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
taske for me to find one falshood in many then many in one So he And â—aue you heard this craking We may say with Horace Quid dignum tanto feret hic promissor hiatu What strang effect will so great words bring forth But heere I must agayne and in euery place aduertise the Reader what this Boaster should and ought to proue if indeed he can proue any thing at all to wit that he lay forth cleerly and perspicuously some two or three plaine instaÌ„ces out of any one Catholicke writer of our time as I haue done many against him and his wherby he and they are conuinced of witting and wilfull falshood and this so manifest and apparent as the Author himselfe must needes know that it was false when he wrote it Well then what can M. Morton bring forth in this kynd against our writers out of this his second example or instance about the Councell of Eliberis in Spaine 32. In the controuersy about Images saith he the Protestants appeale vnto antiquity both of Councells and Fathers The first Councell is that of Eliberis about the yeare of Grace 305. which Protestants vrge as forbidding that there should be any Images in the Church Now let vs try the spirits of the answerers Well Syr. And what triall will you make of their spirits heere The state of your question in controuersy requireth that you should try them for willfull lying spirits and that they lyed voluntarily as hath byn proued against you and yours What haue you to say against them in this kind out of this place You do accuse them that they haue diuers different expositions vpon the said Canon of the Councell of Eliberis some thinking it to be vnderstood one way and others another and for this you alleadg the differeÌ„t expositions of Card. Bellarmine D. Payua Alanus Copus Sanders Turrian Vasquez Sixâ—us Senensis and others and you play merily vpon â—heir diuâ—rsityes of expositions about the decree of â—he Councell but how proueth this your principall â—roposition that they did erre wilfully yea witâ—ingly also themselues knowing that they did erre â—or this is the only true question And if you proue â—ot this you proue nothing And now I would aske â—ou When diuers ancient Fathers in their CoÌ„menâ—aryes vpon the holy Sciptures do set downe diffeâ—ent expositions of hard places euery one thinking â—hat he goeth neerest to the truth may you by this â—ondemne them of wilfull falshood and make tryâ—ll of their spirits as of lying spirits for this respect â—s not this absurd and impious Are you not ashaâ—ed to come forth with these ridiculous proofes â—fter so great ostentation of words that it is as easie â—r you to find out many wilâ—ull falshoods in one as one in many â—hy had you not alleadged one at least But let vs â—xamine in a word or two the reason of diuersity of â—xpositions of our Doctours about the Canon and â—ith this you will be wholy downe-dagger â—3 The Councell it selfe of Eliberis in Spayne was a â—rouinciall Councell of 19. Bishops held somwhat â—efore or about the time of the first generall Counâ—ell of Nice and some Controuersy there is among â—iuers Authors of what authority this Eliberian CouÌ„â—ell is or may be held and whether euer it were reâ—â—yued by the Church or not in respect of some Canons therin found that are obscure hard to be â—ightly vnderstood as namly those which seeme to deny reconciliation to some persons euen at the houre of death But howsoeuer this be certaine it is that there be sundry CanoÌ„s in that CouÌ„cell which Protestants may not admit as namly the 13. which saith Virgines quae se Deo dedicauerunt si pactum perdiderint virginitatis c. Virgins that haue dedicated theÌ„selues to God if they breake their promise of virginity if they repent and that they fell by infirmity of body and do pennance all the time of their lyfe c. they ought to be admitted to communion in the end A hard case for Protestant-Nunnes 34. Those other two also viz. 23. and 26. which are about set fastings vpon Saturday and other dayes may not be admitted by Protestants much lesse the 33. which forbiddeth all Priests Bishops Deacons and Subdeacons to haue the vse of wiues or generare filios to beget children vnder paine vt ab honore Clericatus extermineÌ„tur that they be cast out from the Clergy And yet further Can. 38. that Bigamuâ— or he that hath bene twice married may not baptize any no not in time of necessity which inferreth à fortiore that such a one could not be Priest in those ancient dayes And heere then how can M. Morton say so confidently as he doth of this Councell of Eliberis VVe Protestants appeale to the antiquity of Councells and first to that of Eliberis c And do you thinke that he will stand to these Canons now alleadged If he do it must needs be very preiudiciall vnto him and marre his marriage at least if he haue any inteÌ„tion to marry and yet to lead the life of a Clergy-man according to the prescript of the Councell of Eliberis as also to be some other punishment vnto his body to be bound to so much fasting as those Canons of the Councell of Eliberis doe ordaine and prescribe 35. But to returne to the reason why he alleadgeth this Councell VVe Protestants saith he do vrge this Councell as forbidding that there should be any images in the Church Wherunto he bringeth in D. Payua to answere one way Bellarmine another Sanders Alanus Copus a third others a fourth fifth or sixth a thing very vsuall among learned men to haue diuers expositioÌ„s euen vpon the Scriptures theÌ„selues then by way â—f scoffing though very insulse to make sport vnto â—imselfe and his Reader he frameth as it were a Comedie or enterlude one saying one thing anâ—ther another though all against him and in this â—onsisteth a great part of his manner of answering â—s by frequent examples you will see if you consider â—t â—6 But let vs examine what the Canon it selfe â—ath The words are these Placuit in Ecclesia picturas â—sse non debere ne quòd colitur aut adoratur in parietibus deâ—ingatur It is decreed by vs that pictures ought not â—o be in the Church least that which is worshipped or adored be paynted vpon the walles Which Canon for that it conteineth not onelie a decree as you â—ee but also a reason of the decree and seemeth conâ—rarie both to the vse of the generall Church at that time and afterwards as is prooued out of other ancient Fathers Councells and Historiographers seemeth to be opposite to the determination and publike decree of a famous Generall Councell that ensued some yeares afterward to wit the second of Nice diuers authors doe alleadge diuers reasons for the right vnderstanding verifying of this CanoÌ„ so as it may agree with the truth of
Constantinople 41 The second opinioÌ„ is of Cardinall Bellarmine Geneâ—â—ard some others who thinke that the errour was not so much in mistaking Councell for Councell as fact for fact for that some Iconoclastes and especialy those that wrote the forsaid forged bookes named Carolini in Franckeford during the tyme of the said Councell had falsely informed the Councell in two poynts of fact against the Councell of Nice The â—irst that it was not gathered nor confirmed by the Bishop of Rome the second that it had decreed Images to be worshipped with diâ—ine honor and the same that was due vnto the blessed Trinity vpon which two false suppositions the Councell of Nice being farre of and the Treatises and Decrees therof written only as yet in Greeke and not much published to the world and latin Church the Councell of Franckeford condemned the doctrine as also the Authority of the Councell vpon the foresayd two misinformations which was errour of fact as hath byn said and not of faith And M. Morton doth fondly insult when he biddeth his aduersary P. R. to tell him in good earnest if the Fathers of the Councell of Frankeford iudging that the second Councell of Nice confirmed by the Pope did erre in defending the vse of Images did they erre in faith or no Wherunto I answere that they erred in fact not in faith as hath beene said being informed that the Councell of Nice had determined that which it had not indeed to wit diuine honour to be giuen to imageâ— For if they of Frankeford had knowne the truth as also bene certaine that the other of Nice had decreed and established only due and reuerent worship such as had bene vsed in the Church the Councell of FraÌ„kford would not haue contradicted it as neither if they had knowne that the Pope had confirmed that Councell would they euer haue doubted of the Authority therof as is euident by the Caroline bookes theÌ„selues And it is witting errour heere in M. Mort. to say that they of Frankeford knew that the Councell of Nice was confirmed by the Pope for that the Caroline Bookes themselues euen as they are set out by the Centurians do vse that for a principall argumeÌ„t â—n the behalfe of the Councell of Frankeford to imâ—ugne the Nicene Councell for that they supposed â—hat said Nicene CouÌ„cell was not coÌ„firmed by Adrianâ—he â—he Pope wherin they were deceaued by false inforâ—ation I meane those of Franckeford but Mortonâ—ould â—ould deceaue vs by craft and subtility â—2 The third opinion is of Vasquez and other â—earned men that this determination against the â—se of Images was not at all made by the Councell â—f Franckeford but by some other Conciliabulum of Icoâ—clastes that at the same time were at Franckeford or â—eâ—re about especially the Authors of the foresaid â—ookes Carolini which being craftily dispersed came 〈◊〉 the hands of Pope Adrian who sent them backe â—gaine confuted to Charles that was not yet Empeâ—ur but made within few yeares after by Pope Leâ—â—â—e â—â—e third who would neuer haue yealded saith â—asquez to that aduancement of his if he had â—hought him any way spotted with the heresie of Iâ—â—oclastes condemned by his predecessour and the â—ouncell of Nice so lately before â—3 These three coniecturall opinions then being â—eld by sundry Catholicke writers vpon different â—rounds how doth M. Morton out of such variety of â—udgments inferre that they speake wilfull vntruth 〈◊〉 their owne consciences or are guilty of witting â—â—d voluntary falshood as he is bound to inferre â—r els he saith nothing to the purpose Can there be â—ny greater absurdity then this to promise wilfull falshood and then to alleadge only diuersity of opinions Surely if his Reader blush not for him I do and so will passe to an other example HIS FOVRTH example of like falshoodes vainely obiected against the same Authors about the Epistle of S. Epiphanius touching Images §. V. FROM these two shaddowes of some scrappes out of two Prouinciall Councels he leapeth to a place of S. Epiphanius in a certayne Epistle of his where he writeth of himself That entring into a Church at a place called Anablath to pray and perceyuing a curtaine wherin was a picture as if it had byn the Image of Christ or some Saint he tooke the Curtaine and rent it as being a thing contrary to the authority of the Scriptures This is the story as M. Morton setteth it downe and then presently for answering therof he putteth all our writers into a great warre among themselues bringing them in forth and backe this way and that way the one opposing the other answering the third moderating the fourth crossing and himselfe stickling betwene them by interlacing some wordes heere and there will needs make himselfe the head of the fray 45. And this is so fond a thing as euery GraÌ„merscholler might do it for he needeth but to go to Bellarmines works especially to Vasquez who wrote after him of the controuersy of Images and there shall he fynd all variety of opinions set downe with their Authours and places quoted And from these hath M. Morton furnished himselfe to make the muster that heere he doth without any further studdy or labour then to go to our foresaid Authors of their obiections make affirmatiue assertions and of their assertions for vs make objections against vs. 46. But heere againe is to be noted as before that whatsoeuer difference of opinions there be or may be among Catholicke writers of controuersy about the true meaning of S. Epiphanius in this place yet is it nothing at all to M. Mortons purpose who is bound to proue that they wrote against their owne knowledge and conscience which I suppose were hard to do for that euery man must be presumed to haue written according as his iudgement gaue him and consequently that all this which M. Morton hath so studiously gathered togeather is nihil ad rhombum nothing to the purposeâ— and therfore I could not but laugh when I read his conclusioÌ„ of this instance saying That if P. R. shall desyre â—yue hundreth instances of this kind I bynd my selfe saith he vnto him by a faithfull protestation in a moneths warning to satisfy him Which I beleeue yea if it were fiue thousand in a weekes warning for he needeth no more but to go to the foresaid bookes of our Catholicke authors opening them laying them before his aduersarie and they will furnish him at large when the state of the question is such as it admitteth variety of opinions or diuersity of iudgements about any poynt or circuÌ„stance therof 47. As for the controuersy in hand about S. Epiphanius fact and meaning related in the end of his Epistle to Iohn of Hierusalem that seemeth to make against Images though diuers learned men do expound the matter diuersly some thinking that it was a clause added by some heretikes amongst the Iconoclastes wherof both Bellarmine Valentia
111. There followeth said I within 2. leaues after a heape not only of falshoods but also of impudencies For wheras his Aduersary the moderate Answerer had said That not only Kings but Popes also for heresie by the CanoÌ„ lawes were to be deposed he answereth thus The Authours of the doctrine of deposing Kinges in Case of heresy do professe concerning Popes That they cannot possibly be hereticks as Popes and consequently cannot be deposed not saith Bellarmine by any power Ecclesiasticall or Temporall no not by all Bishops assembled in a Councell not saith Carerius though he should do anything preiudiâ—iâ—ll to the vniuersall state of the Church not saith Azorius though he should neglect the Canons Ecclesiasticall or peruert the lawes of Kings not saith Gratians glosse though he should carâ—y infinite multitudes of soules with him to hell And these fâ—renamed Authours do auouch for confirmation of this doctrine the vniuersall consent of Romish Deuines Canonists for the space of an hundred yeares 112. So he Wherto I replyed that in these wordes are as many notorious and shameles lyes as there be assertioÌ„s Authors named by him for the same For first quoth I the foure writers which he mentioneth there in the tâ—xt to wit Bellarmine Carerius Azor GratiaÌ„ do expressely clearly and resolutely hold the contrary to that he affirmeth out of them for that they teach and proue by many argumentsâ— that Popes both may fall into heresies and for the same be deposed by the Church or rather are ipsâ— facto deposed and may be so declared by the Church And their wordes here guilfully alleaged by Tho. Mort. as sounding to the contrary are manifestly spoken and meant of manners only and not of faith that is to say if they should be of naughty life yet haue they no Superiour to depose them for that cause they being immediatly vnder Câ—â—ist though for heresy they may be deposed which insteed of all the rest you may read largely handled in Bellarmine in his second booke de Pontif. where among other proofes he citeth this very Canon of Gratian here mentioned by T. Mâ— saying â—aereticum Papam posse iudicari expresse habetur Can. Si Papa dist 40. It is expressely determined in the Canon Si Papa that a Pope falling into heresie maybe iudged and dâ—posed by the Church And more That in the 8. generall Councell and 7. Session Pope Honorius was deposed â—or heresie So Bellarmine And the same doctrine hold the other two cited by our Minister to wit Carerius Azor. So as here be foure notorious lyes togeather that by no shift or tergiuersation can be auoided for that T. M. could not but manifestly see that he alleaged these foure Authors quite contrarie to their expresse wordes drift and meaning What then will you say of this â—ellow and his manner of writing Shall he be credited hereafter 113. But yet not content with this he citeth other foure or fiue Authors besids in the margent to wit Gregorius de Valentia Salmeron Canus Stapleton Costerus all which in the very places by him cited are expressely against him And is not this strange dealing Let Canus that goeth in the myddest speake for all fiue who hauing proued first at large the opposit proposition to T. M. to wit that Popes may fall into heresy and be deposed for the same concludeth thus his discourse negandumâ—saith â—saith he quin Summus Pontisex haereticus esse possit It cannot therâ—ore be denied but that the Pope may be an hereticke adding presently wherof one or two examples may be giuen but none at all that euer Pope though he fell into heresy did decree the same for the whole Church By which last words of Canus is discouered the ridiculous fallacy of T.M. alleaging here out of our foreâ—aid writer That Popes cannot possibly be hereticks as Popes consequently cannot be deposed wherof they say the flat contrary as you haue heard That Popes may be hereticks as Popes and consequently may be deposed But yet that God as Popes will neuer permit them to decree any hereticall doctrine to be held by the Church 114. Consider then I pray you said I what a fellow this Minister is in abusing thus so many Authors so manifestly but especially do you note the impudency of his Conclusion And these â—orenamed Authors saith he do auouch for confirmation of this doctrine the vniuersall consent of Romish Deuines and Canonistes for the space of an huÌ„dred yeares So he But I would aske him of what doctrine That Popes cannot be hereticks or be deposed for the same You haue heard them now protest the contrary and you may read them in the places here cited out of all the nyne seuerall writers before mentioned who by their expresse contrary doctrine do proue T. M. to haue made nyne seuerall lyes against them in this his assertion and now the tenth and most notorious of all is this his Conclusion That they do auouch â—or confirmation oâ— that which he obiecteth the vniuersall consent of Romish Deuines and Canonists for the space of an hundred yeares which besids the â—anifest falsity therof seene in their owne words and works here by me cited it coÌ„teineth also great folly simplicity to say that they auouch the consent of Romish Deuines and Canonists for an hundred yeares for that their proofes are much elder Bellarmine among the rest for deposition of Popes doth cite the 8. Generall Councell vnder Pope Adrian the second for aboue six hundred yeares agone and the Canon Si Papa out of our Countrey man S. Boniface Archbishop of Ments Martyr aboue seauen hundred yeares agon and collected by Gratian and confirmed by Popes as part of the Canon law aboue foure hundred years agone So as to say that now they auouch Authors oâ— an hundred yeares old against that which for so many hundred yeares before was held and established is meere folly or rather foolish malice 115. Thus I wrote in my former Treatise of Mitigation wherby as by all the rest that here hath bin set downe the Reader will see what store of graue matter M. MortoÌ„ had to answere for his owne defeÌ„ce if indeed he had meant to defend himself really and substantially and not to haue slipt out vnder the shaddow of a Preamble for answering his aduersary but indeed laying hands only vpon a few the lightest imputations that he could picke out And yet by the way the Reader must note that euery one or the most of these examples of falshood here obiected do coÌ„teine diuers sundry points which being laid togeather do make I dare auouch a double number to that which heere we haue sett downe if they were seuered singled out after the manner of M. Mortons mincing his imputations before produced about Goodman Knox Buchanan Syr Thomas VViat the like seuerally set forth to the shew So as according to this reckoning
This is his demaund and for ground heerof he citeth these latin words of Bellarmine out of the forenamed place Pelagiani docebant non esse in hominibus peccatum originale praecipuè in filijs fidelium Idem docent Caluinus Bucerus The Pelagians did teach that there was not Originall synne in men especially in the children of the faithfull And the same do teach Caluin Bucer which words if you conferre them with the words themselues of Bellarmine before cited who accuseth not Caluin Bucer of all the Pelagian doctrine in this poynt but only Zuinglius and as for the other two to wit Bucer Caluin he accuseth them for a part only Zuinglius denying originall synne in all and these later only in Christian Infantes two trickes at least of wilfull falsity are discouered the first that in his charge he wiâ—leth Bellarmine to be examined in confession about Caluin wheras he â—pake of three togeather to wit Zuinglius Bucer and Caluin the second that he accuseth Bellarmiâ—e as though he had charged Caluin with all the Pelagian heresie in this matter wheras he expresly profâ—ssâ—th to charge him only with one point therof coÌ„cerâ—ing the infantes of the faithfull Wherfore these words â—deÌ„ docent Caluinus Bucerus and this may be the third false tricke are not to be found in Bellarmine but are thrust in by M. Morâ—on nor cannot agree with the distinction of Cardinall Bellarmine before set downe these things then I leaue to the Readers discretion For though the points themselues for their substance be not of great weight yet is the mynd of the writer as much discouered in false tricks of small moment as of great see more of this matter before Cap. 3. num 62.63.64 c. 13. It followeth pag. 55. of this his preamble that treating of the prohibition made by the ancient Councell of Eliberis in Spayne consisting of 19. Bishops not to set vp Images in the Churches the diuers expositions of Catholicke doctours about the same what the causes and motiues might be of this prohibition for that tyme of the fresh and new conuersioÌ„ of that nation from Idolatrie to Christian Religion among other expositors he citeth the opinion of Sixtus Senensis for the last vpshot of the whole matter â—aying thus So that whatsoeuer the occasion of forbidding might haue beene this is a confessed conclusion of Senensis that the Councell of Eliberis did absolutly forbid the worship of Images And then â—etteth down the same in latin in his margent as out of Senensis alâ—o in these wordes Idcirco omnino veâ—uit Synodus Elibertina imaginum calâ—um But he that shall looke vpon the text of the Authour himself shall not fynd any such confessed conclusion or any such words of absolutly forbidding and consequently this is conuinced to be an absolute vntruth for it appeareth cleerly in Senensis that the prohibition was only for a time vntill the new conuerted Spaniards should be better instructed in Christian Religion and made to vnderstand better the difference betweene Pagan Idols and sacred Images so as heere are two grosse falsityes first in obtruding as the latin sentence of Senensis that which Senensis hath not in words or sense and then in translating the same so punctually into English setting it down in a different letter as though it were exactly so in good earnest and can there be any excuse for these sortes of procedings Let the Reader see more before c. 3. nu 38. 14. Gregorius de Valentia is brought in by M. Morton against Bellarmine as allowing of a sentence of Tertullian vsed by Bullinger the Caluinist as orthodoxall and iustifiable to wit Tres sunt in Diuinitate personae non statu sed gradu non substantia sed forma non potestate sed specie differentes and M. Morton stoutly cyteth in his margent for approuing therof Gregorius de Valentia Iesuita de vnitate Trinitate c. 9. § item Bullingerus meaning therby to oppose the one of theÌ„ against the other in this matterâ— but when the thing is examined the wordes of Gregorius de Valentia are found to be these Bullingerus Sacramentarius c. Bullinger the Sacramentary affirmeth that there are three persons in Deity which differ not in state but degree not in substance but forme not in power but kind by which wordes sayth Valentia he doth not only ouerthrow the Godhead of the sonne but euen the whole Mystery of the most holy Trinity 15. So sayth ValeÌ„tia against Bullinger for whose defeÌ„ce against Cardinall Bellarmins accusation of Arianisme he is produced And let the reader iudge whether this be an allowancâ— of that sentence for orthodoxall which Valentia sayth as yow see to be so blasphemous as it doth ouerthrow the whole mystery of the Blessed Trinity And the lyke lye yow may behold vttered by M. Morton against Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe in this very matter affirming him to expound as orthodoxall and iustifiable the forsayd hereticall paradox of Tertullian wheras he expoundeth only in good senâ—e the former part therof So as heere are two conuinced falsiâ—yes wherof yow may read more largely cap. 3. num 88.89 c. 16. There falleth out a question betweene M. Morton and Cardinall Bellarmine whether the forme of arguing vsed by S. Cyprian were good and sufficient or no whâ—Ì„ he defended the errour of rebaptizing hereticks à sufficientia scripturarum exclusiuè to wit this or that is not in the Scripture ergo it is not to be defended it being the common forme of arguing in the Protestants of our dayes and Bellarmine sayth no alleaging S. Augustine for his Authority who defending the negatiue against S. Cyprians error to wit that men returning froÌ„ heresy were not to be rebaptized which was the opinion of the whole Church in his time grounded vpon vnwritten tradition of the sayd Church reprehended that forme of arguing in S. Cyprian as not goodâ— and sufficient shewing both that many thinges bâ—sydes this are taught and belieued in the Church by tradition which are not in Scripture that S. Cyprian himselfe wheÌ„ he was out of necessity of defending this article made recourse vnto vnwritten traditions wherunto M. Mortoâ— answereth thus But whosoeuer shall consult with S. Augustine in the Chapter specifyed shall fynd that this point by himselfe is excellently commended saying that wheras Cyprian warneth vs to runne vnto the fountayne that is vnto the traditions of the Apostles from thence to deriue a coÌ„duct vnto our times is chiefly good and doubtles to be performed So he 17. But when S. Augustines discourse is examined it is found wholy against M. Morton for though he do allow and prayse recourse vnto Scriptures when things may euidently be proued from thence yeâ— doth he not hold that only such things are to be belieued as are expresly therin conteyned but rather both in this controuersie of râ—baptization wherin S. Cyprian doth pretend to hold
promised to put it downe alwaies in Latin so as it should not be vnderstood by the vulgar Reader yet hath he not to his remeÌ„braÌ„ce set downe the said clause of reseruation in Latin but once through all his booke of full satisfaction and that in foure wordes in the second page therof the said reseruation being meÌ„tioned in English more perhaps then fortie tymes Out of which words of mine M. Morton indeauoreth to inferre manie falsities and absurdities against me both of bad Memorie and worse Will for that as he sayth the said Clause of Reseruation is fouÌ„d to haue bene set downe by him in Latin not onely once as I say but more then twentie tymes in his Treatises of equiuocation Whereunto I answer that albeit that all this were granted yet is the matter idle and of no importance yea a meere cauill for â—o much as I say perhaps as presently shal be shewed 15. But first of all before we answer to this charge â—gainst my bad Memorie we must shew him to be contrarie to himself which argueth noe good Memorie in that he contradicteth in his foresayd Epiâ—tle dedicatorie to the King that which heere in his Preamble he writeth to witt in aâ—firming heere as â—ou haue heard that he had no intention to keep the clause of â—entall reseruation vnder a latin lock and not English it least â—eake ones might learne c. VVhereas in his said Epistle â—o his Matie he promiseth otherwise and his words â—re these Notwithstanding least that the publishing â—f this cursed art might in respect of the more carnalâ—â— minded aedificare ad gehennan edify vnto hell as that â—euerend Bishop of Chichester and learned Father 〈◊〉 our Church hath said I haue framed this dispute â—hat it may seeme I hope to be like to Aristotles Bookes â—f Naturall Philosophie so published as not published beâ—ause the clause of mentall reseruation the tayle of â—his serpent wherin the whole poyson lyeth is allâ—ayes deliuered in Latin phrase to his end that onelie â—he guiltie partie by his sensible coniecture may perâ—eyue his errour confuted and yet the ignorant though â—esirous to touch pitch may not be deâ—iled â—6 Where you see that he promised to his Maiesty 〈◊〉 deliuer allwayes in Latin phrase the clause of mentall reseruaâ—ion in such sort as the ignorant of the Latin tongue should not vnderstand the same and consequently that he would shut it vp vnder a Latin lock And yet now in this his Preamble he sayth that I goe about to make him seeme so ridiculously cautelous as to intend to keepe the sayd clause of mentall Reseruation vnder a Latin lock least weake ones might learne c. Are not these two plaine contradictory assertions out of one mouth to witt that he will keepe the clause of Reseruation vnder a Latin lock and that he neuer meant to locke it vp Where was his Memorie when he wrote this to impugne my Memorie 17. But yet further it may please you to note the word allwayes when he sayth in his former Epistle to the Kings Ma. â—y that allwaies the sayd clause of ReseruatioÌ„ was deliuered in latin and yet he confesseth in this verie place that 3. or 4. tymes he setteth it downe in â—nglish And was not this a slipp of his Memorie in like maÌ„ner to say and promise to his Ma.ty that he would set it downe allwayes in Latin and yet presently to confesse that sometymes he did it in English Thirdly he saith as you haue heard that he hopeth his booke of Equiuocation so to be published as Aristotles naturall Phylosophy to witt so published as not published in respect that the vnlearned should not vnderstand him And how could he thinke this if sometymes at leastwise as he confesseth he vttered all in English and this to English men Can these things stand togeather Where was his Memorie when he wrote this 18. So as hauing now shewed M. Mortons Memorie not to haue bene good in all these 3. points I shall passe to speake of mine which willingly I confesse to be bad wherevpon he triumpheth against me for that I say as before you haue heard that the clause of Reseruation to my remembrance was not set downe in Latin but once throughout all M. Mortons bookâ— though in English the said ReseruatioÌ„ were meÌ„tioned more perhaps theÌ„ fourtie times Against which assertion of mine he stormeth excedingly and quoteth in his margent for coÌ„futatioÌ„ thereof diuers sundry places where the said clause is set downe in latin as where it is said He knoweth not any thing so vt teneatur detegere or I know it not so vt tibi dicam vel vt tibi reuelem c. and sundry other like places he alledgeth where albeit the externall part of the proposition be set downe in English â—et is the Reseruation or mentall part put downe by â—im in Latin and then presuming to haue taken me â—t a great aduantage for that I sayd I found it but â—nce he insulteth exceedingly saing VVhat this so open â—ing might portend I know not except he felt his VVit wax â—â—mewhat blunt and therefore meant â—o deserue the wheâ—stone â—ut I will not heere examine the coherence of this â—â—ason and whether a blunt VVit be more apt to lye â—r gayning a whetstone then a sharp for if it be not â—â—en vsed not M. Morton an apt similitude nor will I 〈◊〉 drawne to idle contumelious speaches whatsoâ—â—er the prouocations be my purpose in this place beâ—â—g according to the title of my booke that this recâ—â—ning betweene M. Morton and me shal be quyet and â—â—â—er what exasperation soeuer he giue me to the â—â—â—trary To the matter then I say that albeit in my â—â—â—tle Dedicatorie to the Vniuersities which indeed was â—â—itten after the booke of Mitigation was sent away to 〈◊〉 print I had mistaken the number of places wherin 〈◊〉 clause of Reseruation was in Latin yet had it 〈◊〉 but an errour of Memorie and that also sufficientâ—â— excused by that clause by me put in to my rememâ—â—â—â—ce and yet more by the other of perhaps where I 〈◊〉 that it was set downe in English more perhaps 〈◊〉 40. times not affirming it absolutely but by â—â—esse And further I might lay the errour vpon the â—â—ribe or Printer that sett downe 40. for 4. euen as â— Mortons owne booke to witt this his Preamble â—y the same negligence of printer or writer hath twise â—n this place â—ourteene for fourtie and yet do I not â—eeke to take aduantage against him for it nor do tell him of the whetstone I hauing more substantiall matters wherby to whet my penne against his vntruthes then these trifles which haue no interest in them to draw a man to forge or lye And yet to satisfye the Reader more fully euen in these trifles that M. Morton obiecteth I must say 20. That the truth is that my speach was according to the meaning of M. Mortons assertion promising
ascribe vnto me all those odious characters which M. Morton before hath layd to my charge 89. And for more cleare conceauing the matter you must know that M. Morton who in this his preamble would make some shew of probable defeÌ„ce in some few accusations of many great and heinous layd against him for falsity hath thought good to choose out this example of Otho Frisingensis from the midst of two other much more greiuous then this the one of falsifying and abusing Cardinall Bellarmine immediatly going before and the other of Lamberâ—us SchasnaburgeÌ„sis immediatly following after wherof the â—ormer he attempteth not at all to answere the oâ—her he seeketh to shake of afterwards but in vaine â—s you will see when we come to the place of exaâ—inatioÌ„ And heere this being a speciall place choâ—en by him for defending his truth and impugning â—yne he shoud haue touched them togeather as â—hey lye togeather in my booke but that as one acâ—used and brought before a Iustice for theft or falâ—â—ood will be loath to haue many matters disclosed â—â—geather but rather to answere one in one place â—nd another in another for that many ioyntly â—â—geather would giue suspition and credit the one 〈◊〉 the other so dealeth heere M. Morton not so much 〈◊〉 mentioning the first and the third which are the â—ore greiuous but singling out that which lay in â—â—e midst which notwithstanding he can no way 〈◊〉 truth of plaine dealing defend as now you shall 〈◊〉 Thus then lyeth my Charge against him in â—y former booke The charge by P. R. â—0 In the very next page say I after the abuses â—ffered to Cardinall Bellarmines alleadged testimony M. Morton talking of the great and famous contention â—hat passed betweene Pope Gregorie the 7. called Hildeâ—rand and Henry the 4. Emperour of that name â—bout the yeare 1070. he cyteth the Historiograâ—her Otto Frisingensis with this ordinary title Of our Otto for that he writeth that he found not any Emperour actually excommunicated or depriued of â—is kingdome by any Pope before that tyme except saith he that may be esteemed for an excommunication which was done to Philip the Emperour by the Bishop of Rome almost 1400. yeares agone when for a short tyme he was inter poenitentes collocatus placed by the said Pope among those that did pennance as that also of the Emperour Theodosius who was sequestred froÌ„ entring into the Church by S. Ambrose for that he had commanded a certayne cruell slaughter to be committed in the Citty of Thessalonica both which exceptions though set downe by the authour Frisingensis this Minister of simple truth leaueth out of purpose which is no simplicity as yow see but yet no great matter with him in respect of the other that ensueth which is that he alleageth this Frisingensis quite contrary to his owne meaning as though he had condemned Pope Gregorie the 7. for it wheras he condemneth that cause of the Emperour and commendeth highly the Pope for his constancy in punishing the notorious intolerable faultes of the said Henry Hildebrandus saith he semper in Ecclesiastico vigore constantissimus suit Hildebrand was euer the most constant in defending the rigour of Ecclesiasticall discipline And agayne in this very Chapter heere alledged by T. M. Inter omnes Sacerdotes Romanos Pontifices praecipui zeli et auctoritatis fuit He was among all the Priestes and Popes that had byn of the Roman Sea of most principall zeale and authority How different is this iudgment of Frisingensiâ— from the censure of T. M. who now after fiue hundred yeares past coÌ„pareth the cause of Pope Gregory to that of pyrates theeues and murtherers and so cyteth our Otto Frisingensis as though he had fauoured him in this impious assertioÌ„ Can any thing be more frauduleÌ„tly alleadged Is this the assurance of his vpright conscience wherof he braggeth to his Maiestie 91. But the next fraud or impudeÌ„cie or rather impudeÌ„t impiety is that which ensueth within foure lynes after in these wordes Pope Gregorie the seauenth saith your Chronographer was excoÌ„municate of the Bishops of Italy for that he had defamed the Apostolicke Sea by Simony and other capitall â—rimes and then citeth for proofe heerof Lambertus Schafnaburg anno 1077. As if this our Chronographer had related this as a thing of truth or that it were approued by him not rather as a slanderous obâ—ection cast out by his aduersaries that followed the part of Henry the Emperour â—2 Hitherto I haue thought good to recite my wordes which are some few lynes more then M. Morton cyteth in his booke for that you should see the connectioÌ„ of things togeather to wit how these obiected falsities about alledging af Frisingensisâ—re â—re craftily culled out froÌ„ between the examples before cited of Bellarmine and Lambertus but yet in this place we shall handle onely that which M. Morton hath made choice of to be treated and discussed to wit whether my former Charge against him for abusing the Authoritie of Otto Frisingensis be rightfull and well founded or not for that he that shall read this reply of M. Morton will thinke that he hath iniurie offered him for that I had guylfully vrged matters against him further then truth and reason would require and therfore he noteth against me in his argument these wordes Foure excellent trickes of falshood in one page which after we shall discusse and shew them to be rather fraudes and shiftes of his then trickes of myne Now then let vs come to the examination of this Charge which of vs is to be found in falsity and still I must aduise the reader that to the end he may receaue some vtility by this coÌ„fereÌ„ce he haue an eye to the spirit of false dealing and not so much to errours of ouersight and this he shall easily descry if he stand attent to the discussion THE EXAMINATION OF this controuersie more at large § IX FIRST vnto my whole Charge before layd downe M. Morton answereth thus In my full Satisfaction saith he parte 3. cap. 11. pag. 28. that which was intended to be proued was this that not till 1000. yeares after Christ did euer any Prelatâ— or Pope atteÌ„pt the deposing of Emperours and depriuing them of their Crownes For proofe heerof I brought in the testimony of Otto Frisingensis from the witnes of Tolosanus lib. 26. de Repub. cap. 5. in these wordes I read and read againe fynd that Pope Hildebrand in the yeare 1060. was the first Pope that euer depriued an Emperour of his Regiment wherin now haue I wronged my conscience Is it because Otto Frisingensis is cyted coÌ„trary to his meaning yet could it not preiudice my conscience because I cyted not the authour himselfe but only Tolosanus a Romish Doctour who reported that sentence of Frisingensis 94. This is the first part of his answere which is so full of wyles sleightes shiftes as doth easily shew the disposition
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
or Prelate do demoÌ„strate that Costerus spake not of Catholick or RomaÌ„ writers for it had byn ridiculous â—or him in that sense to say that no Catholicke of the Roman Religion did euer hitherto accuse any Romanists that is Roman writers of falshood for it had byn most absurd therfore if we imagin Costerus to be a man of common sense we could neuer thinke that he would write so absurdly and therfore this word Catholicke was guilfully left out by M. Mort. 12. Well then what was Costerus his meaning truly himselfe doth set it down both at large and perspicuously in the very place and Paragraph by M. Morton cyted so a as ignorance or error can not be pleaded for that he treating of the Authority and succession of the Bishops of Rome and prouing the same out of the ancient Fathers and historiographers of the primitiue Church S. Irenâ—us Eusebius Augustinus Optatus and others he in the next Paragraph cited heere by M. Morton proueth the same in like manner out of the Acts Gests Decrees and letters yet extant of the ancient Popes themselues euen in time of persecution when in human power they were weake and expected nothing but affliction deathâ— martyrdome and yet did they take vpon them the care of the whole world saith Costerus confirming Bishops depriuing Patriarches of coÌ„munioÌ„ when need required as restoring also others to their Seas when by violence they were iâ—iustly oppressed and so for this he citeth many examples euen before the time of Constantine the great vpon which enumeration he maketh this argument 13. Hi sanè qui vitam cum sanguine pro Christi confessione profuderunt nihil sibi arrogasseâ—t alienum c. These godly Bishops of Rome that spent their liues and bloud for the confessioÌ„ of Christ would neuer of liklihood haue arrogated to themselues that which was not theirs nor would they haue vsurped any thing contrary to the will of Christ except they had well knowne and byn sure that such an office was left and commended to them by Christ. And if any man will imagin that they had byn of such impudency as not to feare to do it yet would there not haue wanted some others eyther Bishops Princes or Doctors who by their authority power and writings would haue repressed this attempt of those Roman Bishops And yet neuerthelesse hitherto there was nâ— Catholicke eyther Prince Prelate or writer that euer arguâ—d those Roman Bishops of lying or false dealing but rather Bishops and Patriarchs of the first and principall churches when they were oppressed by their aduersâ—ries did flye vnto them 14 Thus farre Costerus And now let vs consider how faithfully M. Morton hath dealt heere euen theÌ„ when he principally pretendeth to deliuer himselfâ— from vnfaithfulâ—es like as he that being arraigned at the sessions for stealing doth not abstayne to steale â—uen in that place and presence of the Iudges themselues who can excuse M. Morton heere he saw the whole drift of Costerus to be to shew that if those ancient Popes before Constantine who were Saints and Martyrs had presumed any thing beyoÌ„d their lawfull authority some Catholicke Prince Prelate or writer of that tyme would haue resisted or reprehended them of false dealing but no such Prince Prelat or writer was found vnto that day but rather Bishops and chiefe Patriarches did make their refuge vnto theÌ„ therfore it is a signe that they were held for lawfull Superiours 15. And what now is there heere in Costerus his speach about the lying of Romanists or Roman VVriters Can there be any defence of this so apparent abuse will M. Morton say that he saw not Costerus his meaning or that he had not a â—alse meaning himselfe to deceaue his Reader Why then did he suppresse all the precedent clauses that do declare Costerus his purpose why did he cut of the other words immediatly following of Bishops and Patriarches recourse vnto â—opes which did properly appertaine and cohere to the said former words and meaning of Costerus and no way to M. Morton why did he traÌ„slate Romanos Romanists as though it pertained to Roman writers euen at this day wheras the whole contex and immediate precedent wordes do manifestly shew that Costerus meant Romanos Pontifices ancient Roman Bishops in tyme of persecution and not Roman wryters And if all these inexcusable fraudes discouered in the allegation of this one litle sentence of Costerus be not sufficient to proue M. Morton not to meane sincerely nor out of a good conscience notwithstanding all his protestations to the contrary I am greatly deceyued let him produce but one such against vs I will say he doth somwhat indeed now whether he be able to do it or no we shall presently take the view for his list of obiections against our writers doth immediatly follow out of this his fraudulent Preamble as full stuffed notwithstaÌ„ding with protestations and vaunts of vpright dealing and sincere proceeding euen then when he falsifieth egregiously as euer perhaps you haue read before HIS FIRST EXAMPLE of voluntary falshood falsely obiected against three ancient Popes §. II. I hope the reader will remember what M. Morton is bound to bring forth if he will bring any â—hing to the purpose and true state of the question â—o wit he must let vs see some 2. or 3. examples of â—itting and wilfull falshood in any one Catholicke â—riter of our time that hath written against Proâ—estants which presently afterward hee will atâ—empt to doe against Cardinall Bellarmine and some oâ—hers But now hee beginneth with three ancient â—opes Zozimus Bonifacius and Celestinus that lyued in â—he tyme of S. Augustine and were much commended â—y him for holy men but are accused by Mortonâ—r â—r falsaryes as though they had forged a Canon of â—he first Councel of Nice in fauour of their owne Suâ—remacy to proue therby the lawfulnes of appeaâ—es to be made to them and to their Sea from the Bishops â—o Africa which Canon was not found in â—he ordinarie copies then extant of that Councell â—â— But first of all howsoeuer this matter passed â—t appertayneth litle or nothing at all to our purpose â—or to the question now in hand of moderne Cathoâ—icke writers nor doth it proue wilfull falshood in â—hose three ancient Popes if they cyted the Canon of one Councell for another of equall authority as indeed they did for that it might be ascribed eyther to variety of copyes when no print was yet extant or to ouersight forgetfulnes or to some other such defect rather then to malice and voluntary errour So as for M. Morton to begin his impugnation with an example that hath so many disparityes from the case it selfe and state of the question sheweth that he hath litle indeed to say against vs to the purpose notwithstanding his dreadfull threat before set downâ— against me that I should be dryuen vnto a miserable and shamefull palynode c. for if he had
about to refute 〈◊〉 tradition VVhence is this tradition It is deriued from the Lords Authority or frâ—m the prâ—câ—pt of the Apostles For God willâ—th that we â—hoâ—d do those things which are written From whence ProtestaÌ„ts conclude that the Scriptures are of sufficiency for our direction in all questions of faith Bellarmine answereth that Cyprian spake this when he thought to defend an error and therfore iâ— is no meruaile iâ— he erred in so reasoning for the which cause S. Augustine saith he did worthily reâ—ute him The question is not what error Cyprian held but whether his manner of reasoning from the sufficiency of Scripture were erroneous or no. Bellarmine pretendeth that S. Augustine did worthily reproue him But whosoeuer shall consult with S. Augustine in the Chapter specified shall find that this poynt by him is excellently commended That Cyprian warneth vs saith S. Augustine to runne vnto tâ—e â—ountaine that is vnto the tradition oâ— the Aposâ—les from thence to deriue a conduct to our tymes it is chiâ—fly good and doubtlesse to be perâ—ormed 105. This is M. Mortons whole obiection wherin we must examine what wilfull deceipt to falsification he findeth here in Cardinall Bellarmines allegation of Cyprian For if he find not this then findeth he nothing to his purpose he hauing intituled this his Paragraph of Bâ—llaâ—mines falsiâ—ications but if he find no falshood nor falsity at all either wilfull or not wilfull then is he more in the briers but most of all if finding nothing in his aduersary himselfe be taken in manifest falshood both witting and wilful Let vs examine then this poynt more particulerly 106. And first I do note that he proposeth this obiection very obscurely that for the cause which will presently be seâ—ne for he doth not explicate vpon what occasion these words of S. Cyprian were vttered by him nor alleadged by Protestants as an obiection against vnwritten traditions Wherfore the Reader must know that the holy man S. Cypâ—ian hâ—uing conceaued an infinite auersion froÌ„ hereticks and herâ—sies of his time did vpon indiscreet zeale â—all into this errour that as their faith was not goodâ—â—o neither their baptisme and consequently that â—uch as left them and were conuerted to the Cathoâ—icke religion should be baptized againe after the Catholicke manner and hauing found some other Bishops also of Africk vpon the same groundes to ioyne with him in the same opinion for that it seemed to them to be most conforme to Scriptures that detested euery where hereticks and heresies he wrote therof vnto Stephen Bishop of Rome who standing vpon the coÌ„trary custome alwayes vsed in the Church not to rebaptize such as were conuerted from heresie misliked S. Cyprians opinion and wrote vnto him against the same wherwith the good man being somwhat exasperated wrote a letter vnto Pompeius Bishope of Sabrata in Africk cited heere by M. Morton wherin amongst other sharp speaches he hath this interrogation here set downe Vnde est ista traditio c From whence is this tradition of not rebaptizing heretickes Is it deriued from our Lords Authority c. vpon which forme of arguing in S. Cyprian M. Morton saith that Protestants do lawfully argue in like manner this or that tradition is not in the Scriptures ergo it is not to be admitted 107. But saith Cardinall Bellarmine this was no good forme of arguing in S. Cyprian nor euer vsed by him but in this necessitie for defending his errour as Protestantes also are driuen to vse the same for defence of theirs and this he proueth by two wayes First for that S. Augustine doth of purpose out of the sense of the vniuersall Church of his dayes refute that inference and forme of argument and secondly for that S. Cyprian himselfe in other places where he was not pressed with this necessity doth yeald and allow the authority of vnwritten traditions which later proofe as the most conuincent M Morton doâ—h suppresse with silence in reciting Bellarmines answere and saith only to the first that S. Augustine is so farre of from condemning S. Cyprians mannâ—r of reasoning from the sufficiency of Scriptures as he doth excellently commend the same this then is briefly to be examined out of S. Augustines ovvne wordes 108. And first I graunt as S. Augustine also doth that when any Tradition or doctryne can cleerly be shewed out of the Scriptures optimum est siâ—e dubitatione facieâ—dum it is the best way of all and questionles to be obserued And for that S. Cyprian in that his errour did certainly perswade himselfe to be able to prooue the same out of holy Scriptures as appeareth by the many places alleadged by him to thâ—t effect though wrongfully vnderstood especially in the sayd Epistle to Pompeius and else wherâ— which places of Scripture S. Augustine doth particulerly ponder and refute and shew not to be rightly applied by S. Cyprian who seeing the generall custome and tradition of the Church to be contrary vnto him in this cause prouoked to the Scriptures alone as the Protestants do in as bad a cause But now let vs see what S. Augustine teacheth in this behalfe and how he confuteth S. Cyprians prouocatioÌ„ to only Scriptures in this case of controuersy betweene them notwithstanding he allowed for the best way to haue recourse to the fountaynes when things from thence may as I sayd cleerly be proued 109. Let vs heare I say S. Augustine recounting the case betweene S. Cyprian on the one side himselfe with â—ll Catholike meÌ„ of his dayes on the other NoÌ„dâ—â—â—râ—tâ—â—aith â—â—aith he diligentâ—rilla Baptismi quâ—stio pertracta c. The question of Baptisme or rebâ—ptizing heretiks was not in S. Cyprians tyme diligently discussed albeit the Catholike Church held a most wholsome custome to correct that in Schismatiks Heretiks which was euill not to iterate that which was giuen them as good which custome I belieue to haue come downe from the Apostles tradition as many others which are not found in their writings nor yet in the later Councels of their successours neuerthelesse are obserued through the whole vniuersall Church and are belieued not to haue beene deliuered and commended vnto vs but from the sayd Apostles This most wholsome custome then S. Cyprian sayth that his predecessour Agrippinus did begin to correct but as the truth it selfe being more diligently after examined did teach he is thought more truly to haue corrupted theÌ„ corrected the same Thus S. Augustine of the state of the question and of the authority of Customes and Traditions vnwritten Now Let vs see what he saith to S. Cyprians maÌ„ner of reasoning from the sufficiency of Scripture as M. Morton tearmeth it 101. Ad Pompeium saith S. Augustine scribit Cyprianus de hac re c. S. Cyprian doth write to the Bishop Pompeius about this matter where he doth manifestly shew that Stephen whome wee vnderstand to haue beene Bishop of Rome at that tyme did not
poynt also that Christ ordayned some certayne nuÌ„ber he refuteth for that it appeareth by the Euangelicall History that all the Apostles were equall saue only S. Peter in whom he proueth 25. seuerall priuiledges to haue beene giuen by Christ aboue the rest wherof this of his being ordayned Bishop alonâ— immediatly from Christ is the 22. and the second reason alleadged by Turrecremata of the Appellation of the Mother Church giuen aboue all other Churches to Rome by testimony as he proueth of all antiquity seemeth to confirme greatly the said priuiledge though notwithstanding it be a matter not so determined by the Church but that there may be diuersity of opinions as in effect there are amongst learned men about the same in which number is Franciscus de victoria heere cyted who albeit he confesse this opinion to be grauissimoâ—uÌ„ Virorum of most graue Authority yet thinking the contrary assertion more probable that Christ himselfe did ordayne immediatly all his Apostles Bishops doth answere the argumeÌ„ts of Turrecremata saying that the Fathers cyted for the same reuerà non significant id quod Auctores huius sententiae volunt that in truth they do not signify so much as the Authority of this sentence or opinion would haue them And to like effect doth Cardinall Cusanus here cyted being of a different opinion endeauour to answere the said arguments but yet not saying absolutly that the Epistles of Anacletus are couÌ„terfaite as heere is alleadged by M. Morton sed â—ortassiâ— quaedam scripta Sancto Anacleto attributa apocrypha sunt but perhaps certayne writings attributed to S. Anaclete are Apocryphall which two moderatioÌ„s of fortassiâ— and quaedam M. Morton craftily left out both in English and Latin as he doth in like manner diuers other things that make against himselfe and namely these wordes of the same Cusanus In quibus volentes Romanam Sedem omni laude dignam plusquam Ecclesiae Sanctae expedit decet exaltare se penitus aut quasi fundant that some men intending to exalt the Roman Sea worthy of all commendation more then is expedient or decent for the holy Church it selfe do found themâ—elues eyther wholy or for the most part vpon these â—pocryphall and vncertayne writings And then agayne Non opus foret diuinam ipsam omni laude super excellentissimam Romanam primam Sedem c. it shall not be needfull that the diuine Roman Primate Sea most eminently excelling in all praise to helpe herselfe with doubtfull arguments taken out of those Epistles wheras the truth may be proued sufficiently and more cleerly by vndoubted records c. All this and much more is in Cusanus in the place cited by M. Morton which he partly imbezeling partly corrupting and playnly falsifying hath brought forth the broken sentence which heere you may see both in English and latin far different from the Originalls 1â—â— And this is his common tricke neuer lightly to alleadge any one sentence eyther in English or latin as it lyeth in the text but still with some helping of the dye as his owne phrase is some crafty cogging must alwayes enter which I desire the learned Reader to take the paynes but alitle to examine if he fynd not this fraud very ordinary I am contented to leese my credit with him 118. And fynally let him note for coÌ„clusion of this obiection that all this which M. Morton alleadgeth heere if it were graunted as it lyeth conteyneth nothing but two different opinions betweene learned men in a disputable question Whether Christ did immediatly and by himselfe consecrate all or some of his Apostles Bishops or one only with authority to consecrate the rest Turrecremata and Bellarmine do hold the one for more probable but Victoria Cusanus and some others do allow rather the other What wilfull falshood is there in this Or is it not singular folly to call it by that name But let vs see an other obiection no wiser then the rest THE THIRD OBIECTION against Bellarmineâ—or â—or false allegations about Platina §. XV. HIS third obiecton against Cardinall Bellarminâ— beginneth in these wordes Againe saith he where Bellarmine citeth the testimony of Plaâ—ina for the commendation of Pope Hildâ—brand And in another place finding Platina obiected in the question of Confession answereth for the disabling of the Author saying that Platina had no publike authority to pen the liues of the Popes from publike Recordes Which is notably false Platina himselfe in his Epistle dedicatory vnto the then Pope writing thus Thou ô Prince of Deuines and chiefe of Bishops hast commanded me to write the liues of the Popes Whose history is therfore greatly commended by Ballus as being true and takâ—n out of publike Monuments I could furnish P. R. with infinite such like delusions and will also whensoeuer my Aduersary shall renew his demauÌ„d for such a multitude of examples I could bring that I find it a greater difficulty for me to subtract then to multiply So he 120. And I answere that the more he multiplyeth in this kind the greater store of testimonies and suffrages he produceth of his owne folly and impertinent dealing for that Cardinall Bellaâ—mine his denying of Platina to be of absolute credit publick authority in all matters touched by him in his history doth not proue wilfull malice in the Cardinall but rather a true prudent censure concurring with the iudgment of diuers learned men of our time especially of Onupâ—rius Panuinus who writing obseruatioÌ„s vpon the history of Platina concerning Popes liues doth oftentimes note the said story of diuers defects both in the Chronologie of times and truth of matters set downe by him and I doubt not but whosoeuer shall haue read the works of Onuphâ—ius of Balbus heere cited in commendation of Platina will greatly preferre the iudgmâ—nt of the first before the later in matters of history But let vs see what Cardinall Bellarmine saith of Plaâ—ina and vpon what ground and to what effect and so shall you see also how weake a calumniation M. Morton hath taken in hand in this obiection 121. The occasion of censuring Platina was in the confutation of a certaine manifest lie auouched as the Cardinall saith by Caluin who affirmed that there was neuer any certaine Ecclesiasticall law extant binding men to Sacramentall Confession before the Councell of Lateran vnder Pope Innocenâ—ius the third some 300. yeares past and for proofe of this Caluin citeth the story of Platina as affirming the same with this preface of his owne to authorize more the writer Eorum Annales narrant their Annales or publike histories of the Catholickes do declare And againe Ipsis testibus nondâ—m clâ—psi sunt anni trecenti themselues being witnesses to witt the Catholickes and their publike histories there are not 300. yeares yet past since the law of Confâ—ssion began Which manifest vntruth Bellarmine coÌ„futing by great store of antiquityes commeth at length to Platina who
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
obiection also in this Chapter about the succession of ProtestaÌ„t Princes and the 13. about an allegation out of Frisingensis haue byn all handled before and brought in by him againe and agayne therby to make a shew that he answereth to many things wheras in truth he answereth to nothing truly and substantially no not indeed to the easiest of these which heere he hath picked out to shew his manhood in defending them And yet he saith in the Preface of this Chapter That he hopeth to giue such satisfaction to all as that not only the wound of slaunder may be cured but euen also the suspicious scarre of imputation may be wyped away THE FIRST obiected falsity pretended to be answered by Thomas Morton §. I. IN the first front of his squadroÌ„ of 14. obiected falsities chosen by him heere to be defended he placeth a reprehension of mine made vnto him in my Epistle dedicatory to the Vniuersities for that in his Epistâ—e to the K. Maiestie of his Treatise intituled A full Satisfaction he vseth these calumnious words Polidore obserueth saith he that the Popes a long time in their election had their names changed by Antiphrase viz. the elected if he were by naturall disposition fearfull was named Leo if cruell Clemens if vnciuill Vrbanus if wicked Pius if couetous Bonifacius if in all behauiour intollerable Innocentius c. This speach as malicious and contumelious fraught with deceiptfulnes I iustly reprehended noting by the way that he had cited no place in Polidore wheras he hath written sundry books besides his histories I noted also that diuers Kinges and Princes might haue names whose significations might be farre different from their qualities and actions and that Popes since the beginning of that custome of changing their names after their election did not take names by antiphrase or contrariety of sense as this man seditiously did insinuate but for reuerence commonly of other holy Popes who pasâ—ed beâ—ore thâ—m whose names they tooke as I exemplified in many and yet not hauing Polidore then by me I meane that worke of his de Inuentoribus Rerum I passed ouer diuers other pointes of deceiptfull sleightes in him which I might haue vrged and now must needes in part touch for that to this accusation of myne he hath nothing to answere in this his Reply but this which ensueth 5. First that albeit he cited not any certayne booke or place out of Polidores workes yet that the sentence reported by him vpon his memory is found in Polidore his fourth booke de inuentoribus Rerum c. 10. which is intituled De origine honorum qui Romano Pontifici habâ—ntur de eius authoritate in omnes Ecclesias of the beginning of the honors that are giuen to the Bishop of Rome of his authority ouer all Chuâ—ches And albeit this obseruation of Polidore mentioned by M. Morton be not found in any of our Bookes now commonly extant yet he saith that they are in his booke of the edition of Basilea of the yeare 1570. and that two yeares after that by order of Pope Pius Quintus the Index expurgatorius did put out these wordes but he telleth not what Index it was for I haue one containing both the Spanish Flemish Index wherin it is written about Polidore Virgil thus Ex Indice Louaniensi quae in Polidoro Virgilio de rerum inuentoribus Basileae impresso anno 1544. in octauo corrigenda sunt atque delenda The things that are to be corrected or blotted out in Polidore Virgil in his eight bookes of the first inuentors of things which worke of his was printed at Basilea in octauo vpon the yeare of Christ 1544. 6. Out of which wordes it may be presumed as to me it seemeth that vpon the said yeare of Christ 1544. whiles Polydore Virgil lyued yet in England his worke de inuentoribus Rerum though it were printed at Basile where Protestant Religion was entred yet this place of Polidor about changing of Popes names was not found for that being both scandalous and vntrue as presently shall be shewed it is very like or rather certaine that this our Index expurgatorius would haue noted it at least as it doth diuers other thinges not only out of the same worke but euen out of the same 4. booke and 2.3.4.5.6.7 and 8. Chapters and yet saith nothing at all of any thing of the tenth where M. Morton saith this his obseruation is now found in his booke printed at Basile 1570. which was 26. yeares aâ—ter the former edition wherof must needes be inferred that either M. Morton dealeth not sincerely with vs which yet in this matter I will not bee so vnfriendly as to suspect or that his edition of 1570â— which hitherto I cannot see hath receaued this addition about the Popes changing their names after the foresaid edition of 1544. which could not be from Polidore himselfe who was dead before but from some new merry brother of Basile then hereticall who to make sport put it in for a merriment indeed for so in the text it selfe he professeth that he wrote it in iest though it pleaseth M. Morton to take it vp in earnest 7. But let vs heare the wordes themselues which M. Morton setteth downe as found in his Polidore Primus honos saith he Romano Pontifici habetur vt si minùs pulchro honestetur nomine ei statim creato liceat illud mutare verbi gratia quòd non extra iocum dictum sit si homo maleficus antea fuerit vt Bonifacius appelletur si timidus Leo si rusticus Vrbanus c. This is the first honour giuen to the Bishop of Rome after his creation saith he that if his name be not fayre he may chaÌ„ge the same as for example which yet be not spoken but in iest if before he had byn perhaps an euill doer he may be called Bonifacius that is a good doer if he had byn fearfull then may he be called Leo a lyon if â—usticall then Vrbanus or ciuill c. And the first Author or beginner of this custome is said to haue bin Pope Sergius the 2. whose name hauing bin before Os Porci which signyfiâ—th the mouth of a hogge it was permitted vnto him saith the supposâ—d Polidore for auoyding the obscenity of his former name to change the same 8. Thus much out of M. Mortons Polidore wherof he vaunteth according to his fashion in these words Although they haue made Polidore by their Index expurgatorius almost in euery page dumbe not suffering him to beare witnesse against the pryde of Popes c. yet our ancient Polidore now dwelling among Protestants printed anno 1570. Basileae hath a tongue that will tell tales So he Speaking more truly then perhaps he imagineth that his Polidore in this poynt telleth meere tales indeed and consequently is no great iewell of antiquity to be bragged of as dwelling now among Protestants For now I haue shewed that in
himselfe many waies to get out He saith that though Nauclerus doth not affirme it yet Abbas Vrspergensis related by Nauclerus doth But why had not M. Morton mentioned Vrspergensis at the firsâ— and sincerly haue told his Reader that he did only relate the matter with this clause vt fertur as it is said Why if he would haue dealt plainly had he not confessed that Nauclerus did mislike and improue the said report that by the testimony of all Italian writers that he could read Nay why doth he now againe being taken in flagrante delicto misalleage Nauclerus words after that he had seene and read him saying Verùm cùm multi Itali nullam de hoc mentionem faciunt c. but wheras many Italians do make no mention of this wheras Nauclerus true words are Verùm cùm Itali quos legere potui nullam de hoc faciant mentionem Ioannes Flasboriensis alijque multam de Adriano reserant honestatem c. But wheras the Italian writers which I could come to see do make no mention of this matter Iohn of Salisbury and other Authors do relate much good of Adrian c. Haeâ— et alia ambiguum me reddunt quid potiùs eligendum quidùe credendum sit Scribimus enim res gestas affectu nonnunquam plusquam veritatis amore ducti Verùm vnum hoc adijcimus AdrianuÌ„ Virum â—uisse integrum c. These and other such things do make me doubtfull what were to be chosen or what were to be beleiued For that we do write other mens acts more oftentimes by affection then led therunto by the loue of truth VVhich wordes are euidently meant by Nauclerus of Vrspergensis taxing him that he wrote much of passion against Pope Adrian in behalfe of the Emperour Fredericke with whome he held against the Pope and that do the next ensuing wordes of Nauclerus shew which are cut of by M. Morton in relating them here in his Preamble Verâ—m hoc adijcimus Adrianum Virum â—uisse integrum c. but we adde notwithstanding to this that Pope Adrian was an irreprehensible man So as in this small speach oâ— Nauclerus by vs now related M. Morton insteed of Itali quos legâ—re potui reciteth his wordes to be Câ—m multi Itali he striketh out also Ioannes Flasboriensis alijque multam de Adriano reâ—erant honestatem he addeth of his owne that he was maledictus à Deo and finally he cutteth of the last of Nauclerus which containe his owne iudgment Adrianum Virum â—uisse integrum So as if now after he confesseth to haue seene Nauclerus he doth relate him so corruptly what great credit can be giuen to his former protesâ—ation that he had not seene nor read him Or what importeth whether he saw him or no for so much as he was resolute to corrupt him and to make him speake no more nor lesse then he would haue him to do as now you haue seene 28. So as to conclude this accompt wee see that M. Morton in going about to cleere himselfe fâ—om this charge of treacherie doth intangle himselfe with two or three other treacheries more And last of all not hauing what to say runneth to a coÌ„mon place that foure other Popes are reported to haue had disastrous ends to wit Anastasius 2. Ioannes 10. IoaÌ„nes 12. Vrbanusâ— as if wee defended that all Popes had good liues or prosperous deaths or that among our Kings of â—ngland Scotland who haue been peraduenture fewer then Popes many lamentable endingâ— were not to be found and yet may we not argue therof against the lawfullnesse of Kingly power or due respect to be borne to their persons and places or that it might be taken for an argument that God did abandon them and their digâ—ity for suffering them to dye disastrously as this man would inferre of Popes And finally how many Popes soeuer did dye vnfortunatly this doth not excuse M. Morton in belying Adrian and his Author Nauclerus from which it seemeth that he cannot be excused 29. And this in case all were true which he writeth of these other foure Popes whom impertinently he bringeth in to accompany Adrian but as in the one we haue found him manifestly false so in these also you shall not find him exactly true in any one thing lightly that he saith of them but still there must be some mixture of sleightfull tricks to disguise matters And to help out the dye to vse his owne phrase he beginneth thus But why should it be thought a matter incredible that suth a dismall end should befall a Pope Whervnto I answere that the question is not whether it be incredible that a dismall end may befall a Pope but whether such an end as yow describe did befall Pope Adrian or no And whether you haue vsed true dealing in the manner of recounting the same 30. It followeth in your narration out of one of our Doctors as you say Bene legitur Anastasium diuino nutu percussum interijsse It is read that Pope Anastasius was stroken with the hand of God and perished you cite for it Ioannes de Turrecremata lib. de summa Eccles de Anastasio VVhich citation is so set downe as I perswade my selfe that at the next reply he will haue the like euasion as before in citing of Nauclerus to witt that he saw not the worke it selfe For that Turrecremata doth not write only one booke de summa Eccles. as heere is insinuated but foure ech one of them hauing many chapters and one only hath more then a hundred which is this wherout this sentence is preâ—ended to be taken And yet doth M. Mortons citation specify neyther booke nor Chapter wâ—ich allwayes you must imagin hath some mystery in it He quoteth also de Anastasio as though the Author had some such Chapter wheras he only speaketh of this Pope Anastasius by way of answering certayne obiections about the cause of infallibility of not erring in the Bishop of Rome when he is to decree any thing for the Church wherabout some said that albeit a Pope might fall into heresy yet God would not permitt him to decree any thing hereticall wherof an example was brought of this Pope Anastasius 2. that being inclined as some thought by instance of the hereticall Emperour of his owne name Anastasius then lyuing to admitt vnto his communion the heretike Acatius and expecting only for that purpose as was thought the returning of his legate Festus from Constantinople God tooke him away before his returne Turrecremata his wordes are these Tertium etiam hic inducunt eâ—emplum de Anastasio qui licèt voluerit reuocare Acatium non tamen potuit quia Diuino nutu percussus est They bring in also heere a third example of Pope Anastasius who albeit he had a will to recall the heretike Acatius yet he could not do it for that he was stroken by the hand of God and dyed 31. This
is all that â—urrecremata saith of the matter which maketh much more for the preheminence of the Bishop of Rome if you marke it then any way against the same for it sheweth that God hath such spâ—ciall and particuler care of that Sea and Pastor therof as he will rather take him away then permit him to do any thing preiudiciall to the Church which is the blessing as we know of the elect and dearly beloued of God according to the saying of the Scripture Placens Deo â—actus dilectus rapâ—us est ne malitia mutaret intellectum eius albeit I muâ—t aduertise the Reader that the whole current of other writers do deny this matter about the inclination of Pope Anastasius to recall Acatius affirming that the said Acaâ—â—us was dead diuers yeares before Anastasius was Pope as do testify Nicepâ—orus Callixâ—us Euagâ—ius Anastasius Billiothecarius Liberatus Gelasius and others all which or the most are namâ—d in the first part of the Decree or Gratian which is cyted also by M. Morton and so if he looked vpon it he abuseth vs greatly in disâ—embling the matter and if he did not why doth he cite it And thus much of Anastasius whome all writers commonly do hold for a very good man And if any will see him further defended both for sanctity of lyfe integrity of faith and the remouing of this slaunder touching his death let him see the learned discourse of Albertus Pighius Cardinall Hosius Doctor Sanders Cardinall Baronius Cardinall Bellarmine and others in the places heere cyted All which M. Morton in his manner of playne dealing dissembleth and passeth ouer and alleageth only 4. or 5. words out of Turrecremata which that Author proposeth only in the way of obiection and not of asâ—ertion 32. And as for the fable raysed about his suddayne death it seemeth to haue beene taken by errour and similitude of the name of Anastasius of which name the hereticall Emperor being that lyued with him as before hath byn sayd and being stroken suddaynly by death with a thunderbolt as both Paulus Diaconus Beda Cedrâ—nus and Zonaras do testifie it fell out that the one was mistaken â—or the other as diuers learned men are of opinion 33. As for the other two Popes Iohn the 10. and Iohn the 12. as they were both violently intruded by fauour and force of friends into that Sea and gaue no great edification in their liues so no meruayle if â—hey had no very good ends Albeit for so much as belongeth to Iohn the 12. otherwyse the 13. diuers Authors do defend him and namely in our age Franciscus Ioannettus citing both Otho Frisingensis and Abbot Vrspergensis for the same 34. The last of the foure Vrbanustertius whome M. Morton bringeth in as noted by Doctor Seuerinus Binâ—us out of the testimony of Vrspergensis that for sedition against the Emperour he was called Turbanus and died as stroken by the hand of God true it is that Binius relateth such a thing recorded by Vrspergensis a Schismaticall Author standing with the Emperor against the said Pope but refuteth the same as false and malicious out of Platina and other Authours shewing how he died peacebly in his bed at Ferrara for the sorrow he conceaued of the ouerthrow of the Christian army in the Holy Land for preuenting wherof he had taken a iourney to Venice Anno Domini 1187. adding these words Ita Platina de obitu optimi Pontificis veriùs et melius sentiens quà m Schismaticorum fautor Vrspergensis So writeth Platina of thâ— death of this excellent Pope wherin his iudgment was truer and better then the iudgment of Vrspergensis the fauourer of Schismaticks which conclusion M. Morton according to his ordinary art of simplicity thought best to pretermit and conceale from his Reader and yet to furnish his margent with sundry citations of Doctor Binius as though he made for him 35. And besides this testimony of Platina guylefully concealed he dissembleth also two other Authors of greater antiquity of our owne Nation to witt Roger Houeden and Neubrigensis who both lyued in the same tyme when Pope Vrbanus did and do write very honorably of his death saying that when he heaâ—d the griâ—uous calamityes happâ—â—ed at Hierusalem doluâ—t vehementâ—r incidit in aegriâ—udinâ—m mortâ—uâ—est apud Ferrariam He â—eceyued â—xceeding griefe theâ—by fell into sâ—cknesse and so dyed at â—errara which signifyeth both his piety in Gods cause and the honourable cause of his dâ—ath 36. Thus thâ—se two ancieâ—t Englâ—sh writers to omit many other that do ensue And now consider good Râ—ader the vayne vaunting of M. Mortonâ— speach vpon this fiction VVhat is now wanting saith he but an example of one Pope to be produced vpon whome the vengeance of God seizâ—d because of his reâ—elâ—ious opposition against temporall Lords This was Vrban the third saith Abbas Vrspergensis commonly called Turban c. so little cause could I haue to wound my aduâ—rsaryes with forged inuentions being thus sufficiently furnished and prepared to conâ—ound them with true and playne confâ—ssed tâ—stimâ—nyes So he And do you heare him how he croweth Hath he cyted any one Author but Vâ—spâ—rgeâ—sis and Binius wherof the later is expressly against him as you haue heard and fully ouerthroweth the former And haue not we alleaged three for his one to the contrary and may do thrice as many more of those that ensued the other if we would stand vpon it How then is M. Morton so sufficiently furnished to conâ—ound vs with true and playne confessed testimonyes VVhere are they â—Vhat are their names When lyued they VVhere dwell they VVhy did he not bring them forth with the rest Is it not playne that Mortonâ—elleth â—elleth wynd and wordes and vaunts for workes but let vs furnish him with testimonies to the contrary of Authors who write right honourably of this Popes death Let him read and consider what Sabellicus hath left written Aenead 9. lib. 5. What Cranzius lib. 6. histor Saxon. cap. 52. What Naâ—ulâ—â—us paâ—te 2 generatione 43. What VVeâ—neâ—us in fasâ—â—â—â—lo temporum aâ—tate 6. anno 1184. What Onuphrius Paâ—â—inus in vita Vrbani teâ—tij What Ioanneâ—iuâ— in Chron. cap. 151. What Philiâ—pus in supplâ—mento â—istoriarum anno 1186. What Carolus Sigonius lib. 15. de â—egno Italiae anno 1187. What Genebrardus in Chronico anno 1185. And finally what Blondus doth testifie lib. 6. deâ—ad 2. anno 1181. whose wordes be these and may stand for all the rest that agree in the same Orbâ—m Christianorum saith he speaking of the life and death of this Pope Vrban the third de mittendis in Asiam copiis monuerat c. Pope Vrbanus 3. aduertised the Christian world by an vniuersall decree to send forces into Asia for recouering the holy Land the succesâ—e wherof when he saw to proceed more slowly and negligently then the feruour of his hart desyred he deteâ—mined to go in
appertayne to the temporall good and prosperity therof 11. Next after the declaratioÌ„ of these three pointes to wit of the origens ends obiects of these two powers spirituall and â—eÌ„porall the sayd Catholicke Deuine deduceth out of the same the differeÌ„t dignity excellency eminency of the one the other power the one being called Deuine the other Humane for that the ends and obiects of the one are immediatly concerning the soule as now we haue declared and the other concerning humane affaires immediatly though mediatly in a Christian Common wealth referred also to God And this diâ—ference of these two powers he declareth by the similitude likenesse of flesh and spirit out of S. Gregory Nazianzen who in a certaine narration of his doth most excellently expresse the same by the comparison of spirit and flesh soule and sense which thing saith he may be considered as two distinct Common wealthes separated the one from the other or conioyned togeather in one Common wealth only An example of the former wherin they are separated may be in beasts and Angels the one hauing their common wealth of sense only without soule or spirit and the other CoÌ„mon wealth of Angels being of spirit only without flesh or body but in man are conioyned both the one the other And euen so sayth he in the Common wealth of Gentils was the Ciuill and Poliâ—icall Earthly and Humane power giuen by God to gouerne worldly and humane things but not spirituall for the soule wheras coÌ„trarywise in the primitiue Chriâ—tian Church for almost three hundred yeares togeather none or few Kings Princes or Potentates being conuerted the Common wealth of Christians was gouerned only or principally by spirituall authority vnder the Apostles and Bishops that succeeded them 12. Out of which consideration confirmed and strengthened by sundry places of holy scripture ancient Fathers alleaged by him he sheweth the great eminency of spirituall Authority aboue temporall being considered seuerally in themselues though they may stand ioyntly and both togeather in a Christian Common wealth where the temporall Princes be ChristiaÌ„s though with this necessary subordination that in spirituall and Ecclesiasticall affaires belonging to the soule the spirituall gouernours be chiefly to be respected as in Ciuill affaires the temporall magistrate is to be obeyed and this he sheweth by diuers examples and occasions out of S. Ambrose S. Chrysostome S. Gregory Nazianzen and other Bishops and Prelats that in Ecclesiasticall affayres prefered themselues and their authorities before that of Christian Emperours with whome they lyued expresly affirming that in those respects they were their Superiours Pastours the said Emperours their sheep subiects though in temporall affaires they acknowledged them to be their Superiours 13. All this is set downe by the Catholicke Deuine with great variety of proofes many examples facts and speaches of ancient Fathers And will Syr Edward Cooke say that this was froÌ„ the purpose a Nihil dicit doth not this quite ouerthrow his assertioÌ„ that all teÌ„porall Kings by vertue power of their temporall Crownes haue supreme authority also in spiritual affaires If the forsaid three Fathers to pretermit all others S. Gregory Nazianzen S. Chrysostome and S. Ambrose that had to do with Christian Emperours which had teÌ„porall authority ouer all or the most part of the Christian world did yet notwithstanding affirme vnto their faces that they had no authority at all in spirituall matters belonging to soules but were and ought to be subiect to thâ—m their Pastours in that Ecclesiasticall gouerment how much lesse could a woman-Prince haue the same by right of her temporall Crowne as most absurdly M. Attorney auerreth Which absurdity the Catholicke Deuine doth conuince so largely by all sortes of proofes both diuine and humane as well vnder the law oâ— Nature as Mosayâ—all and Christian that a person of the feminine sâ—xe is not capable of supreme Spirituall iurisdiction ouer man as nothing seemeth can be answered theruÌ„to And was this also â—rom the purpose to proue that Queene Elizabeth could not haue it What will Syr Edward answere here for his Nihil dicit 14. After all this and much more alleaged by the Catholicke Deuine which I pretermit for breuities sake he commeth to reduce the whole controuersie betweene M. Attorney and him vnto two generall heads of proofe the one de Iure the other de facto that is of right and fact shewing that in the first of these two proofes de Iure which is the principall M. Attorney did not so much as attempt to say any thing â—or proofe that by right Queene Elizabeth or any of her Ancestours had supreme iurisdiction in causes Ecclesiasticall but only that de â—acto some of them had sometymes taken and exercised such an authority Which if it were without right was as yow know nothing at all and therfore the sayd Deuine hauing proued more at large that by no right of any law whatsoeuer diuine or humane Queene Elizabeth or her predecessours had or could haue supreame authority Spirituall he coÌ„meth to ioyne with M. Attorney also in the second prouing that neyther in fact any such thing was euer pretended or practised by any of her Predecessours before the tyme of her Father K. Henry the viij either before or after the Conquest 15. And as for before the Conquest there haue beene more then an hundred Kings of different Kingdomes within the land he proueth by ten large demonstrations that none of them did euer take vpon him such supreme spirituall authority but acknowledged it expresly to be in the Bishop of Rome of which demoÌ„strations the first is of lawes made by them generally in fauour and confirmation of the liberties of the English Church according to the directions and Canons deriued â—rom the authority of the Sea Apostolicke The second that Ecclesiasticall lawes in England made before the Conquest were made by Bishops and Prelats who had their Authority from Rome and not by temporall Kinges The third that all determination of weighty Ecclesiasticall affayres were referred not only by the Christian people generally of that Realme as occasions fell out but by our Kings also in those dayes vnto Rome and the Sea Apostolicke The â—ourth that the Confirmations of all Priuiledges Franchises of Churches Monasteries Hospitals and the like were in those dayes demaunded and obteyned from the Pope The fifth that in all Ecclesiasticall controuersies suites and grieuances there were made Appeales and complaints to the Sea of Rome for remedy The sixth the succession of Bishops Archbishops in England during that time all acknowledging the supremacy of the Pope were notwithstanding in high fauour and reuerence with the English Kings with whom they lyued wherof is inâ—erred that these Kings also must needs be of the same iudgment and beliefe and consequently make lawes conforme to that their fayth and beliefe as contrariwise since the schisme began by K. Henry the 8.
Clâ—ricali esse nudatos correctioni fori saecularis addictos that all such as had beene twice married are depriued of all priuiledge of Clergy men and are subiect to the iurisdiction of the secular Court There arose a question in England in tyme of Parliament how this decree of the Pope should be executed and obserued some of the Prelates inclining that it should be vnderstood only of such Bigamies as should fall out after the CouÌ„cell and therfore demaunded to haue deliuered into their hands and freed from the temporall gaole such as presently were in prison and had beene bigamies before the Councell But the K. his Counsell were rather bent to haue all bigamies excluded froÌ„ that priuiledge both present and to come for that the Popes Constitution now alleaged seemed rather to sound that way for that it is generall and without exception Vpon which determination produced the Attorney hath this note insteed of an inference Obserue saith he how the King by aduise of his Counsell that is by authority of Parlament expounded how this Councell of Lyons should be vnderstood and in what sense it should be receyued and allowed And therof would inferre that the king and his Counsell held themselues to be aboue the Pope for that they tooke vpon them to determine in what sense the Popes decree should be vnderstood And yet M. Attorney protesteth as before you haue heard that he maketh no inferences but only alleageth the bare law books as they lye but yet heere euery man will see that it is vntrue for that heere he maketh an inference and that very false and impertinent For he should rather haue made the quite contrary inference to wit that for so much as the King and his CouÌ„sell did subiect themselues to the acknowledgment and obseruation of the Popes decree and did accommodate the law of England therunto which before was otherwise they did therby acknowledg that the Popes power in making lawes for Ecclesiasticall matters was Superiour to that of the King and can Syr Edward or any man else deny this consequence And this shall suffice for this case but only I may not let passe this one note by the way that wheras M. Attorneys words are that certayne Prelats when such persons as haue beene attaynted for fellons haue praied to haue them deliuered as Clerkes he forgot himselfe for that the wordes in the booke are quando de felonia rectati â—uerâ—nt when they had beene arraigned of â—elony not when they had beene attainted of felony for that Clerkes beâ—ore attainder were wont to be deliuered to their Ordinaries but being once conuicted and attainted they cannot make their purgation afterward as appeareth by Stanford l 2. c. 49. 87. Vnder K. Edward 2. the Attorney writeth thus Albeit by the ordinance of Circumspectè agatis made in the 21. yeare of K. Edward 1. and by generall allowance and vsage the Ecclesiasticall Courts hâ—ld plea of Tythes obuentions oblatioÌ„s mortuaryes c. yet did not the Clergy thinke themselues assured nor quiet from prohiâ—itions purchased by subiects vntill that K. Ed. 2. by his letters patents vnder the great seale and by conseÌ„t of Parlament c. had graunted vnto them to haue iurisdiction in those cases c. So M. Attorney And what doth he inferre heerof thinke you the questioÌ„ in hand teacheth vs to wit that K. Edward 2. is proued by this to haue had supreeme spirituall iurisdiction An inference you will say very farre fecht but this is the manner of Syr Edwards disputing and yet he saith that he maketh no inference nor argumentatioÌ„ at all marke then his guilfulnes 88. He coÌ„â—esseth that before king Edward the 2. there was generall allowance and vse of Ecclesiasticall Courts in England for Ecclesiasticall matters as appeareth by the ordinance of Circumspectè agatis vnder K. Edward 1. and of magna Charta before him againe vnder K. H. 3. many other proofes he confesseth also that this vse and allowance was confirmed according to the Custome of his Ancestours by the same K. Edward 2. by a new statute made in the ninth yeare of his raigne called Articuli Cleri But what of this hence he inferreth that the king was supreme in spirituall authority for that he graunted â—aith he to them to haue iurisdiction and do you see the good consequence I will reason with him in the like The parlameÌ„t de prerogatiuis Regis held in the 17. yeare of the same K. raigne did nuÌ„ber and explaine and confirme all the kings prerogatiues which were allowable at the coÌ„mon law ergo this statute did giue vnto the king his prerogatiues and that he had them not before which consequeÌ„ce I doubt not but M. Attorney himselfe will deny to be good and yet is it as good as the other for K. Edward 2. in his statute of Articuli Cleri did but concurre with his Ancestours in confirming those priuiledges which had beene vsed before time out of mind and in subiecting his temporall lawes to the lawes of the Church in the cases there specified so farre of was he froÌ„ taking supreme iurisdiction vpon himselfe as falsely and fondly M. Attorney would make his reader belieue But let vs passe from K. Edward 2. to his sonne K. Edward the third out of whose raigne M. Attorney alleageth more examples instances then almost out of all the rest wherof we shall touch some few for all would be ouer longe and perhaps we shall desceÌ„d no lower then the time of his raigne reseruing the more â—ull discussion of these and other exaÌ„ples vntill the Catholicke Deuine or some body for him shall prepare a second edition of his forsaid answer to Syr Ed. Reports 89. First then fol. 14. b. of this his fifth part of Reports he reciteth out of the raigne of this K. Edward 3. but quoting no particuler place that it is often resolued that all the Bishopricks within England were â—ounded by the kings progenitors and therfore the aduowson of them all belonged to the king c. And that when a Church with cure is void if the particulâ—r Patron or Bishop of that Diocese do not present another within the space of 6. monethes then may the Metropolitan conferre the same and if he also do it not within six other moneths then the comon law giueth to the king as to the supreme within his owne kingdome not to the Bishop of Rome power to prouide a competent pastour for that Church This is Syr Ewdards narration full of deceipt as now you shall see For albeit the coÌ„mon law doth giue to the king as to the supreme within his owne Kingdome to present by lapse as hath beene said yet not as supreme in spirituall authority as he would haue his reader mistake and belieue but as supreme in the temporall patronage or as supreme temporall Patron of that Benefice to whoÌ„ in such cases the aduowson of presenting
belongeth as appeareth euidently by Cirendon and the Bishop of Lincolnes case in Plowdens Commentaries fol. 498. where it is said that because all aduowsons and lands within the realme are held eyther immediatly or mediatly of the King the land where the Church is situate before the Church was builded was held of the king so in respect of the tenure of the king the presentment by lapse accrueth vnto him as supreme Patron and not in respect of the supreme iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall which the Statute of 25. H. 8. did first of all ascribe vnto his temporall Crowne 90. Vnder the same king 17. E. 3.23 he citeth another law-booke thus The king may not only exempt any Ecclesiasticall person from the iurisdiction of the Ordinary but may graunt vnto him Episcopall iurisdiction as thus it appeareth there the king had done in ancient tyme to the Archdeacon of Richmond So he But if you read the booke it self here cited of 17. E. 3 23. you shall fynd that no such assertion can be founded there For thus the case standeth in that booke Stouff a Sergeant at law sayd that the Archdeacon of Richmond had the office of the Ordinary and I thinke quoth he by lâ—aue of the king This is all the case there related where you see that Sergeant Sâ—ouâ—â— affirmeth not that he knew it to be so but did thinke so that the said Aâ—chdeacon of Ricâ—mond had the office of tâ—e Ordinary by leaue of the king and much lesse did he auouch as Syr Edward doth for him that the king gaue or graunted vnto him that â—piscopall iurisdiction which is not warranted but rather ouerthrowne by that booke as you see for that the Archdeacon might haue his Episcopall Authority if he had any by grâ—unt from the Pope and licence only of the king and so this aâ—â—â—ueraâ—ion â—tanding but vpon a collection of M. Attorney falleth to the ground 91. It â—olloweth in M. Attorney his Reports vnder the same K. Ed. 3. All religious or Ecclesiasticall houses saiâ—h he wherof the king was founder are by the king exempt frâ— ordinary Iurisdiction only visitable corrigible by the K. Ecclesiasticâ—ll commission and for this he citeth tâ—ese books 20. E. 3. ExcoÌ„ 9.16 E. 3. titâ— Brâ— 660.21 E. 3.60.6 H. 7.14 Fitz. Nat. Breuâ— But in none of these bookes shall you find these words that thâ—y are only visitable or corrigible by the K. Ecclesiasticall commissioÌ„ This is Syr Edwards owne inuention The books quoted do speake of hospitals and free Chappels of the Kings foundation which are not visited by the Ordinary for that they are things temporall and without cure of soules and therfore not spirituall or Ecclesiasticall nor to be visited in those dayes according to the common-law by the Bishop but by the kings Chancellour as a temporall officer as testifyeth Fitzherb in his Nat. Br. â—ol 42. A. though afterward in K. H. 5. tyme for remedying of discoâ—ders it was decreed in the 2. yeare of his raigne that the visitation and correction of such Hospitals and free Chaphels of the Kings foundation or of his subiects should be done by the Ordinaries according to the Ecclesiasticll laws 2. H. 5. cap. 1. in Rastals Abridgment tit Hospitals So as heere the principall wordes of controuersie to wiâ— by the kings Ecclesiasticall â—ommission are feigned and put in by M. Attorney and this is his ordinary art to seeme to haue somewhat in fauour of his purpose when it is nothing at all but agaiâ—st him 92. It followeth in Syr Edw. instances â—ol 15. The king shall present in his free Chappels in default of the Deane by lapse in â—â—spect of his supreme Ecclesiastiâ—all iurisdiction citing for iâ— 27. Ed. 3. fol. 84. But heere againe I find a â—oule fitten for his booke hath not these words in respect of the kings supreme Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction which is heere made the principall verbe of this part of speach and often thrust in by M. Attorney of his owne inuentioÌ„ but the meaning of his booke is as he cannot but know that the king in such cases shall present not in respect of supreme Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction but as supreme Patron temporall for that aduowsons or patronage of such benefices are meere temporall inheritances according to our coÌ„mon-lawes as ofteÌ„ hath beene declared and therfore the King being founder may by lapse present 93. An other like fitten or rather more foule is coÌ„mitted by him in the same place alleaging out of 22. Edward 3. lib. Assis. pl. 75. that tythes arising in places out of any parish the king shall haue them â—or that he hauing the supreme Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction he is bound to prouide a sufficient Pastour that shall haue the cure of soules of that place which is not within any parish And by the common lawes of Englâ—nd saith he it is euident that no man vnlesse he be Ecclesiasticall or haue Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction can haue inheritance of tythes Thus much M. Attorney to proue that K. Ed. 3. had supreme Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction not the Pope in his dayes But heere be so many scapes fraudes and errours as is a shame to see For first in his booke quoted there is not fouÌ„d those words that principally import the controuersie that he as hauing supreme Ecclesasticall iurisdictionâ— is bound to prouide a sufficieÌ„t Pastour but all this is thrust in by M. Attorney to make vp his market Secondly much lesse is this yeelded for a reason by his booke why the king should haue such tythes as lay out of all parishes but another reason more substantiall is to be alleaged of being temporall Lord of the Lands which presently we shall touch 94. Thirdly it is not true that the king as hauing supreme Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction is bound to prouide a sufficieÌ„t Pastour to haue cure of soules of that place which is not within any parish both for that it may appertaine to a particuler subiect to dispose of those tythes if he be temporall Lord of the place without hauing supreame Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction and the emolument may be so small or the place it selfe so vast and remote as eyther there be few soules to haue cure of or the maintenance not sufficient for a Pastour Fourthly it is false that by the common-laws of England no man vnlesse he be Ecclesiasticall or haue Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction can haue the disposing of tythes for that euery man before the diuision of particuler parishes was made though he was bound by diuine and Canonicall-law to pay his tythes of his lands yet might he according to the coÌ„mon-lawes of England haue assigned them to what Parish he would Now let vs see the case it selfe as it is proposed in 22. Ed. 3. lib. Asâ— pl. 75. 95. The king granted certayne tythes vnto the Prouost of C. out of certayne lands newly asserted in the forest of RockingaÌ„ and the said Prouost therupon brought a writ of Scire facias
only true and Catholike Religion and that by false and indirect meanes whereof God is an enemie Not to our Country for that these Reports of law being contrary to all auncient lawes and written with a contrary spirit to all our ancient lawiers Iudges law-makers before this our present age can profit nothing our Country but set greater breaches and diuisions therein To Me also that am the Reader or Student it can neither profit nor import any thing but losse of time and breaking my head with conâ—radictions For so much as all this must once againe be cast of and forgotten as nouelties when our old course of Commonlaw must returne to follow her ancient streame againe 124. Wherfore a much more honourable and profitable course had it bene for so great a witt learned a man in our lawes as my L. is said held to be that to the end his labours in writing might haue remayned gratefull and commodious to posterity he had conformed himselfe his spirit knowledge and penne to that of ancient precedent lawyers of our land as Plowden did and some others whose wrytings for that cause wil be immortall But Syr Edward taking to himselfe a contrary new course by wrenching and wresting lawes to a contrary meaning froÌ„ the common sense both of the lawes themselues law-makers as also of the times wherin they were made and torrent of authority that gouerned the the same his labours must needs in the end proue to bâ— both vnprofitable and contemptible 125. For I would demand him what sound common lawier will ioyne with him in this point which he so reâ—olutly auerreth in his last Preface that all bookes coÌ„ming à Roma vel à Romanistis from Rome or Romanists that is from any sort of Catholicks haue punishment according to our ancieÌ„t lawes for of those I suppose he speaketh of losse of goods liberty and life Will any man belieue him that this is conforme to any ancient law of England Doth he not know as I doubt not but he doth much better then I the old ancient honour that was wont to be borne to Rome and Romanists by our English Common lawes Can he deny but that the Bishop of Rome is tearmed Apostolus and Apostolicus almost euâ—ry where in the same ancient lawes yea Prince of the Church and that our Archbishop of Canterbury the greatest Peere and Prelate of England is called in our law Apostoli Legatus Legate of the Apostle and Roman Bishop And that his spirituall Court is but a member of the Court of Rome which Court in England is called Curia Christianitatis the Court Christian or Court of Christianity throughout our Common law-bookes as I might shew by multiplicity of authorities if it were not a matter so notoriously knowne as no meanest lawier will or can denie it And is it likely then that according to those lawes it may be prooued that it is Praemunire and treason to bring in a Booke from Rome or Romanists to read it to praise it or to lend it to another as heere our new Iustice doth tell men with terrour against iustice especially when he addeth Hi sunt illi libri qui splendidos c. These are those bookes which doe carry goodly and religious titles which do professe to help and comfort the infirme consciences of men that are in trouble These are they that take vpon them to bring miserable and sinfull soules vnto the desired port of tranquillity and saluation By which words it seemeth that Syr Edward hath a chiâ—â—e mislike of spirituall Catholick bookes which treat the argument of quieting of soules Which if it be so then I hope that our bookes of Controuersies may passe with some lesse danger though indeed I doe suspect that he meaneth these when he speaketh of the other for that they doe most coÌ„cerne him For what doe spirituall bookes trouble Syr Edward which I suppose that either he neuer readeth or litle esteemeth the argument they handle his cogitations being imployed about farre other obiects of this world for the present Albeit I doe not doubt but if in some other circumstance of time state and condition of things he should read them or they should be read vnto him as namely on his death-bed when flesh and bloud and worldly preferments doe draw to an end and himselfe neare to the accompting day they would make other impression in him Which being so true wisdome would that what we must doe in time perforce and perhaps to late or with out profit we should out of good will and free choice preuent by Christian industrie Which almighty God graunt vs his holy grace to doe And this is all the hurt I wish to Syr Edward for all his asperity against vs. 126. Now let vs returne to M. Morton againe whome we haue left for a long time to giue place to this piece of Reckoning with Syr Edward It followeth then in consequence after the precedeÌ„t Chapter of his omissions and concealments in diuers and different charges layd against him for vntruthes wherwith he was charged in the Treatise of Mitigation that we see what new vntruthes he hath super-added in his defence therof for increasing the burden THE NINTH CHAPTER WHICH LAYETH TOGEATHER ANOTHER CHOICE NVMBER of new lyes made wilfully BY Mr. MORTON ouer and aboue the old in this his Preamble whilst he pretendeth to defend or excuse the sayd old being aboue fifty in number WE haue made a large intermissioÌ„ as you see of M. MortoÌ„s affayres by interlacing some of Syr Edwards now must we returne to our principal scope which is to shew more new and fresh vntruthes of later date in this last Reply of M. Morton And albeit those that are to be touched in this Chapter haue beene for the most part handled discussed before yet to the end that they may more effectually be represented to the eye and memory of the Reader by putting the principall of them togeather in ranke vnder one muâ—â—er I haue thought it expedient to take this paynes also wherby may appeare how ruinous and miserable a cause M. Morton hath in hand that cannot be defended but by addition of so many new lyes vnto his old and euen then when he standeth vpon his triall for the sayd old and seâ—keth by all meanes possible to hide and couer the same in such manner as before yow haue heardâ— And no maruaile for that both truth reason and experience do teach vs that an old lye can neuer be well cloathed or couered but by a new Let vs passe then to the suruey of this Chapter noting by the way that we are rather to touch certayne heades or principall branches that conteine commonly sundry and seuerall lyes vnder them then simple single vntruthes if they be well examined nor is it our purpose to name all for that would imply too large a prolixity for this place especially for so much as I am to remit the Readâ—r commonly to