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
here recounteth them Et hoc regnum terrenum vmbra tamen suit spiritualis regiminis in Ecclesia Christiana and yet this earthly Kingdome of the Iewes was a shaddow of the spirituall gouerment that was to be in the Christian Church meaning therby the most excellent spirituall power and gouerment ouer soules which Christ was to institute in his Church at his comming in flesh to wit the power of absoluing from synnes vpon earth the assistance giuen by the Sacraments and the like were shadowed in a certaine manner by the earthly Ecclesiasticall Kingdome among the Iewes And how doth T. M. now translate these wordes and frame our obiection out of them The old Testament sayth he was a figure of the new in Christ therfore in the new the Popedome is the substantiue c. Here are two short propositions you see the Antecedent Consequent and both framed with falshood for that the Antecedent set downe as out of Salmeron is not that which he affirmeth in his Latin words as already we haue shewed though otherwise in it selfe the proposition be true to wit that the old Testament was a figure of the new in Christ nor will I thinke T. M. denie it There followeth then the Consequent or second proposition that therefore in the new the Popedome is the substantiue which is no lesse corruptly inferred in our name then was the Antecedent affirmed for that we do not inferre nor yet the Author Carerius in the said second propositioÌ„ or CoÌ„sequence by him alleaged that for so much as the old Testament is a figure of the new therefore in the new the Popes spirituall authority is the substantiue c. for that this were a weake inference as euery man seeth Nay Carerius maketh no infereÌ„ce at all in the place by him alleaged but only vseth that similitude which before you haue heard of the substantiue and adiectiue So as this inference is only a fiction of the Minister to make himselfe other men merry and to giue occasion to play vpon his aduersarie with reproach of Childhood and babish grammer as now he hath done but indeed the true Consequence that may be made vpon the Catholicke Authors words which hitherto he hath alleaged is only this that for so much as the Kingdome and gouerment among the Iewes euen in Ecclesiasticall things was but earthly and a figure or shadow in respect of that which was to be ouer soules in the Christian Church it followeth that this in respect of spirituality was to be much more emynent then the other as the thing figured then the figure or shadow it selfe And what inconuenience hath this doctrine that it should be called Childhood and babish grammer So much I set downe in my former reprehension of M. Morton for this abuse of Salmeron all which he now in his last Reply thought best to passe ouer with sylence for that belike he esteemed it not sufficiently insisted vpon by me therby to presse him to answere it But this may be amended at another tyme and so I passe on now to recount others of like sort THE NINTH Pretermitted falshood by Thomas Morton §. IX THERE followeth now against Dolman a like sleight thus recorded by me in my booke M. Mortons second reason why his Maiesties Catholicke Protestant subiects may not liue togeather in England is For that all Popish Priests sayth he dâ— attribute a double prerogatiue ouer Kings that is to say a Democraticall and Monarchicall soueraigne Ciuill power the first to the people the second to the Pope And for proofe of the first concerning the people he alleageth foure seueral authorities of Catholick wryters but so corruptly perfidiously as if nothing els did shew his talent of cogging treacherous dealing this were sufficient to discouer the same though afterwards greater store will occure we shall runne ouer briefly all those foure 45. First he saith that Dolman in his Conâ—erence about Succession hath these words The common wealth hath authority to choose a King and to lymit him lawes at their pleasure which if it were truly alleadged as it lieth in the Author yet here is no mention oâ— the people or of Democraticall state but only of the Common wealth which includeth both nobility and people and all other States Secondly Dolmans words are not of choosing a King but of choosing a forme of gouerment be it Democraticall Aristocraticall or Monarchicall Let vs heare the Author himselfe speake In lyke maÌ„â—â—r saith he it is euideÌ„t that as the CoÌ„mon wealth hath this authority to choose chaÌ„ge her gouerment as hath byn proued so hath it also to lymit the same with what lawes and condiâ—ions shee pleaseth wherof ensueth great diuersâ—â—y of authority aâ—d power which ech one of the â—ormer gouerments hath in it selfe So he Where we see that Doleman speaketh of the power which a Common wealth that is deuoid of any certaine gouerment to chuse vnto themselues that forme that best liketh theÌ„ with the limitatioÌ„s they thinke most expedient so we see in Englaâ—d France Polonia Germany Venice Genua and in the Empire it selfe different formes and manners of gouerment with different lawes and lymitations according to the choice and liking of ech Nation This place then of Dolman is corrupted by T. M. both in words and sense For he neither speaketh nor meaneth as the false Minister auoucheth him of gyuing Democraticall power to the people ouer Princes established 46. So wrote I in my former booke And albeit I do not insist and dwell vpon the matter so long as vpon some other sleights yet doth it conteine notable falshood yf yow consider it well first to alleage the words of an Author that are not his and theÌ„ to inferre therof that which neither the words theÌ„selues do beare nor the Author euer dreamed of 47. And here I might alleage diuers other Wryters but especially Iesuits wrongfully abused by him both in cyting of their works and words and falsifying their meaning as namely those three whome he bringeth in for witnes in the end of the fourth Chapter against Equiuocation euen in those places where they do most resolutely affirme Equiuocation to be lawfull namely Azor Emanuel Sà Maldonatus but these will haue their place afterward And so from Iesuits I passe to other Authors who haue receiued the like sort of dealing from him THE TENTH Pretermitted falshood by Thomas Morton §. X. AS you haue heard how M. Morton hath dealt fraudulently with the Iesuits so shall you see him vse the same measure also towards others as namely toward the Paduan Doctor Carerius out of whome he hath made great styrre before if you remember in answering three seuerall tymes at leaâ—t a certaine reprehension of myne for that he cyted the words Celsus verè for Celsus verò though I obiected the same but sleightly by the way said expresly that I held yt for a triâ—le But now you shal
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.
of the writers mynd to beguyle For first in the chapter by him named the intention was not only to improue the right of deposing Princes in the Pope but also of excommunicating them as appeareth by the tytle of the Chapter it selfe which is this That â—or more then 1000. yeares after Christ the Papall pretended iurisdictioÌ„ ouer Kings hath bene controlled Now then this Papall pretended Iurisdiction as all men know contayneth as well excommunication as â—eposition the one being the efficient cause of the â—ther so as for M. Morton to runne to onely deposiâ—ion of Princes is guylfully to slyde from his matâ—er and from his owne Authours for that both Friâ—â—ngensis and Tolosanus haue as well the words excomâ—unicated as depryued oâ— his Kingdome though Mortonâ—ath â—ath cunningly stricken them out in cyting their â—ords â—5 SecoÌ„dly his excuse of hauing alledged Otto Friâ—â—â—gensis against his owne meaning from the witnesse 〈◊〉 Tolosanus cannot stand or be cleared of deceiptfull â—â—eaning for in the English text which was writâ—en for deceiuing the English common Reader was â—othing said at all of Tolosanus but thus in disgrace â—f Pope Gregory the 7. I read and read againe sayth your Otto Frisingensis and I find that Pope Gregory the 7. â—â—lled Hildebrand in the yeare 1060. was the first Pope that â—â—er depriued any Emperour of his Regiment And to this â—estimony he adioyneth Claudius â—spâ—nseus a Parisianâ—octor â—octor and writer in our time oâ— very small acâ—oÌ„pt whome he calleth Bishop but I neuer heard â—et of his Bishopricke and to him he adioyneth â—ambertus Schasnalurgensis against his owne meaning â—s he did this of Frisingensis And with this only he â—ndeth all that Chapter instituted by him to improue all Papall authoritie of excoÌ„municating and deposing Princes Onely in the margent he setteth downe in latin the wordes of Frisingensis with citing â—he booke and Chapter and then addeth vt resert Tolosanus lib. 26. 96. Heere then I would aske whether ther were not fraud supposing FrisingeÌ„sis to be alleadged against â—his meaning to put downe his testimony in the English text without relation or mention of Tolosanus only in the margent and in latin to make reference vnto him Would the currant English reader euer reflect vpon that or mistrust that the wordes of Frisingensis were of doubtfull credit and related only by heare-say Why had not M. Morton put downe that refereÌ„ce in his English text which most imported But the truth is that it was a double cunning shift to let it runne in the text as he would haue it belieued by the Reader as though FrisingeÌ„sis had testified against Pope Gregory the 7. and yet in the margent to haue some refuge vnder-hand when he should be pressed with the falshood of the allegation as now he is 97. I let passe as of small moment the erroneous pareÌ„thesis which he putteth in of the yeare 1060. which caÌ„not be true for that all English men know that VVilliam Conquerour vpon the yeare 1066. entred into Engalnd with a hallowed banner sent him from Pope Alexander the second who was predecessour to Pope Gregory the 7. and coÌ„sequently Pope Gregory could not excommunicate the Emperoâ—r Henry vpoÌ„ this yeare assigned by M. Morton for that he was not yet Pope for diuers yeares after but this I impute to errour and so insist not vpon it but rather vpon other pointes of willing deceiptfulnes which now I am to go forward in noting 98. I cannot persuade my selfe but that M. Morton had read Frisingensis himselfe for it were absurd to write bookes out of other mens notes as afterwards vpon diuers occasions he doth confesse of himselfe when otherwise he cannot auoid the obiection of falshood vsed but howsoeuer this were that eyther M. Morton related the words of Frisingensis as he found them in himselfe or in Tolosanus he hath not faithfully related them as Tolosanus did for thus they lye Lego sayth he relego Romanorum Regum Imperatorum gesta nusquam inuenio quemquaÌ„ eorum ante hunc Henricum quartum à Romano Pontifice excoÌ„municatum vel Regâ—â— priuatum nisi sortè quis pro anathemate hahendum ducat â—â—òd Philippus ad breue tempus à Rom. Episcopo inter poenitenâ—â— collocatus Theodosius à B. Ambrosio propter cruentam â—â—deÌ„ à liminibus Ecclesia sequestratus sit I do read read â—gaine the acts of the Roman Kinges Emperors â—â—d I do neuer find any of them before this Henryâ—â—e â—â—e 4. to haue bene excoÌ„municated or depriued of â—â—s Kingdome except perhaps some man will hold 〈◊〉 an excommunication that the Emperour Philipâ—as â—as for a short time placed by the Bishop of Rome 〈◊〉 og such as did peÌ„nace Theodosius the Emperor â—as debarred the limits of the Church by S. Ambrose â—â—ishop of Millane in regard of a bloudy slaughter coÌ„â—itted by his order â—â— These are the wordes of Frisingensis related punâ—â—ually by Tolosanus as heere they lye but it pleased 〈◊〉 M. Morton to relate them eyther as they are â—â—und in the one or other And as for the first part â—â—erof the Reader will see the difference by that â—hich I haue already set downe and in one poynt â—â—e fraud is manifest that where Frisingensis saith â—â—squam inuenio quemquam eorum excommunicatum vel â—â—gno priuatum I neuer fynd any of the Emperours to â—aue byn excoÌ„municated or depriued by the Bishop of â—ome he leaueth out the word excommunicated both â—n latin and in English as though it made not to â—he purpose and secondly he cutteth of both in laâ—in and English all exception of the Emperours Phiâ—â—p and Theodosius though both his Authors haue it And could this be playne dealing â—00 But heere now yow shal heare how he answereth this omission I left them out of purpose I confesse saith he otherwise I should haue bene like to your selfe in this other such cauills who desire to say much though nothing to the purpose for to what purpose I pray you had this beene seeing our question was not to shew what Emperors had byn excommunicated but who being excommunicated had bene deposed from their regalityes Yea Sir and will you escape so why then doth your Authour Frisingensis say that he fyndeth none excommunicated or depryued of his kingdome before Henry the 4. by Gregoy the 7 you see that he includeth both the one the other and so doth Tolosanus relate him also and you haue strooke out the former from Tolosanus his latin text set downe in your margeÌ„t because it should not be seene and then also both the foresaid exceptions of the Emperours Philip and Theodosius he cutteth of suppresseth as nothing to the purpose and yet you know that depositioÌ„ of Princes is an effect of excoÌ„munication and can neuer happen by Ecclesiasticall authority but where excoÌ„munication hath gone before And I would aske M. Morton in good earnest out of his Deuinity when a Christian
Prince is lawfully excommunicated and shut out from all society of Christian communion and he persist impenitent how can he be head of a Christian coÌ„mon wealth for so much as he is no member nor hath any place or part at all in the whole body the headship being the chiefe part of all others 101. Much then it importeth to know the authority and antiquity aswell of excommunication as of deposition from which cause the examples alledged by Frisingensis ought not to haue bene suppressed or imbezeled and Tolosanus here alleadged by M. Morton produceth an other example both of excommunication and deposition aboue an hundred yeares before this of Frisingensis saying Antea quidem Gregorius tertius c. Before this Gregory the third being made Pope vpoÌ„ the yeare 759. did depriue Leo the third Emperor of Constantinople both of his Empire and the â—ommunion of Christians for that he had cast holy â—mages out of the Church and defaced them and â—eld a wicked opinion against the B. Trinity thus â—e And that Tolosanus in this sayth truth is testified â—â—so by Zonoras a greeke historiographer in the life â—f the sayd Emperour Leo Isauricus And before that â—gaine Pope Innocentius the first that liued with S. â—ugustine is read to haue excommunicated the Empeâ—our Arcadius and the Empresse Eudoxia for their 〈◊〉 iust persecution of S. Chrysostome though no deâ—riuation followed therof but amendment rather â—f the fault as is to be seene in Nicephorus Heere â—en the â—uasion of M. Morton by saying that the â—atter of excommunication pertayned not to his â—urpose is wholy impertinent for so much as that 〈◊〉 the only immediate cause of deposition by Eccleâ—â—asticall power But now let vs passe to the other â—hiefe point to consider whether Frisingensis was alâ—edged wholy against his owne purpose or not â—02 M. Morton being pressed with my former anâ—weare wherin I do shew that Frisingensis being alleaged by him to disgrace Pope Gregory aliâs Hildebrand â—s much wronged for that he coÌ„meÌ„deth him highâ—y and his doings seeketh this shift now by saying â—hat he alleadged him only in the questioÌ„ of antiquity concerning â—he tyme when first any Pope did take vpon him to depose Emperors But this is manifestly false for he alleadgeth him to both endes to wit for antiquitie and for disgrace but principally to disgrace him For hauing shewed as he perswaded himselfe that Pope HildebraÌ„d was the first that vsed such proceeding against Emperours he addeth preseÌ„tly that it was a new act that it is naught also will appeare saith he by the Actor for Pope Gregorie the 7. as your Chronographer saith was excoÌ„municated of the Bishops of Italy for that he had defamed the Apostolikâ— Sea by Symony and other capital crymes So he And to this calumniation he ioyneth the saying of Claudius Espencaeus in these wordes Hildebrand â—as the first Pope saith your Bishop â—spencaeus who by making a new rent beâ—â—ene Kingdome and Popedome did rayse â—orce against the Imperiall diademe arming himselfe by his example exciâ—ed oâ—her Popes against Princes excommunicate 103. These two testimonies then of Espencaeus and Schasnaburgensis being ioyned with the tâ—ird of Fâ—isingensis which are all that M. Morton alleadgeth let the prudent Reader consider whether they be not brought to disgrace Pope Hildebrand in his action against the Emperor Henry or not and yet do the first and last which are the more ancient Authors very earnestly commend the said Pope and defend his action of deposing the Emperor and consequeÌ„tly are brought in by meere preuarication of M. Morton to disgrace him 104. And as for the third which is Espencaeus though he were neyther Bishop to my knowledg nor otherwise of any great estimation among vs yet is he handled heere no lesse iniuriously fraudulently by M. Morton then the other two which I note now more especially then in my first answere both for that his authority is named and vrged againe in this place and for that I could not then get any sight of this his second booke of disgressioÌ„s vpon the first Epistle of S. Paul to Timothy though I had other bookes of his but now hauing found the same I haue discouered withall such fraud as was fit for such a spirit as M. Mortons seemeth to be that rarely vseth exact truth in citing of any thing for that these words alleadged against the Pope are not the wordes of Claudius â—spencaeus himselfe as in vntruly affirmed by M. Morton but related by him out of a certaine angry and impatient Epistle written 〈◊〉 certaine schismaticall Priests of Liege that were â—â—mmanded by Pope Paschalis the second to be chaâ—â—sed by Robert Earle of Flanders and his souldiers â—â—wly come from Hierusalem about the yeare 1102. â—â—r their rebellious behauiour which Priests with â—enry their schismaticall Bishop wrote a very passioâ—â—te inuectiue complaynt against this act and comâ—â—ssion of Pope Paschalis inueghing also against the â—â—ing of Pope Hildebrand not long before decâ—ased for 〈◊〉 like cause all which M. Morton concealeth and â—â—eth the words of â—spencaeus himselfe Your Bishop â—â—â—encaeus saith he writeth of Hildebrand c. which he â—â—ould not but know to be false if he read the â—â—oke and place by himselfe ciâ—ed for that Espencaeusâ—oth â—oth not only in the beginning of his citation vse â—â—is entrance extat in 2. â—omo ConcilioruÌ„ edit Coloniensis â—â—leri Leodiensis ad Paschalem secundum querimonia There 〈◊〉 extant in the second tome of Councells a complaint â—f the Clergie of Liege to Pope Pascaliâ— the second but 〈◊〉 the end also of all his speach which conteyneth a â—ong discourse he concludeth thus Hactenus Leodiâ—â—sium verba sensa Hitherto haue I related both â—he wordes sense of those Priests of Liege preâ—ently for himselfe saith that he will not meddle with the controuersie of fighting betweene Popes and Emperâ—rs though he proue by sundry examples both out of the Scrpture Fathers and Councels that in some cases it is lawfull for Priestes to vse teÌ„porall armes also so as for M. Morton to come and â—uouch as he did in his former booke of full Satisfaction that our Bishop Espencaeus affirmed this of himselfe against Pope Hildebrand wheras he must needs know that he saith it not but relateth it only out of others without approuing the same is to ad preuarication to preuarication and neuer to make an end of wilâ—ull lying especially seeing that iâ— this his last Preamblatory reply he is so farre of froÌ„ amending the matter as that he turneth vpon the same agayne saying I produced Claudius Espencaeus their owne Romish Bishop that doth playnly auerre that Hildebrand was the first Pope who without any example of antiquitie made a schisme beâ—wene Emperors and Popes c. Good Syr will you stand to this that Claudius Espencaeus doth playnely auerre it Is this true Is this sincere And how doth he playnely auerre it if he do
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
only not consent vnto him verùm etiam contra scripsisse atque praeâ—â—pisse but also did write and gaue commandement to the contrary c. S. Cypryan did obiect Apostoli nihil quidâ—m exinde praeceperunt the Apostles did command nothing in the Scriptures about this matter It is true saith S. Augustine Sed consuetudo illa quae opponebatur Cypriano ab eorâ—m traditione exordium sumpsisse credenda est sâ—â—uâ— sunt multa quae Vniuersa tenet Ecclesia ob hoc ab Apostâ—â—â—s prâ—câ—pta bene creduntur quamquam scripta non reperiantur But that custome which was opposed to S. Cyprian by the Church is to be belieued to haue taken beginning from the tradition of the Apostles as there are many things which the Vniuersall Church doth hold and they are therfore rightly belieued to haue beene ordayned by the Apostles though they be not found written Thus S. Augustine 111. Wherby we vnderstand first his full meaning about the Authority of traditions in the Church though they be not found written in the holy Scripture and secondly that albeit in some cases it is good and lawâ—ull to runne to Scriptures when the matter may be clearly by them decided yet is it no good argument alwaies to say It is not in the Scripture and therfore we are not bound to belieue it which was the argument of S. Cyprian when he was in errour and for maintenance of the same as M. Morton cannot deny nor dareth reproue S. Augustine and the Church of his time that condemned this manner of reasoning in S. Cyprian And what now doth there result against Bellarmine in all this obiection Is he found false in any one thing which heere is said Nay is not M. Morton coÌ„uinced of euident fraud in setting downe this accusation First for concealing the true state of the questionâ— then for that S. Augustine doth not reproue but excellently commend the manner of reasoning in S. Cyprian pretermitting all that I haue alledged out of S. Augustines expresse words to the coÌ„trary which he could not but know and haue read Thirdly by cutting of the words immediatly following in Bellarmine conteyning his second reason which was that S. Cyprian in other traditions besides this of not rebaptizing heretickes which erroneously he thought to be repugnant to Scripture he allowed vrged also the force of Traditions in the Church of God though they were not writtenâ— wherof Caâ—dinall Bellarmine himselfe alleadgeth two euident exaÌ„ples the one about the necessity of holy Chrisme or Vnction vrged by S. Cypriâ—n out of only Tradition lib. 1. Epist. 12. and the offering wine togeather with water in the Sacrifice which he vrgeth as Dominicam Traditionem a Tradition of our Lord lib. 2. Epist. 3. whereas notwithstanding nothing is found written in the Scriptures of either of these traditions And if I would alleage other traditions allowed by him though not written in the Scriptures I might be large heerin as for example that of renunciation accustomed to be made in the Church before baptisme wherof he treateth in his 7. and 54. Epistles and in his booke de disciplina habitu Virginum as also of the demaundes answeres accustomed to be made in the Church about the articles of the Creed Epist. 70. of Exorcismes to be made before baptisme Epist. 2. 72. lib. conâ—ra Demetrianum 112. The tradition of baptizing Infants Epist. 59. which S. Augustine holdeth to stand only vpon vnwritten tradition and the like This second argument then of Bellarmine being craftily left out and his former from S. Augustines authority wittingly peruerted M. Morton insteed of an obiectioÌ„ against the Cardinall hath brought in a flat condemnation of two notable fraudes against himselfe Let vs see another of like sort and suite if he can haue patience to heare it HIS SECOND OBIECTION against Cardinall Bellarmine touching false allegations about Anacletus §◠XIIII SECONDLY saith he Bellarmine to establish the authority of the Pope doth giue this prerogatiue to S. Peter to wit That S. Peter was the only Bishop and that other Apostles tooke their Orders from him which he laboureth to euince from the testimonies of Anacleâ—us Clemens Alexander Eusebius Cyprian where he is refelled by his owne doctors One saying that indeed those Fathers meane no such thing Another that the Epistles of Anacletus are counterfaite which many vrge more then is meete to the end they may aduance the authority of the Sea of Rome 114. Thus farre the obiection in his owne wordes Wherin I meruaile what wilfull falshood may be found such as the writer himselfe must needes know it to be so except it be on the behalfe of M. Morâ—oÌ„ who entreth presently with a shift at the first beginning saying as you haue hard that Bellarmine giueth this prerogatiue to S. Peter that he was the only Bishop and that other Apostles tooke their orders from him wheras Bellarmines saying is some authors to be of opinion quòd solus Petrus à Christo Episcopus ordinatus fuerit caeteri autem à Petro Episcopalem consecrationâ—m acceperint that only S. Peter was ordeined Bishop immediatly by Christ and the other receaued their Episcopall consecration from S. Peter So as in so litle a sentence he leaueth out first that S. Peter was ordeined Bishop alone by Christ and then changeth Episcopall consecration into holy Orders as though they had not bene made so much as Priests by our Sauiour himselfe but only by S. Peter wheras all authors agree that Christ in making them Apostles made theÌ„ all Priests though some do doubt whether immediatly by himselfe he made them all Bishops So as no one thing is sincerely handled heere by M. Morton without some nippe or other as you see 115 Secondly wheras he saith that Bellarmine laboureth to euince froÌ„ the testimonies of Anacletus Clemens AlexaÌ„drinus c. the proofe of this prerogatiue he abuseth him egregiously for that Bellarmine doth alleadg this opinion that Christ hauing made all his Apostles Priests did make only S. Peter Bishop with authority to coÌ„secrate the rest as the opinion of Turrecremata alleadging diuers manifest reasons and proofes for the same as namely one that either Christ did ordaine none of his Apostles Bishops or all or some certaine number or one only The first cannot stand for that if Christ had ordained none then should we haue at this day no Episcopall authority among vs. Nor can it be said that he ordained all immediatly for that S. Paul was ordained by imposition of handes by the Ministers of the Church as appeareth Act. 13. and by S. Leo Epist. 81. ad Dioscorum as also by S. Chrysost. in hunc locum S. Iames in like manner is recorded not only by Anacletus Epist. 2. but by Clemens Alexandrinus Eusebius lib. 2. hist. cap. 1. and by S. Hierome de Viris Illustribus in Iacobo to haue beene made Bishop by S. Peter 116. The third
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
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
learnedly by a distinction for that as he saith the selfe same Tyrant may be killed and not killed by a priuate man in regard of publicke or priuate iniuries 43. But this euasion is ouerthrowne by the words whole discourse of Doctor Boucher now alledged for that he speaketh not only against killing a TyraÌ„t for priuate iniuries by a priuate man but also in publicke iniuries for so doth shew his allegation of the Decree of the Councell of Constance that condemned as an errour in faith to hold with Iohn VVickcliffe that euery Tyrant may be slayne meritoriously by any vassall or subiect of his by open or secret treasons which is vnderstood as well for publicke as priuate iniuries 44. But it is graunted by D. Boucher saith M. Morton that when the common wealth hath condemned and declared any Tyrant for a publick enemy he may be slaine by a priuate man Wherto I answere that then he is no priuate man for that he doth it by a publike authority of the Common Wealth as doth the exâ—cutioner that cutteth of a Noble mans head by order and authority of the publicke Magistrate so as in this M Morâ—ons distinction seâ—ueth him to no purpose for that neither for priuate or publicke iniuries can a priuate man as a priuate man that is to say by priuate authoritie kill any Prince though he were a Tyrant for any cause either priuate or publicke whatsoeuer So as in this principall charge M. Morton remaineth wholy conuicted as you see 45. There do rest the two other wings of falshod obiected vnto him the first that he stroke out the wordes of most importance froÌ„ D. Bouchers discourse which made the matter cleare to wit quem hostem Respublica iudicauerit whome the Common-wealth hath adiudged for a publicke enemie him may a priuate man kill and the second that he addeth the other clause of his owne that are not found in Bouchers wordes VVhich I say by common consent The first of these two falshoods he would excuse by saying that albeit that D. Boucher in the place before alleadged out of his third booke doth set downe this position with the foresaid restriction priuato etiam cuiuis Tyrannum quem hostem Respub iudicauerit occidere licitum esse that it is lawfull also to any priuate man to kill a Tyrant whome the Commonwealth hath iudged for a publike enemy for then he doth it not by priuate authority yet that in his fourth booke he hath a whole Chapter to proue that in some vrgent cause the matter may be preuented as when the thing is so notorious instant and perilous as the said publicke iudgement cannot well be expected and may be presumed as graunted especially saith he in poâ—na priuatiua in priuatiue punishment that is to say when subiects in punishmeÌ„t of open and manifest tyranny do withdraw their due respect and obedience by seeking only to defend themselues though not in positiua in positiue punishment of actuall rebellion or warre offensiue But this doth not any way satisfy the falshood obiected in striking out thesâ— wordes in the former booke place where D. Boucher set them downe for declaration of this doctrine that a priuate man was not licenced to kill a Tyrant by his owne priuate authority for when Subiects are forced to vse this way of preuention by armes defensiue before the common-wealth can make publicke declaration in such cause they do it not as priuate men but as the body of the Common-wealth So as considering what heere is in question he must needs be condemned of a nihil dicit if not also of â—alsum dicit 46. And the very like may be said about the second accessory vntruth for adding the wordes which I say by common consent for excuse wherof he runneth to the other Chapters wherin he saith that D. Boucher auoucheth Mirum esse in affirmandâ— consensuÌ„ there is woÌ„derfull coÌ„sent in allowing this doctrine and then in another Chapter that he who denieth this that he sayth is destitute of common sense But these are of other matters and spoken vpon other occasioÌ„s and not annexed to the former sentence of D. Boucher produced and corrupted by M. Morton and consequently they are mere impertinent euasions that do more confirme and establish then any way remoue the fraudes and falshoods obiected against him And so much of this matter which would grow ouer long if we should prosecute the same as M. Mortons manner of answere would inuite vs. THE FOVRTH Charge of falshood pretended to be answered or rather shifted of by M. Morton and cast vpon R. C. §. IIII. AMONG other examples that I alleaged of M. Mortons spirit in dealing vnsincerely by calumniating our Catholicke writers therby to get some shew of aduantage against them and the Catholick cause I produced a place out of M. VVilliam Reynolds his booke de Reipublicae authoritate most notoriously abused and peruerted to make him seeme to abase the authority of Kings and Princes in that very place where M. Reynolds did specially imploy himselfe in aduancing their dignity I shall heere lay forth the fraude you shall iudge what manner of consciences these men haue and whether they defend their cause as a cause of truth or no. This then was my former repreheÌ„sion about his dealing in this point The Charge 48. In his booke of Discouery pag. 8. hauing set downe this false proposition that all Catholick Priests did proâ—esse a prerogatiue oâ— the people over all Princes for prooâ—e therof he cyâ—ed this position of M. Reynoldeâ— in the place aforsaid Rex humanâ— creatura est quia ab hominibus constiâ—uta and englisheth it in this manner a King is but a creature of mans creation where you see first that in the translation he addeth but mans creation of himselfe â—or that the latin hath no such aduersatiue clause as but nor creation but rather the word constitution Secondly these words are not the words of M. Reynolds but only cited by him out of S. Peter and thirdly they are alleaged heere by Thomas Morton to a quitte contrary sense from the whole discourse and meaning of the Author which was to exalt and magnify the Authority of Princes as descending from God and not to debase the same as M. Reynolds is calumniated to say For proofe heerof whosoeuer will looke vpon the booke and place it selfe before mentioned shall fynd that M. Reynolds purpose therin is to proue that albeit earthly Principality power and authority be called by the Apostle humana creatura yet that it is originally from God and by his commandement to be obeied His words are these Hinc enimest c. Hence it is that albeit the Apostle do call all earthly principality a humane creature for that it is placed in certayne men from the beginning by suffrages of the people yet election of Princes doth flow from the law of Nature which God created and from the vse of
heauen but he iâ—stituted not the Authority of Kings immediatly but left to each people to be gouerned by what sort of gouernment they best liked albeit that where that forme of gouernment or any other as of Dukes Common-wealth or the like was once lawfully introduced he commanded due obedience to be performed theruÌ„to So as though we may truly say that Kingly Authority is immediatly but from man yet can we not say that a King is but a creature oâ— mans creation for that this includeth both immediatly and mediatly which is false For that kingly Authority is the creature of God mediatly and originally for that God giueth power to the people to chuse him with commandement to obey him when he is chosen and it is the creature of man immediatly for that by choice of men that dignity is appointed in some CouÌ„tries and not in other which is not so in the Popes and their Authority For though their persons be chosen immediatly by Cardinalls that are men as here M. Morton obiecteth yet is not their office power or authority chosen or appointed by those men as in Kinges but immediatly by God So as this hole will not serue M. Morton to runne out at or to excuse his fraudulent thrusting in of the word but that peruerted the whole sentence of his aduersary 55. And yet is it further to be considered by the Readerâ— that all which heere he hath said for his excuse therin is but vpon a supposition that this sentence in M. Reynolds did tend to the abasing of Kings Authority which suppositioÌ„ being tâ—ueâ—â—aith he it could be no falshood in me to insert the particle â— butâ— which I haue shewed to beâ—alse For that albeit we admit the supposition to be true that M. Reynolds intention was in that place to preferre the Popes authority before the Kings in that it is immediatly from Godâ— and the other mediatly only yet that the sentence of S. Peter could not admit the inserting of the particle but without falshood 56. But now this supposition is not true but false that M. Reynolds pretended that in the place alleaged but the quite contrary as was deliuered in my reprehension and M. Morton hauing seene the place before the making of this his last Reply therupon made his protestation which you heard saying God knoweth that I lye not but receiued it from suggestion of R. Câ— yet this notwithstanding he maketh all his defence out of a supposed presumption saying If it be true sayth he then it could be no falshood in me but now being proued and graunted not to be true it must needes follow that it was a falshood in him And this is the substantiall manner of clearing himselfe 57. Lastly he frameth to himselfe an obiection seeketh to intertaine time by answering the same to no purpose in the world for thus he saith I know that P. R. may possibly insist that he cited the text oâ— S. Peter 1. Pet. 2. who calleth a King or Gouernor constituted by man humanam creaturam a humane creature and then how could those wordes be reprehensible in M. Reynolds which are warrantable by S. Peter This is his obiection which indeed hath no solution for that the wordes being taken out of S. Peter and vsed by M. Reynolds in S. Peters sense and to â—he same end that S. Peter did as heere â—s both proued and confessed thâ—y can haue no reprehension except we will reprehend the Apostle himselfe and consequently they were absurdly brought in by M. Morton against M. Reynolds as picking a quartâ—ll where none was 58. But to this M. Morton answereth that the selfe same sentence may be vsed by diuers in seuerall senses laudably in the one and reprehensibly in the other as haile Maister was to Christ by the Disciples and by the Pharisies and thou art the Sonne of God by S. Peter and by the Diuell so it might haue bene presumed saith M. Morton that M. Reynolds vsed S. Peters wordes but not in S. Peters sense And let the Reader obserue that he saith that it might haue beâ—ne presumed to wit when R. C. did falsely suggest it so but now that M. Morton hath seene and read the place both in my reprehension heere set downe in M. Reynolds himselfe and hath found that he vsed this place in the very sense of S. Peter for exalting the Kings authoritie yea in the sense of M. Morton here set downe saying Let euery Christian learne that that Gouernour whome S. Peter calleth a creature of man S. Paul calleth the Ordinance of God If this I say be so how can M. Morton excuse himselfe from a grosse malicious falshood in that he obiected this sentence in his Discouery against M. Reynolds as though therby he had debased Princes Authority Heare I pray yow his last shift Though not the place alleaged saith he yet the scope of M. Reynolds whole booke doth conuince him of rebellious doctrine as will more plainly appeare in the EncouÌ„ter Marke now whither he is fled He confesseth that in the place alleadged by M. Reynolds wherabout only standeth our controuersy his driâ—t was not to debase but exalt Princes Authority and consequently he must graunt that he abused him in that crimination But he saith that the scope of his Booke is otherwise which he deferreth to proue vntill he make his larger Encounter which I suppose will require a large tyme and in the meane space we haue both by our euiction and his owne confession that he beâ—ied M. Reinolds in this accusation and fraudulently also put in the particle but to make it seeme more heynous and odious especially to his Maiestie whome both he R. C. purposed to incense by this their false coÌ„spiracy against vs and our whole cause vsing such inuentions of their owne for our assertions then which manner of proceeding nothing can be more malicious or wicked And it being once discouered to his Maiesâ—y by so authenticall witnesses as are the confessions of these two Ministers so coÌ„byned togeather may iustly moue his Maiesty not so â—asely to belieue hereafter what is presented by such people vnto him And now to the sequent imputation for this is not only not put of but confessed and confirmed as you haue seene THE FIFTH Imputation of lying pretended to be answered by M. Morton or rather by M. Stocke for him §. V. NEXT vnto this M. Mort. culleth out of my book some dozen pages after the former an imputation of false dealing about certaine places cited out of the Canon law My reprehension of his said false dealing is set downe in these wordes But will you heare a case or two more out of the CanoÌ„ law how dextrous Syr Thomas is in corrupting that which he loueth not nor seemeth well to vnderstand You may read in the fourth page of his pamphlet an ancient decree for so he calleth it alleaged by him out of Gratian in
heare a more graue and grieuous charge made against him for worse abusing of the same Carerius Thus it lyeth in my booke 49. The next sentence quoth I or obiection after the former preface which is the very first of his discourse is framed by him but yet in our name vnder the title of the Roman pretence in these words The high Priests in the old â—estament sayth he were supreme in ciuill Causes Ergo they ought to be so also in the new For which he câ—teth one Carerius a Lawyer that wrote of late in Padua de potestate Romani Ponâ—ificis defending the former opinion of Canonists for direct dominion and citeth his words in Latyn thus Dico Pontificem in veteri Testamento suisse Rege maiorem and Englisheth the same as before you haue heard That the high Priest was supreme in Ciuill causes which words of Ciuill causes he puâ—teth in of his owne and if you marke them do marre the whole market For that Carerius hath them not either in words or sense but teacheth the plaine coÌ„trary in all his discourse to wit that he meaneth in matters appertayning to Religion and Priesthood not of temporall Principality which temporall principality this Author granteth to haue byn greater in the old Testament in dealing with Ecclesiasticall men and matters then in the new and to that effect is he cited presently after by the Mynister himselfe contrary to that which here he feigneth him to say But let vs heare the words of Carerius Tertiò dico saith he etiam in Testamento veteâ—i fuisse Pontiâ—icâ—m Rege maiorem quod quidem probatur c. Thirdly I say that the high Prieâ—t was greater aâ—so in the old Testament then the King which is proued first out of the 27. Chapter of Numbers where it is appointed by God that Iosue and all the people should be directed by the word of the high Priest Eleazar saying WheÌ„ any thing is to be done let Eleazar the high Priest coÌ„sult with God at his word aswell Iosue as all the Children of Israell and whole multitude shall go forth and come in c. And secondly the same is proued out of the fourth of Leuiticus where foure kind of Sacrifices being ordayned according to the dignity of the persons the first two are of a Calse for the high Priest and Common wealth the third and fourth of a hee and shee-goat for the Prince and priuate persons Wherby Carerius inferreth a most certaine dignitie and preheminence of the Priestes state aboue the temporall Prince though he say not in Ciuil causes as this Mynister doth bely him 50. And whereas Carerius had sayd in two former answers first that in the old Testament Ecclesiasticall and secular iurisdiction were not so distinct but that both might be in some Cases in the King secoÌ„dly that in the law the new spirituall power was more emyneÌ„t theÌ„ in the old he coÌ„meth thirdly to say that in the old law the high Priest in some respects was greater also then the King which cannot be vnderstood of Ciuill â—ower except the Author wil be contrary to himselfe And therâ—ore that clause was very â—alsely perfidiously thrust in by the Mynister this with so much the lesse shame â—or that in the end of the same Capter he citeth the same Author to thâ— plaine coÌ„trary seÌ„se saying In veteri lege RegnuÌ„ erat subsâ—antiâ—um Sacerdoâ—iuÌ„ adiectiuuÌ„ c. That in the old Law the Kingdome was the substaÌ„tiue that stood of it selfe and Priesthood was the adiectiue that leaned theron but contrarywise in the new law Priesthood and spirituall iurisdiction is the substantiue or principall in gouernment and temporall principality is the adiectiue depending therof for direction and assistance the one both by nature and Gods law being subordinate to the other to wit the temporall to the spirituall And thus much concerning this guyle by flat falshood Now to a tricke or two of other sortes of shifting by him vsed for deluding the Reader 51. This was my reprehension and complaint then and if M. Morton had dealt really he would rather haue thought how to haue answered somewhat to this substantiall imputation then to haue trifâ—ed so often with the other of verò verè out of the same Author but that he had some shadow how to shift of that by a shew of a later erroneous print of Cullen but none at all for this THE ELEVENTH Falshood dissembled by Thomas Morton §. XI AFTER the Paduan Doctor of law Carerius followeth the famous Religious Doctor of the Order of S. Dominicke named Franciscus de Victoria whome in like manner he doth egregiously abuse as by my former complaint may appeare which I deliuered in these words 53. It followeth in the 16. page thus Your deuise sayth M. Morton of exemption of Priests from the â—urisdiction of temporall Princes in certaine Cases is too crude to be disgested by any reasonable Deuine for as â—our Victoria sayth Priests besides that they are Mynisters of the Church they are likewise members of the Common wealth a King is aswell King of the Clergy as of the Laity therfore the Clergie is subiect to the Ciuill authority in tâ—mporall things for such matter is not ruled by any power spirituall A plaine demonstratioÌ„ So he And I say the same that indeed it is a plaine demonstration of M. Mortons egregious falshood and abusing his Reader First in making him belieue that the learned man Franciscus de Victoria doth fauour him or his in this matter of exemption of Priests whereas in this very place heere cyted by T.M. his first propositioÌ„ of all in this matter is this Ecclesiastici iure sunt exempti c. I do affirme that Ecclesiasticall men are by law exempted and frâ—ed from Ciuill power so as they may not be conuented before a secular Iudge either in criminall or Ciuill causes and the contrary doctrine to this is condemned for hereticall among the articles of Iohn Wickliffe in the Councell of Constance So he And now see whether Victoria make for him or no or whether he disgested well this crude doctrine of Priesâ—es exemptioÌ„ as this Mynisters phrase is 54. Secondly if we consider either the English translation heere set downe out of the words of Victoria or his Latin text for ostentation sake put in the margent by M. Morton we shall find so many monstrous foule corruptions intercisions geldings and mutilations as is a shame to behold and I beseech the learned Reader to haue patience to conferre but this one place only with the Author he will rest instructed in the mans spirit for the reâ—t but he must find them as I haue now cited them heere in the margent and not as T. M. erroneously quoteth them if not of purpose to escape the examine For that Victoria hauing set downe his precedent generall proposition for the exemption of Clergy
men that they were exempted Iure by law he passâ—th on to examine in his second proposition Quo iure by what law Diuine or humane they are exempted And in his third he holdeth that aliqua exemptio Clericorum â—st de iure diuino that some kind of exemptions of Clergy men from Ciuill power is by diuine law and not humane only and fourthly he commeth to this which here is set downe by T.M. but not as he setteth it downe Our â—ourth proposition saith Victoria is that the persons of Clergy men are not absolutely and in all things exempted from Ciuill power â—ither by Diuine or humane law which is euident by that cleargy men are bound to obey the temporall lawes of the Citty or Common wealth wherin they liue in those things that do appertaine to the temporall gouerment and administration therof and do not let or hindâ—r Ecclesiasticall gouerment 55. These are the words of Victoria as they lye togeather in him and then after some arguments interposed for his sayd conclusion he addeth also this proofe That â—or so much as Clergy men besides this that they are Mynisters of the Church are Cittizens also of the common wealth they are bound to obey the temporall lawes of that Common wealth or Prince in temporall affaires and then ensueth the last reason here set downe in English by T. M. in thâ—se words Moreouer sayth Victoria for that a King is King not only of Laymen but of Clergy men also therefore aliquo modo subiâ—ciuntur ei in some sort they are subiect vnto him Which words aliquo modo in some sort the Mynister leaueth out And is this plaine dealing And theÌ„ it followeth imediatly in Victoria And â—or that Clâ—rgie men are not gouerned in temporall matters by Ecclesiasticall power thereâ—ore they haue their temporall Prince vnto whom they are bound to yield obedience in teÌ„porall affaires And this is all that Victoria hath in this matter and in â—hese very words And let any man consider the patching which T. M. vseth both in English and Latin in this place to make some shew for his feygned demonstration out of Victoria and he will see how poore and miserable a man he is and how miserable a cause he defendeth And in particuler let the very last proposition be noted which he cyteth and Englisheth as out of victoria to wit the Clergy is subiect to thâ— Ciuill authority inteÌ„porall things â—or such matter is not ruled by any power spirituall wherby he would haue his Reader to imagine that no spirituall power may haue authority to gouerne temporall matters whereas the words of Victoria are Clerici quantum ad temporalia non administrantur potestate Ecclesiastica that Clergy men â—or so much as apperteineth to temporall affaires are not gouerned by Ecclesiasticall power but by the temporall which there beareth rule So as this fellow by a subtile sleight changing the nominatiue Case from Clerici non administrantur to temporalia non administrantur frameth his plaine Demonstration out of plaine cosenage and forgerie And is this naked innocency c Thus farre I had in my former Treatise And heere you see I was earnest inough in vrging pressing for an answere if it might haue byn had but none came at all but other trifling toyes in steed therof and that in great store as our former discourses haue declared and yet we must go forward to recount moreâ— THE TWELFE falshood pretermitted by Thomas Morton §. XII VVE shall passe from priuate Doctors to an Archbishop and Martyr of our owne Countrey S. Boniface whome M. Morton seemeth to make a Pope also for that his speach is alleadged in one of the Popes Constitutions My former charge against M. Morton about that matter was this that ensueth 57. Now sayd I to the second wherin he sayth that one of our Popes placed also in the Calends of our Martyrs doth affirme that though a Pope should carrie many people with himselfe to hell no mortall man may presume to say why do you so I do greatly maruaile with what conscience or if not conscience with what forehead at least these men can write and print and reiterate so often in their bookes things that they know or may know to be meerly faâ—se and forge Is not this a signe of obstinate wilfulnes and that neither God nor truth is sought for by them but only to mainteine a part or faction with what sleight or falshood so euer I fynd this very obiection set forth in print not many yeares agone by Syr Francis Hastings in his Watchword and Defence therof and the same auouched stoutly after him for a tyme by Matthew Sutclisse the Mynister Aduocate and Proctour of that Deâ—ence but afterward I find the same so confuted at large by the VVarn-word and so many lies falshoods and euident frauds discouered therin as the said M. Sutclisse in his Replie intituled A full round answâ—re though good roundly to let it passe without any answere at all which I can find in his said booke though I haue vsed some diligence in search therof which I do adde for that he changeth the whole order of answering from the method of his Aduersary to the end not to be found and so answereth nothing in order or place as it is set downed by him whom he preteÌ„deth to answere but rather taking a new vast and wild discourse to himself snatcheth here a word and there a word to carp at not as they lye in his Aduersaries booke but as it pleaseth him to admit them now from the end of the booke then from the beginning then from the myddle And with this substantiall method he taketh vpon him to answere all books that come in his way for so he hath answered of late the booke also of Three Conuersions of England and may do easely all that is written by Catholicks if carping only and scolding be answering 58. Wherfore to this instance here resumed by T. M. though I must remit him or rather the Reader for larger satisfactioÌ„ to the said Catholick Treatise intituled The VVarnwoord yet here briefly I am to tell him first that he erreth grossely in affirming in this place the Author of this Canon cited by him Si Papa to haue byn a Pope for that the said Canon was gathered by Gratian out of the sayings of S. Boniface Martyr as in the title of the sayd Canon is expressed which Boniface was neuer Pope but a vertuous learned English-man that liued aboue 850. yeares agone and was the first Archbishop of Mentz or Moguntia in Germany of which people Countrey he is called by all ancient writers the Apostle for that he first publikely conuerted that NatioÌ„ erected that primate Sea and suffred glorious Martyrdome by the Gentills for the faith of Christ. Wherfore the scoffe of T.M. calling him our Pope placed in the Calends of our Martyrs besides the ignoraÌ„ce tasteth also of much profane malice and
partes the first wherin he sheweth how Iohn Caluin most wickedly maliciously vnder pretence of interpreting the Scripture in differeÌ„t sense from the ancient Fathers did go about couertly to weaken infringe or take from the Christiâ—ns all the strongâ—st arguments which they had or haue out of the Scriptures for the Godhead of Christ and his equality and consubstantiality with the Father c. And in the second part of his booke Doctor Hunnius sheweth that the said Caluin vseth the same fraud and malice by ouerthrowing all the predictions fortellings of Prophets about Christ is he was man 11. Thus far I wrote at that time and then produced somewhat largely and particulerly 18. examples partly out of the old and partly out of the new Testament maliciously peruerted by him in fauour of Iewes and Arrians against the truth and certainty of Christian Religion leauing out 20. more which Doctor Hunnius doth handle and in the end concludeth thus Quapropter vt receptui canam detectuÌ„ satis superque iudico Angelum illum tenebrarum Ioannem Caluinum qui ex abyssi puteo emergens c. VVherfore that I may now saith he retire my selfe I do iudge that Angell of darknes Iohn Caluin to be sufficiently and more then sufficiently discouered who being raysed from the pit of hell to the peruerting of mankind hath partly by his detestable desire of wresting Scriptures ouerthrowing the bulwarkes of ChristiaÌ„ Religion which it hath against Iewes and Arians partly also by his impious pen against the holy and sacred Maiestie of Iesus Nazarenus now exalted in heauen partly also by his peruerse doctrine of the Sacraments and horrible monstrous paradoxes of his absolute predestination hath obscured in these our later dayes no small part of the light and sunne of Gods truth and drawne with him a great number of starres as the Apocalyps saith headlong into hell from whom God euerlasting by his mercy signe protect his seruants least they may be inâ—ected with this most pestilent plague oâ— Caluinian errour conuert those that are infected vnto Iesus Christ the Pastour of their soules to the end they perish not in their error but be saued euerlasting with those that faithfully do loue God And this I had to warne the Church of Christ of the most wicked deceipts of Iohn Caluin 12. Hitherto are the wordes of Doctour Egidius Hunnius which you see with what vehemency of spirit and protestation he vttereth them against the heresies of Caluin and Caluinists so as they may easely be seene to come from his hart full determination of his setled iudgemeÌ„t who being so principall a Protestant and learned Doctour and Professour of Deuinity held for a brother of the selfe same Church by which M. Morton meaneth to be saued if he haue any such meaning I meruaile what impression it maketh in him or whether it maketh any thing at all which I should haue beene glad to haue vnderstood by a word or two of his answere but nothing commeth from him and so this debt must be laid vp with the rest vntill the day of payment come which when it may be or how much or what he will be able to pay yea though he deâ—erre it vntill doomesday is a matter easily to be coniectured by such as caÌ„ cast vp accompts looke into debtors abilityes or possibilityes for their discharge But yet one thing is cleare without any answere of his I would haue it noted by the reader that all his inuectiues to his Maiesty against vs for calling and holding them as heretiks out of the foâ—said definition of S. Augustâ—n other Fathers do fall to the ground as vayne friuolous for so much as so principall men of their own brotherhood do affirme the same as now you haue heard And thus much about the first head or questioÌ„ whether the Protestant Religion of Englaâ—d so fâ—r forth at leastwise as it followeth the doctrine of Caluin be truly accompted heresy or no And consequeÌ„tly damnable to the holders thereof 13. Two other great heads of coÌ„trouersy there were betweene vs in this first part of my forsaid Treatise about Rebellion the first whether the doctrine of Catholicks or of Protestants did more fauour obedience vnto their temporall princes secondly which part did most practize the same And about the first for Catholicke doctrine it is largely proued by me throughout the whole first part of my Treatise that it is exact in all respects for obliging men to do all due obedieÌ„ce both vnto temporall spirituall superiours not only when they are good and vertuous but also disâ—â—lis that is bad fastidious as the Apostles word is that we must obey theÌ„ out of conscience as Ministers of God froÌ„ whom they haue their authority power And when the exorbitaÌ„t defects of any Prince or gouernor shall impose necessity of redresse or restraint it may not be by priuate Authority or popular mutiny but by order iudgmeÌ„t publike authority Wheras on the other side the ProtestaÌ„t doctrine is shewed out of their owne words writers authors to teach the quite coÌ„trary which authors I do cite as namely Caluin Beza HottomaÌ„ others in France by the testimonyes of Launay Belforest other French writers in England Scotland Goodman Gilby VVhittingham Knox Buchanan others by the testimonies of their owne writings stories of the Archbishâ— of Canterbury out of his first Booke Of dangerous positions of D. Sutcliffe in his Suruey oâ— preteÌ„ded discipline against the PuritaÌ„s that is the most zealous sort oâ— Caluinists all which haue set downe their resolute opinioÌ„s that it is lawfull when the Prince offereth iniuries or becometh as they call it a Tyrant especially in matters of ReligioÌ„ they hold it lawfull I say by their Deuinity for the Nobility or people or priuate men as they haue or may haâ—e coÌ„modity to do it to make reuenge either vpoÌ„ his person or otherwise yea by death it selfe 14. And as for the second point which is the practise of this doctrine I do shew such a notorious difference betwene Catholicke Protestant people out of the experieÌ„ce of this our preseÌ„t age as nothing can be more conuincing out of publike histories mens memory yeâ— aliue that there hath byn more violence offered by the Protestant people subiects to their lawfull true Princes by armes actions coÌ„spiracies rebellions other forcible means within the compasse of almost one halfe age in the Northern pâ—rts of the world to wit Germanie France Flanders England Scotland Denmarke Sweueland Polonia and other partes then was pracâ—ised or heard of in a thousâ—nd yeares before throughout all the Christian worâ—d Wherin for that his Maiestie of England that now is vnto whom my Aduersary presumed to dedicate his booke can be the best and most honorable aâ—d authenticall testimony of any Prince perhaps lâ—â—â—â—g in regard
either in the one or the other point is not proued by any one of all these examples nor by them altogeather though they were granted to be true as here they lye For that they do not proue that either our Kings here mentioned did assume to theÌ„selues to haue Supreme authority in spirituall affaires or to take it from the Pope nay the Catholike Deuine in answering to Syr Edwards obiections herein doth euidently shew and proue yea conuinceth that these fiue English Kings here mentioned to wit King Edward the first Edward the third Richard the second Henry the fourth Edward the fourth vnder whom these Cases fell out did all of them most effectually acknowledge the Popes supreme authority in Ecclesiasticall matters and were obedient Children to the same as he shewed by sundry most cleare and apparant examples of their owne actioÌ„s towards the Sea Apostolike and that these particuler Cases supposing they were all true and fell out as heere they are set downe to wit that the publishing of a Bull of Excommunication in some Causes and vnder some King might be held for Treason as also that the Archbishops lands might be seysed vpon for refusing to admit the Kings presented Clerke that in Parlament it was said that the Regality of the Crowne of England depended not of Rome and that in certaine Cases no suites might be made thither without recourse first to the Ordinaries of England 72. Albeit I say that these things were all granted as they lie yet do they not inferre by any true coÌ„sequence that which the Knight and Minister should proue to wit that for this either these kings were or held themselues for supreme in spirituall authority at that tyme or that it was denied vnto the Pope Wherof this one is a most conuincent argument that the like Cases do or may fall out at this day in other Catholicke Countries and Kingdomâ—s as in France Spaine Naples and Sicily where â—here be diuers Concordates resâ—rictions limitations agreed vpon for auoyding further inconuenieÌ„ces betweene the Pope and Catholicke Kings and Princes concerning the manner of execution of Ecclesiasticall authority without any derogation to the Supremacy therof in the Pope And so might men be punished by the said Princes for breaking rashly the said agreements as they may and are dayly in the said Kingdomes especially in the last and yet do not these Kings thereby either deny the Popes supreme authority or take it to themselues as M. Attorney M. Morton do falsely ininferre in these our cases And thus it is manifest that albeit these exaÌ„ples were in all râ—spects truly alleaged yet are they impertinent to proue that which is pretended And this for the first point 73. But neither is it all true that heere is set down nor as it is set downe which is the second point to be considered For which cause though I find these fyue Cases sufficiently answered by the Catholicke Deuine in his late Booke against M. Attorney yâ—t for tâ—at the said Knight in his last Preface to the sixt part of his Reports doth say that he fyndeth him vtterly ignorant in the lawes of the Realme though as a Deuine he made no profession to be skilfull in the same yet shall I adde somewhat to the reuiew of these Cases whereby it may appeare at leastwise whether he to wit the Deuine or M. Attorney or M. Morton haue vsed the skill of their professions with more sincerity in this matter 74. The first Case thâ—n is thus set downe by M. Morton out of the Attorneys booke though not altogether as it lyeth in his booke but with some aduantage as the Attorney did out of his Bookes whereof he tooke his Case So as here is helping the dye on all haÌ„ds as you see In the Raigne of King Edward the first saith M. Morton a Subiect brought in a Bull of excommunicatiâ— against another Subiect of this Realme and published it But it was answered that this was then according to the ancient lawes of England treason c. as before is set downe 75. Wherein I must note first before I come to examine the answere already made that M. MortoÌ„ can not choose as it seemeth but to vse a tricke or two of his art of iugling euen with M. Attorney himself For whereas he relateth to with the Attorney that this Bull of excommunication was published to the Treasurer of England M. Morton clyppeth of all meÌ„tion of the Treasurer which notwithstaÌ„ding in this Case is of great moment for so much as it semeth that if he had published the same to the Archbishop or Bishops appointed to haue the view of such things and had brought their authenticall testimonies for the same it seemeth by the very booke it self of Iustice Thorpe who recounteth this Case by occasion of the Case of Syr Thomas Seaton and Lucy 30. E. 3. that it had byn litle or no peril at all vnto the publisher for that this reason is alleaged for the offence therein committed that for so much as the partie to wit Lucie against Syr Thomas Seaton did not shew any writ of excommunication or any other thing sealed by the Archbishop of England nor any other Seale that was authentike prouing this therfore the Bull was not allowed c. 76. This then was a fine tricke to cut of all mentioÌ„ of the Treasurer the other also immediatly following hath some subtilitie in it though not so much as the former to wit that it was answered that this was Treason c. for that in none of the bookes cited either of Thorpe or Brooke is any mention of such answere giuen as M. Morton feygneth nor any such iudgment of Treason passed theron as M. Attorney would make his Reader belieue as preseÌ„tly shall be proued So as these are the first two trickes of M. Morton to helpe his dye all the rest for the substance of the matter is like to fall vpon M. Attorney 77. First then the Answere of the Deuine vnto this Case not hauing commoditie at that time to see the two bookes of Thorpe and Brooke cyted in the margent was that it could not possibly be imagined by reason that the Case stood altogeather as M. Attorney did set it downe espâ—cially with this note in the margeÌ„t that the bringing in of a Bull against a subiect was Treason by the ancient coÌ„mon lawes of England before any Statute law was made therof for that the Deuine demandeth what this Common law was not made by Statute How was it made By whome Where At what time Vpon what occasion How introduced and commonly receiued for all this a Common law supposeth especially for so much as the said Deuine had shewed and aboundantly proued now that all precedent Kings of England both before and after the Conquest were most Catholicke in this very point of acknowledging the Popes supreme and vniuersall authority in spirituall affaires wherof the power
am content to stand heerin not only to any Iudge that sitteth vpon any of his Maiesties Benches at this day but euen to Syr Edward himselfe with condition only that he will be content with patience to heare my reasons which are these that ensue 4. First a Iudgment of Nihil dicit cannot proceed as I suppose but vpon one of these two causes that â—yther the party sayth nothing at all as when one standing at the barre to answere for his life will for sauing of his goods and lands vtterly hold his peace or when he speaketh his speach is nothing to the purpose But neyther of these causes can be iustly alleaged in our case Not the first for that the Catholicke Deuines printed Answere is large and conteyneth as I haue said aboue 400. pages in quarto Not the second as now shall euidently be declared ergo no iudgment could passe in iustice vpon a Nihil dicit in behalfe of Syr Edward against the sayd Deuine 5. Now then let vs come to demonstrate that the Catholicke Diuine did speake to the purpose in deed for better vnderstanding wherof we must recall to memory the true state of the question and what Syr Edward Cooke then Attorney vpon his offer and obligation was to proue to wit that Queene Elizabeth by the right of her temporall Crowne had supreme spirituall Ecclesiasticall authority ouer all her subiects in Ecclesiasticall affayrs as largely as euer any persoÌ„ had or could haue in that Realme and this by the common lawes of England before any Statute law was made in that behalfe For proofe wherof the sayd Attorney pretended to lay forth a great number of cases examples and authorityes out of his law-bookes which he said should proue the ancient practice of this authority in Christian English Kings both before and since the Conquest which being his purpose whatsoeuer his aduersary the Catholicke Deuine doth alleage substantially to ouerthrow this his assertion and to proue that Q. Elizabeth neyther had nor could haue this spirituall Authority though she had beene a man neither that any of her ancestours Kings and Queenes of EnglaÌ„d did euer pretend or practice the like authority this I say caÌ„not be iudged to be froÌ„ the purpose much lesse a Nihil dicit Let vs examine then the particulers 6. The Catholicke Deuine at his first entrance for procuring more attention in this great and weighty controuersy betweene M. Attorney and him about the Spirituall power and authority ouer soules in the moderne English Church doth auerre the question to be of such moment as that the determination of all other controuersies dependeth therof For that whersoeuer true â—pirituall authority and iurisdiction is found there must needs be the true Church to whom it appertaineth to determine of the truth of the doctrine taught therin or in any other false Church or coÌ„gregatioÌ„ for approuing the one condemning the other Wherof coÌ„sequently also depeÌ„deth euerlasting saluatioÌ„ or condeÌ„natioÌ„ of all those that belieue or not belieue those doctrines 7. He sheweth further that the life spirit essence of the true Church in this world consisteth in this true iurisdiction of gouerning and directing soules by preaching teaching bynding and absoluing from synne administring true Sacraments and the lyke And that where this true power Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction is not lawfully fouÌ„d but eyther none at all or violently assumed there wanteth this vitall spirit Neyther is it any Church at all but a Synagogue rather of Sathan and therfore that the firâ—t and chiefe care of euery Christian ought to be for sauing of his soule eâ—pecially in tymes of strife contentions and heresyes as are these of ours to study well this point and to informe himselfe diligently therin for if he fynd this he fyndeth all and iâ— he misse in this he misseth in all Nor is it possible for him to be saued 8. Moreouer he declareth that as in England at this day there be three different professioâ—s of religion the Protesâ—ant the Puritan and the Catholicke all three clayming this true and vitall power oâ— Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction to be in their Congregations so do they deriue the same from three different heads and fountaynes immediatly though all pretend that mediatly at leastwise it commeth from God The Protâ—stants taking it from the Temporall Princes authority giuen him from God by right of his Crowne as here is taught by M. Attorney The Puritans from the people gathered togeather in their congregation The Catholicks from their Bishops and Prelats descending by continuall succession from the Apostles to whome they belieue that Christ first gaue heauenly power and iurisdiction for gouerning of soules and especially to the cheefe Bishop Successor to S. Peter and not vnto temporall Princes or to lay people or popular Congregations made by themselues who cannot properly be called Successours of the Apostles and this difference as it is maniâ—est and euident so is it of such weight as it maketh these three sortes of men and their Congregations or Churches irreconciliable for that which soeuer of these three partes hath this true iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall hath therby the truâ— Church as hath beene said maketh the other two to be no Churches at all but rather prophane and Diabolicall Sâ—nagogues and such as haue neyther true Prelats nor Prelacy nor true preaching nor teaching nor SacrameÌ„ts nor absolutioÌ„ of sinnes nor any one act or thing oâ— a Christian Church in them And that the tryall of all this dependeth of the discussion of this controuersie betweene M. Attorney and him All this hath the Deuine in his first entrance And did he not herin speake to the purpose or can this be condemned for a Nihil diâ—it 9. Aâ—ter this for better vnderstaÌ„ding of the whole controuersie the Deuine layeth downe at large the ground beginning and origen of all lawfull power and iurisdiction of men ouer men both spirituall and temporall in this world shewing how both of them are from God though differently the spirituall being instituted immediatly by him and deliuered to the Apoâ—â—les and their Successours but the temporall mediatly that is to say giuen first to the Common wealth to choose what forme of gouernment they list and by mediation of that election giuing to temporall Princes supreme Authority in all temporall affaires 10. Then he â—heweth the different ends and obiects of these powers the end of spirituall power being to direct vs to euerlasting saluation both by instruction discipline direction and correction of the temporall or ciuill power by lyke meanes and helpes to gouerne well the Common wealâ—h in peace aboundance order iustice and prosperity And according to thâ—se ends are also their obiects matter meanes As for exaÌ„ple the former hath for her obiect spirituall things belonging to the soule as matters of sayth doctrine Sacraments such other and the later handleth the Ciuill affayres of the Realme and Common wealth as they
lâ—wes as Fox testifyeth it was made a law That publike â—ayres and markets should not be holden vpon Sundayes Item That euery wife that shall during her husbands liâ—e commit adulterie shall haue her nose and eares cut of Item That if a wyddow marrie within a yeare aâ—ter her husbands death shee shall leese her ioynture Item That whosoeuer hauing touched tâ—e holy Bible haue for sworne himselfe should leese his hand except he had redeemed the same at the Iudgment of the Bishop And the like seuerity was to be vsed vpon vniust Iudges that by corruption gaue wrong senteÌ„ces And this by the Danish lawes But vnder King Edward the Confessour that reuiewed ouer all the former lawes againe both of Saxons and Danes retayning such as liked him and excluding the rest diuers others of his owne were made which Polidore sayth were called Leges communes the Common Lawes which importeth farre lesse antiquity then M. Attorney auoucheth among which this was one That Vsurers should leese all their goodes and besydes be cast into banishment as being plagues of the people which rigour is not now vsed and perhaps may not be by our moderne CoÌ„mon lawes as neyther the other before mentioned of cutting of the wiues nose and eares that is an adulteresse which perhaps would make many a pittifull and foule sight in our Countrey So then these and many other such lawes which were generally receaued in our Iland before the Conquest are not at all now in vse as all men will confesse and therby it euidently followeth that there hath byn change and alteration of lawes in our Realme and that our Common Lawes at this day are not so excessiuely ancient entire and excellent as Syr Edward Cooke would haue vs thinke and belieue that they are 53. Concerning which excellency next after antiquity and integrity we must now adde a word or two more for that notwithstanding all that Polidore Ingulâ—us and Iohn Fox haue said before of the iniquity of such lawes as were promulgated by the Conquerour against rathâ—r then for the English Syr Edward heere with his fellow Iustice as yow haue heard sayth that without all doubt they are absolutly the best of all other nations Wherunto the Catholicke Deuine answered before that as he would not discommend his Countrey lawes nor diminish any part of that praise which is due vnto them if they be well and rightly executed so on the other side the malice and infirmity of men considered they seeme to learned straÌ„gers to diuers also of our own Countrey not to haue such excelleÌ„cy in them but in diuers pointes to be defectuous to leaue the subiect open to many iniuries oppressions ruines and other inconueniences in sundry cases which are piously prouided for by other lawes 54. As for example among the rest is noted and censured for most strange the manner of iudgment for life and death where no Aduocate nor learned Counsell is allowed the defendant for defence eyther of his honour liuing or life but himselfe only must speake answere for all against the impugnations of many and potent aduersaries that with their authority and counâ—enance bitter wordes threats taunts terrour of speach other like meanâ—s may so oppresse him and put him out of himsâ—lfe as that when it importeth him to say most he can say least and so perish for lacke of iust defence as more largely the Deuine doth prosecute alleaging also many reasons for the same against all which huâ—ts inconueniences other countrey lawes both ciuâ—ll and Municipall do make ample and carâ—full prouision 55. Another defect also in the same matter seemeth vnto strangers to be very great and importable which is that any one of the 12. men who are to go vpon his life may haue such passion against him as he would ouer weary all the rest except they will yeald to his condemnation Wherunto this also being added that if the sayd Iurours do condemne any neuer so wrongfully there is no punishment for it in this life but only before God but if they deliuer him against the inclination of Prince or Courtâ— which is easely to be knowne or coniectured great perill hangeth ouer their heads to be troubled vexed and forced to weare papers for periury This I say considered by learned men that are indifferent in the cause doth make them wonder and thinke that no NatioÌ„ liuing hath more harder lawes in this point nor more vnequall for the subiect then ours 56. The like may be sayd about the dowry of women that do marry which if it be in money goods or Chattels may be spent and consumed by the euill husband against whome she hath no remedy nor security at all which by the Roman Ciuill lawes is most carefully prouided for So as whatsoeuer disorders the euill husband doth commit eyther in speÌ„ding or offending yet is his wiues dowry secure nor can he spend or dilapidate any thing therof but only the rent or annuall Income for what occasions soeuer 57. Another also not vnlike to this is the small prouision by our common lawes for yonger brothers especially of the Gentrie and Nobility who being brought vp during their Fathers life in equall condition with the elder brother are afterward inforced to great inequality yea oftentymes to great misery our common lawes not prouiding for them in the diuident of their Fathers goods nor yet obliging their said elder brother to allow them competent maintenance conforme to their state and birth which other Countreys do 58. The Case also of Pupils seemeth strange to forraine nations that the wardship of them both for education and liuings I meane of such as haue any tenure from the King in Capite should be in the Princes hand without any obligation of yealding accompt for the Rents receaued spent or wasted Nay that their marriage and marriage-money or wyues dowry must appertaine to the Prince and be in his disposition wheras in all other Kingdoms abroad there is singular care had and prouision made by their lawes for Pupills and Pupillage and so doth their case in all equity require as being orphanes and destitute of their Father that should protect them I might touch heere diuers other markable points which foreiners do consider and one not the least that our law doth not seeme to haue sufficiently prouided for the exorbitant liberty and auarice of some of our lawyers for all are not culpable in taking money without lymit and enriching themselues therby more swiftly and excessiuely then any other sort of men whatsoeuer which being ioyned with their authority power to oppresse whom they will they become a terrour euery one in his CouÌ„trey to the best of the Kings subiects so as no man dare to speake or looke against them And truly the particulers that are recounted of exorbitant Fees taken by diuers to purchase as it were their looke without saying any one word for theÌ„ at
of theÌ„ but coÌ„meth in with an impertinent instance that there was a prohibition of Appeales made vnder King Henry the second by Act of Parliament in the tenth yeare of his Raigne whereas yet there was no Parliament in vse nor Statute law was begone vntill the 9. yeare of King Henry the third which was aboue 60. yeares after as appeareth both by the Collection of Iustice Rastall and other Law-bookes 76. I do not deny but that King Henry the second entring into passion against S. Thomas Archb. of Canterbury made a decree at a certayne meeting of the Nobility at Claringdon rather moderating as himselfe pretended then taking away Appeales to Rome not denying that they ought to be made in respect of the Popes supreme authority Ecclesiasticall but for restrayning of abuses in appealing thither without iust cause or necessity especially in temporall affaires he ordeyned that matters should first orderly be handled in England in the Bishops and Archbishops Courtes and if that way they could not be ended they should not be carried to Rome without the Kings assent which declaratioÌ„ of the kings intention is set downe by Roger Houeden out of the Epistle of Gilbert Bishop of London to Pope Alexander the third written by the kings own Commission which not being admitted afterward by the said Pope the king recalled the same with an Oath vnder his owne hand wherof the said Houeden writeth thus Iurauit etiam quòd neque Appellationes impediret neque impediri permitteret quin liberè fierent in Regno suo ad RomanuÌ„ Pontificem in Ecclesiasticis causis He swore also that he would neither let AppellatioÌ„s nor suffer them to be letted but that they might be made in his kingdom to the Bishop of Rome in causes Ecclesiasticall c. 77. All which things could not but be knowne to Syr Edward before he wrote this his Preface and that the Catholicke Deuine in his aÌ„swer to the fifth part of his Reports had produced so many euident arguments and probations that King Henry the 2. was most Catholick in this point in acknowledging the Popes supreme Ecclesiasticall authority notwithstanding the coÌ„tention he had with S. Thomas about the manner of proceding therin for the execution as none of his Ancestours were more which in like manner is euidently seene and confessed in effect by Syr Edward himself in that in his whole discourse of Reportes for improuing the said Popes Supremacy he alleageth not so much as one example or instaÌ„ce out of the raigne of this King which in reasoÌ„ he would not haue pretermitted if he could haue found any thing to the purpose therin 78. But yet now finding himselfe in straytes how to answere the Students demand about the aÌ„tiquitie of prohibiting Appeales to the Sea of Rome he was forced to lay hands on this poore example which was neither to his purpose in regard of the time being after the conquest as now you haue heard nor of the thing it selfe for that it was against him as being only a moderation of abuses yea and that in temporall things as Bishop Gilbert of London expresly aâ—oucheth recalled by the same King afterwardâ— and finally is wholy from the purpose chiefe question about the Popes supreame authority whereof this of Appeals is but one little member only And thus we see both how well and subâ—tantially Syr Edward hath mainteyned his assertion of the supereminent antiquity and excellency of his Municipall lawes and how direct and demonstratiue answers he hath made to the foure Questions or Cases deuised by himselfe for confirmation of the â—ame 79. And whereas he inserteth a note of Record of the decree of Claringdone that this recognition was made by the Bishops Abbots Priors c. of a certaine part of the Customes and liberties of the Predecessours of the king to wit oâ— King Henry the first his Grandfather and of other Kings which ought to be obserued in the kingdome wherby it semeth the Knight would haue vs imagine though he vtter it not that the same prohibition of Appeales might haue byn made and practized by other former Kings liuing before the Conquest it is found to be but a meere Cauill both by the Catholicke Deuine that shewed out of authenticall histories the coÌ„trary practise vnder all our Catholicke Kinges both before after the Conquest as here likewise it is conuinced by the words and confession of this King Hâ—Ì„ry the second himself that these pretended liberties of his Ancestours were brought in by himself only and in his tyme as is testifyed by Houeden in two seuerall Charters one of the Pope and the other of the King as also by an authenticall Record of the Vatican set downe by Baronius in his tweluth Tome So as here the Iudge hath nothing to lay hands on but to giue sentence against himself both of the Nimium and Nihil dicit as now yow haue seene And so much for this matter HOW THAT THE foresaid Nimium dicit as it importeth falsum dicit is notoriously incurred by Syr Edward Cooke in sundry other assertions also apperteyning to his owne faculty of the law which were pretermitted by the Catholike Deuine in his Answere to the 5. Part of Reportes §. V. FOR so much as the most part of this seauenth Chapter hath beene of omissions and pretermissions as you haue seene and these partly oâ— M. Morton in concealing such charges of vntruthes as had byn laid both against him as also against his Client Syr Edward partly of Syr Ed. himself in not answering for himself when he ought to haue done I thought it not amisse in this place to adioyne some other omissions in like manner on the behalfe of the Catholike Deuine who passed ouer in silence sundry notable escapes of his aduersary M. Attorney which he coÌ„mitted in cyting law-books and lawyers authorities against the Popes ancient iurisdictioÌ„ in spirituall cases in England and this partly for that he had not as then all the Bookes by him which were quoted and partly vpon a generall presumption that in this poynt M Atâ—orney would be exact for that he had so solemnly protested the same in his booke of Reportes as before hath byn touched to wit that he had cyâ—ed truly the verâ— words and textes of the lawes resolutions iudgments Acts of Parlament all publike and in print without any inference argumeÌ„t or amplification quoting particulerly the bookes yeares leaues chapters and other such like certaine references as euery man at his pleasure may see and read them 81. This is his protestation who would not belieue a man especially such a man and in such a matter at his word or rather vpon so many words so earnestly pronouÌ„ced especially if he had heard his new and fresh confirmation therof which he setteth â—orth in this other Preface to his sixt part wherin he sayth that euery man that writeth ought to be so careâ—ull of setting downe
truthes as if the credit of his whole worke consisted vpon the certainty of euery particuler period which if it be true then must it needs inferre a great preiudice to the credit first of the said 6. Part of Syr Edwards Reportes for so much as so many periods haue beene now found false in this very Preface And secondly it cannot but import the like discredit vnto his said fifth part for which he framed his former protestation for that vpon better view of the bookes Statutes lawes by him cyted it is found that he doth not only misalledge many both wordes and texts resolutions and iudgments but peruerteth many other by wrong inferences arguments detorsions and amplifications of his owne quite contrary to his former protestation which now breifly shall be declared more in particuler 82. First then not to iterate againe the number of those many and manifold falshoods vsed by Syr Edward in the cyting of the Charter of King Kenulphus before the Conquest for giuing priuiledge of Sanctuary to the Church of Culâ—am belonging to the Abbey of Abindon both by concealing the wordes that most imported That all was done by the consent and authority of Pope Leo as also the like vnsincere dealing in Iustice Thorps case concerning the question whether it were treason in the â—aigne of K. Edward the first for one subiect to bâ—ing in a Bull of excommunication against another subiect wherof we haue treated in two seuerall precedent Paragraphes of this Chapter and conuinced that there was much false and fraudulent dealing in them both this I say pretermitted we shall note some more examples out of his other instances vnder English kings since the Conquest 83. First he alleageth this instance vnder the Conquerour himselfe not out of any law of his but out of a fact K. VVilliam saith he the first did of himselfe as K. oâ— England make appropriation of Churches with Cure to Ecclesiasticall persons wherof he inferreth that he had Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction and cyteth for the proofe of his assertion 7. Ed. 3. tit Quare impedit 19. which obiection though it be fully and substantially answered by the Deuine shewing sundry and diuers waies and namely foure wherby a lay man may come to haue the collation or appropriation of beneâ—ices yet the booke by him cyted being since that tyme examined it is found that Syr Edward dealt very vnsincerly in alleaging this case to his purpose which maketh wholy against him For this is the case set downe briefly by Brooke in his Abridgement but much more larger by the law-booke it selfe of 7. Ed. 3. fol. 4. 84. In the 7. yeare of King Edward the third by reason of an action of Quare impedit brought against the Deane Chapter two Prebends of the Church of S. Peter of Yorke by the Abbot of Newenham for that they had refused to admit his Clerke presented by him to the Church of T. wherunto he pretended to haue right to present the case was handled in the Kings Bench and the defendants pleading Plenarty for their defence that is to say that the place was full and not voyd for that there was an appropriation or vnion made of the said Church of T. with soke sake that is with the appurtenances vnto the foresaid Church of S. Peter of Yorke and vnto two Prebends of the same by a Charter of King VVilliam the Conquerour and afterward by another of K. Ed. 1. The chiefe Iustice at that tyme named Herle did foure or fiue tymes at least during the discussion of that case giue his iudgement that by law the Conquerour nor K. Edward could not make any such appropriation And of the like opinion were the rest of the Iudges or at least contradicted not the same to wit Syr Iohn Stoner Syr Ioâ—n Cantabridge Syr Iohn Iugge Syr Iohn Shardelow and the rest though two of them spake in the case as may be seene and gathered by reading the booke it selfe and Stouffe and Trew that were of CouÌ„cell of the Plaintife affirmed flatly that no such appropriation could be made by the CoÌ„querour All which the Attorney craftily concealed in his narration of the case to the end that it might be deemed that the iudgemeÌ„t of the Court had beene in K. Edward the thirds tyme vnder whome this case was handled that the Conquerour might according to the coÌ„mon-law make an appropriation by his letters patent And is this good dealing euen in the very first case which he proposeth aâ—ter the Conquest 85. After this he passeth ouer all the Conquerours lyfe and six other kings ensuing as VVilliam Rufus Henry the first K. Stephen Henry the second Richard the first and K. Iohn fynding no one example among all those Kings actions lawes or orders that might seeme to haue any shew of spirituall IurisdictioÌ„ but only that in the lyfe of K. H. 1. he alleageth a Charter of the said King wherin he as founder of the Abbey of Reading doth appoynt out certayne orders and lawes about the temporalityes of that Abbey a thing very iust and lawfull for all founders to doe by their owne right and consequently maketh nothing to the purpose of our questioÌ„ of Ecclesiastical power and moreouer the Deuine proueth by diuers examples that sundry Popes were wont to giue faculty to Princes and other founders to prescribe spirituall priuiledges for diuers pious workes erected by them which the Popes themselues would afterward confirme and ratify so as this also was a fraud in M. Attorney to alleage so impertinent an example but it sheweth his pouerty and barennesse in examples of those yeares which being aboue 150. vnder 7. kings as hath beene said he could fynd but these two poore examples nothing prouing the purpose to bring forth in all this tyme wheras if he would looke ouer the tyme since K. Henry the 8. tooke vpon him indeed Ecclesiasticall authority by vertue of his temporall Crowne and the other three Princes who in that haue followed him whole volumes might be written of examples and presidents giuen therin of practising spirituall power wherby it is euident that those former Princes from the CoÌ„quest downward were not of the opinion and iudgement of these later Princes and that Syr Edward doth but squeese and strayne them to make them say or signify somewhat which they neuer meant indeed and this iniquity is not the least in the Attorneys proceeding in this matter and yet doth M. Morton say of him as you haue heard exhorting euery man to resort vnto Syr Edwards storehouse for aboundance of good proofes saying habet ille quod det dat nemo largius he hath store to giue and no man giueth more liberally Now then we shall peruse some of his store 86. Vnder K. Edward 1. he alleageth this instance for proofe of his supposed Ecclesiasticall IurisdictioÌ„ that when Pope Gregory the tenth had determined in a Councell at Lyons Bigamos omni priuilegio
a notorious vntruth in that he saith she did it by the coÌ„sent oâ— her Lordes Spirituall and Temporall for that all her Lords Spirituall which make the chieâ—e part of the Parlament resisted the matter as appeareth by their depriuations depositions restraints or imprisonments that theron ensued So as this is as true as that other which followeth in the very next page and hath beene handled by me in other places to wit that as well these that were restrayned or imprisoned as generally all the Papists of this Kingdome did come to the Protestants Church nor any of them did resuse during the first ten yeares of the said Queenes gouernment which I haue coÌ„uinced before by hundreds of witnesses to be most shamefully false as also the other deuised fable that Pius Quimê° did offer to approue the Communion Booke of English seruice by his owne letters to Q. Elizabeth if she would do him the honour as to accept it from him 109. I do pretermit willingly as vnworthy of my pen those scoffes and contemptible derisions which it hath pleased his L. to vse against that holy man and high priest of our soules Pope Pius Quintus calling him Pope Impius V. his hellishnesse his horriblenesse and the like which seemeth much to sâ—uour of the spirit of those that in Iudge Pilates house did scoffe at our Sauiour bowing their knees and crying Aue Rex Iudaeorum but yet there the maister Iudge did not descend to such scurrility But surely I am sory to see a Lord Iudge vse the same in publike auditory which were fitter for one of his Kitchin amongst his Companions and when such things as these are related vnto strangers they seeme incredible to men of eâ—timation and honour 110. But Syr Edward passing on in this manner throughout his whole speach bringeth in all the accidents fallen out froÌ„ the beginning of that Raigne vnto the end of the Irish warres Doctor Sanders his being there Steukley his going to Rome and afterward to Portugall the Duke of Guise his actions and of MeÌ„doza called by him Iesuite though he were a Noble man and Ambassadour of the K. of Spaine in EnglaÌ„d Campian Persons Heywood Shirwyn and other Priests comming into England vpon the yeare 1580. and many other such like things little appertayning to them of Norwich but that my L. would needs speake like a great Counsellour that day and be Propheta in Patria and fill mens eares with tales and terrours and yet in the end after all sayd and much therof knowne to be false to the greatest part of discret men in his auditory he commeth at length to be somewhat morâ— mild and placable saying by this then our English Papists eyther Iesuits or Seminaries may learne to know that it is not Religion that they striue for but only to mayntaine the Antichristian head of Romes vsurped Supremacy And if there be in this presence any Roman Catholiks or so many oâ— them as shall heare of that which now hath beene spoken I intreat theÌ„ as my deare and louing Country-men that they will not any longer be seduced by any lying spirit sent from Rome seing that the Pope whome they belieue hath himsâ—lfe allowed as before we have shewed that in our Church we haue a doctrine of faith and religion suâ—ficiently necessary to saluation Deare Country-men we haue then inough need not the help of any Pope sithence all the Papists generally came vnto our Churches beâ—ore our late Q. Elizabeth was excoÌ„municated c. Thus he 111. And do you see this Conclusion all grouÌ„ded vpon suppositions that are manifestly false or rather ridiculous in theÌ„selues for that first he would haue vs suppose as a thing by him proued before that it is not religion for which we striue but to maintayne the Popes supreme Authority in spirituall Causes as though the article of supremacy were no poynt of Religion at all among vs which is a great absurdity to imagine For doth not the Catholicke Deuine in the Preface of his Answere vnto him and we before haue also repeated the same shew demonstrate that this point of supreme spirituall authority is so principall an article of Religion as all other controuersies may be determined therby How then doth the Iustice trifle so in this matter Is he not ashamed to say in the face and ears of such an Auditory that Catholiâ—kes striue not for religion wheÌ„ they striue for their supreme Pastours spirituall Authority It is as good an argument as if a man should say that Syr Edward when he was a Counsellour pleaded not for money but for gold as if gold were no money 112. His second supposition is that we belieue Pope Pius Quintus to haue allowed the Protestant CoÌ„munion Booke for that Syr Edward saith and sweareth it vpon his credit saying and this vpon my credit and as I am an honest man is most true which I haue els where shewed to be most vntrue and that no Catholicke of crâ—dit doth or will giue credit vnto it Thirdly he supposeth that we belieue his former assertion that all Catholickes generally did come to the Protestants Câ—urch for the first ten yeares of Q. Elizabeths raigne which they do not only thinke but know to be most false 113. Fourthly he supposeth it to be a good consequence that if Catholicks did come to their Churches for the first ten yeares they haue inough for their saluation and need not the help of any Popes authority for absolution of their sinnes or other spirituall power For such is his inference when he sâ—ith Deare Country-men we haue then inough and need not any help of any Pope sithence all the Papists generally came to our â—hurches beâ—ore the late Queene was excommunicated which inference and consequence is both false and absurd For albeit some Catholicks came to the Church for feare or otherwise yet therby haue not Syr Edward and his partners inough for their saluation for that the other came to their Churches for they might come with a repugnant mynd condemning and detesting inwardly their Religion no lesse or perhaps more then they that were Recusants and openly refused to come as no doubt but at this day also many do who are forced to Church against their consciences 114. And it is to be noted that Syr Edward saith VVe haue a doctrine of â—aith and Religion sâ—fficiently necessary to saluation So as he ascribeth no perfection to his Religion nor any aboundant sanctitie latitude or degrees of holines one aboue the other but if it be sufficiently necessary it is inough for him And yet doth our Sauiour say that there be many mansions in the house oâ— my Father and exhorteth men to perfection Perfecti estote which importeth somewhat more then sufficiently necessarie But if seemeth that Syr Edward would be content with a litle and go no further then necessarily he must God grant he go so farre and keepe him in charitie
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
of excommunication throughout the world vpon iust causes is a principall member so as except they would introduce a law contrary to their owne beliefe or suffer a law to grow and be made coÌ„mon in their Realme without their knowledge or assent it is absurd to imagine that there could be such a Common law against the Popes ExcoÌ„munications before the dayes of King Edward the first and before any Statute was made against the same as M. Attorney auoucheth 78. Secondly he sheweth out of the testimony of Matth. VVestmonast that this King Edward being in a great heat of offence against the Cleargy of England for that they denied to giue him the halfe of their Rents and goods towards his warres vpon the expresse prohibition of Pope Bonifacius to the contrary which prohibition some Cleargie men vpon feare transgressing had compounded made their peace with the King in that behalfe he doubting least some of the other part of the Cleargy would bring in an ExcoÌ„municatioÌ„ against him or against some of those that had compounded with him made a Decree saith VVestmonaster commanding vnder payne of imprisonment that no man should publish any sentence of Excommunication against the King himselfe or those that had newly sought his protection he making also a prouocation or appeale as well for himselfe as those that stood on his side to the Court of Rome Thus he And now let the prudent Reader consider saith the Deuine that if the King euen in his passion of choler did appoint but imprisonment to be the punishment for bringing in an Excommunication against himselfe and Cleargy men that stood with him how vnlike is it that by the common law it was treason against the King his Realme Crowne and dignity as M. Attorneys thundring words are to bring in an excommunication against a Subiect which is much lesse then against the Kings person himselfe 79. Thirdly the said Deuine though he had not perused the law bookes at that time yet did he yeld the true Cause why priuate men might not bring in excoÌ„munications and publish them at their pleasure as now also is prohibited in other before named Catholicke Kingdomes but they were to be shewed first to a Bishop vnder his Seale were to be certified vnto the Kings Courts which since that time I haue fouÌ„d to be set down expresly in the law-bookes themselues and craftily concealed by M. Attorney for thus is it found written 11. Henr. 4â— fol 64. Hancford the chieâ—e Iustice said that he found in his bookes that in the time of VVill. â—erle who was Iudge in the beginning of the raigne of K. Edward the third euery officer or coÌ„missary of the Bishop might certify excoÌ„municatioÌ„ in the K. Court and for the mischeefe that ensued therof it was aduised by the ParlameÌ„t that none ought to certify excoÌ„munication but only the Bishop soe it is vsed at this day Thus far are Hanckefords words wherby we may see why the partie that published a Bull to the Treasurer of England without the Bishops approbatioÌ„ incurred so high displeasure 80. Fourthly the said Deuine doth conuince M. Attorney out of a Case alleaged by himself afterward in the 31. yeare of the Raigne of King Edward the third where he saith that in an attachment vpon a prohibition the defendant pleading the Popes Bull of excommunication of the Plainâ—iâ—e the Iudges demanded of â—he defendant if he had not the Certificate of some Bishop within the Realme testifying this excommunication c. VVhereby saith he it is made euident first that priuate men were obliged to shew their Bulles vnto some Bishop before they published the same and secondly it appeareth most clearly by the answers of the Iudges that they held it not for treasoÌ„ in those daies nor made any such infereÌ„ce therof for that their only resolution was this that for lacke of this Certificate the partie excoÌ„municated was not thereby disinabled to follow his plea in that Court without saying any one word of danger or punishment against him that had pleaded the Popes Bull of excommunication which they would neuer haue omytted to do if 50 yeares before that vnder K. Edward the first it had bin held for treason by the CoÌ„mon-law to bring in or publish any Excommunication against a Subiect 81. This then was the substance of the Deuines answere at that tyme which though it doth sufficiently conuince M. Attorney to haue abused his Reader egregiously in auouching with such resolution that in K. Edward the first his tyme yt was by the ancient law of England adiudged treason against the king his Crowne and dignytie to publish any Bull of the Popes against any Subiect of the Realme yet hauing synce that tyme had better commodity to informe my self of the lawbooks here meÌ„tioned I wil adde some more proofes to those which now you haue heard 82. First then I must let the Reader vnderstand that neither of those two bookes cited by M. Attorney lib. Ass. pl. 19.30 Ed. 3. and Brooke tit Premunire pl. 10. neither of them I say doth affirme that it was Treason or that there was any iudgment of Treason giuen in that Case which Case is related by Iustice Thorpe 30. Edwardi 3. thus That wheras Syr Thomas Seaton sued a Bill in the Exchequer against a woman named Lucie for calling him Traytor fellon and robber in the presence of the Treasurer and Barâ—ns of the Exchequer in contâ—mpt of the King and slaunder of the Court. Hereupon the said Lucy shewed forth the Popes Bull prouing the plaintiâ—e to be excommunicate and therfore demanded Iudgement whether he should be answered or not And for that she did not shew any writ of excommunication nor any other thing sealed by the Archbishop c. the Bull was not allowed whervpon she was forced to answere and â—leaded not guilty And in that plea Thorpe Iustice said that in the tyme of the Grandfather of the King which was K. Edward the first â—or that one did notify an excommunication of the Apostle to the Treasurer of the King the King would he should haue byn drawne and hanged notwithstaÌ„ding that the Chanceloâ—r and Treasurer did kneele before the King â—or him yet by award he did abiure the Realme and said that the woman was in a hard Case â—or shewing forth this excommunicatioÌ„ if the king would Thus far the said Book 83. VVherein we see first that here is no answere made about treason as M. Morton affirmeth nor iudgment giuen as M. Attorney auoucheth nor any such inference made by the Iudges but only a case related of what K. Edward the first in his anger would haue had to be done to a man that presented an excommunication to the Treasurer to wit he would haue had him hanged and drawne about the same which seming to his Iudges not to be iust or according to law did intreat the King not to put it in execution but rather by way of