and Queenes wheÌ„ iust cause is offered her selfe in particuler for that she was an enemie to God and that all Magistrâ—ts and Princes transgressing Gods lawes might by the people be punished condemned depriued and put to death as well as priuate transgressours and much other such doctrine to this effect cited out of the said Goodman All which the Bishop of Canterbury his second booke of Dangerous positions hath much more largely both of this Goodman and many other English Protestants chiefe Doctours of their primitiue Church residing at that time in Geneua And what doth T. M. now reply to this You shall heare it in his owne wordes If I should iustify this Goodman saith he though your examples might excuse him yet my hart shall condemne my selfe But what do you professe to proue all Protestants teach positions rebellious prooue it heere is one Goodman who in his publike booke doth mantaine it I haue noe other meanes to auoid these straites which you obiect by the example of one to conclude all Protestants in England rebellious then by the example of all the rest to answere there is but one So he 24. And this is his Full satisfaction and faithfull reply as he calleth his booke but how poore satisfaction this giueth and how many points there be heere of no faith or credit at all is quickly seene by him that will examine them For first how do the examples alleaged against this Goodman by the moderate answerer excuse him as heere is said seeing the wordes he alleageth against him out of his owne booke are intollerable and my Lord of Canterbury alleageth farre worse as for example that it is most lawfull to kill wicked kings when they fall to tyraÌ„ny but namely Queenes
this be like to my cause P. R. saith he a litle after discusseth some of my answers to this obiection oâ— practise yet now will not acknowledge the beginning So he And let the iudicious Reader iudge how aptly this is applied yet to the thing it selfe I say that true it is that he indeauoureth both before and after to answere to diuers proofes of seditious practises obiected by his aduersary against Caluin and Beza but weakly God-wot as may be seene by my Reply and yet out of his owne confidence or that courage rather which before I mentioned of a Cocke of the game he would make that crowing vaunt Thus is Caluin iustified saith he concerning his doctrine and in him also Beza you haue heard their opinions haue you any thing to except against their practises Would not you thinke that he meant that we had none at all to obiect no more against their practises then their doctrine And that as he held the one for iustified so did he hould the other for iustifiable and that herin there was no exception to be made Wherin then standeth this wilfull malice of mine Yea this intollerable impudency or impotency of malice to vse his owne words But for that they were spoken in impatience I will not greatly vrge the same nor yet seeke to recompence them least I should go against the title of this Treatise which is A quiet and sober Reckoning the moderate iudicious Reader shall be the iudge of all where passion and where modesty is found HIS NINTH obiected falshood against P. R. §. IX HIS ninth obiection is a strange one and signifieth that the poore man is exhausted and cannot well tell what to obiect with any shew or probability in matter of wilfull falshood so as he falleth to lay hands of things quite against himselfe For wheras I had proued in my Treatise Of Mitigation two or three manifest vntruthes vttered voluÌ„tarily by him in going about to defend the Rebellion of Syr Thomas VViat and the Duke of Suffolke in Queene Maries time and so conuinced the same as there was no place left of probable defence M. Morton vpon meere necessity commeth here now to haÌ„dle these points againe and in part to excuse himself by the feeble meanes which presently you shall heare concluding nothing more against me but this which are the last words of all his discourse VVherefore saith he these two lies which P. R. would haue bestowed vpon me he by vertue of his place and Patent may keep to himself And is not this a great inference when he should conuince me of wilfull falsity But you shall heare vpon what grounds he obiecteth these two vntruthes to me for that I conuinced him of foure 43 First then my speach vpon his weake defence of the foresaid Rebellion was this in my Treatise of Mitigation To that of Syr â—homas VViat the Duke of Suffolke and others quoth I he answereth diuersly First he saith that the Historie relateth the pretence of VViat thus A Proclamation against the Q. marriage desiring all English-men to ioyne for defence of the Realme c. Then that in Q. Maries Oration against Wiat there is not to be found any scruple concerning the cause of religion Thirdly that no Minister of the ghospell was brought in question as a coÌ„motioner in that cause Lastly that ys inteÌ„â— might 〈◊〉 for ProtestaÌ„ts accused in that name thâ— is it plain saith M. Morton that it was not Religion ys for Wiat and his folloâ—ers it is playne it was not against the Queene or State but for both So he that is to say M. Morton in his Full SatisfactioÌ„ 44. But in all these foure different clauses I then sayd and now doe repeat agayne that there is not so much as one that in rigour may be defended for true For as for the first though the historie of Holinshed doth relate the pretence of VViat to haue bene against the Q. marriage conâ—â—aling and dissembling the poynt of ReligioÌ„ in that place which els where he confesseth as aâ—ter shal be seene yet Iohn â—ox a more ancieÌ„t and authenticall Historiographer then he doth plainely set downe that together with the pretence of the marriage the cause of Religion was also pretended in these words The mention of marriage with Spaine quoth he was very ill taken of the people and of many of the Nobility who for this and for Religion conspiring among theÌ„selues made a Rebellion wherof Syr Thomas VViat knight was one of the cheifest And againe They sayd that the Q. the CouÌ„sell would by forraine marriage bring vpoÌ„ this Relme miserable seruitude and establish Popish Religion So Fox And it cannot be presumed but that M. Morton had seene and read this yet durst affirme that there was no mention of Religion at all in VViats pretence which is the first lye 45. The second also that in the Oration of Q. Mary against VViat there was not found any scruple concerning the cause of Religion is proued likewise false by the same authority of M. Fox in his Acts and Monuments who writeth that Q. Marie in hâ—r Oration in the Guildhall sayd publickely that she had sent diuers of her Counsell to learne the pretences of that Rebellion and it appeared to our said Counsell said she that the matter of the marriage seâ—â—â—ed to be but a Spanish cloake to couer their pretensed purpose against our Râ—ligion And this testimonie also of Fox must needes haue bene knowne to M. Morton and consequently here is a second witting lye affirming that there is not so much as any scruple to be found concerning the cause of Religion in that her Oration 46. The third point likewise that there was no Minister of the Ghospell brought in question as a CoÌ„motioner in that cause is both false in it selfe and cautelously set downe for that the commotion of VViat and the Duke of Suffâ—lke ensuing within the coÌ„passe of fiue moneths aâ—ter the death of the Duke of Northumberland that did conspire the depriuation of Q. Mary the first being put to death vpon the 22. of August 1553. the other beginning his rebellion vpoÌ„ the 25. of â—anuary 1554â— it being well knowne the coÌ„fessed both by Fox Holinsâ—ed Stow and others that the motiue of Protestant Religion was common to them both and pretended for chiese in them both and it being notorious that in the first both Cranmer Ridley Hooper Rogers Iewell all the chief Protestant Minisâ—ers of England did concurre who can doubt but that in the second aâ—lso being but an appendix of the former they â—ad their harts therin though not â—o â—ully their hands as actuall Commotioners for that the Râ—bellion was suppressed in the very beginning by taking away the two heads VViat and Suffolke 47. Wherby you may see the craftie speach of M. Morton who saith that Ministers were not the Commoâ—ioners nor brought into quâ—stion for such that is to say
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
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
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
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
satisfyed in one speciall point of my Epistle to the second part of my Reports where I affirmed that yf the ancient Lawes of this noble â—and had not excelled all others speaking of humane it could not be but some of the seuerall Conquerours â—ouernours therof that is to say the Romans Saxons Danes or Normans and especially the Romanes who as they iustly may do boast of their Ciuill Lawes would as euery of them might haue altered or changâ—d the same And sayth he some of another proâ—â—ssion are not persuaded that the Common Lawes of England are of so great antiquity as there superlaâ—iuâ—ly is spoken So he And in these last words I presume he vnderstood the Deuine that impugâ—ed this excessiue imaginary antiquity of our Municipall â—awes in his Answere to the Reports and Syr Edward hauing seene the same should in reason haue answered somewhat therunto if he had byn prepared for it 30. But he thought that course not best but rather to help himselfe with the pretendâ—d authority of Syr Iohn Fortescue chiefe Iustice of England in the Raigne of King Henry the 6. saying that he was a great Antiquary he was a notable man indeed though more as it seemeth in the skill of our Common Lawes then in matters of Antiquity out of whome Syr Edward to help his cause and assertion citeth the words following As touching the antiquity of our Common Lawes sayth he neither are the Roman Ciuill Lawes by so long continuance oâ— ancient tymes confirmed nor yet the Laâ—es oâ— the Venetians which aboue all other are reporâ—ed to be of most antiquity â—or so much as their Island in the beginning of the Britans was not then inhabited as Rome also then vnbuilded neither the Lawes of any Nation of the world which worshipped God are of so old and ancient yeares wherâ—ore the contrary is noâ— to be said nor thought but that the English customes are very good yea oâ— all other the very best Thus he if he be rightly cited for I haue not his booke by mâ— 31. And though I do respect and reuerence both these mens professions and much more their state place of Iudges yet doth force of truth oblige me to contradict their errour which seemeth to me very grosse and palpable or rather their errours and mistakinges in sundry points here downe As first in that yt is auerred that the Ciuill law and Roman lawes are not of so long continuance of ancient tymes as the ancieÌ„t Municipall Lawes of England are which he goeth about to proue by two seuerall meanes wherof both do conteine aswell falsyties as absurdities if I be not greatly deceiued therin 32. His â—irst meanes of proofe is â—or that in the beginning oâ— the Britans Rome was then vnbuylded and conquently that the British Lawes are more ancient then those of the Romans And then supposing further that those British Lawes which were in the beginning of the Britans were neuer changed but recâ—iued in England fâ—oÌ„ time to time haue indured to our dayes are the Common Lawes of our Realme at this day Wherin there are many suppositions as yow see strange to heare but harder in my opinion to be proued As first that the Britans in their beginning euen before Rome was buylt had such good Lawes as the Romans in EnglaÌ„d seauen huÌ„dred years after the said building of Rome were coÌ„tent to accept for their Lawes in that land And the lyke after them the Saxons other CoÌ„querous people that ensued which is such a paradox vnto men of reason learning as the very naming therof cannot but cause laughter For albeit the British nation be more ancient then the Roman according to the Story of Geffrey Monmouth that affirmeth theÌ„ to discend from Brutus a Nephew of Aeneas from whom Romulus the founder of Rome some ages after descended and that they were a valiant warlike nation from the beginning yet that they had such good politicke and ciuill Lawes themselues being vnciuill in those dayes is a matter incredible which I proue thus That wheras the Roman Lawes began from Romulus himselfe from Numa Pompilius other ancient Law-makers among them and this soone after the building of Rome I meane the more older Lawes of the twelue Tables and the lyke continued from tyme to tyme afterwards vntill the coÌ„ming of Iulius Caesar into Britany which was aboue 600. yeares after Rome was built aboue a thousand after Brutus had byn in England in which tyme yt is probable that the British Lawes would haue growne to greater perfectioÌ„ theÌ„ they were in the beginning yet I say that the said Lawes customes of the Britans are recorded to be such in Iulius Caesar his daies set downe by his owne penne as also by the writings of diuers other Roman Greeke Authors that succeded for two or three hundred years after him as must needs be incredible that they should be continued by the Romans Saxons and other people that followed them And then if they were such and so rude so many ages after their beginning what may we imagine they were at their very begynning it selfe which was a thousand yeares before from which tyme our two Knights heere do inferre their antiquity and eminency aboue the Roman Lawes 33â— Let vs see then what ancient Histories do report of the British Lawes and Customes in Iulius Caesar his tyme and afterwards Caesar the Roman-Captaine hauing made two iourneys into England and informed himselfe diligently about the Lawes and Customes of the Brytans in those dayes which was about 60. yeares before the Natiuity of our Sauiour setteth downe many things of their small policy in that time As first the description of their manner of consultations in their warre wherin he sayth that in commune non coâ—sulunt they haue no common Counsells and then describing the chiefe Citty of the Realme where their K. CassiuelaÌ„ that was head of all the rest had his Court Counsaile somewhat about the Thames though not where London was afterward built he sheweth that it was in a wood and that the walles were trees cut downe round about insteed of fortresses within which they inclosed both themselues and their Cattle and this was the symplicity of that tyme. 34. After this he setteth downe many Lawes and customes of theirs farre vnfit to be receiued by the Romans other people after them as Nummo aereo aut annulis ferreis ad certuÌ„ pondus examinatis pro numâ—o vtebantur Their money was of brasse and rings of yron giuen out by weight And then againe that they had a law and custome luto se inficere quod caeruleum efficit colorâ—m to paint themselues with a certaine earth that made a blew colour And Solinus wryting more then an hundred yeares after Caesar againe sheweth this law and custome to haue byn so inuiolable among them in his dayes that the very Children had the figures and shapes
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
that all was for the safety good of their State and persons and no lesse in the cause of Syr Thomas VVyat 53. Heere then you see that he is conuinced of foure seuerall false assertions which he could not choose but know to be false before he set them downe if he read and belieued M. Fox and other Protestant writers But how now thinke you doth all this conuince or so much as accuse me of any willfull falsitie And if it doth not as euery man seeth why then is it brought in hâ—eâ—e in this place for a seuerall obiection of faâ—shood against me Yea with words of great reproach saying VVe may sufâ—er professors of the â—eates oâ— lâ—gier-de-main to delude the behoulders to conuey onâ— mans ring into another mans pocket and then call him a cosner but for vs Diuines to play such tricks as P. R. hath donne changing Holinshed into M. Fox and then to tax me for â—alsâ—od is a deuise inexcusable So he 54. And did you euer heare a sober man in this tune Stand attâ—nt I pray to the controuersy He cited the proclamation of Syr Thomas VViatt as not making mention of Religion and quoteth Holinshed in the margent I produced M. Fox that wrote before Holinshed and liued in Q. Maâ—yes time who set downe not only VViatts temporall pretenses but that also for religion and for all the other three points I do alleage the same Fox and M. Morton quoteth no author at all but Holinshed as holding his peace and saying nothing therin which he wil needes take for a deniall albeit in the last point as you haue heard Holinshed himself expresly testifieth against him which he dissembleth And do I then heere play Legier-de-main coÌ„ueying rings into other mens pockets and changing Holinshed into Fox Doth this man know or care what he saith Or is there any one of these points that prooueth any least falshood in me not rather all foure in him How then is it heere againe brought in against me in this ninth obiection of â—alsity I am content that any indiffereÌ„t friend of his answere for him in this point whether in leauing to me the charge of two vntruthes draweth not vnto himselfe all foure much more forcibly then they were layd vpon him before in our Treatise of Mitigation 55. Nay I must tell the Reader further that haâ—â—ng considered better the impudency of this his laâ—t Preambling Reply wherein he would shroud himseâ—â— from a maniâ—est conuiction of lying in the first point for that Holinshed speaketh nothing of religioÌ„ in VViats pretence I tooke the paines to search hâ—m ouer more diligently and found that he did expressely affirme also the same that Fox doth saying The Commons and many of the Nobility for the marriage and for the cause of Religion conspired to rayse warre And the very same doth affirme Iohn Stow in his Chronicle saying that for this marriage and for religion they conspired against the Queene c. So as now hauing found out this M. Morton cannot say that I do wilily like a Fox prey furthest from home for that before I did vrge only the authority of M. Fox seeing that now both his proper Author Holinshed and Stow are found expressely to affirme the self same VVhich way will M. Morton turne himself heere For he is conuinced of an open and manifest falshood in denying that in two seuerall Replyes and Editions of his bookes which now his owne author Holinshed is found flatly to affirme FOVRE OTHER obiections of M. Morton against P. R. in matter of willfull falsitie to witt the tenth eleauenth tweluth and thirteenth in M. Mortons Catalogue §. X. IN signe that M. Mortons matter now groweth barren in obiâ—cting of willâ—ull falsities against me he beginneth to â—uddle vp diuers of them togeather but of so small moment and so fully answered and confuted before as it is euident he seeketh but some shew of number to help himself for some ostentatioÌ„ towards which help I doe willingly increase his number more by one then he maketh it in his owne reckoning though he indeed set all downe but yet being ashamed of the first about my erring in his name T. M. he giueth thereunto no number at all of a distinct obiection as I haue donne in my answere Let vs see thenâ— what manner of obiections these foure are beginning in his accompt from the 8. in these words 57. A ninth falshood sayth he may be accompted his peremptory râ—prehensâ—on of our English translation vpon that oâ—â—say the Prophet 29. as dissâ—nting from the Latin Greâ—ke and Hebrew both in woâ—ds and sense in which censure he hath bâ—ne conuicted oâ— a grossâ— falshood in both by the iudgment oâ— his owne Doctours Thus farre he And for this he noteth in the margent see aâ—oâ—e § 5. nu 15. meaning that the same is handled before betweene vs in this Preamble consequently condemneth himself of impertinency and oâ— lacke of matter to obiect against me when he bringeth it forth heere againe for making vp a number of many obiections though neuer so vaine and idle quite contrary to his solemne promise in the begining that he would bring forth nothing but only such falles of mine as may seeme to be â—ecouerable by no excuse and inforce me neuer hereafter to credit my self and the Reader to thinke that I haue no conscience at all All this he threatned and now do you iudge whether these obiections of his do inforce thus much or no being in themselues both trifles not prooued by him 58. And for this first about the text of Esay wherin he accuseth me of grosse falshood there could be none therin on my part at all it being but a reprehension of mine against him for that he translated the sentence falsely which if it could be prooued that he did not yet should it be bâ—t an errour in me and no witting falshood and consequently nothing to our purpose but he that shall peruse the place heere cited where this matter is before discussed shall find M. Morton and his English translation if there be any such extant cleerly conuinced that they neither agree with the Latin Greeke or Hebrew nor with S. Hierom most skilfull in all three languages so as this obiection might haue bene left oâ—t but only for want of other store And as for that he saith in the last words of this obiection that I am conuinced of grosse falshood by the iudgment of my owne Doctours it must needs be grosse presumption for M. Morton to affirme it For that there is no one of mine that is to say Catholicke that euer tooke out that sense of the words of Esay that he doth nor could they do it the text not bearing any such interpretation as before hath bene declared Wherfore his subâ—ility in forcing Esay to say that which he doth not is contemptâ—bâ—e to vs in comparison of our grosâ—enesse that cannot vnderstand him but in