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.
by them 47. And the like may be said of the Danes afterward when they came in vpon the Saxons who had their owne lawes among themselues others they made in England calling them the Danish Lawes and some of them were admitted generally throughout the Realme in those few yeares wherein they had the peaceable gouerment therof which in great paâ—t were afterward excluded againe or altered by S. â—dward the Confessour when by him the Saxon â—nglish bloud came to recouer the dominion as those againe of S. Edward were for the most part changed and altered by VVilliam the Conquerour as all our ancient Histories do testify namely Ingulfus Malmesbury Polidore the rest 48. And albeit it were ouerlong to recount all the forsaid variety of Lawes in particuler brought in by Romans Saxons Danes Normans which import great chaÌ„ges alterations therby do coÌ„fute Edwardsâ—ssertion â—ssertion yet haue some of our Nation not wanted to gather out of more ancient wryters sundry lawes that haue byn made by seuerall Kinges of different Nations as namely those of King Inas Alured Edward the first Edgar Aethelstan Agilred all Saxons of King Canutus the Dane and of S. Edward the Confessour restorer of the English bloud raigning all before the Conquest And after the Conquest of King VVilliam that was the Conquerour who like a Conquerour indeed tooke that liberty to himselfe as to change and alter at his pleasure all lawes of what nation or people soeuer he found in vse before him in our Iland which Polidore testifyeth out of ancient authorities in these words Leges penè omnes à superioribus sanctiss Regibus olim ad bene beateque viuendum sustulit nouasque dedit minùs aequas quas posteri non sine suo damno seruauerunt He tooke away almost all the lawes that had byn made before the Conquest by most holy Kings for their happie life and gouerment of the people and gaue new lawes more vnequall which they that ensued retayned to their owne losse as though it had byn a great cryme to break those lawes which a Conquerour that was no friend of the English natioÌ„ brought in insteed of good lawes 49. So Polidore that had examined all our antiquities about this matter of English lawes for so he saith of himselfe Diligenter omnia veterum monumenta persâ—rutaâ—us sum I haue diligently sought all monuments of ancient wryters in this behalfe and by this assertion of his doth ouerthrow directly three positions of our two Iustices heere First of the eminent antiquity of ouâ— present lawes in England Secondly that they were neuer changed or altered The third that they were the best absolutely of all other Lawes which last point about the goodnes Polidore doth impugne expresly as yow see adding also further for some example of the iniquity and asperity of our said lawes left by VVilliam the Conquerour as followeth Non possum hoc loco sayth he non memorari rem tametsi omnibus notam admiratâ—one tamen dignissimam atque dictu incredibilem c. I cannot choose but recount in this place one thing albeit knowne to all yet most worthy of admiration and incredible to be spoken which is That these Lawes which ought to be vnderstood by all were wrytten at that tyme and now also are in the Norman tongue which neither English nor French did rightly vnderstand VVherupon yow should haue seene euen from the very beginning therof partly by the iniquity or iniustice of the Lawes themselues and partly by the ignorance or vnskilâ—ulnes of those that did interprete amisse these lâ—wes this man to be depriued of his ancient inheritance another to be condemned in criminall Causes by the iudgment of most vnskilfull men and yet vpon that iudgment put to death another to be intangled with inextricable suites of law and finally both diuine and humane aâ—â—aires to be turned vpside downe by these new Lawes 50. Thus yow see what Polydors iudgment was therof and he that will see more inconuenience and mischiefes that ensued therof let him reade Ingulfus that liued and wrote in the same tyme and was an eye witnesse of the said miseries And fynally I will end this matter with the testimonie of Iohn Fox in his Actes Monuments a witnesse I suppose which Sir Edward will not refuse who treating of things that passed in the life of VVilliam the Conquerour hath these words For so much sayth he as he obtayned the Kingdome by force and dint oâ— swordâ— he changed the whole state of the gouermâ—nt of this common weale and ordayned new lawes at his owne pleasure proâ—itable to himselfe but grieuous and hurtâ—ull to the poopleâ— abolishing the lawes of King Edward wherunto notwithstanding he was sworne beâ—ore to obserue and maintayne for the which great commotions and rebellions remayned long aâ—ter among the people as Histories record to haue the lawes of King Edward receyued againe So he And by this may appeare how true it is that Syr Edward doth affirme that neyther Romans Saxons Danes or Normans euer altered or changed the ancient British lawes of our Iland but that they be now the selfe same that they were then And of all other Nations the best An assertion worthy of such an Antiquary as Syr Edward would be thought to be 51. And albeit this may be sufficient and superaboundaÌ„t also for ouerthrow of Syr Edwards imagination that our common lawes were neuer changed but continued still for their excellency in goodnes in all tymes euen from Iulius Caesars dayes downeward for that he fyndeth or at leastwise surmiseth some things or customes lyke the one to the other in different tymes and vnder different Princes as now you haue heard yet will I adioyne one consideration more to the contrarie of his concerning particuler lawes which are found to haue bene both vnder the Saxons Danes and old English that are not now in vse and consequently the Iudge must confesse that in those at least there hath beene a change As for example it is read that it was a law in King Inas his dayes the 12. King of the VVest SaxoÌ„â— almost a thousand years gone That if a bondman by commandement oâ— his Maister did worke or do any seruile thing vpon a Sundayâ— his Maister should leese his dominion ouer him and pay thirty shillings besides Vnder the famous King Alfred and his sonne Edward the elder and King Guthrun the Dane with whome they made peace it was a law That a man condemned to death might not be hindred to confesse his sinnes to what Priâ—st he would nor that he could be executed vpon a Sunday Vnder renowned King Edgar it was a law which is yet extant in the Saxon language That whosoeuer did slaunder an other in a grieuous crime should eyther leese his tongue or redeeme it deerly by other meanes 52. Vnder King Canutus the Dane that changed King Edgars
must go accoÌ„panied with iudgemeÌ„t discretion and moderation which are other branches also of the same most excellent vertue of prudence For if they be wanting they do make prudeÌ„ce vnprofitable yea oftentimes pernicious turning it into malignant suspitions mistrustfullnesse frights feares iealosies other like effects which do worke the greatest infelicitie that in the world can be imagined And of these pestilent effects are efficient causes for the most part in Princes the cunning sycofancy subtility malitious informations suggestions eggings of flatterers makebates about theÌ„ who for their owne gaine priuate endes care not what seedes of iealosyes they sow in Princes heades against others so they may reape fauours theÌ„ selues by seeming to be prouident and benâ—uolous noâ— do they weigh what eating and consuming cares and sollicitudes they plant in the mindes of their Maisters so themselues may rest at ease as one said well of Dionysius the King of Sicily his spye when after supper he had secretly filled his Princes head with many false imaginations and iealosies himselfe went merily to the tauerne and after liberall drinking he slept souÌ„dly all that night but his Lord going to bed could sleepe nothing at all 11. But to returne to our present case I doe not denie nor euer did that due prouidence prouision ought to be held for â—uture cases as M. Morton doth heere most vntruly affirme theron fraudulâ—ntly doth found his whole discourse but my saying is that it must haue due limitts least it become hurtfull to witt a vaine vexing iealosie I say morcouer that euery may be is not a mâ—st be to fill Princes eares with possibilities onely of dangers without some particuler circumstaÌ„ces of probabilities or credibilities is an officious wounding them vnder pretence of fawning good will As for example if one should doe nothing els but lay before his Maiestie that now raigneth the disasters and perills that haue happened to his noblâ— aunceâ—â—ors in our Land without â—urther particuler ground of likelihood against himselfe but onely that they haue happened and therfore may happen againe it were an importune babling King VVilliam Ruâ—us was slaine in hunting his elder brother Richard as also his nephew of the same name sonne of Robert Duke of Normandie had like disasterous ends in hunting therfore his Maiesty must hunt no more The children of King Henry the first were drowned on the sea therfore no more Princes children must passe the seas vpon no occasion Some Kinges of England were pursued by their owne Children as King Henry the second and â—dward the second and the last also by his wife the Queene thereâ—ore his Maiestie must stand in iealosie of his owne bloud King Stephen King Richard the secoÌ„d Edward the second Henry the 6. and some others are thought to haue bene betrayed by some of theiâ— owne Counsellours and King Iohn was pursued by his owne Barons and Nobility therfore his Maiesty at this day must rest in iealosie both of the one other sort of subiectes do not you see how farre this lyeth open to iniurious calumniation and sedition 12. But I will giue an example more proper yet to the matter If a seditious fellow in England that had great authority with the people and small affection towards the Prince should continually cry and beat into their heads that they looke well about them and stand vpon their guard for that their King may abuse his Authority and become a Tyrant and may oppresse them at his pleasure when they thinke not of it alleadging no other probabilities and arguments of likelihood but only that he may do it or that some such thing hath fallen out before as here M. Morton doth against the Popes authority and Catholickes that acknowledge the same and when any one should say to that turbulent fellow pretending to be so studious of the Common-wealth and iealous of the Kings proceedings that he vrgeth only a may be and that there is no great likelihood of any will be or that such euents will follow as he threatneth and draweth into suspition he should fall into choler rage as M. Morton doth saying that he caÌ„not laugh for wonder horror to see any Englishman conceyte so basely of the wittes and worth of his countâ—eymen as to imagine that they can be deluded with so senseles so shameles so perniciouâ— so impious a Miâ—igaâ—ion as this is not to preuent ensuing dangers c. And yet further that this is a stupiâ—ying receipt casting the state and people into a slumber of not regarding ensuing dangers c. 13. This exclamation I say of this troublesome fellow that would put in iealosie the people and Common-wealth against their King or Monarch only vpon a may be or possibilitie were it not iustly to be reprehended Were not the partie to be cast out as a tumultuous make-bate But he will say peâ—hapes that there is more then may be in this our case there want not probabilities and nearer arguments of intended troubles These then if you please let vs examine breifly and see of what weight or worth they are 14. And truly in this point I see not what probabilities there may be in reason to perswade his Maiestie that his Catholike subiects would not liue quietly and confidently vnder him if they might â—e vsed as subiects and haue that Princely and Faâ—herly protection from him which both lawes do â—llow to freeborne subiects and they may hope and â—xpect from his benignity where no personall or â—ctuall delict shall haue made theÌ„ vnworthy therof There are now no quarrels or differeÌ„ces of titles no â—ed Rose or white no Lancaster or Yorke within the â—and to draw men into partes or factions or passionate courses his Maiestie hath vnited both Realmes â—ogeather is the sonne and heire of the most dearest Princesse vnto English Catholickes that euer liâ—ed in many ages hath goodly issue of his owne which our Lord blesse is setled in his Crowne ioyâ—ed in freÌ„dship and league with all Princes in Chriâ—tendome round about him both of the one and â—he other Religion hath beene hitherto beloued â—nd highly esteemed for many yeares though a Protestant Prince euen by the very spirituall Head himselfe of Catholicke Religion what cause then what reason what motiue what hope what probability may English Catholickes haue to seeke or atteÌ„pt alteâ—ations in State if any tolerable coÌ„dition of Christian subiects may be permitted vnto them 15. I will not adde the experience of so many ages throughout Christendome and of ours that is present nor the comparison or antithesis betweene the doctryne and practice of Catholicke and Protestant subiects in this behalfe which I haue handled more largely in my former treatise tending to Mitigation and well knowne and experienced also by his Maiestie in sundry pointes occasions only I must say that M. Morton here hath dealt very partially in that he taking vpon him to lay before his
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
of humble subiection which we haue receiued from our Fathers of the first six hundred yeares and not so only but which as your Barkley witnesseth the vniuersall Christian world imbraced with common consent for a full thousand yeares So he 28. And do yow see how this Mynister tryumpheth Who would thinke that men of conscienâ—e or credit could make such ostentation vpon meere lyes deuised by themselues as now we shall shew all this brag to be And as for D. Barkley alleadged â—n the last lynes let any man read him in the bookâ— Chapter cyted and he will wonder at the impudency of this vaunter for he speaketh no one word of gathering Councells or comparison of spirituall authority betweene the Pope and Emperour concerning their gathering of Councells or Synods but of a quite different subiect of taking armes by subiects against their lawfull temporall Princes And what will our Minister then answere to this manifest calumniation so apparently conuinced out of D. Barkley But let vs passe to the view of that which toucheth Cardinall Bellarmine against whom all this tempest is raised 29. First then we shall set downe his words in Latyn according as T. M. cyteth him in his margent Tunc Concilia generalia sievant sayth he non sinâ— Imperatorum sumptibus eâ— tempore Pontifex subijcieâ—at se Imperatoribus in temporalibus ideo non poterant inuito Imperatore aliquid agere idcirco Pontiâ—ex supplicaâ—at Imperatori vt iuberet conuocari Synodum At post illa tempora omnes causae mutatae sunt quia Pontifex qui est Caput in spiritualibus non est subiectus in temporalibus Then in those daies generall Councells were made not without the charges of Emperours and in that tyme the Pope did subiect himselfe vnto Emperours in temporall affaires and therefore they could do nothing against the Emperours will for which cause the Pope did make supplication to the Emperour that he would commaund Synods to be gathered but after those tymes alâ— causes were changed for that the Pope who is head in spirituall matters is not subiect in temporall affaires So he 30. And here let vs coÌ„sider the varietie of â—leights and shifts of this our Mynister not only in cyting Bellarmynes wordes falsely and against his meaning and drift in Latin wherof we shall speake presently but in peruerting this Latin that he hath so corruptly set downe in his former English translatioÌ„ For first hauing said according to the latin that generall Councells in these daies were not gathered without the cost of Emperours he addeth presently of his owne were made by their consents which is not in the Latin then he cutteth of the other words immediatly ensuing which conteine the cause to wit for that the Popes subiecting themselues in those dayes touching temporalities vnto the Emperours as hauing no temporall States or dominion yet of their owne could do nothing without them and therefore did make supplication to the said Emperours that they would coÌ„maund Synods to be gathered which T.M. translateth that they would gather Synods as though Bellarmine did affirme that it lay in the Emperours by right to do it but after those tymes omnes causae mutatae sunt all causes were changed but he should haue said are changed as Bellarmyns true words are omnes istae causae all these causes are changed to wit foure sortes of causes which he setteth downe why generall Councells could not be well gathered in those dayes without the Emperours help and authority with causes are guilfully cut of by this deceiuer as in like manner the last words put downe here by himselfe Pontifex non est subiectus in temporalibus are falsely translated cannot be subiect in temporall And againe afterward Popes might not be subiect in temporall matters which is to make Bellarmine contrary to himselfe who saith a litle bâ—fore that the Popes did subiect themselues for many yeares wherby is proued that they could do it But Bellarmyns meaning is that in right by the prehemynence of their spirituall dignity they were exempted and not bound therunto 31. And thus much now for the corruptions vsed in the words heere set downe both in Latin and English But if we would go to Bellarmyne himselfe and see his whole discourse and how brokenly perfidiously these lynes are cut out of him and heere patched togeather as one entire context contrary to his drift and meaningâ— we shall maruaile more at the insolencie of Tho. Morton tryumphing ouer his owne lye as before hath byn sayd For that Bellarmyne hauing proued at large and by many sortes of arguments and demonstrations throughout diuers Chapters togeather that the right of gathering generall Councells belongeth only to the B. of Rome and hauing answered all obiections that could be made against the same in the behalfe of Emperours or other temporall Princes granting only that for certaine causes in those first ages the same could not be done in respect of temporall difficulties without the help and assistance of the said Emperours that were Lords of the world he commeth to make this conclusioÌ„ which heere is cyted by T. M. but in farre other words and meaning then here he is cyted Yow shall heare how he setteth it downe and therupon consider of the truth of this Mynister Habemus ergo sayth he prima illa Concilia c. Wee haue then by all this disputation seene how those first Christian Councells were commanded by Emperours to be gathered but by the sentence and consent of Popes and why the Pope alone in those dayes did not call Councells as afterward hath byn accustomed the reason wasâ— not for that Councells gathered without the Emperours coÌ„seÌ„t are not lawful as our aduersaries would haue it for against that is the expresse authority of S. Athanasius saying QuaÌ„do vnquaÌ„ iudicium Ecclesiae ab Imperatore authoritatem habuit When was it euer seene that the iudgment of the Church did take authority from the Emperour But for many other most iust causes was the Emperours consent required therin c. So Bellarmyne 32. And heere now see that Bellarmins drift is wholy against M. Mortons assertion for that he denieth that euer the Emperours had any spirituall authority for calling of Councells but only that they could not well in those daies be made without them and that for foure seuerall causes wherof the first was for that the old Imperiall lawes made by Gentills were yet in vse wherby all great meetings of people were forbidden for feare of sedition except by the Emperours knowledge and license The second for that Emperours being temporall Lords of the whole world the Councellâ— could be made in no Citty of theirâ— without their leaue The third for that generall Councells being made in those daies by the publike charges and contributions of Cytties and especially of Christian Emperours themselues as appeareth by Eusebius Theodoretus and other writers it was necessary
had Catholicks therin But yet I must needs say that the fiction is one of the most vnlikely things and the most impossible in morall reason that any man can deuise For that Pope Pius Quintus albeit some man would imagine him to be so good a fellow as to care for no ReligioÌ„ who is knowne to haue byn most zealous yet had he aduentured his Popedome by making such an offer For he should haue allowed of diuers points in the CoÌ„munion booke which are held by the Catholicke Church for heresy and so condemned by the Councell of Trent and other Councells And now you know it is a ground among vs that a Pope that should be an Hereticke or approue of heresy thereby ceaseth to be Pope how improbable then is this of Pius Quintus his offer And why had not this Letter in so many yeares byn published to the world for the credit of the English Seruice and discredit of the Popes And yet the voice is that the Lord Cooke did so earnestly auouch this matter as he pawned therein not only his credit and honesty by expresse termes of protestation but euen his â—aith also to God and man a great adueÌ„ture no doubt And for that I assure my self that the greater part of the Auditory being discreet men did imagine it to be quite false as I and others in effect do know it to be it muâ—t needs be a great blemish to my Lords credit at the beginning of his â—udgship that in other things also he be not belieued 52. But I vnderstaÌ„d that the Booke of this speach or charge now printed is expected shortly togeather with some other appertayning to the same man and then it may be that some body will examine matters more particulerly especially those that appertaine to the iniuring of Catholicks and afterward returne with the agrieuances to the Iudge him selfe seing he is now a Iudge to giue sentence of his owne ouersightes Albeit I must confesse that as well my selfe as diuers other men haue lost great hope of his Lordship by this accideÌ„t for before we did thinke that his ouerlashing in speaches when he was Attorney did proceed in great part of the liberty of that office and that when he came to be Iudge he would reforme his ConscieÌ„ce ratione Status in regard of his state of life but now it seemeth that he is far worse though this I say shal be left by me to others to be discussed vpon the sight of the foresaid printed Bookes 53. My speach at this time shall be only about that which passed in his Booke of Reportes while he was Attorney and which hath byn disputed these monethes past betweene him and a Catholicke Deuine of our party in his answere to the said Reports which Answere is in England And albeit thereby may easily be seene the taleÌ„t which M. Attorney had while he was Attorney in this kind of worst Equiuocation notwithstanding his often declamations against the other sort that with due circumstances we haue proued to be lawfull yet will I heere adioyne one example more but such a one as is worth the noting and bearing away And it is this 54. That whereas in answering of diuers lawes statutes and ordinances which the Attorney alleaged out of the Raignes of sundry aÌ„cient Kinges to proue that they did exercise spirituall authority and iurisdiction the Deuine sometymes not hauing the law bookes by him out of which the said lawes or authorities were cyted supposing the allegations to be ordinarily true â—or who would suspect lawiers to be false in their citations that were wont to be accompted most exact in that point did answere the same with that sincerity of truth and reason as to a man of his profession apperteyned though sometymes also he was forced to suspect some fraude and therepon requested such as had commodity in England to see the Bookes that they would peruse the places and take them out Verbatim which some haue done and haue found such store of Equiuocations and false dealing in the alleaging therof as neuer could be imagined in a man of his calling I shal only set down one example and it shal be the first that is cited by him in the whole Booke to wit of the Charter of King Kenidphus of the VVest Saxons vnto the Abbey of Abindon in Barkshire which Charter M. Attorney set downe with this Preface To confirme saith he those that hold the truth and to satisfy such as being not instructed know not the ancient and moderne lawes c. these few demonstratiue prooses shall serue 55. And then beginneth he with the said Charter of king Kenulphus before the coÌ„quest meaning to proue therby that the said king did giue vnto the said Abbey of AbindoÌ„ spirituall iurisdiction by vertue of his temporall Crowne exempting the same from all authority of the Bishop which indeed was done by the Pope and so the Charter it self doth plainly expresse if it had byn truly related by M. Attorney And for that the Case is not long I shall set it downe Verbatim as the Attorney hath it in his Booke pag. 9. only putting into English that which is recited by him in Latin and left without any translation to make the matter more obscure then shall we lay forth also the true Case whereby wil be seene how true a dealer M. Attorney is in those his writyngs and protestations which after we shall more largely consider of Thus then beginneth the Charter 56. Kenulphus Rex c. per literas suas Patentes coÌ„silio consensu Episcoporum SenatoruÌ„ Gentis suae largitus fuit Monasterio de Abindon in Comitatu Bark cuidam Ruchino tunc Abbati Monasterij c. quandam ruris sui portionem id est quindecim mansias in loco qui à Ruricolis tunc nuncupabatur Culnam cum omnibus vâ—iâ—itatibus ad eandem pertinentibus tam in magnis quà m in modâ—cis rebus in aeternam haereditatem Et quòd praedictus Ruchinus c. ab omni Episcopali iure in sempiternum esset quietus vt inhabitatores eius nullius Episcopi aut suorum Officialium iugo inde deprimantur Sed in cunctis rerum euentibus discussionibus causarum Abbatis Monasterij predicti decreto subiiciantur ita quòd c. Thus goeth the Charter as M. Attorney alleageth it which in English is as followeth 57. King Kenulphus c. by his letters Patents with the Counsayle consent of the Bishops and Counsaylours of his Nation did giue to the Monastery of Abindon in Barkeshire and to one Ruchinus Abbot of that Monastery a certaine portion of his land to wit â—ifteene Mansions in a place called by the Country men Culnam with all proâ—its and coâ—modities grâ—â—t â—nd small appertayning thereunto for â—ueâ—lasâ—ing inâ—eritance And that the â—oresaid Râ—â—â—inus c. should be quiet from all right of the Bishop for euer so as the inhabitaÌ„ts of that place shall not be depressed
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
Clâ—ricali esse nudatos correctioni fori saecularis addictos that all such as had beene twice married are depriued of all priuiledge of Clergy men and are subiect to the iurisdiction of the secular Court There arose a question in England in tyme of Parliament how this decree of the Pope should be executed and obserued some of the Prelates inclining that it should be vnderstood only of such Bigamies as should fall out after the CouÌ„cell and therfore demaunded to haue deliuered into their hands and freed from the temporall gaole such as presently were in prison and had beene bigamies before the Councell But the K. his Counsell were rather bent to haue all bigamies excluded froÌ„ that priuiledge both present and to come for that the Popes Constitution now alleaged seemed rather to sound that way for that it is generall and without exception Vpon which determination produced the Attorney hath this note insteed of an inference Obserue saith he how the King by aduise of his Counsell that is by authority of Parlament expounded how this Councell of Lyons should be vnderstood and in what sense it should be receyued and allowed And therof would inferre that the king and his Counsell held themselues to be aboue the Pope for that they tooke vpon them to determine in what sense the Popes decree should be vnderstood And yet M. Attorney protesteth as before you haue heard that he maketh no inferences but only alleageth the bare law books as they lye but yet heere euery man will see that it is vntrue for that heere he maketh an inference and that very false and impertinent For he should rather haue made the quite contrary inference to wit that for so much as the King and his CouÌ„sell did subiect themselues to the acknowledgment and obseruation of the Popes decree and did accommodate the law of England therunto which before was otherwise they did therby acknowledg that the Popes power in making lawes for Ecclesiasticall matters was Superiour to that of the King and can Syr Edward or any man else deny this consequence And this shall suffice for this case but only I may not let passe this one note by the way that wheras M. Attorneys words are that certayne Prelats when such persons as haue beene attaynted for fellons haue praied to haue them deliuered as Clerkes he forgot himselfe for that the wordes in the booke are quando de felonia rectati â—uerâ—nt when they had beene arraigned of â—elony not when they had beene attainted of felony for that Clerkes beâ—ore attainder were wont to be deliuered to their Ordinaries but being once conuicted and attainted they cannot make their purgation afterward as appeareth by Stanford l 2. c. 49. 87. Vnder K. Edward 2. the Attorney writeth thus Albeit by the ordinance of Circumspectè agatis made in the 21. yeare of K. Edward 1. and by generall allowance and vsage the Ecclesiasticall Courts hâ—ld plea of Tythes obuentions oblatioÌ„s mortuaryes c. yet did not the Clergy thinke themselues assured nor quiet from prohiâ—itions purchased by subiects vntill that K. Ed. 2. by his letters patents vnder the great seale and by conseÌ„t of Parlament c. had graunted vnto them to haue iurisdiction in those cases c. So M. Attorney And what doth he inferre heerof thinke you the questioÌ„ in hand teacheth vs to wit that K. Edward 2. is proued by this to haue had supreeme spirituall iurisdiction An inference you will say very farre fecht but this is the manner of Syr Edwards disputing and yet he saith that he maketh no inference nor argumentatioÌ„ at all marke then his guilfulnes 88. He coÌ„â—esseth that before king Edward the 2. there was generall allowance and vse of Ecclesiasticall Courts in England for Ecclesiasticall matters as appeareth by the ordinance of Circumspectè agatis vnder K. Edward 1. and of magna Charta before him againe vnder K. H. 3. many other proofes he confesseth also that this vse and allowance was confirmed according to the Custome of his Ancestours by the same K. Edward 2. by a new statute made in the ninth yeare of his raigne called Articuli Cleri But what of this hence he inferreth that the king was supreme in spirituall authority for that he graunted â—aith he to them to haue iurisdiction and do you see the good consequence I will reason with him in the like The parlameÌ„t de prerogatiuis Regis held in the 17. yeare of the same K. raigne did nuÌ„ber and explaine and confirme all the kings prerogatiues which were allowable at the coÌ„mon law ergo this statute did giue vnto the king his prerogatiues and that he had them not before which consequeÌ„ce I doubt not but M. Attorney himselfe will deny to be good and yet is it as good as the other for K. Edward 2. in his statute of Articuli Cleri did but concurre with his Ancestours in confirming those priuiledges which had beene vsed before time out of mind and in subiecting his temporall lawes to the lawes of the Church in the cases there specified so farre of was he froÌ„ taking supreme iurisdiction vpon himselfe as falsely and fondly M. Attorney would make his reader belieue But let vs passe from K. Edward 2. to his sonne K. Edward the third out of whose raigne M. Attorney alleageth more examples instances then almost out of all the rest wherof we shall touch some few for all would be ouer longe and perhaps we shall desceÌ„d no lower then the time of his raigne reseruing the more â—ull discussion of these and other exaÌ„ples vntill the Catholicke Deuine or some body for him shall prepare a second edition of his forsaid answer to Syr Ed. Reports 89. First then fol. 14. b. of this his fifth part of Reports he reciteth out of the raigne of this K. Edward 3. but quoting no particuler place that it is often resolued that all the Bishopricks within England were â—ounded by the kings progenitors and therfore the aduowson of them all belonged to the king c. And that when a Church with cure is void if the particulâ—r Patron or Bishop of that Diocese do not present another within the space of 6. monethes then may the Metropolitan conferre the same and if he also do it not within six other moneths then the comon law giueth to the king as to the supreme within his owne kingdome not to the Bishop of Rome power to prouide a competent pastour for that Church This is Syr Ewdards narration full of deceipt as now you shall see For albeit the coÌ„mon law doth giue to the king as to the supreme within his owne Kingdome to present by lapse as hath beene said yet not as supreme in spirituall authority as he would haue his reader mistake and belieue but as supreme in the temporall patronage or as supreme temporall Patron of that Benefice to whoÌ„ in such cases the aduowson of presenting
out of the Chancery against some that tooke away the said tythes c. and then after some altercation to what Court the said sute belonged the plaintiâ—e that is the Prouost prayed execution but Thorp the chiefe Iustice said that it was wont to be law when there is a certayne place that is not of any parish as in Engelstwood and such like that the king should haue the tythes and not the Bishop oâ— the place to graunt them to whom he should thinke good as he hath graunted them vnto you notwithstanding saith he the Archbishop of Canterbury hauing sued vnto the kings Counsel to haue those tythes for that the matter is not yet tryed vntil it by tryed you shall not haue execution So he And this is all the Case wherin you see that albeit Iustice Thorp said that it was wont to be law that the king should dispose of the tythes of such places as wâ—re newly assertâ—d and cultiuated that were of his inheritance yet doth he not so resolutly affirme it that he would giue seÌ„tence of execution against the defendants albeit they had made default after they had pleaded to the issue as there is manifest but would haue the Archbishop of CaÌ„terburies sute to the coÌ„trary to be heard also And indeed he could not but know but that in the booke of 7. Ed. 3. fol. 5. which was 16. yeares before this case was treated the opinon of Herle chiefe Iustice was that the Bishop should haue such tythes and much lesse doth Iustice Thorp assign the cause of right of those tythes vnto the king for that he hath supreme Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction as our Iudge doth now but for that commonly such new wast asserted landes appertained vnto the king albeit as now hath beene said they might haue appertayned also to a particuler subiect if he had beene Lord of the place as is most perspicuously declared and set forth in an ancient Treatise intituled Oâ— the power of the Parliament annexed to the Old Doctour and Student or booke so intituled where it is said as followeth 96. If wast ground saith the Booke wherof was neuer any profit taken and that lay in no parish but in some forest or that which is newly wonne from the sea were brought into arable land if the freehold therof were to the king he might assigne the tythes to whom he would and if the freehold were to a common person he might do the like For though tythes be spirituall yet the assignement of tythes to other is a temporall act For before parishes were deuided and before it was ordayned by the lawes of the Church that euery man should pay tythes to his owne Church euery man might haue payed his tythes to what Church he would might one yeare haue giuen his tythes to one Church and another yeare to another or haue graunted them to one Church for euer if he would And like as euery man before the seuering of the parishes might haue giuen the tythes to what Church he would because he was bound to no Church in certayne so may they do now that haue laÌ„des that lie in no parish for they be at liberty to assigne theÌ„ to what Church they will as all men were before the sayd law was made that tythes should be payd to their proper Churches 97. So farre this Law-booke which doth not ascribe anything to the kings Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction as heere you see as neyther doth Iustice Brooke who in his Abridgement abridgeth the foresaid caâ—e of 22. E. 3. lib. assis vnder the tytle of the Kings Prerogatives signifying therby that the said tythes are due to the king if they be due in regard of his prerogatiue Royall and not of his spirituall supreme power aâ—d iurisdiction See Booke 22. Ed. 3. tit Prerogatiue pl. 47. 98. And as for the law mentioned in the foresaid Treatise wherby men were appointed to pay their Tythes to their peculiar parishes wheras before thâ—y were free to pay them where they would it is meat of a Canon of the great Generall Councell of Latâ—ran held at Rome vnder Pope Innocentius 3. in the dayes of K. Iohn of England vpon the yeare 1216 which was aboue a hundred yeare before this other case fell out in 22. E. 3. in which Councell it was ordayned That euâ—ry man should pay his Tythes to his proper Church and parish To which Ordination of the Pope and Councell the kingdome of England submitted it self and the temporall lawes therof and so the matter endured vntill the breach of K. H. 8. So as in all this tyme the Popes supreme Authority and spirituall iurisdiction was acknowledged and obeyed about this matter of Tithes in England as is euident also â—y these books ensuing to wit 7. E. 3. fol. 5.44 Ed. 3. f. 5.10 H. 7. fol. 16. but yet for that the said Canon of Lateran did not comprehend expresly all such landes as were then wast and should after be asserted K. Edward 3â— in the case proposed might according to the former ancient law that was vsed before the said Canon giue and appoynt the tythes of these newly asserted lands of Rockingham to whom he would as he did though not vnder the title of his supreme spirituall iurisdiction as the Attorney very falsely doth pretend but as temporall patron of that land for the causes before specified And so much of this Case 99. Another he cyted out of 38. E. 3. lib. Ass. pl. 22. in these wordes The king dâ—d by his Charter translate Chaâ—ons secularâ— into Regular and religious persons which he did by his Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction and could not do it vnlesse he had had iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall So he And heere is false dealing againe for all that is said in that booke is this that it was pleaded for the king that by his Charter he did graunt that the Prior CoueÌ„t of Plymouth might transferre Secular into Regular ChanoÌ„s which was but a grant or licence as you see Nor did the king translate Chanons Secular into Regular which belonged vnto the Pope but graunted only and gaue licence that they might be so transferred nor hath the law-booke any one word of the kings Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction but all this is feigned by M. Attorney himselfe 100. Agayne he cyteth out of 49. Ed. 3. lib. Ass. pl. 8. where the Abbot of VVestminster saith he had a Prior Couent who were Regular and mort in law yet the king by his Charter did deuide that corporation and made the Prior and Couent a distinct and capable body to sue and to be sued by theÌ„selues whereof M. Attorney would inferre the kings supreme spirituall authority and iurisdiction But his booke fauoureth him not at all heerin for albeit Candish said that the possessions of the Abbot Prior of VVestminster were seuered the one from the other and that this began with the Charter of the king yet is it playne by the law 11. H. 4.
reason which God powred into man and which is a litle beame of diuine light drawne from that infinite brightnes of Almighty God therfore doth the Apostle S. Paul pronounce that there is no power but from God and that he which resisteth this povver resisteth God himselâ—e So M. Reynolds 49. In which wordes we see that M. Renoyldes is so farre of from debasing Kings in this his discourse or subiecting them vnto the people as he doth both extoll magnifie their dignity as proceeding froÌ„ God himselfe and reconcileth togeather the speach of P. Peter calling a King a humane creature with the wordes of S. Paul pronouncing it to be of God and vnder payne of damnation to be obeyed And can there be any more vntrue dealing then this Let vs see then how M. Morton will heere discharge himselfe you shall see him somwhat more humiliated then before would God to his conuersion and not to his greater obduration and confusion and yet will he in any case defend not ameÌ„d his error for thus he procedeth The pretended discharge 50 This Allegation is saith he of all which yet I haue fouÌ„d most obnoxious and alliable vnto taxation which God knoweth that I lye not I receiued froÌ„ suggestion as the Author therof R. C. can witnesse For at that time I had not that Rosaeus aliâs Reynolds neither by that present importunity of occasions could seeke after him which I confesse is greatly exorbitant for I receiued it as a testimony debasing the authority of Kings So he And truly when first I read the beginning of this answere and heard him so earnestly and solemnly to protest before God that he receyued this fraud against M. Reynolds by suggestion I imagined he would haue said of the Diuell for that he coÌ„monly is the proper suggestour of all such vniust and wicked calumniations but when I saw the letters of R. C. follow insteed of the Diuell I began to muse and thinke with my selfe whether there were any Diuell of that name or no or if it were no Diuell himself what instrument or chosen seruant of Sathan it might be that had made this false suggestion which M. Morton himselfe confesseth heere to be greatly exorbitant from the truth and insteed of one thing to haue suggested the quite contrary that wittingly against his conscience yea with a double malice as may seeme The first to calumniatâ— M. Reynolds and Catholike doctrine by him and the other to disgrace M. Morton by making him put in print so notorious a lye and corruption 51. But when afterwards I was aduertised by some that would seeme to know the mistery that R. C. did signify Ri. Can. I was driuen into a farre greater meâ—uaile how M. Morton could be permitted to publish such a matter in print the thing hauing to pasâ—e the view of R.C. his officers and how he could presume to haue more care of his owne credit then of the others that is his head and Chiefteyne For as a scarre the more higher it standeth in the forhead the more deformity it worketh to the whole body so such a notorious cryme of wilfull falsification being proued to be in the Head it self euen by the asseueration and testimony of so principall a member of the same Head cannot be but very disgracefull to the whole body though it may be that M. Morton being the party most interessed might pretend in this not only his owne personall defence in this particuler escape but a protection also more generall heerby for all Ministers to vse this art with lesse reprehension when the Head of Ministers should be conuinced to vse the same with such liberty and lacke of conscience especially in a matter so odious preiudicious and calumnious to all the ranke of Catholiks I do confesse saith M. Morton that it is greatly exorbitant for I receyued it as a testimony debasing the authority of Kings And from whome From R. C. But did he gather it himselfe thinke you or did he take it also by tradition of others vpon credit as you professe your selfe to haue donne The later were disgracefull the first hatefull For if he looked vpon the Authour himselfe he must needs see that M. Reynolds drift was to aduance Kingly authority and not to debase it and therfore for R. C to sett downe the quite coÌ„trary and make another to print it also with his allowance and approbation was a double or triple iniquity And surely if the like may be proued in any Prelate of ours let him haue for pennance neuer to be trusted after which is the greatest satisfaction that I would wish to be exacted of R. C if he acknowledge this accusation of M. Morton for true 52. But now though this charging of R. C. be some disburdening to T. M. that he inuented not the slaunder of himselfe yet doth it not wholy free him froÌ„ all falshood in the matter For he should not haue yealded to the false suggestion norâ— eâ— admitted so vniust a temptation for supposing that R. C. would needes play the part of the tempting and lying serpent yet ought T. M. not to haue followed the frailty of the credulous infirme womaÌ„ although R. C. had deliuered vnto him the note so baâ—ely as he puteth it downe out of M. Reynolds to wit Rex humana creatura est quia ab hominilus coÌ„stituta yet could not M. Morton but remember that the effect therof was in the Epistle of S. Peter and that in no sense it could be truly Englished as he doth A King is but a creature of mans creation both for that the word but which is a particle aduersatiue or exclusiue is not to be found in the latin wordes of M. Reynolds nor could it stand in any reasonable good meaning that a Kings authority is nothing els but a humayne creature as though it had no dependance or causation from God Wherfore as there was great malice in the suggestor of this false imputation so was there no lesse want of truth in him that so willingly yealded to so bad and false a suggestion But what saith he heere for his defence This which now ensueth 53. Vpon this presumption saith he if true to wit that M. Reynolds had spoken to the debasemeÌ„t of Kings authority as he did not but to the contrary it could be no falshood in me to insert the particle but especially being acquainted with the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine who that he may disable the authority of a King in comparisoÌ„ of the dignity of a Pope doth defend â—hat Kings being chosen by men are not immediatly created by God and yet the Pope elected by Cardinalls hath his authority immediatly from God 54. Wherto I answere that well he might say so for that Christ both God and man did institute in particuler and immediatly the Supreme Authority of S. Peter and his successors when he gaue to him and by him to them the keyes of
that whether a man do cite Decretals ExtrauagaÌ„ts Glosses and Annotations all is one for that all haue equiualent authority And will any man of sense belieue this to be true It is incredible And how then doth he auouch it Or what reason can he alleadge for it You shall heare his maâ—ner of proofe how substantiall it is First then you must know that Pope Gregory the 13. in these our dayes being demaunded licence to print the CanoÌ„â—aw a new prefixed an Epistle before the Decretals of Gratian with this tytle Ad suturam rei memoriam wherin he giueth licence to Paulus Constabilis Magister Sacri Palatij to reuiew the same and to the Printers to print it exactly according to the Roman example saying among other things therupon Vt hoc Iuris Canonici Corpus fideliter incorruptè iuxta exemplar Romae imprâ—ssum imprimi possit that this Corps of the Canon law may be faithfully and without corruption printed according to the Copie set forth at Rome wherof M. Morton will needs inferre that for so much as Pope Gregory did ordayne that all the whole Corps of the Canon law should be printed togeather according to the Roman Copie as well of Constitutions Decrees Extrauagants Glosses Annotations and the rest he made them all equall and of the same and equall authority for so runne his wordes Pope Gâ—egory the 13. saith he hath ratifyed the foresaid Glosse and Annotations with priuiledge and authority equiualent and answerable to the authoâ—ity of the Decretals and Extrauagants theÌ„selues 93. And what man in the world in his right witts besydes M. Morton would haue had the face to alledge this Licence of printing for an equalling the credit and authority of all the things printed Can there any match be found to this Tell me I pray you when king Henry the eight did allow at the beginning and gaue priuiledg for printing the great English Bible with Tindals notes which afterward he called in againe censured for hereticall did he therby make these notes of Tindall of equall Authority with the Scripture it selfe Or if Queene Elizabeth did approue the printing of the English new Testament with Beza his notes did she therby equall the said Notes with the text of the Testament it selfe VVho would reason so or who would go about so to abuse his Reader and himselfe that had care of conscience or credit Can these fraudes be committed but of deliberation and set purpose Surely if any one such tricke should be brought and proued against any writer of ours it were inough to shame him for euer Let any man read the said Breue of Gregory the 13. and he will say that these men are driuen to great extremities when they are forced to lay hands vpon such base and bare thiftes 94. But let vs see how he shifteth of the last two charges of adding to the beginning and cutting froÌ„ the end of the sentence alleadged out of the Glosse He sayth to the first that albeit the wordes Apostatâ— Princes be not in the text of the Glosse totidem verbis that is in precise wordes nor indeed are they found at all yet may the matter handled in that Glosse be extended vnto them and to their deposition for so much as in that glosse is disputed the Popes authority in generall ouer temporall Princes which is farre fetcht as you see to be set downe by him in a different letter as the very wordes not only of the Glosse but also of the Canon or Extrauagant it selfe And as for the second clause which is the cutting of the last wordes of the sentence Nisi vnicum post se talem Vicarium reliquisset c. he answereth thus VVhat needed any addition of that which was sufficiently expressed in my Aduersaryes obiection But Syr we require no addition by you but why did you cut of these last wordes of the sentence that immediatly followed in the Glosse and made so much for explication of his meaning What need these niblings strechings and other such shifts in so small sentences as now we are to see also in the next imputation but only that the misery and necessity of your cause cannot else be defended For that otherwise it may be supposed that you are not so delighted in falshood as to vse it so often without vtility or necessity yea more or lesâ—e in euery least senteÌ„ce lightly that is alleaged as now the Reader shall see in another that ensueth In the meane space it is euident that you are so farre of from being able to deliuer your selfe from the Charge and imputation of falshood in this place obiected as you haue incurred new and that most notorious in slaundering Pope Gregory the 13. to haue equalled Glosses and Annotations with Extrauagants and Canonicall Decrees which neuer passed through his cogitations And the mistaking is not only ridiculous but also malicious to discredit therby Pope Gregory as by it self is most euident THE EIGHT Imputation of falshood pretended to be answered by T. M. §. VIII THIS eight imputation in like manner is about an other wilfull corruption vsed by M. Morton in a litle sentence alleaged by him out of Cardinall Bellarmine which though it conteyne scarce two or three lines yet hath it two or three corruptions therin so set downe as could not by any probability be of ouersight or errour but of set purpose for helping of a bad cause I handled this matter somewhat before in the precedent Chapter but Mortonâ—or â—or want of new store draweth it heere in agayne The controuersy arose about a certayne speach brought in by M. Morton of Caluin and Beza how they were accused by F. Campian Genebrard other Catholike writers for holding the heresy of the Autotheans who deny Christ to be God of Godâ— Light of Light as the Councell of Nice teacheth vs to speake but that he is God of himself which doctrine notwithstanding M. Morton said that Cardinall Bellarmine holdeth for Catholicall and consequently he both deliuereth Caluin and Beza from imputation of heresy therin and is contrary to his fellowes who of ignorance or passion ascribed this for heresy to Caluin and Beza wherin M. Morton goeth about by Equiuocation to beguile his Reader For albeit Bellarmine doth teach that in some sense it may be truly said that Christ is God of himselfe yet absolutely doth he condemne the speach of Caluin for hereticall therin and he proueth it by many arguments which point M. Morton concealed and besydes craftely corrupted the words alleaged out of Bellarmine as presently will be seene For thus my former Charge was made after the recitall both of M. Morton and Cardinall Bellarmines wordes at large The Charge 96. But now said I aswell Caluin and Beza as also M. VVillet and Doctor Fulke their Schollers in a particuler sense saith our Minister do deny Christ to be God of God to wit that the Essence of his God-head hath no generation though as
to haue their consent and approbation in so publike an action as that was 33. The fourth and last cause was sayth Bellarmine for that in those dayes albeit the B. of Rome were Head in spirituall matters ouer the Emperours themselues yet in temporall aâ—fairs he did subiect himselfe vnto them as hauing no temporall State of his owne and therefore acknowleging them to be his temporall Lords he did make supplication vnto them to commaund Synods to be gathered by their authority and licence At post illa tempora istae omnes causâ— mutatae sunt But since those dayes all these foure causes are changed ipse in suis Prouincijs est Princeps supremus temporalis sicut sunt Reges Principes alij And the Pope himselfe now in his temporall Prouinces is supreme temporall Lord also as other Kings and Princes are which was brought to pasâ—e by Gods prouidence sayth Bellarmyne to the end that he might with more freedome liberty reputatioÌ„ exercise his office of generall Pastourship 34. And this is all that Bellarmyne hath of this matter And now may we consider the vanity of M. Mortons triumph ouer him beâ—ore and how falsely he dealeth with him alleaging him against his owne drift and meaning leauing out also those foure causes by merâ— cited then cutting of frauduiently the particle istae these causes are now changed which includeth reference to these foure and furthermore speaking indefinitely as though â—ll causes and matters were now changed seeketh therby to deceaue his Reader and to extort from Bellarmyne that confession of antiquity on his syde which he neuer meant and much lesse vttered in his writings What dealing what conscience what truth is this c. 35. Thus I insisted then and was not this sufficient to draw some answere from M Morton if he had resolued to answere the points of most moment and most insisted vpon as he professeth But it shameth me to see him thus taken at euery turne Let vs go forward THE SEAVENTH Pretermitted falshood by Thomas Morton §. VII AFTâ—R Bellarmine yt shall not be amysse to bring in Salmeron another Iesuit whome M. Morton will needs shake also by the sleeue and shew him a tricke or two of his art in sundry places of his Booke wherof one is somewhat largely handled by me in this manner 37. In the second page quoth I of his pretended Confutation M. Morton hath these words In the old Testament the Iesuits are forced to allow that the King was supreme ouer tâ—e Priâ—sts in spâ—riâ—uall aâ—faires and ordering Priests For proofe wherof he citâ—th in the margent Salmeron a Iesuite a very learned man that hath left written in our dayes many volumes vpon the Gospells Epistles of S. Paul and othâ—r partes of Scripture and was one of the first ten that ioyned themselues with the famous holy Man Ignatius de Loyola for the beginnyng of that Religious Order in which citation diuers notable corruptions are to be seene First for that Salmeron proueth the quite contrary in the place by this man quoted to wit that neuer Kings were Head of the Church or aboue Priests by their ordinary Kingly authority in Ecclesiasticall matters in the new or old Testament and hauing proued the same largely he commeth at length to set downe obiections to the contrary and to â—olue and answere them saying Sed contra hanc solidam veritatem c. But now against this sound truth by me hitherto coÌ„firmed I know that many things may be obiected which we are diligeÌ„tly to confute First theÌ„ may be obiected that Kings in the old Testament did sometymes prescribe vnto Priests what they were to do in sacred things as also did put some negligeÌ„t Priests froÌ„ the executioÌ„ of their office To which is answered Vbi id euenisset mirum esse non debere If it had so fallen out yt had byn no meruaile for that the Synagogue of the Iewes albeit it conteyned some iust men yet was it called rather an earthly then â—n heauenly Kingdome in so much as S. Augustine doth doubt whether in the old Testament the Kingdome of heauen was euer so much as named and much lesse promised for reward and therfore those things that were then done among them foreshewed only or prefigured diuine things that were to succeed vnder the new Testament the other being not diuine but humane and earthly So Salmeron 38. Here then are sundrie important corruptions and frauds vttered by T. M. the one that the Iesuits and namely Salmeron are inâ—orced to allow the temporall King to haue byn supreme ouer the high Priest in spirituall matters vnder the old law whereas he doth expressely affirme and proue the contrary both out of the Scripture it selfe by the sacrifice appointed more worthy for the Priest theÌ„ the Prince and many other Testimonies as that he must take the law and interpretation therof at the Priests hands that he must ingredi egredi ad verbum Sacerdotis go in and out and proceed in his affaires by the word direction of the Priest and the like as also by the testimonie of Philo and Iosephus two learned Iewes and other reasons handled at large in this very disputation and in the selfe same place from whence this obiection is taken And this is the first falsyfication concerning the Authors meaning and principall drift 39. The secoÌ„d corruptioÌ„ is in the words as they ly in the latin copy as by me before mentioned Vbi id euenisset miruÌ„ esse non debere If any such thing had falleÌ„ out as was obiected to wyt that Kings sometimes had prescribed to the Priests what they should do in Ecclesiasticall things deposed some c. yt had byn no maruaile for so much as their Ecclesiasticall Kingdome or Synagogue was an earthly imperfect thing but yet this proueth not that it was so but only it is spoken vpoÌ„ a suppositioÌ„ which suppositioÌ„ this Minister that he might the more cuÌ„ningly shift of and auoid left out of purpose the most essentiall words therof vbi id euenisset if that had happened c. as also for the same cause to make things more obscure after those words of Salmeron that stand in his text Synagoga Iudâ—orum dicebatur terrenuÌ„ potiùs quà m caeleste regnum The Synagogue or Ecclesiasticall gouerment of the Iewes was called rather an earthly then an heauenly Kingdome where as contrarywise the Ecclesiaâ—ticall power in the Christian Church is euery where called Celestiall after those words I say this man cutteth of againe many lynes that followedâ— togeather with S. Augustines iudgment before touched which serued to make the Authors meaning more plaine and yet left no signe of c. wherby his Reader might vnderstand that somewhat was omitted but ioyneth againe presently as though it had immediatly followed Itaque cum populus Dei constet corpore animo carnalis pars in veteri populo primas tenebat Wheras Gods people
doth consist of body mind the carnall or bodily part did chieâ—ly preuaile among the Iewes and herewith endeth as though nothing more had ensued of that matter thrusting out these words that imediatly followed made the thing cleare which are Et ad spiritualia significanda constituebatur that kind of earthly power was appointed to signify the spirituall that was to be in the new Testament Wherby is euideÌ„tly seene that Salmeron vnderstood not by carnalis pars and regnum terrenum the temporall Kingdome of Iury as this Mynister doth insinuate to make the matter odious but the Ecclesiasticall gouerment of the Sinagogue vnder the old law in respect of the Ecclesiasticall power in the new wherof the other was but an earthly figure or signification 40. But now the third corruption and most egregious of all is in his English Translation out of the Latin words of Salmeron for thus he translateth them in our name In the Synagogue of the Iewes sayth Salmeron was a State rather earthly then heauenly so that in that people which was as in the body of a man consisting of body and soule the carnall part was more emynent meaning the temporall to haue byn supreme In which translation are many seuerall shiftes frauds For where as Salmeron sayth Synagoga Iudaeorum dicebatur potiùs terrenum quà m caeleste regnum The Synagogue or Ecclesiastiâ—all power among the Iewes was called rather an earthly thâ—n a heauenly Kingdome he translateth yt The Synagogue of the Iewes was a State rather earthly then heauenly And this to the end he might apply the word of eartâ— to the temporall Prince and heauenly to the Iudaicall Priests which is quite from Salmerons meaning Secondly those other words of Salmeron being Cùm populus Dei constet ex corpore animo VVhere as the people of God do consist of body and mynd meaning therby aswell Christians as Iewes and that the Iewes are as the bodily or carnall part of the man and the Christians the spirituall and consequently their Ecclesiasticall authority earthly and ours heauenly this fellow to deceiue his reader putteth out first the word Dei the people of God which could not but signify Christians in Salmerons meaning and then translateth In that people to wit the Iewes the carnall part was the more eminent meaning sayth he the tempâ—rall which is falsâ— for he speaketh expresly of the Ecclesiasticall power among the Iewes which he calleth carnall and terrene in respect of the spirituall Ecclesiasticall among the Christians and not the temporall or kingly power vnder the old TestameÌ„t as this man to make vs odious to temporall Princes as debasing their authority would haue it thought And Salmerons contraposition or antithesis is not betweene the temporall and Ecclesiasticall gouerment among the â—ewes but betwene their Ecclesiasticall gouernment and ours that of the Synagogue and this of the Christian Church wherof the one he sayth to be terrene and earthly the other spirituall and heauenly the one infirme the other powerfull ouer soules c. So as all these sortes and kinds of corruptioÌ„s being seene in this one litle authority you may imagine what wil be found in the whole Booke if a man had so much patience and time to leese as to discusse the same exactly throughout So in that place And did not this require some answere also among the rest Had it not bene good that M. Mâ—rton had â—ent vs some few lines of satisfactioÌ„ to this insteed of so many idle triflings as he hath prosecuted largely in this his Reply But it is easily seene that he sought for choice matter wherby to intertayne his reader and seeme to say somewhat THE EIGHT Falshood pretermitted by Thomas Morton §. VIII THERE remayneth yet another notable abuse which I may not pasâ—e ouer against the same Salmeron though by order I should haue mentioned yt beâ—ore thus it is laâ—d forth in my Booke of Mitigation It followeth in the same place said I as a second Romish pretence produced by M. Morton That the old â—estament was a figure of the new in Christ and thâ—rfâ—re that in the new the spirituall power as the Popedome sayth he must be the chiefe or substantiue c. which short sentence he patcheth out of two different authors Salmeron Carerius part of one part of another then frameth this graue answere therunto In this obiection sayth he there is more childhood then manhood baâ—ish grammer then sound diuinity So he And will you heare his manhood in sound diuinity It followeth immediatly The old Testament indeed saith he in his earthlie elements was a figure oâ— this sâ—irituall and heauâ—nly but oâ— the truly heauenly the day of that eternall Sabboth and the celesticall Hierusalem the mother-Citty of the Saiâ—ts oâ— God Behold his manhood in sound Diuinity 42. Let it be so that the old Testament was in many thinges a figure of the heauenly Sabboth and celestiall Hierusalem but what Syr will you coÌ„clude of this by your sound diuinity was it not a â—igure also of many things vpoÌ„ earth which should be fulfilled in the new Testament Were not their Cerimonies and Sacrifices a figure of our SacrameÌ„ts Sacrifice their Manna of our Eucharist their Circumcisions and washings figures of our Baptisme doth not S. Paul in the 9. an 10. of his first Epistle to the Corinthians set downe many examples to this effect as that of Deutronomy Non alligabis os boui trituranti thou shalt not bynd vp the mouth of the oxe that laboureth applying it vnto our Preachers of the new Testament that must haue their maintenance as also he expoundeth the passing of the Red-sea by the Israelits their being baptized in the Cloud their food of the Manna their drinking out of the Rocke which prefigured Christ and diuers other things wherof he sayth Haec autem in figura facta sunt nostri these things were done in figure of our present Stâ—te And againe Haec autem omnia in figura contingebant illis All these things did happen to the Iewes in figure but were to be fullfilled truly and really according to the spirituall meaning in the new Testament Is not all this so Were not these things to be fulfilled aswell vpon earth as in heauen How then doth our Mynister put that aduersatiue clause but of the truly heauenly as though the old Testament in her earthly elements had preâ—igured nothing to be fulfilled but only in heaueÌ„ Is this sound Diuinity Is this Manhood Nay is it not rather babish Childhood that semeth not to know the very first elements of true Diuinity 43. I let passe the shameles corruption which he vseth in translating the very words cyted by him out of Salmeron for proofe of his obiection made in our behalfe and I call yt shameles for that euery Child which vnderstandeth Latyn may see the Ministers shift therin The Authors words are these as this man
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
impiety 59. Secondly I say that these words of his are corruptly set downe as ouer commonly els where and that both in latin and English In latin for that he leaueth out the beginning of the Canon which sheweth the drift therof whose title is Damnatur Apostolicus qui suae â—raternae salutis est negligens The Pope is damned which is negligent in the affaire of his owne saluation and oâ— his brethren and then beginneth the Canon Si Papa suae fraternae salutis negligens c. shewing that albeit the Pope haue no Superiour-iudge in this world which may by authority check him vnles he fall into heresie yet shall his damnation be greater then of other synners for that by reason of his high dignity he draweth more after him to perdition then any other Wherby we may perceiue that this Canon was not writteÌ„ to flatter the Pope as Protestants would haue it seeme but to warne him rather of his perill togeather with his high authority 60. After this the better to couer this pious meaning of S. Boniface T.M. alleaging two lines of the same in Latin he cutteth of presently a third line that immediatly ensueth to wit Cum ipso plagis multis in aeternum vapulaturus that such a Pope is to suffer eternall punishmeÌ„ts and to be scourged with many stripes togeather with the Diuell himselfe if by his euill or negligent life he be the cause of others perdition which threat this man hauing cut of he ioyneth presently againe with the antecedent words these as following immediatly in the Canon Huius culpas redarguere praesumet nemo mortalium This mans faultes to wit the Pope no mortall man shall or may presume to reprehend and there endeth In which short phrase are many â—raudes For first he leaueth out iâ—tiâ— here in this life and then for praesumit in the present tense that no man doth presume to checke him in respect of the greatnes of his dignity this man saith praesumet in the future tense that is no man shall presume or as himselfe translateth it may presume to cotroll him which is a malicious falshood And lastly he leaueth out all that immediatly followeth conteining a reason of all that is sayd Quia cunctos ipse iudicaturus à nemine est iudicandus nisi depreâ—endatur à fide deuius c. for that whereas he is Iudge of all other men he cannot himselâ—e be iudged by any except he be found to swarue from the true faith Here then is nothing but fraudulent cyting abusing of Authors 61. But now thirdly remayneth the greatest corruption and abuse of all in his English translation which is that which most importeth his simple Reader that looketh not into the Latin and this is that he translateth the former sentence of the Canon thus as before you haue heard Though he should carry many peoâ—le with him to hell yet no mortall creature may presume to say why do you so But in the Latyn neither here nor in the Canon it selfe is there any such interrogation at all as why do you so And therefore I may aske T. M. why do you lye so Or why do you delude your Reader so Or why do yow corrupt your Author so Or why do yow translate in English for the abuâ—ing of your Reader that which neither your selfe do set downe in your Latin text nor the Canon yt selfe by yow cited hath yt at all Is not this wilfull and malicious fraud Wherin when you shall answere me directly and sincerely it shal be a great discharge of your credit with those who in the meane space will iustly hold you for a Deceiuer 62. Thus I pleaded with M. Morton at that tyme and was earnest inough as you see if not ouer earnest but all will not get an answere Now we shall expect that in his promised Reioinder he will answer all togeather and that he may the better remember to do it I thought conuenient to giue him this new record for remembring the samâ— THE THIRTEENTH falshood wittingly pretermitted by Thomas Morton §. XIII FROM S. Boniâ—ace an Archbishop and the Popeâ— Legate we shall passe to a Pope indeed namely S. Leo the first a man of high esteeme in the Churcâ— of God as all Christians know and therefore the abuse offred to him by M. Morton is the more reprehensible wherof I wrote thus in my last Treatise 63. The eight Father sayth M. Morton is Pope Leo writing to a true Catholike Emperour saying You may not be ignorant that â—our Princely power is giuen vnto you not only in worldly regiment but also spirituall for the preseruation of the Church As if he said not only in Causes teÌ„porall but also in spirituall so far as iâ— belongeth to the outward preseruation not to the personall administration of them and this is the substance of our English Oath And further neither do our Kings of England challeng nor Subiects condescend vnto In which words you see two things are conteined first what authority S. Leo the Pope aboue eleuen hundred yeares agone ascribed vnto Leo the Emperour in matters spirituall and Ecclesiasticall â— The second by this mans assertion that neither our Kings of England challeng nor do the Subiects condescend vnto any more in the Oath of the Supremacy that is proposed vnto them which if it be so I see no cause why all English Catholickes may not take the same in like manner so farre forth as S. Leo alloweth spirituall authority to the Emperour of his tyme. Wherfore iâ— behoueth that the Reader stand attent to the deciding of this question for if this be true which here M. Morton auoucheth our controuersie about the Supremaâ—y is at an end 64. First then about the former point let vs coÌ„sider how many wayes T. M. hath corrupted the foresaid authority of S. Leo partly by fraudulent allegation in Latin and partly by false translation into English For that in Latin it goeth thus as himselfe putteth it downe in the margent Debes incunctanter aduertere Regiam potestatem non solùm ad mundi regimen sed maximè ad Ecclesiae praesidium esse collatam You ought o Emperour resolutly to consider that your Kingly power is not only giuen vnto you for gouerment of the world or wordly aâ—â—aires but especially for defence of the Church and then do ensue immediatly these other words also in S. Leo suppressed fraudulently by the Mynister for that they explicate the meaning of the Author Vt ausus nefarios comprimendo quae bene sunt statuta defendas veram pacem hijs quae sunt turbata restituas To the end that yow may by repressing audacious atteÌ„pts â—oth defend those things that are well ordeined and decreed as namely in the late generall Councell of Calcedon and restore peace where matters are troubled as in the Citty and Sea of Alexandria where the Patriarch Proterius being slayne and murdered by the conspiracy of the
Dioscorian hereticks lately condemned in the sayd Councell all things are in most violent garboyles which require your Imperiall power to remedy compose and compresse the same 65. This is the true meaning of S. Leo his speach to the good and religious Emperour of the same name as appeareth throughout the whole Epistle here cited and diuers others Nonne perspicuum est sayth he quiâ—us Pâ—eâ—as Vestra succurrere qâ—â—buâ— obuiare â—e Alexandrina Ecclesia c. â—s it not euident whome your â—mperiall piety ought to assâ—st and succour and whom yow ought to resist and represse to the end the Church of Alexandria that hitherto hath byn the â—ouse of prayer become not a denne of theeues Surely it is most maniâ—est that by this late barbarous and most furious cruelty in murdering that Patriarch all the light of heauenly Sacraments is there extinguished Intercepta est Sacrificiij oblatio defecit Chrismatis sanctificatio c. The oblation of Sacrifice is intermitted the hallowing of Chrisme is ceasedâ— and all diuine mysteries of our religion haue withdrawne themselues â—rom the parricidiall hands of those hereticks that haue murdered their owne Father and Patriarch Proterius burned his body and cast the ashes into the ayre 66. This theÌ„ was the cause occasioÌ„ wherin the holy Pope Leo did implore the help secular arme of Leo the Emperour for chastising those turbulent hereticks to which effect he saith that his Kingly power was not only giuen him for the gouerment of the world but also for the defence of the Church which our Mynister doth absurdly translate not only in worldly regiment but also spirituall for the preseruation of the Church turning ad into in and praesidium into preseruation and then maketh the Commentary which before we haue set downe As if he had said quoth he not only in causes temporall but also in spirituall so far as it belongeth to outward preseruation not to the personall administration of them 67. Thus far I wrote hereof before and proceded also further shewing not only that he had corrupted both the text sense and meaning of S. Leo but also that fondly he had affirmed that the Oath of Supremacie exacted by King Henry and some of his followers in England was nor is any thing els but the acknowledging of so much authority spirituall as S. Leo granted to the Emperour of his dayes Wherupon I do ioyne isâ—ue with him and promise that if he can proue it to be no other then that all Catholicks in my opinion will accept the same and so come to vnion and concord in that point And therupon I did vrge very earnestly that this assertion might be mainteyned saying among other things Me thinks such publike doctrine should not be so publikely printed and set forth without publike allowance and intention to performe and make it good If this be really meant we may easily be accorded yf not then will the Reader see what credit may be giuen to any thing they publish notwithstanding this Booke commeth forth with this speciall commendation of published by authority c. Which words in my iudgmeÌ„t should haue moued M. Morton to haue sayd somwhat to the matter in this his answere and not to haue passed it ouer so slyly as though neuer mention had byn made therof But euery man will ghesse at the cause and so we shall expect it at some other time THE FOVRTEENTH Pretermitted falshood by T. M. §. XIIII LET vs come backe from Pope Leo vnto another priuate Doctor named Genesius Sepulueda whom M. Morton in words calleth ours but yet would make him his if he could in the question of Equiuocation and for that he will not come of himselfe so farre as he would haue him he giueth him a wrinch or two to force him to draw neerer wherof my former accusation was this that ensueth 69. And lastly quoth I where M. Morton concludeth the whole matter by the testimony of our Doctor Genesius as he calleth him I haue told before how he is ours and how in some sort he may in this controuersie be called his though he detested his Religion as by his works appeareth Ours he is as in all other points of Religion so in the subsâ—antiall and principall point of this question for that he defendeth the vse of Equiuocation in concealing some secrets but denieth it in others wherein he fauoreth somewhat the aduerse party with small ground as in the next Chapter shal be declared But what saith this Doctor Genesius He will tell yow sayth M. Morton that this sense of this text of Scripture which yow conceale is not only contrary to the sentence oâ— all Fathers but also against all common sense And is this possible Will Sepulueda deny all those Fathers alleadged by me before for our interpretatioÌ„ to be Fathers Will he say that their exposition is coÌ„trary to all common sense doth not Genesius himselfe in the very Chapter here cited alleage both S. Hierome and S. Augustine for this interpretation and alloweth the same What shameles dealing then is this of our Mynister to charge Genesius with such folly or impiety which he neuer thought of For Genesius denieth not either the sense or interpretation of the place and much lesse sayth that it is coÌ„trary to the sentence of the Fathers and least of all to coÌ„mon sense but denieth only the application therof for vse and practise to certaine Cases wherin he admitteth not Equiuocation and saith that vpon this interpretation to bring in such a new law were greatly inconuenient wherin afterwards notwithstanding we shall shew him to haue byn greatly deceiued his Latin words are Contrà non modò veterum grauissimorum Doctorum sed communem hominum sensum quasi legem inducere to bring in as it were a law not only against the iudgment of ancient most graue schole Doctors for of theÌ„ only he speaketh in that place but also against the common sense or opinion of men 70. This is Genesius his speach wherin though his iudgment be reiected by other Scholmen as singular and paradoxicall in this point as after shal be declared yet is he egregiously abused by M. Morton who first maketh him to say of the interpretatioÌ„ sense of this place of scripture that which he speaketh only of the applicatioÌ„ therof to vse practice in tribunalls And secondly he maketh him to discredit the Fathers which himselfe alleageth then he englisheth ancient Fathers for ancieÌ„t Schoole doctors last of all addeth consensum of his own leauing out hominum to make it sound common sense and other such abuses which any man may see by conferring the place And these are other manner of synnes then symple Equiuocation yf the art of falsifying or forgery be any synne with him at all And so much for this place of Scripture Thus wrote I in my said Treatise being earnest as you see to draw some answere from M.
for the tyme to come by the yoke of any Bâ—shop or his Officers but that in all euents of things Controuâ—rsies of Cases they shal be subiect to the dâ—cree of the Abbot of the said Monastery So as c. And theÌ„ doth M. Attorney continue his speach thus 58. This Charter was pleaded in 1. H. 7. vouched by Stanâ—ord as at large appeareth which Charter granted aboue 850. yeares sytâ—ece was aâ—ter confirmâ—d per Edwinum BritaÌ„niâ—e AngioruÌ„ Regem Monarcham anno Domini 955 By which appeareâ—h that the King by this Charter made in Parliament for it appeareth to be made by the Counsâ—ll and consâ—â—nt of his Bishops and Senators of his Kingdome which wâ—re assâ—mâ—led in Parlamâ—nt did discharged and exâ—mpt the said Abbot frâ—m the iurisdiction of the Bishop c. And by the same Charter did grant to the same Abbot Ecclâ—siasâ—icall iurisdiction within his said Abbâ—â— whâ—ch Ecclesiasâ—icall Iurisdiction bâ—ing deriued fâ—oÌ„â—he Câ—oâ—â— contynned vntill the dissoluâ—ion oâ— the said Abbey in the Raigne 〈◊〉 K. Henry the eight So he 59. And by this you may see what an important ConclusioÌ„ he doth inâ—erre of the Kings supreme Iurisdiction in spirituall affaires at that tyme whereunto the Deuine comming to answere and supposing that M. Attorney would not â—alsify or bely his Authors hauing protested most solemnly fol. 40. oâ— his Booke that he had citâ—d truly the very words and texts oâ— the lawes resolutions iudgmâ—nts and actes of Paâ—lament all 〈…〉 and in print without any inâ—erence argumâ—nt or ampliâ—icaâ—iâ—n quoting particulerly the Bookes years leaues Chapters and other such lâ—ke certayne referencâ—s as euery man at his 〈◊〉 may see and read them c. The Answerer I say hearing this formall protestation and supposing besides that the man would haue some respect to â—is credit honour in this behalf granting all as it lay answered the same as you may see in his Booke But now vpoÌ„ better search it falleth out that this whole Case was falsely alleaged by M. Attorney in the very point of the principall CoÌ„trouersy in hand about the Kings spirituall Iurisdiction for that whatsoeuer the Charâ—ter did ascribe expresly to the Pope and his authority the Attorney suppressing the true words relateth it as procâ—eding from the King temporall authority of his Crowne For proofe wherof I shall set downe the very words of my learned freÌ„ds letter out of England about this point after view taken of the law bookes themselues and then let any man say how far M. Attorney is to be credited in any thing he writeth or speaketh against Catholicks 60. As concerning saith my friend the Charter of King Kenulphus for the Sanctuary of the Monastery of Abindon you must know that M. Attorney hath egregiously abused his Reader in that and other pointes for the Case standeth thus That in the first yeare of King Henry the 7. Humfrey Stafford was attainted by Act of Parlament of high treason tooke Sanctuary first in Colchester in Essex and after fled to Culnam and tooke Sanctuary in the Abbey of Abindon and being taken from thence brought vnto the Tower of London and from thence brought vnto the Kings Bench he pleaded that he was drawne by force out of the said SaÌ„ctuary of Culnam and praied his Counsaile to pleade that point which by all the Iudges of both Benches was granted vnto him And so they pleaded in this manner 91. Idem Humphridus per Consilium suum dixit quòd Kenulphus Rex MercioruÌ„ per Literas suas pateÌ„tes consilio coÌ„sensu EpiscoporuÌ„ SenatoruÌ„ gentis suae largitus suit Monasterio de Abindon accuidam Ruchino tunc Abbati Monasterij illius quandam ruris sui portionem id est quindecim Mansias in loco qui à Ruricolis â—unc nuncupabatur Culnam cum omnibus vâ—ilitatibus ad eandâ—m partinentibus tam in magnis quam in modicis rebus in aeternam haereditatem Et quòd praedicius Ruchiâ—us ab omni Regis obstaculo â—piscopali â—ure in sâ—mpitâ—rnum esset quietus vt inhabitatorâ—seius nullius Regis aut Miniâ—â—roruÌ„ suorum Episcopiâ—e aut suorum Offiâ—ialium iâ—go inde deprimerentur sed in cunctis rerum euentibus disâ—tissionibus causarum Abbatis Monasterij praedicti decreto suâ—ijâ—â—râ—ntur Ita quòd c. And here ceaseth M. Attorney leauing out as you see in his recitall the wordes that go before ab omni Regis obstaculo that the Monastery should be free from all obstacle of the King as also these words vt inhabitatores eius nullius Regis aut MinistroruÌ„ suorum iugo deprimantur that the inhabitaÌ„ts be not opprest with any yoake of any King or his Ministers Wherby is euideÌ„t that the King in his Charter did for his part giue exemptions from temporall and Royall power But especially the fraud is seene by cutting of the wordes that do ensue which decide the whole controuersy which are these Et etiam allegauit vltra quòd Leo tunc Papa concessit dicto Abbati dictas immunitates priuilegia Et quod Edwinus tunc Britanniae Anglorum Rex Monarchus coÌ„â—â—ssit quòd praesatum Monastâ—rium omnis terrâ—nae sâ—râ—â—tuâ—is esset liberum quae à prâ—decâ—ssoriâ—us suis Catholicis videlicet à dicâ—o sancto Lâ—â—ne Papa dicâ—o Rege Kâ—nâ—lpho c. Et quòd virtute literarum Bullarâ—m praediciarum tâ—mpore conâ—ecâ—ionis earuâ—dâ—m eadem villa de Culnam suit Sanctuarium lâ—cus priuilegiatus c. Which in English is thus And moreouer the said â—umphrey Stafford by his CouÌ„saile alleaged further for himselfe that Pope Leo had granted vnto the said Abbot the said immunities prâ—uiledges that king Edwin theÌ„ King Monarch ouer all the English in Britany had granted that the said Monastery should be free from all earthly seruitude which by his Catholicke predecessors to wit the said holy Pope Leo and the said King Kenâ—lphuâ— was granted and that at the time of the making of the foresaid letters Patents and Bulles the said village or Towne of Culnam was a Sanctuary priuileged place by vertue of the said Patents and Bulles 62. This is word for word the very plea of Humphrey Stafford for the Sanctuary of the Monastery of Abindon as it was pleaded by his learned Counsaile in law euen as it is recorded in the Reports of the years of K. Hâ—nry the seauenth as they are printed by Pinson the law printer in the tyme of K. Henry the eight before the Protestant religion came vp And the Lord Brooke in his Abridgement of the law in the title of Corone placito 129. doth accordingly set downe the same Case with mentioning of the Bulles of Pope Leo for the said immunities and priuileges But all the Protestant editions in the tyme of the late Quene Elizabeth printed by Tottell and Yestwort haue committed a notable tricke of falsification in leauing out altogether these markable words That Leo then Pope did
other Princes being of contrary beliefe haue also made the contrary lawes 16. These heads of demonstration togeather with foure more not vnlike to these which for breuity I do pretermit being laid forth at large by the Deuine with the manifest proofes and declarations out of the ancient and irrefragable histories of our Nation to make this euident inference that our Christian Kings before the Conquest did all of theÌ„ acknowledge the Popes supreme Iurisdiction in spirituall affayres and consequently they acknowledged also that it appertayned not to themselues And wheras the Attorney to proue his assertion alleageth two examples before the Conquest the one of K. Kenulphus about a Priuiledge he gaue to the Abbey of Abingdon the other of K. Edward the Conâ—essour that sayth That a King as Vicar of the highest must defend the Church it is answered by the Deuine that both of these examples do make against M. Attorney The first for that there is expresse mention that this Priuiledge was giuen by Authority from the Pope and the second that it is nothing to the purpose K Edward speaking of temporall Authority wheÌ„ he sayth That the King is Vicar of the highest and in the very same place insinuating most manifestly that in spirituall affayres the Pope is supreme and consequently that both these authorities were frandulently brought in by M. Attorney yea the former most willâ—ully corrupted as I do shew more largely and particulerly in the end of my twelfth Chapter of my booke of Miâ—igation And was not all this to the purpose Or will M. Attorney call this a Nihil dicit wheÌ„ the cause shall come before him in seat of Iudgment 17. Lastly the Deuine comming downe from the tyme of the Conquest vnto our dayes to wit to the raigne of K. Henry the viij sheweth largely in the seuerall liues of euery one of those Kings that in this point of the Popes supreme Ecclesiaâ—ticall Authority they were all vniforme in one the selfe same beliefe and acknowledgment which he proueth out of their owne wordes factes lawes histories other authenticall proofes And if at any time there fell out any disagreement or disgust betweene any King and the Pope that liued in his tyme it was only vpon particuler interests complaints of abuses by officers euill informers or the like for remedy wherof some restrictions agreements or concordates were made as now they be also in other Catholick Countries not for that any English King from the very first Christened vnto K. Henry the 8. nor he neyther for the first 20. yeares of his raigne did euer absolutly deny the Popes supreme Iurisdiction in Ecclesiasticall causes 18. And secondly the sayd Deuine answereth fully to all those pieces and parcels of lawes that M. Attorney produceth which are shewed either fraudulently to be alledged or wholly misconstred or vtterly to be impertinent to the conclusion which they should inferre And shall this in like manner be iudged from the purpose and a Nihil dicit where now is that Iudge that gaue sentence â—or him in this behalfe will he come forth stand to his sentence Or will Syr Edward Cooke be so vnreasonable in this behalf as to request any man to belieue him that such a Iudgment was giueÌ„ for him Or that he fouÌ„d so vniust a Iudge as would giue such a sentence so contrary to all conscience sense and reason But yow must note that many men haue noted this to be somewhat singular in Syr Edward Cooke as many other points be that when he talketh of Catholicks or their aâ—fayres he is so confident resolute precipitant in his asseuerations against them especially when he preacheth on the Bench or giueth his Charge that except we belieue him at his bare word contrary to all liklihood of truth the most part of that he speaketh will seeme to be wilfull vntruthes spoken against his owne conscience so litle he remembreth the saying of the prophet Pone ostium circumstantiae labijs meis I do not say they are lyes for that were inurbanity considering his present dignity but that they may seeme such to the wyser sort for that they lacke this doore of true circumstances to make them probable wherof we shall haue occasion to touch some more examples afterward Now we shall passe on to examine whether this Nihil dicit obiected to his Aduersary do not fall more iustly vpon himselfe and therwith also an opposite charge called a Nimium dicit which is to speake more then is true THAT THE Imputation of Nihil dicit doth fall more rightly vpon M. Attorney as doth also the Nimium dicit or euerlashing in his assertions §. II. HAVING shewed now that the Nihil dicit cannot be ascribed to the Catholicke Deuine for that he left written so much and so effectuall to the purpose he had in hand it would be an easie mâ—tter to shew in regard of the contrary effectes that the saâ—e remaineth with M. Attorney both for that he answered litle or nothing and that wholy from the purpose The â—irst is manifest by this new Preface of his wherin he answereth scarce halfe a page to more then 400. pages of my booke written against him The second also is not obscure by that I haue written in the precedent Paragraph of the impertinencie of proofs produced against vs which afterward perhaps may be better examined and consequently for both these respects the Nihil dicit lighteth vpon himselfe 20. Now then lâ—tting passe this Nihil dicit we shall contemplate a while the Nimium dicit when more is vttered then the truth with shall be the proper argument and subiect of this present section or Paragraph and this only about such matters as he hath now freshly and lasâ—ly vttered in this Preface that in all conteyneth but one only printed sheet wherby appeareth how great a volume it would arise vnto on our behalfe if we should examine the vntâ—uthes of all his other writings against vs. 21. To begin then with that which before we touched he auoucheth in this his Preamble That he could not fynd in all the booke any autâ—ority out of the bookes of Common lawes oâ— this Realme Acts of Parlaments or any legall and Iudiâ—iall records quoted or cyted by the Catholiâ—ke Deuine for the mantenance oâ— any of his opinions or conceipts wherupon as in Iustice sayth he I ought I had iudgment giuen for me vpon a Nihil dicit Thus farre the Knight wherby you perceaue that the immediate cause of this iudgment giuen in his fauour was grounded vpon this presumption that the Deuine neyther quoted nor cyted any one such witnesse throughout all his booke which if it be euidently false as now I shall proue it then must the Iudge confesse if he will not be Iudex iniquus that the sentence of Nihil dicit is to be reuoked as vniust 22. Let vs see then how true or false this assertion is or rather how many seuerall falshoods
there are conteyned in one First then page 163. The Deuinâ— doth cite the seuerall lawes of William Conquerour out of Roger Houeden parte 2. Annalium in vita Henrici 2. â—ol 381. and by them doth proue that the Conquerour acknowledged the Popes supreme Authority in causes Ecclesiasticall And is not this a legall record And in the next two leaues following he doth cyte aboue twenty diâ—ferent places out of the Canon law and Canonists which though perhaps M. Attorney will not cal legall in respect of his Municipall lawes yet iudiciall records they cannot be dâ—nyed to be Moreouer pag. 245. 246. he doth alleage the testimony of Magna Charta cap. 1. made by king Henry the third as also Charta de â—oresta made vpon the ninth yeare of his raigne Charta de MertoÌ„ made in the 18. of the same Kings raigne as other lawes also of his made vpon the 51. yeare oâ— his Gouernement all in proofe of the Popes iurisdiction and are all legall authorityes And furthermore he doth cyte pag. 248. statut anno 9. Henrici 6. cap. 11. and pag. 262. he citeth againe the said Great Charter and Charter of the Forest made by K. Henry the 3. and confirmed by his sonne King Edward the first diuers tymes And pag. 271. he citeth two lawes anno 1. Edward 3. stat 2. cap. 2. 14. eiusdem statut 3. pro Clero and doth argue out of them for profe of his principall purpose against Syr Edward And how then or with what face doth or can the Knight auouch heere that the said Deuine alleageth no one Act or law of Parlament or other iudiciall record throughout his whole booke doth he remeÌ„ber his owne saying in this his Preface That euery man that writeth ought to be so carefull of setting downe truth as if the credit of his whole worke coÌ„sisted vpoÌ„ the certainty of euery particuler period Doth he obserue this How many periods be there heere false of his But let vs see further Pag. 277. in the life of king Edward the first the said Deuine doth cite an expreâ—se law of King Edward 3. Anno regni 25. as also pag. 283. he doth alleage statut de consult editum anno 24. Edwardi 1. and another Anno 16. Edwardi 3. cap. 5. and all these things are cited by the Deuine before he commeth to treat peculierly of the lyfe of King Edward the third but vnder him after him he doth not alleage as few as 20. legall authorities and statutes of Acts of Parlaments so as for M. Attorney to auouch here so boldly peremptorily as he doth that the Deuine in all his booke did not alleage so much as any one authority eyther out of the coÌ„mon lawes or Acts of Parlament or other legall or iudiciall record is a strange boldeneâ—se indeed And yet he sayth that he found the Author vtterly ignorant and exceeding bold But if he could conuince him of such boldnes as I haue now conuinced himselfe for affirming a thing so manifestly false I should thinke him bold indeed or rather shameles for that heere are as many vntruthes as there are negatiue assertions which is a Nimium dicit with store of witnesses 23. It is another Nimium dicit also yf yow consider it well that which he writeth in the same place that when he looked into the booke euer expecting some answere to the matter he found none at all Wheras he found all that is touched in the former Paragraph and much more which was so much in effect as he saw not what reply he could make therunto which himselfe confesseth a litle before in these wordes saying Expect not from me good Reader any reply at all for I will not answer vnto his Inuectiues and I cannot make any reply at all vnto any part of his discourse yet doth he endeauour to mitigate this also saying That the Deuine answereth nothing out of the lawes of the Realme the only subiect sayth he of the matter in hand And a litle afâ—er againe I will not sayth he depart from the State of the question whose only subiect is the Municipall lawes of this Realme But this reâ—uge will not serue both for that I haue now shewed that the Deuine hath alleagâ—d many testimonies out of the Municipall lawes as also for that this is not true that the question is only about these lawes for that as before hath beene shewed the true state of the question betweene vs is VVhether supreme Ecclesiasticall authority in spirituall afâ—aâ—res did remayne in Queene Elizabeth and her Ancestours by right of their temporall Crownes or in the Bishop of Rome by reason of his primacy in the Chaire of S. Peter which great matter is not to be tryed only as in reason yow will see by the Municipall lawes of England or by some few particuler cases deduced from them but by the whole latitude of diuine and humane proofes as Scriptures Fathers Doctors histories practises of the primitiue Church lawes both Canon and Ciuill and the like as the Deuine doth teach in differeÌ„t occasions of his booke adding further That albeit it should be graunted to Syr Edward that this matter should be discussed by the common Municipall and Statute lawes of England only yet would he remayne wholy vanquished as largely doth appeare by the deduction of the said Deuine throughout all the succession of English Kings from Ethelbert the first Christened to King Henry the 8. that first fell into schisme against the Church of Rome This then was a notorious Nimium dicit 24. Another is when he sayth in reproofe of the Deuines answer to his Reports that the booke is exceeding all bounds of truth and charity full of maledictions and calumniations nothing pertinent to the state of the question and that it becommeth not Deuines to be of a fiery and Salamandrine spirit soming out of a hoat mouth c. which indeed will seeme to any indifferent man a stange passionate exaggeration of Syr Edward exceeding all tearmes of simple truth for that there is nothing found in that booke but temperatly spoken and with respect as it seemeth both to his Office and Person but yet when he saw the exobitant intemperance of the Attorneyes hatred against Catholicks to draw him to such acerbity of bloudy calumniations that he would needes inuolue them all in the heynons cryme of treason by meere sycophancy malicious collections vpoÌ„ false supposed groundes and fictions of Pius quintus his Bull and such like impertinent imputations no meruaile though he were more earnest in the repulsion of such open wronges but yet with that moderation as I perswade my selfe no iniurious or contumelious speach can be alleaged to haue passed from him in all that booke much lesse such inuâ—ctiues as heere M. Attorney chargeth him withall as also with that fierie Salamandrine spirit foming out of a hoat mouth wherein besydes the contumely which he will easily pardon Syr Edward speaketh more
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
belongeth as appeareth euidently by Cirendon and the Bishop of Lincolnes case in Plowdens Commentaries fol. 498. where it is said that because all aduowsons and lands within the realme are held eyther immediatly or mediatly of the King the land where the Church is situate before the Church was builded was held of the king so in respect of the tenure of the king the presentment by lapse accrueth vnto him as supreme Patron and not in respect of the supreme iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall which the Statute of 25. H. 8. did first of all ascribe vnto his temporall Crowne 90. Vnder the same king 17. E. 3.23 he citeth another law-booke thus The king may not only exempt any Ecclesiasticall person from the iurisdiction of the Ordinary but may graunt vnto him Episcopall iurisdiction as thus it appeareth there the king had done in ancient tyme to the Archdeacon of Richmond So he But if you read the booke it self here cited of 17. E. 3 23. you shall fynd that no such assertion can be founded there For thus the case standeth in that booke Stouff a Sergeant at law sayd that the Archdeacon of Richmond had the office of the Ordinary and I thinke quoth he by lâ—aue of the king This is all the case there related where you see that Sergeant Sâ—ouâ—â— affirmeth not that he knew it to be so but did thinke so that the said Aâ—chdeacon of Ricâ—mond had the office of tâ—e Ordinary by leaue of the king and much lesse did he auouch as Syr Edward doth for him that the king gaue or graunted vnto him that â—piscopall iurisdiction which is not warranted but rather ouerthrowne by that booke as you see for that the Archdeacon might haue his Episcopall Authority if he had any by grâ—unt from the Pope and licence only of the king and so this aâ—â—â—ueraâ—ion â—tanding but vpon a collection of M. Attorney falleth to the ground 91. It â—olloweth in M. Attorney his Reports vnder the same K. Ed. 3. All religious or Ecclesiasticall houses saiâ—h he wherof the king was founder are by the king exempt frâ— ordinary Iurisdiction only visitable corrigible by the K. Ecclesiasticâ—ll commission and for this he citeth tâ—ese books 20. E. 3. ExcoÌ„ 9.16 E. 3. titâ— Brâ— 660.21 E. 3.60.6 H. 7.14 Fitz. Nat. Breuâ— But in none of these bookes shall you find these words that thâ—y are only visitable or corrigible by the K. Ecclesiasticall commissioÌ„ This is Syr Edwards owne inuention The books quoted do speake of hospitals and free Chappels of the Kings foundation which are not visited by the Ordinary for that they are things temporall and without cure of soules and therfore not spirituall or Ecclesiasticall nor to be visited in those dayes according to the common-law by the Bishop but by the kings Chancellour as a temporall officer as testifyeth Fitzherb in his Nat. Br. â—ol 42. A. though afterward in K. H. 5. tyme for remedying of discoâ—ders it was decreed in the 2. yeare of his raigne that the visitation and correction of such Hospitals and free Chaphels of the Kings foundation or of his subiects should be done by the Ordinaries according to the Ecclesiasticll laws 2. H. 5. cap. 1. in Rastals Abridgment tit Hospitals So as heere the principall wordes of controuersie to wiâ— by the kings Ecclesiasticall â—ommission are feigned and put in by M. Attorney and this is his ordinary art to seeme to haue somewhat in fauour of his purpose when it is nothing at all but agaiâ—st him 92. It followeth in Syr Edw. instances â—ol 15. The king shall present in his free Chappels in default of the Deane by lapse in â—â—spect of his supreme Ecclesiastiâ—all iurisdiction citing for iâ— 27. Ed. 3. fol. 84. But heere againe I find a â—oule fitten for his booke hath not these words in respect of the kings supreme Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction which is heere made the principall verbe of this part of speach and often thrust in by M. Attorney of his owne inuentioÌ„ but the meaning of his booke is as he cannot but know that the king in such cases shall present not in respect of supreme Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction but as supreme Patron temporall for that aduowsons or patronage of such benefices are meere temporall inheritances according to our coÌ„mon-lawes as ofteÌ„ hath beene declared and therfore the King being founder may by lapse present 93. An other like fitten or rather more foule is coÌ„mitted by him in the same place alleaging out of 22. Edward 3. lib. Assis. pl. 75. that tythes arising in places out of any parish the king shall haue them â—or that he hauing the supreme Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction he is bound to prouide a sufficient Pastour that shall haue the cure of soules of that place which is not within any parish And by the common lawes of Englâ—nd saith he it is euident that no man vnlesse he be Ecclesiasticall or haue Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction can haue inheritance of tythes Thus much M. Attorney to proue that K. Ed. 3. had supreme Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction not the Pope in his dayes But heere be so many scapes fraudes and errours as is a shame to see For first in his booke quoted there is not fouÌ„d those words that principally import the controuersie that he as hauing supreme Ecclesasticall iurisdictionâ— is bound to prouide a sufficieÌ„t Pastour but all this is thrust in by M. Attorney to make vp his market Secondly much lesse is this yeelded for a reason by his booke why the king should haue such tythes as lay out of all parishes but another reason more substantiall is to be alleaged of being temporall Lord of the Lands which presently we shall touch 94. Thirdly it is not true that the king as hauing supreme Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction is bound to prouide a sufficieÌ„t Pastour to haue cure of soules of that place which is not within any parish both for that it may appertaine to a particuler subiect to dispose of those tythes if he be temporall Lord of the place without hauing supreame Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction and the emolument may be so small or the place it selfe so vast and remote as eyther there be few soules to haue cure of or the maintenance not sufficient for a Pastour Fourthly it is false that by the common-laws of England no man vnlesse he be Ecclesiasticall or haue Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction can haue the disposing of tythes for that euery man before the diuision of particuler parishes was made though he was bound by diuine and Canonicall-law to pay his tythes of his lands yet might he according to the coÌ„mon-lawes of England haue assigned them to what Parish he would Now let vs see the case it selfe as it is proposed in 22. Ed. 3. lib. Asâ— pl. 75. 95. The king granted certayne tythes vnto the Prouost of C. out of certayne lands newly asserted in the forest of RockingaÌ„ and the said Prouost therupon brought a writ of Scire facias
in which heere he seemeth in part to be by his offer of vnion and agreement though in the very next leafe he falleth into extremities agayne saying That the most sacred person of Gods annoynted king Iames whome Pope Clement the ninth could proudly dare to terme the Scottish Herâ—ticke shall vnderneath his Princely foote tread downe Romes faithlesse Papall proud and Antichristian heresy c. 115. Do you see where the man is againe Euen now you haue heard him ascribe so much to Pope Pius Quintus as for that he was presumed though falsely to offer the allowance of the English Communion booke to Q. Elizabeth if she would take it of him that therfore they had a doctryne of faith religioÌ„ sufficieÌ„tly necessary to saluation for that the Pope had allowed it and yet now he turneth to his old rayling calling the RomaÌ„ faith Romes faithlesse Papall proud Antichristian heresy And therby maketh all Christian kings that acknowledg the Popes spirituall authority to be faithlesse Antichristian heretikes How will this souÌ„d in the eares of all forraine Monarches and greatest Potentates that are touched therby Is this intemperate speach befitting a Iudges person yea a Chiefe Iudge But there is nothing more intolerable in this speach then the base odious flattering of his Maiesty which vice it is read that diuers magnanimous Princes haue more hated and punished then any cryme besides yea next vnto treason it selfe especially when it is conioyned with notorious falsity as this is when he saith That Pope Clement the ninth he should haue said the eyght could proudly dare to terme the Scottish hereticke which is indeed a famous English calumniation deuised by himselfe or others and can neuer be proued to be true for that Pope Clement spake euer very respectiuely of his Maiesty in all occasions both when he was in Scotland and after Neyther will the contrary be found in any of his writings Wherfore it is both shamefull and shamelesse that such open vntruthes should be spoken in publike audience without controlment But let vs goe forward to a point or two more 116. After his former exhortatioÌ„ inuitation to draw Catholicks to his doctryne of faith and religion sufficiently necessary to saluation he pasâ—eth to another point of threatning first that his Maiesty will neuer giue any toleration to Catholicks and the second that in the meane space while they hope in vaine they shall abide the smart of punishments The first he proposeth in these words If there be any Papist so â—oolish and altogeather reasonlesse as to expect that his Maiesty may be drawne to such alteration or toleration as they desire I will them assuredly to know they hope in vaine The second he setteth downe thus Such Papists as notwithstanding the impossibility of their hope will still remaine peruerse let them know for certainty that the lawes concerning them shall receiue a most strict and seuere execution against them 117. This is the dreadfull denunciation of our new Iudge wherby you see that in the one he forestalleth absolutly his Maiesties will not only for the present but for all time to come further perhaps then he hath commission to take vpon him For what knoweth he what God may inspire his Maiesty in succeeding yeares Or what other reasoÌ„s and circumstances of time place and state of things may induce his Royall Wisdome prudently and piously for benefit of his subiects to alter somwhat his present resolution Is not the hart of kings in the hands of God Wil my L. Iustice so make himselfe Pedagogue and Maister of his Maiesties will as he will define or predetermine before hand what he shall doe or what he shall not doe for the time to come This is very predominant indeed and were more then inough for a whole Counsell to doe but much more and farre ouermuch for him that hitherto so farre as I know hath noe place among them We cannot but hope better of his Maiesties pious disposition and trust that in time we shall say also Spes non confundit notwithstanding the desperate resolution of Syr Edward to the contrary 118. And as for the second point of his threatning punishment and vexation to Catholickes it is litle to be wondred at and lesse to be esteemed in such a Cause as they suffer for Lesse to be wondred at for that such animosity of spirit is wont often to accompany them that rise in hast to excessiue wealth and authority ouer others lesse to be esteemed by Catholicks who both take it for a glory to suffer for their Religion and haue learned by experience of former tymes that God is wont to extend his hand and make an arrest euen then when those that persecute his seruants are most in their heate of pursuite against them And I could wish that Syr Edward did but looke ouer the two ancient written Bookes the one of Tertullian to Scapula the other of S. Cyprian in imitation of the former to Demetrianus both of them persecuting Iudges whome the said Authors do earnestly exhort to looke vpon the endes of such as had beene their persecutours in that their office before Possumus sayth Tertullian to Scapula exitus quorumdam Praesidum tibi proponere c. We might lay before your face the ends also of certayne Presidents or Iudges that after afflicting vs felt the hand of God themselues and then he nameth Vigelius Saturninus in Africa that was suddainly stroken blinde Claudius Herminianus in Cappadocia that was eaten with life Ceciliuâ— Capella of Byzantium that after much cruelty perished miserably when he least expected And I thinke also that I may truly adde that whosoeuer shall looke vpon the endes of such as haue bene the greatest persecutours of Catholikes in England since persecution began and among those also some Iudges of Syr Edwards ranke if I be not deceyued will finde litle cause to brag or to vaunt that they were happy therin But howsoeuer this be I say to our Iudge as Tertullian sayd to his when he layd before him the sayd examples Non te terremus quia nec timeâ—â—â— we do not go about to terrify you for that neither do we feare you in this cause though I know you may vexe vs as you haue donne and do but when all is donne our hope is where it was in the Highest and our assurance and protection is the warrant of our Maister Nolite timere eos qui corpus occidunt c. Doe not feare those that can vexe or kill the body and afterward can do noe more but feare him that after this life can cast into hell and euerlasting torments and this Iudge must our Iudge feare also For he is Iudge of Iudges and can both reuerse iudgments and reuoke sentences at his pleasure 119. And thus much haue we bene induced to speake and repeate againe in this matter of this Norwich-Charge by occasion of Syr Edwards accusation of Pricket in
Edward Cooke cap. 7. 8. The particulers of his booke cap. 8. n. 6.7 c. Not impossible for Catholickes to liue together in ciuill obedieÌ„ce with Protestants cap. 2. n. 5.6 c. Greatest daungers not imminent by Catholickes c. 2. n. 14. c. The Censure of a stranger vpon two Latin bookes of M. Morton cap. 6. num 76. Chrisme in Confirmation impugned by Nouatians and ProtestaÌ„nts alike cap. 3. num 71. Syr Edw. Cooke his Equiuocation cap. 7. nuÌ„ 47. his proofes against the Popes Supremacy proued to be nothing to the purpose ibid. num 71. Item to be falsely alleaged num 73.74 c. The case of Ed. 1. about bringing into EnglaÌ„d the Popes Bulles discussed n. 74.75 câ— He streineth his law-bookes n. 94. c. 8. n. 8.4 His preface to the sixt part of Reports answered cap. 8. per totuÌ„ His iudgement of a Nihill dicit ibid. num 2.3 c. The two causes of a Nihil dicit nu 4.5 c. His precipitant maÌ„ner of speaking against Catholickes nuÌ„ 19. Syr Edward charged with a Nimium dicit num 20 21.2â— c. his vntruth n. 22. His rayling speaches against Catholickes n. 26. n. 104.113 His Pedanteria n. 27. 28. His merry fiction of the Monke at Norwich n. 59. the same auswer'd with a serious history n. 60 The foure questions proposed by himselfe in a Students name discussed ibid. num 62.63 deinceps his bad illations n. 67. He corrupteth Cesars Commentaries about burning of wiues for petty treason num 70.71 c. His fraudulent dealing in the matter of Appeales n. 75.76.77 His false alleaging of the law n. 82.83 c. He forgetteth himself num 85 in fine His Preface to the seauenth part of Reports iniurious to Catholiks num 101.102 c. His vaunting vanity ibid. num 105. He mislyketh nouelty and yet practiseth it 106. His speaâ—h at Norwich n. 109. 110. c. His threats against Catholickes n. 116. The tale of his fatfighting-Abbot nu 118. his dreadfull commination against Catholick books n. 119. good counsaill giuen to Syr Edward num 121. He misliketh spirituall bookes n. 123. The Comedy betwixt M. Mort. and M. Stock cap 5. num 80. Contradictions of M. Morton for want of memory cap. 1. § 2. n. 13 14.15 c. Item about the mayd that examined S. Peter cap. 2. n. 33. Costerus notably abused by M. Morton c. â— n. 10. c. Touching the Councell of Eliberis about Images see c. 3. n. 33. c. as also of the Councell of FraÌ„kford c. 3. num 46. c. D DEcretals see Greg. XIII A hard Demand proposed to M. Morton c. 1 n. 99. Another reall Demand ibid. n. 114. Item another touching true and false writing of Catholicks Protestants c. 3. num 7. Dissimulation discouered in M. Morton cap. 9. num 6.7 DolmaÌ„ peruerted about the succession of Protestant Princes c. 1. num 76. Dowries see Lawes Diuides c. 8. num 71.72.73 E K. Ed. 1. abused by Syr Edw. Cooke c. 7. n. 74.75 c. c. 8. n. 88. Item Ed. 2. c. 8. num 86.87 Item Ed. 3. c. 8. n. 87.88 c. ibid. n. 98.99 Emanuel Sà see Equiuocation S. Epiphanius improued not the vse of Images c. 3. n. 48. c. Equiuocation as it is false lying subdiuided cap. 1. n. 45. what is materiall lying Equiuocation and what formall ibid. n. 49.50 Materiall Equiuocation worse theÌ„ materiall lying num 56. it is neuer lawfull n. 61. Sundrie cases resolued for Equiuocation by Emanuel Sà c. 4. n. 78. see more hereof cap. 7. § 2. n. 19.20 c. of Equiuocation of ProtestaÌ„ts ibid. n. 32.33 c. of Ministers and others ibib n. 42. Espencaeus egregiously abused cap. 1. n. 103. Q. Ethelwicks Charter discussed c. n. 65.66.67 c To much Exasperation alwaies daÌ„gerous in any state c. 7. n. 16.17 F IN what sense M. Morton said that the chiefest aduantage of his Roman aduersaries doth consist in Falsifications c. 9. n. 32 His fond vaunt of Fetters and shackels cap. 2. n. 35.36 B. Fishers opinion concerning Purgatory wrongfully carped at cap. 3. n. 134. Flatterers and the effects that follow of them cap. 2. num 10. Forfeiture of lands for fellonie cap. 8 n. â—9 Fox his lyes ca. 1. nu 116. Frankford see Councell Frifingensis abused concerning Gregory the 7. whome he coÌ„mendeth cap. 1. num 89. G GRatiaÌ„ falsely accused by M. Morton with diuers shifts capâ— 3. nu 19. Item his Glosse auouched for an ancient decree c. 5. n. 59.60 c. againe ib. nu 73. Gregory the 7. Pope calumniated by M. Morton cap. 5. nuÌ„ 114 c. ibid. n. 132.133 Gregory the 13. falsely alleaged c. 5. num 92. H THe ancient heresy against the reall presenceâ— cap. 3. n. 101. Heretikes seuerely censured by S. Augustine cap. 5. n. 76. The History of good counsell giuen to a sick manâ— c. 8. n. 60. Holinshed abused c. 4â— n. 50. M. Hornes vntruthes c 1 nu 116. I THE vse of Images not improued by S. Epiphanius ca. 3. n. 48. Iewels lies cap. 1. num 115. c. 6. num 120. His Equiuocation cap. 7. n. 43.44 c. The truth of a speaker may depend vpon the coÌ„petency of the Iudge c. 2 num 29 32. K THE case of a seditious makebate against his King vnder colour of prouidence capâ— 2 num 12. Kings how they haue their authority from God and how from man cap 5 nu 54. D. King the Minister his EquiuocatioÌ„s in Append. n. 5.6 c. L LAmbertus Schaffuaburgensis abused by M. Mort. c. 1. n. 90. M. MortoÌ„s Latin wanteth the principall Verb cap. 3 numâ— 39. Lawes the antiquity of our English common Lawes ca. 8 nu 30.31.36 Whether euer altered by our Conquerours ibid. num 43. c. The Brittish Lawes altered by the Romans ibid. n. 46.47 Item by the Saxons Danes Normans ibidâ— n. 50. their excellency n. 54. They are shewed to be defectuous in triall of life and death ibid. in the matter of Dowries n. 56. in prouiding for yonger brothers n. 57. in the wardships of pupils n. 58. in the liberty and auarice of Lâ—wiers ibidem S. Leo abused cap 6 n 62 63. Lyes of M. Morton See cap. 2. n. 45. c. 9â— per totum caput Logicke of P. R. defended c. 1. nu 45.46.47 c M MAncinus see Carerius The Mayde that examined S. Peter cap. 2. num 33. Principall points of the Mitigation repeated cap. 7. n. 5.6.7 M. Mort. taxation of P.R. his memory wit skill in Logike Hebrew Greeke c. discussed c. 1 per totum His fond comparison of Catholick Priests with Iewish c. 1. § 1. His fond inference against his Aduersary about the resurrection c. 1 § 1. his exorbitant false exaggeration about the false dealing of his Aduersary cap. 1. num 114. M. Mortons ridiculous interlude cap. 2 n. 2 His foolish insultation cap. 2. n. 9. his vaunting entrance to the impugning
p. 107 108.109 c. M. Mort. defendeth himselfe with silence Mitig. p. 248. D. Aegidius HuÌ„nius his booke of Caluin Anno 159â— VVittemberg apud viduam Matthâ—i VVelaci Iohn Caluin an angel of darknesse with the LutheraÌ„s A coÌ„sideration of much weight How Caluinisme is heresy by the iudgment of learned ProtestaÌ„ts Two other heads of controuersy Catholick doctrine touching ObedieÌ„ce to Princes Mitig. p. 38.39 c. p. 116.117 c. ProtestaÌ„ts doctrine about restrayning and punishing Princes The practice of ProtestaÌ„ts against Pâ—â—nces Sâ—â— Mitig. p. 44.45 â— dâ—â—â—â—â—ps â—â—â—m p. 116.117 c. Great omâ—â—ons of M. Morton in his Reply A wicked and pernicious course of exasperatingâ— driuing to desperatioÌ„ Preamb. pag. 36. Mitig. p. 274.275 About the peruersity of our aduersaries How Equiuocation is defended Matth. 5. Gratian. Causa 22. c. 2. Diuers things are commendable and of perfection but not of obâ—ligation Fiue consideratioÌ„s about the vse of Equiuocation Preamble p. 82.83 Mitig. c. 8. 9. p. 307 Forcible proofes for equiuocation Aug. ser. 28. de verbis Apostol Ioan. 1. See mitig c 9. §. 2. pag. 362. deinceps Full satisf p. 48.49 Ioan. 8. Ioan. 5. Act. 10 Math. 9. Marc. 5. Luc. 8. When T. M. is like to pay this debt Mitig. p. 3â—0 Mitig. c. 9.10.11 M. Mort. iniquity in dealing maliciously with vs. Act. 5. Supra c. 1. §. 4. Mitig. p. 486. Formall lying Equiuocation in T. Mort. T. Mortâ— talents in lying Equiuocation Asigne distinctiue betweene ProtestaÌ„ts and vs. A iust chalenge to M. Mort. Ten Protestant writers brought in for lying Equiuocators M. Iewels egregious Equiuocation In his sermon in the Court and at Pauls Crosse. Diuers reasons câ—Ì„uincing that M. Iewell spake wittingly against his conscieÌ„ce Mitig. p. 501. D. VVhitaker in his answer to D. Sanders DemoÌ„strations p. 21. Six seuerall examples of M. Iewells Equiuocation Syr Edward Cooke Full satisfact c. 17. fol. 40. In the Answer to Reports in the liues of Edward the â—irst Ed. 2. c. Mitig. p. 535. The Charge layd against Syr Edward Cooke See the answere â—f the Cath. Deuine to the 1. p. of Syr â—â—ward Cookâ— Reports c. vltimo A notable fiction against Pius V. Decret p. 1. dist 40. ca. 6. Si Papa The L. Cookes charge against Catholickes The Deuine deceiued by the subtility of the Lawyer K. Kenulphus his charter notably falsified by M. Att. Reports fol. 9. The charter as M. Attorney alleageth it anno 755. StaÌ„ford l. 3. c. 39. fol. 1012. Marke M. Attorneys infâ—rence vpon his owne falsifiâ—ation * This is false * This also is false M. Att. solemne protestation falsifyed Reports fol. 40. The relation sent out of England about the true charter of K. Kenulphus This decideth the whole coÌ„trouersie and therfore was frauduleÌ„tâ—ly cut of by M. Att. 1. Henr. 7. printed by Pinson Brooke tit Corone pl. 129. A falsification of ProtestaÌ„â— printers When Parliamentes began in England The conclusion Fiue cases taken out of Syr Ed. Cooke his Reports Full satisfâ—ct par 3. pag. 41. 1 Reports fol. 12. 2 Repoâ—ts fol. 15. 3 Reports fol. 21. 4 Reports fol 23. 5 Repoâ—ts fol. 26â— False inferences False dealing The 1. case againe discussed Full satisf par 3. pag. 41. Reports part 1. fol. 12. Mitig. p. 267. T. Mâ— clipping of hiâ— Author 30. Ed. 3. l. Ass. pl. 19. Brooke in his Abridgment tit Praemunire pl. 10. Answere to the Reports pag. â—67 The Deuines resoÌ„ against the probability of the Attorneys assertion VVestmoÌ„ in hist. anno 1197. A conuincing argument against M. Attorney 11. Henrici 4. fol. 64â— Reports fol. 15.31 E. 3. titâ— ExcoÌ„munic â— Note the force of this argument An addition to the former answeres The case betweene Syr T. Seaton and Lucy Peter Bourchets case anno 1578. Foure other reasons against Syr Edward The begining of abiuraÌ„ce Pleading of Bulls no treason vnder K. Ed. 3. Hen. 4. Hen. â— Brooke in his abridgment titâ— Premuniâ—e pl. 10. The secoÌ„d case about aduousoÌ„s and collations of beneficesâ— An Alias and Pluries The third case about disturbing the patâ—ons Presentee Statute of Carliele 25. E. 1. The 4. case about dependaÌ„ce of the Crowne Ans. to Reports p. 211. The 5. case about suites in Rome Answere to reportes pag. 232. 9. E. 4. fol. 3. Iustice Yelueâ—toÌ„ 14. H. 4 â— 14. Fitzh abused The true case set downe Fiue fond coÌ„parings not worth a paring Prefaces and Preambles insteed of bookes In the preface to the 6. part of his Reports Two causes inferring a Nihil dicit The principall point that Syr Edward must prooue Answere to Reportâ— in the Preface The high importaÌ„ce of this coÌ„trouersie Thâ—ee different professions of Religion in EnglaÌ„â— with their grounds or spirituall iurisdiction The origen and ordinance of both powers spirituall and temporall The diâ—ferent excellency of these 2. powers Nazianz. orat ad Ciues timore perculsos Answere to Reports pag. 24. Nazian orat ad ciues timore perculsos Chrysost. l. 3. de Sacerdotio to 4. in c. 6. Esaiae Ambr. lib. 2. ep 33. tradendiâ—â— Answer to Repoâ—ts p. 74 75.76.77 deinâ—eps Two sorts of proofes de iure de facto Ten Demonstrations against M. Attorneys assertion de facto before the Conquest Two instances of M. Attorney before the CoÌ„quest helping him nothing Concerning the English Kinges after the Conquest Syr Edward precipitant in auâ—rring things against Catholickes Psalm 140 A manifest vntruth vttered by Syr Edw. Variety of legall authorities out of law books Manifest and wilfull vntruthes vttered by Syr Edward The true state of the question The temperate proceeding of the Deuine in his wrytings Plinius lib. 10. histor natural cap. 67. The Pedanteria of Syr Edward Syr Edw. his ordinary and coÌ„tinual railing against Catholickes Impertinent GraÌ„maticall phrases About the antiquity excelleÌ„cy of our English lawes In the Preface to the 6. part of Reportes Answere to Râ—ports pag. 14.15 c. Syr Iohn Fortescue A great exaggeration oâ— anâ—â—â—uity His first meanes of proofe by anâ—iquitâ—â—f Natiâ—ns Galfridus Monumetensis lib. 1. historiae The state of Britany for lawes and customes in Iulius Cesar his tyme. Câ—sar lib. 5. de bello Gallico Solinus c 35â— in fiâ—e Plin. 22. historiâ— naturalis cap. 1. Claudian in Laudes StilicoÌ„ paneg 2. pag. 258. Diodorus lib. 6. rerâ— antiquaruÌ„ Strabo lib. 4. Geographiae Mela l. 3. Geograph Tacitus in vita â—ulij Agricolâ—e Herod l. 3. hist. Dio in epit hist. Xephil in hist. Omnes in vita Alexandrâ— Seuâ—â—i The rudenes of the BritaÌ„s 200. years after Christ. Dio in Nerone The speach of the Qu. Brâ—ndeâ—iâ—ke A ridiculous imagination of the great antiquity of the venetiaÌ„ Lawes Blondus l. 1. â—ist Ital. lib. speâ—iaâ—i de â—ebus Venetorum An impertinent exception His secoÌ„d medium for proouing the antiquity and excellency of our English Lawes Whether the ancieÌ„t British Lawes were euer changed or altered Plin. lib. 30 hist. cap. 1. Hector Boâ—th hist. Sâ—ot