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
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
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
for his contempt And if he were attached and would obstinateâ—y reâ—use to obey the Kings commandment in admitting the saiâ— Clerk then might the King for his contempt seyse vpon his tempoâ—alities which were oâ— tâ—e Kings endowment And this was the vttermosâ— that the King could by law do against him for that he could neither imprison nor depose or degrade him there being no presideÌ„t to be found as I suppose of the first And for the second the law it selâ— semeth cleare against it as may appeare by Bracton fol. 401. Stanford â—ol 130. c. But howsoeuer it be this proueth nothing against the Popes spirituall Iurisdicâ—ion in England this matter of Aduowsons being meere tempoâ—all things and of the kings temporall inheritance wherein as in all other temporall affaires Bishops were bound to obserue the temporall lawes 91. The other point also that happened out vnder K. Edward the 3. when one was condeÌ„ned to perpetuall prison for hauing disturbed the Kings Presentee by Bulls from Rome is nothing to the purpose at all for that it apperteined not to the Pope but to the Kings temporall inheritance as hath byn said to present Clerkes to such benefices as were of his peculiar patronage and therfore it was ordeined in the Statute of Carliâ—le in the 25. of Edw. the first that such as went about to disâ—urbe the same vniustly by false informations and negotiations at Rome should be punished at the discretion of the Prince so it were not with losse of lyfe meÌ„ber or of his liuood And what inferreth this Are not the like lawes at this day in Spaine and Sicily and els where against them that traÌ„sgresâ—e ordinations of those Realmes about like affaires Or doth this proue that those Catholike Realmes do not acknowledge the Popes Ecclesiasticall Supremacy Euery child may see the weaknes of these inferences and yet vpon these and the like doth all M. Aâ—torneys Treatise layne and consist 92. As for the other Case vnder K. Richard 2. where it was propounded by the Commons in a certaine narration that the Crowne of England hath byn at all tymes â—ree and in subiection to no Realme nor to the B. of Rome touching the Regality of the Crowne c. it is so fully answered by the Deuine in his Reply to the Reports as no more needeth to be said For that they speake but of temporall regalities and haue some reference also as may be supposed vnto the time when the Sea Apostolicke after the concession of K. Iohn preteÌ„ded teÌ„porall right also in that Crown And the answere oâ— the Bishops in that Parliament with distinctioÌ„ that they would â—eld to that Statute so far forth as they did not preiudicâ— the ancient iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall of the said Sea Apostolicke in spirituall affaires doth euidently shew that this obiection maketh nothing to the purpose to denie thereby any part of the Popes supreme Ecclesiasticall authority and consequently as it was impertinently alleaged by M. Attorney to that effect in his Reports so much more fondly was it chosen out by M. Morton as a matter of moment to furnish his Booke withall 93. And as for the last Case vnder K. Edward the fourth where he saith That it was the opinion of the Kings Bench that whatsoeuer spirituall man should sue another spirituall man in the Court of Rome for a maâ—ter spirituall where he might haue remedy before his Ordinary that is the Bishop of the diocesse within the Realme he incurreth the danger of Premunire being an heynous ofâ—ence against the honor of the King his Crown dignity though the former answeâ—e of the Deuine be very sufficient in this case yet must I needes adde â—n this place that it is rather an heinous offence in such a man as M. Attorney is or should be to misreport and misconster his law-bookes therby to make someâ— shew oâ— probability against the ancieâ—t power Ecclesiasticall of the Sea Apostolicke in England whereas the said Books being rightly alleaged vnderstood do make wholy for it As for example heere in this case alleaged out of 9. Ed. the 4. â—ol 3. the saying is only of Yeluerton of the kings Bench and his Report is meant when a spirituall man shall sue an other that is a temporall man in the Court of Rome for a thing meere temporaâ—l he shall incurre the said punishment For that for one spirituall man to sue another spirituall man in the Court of Rome in spirituall Causes was a thing all waies lawfull and vsuall both before the tyme of K. Ed. 4. and after vntill it was forbid by King Henry the eight And that this is true that it was lawfull by the common-CoÌ„mon-law in K. Henry 4. tyme appeareth expressely by the Booke of 14. H. 4. fol. 14. Neither can I thinke M. Attorney alleage any example where the same is prohibited either by CommoÌ„ or Statute law during the tyme aforesaid 94. And whereas for strengthning this his false assertion he citeth in his Margent vide Fitzh in Nat. Breu. fol. 45. lit â— agreeing herewith And further adâ—eth a Notandum for the same as a matter notorious he doth notoriously abuse his Reader For that Fitzh speaketh not at all of a Premunire but only That if one sueth another out of the Realme for debt or other cause wherof the kings Court may haue conusance he shall haue a prohibition against him And so if one Clearke sue an other vpon title of Collation oâ— any Prebendary out of the Realme c. he shall haue also this prohibiâ—ion And if a man purchaseth out of the Court oâ— Rom against any Clerk or others any Citation directed vnto the Archbishop of Canterbury or any others to cite such a person to appeare beâ—ore the Pope c. to answere for the Collation or Presentation vnto any benefice or Prebendary a prohibition shall lye in this Case Hitherto Fitzher in his writt of prohibition And this is all that he hath in that place of this matter So you see that all that Fitzherbert saith is but that a prohibitioÌ„ shall lye for suyng in the Court of Rome for debt or title of Patronage or such other temporall Causes wherof the Kings Court may haue conusance and he maketh no mention of any Premunire And yet euery puny StudeÌ„t in the Law can tell how much difference there is betwixt a Premunire and a Prohibition that Syr Edward delt not sincerely wheÌ„ he brought in the one for the other 95. So then we soe what striuing wresting worse vsage M. Attorney offereth to his law-bookes to make them seeme to say somwhat against vs and for Protestant religion against which most of them were written as all of them before our times without exception in fauour of the Catholicks We see also the pittifull choice that M. Morton hath made of these fiue Cases out of all M. Attorneys Reportable Reports against the Popes supreme Ecclesiasticall authority
true explanation of your meaning with a cleare confutation and reiection of the same and consequently these Rhetoricall shifts are idly brought in by you nothing nâ—edfull for me For P. R. tooke you in your true meaning wherin you desire to make Catholicke Doctours contemptible in generall for their blindnesse though to some yow will seeme to graunt the opinion of learning but yet with such restraint and limitation as you make it not better for instruction of Christian soules then the learning of the Diuell himselfe For this is your wise and graue conceipt Let them be as greatly learned say you as they are and would seeme to be yet must there be a con I meane an hart zealous of the truth to be ioyned with science to make vp a perfect conscience which is the true Doctour indeed otherwise we know that the serpent by being the most subtile of all the beasts in the field will deserue no better commendationâ— then to be accoÌ„pted the skillfullest seducer By which discourse of yours a man may easily see whether your meaning were generall in your former speach about ignorant Doctours or no and how impertinently you bring it in heere for an argument of wilfull falshood against me for that I vnderstood you in your owne sense I will not discusse your concept of your science with your con which was borrowed of Iohn Reynolds and of others before you and though I be loath to tell it you least it may seeme to sauour of reuenge yet I must say it for your better information that many men thinke very little of the one or other to be in your selfe as they should be either science or good conscience alleadging your writings for testimony of both HIS FOVRTH obiected falshood against P. R. §. IIII. NEXT vnto this he produceth for a falshood in me that I say in my booke of Mitigation that he taketh vpon him to iustifie the writings and doings of the Protestants of our dayes for their seditious doctrines and practizes against Princes who please them not and among others M. Goodman in particuler that wrote the most scandalous booke against the Regiment of women in Q. Maries dayes and assisted Knox Buchanan and others in troubling and turning vpside downe Scotland wheras M. Morton saith that he condemned him and consequeÌ„tly that I dealt iniuriously with him Thus he citeth my words in a different letter as though they stood so in my text He Thomas Morton doth particulerly iustifie Goodman 21. But first you must vnderstand that it is his common vse neuer lightly to alleadge truly and sincerely any text that he will vse to his profit either in Latin or English and let the Reader make prooâ—e of it if in twenty places alleadged by him he find foure without all alteration let him say that I do offer him iniury My words talking of the parts of M. Mortons Reply called the Full satisâ—action were these Secondly he taketh vpon him yet more fondly in the second part of this his Reply to make a publicke iustification of all Protestants for rebelling against their Princes in any countrey whatsoeuer but more particulerly and especially in England and therin doth so iustifie Cranmer Ridley Syr Thomas VVyatt and others that conspired against Q. Marie in England Knox Buchanan Goodman and like Ministers in Scotland turning vpside downe that State against their Soueraignes the rebellions raised in Suetia Polonia Germany Switzerland France and other countries as his iustification is a more condemnation of them and their spirits and doctrine in that behalfe then if he had said nothing at all as partly shall afterward appeare by some instances that we shall alleadge therof 22. By which words of mine you may see that I did not single out Goodman alone as particulerly iustified by M. Morton as he would make the Reader belieue by his crafty and corrupt manner of citing my words but that among many others he did go about also so farre as he durst to excuse and iustifie him saying as presently you shall heare that albeit he approued him not for this he durst not do my L. of Canterbury hauing written so terribly against him in his booke of Dangerous positions yet that the examples alleadged against him by the Moderate Answerer might excuse him which were of most intollerable speaches of his against Princes and heere againe in this his Preamble that in respect of Romish Priests he might be thought excusable wherby a man may see his inclination to iustifie him and his writings if with security he might haue donne it How then is it such a falsity in me to say that among so many others before named whom he cannot deny but that he seeketh to iustifie them he sought also to excuse and iustifie Goodman though not in so absolute a manner as the other Saints of his yet in some degree conuenient to his estate and merit Let vs see what I do write afterward more about this iustification of Goodman my wordes these 23. The moderate Answerer say I alleageth first the wordes of Goodman in his booke against Q. Mary wherin he writeth expresly that it is lawfull by Gods law mans to kill both Kings and Queenes wheÌ„ iust cause is offered her selfe in particuler for that she was an enemie to God and that all Magistrâ—ts and Princes transgressing Gods lawes might by the people be punished condemned depriued and put to death as well as priuate transgressours and much other such doctrine to this effect cited out of the said Goodman All which the Bishop of Canterbury his second booke of Dangerous positions hath much more largely both of this Goodman and many other English Protestants chiefe Doctours of their primitiue Church residing at that time in Geneua And what doth T. M. now reply to this You shall heare it in his owne wordes If I should iustify this Goodman saith he though your examples might excuse him yet my hart shall condemne my selfe But what do you professe to proue all Protestants teach positions rebellious prooue it heere is one Goodman who in his publike booke doth mantaine it I haue noe other meanes to auoid these straites which you obiect by the example of one to conclude all Protestants in England rebellious then by the example of all the rest to answere there is but one So he 24. And this is his Full satisfaction and faithfull reply as he calleth his booke but how poore satisfaction this giueth and how many points there be heere of no faith or credit at all is quickly seene by him that will examine them For first how do the examples alleaged against this Goodman by the moderate answerer excuse him as heere is said seeing the wordes he alleageth against him out of his owne booke are intollerable and my Lord of Canterbury alleageth farre worse as for example that it is most lawfull to kill wicked kings when they fall to tyraÌ„ny but namely Queenes
was sent to their Camp by the Pope and Emperour to informe them of the agreement submission made Fremere omnes saith this Storie seuire verbis manibus coeperunt Apostolicae legatioâ—i irrisorijs exclamatâ—onibus â—bstrepere conuitia maledicta turpissima qâ—aecâ—mque fâ—â—or suggâ—ssisset irrogare All of them began to fret and wax â—ierce both in words and casting their hands with scornfull outcries to contradict this Apostolicall legation sent vnto them to cast vpon the Pope all the most foule reproaches maledictions that furie could suggest vnto them Thus saith Lambertus and then setteth downe the particuler slanderous reproaches heere cyted by T.M. which he approueth not but condemneth as you haue heard and highly commendeth not only the vertue but sanctity also of the Pope And will euer any man credit T.M. any more in any thing that he alleageth when this coÌ„scienceles falsification is once discouered in him yea though it were but once throughout his whole Booke it were sufficieÌ„t to proue that he dealeth not out of any faith or conscience at all 113. If an enemy would discredit both Christ Christian Religion and say your owne Euangelistes do recount foule things against him as here this Minister saith our historiographer doth of Pope Gregory and namely that he was accused by the Scribes Pharisies for casting out diuells in the power of Beelzebub for deceauing the people for denying tribute to be paid to Cesar for mouing sedition and other like crymes which our Euangelistes doe recount indeed but do condemne them also as false and calumnious were not this as good and faithfull a manner of reasoning as this other of Thomas Morton out of Lambertus and Friâ—ingensis against pope Hildebrand who is by theÌ„ both most highly coÌ„mended as you haue heard and his aduersaries condemned Truly if any man can shew me out of all the Catholicke writers that be extant English or other that euer any one of them vsed this shamefull fraud in writing where no excuse can free them from malicious and witting falshood then will I grant that it is not proper to the Protestant spirit alone Hithertâ— I must confesse that I neuer found it in any and if I should though it were but once I should hold it for a sufficient argument not to belieue him euer after And this shall suffice for a tast only of M. Mortons manner of proceeding for that to prosecute all particulers would require a whole volume and by these few you may ghesse at the mans veyne and spirit in writing So I wrote then in my Treatise of Mitigation The pretended Discharge 114. To this Charge M. Mort. beginneth his Discharge thus Thou seest Christian Reader I haue had patience to heare my Inditement deliuered vnto the full and suffred my Aduersary without any interruption to say so much in this accusation as that by this tyme he may seeme to hâ—â—e runne himself out oâ— breath c. Now therâ—ore I turne my self vnto thee good Reader as to my Iudge who may seeme by this tyme to exact of me an answere and of whome I must desyre and expect a iust censure Vouchsafe thereâ—ore I pray thee an intenâ—iue examination and I dare presume thou wilt acknâ—wledg this accusation to be both so false and foolish and vnfortunate to his cause and indeed blasphemous as though he had studied to be eyther â—aithlâ—s or fond or vnluckie or impious c. So M. Mort. And you see how passionate the man is in these his speaches and how needfull it was for me to intitle this Answere A quiet and sober Reckoning for that otherwise we might haue fallen from all reckoning of reason and moderation But to come to the matter what saith he to the point it self of iustifying his allegation of the vnâ—ruth of Lambertus against Pope Gregory You shall heare it deliuerâ—d by himself 115. In the beginning saith he I am charged with impudent impiety for citing Lambert Schafnaburge to affirme that The Bishops of Italy did excommunicate Pope Gregory for capitall crimes But why is this impudencie As if saith P. R. this our Chronographer had related this as a thing of truth or that it were approued of him and not rather as a slanderous obiection cast out by his Aduersaries that followed the part of Henry the Emperour c. The point now in question is whether this Author Lambertê° Schafnaburge was of this opinioÌ„ Which P. R. denieth calling my assertion an impudent impiety Let vs be iudged by the euidence of the Author himself who in the place alleadged hath these words Postquam per Itâ—liam fama percrebuisset c. After that the fame was spread abroad throughout Italie that K. Henrie had set his foot in their coastes certatim omnes Italiae Episcopi c. All the Bishops of Italy did flocke by troups vnto him receauing him with all honour worthy the magnificence of such a person and within a few daies after an army of an infinite multitude was gathered vnto him for from the first time that he was King the longed for his comming into Italy because at this time Italy was pestered with the euery And what els It followeth a litle aâ—ter Besides they viz. the Bishops people did coÌ„gratulate his coÌ„ming because it was reported that he came with a resolute courage to depose Gregory the Pope Heere we see it graunted by Lambert that all the Bishops of Italy were desirous to haue this Pope Gregory deposed Thus far are M. Mortons wordes 116. But to beginne with that which he last mentioneth of all the Bishops of Italy the word all is fraudulently vrged by him as you will see so that scarsly in any thing doth he deale sincerely for albeit these wordes be in Lambertus Certatim ad eum omnes Italiae Episcopi Comiâ—es confluebant All Bishops and Earles of Italy did flock vnto him yet that they were only certaine Italian Bishops Earles that dwelt about the Alpes is euideÌ„t by the narration it selfe For the very next precedent words leâ—t out by M. Morton are Superatis asperrimis rupibus iam inâ—ra Italiae fines consistere certatim ad eum omnes Italiae Episcopi After that it was vnderstood that the Emperour had ouercome the high rockes and was within the borders of Italy all the Italian Bishops Earles flocked vnto him And what sort of Bishops these were he expoundeth with in few lâ—nes after saying Qui fe iampridem ab â—cclesiastica communione suspenderat they hated Pope Gregoryâ— as him that had suspended them from Ecclesiasticall CoÌ„munion And againe a litle after about the cause of their suspension Passimiactantibus Regis saâ—â—â—ribus preâ—ipuè Cleriâ—is quibus iâ—iciâ—a conâ—ra sâ—ita Canonum contâ—acta coniugia prohibeâ—at The Emperours â—auorers did cast abroad especially Clergimen vnto whom Pope Gregory had forbidden vnlawfull marriages contracted against the Decrees of the Canons that he liued dissolutely c. 117.
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
either in the one or the other point is not proued by any one of all these examples nor by them altogeather though they were granted to be true as here they lye For that they do not proue that either our Kings here mentioned did assume to theÌ„selues to haue Supreme authority in spirituall affaires or to take it from the Pope nay the Catholike Deuine in answering to Syr Edwards obiections herein doth euidently shew and proue yea conuinceth that these fiue English Kings here mentioned to wit King Edward the first Edward the third Richard the second Henry the fourth Edward the fourth vnder whom these Cases fell out did all of them most effectually acknowledge the Popes supreme authority in Ecclesiasticall matters and were obedient Children to the same as he shewed by sundry most cleare and apparant examples of their owne actioÌ„s towards the Sea Apostolike and that these particuler Cases supposing they were all true and fell out as heere they are set downe to wit that the publishing of a Bull of Excommunication in some Causes and vnder some King might be held for Treason as also that the Archbishops lands might be seysed vpon for refusing to admit the Kings presented Clerke that in Parlament it was said that the Regality of the Crowne of England depended not of Rome and that in certaine Cases no suites might be made thither without recourse first to the Ordinaries of England 72. Albeit I say that these things were all granted as they lie yet do they not inferre by any true coÌ„sequence that which the Knight and Minister should proue to wit that for this either these kings were or held themselues for supreme in spirituall authority at that tyme or that it was denied vnto the Pope Wherof this one is a most conuincent argument that the like Cases do or may fall out at this day in other Catholicke Countries and Kingdomâ—s as in France Spaine Naples and Sicily where â—here be diuers Concordates resâ—rictions limitations agreed vpon for auoyding further inconuenieÌ„ces betweene the Pope and Catholicke Kings and Princes concerning the manner of execution of Ecclesiasticall authority without any derogation to the Supremacy therof in the Pope And so might men be punished by the said Princes for breaking rashly the said agreements as they may and are dayly in the said Kingdomes especially in the last and yet do not these Kings thereby either deny the Popes supreme authority or take it to themselues as M. Attorney M. Morton do falsely ininferre in these our cases And thus it is manifest that albeit these exaÌ„ples were in all râ—spects truly alleaged yet are they impertinent to proue that which is pretended And this for the first point 73. But neither is it all true that heere is set down nor as it is set downe which is the second point to be considered For which cause though I find these fyue Cases sufficiently answered by the Catholicke Deuine in his late Booke against M. Attorney yâ—t for tâ—at the said Knight in his last Preface to the sixt part of his Reports doth say that he fyndeth him vtterly ignorant in the lawes of the Realme though as a Deuine he made no profession to be skilfull in the same yet shall I adde somewhat to the reuiew of these Cases whereby it may appeare at leastwise whether he to wit the Deuine or M. Attorney or M. Morton haue vsed the skill of their professions with more sincerity in this matter 74. The first Case thâ—n is thus set downe by M. Morton out of the Attorneys booke though not altogether as it lyeth in his booke but with some aduantage as the Attorney did out of his Bookes whereof he tooke his Case So as here is helping the dye on all haÌ„ds as you see In the Raigne of King Edward the first saith M. Morton a Subiect brought in a Bull of excommunicatiâ— against another Subiect of this Realme and published it But it was answered that this was then according to the ancient lawes of England treason c. as before is set downe 75. Wherein I must note first before I come to examine the answere already made that M. MortoÌ„ can not choose as it seemeth but to vse a tricke or two of his art of iugling euen with M. Attorney himself For whereas he relateth to with the Attorney that this Bull of excommunication was published to the Treasurer of England M. Morton clyppeth of all meÌ„tion of the Treasurer which notwithstaÌ„ding in this Case is of great moment for so much as it semeth that if he had published the same to the Archbishop or Bishops appointed to haue the view of such things and had brought their authenticall testimonies for the same it seemeth by the very booke it self of Iustice Thorpe who recounteth this Case by occasion of the Case of Syr Thomas Seaton and Lucy 30. E. 3. that it had byn litle or no peril at all vnto the publisher for that this reason is alleaged for the offence therein committed that for so much as the partie to wit Lucie against Syr Thomas Seaton did not shew any writ of excommunication or any other thing sealed by the Archbishop of England nor any other Seale that was authentike prouing this therfore the Bull was not allowed c. 76. This then was a fine tricke to cut of all mentioÌ„ of the Treasurer the other also immediatly following hath some subtilitie in it though not so much as the former to wit that it was answered that this was Treason c. for that in none of the bookes cited either of Thorpe or Brooke is any mention of such answere giuen as M. Morton feygneth nor any such iudgment of Treason passed theron as M. Attorney would make his Reader belieue as preseÌ„tly shall be proued So as these are the first two trickes of M. Morton to helpe his dye all the rest for the substance of the matter is like to fall vpon M. Attorney 77. First then the Answere of the Deuine vnto this Case not hauing commoditie at that time to see the two bookes of Thorpe and Brooke cyted in the margent was that it could not possibly be imagined by reason that the Case stood altogeather as M. Attorney did set it downe espâ—cially with this note in the margeÌ„t that the bringing in of a Bull against a subiect was Treason by the ancient coÌ„mon lawes of England before any Statute law was made therof for that the Deuine demandeth what this Common law was not made by Statute How was it made By whome Where At what time Vpon what occasion How introduced and commonly receiued for all this a Common law supposeth especially for so much as the said Deuine had shewed and aboundantly proued now that all precedent Kings of England both before and after the Conquest were most Catholicke in this very point of acknowledging the Popes supreme and vniuersall authority in spirituall affaires wherof the power
of excommunication throughout the world vpon iust causes is a principall member so as except they would introduce a law contrary to their owne beliefe or suffer a law to grow and be made coÌ„mon in their Realme without their knowledge or assent it is absurd to imagine that there could be such a Common law against the Popes ExcoÌ„munications before the dayes of King Edward the first and before any Statute was made against the same as M. Attorney auoucheth 78. Secondly he sheweth out of the testimony of Matth. VVestmonast that this King Edward being in a great heat of offence against the Cleargy of England for that they denied to giue him the halfe of their Rents and goods towards his warres vpon the expresse prohibition of Pope Bonifacius to the contrary which prohibition some Cleargie men vpon feare transgressing had compounded made their peace with the King in that behalfe he doubting least some of the other part of the Cleargy would bring in an ExcoÌ„municatioÌ„ against him or against some of those that had compounded with him made a Decree saith VVestmonaster commanding vnder payne of imprisonment that no man should publish any sentence of Excommunication against the King himselfe or those that had newly sought his protection he making also a prouocation or appeale as well for himselfe as those that stood on his side to the Court of Rome Thus he And now let the prudent Reader consider saith the Deuine that if the King euen in his passion of choler did appoint but imprisonment to be the punishment for bringing in an Excommunication against himselfe and Cleargy men that stood with him how vnlike is it that by the common law it was treason against the King his Realme Crowne and dignity as M. Attorneys thundring words are to bring in an excommunication against a Subiect which is much lesse then against the Kings person himselfe 79. Thirdly the said Deuine though he had not perused the law bookes at that time yet did he yeld the true Cause why priuate men might not bring in excoÌ„munications and publish them at their pleasure as now also is prohibited in other before named Catholicke Kingdomes but they were to be shewed first to a Bishop vnder his Seale were to be certified vnto the Kings Courts which since that time I haue fouÌ„d to be set down expresly in the law-bookes themselues and craftily concealed by M. Attorney for thus is it found written 11. Henr. 4â— fol 64. Hancford the chieâ—e Iustice said that he found in his bookes that in the time of VVill. â—erle who was Iudge in the beginning of the raigne of K. Edward the third euery officer or coÌ„missary of the Bishop might certify excoÌ„municatioÌ„ in the K. Court and for the mischeefe that ensued therof it was aduised by the ParlameÌ„t that none ought to certify excoÌ„munication but only the Bishop soe it is vsed at this day Thus far are Hanckefords words wherby we may see why the partie that published a Bull to the Treasurer of England without the Bishops approbatioÌ„ incurred so high displeasure 80. Fourthly the said Deuine doth conuince M. Attorney out of a Case alleaged by himself afterward in the 31. yeare of the Raigne of King Edward the third where he saith that in an attachment vpon a prohibition the defendant pleading the Popes Bull of excommunication of the Plainâ—iâ—e the Iudges demanded of â—he defendant if he had not the Certificate of some Bishop within the Realme testifying this excommunication c. VVhereby saith he it is made euident first that priuate men were obliged to shew their Bulles vnto some Bishop before they published the same and secondly it appeareth most clearly by the answers of the Iudges that they held it not for treasoÌ„ in those daies nor made any such infereÌ„ce therof for that their only resolution was this that for lacke of this Certificate the partie excoÌ„municated was not thereby disinabled to follow his plea in that Court without saying any one word of danger or punishment against him that had pleaded the Popes Bull of excommunication which they would neuer haue omytted to do if 50 yeares before that vnder K. Edward the first it had bin held for treason by the CoÌ„mon-law to bring in or publish any Excommunication against a Subiect 81. This then was the substance of the Deuines answere at that tyme which though it doth sufficiently conuince M. Attorney to haue abused his Reader egregiously in auouching with such resolution that in K. Edward the first his tyme yt was by the ancient law of England adiudged treason against the king his Crowne and dignytie to publish any Bull of the Popes against any Subiect of the Realme yet hauing synce that tyme had better commodity to informe my self of the lawbooks here meÌ„tioned I wil adde some more proofes to those which now you haue heard 82. First then I must let the Reader vnderstand that neither of those two bookes cited by M. Attorney lib. Ass. pl. 19.30 Ed. 3. and Brooke tit Premunire pl. 10. neither of them I say doth affirme that it was Treason or that there was any iudgment of Treason giuen in that Case which Case is related by Iustice Thorpe 30. Edwardi 3. thus That wheras Syr Thomas Seaton sued a Bill in the Exchequer against a woman named Lucie for calling him Traytor fellon and robber in the presence of the Treasurer and Barâ—ns of the Exchequer in contâ—mpt of the King and slaunder of the Court. Hereupon the said Lucy shewed forth the Popes Bull prouing the plaintiâ—e to be excommunicate and therfore demanded Iudgement whether he should be answered or not And for that she did not shew any writ of excommunication nor any other thing sealed by the Archbishop c. the Bull was not allowed whervpon she was forced to answere and â—leaded not guilty And in that plea Thorpe Iustice said that in the tyme of the Grandfather of the King which was K. Edward the first â—or that one did notify an excommunication of the Apostle to the Treasurer of the King the King would he should haue byn drawne and hanged notwithstaÌ„ding that the Chanceloâ—r and Treasurer did kneele before the King â—or him yet by award he did abiure the Realme and said that the woman was in a hard Case â—or shewing forth this excommunicatioÌ„ if the king would Thus far the said Book 83. VVherein we see first that here is no answere made about treason as M. Morton affirmeth nor iudgment giuen as M. Attorney auoucheth nor any such inference made by the Iudges but only a case related of what K. Edward the first in his anger would haue had to be done to a man that presented an excommunication to the Treasurer to wit he would haue had him hanged and drawne about the same which seming to his Iudges not to be iust or according to law did intreat the King not to put it in execution but rather by way of
award they made him abiure the Land though this also was not due vnto him by rigour of law to pacify thereby the Kings wrath And it is not vnlike to that Case that fell out in England Anno Domini 1578. vnder Q. Elizabeth when in her anger she would haue had Peter Bourchet to haue byn put to death by Martiall law when he had wounded Syr Iohn Hawkins insteed of Syr Christopher HattoÌ„ but the Iudges would not yeald therunto as being against law therefore found out this temperament that he should be committed to the Tower and accused of matters of Religion as Puritanisme and the like Where afterwards he gaue them a iust cause of putting him to death by killing his keeper But as the Queenes will passion made this no law so neither did that other vnder K. Edward the first So as M. Attorney did much abuse his Reader in auerring it to be treason by the common law adiudged for such out of this Case 84. And if he will vrge that the punishment of haÌ„ging and drawing implieth treason it is answered no but that this rather maketh much for vs. For that the punishment of treason I meane high treason is not only hanging and drawing but quartâ—ring also excepting only the Case of counterfeyting of money Stat. de 25. Edâ— 3. de proditionibus as appeareth by Stanford in his Booke of the Pleas of the Crowne fol. 182. but petty treasons as of killing the maister or Mystresse by the seruant or of any Prelate by his subiect c. which in effect are but fellonies are punished by hanging drawiâ—g oâ—ly wheâ—eof is consequent that albeit K. Edwards will and commandment had byn according â—o law as â—t was not yet had it inâ—erred no treason at all 85. And further to satisfy this matter and make it more cleere that the Reader was abused in this assertion I will adde foure seuerall Reasons argumeÌ„ts more out of the law-books themselues The first is concerning the abiuring the Realme for pacifying the King awarded in iuâ—tice Thoâ—ps Case which proueth euidently that it was not an offence of treason in the delinquent for that abiuraâ—ce is no punishment for treason but only for fellony as appeareth by the said Iustice Standâ—ord in his said Booke fol. 116. where he setteth downe the beginning of abiurance how it was first ordeyned by S. Edwaâ—d before the Conquâ—st and was grounded vpon mercy when a maÌ„ had committed fellonie and fled to a Church or Churchyard for safety of his life and did choose rather perpetuall banishment then to stand to the law So as abiurance by the old lawes of England was at tâ—e election of the Offendours and not at â—he will of the Prince And afterward the said Stanford shewing for what offences in particuler a mâ—n might abiure the Realme saith that abiuration doth not lye â—or hâ—m that hath offended in high treason 86. The second Reason is that the said Stanford in his said booke of the Pleas of the Crowne fol. 182. inteÌ„ding to set down all offencâ—s of treason which were either by the Common-law or Statute-law doth not relaâ—e any such matter to be treason as the bringing into the Realme Bulles of excommunication by one Subiect against an other which he would neuer haue concealed if he had found it held for such in any law booke before him 87. The third Reason is to the same effect that the Statute of 25. Ed. 3. being made for declaration of treasons doth â—et downe what offences were treasons by the Common law In this Statute I say no mention at all is made that the bringing in of Bulls of excommunication was treason or any other offence which of likelyhood cannot be presumed that they would haue pretermitted to touch or mention if any such thing had bin 88. The fourth Reason and most concludent is that we read in many Bookes of law as 31. Ed. 3. â—xcommunicat 6. Fitzh tit Excom pl. 6.14 â—en 4. â—ol 14.8 Hen. 6. fol. 3 and ells where that diuers Excommunications were pleaded in the Kings Courts and no matter of treasoÌ„ or other offence made therof by the Iudges which no doubt they would neuer haue passed ouer so negligently carelesely if it had bin treason by the common-law Neither would any Counsel haue presumed to plead the same so often in the said Courts if there had byn such perill or offence therein at that tyme as M. Attorney now pretendeth Neither doth the authority of Brooke here cyted by M. Attorney patronize him in his voluntary mistaking misconstruyng of the law-books a foresaid For that Brooke doth not say that the bringing in of Bulls was iudged treason by law as M. Attorney doth but onâ—y maketh this note So see punishment of that before the Statute of Premunire which maketh nothing for M. Attorn purpose and if it did yet were it not to be equalled with so many graue authorities euideÌ„t coÌ„uincing reasons as before we haue alleaged to the contrary 89. Wherfore we must conclude that in this first Case M. Attorney hath sundry wayes dealt vnsincerly and gone about to deceiue his Reader making him belieue that the bringing in pleading of the Popes Bulles in ancient time was treason according to the Common-lawes which being now proued to be false yet doth he so often repeate the same vpon all occasions against Catholikes both in wryting speaking pleading and vbrayding as if it were a most certaine truth or principle and not to be controlled Let vs see somewhat of the other Cases TO THE OTHER FOVRE CASES obiected by M. Morton out of Syr Edward Cooke §. VI. IT were ouer long to answere so largely vnto all the other Cases as we haue done to this first especially for so much as the Deuine hath done it very sufficiently and fully before the second Case conteyning only a temporall matter about Advowsons and authority thereby to present Clearks to benefices which was an ancient custome of the Church of England where teÌ„porall men hauing founded Churches and benefices reserued to themselues the nominatioÌ„ and presentation of the persons that should enioy the same who if they were found fit and nothing to be proued against theÌ„ that might iustly be opposed for their exclusion then the Bishop of the diocesse was bound to admit them And if he did not the Aduowsoner might haue an Action against the said Bishop at the Commonlaw of Quare non admisit as in a temporall Case and if the Bishop could not excuse his not admitting of the Clerke of the Recouerer by some sufficient cause then the Plaintif should recouer domages against the Bishop or els he might haue vpon the not executing the first writ to the Bishop an Alias or a Pluries against him And if these were not serued or sufficient excuse made vpon the return thereof why they were not serued then the partie grieued might haue an Attachment against the Bishop
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.
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
satisfyed in one speciall point of my Epistle to the second part of my Reports where I affirmed that yf the ancient Lawes of this noble â—and had not excelled all others speaking of humane it could not be but some of the seuerall Conquerours â—ouernours therof that is to say the Romans Saxons Danes or Normans and especially the Romanes who as they iustly may do boast of their Ciuill Lawes would as euery of them might haue altered or changâ—d the same And sayth he some of another proâ—â—ssion are not persuaded that the Common Lawes of England are of so great antiquity as there superlaâ—iuâ—ly is spoken So he And in these last words I presume he vnderstood the Deuine that impugâ—ed this excessiue imaginary antiquity of our Municipall â—awes in his Answere to the Reports and Syr Edward hauing seene the same should in reason haue answered somewhat therunto if he had byn prepared for it 30. But he thought that course not best but rather to help himselfe with the pretendâ—d authority of Syr Iohn Fortescue chiefe Iustice of England in the Raigne of King Henry the 6. saying that he was a great Antiquary he was a notable man indeed though more as it seemeth in the skill of our Common Lawes then in matters of Antiquity out of whome Syr Edward to help his cause and assertion citeth the words following As touching the antiquity of our Common Lawes sayth he neither are the Roman Ciuill Lawes by so long continuance oâ— ancient tymes confirmed nor yet the Laâ—es oâ— the Venetians which aboue all other are reporâ—ed to be of most antiquity â—or so much as their Island in the beginning of the Britans was not then inhabited as Rome also then vnbuilded neither the Lawes of any Nation of the world which worshipped God are of so old and ancient yeares wherâ—ore the contrary is noâ— to be said nor thought but that the English customes are very good yea oâ— all other the very best Thus he if he be rightly cited for I haue not his booke by mâ— 31. And though I do respect and reuerence both these mens professions and much more their state place of Iudges yet doth force of truth oblige me to contradict their errour which seemeth to me very grosse and palpable or rather their errours and mistakinges in sundry points here downe As first in that yt is auerred that the Ciuill law and Roman lawes are not of so long continuance of ancient tymes as the ancieÌ„t Municipall Lawes of England are which he goeth about to proue by two seuerall meanes wherof both do conteine aswell falsyties as absurdities if I be not greatly deceiued therin 32. His â—irst meanes of proofe is â—or that in the beginning oâ— the Britans Rome was then vnbuylded and conquently that the British Lawes are more ancient then those of the Romans And then supposing further that those British Lawes which were in the beginning of the Britans were neuer changed but recâ—iued in England fâ—oÌ„ time to time haue indured to our dayes are the Common Lawes of our Realme at this day Wherin there are many suppositions as yow see strange to heare but harder in my opinion to be proued As first that the Britans in their beginning euen before Rome was buylt had such good Lawes as the Romans in EnglaÌ„d seauen huÌ„dred years after the said building of Rome were coÌ„tent to accept for their Lawes in that land And the lyke after them the Saxons other CoÌ„querous people that ensued which is such a paradox vnto men of reason learning as the very naming therof cannot but cause laughter For albeit the British nation be more ancient then the Roman according to the Story of Geffrey Monmouth that affirmeth theÌ„ to discend from Brutus a Nephew of Aeneas from whom Romulus the founder of Rome some ages after descended and that they were a valiant warlike nation from the beginning yet that they had such good politicke and ciuill Lawes themselues being vnciuill in those dayes is a matter incredible which I proue thus That wheras the Roman Lawes began from Romulus himselfe from Numa Pompilius other ancient Law-makers among them and this soone after the building of Rome I meane the more older Lawes of the twelue Tables and the lyke continued from tyme to tyme afterwards vntill the coÌ„ming of Iulius Caesar into Britany which was aboue 600. yeares after Rome was built aboue a thousand after Brutus had byn in England in which tyme yt is probable that the British Lawes would haue growne to greater perfectioÌ„ theÌ„ they were in the beginning yet I say that the said Lawes customes of the Britans are recorded to be such in Iulius Caesar his daies set downe by his owne penne as also by the writings of diuers other Roman Greeke Authors that succeded for two or three hundred years after him as must needs be incredible that they should be continued by the Romans Saxons and other people that followed them And then if they were such and so rude so many ages after their beginning what may we imagine they were at their very begynning it selfe which was a thousand yeares before from which tyme our two Knights heere do inferre their antiquity and eminency aboue the Roman Lawes 33â— Let vs see then what ancient Histories do report of the British Lawes and Customes in Iulius Caesar his tyme and afterwards Caesar the Roman-Captaine hauing made two iourneys into England and informed himselfe diligently about the Lawes and Customes of the Brytans in those dayes which was about 60. yeares before the Natiuity of our Sauiour setteth downe many things of their small policy in that time As first the description of their manner of consultations in their warre wherin he sayth that in commune non coâ—sulunt they haue no common Counsells and then describing the chiefe Citty of the Realme where their K. CassiuelaÌ„ that was head of all the rest had his Court Counsaile somewhat about the Thames though not where London was afterward built he sheweth that it was in a wood and that the walles were trees cut downe round about insteed of fortresses within which they inclosed both themselues and their Cattle and this was the symplicity of that tyme. 34. After this he setteth downe many Lawes and customes of theirs farre vnfit to be receiued by the Romans other people after them as Nummo aereo aut annulis ferreis ad certuÌ„ pondus examinatis pro numâ—o vtebantur Their money was of brasse and rings of yron giuen out by weight And then againe that they had a law and custome luto se inficere quod caeruleum efficit colorâ—m to paint themselues with a certaine earth that made a blew colour And Solinus wryting more then an hundred yeares after Caesar againe sheweth this law and custome to haue byn so inuiolable among them in his dayes that the very Children had the figures and shapes
of beasts imprinted in their flesh by launcing cutting the same first to the end that the sayd painting with terrible colors might the better sinke in and Pliny doth adde that the very women also did obserue the same custome which seemeth also to haue continued somes ages after for that the Poet Claudianus vnder the Emperours Arcadius and Theodosius about foure hundred yeares after Christ speaking of the Britans of his time sayth of them Inde Caledonio velata Britannia monstro Ferro picta genas cuius vestigia verrit Caerulus oceaniqueâ—stum mentitur amictus In which verses the words ferro picta genas and caerulus amictus signifying that their faces were paynted with the dint of iron their habit blew do importe that this law and custome was long continued among them yet neuer receyued by the Romans Saxons nor Danes And Caesar yet goeth further shewing their Lawes and Customes about their wiues and Children Vxores habent deni inter se communes c. Ten men agreeing among themselues haue their wiues and Children in common 35. The same Caesar also and Diodorus Siculus and Strabo which two lyued soone after him vnder Augustus Caesar do recount other Lawes and Customes of the Britans of their dayes wherof we see no signe in ours as their order of fight in Chariots and Coaches with other thinges belonging to Chiualry And Pomponius Mela lyuing vnder the Emperour Claudius that went with an imperiall army into England some fyftie yeares after Christ saâ—th of the Britans in those dayes Inculti omnes tantùm pecore â—inibus dites that they were all withoâ—t poâ—icie and only rych by their cattle and pastures which importeth thaâ— they had no good Lawes to lend the RomaÌ„s in those daies and much lesse to deliuer them ouer to posterity 36. And yet further an hundred fyfty yeares after that againe wrote Cornelius Tacitus vnder the Emperour Domitian as also Solinus before mentioned who do both concurre in this that in their dayes the Britans were a people as on the one syde stout and valiant so on the other very rude and vnciuill for policy without discipline and order as also Counsaile or good direction especially in their warres Whervpon Tacitus sayth Dum singuli pugnant vniuersi vincuntur whiles euery one fighteth a part after his owne fancy they are all ouercome And I might hereunto adde diuers Greeke Historians as well as Latyn specially Herodian Dio Nicetus Xephilinus and others writing oâ— the Brytans their manners and customes vnder the Raigne of Seuerus the Emperour who went thither in person and dyed in Yorke two hundred yeareâ— after Christ and almost 300. after the Brytans had byn vnder the Roman gouerment and yet do the sayd Historiographers recount such extreame want of pollicy and Lawes among the Britans at that tyme which I take to be meant principally of the Northerne as scarce of any Countrey the like Nec moenia habent say they nec Vrbes nudi sine calceis vestis vsum ignorantes c. they had neither walles nor townes bâ—t weÌ„t naked without shoes not being acquainted with the vse of apparrel And to the end we may not think that the Southerne pâ—rtes were in much better state for policy Dio Nicetuâ— recouÌ„teth the speach of the Qu. Brundeuica vnder the Raigne of Nero which Queene dwelt in the most ciuill wealthy partes of Britany and yet obiected to the Romans that they were delicate and could not liue without corne meale wyne oyle shelter of house and other lyke commodities Nobis autem sayth shee quaeuis herba radix â—ibus est quiliâ—et succus oleum omnis aqua vinum omnis arbor domus But vnto vs and let vs marke that she putteth her seâ—fe among the â—est being a woman Captaine and Queene euery herb and roote is meate euery ioyce is oyle euery water is wyne and euery tree is a house Thus shee 37. And now here Syr Edward perhaps will say aâ— before he did of Theologicall authorities that I do alleage all these Histories ad faciendum populum which I do not but rather to shew that he hath no cause to vaunt that either himselfe or his fellow-Iustice are such Antiquaries as here he mentioneth not hauing seene as it seemeth nor considered this variety of auncient Histories wherby is proued that the lawes and customes of the Brytans were not such from the beginning and before Rome was builded as they may be preferred for their antiquity and excellency before the Roman Lawes whereas almost a thousand yeares after that the Roman Lawes had byn receyued in the world the Brytans had scarce any vse of policy or common Ciuility though afterward when by the benefit of Christian Religion especially they receiued the same they exceeded perhaps many otheâ— Countries in piety and religious polycie 38. Thus then is the first medium of Syr Edwards probation ouerthrowne about the antiquity of the Brytan Lawes before the Romans which is neyther true nor yf it were yet maketh it nothing to his purpose to pâ—oue that the CoÌ„mon Muâ—â—cipall Lawes of England were of that antiquity as prâ—sently shal be shewed And as for the other two instances that the sayd British Lawes are more anâ—ient then the Lawes of the Venetians which are most ancient of any othâ—r Nation of the world that worshipped God this I say is litle lesse thâ—n ridiculous For that first the Venetians as Blondus theiâ— owne Countrey man and Historiographer testifieth writing of their antiquity began â—irst to build their Citty and Common wealth vpon the yeare oâ— Christ foure hundred fiâ—ty and six which was vpon the point of twelue hundred yeares after the building of Rome and consequently the Venetian Lawes cannot be imagined to be oâ— more antiquity then the Romaâ— and much lesse then of other Nations more ancient then the Romans as the Carthaginians Grecians Aegiptians Medians Persians Syrians and the like 39. And secondly wherâ—as to temper the matter somewhat he addeth that the British Lawes are more anciâ—nt then of any naâ—ion of the world that worshipped God this addition of worshiping God is both from the purpose vntrue From the purpose for that Syr Edward exprely heere preteÌ„deth to speake only of humane Lawes so as whether the people whose Lawes they are do worship God or not is from the question Besides that M. Cooke I thinke will not deny but that the Romans worshipped God and were Christians at least many of them before the Britans if this made any thing to the purpose and yet will he haue the Britans Lawes to be more ancient then those of the Romans so as this circumstance of worshipping God is neyther true or to the purpose 40. Secondly it is vntrue that the British Lawes were before the Lawes of any Nation that worshipped God for that the Iewes worshipped God and may be presumed also to haue had some politicall Lawes for
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
lâ—wes as Fox testifyeth it was made a law That publike â—ayres and markets should not be holden vpon Sundayes Item That euery wife that shall during her husbands liâ—e commit adulterie shall haue her nose and eares cut of Item That if a wyddow marrie within a yeare aâ—ter her husbands death shee shall leese her ioynture Item That whosoeuer hauing touched tâ—e holy Bible haue for sworne himselfe should leese his hand except he had redeemed the same at the Iudgment of the Bishop And the like seuerity was to be vsed vpon vniust Iudges that by corruption gaue wrong senteÌ„ces And this by the Danish lawes But vnder King Edward the Confessour that reuiewed ouer all the former lawes againe both of Saxons and Danes retayning such as liked him and excluding the rest diuers others of his owne were made which Polidore sayth were called Leges communes the Common Lawes which importeth farre lesse antiquity then M. Attorney auoucheth among which this was one That Vsurers should leese all their goodes and besydes be cast into banishment as being plagues of the people which rigour is not now vsed and perhaps may not be by our moderne CoÌ„mon lawes as neyther the other before mentioned of cutting of the wiues nose and eares that is an adulteresse which perhaps would make many a pittifull and foule sight in our Countrey So then these and many other such lawes which were generally receaued in our Iland before the Conquest are not at all now in vse as all men will confesse and therby it euidently followeth that there hath byn change and alteration of lawes in our Realme and that our Common Lawes at this day are not so excessiuely ancient entire and excellent as Syr Edward Cooke would haue vs thinke and belieue that they are 53. Concerning which excellency next after antiquity and integrity we must now adde a word or two more for that notwithstanding all that Polidore Ingulâ—us and Iohn Fox haue said before of the iniquity of such lawes as were promulgated by the Conquerour against rathâ—r then for the English Syr Edward heere with his fellow Iustice as yow haue heard sayth that without all doubt they are absolutly the best of all other nations Wherunto the Catholicke Deuine answered before that as he would not discommend his Countrey lawes nor diminish any part of that praise which is due vnto them if they be well and rightly executed so on the other side the malice and infirmity of men considered they seeme to learned straÌ„gers to diuers also of our own Countrey not to haue such excelleÌ„cy in them but in diuers pointes to be defectuous to leaue the subiect open to many iniuries oppressions ruines and other inconueniences in sundry cases which are piously prouided for by other lawes 54. As for example among the rest is noted and censured for most strange the manner of iudgment for life and death where no Aduocate nor learned Counsell is allowed the defendant for defence eyther of his honour liuing or life but himselfe only must speake answere for all against the impugnations of many and potent aduersaries that with their authority and counâ—enance bitter wordes threats taunts terrour of speach other like meanâ—s may so oppresse him and put him out of himsâ—lfe as that when it importeth him to say most he can say least and so perish for lacke of iust defence as more largely the Deuine doth prosecute alleaging also many reasons for the same against all which huâ—ts inconueniences other countrey lawes both ciuâ—ll and Municipall do make ample and carâ—full prouision 55. Another defect also in the same matter seemeth vnto strangers to be very great and importable which is that any one of the 12. men who are to go vpon his life may haue such passion against him as he would ouer weary all the rest except they will yeald to his condemnation Wherunto this also being added that if the sayd Iurours do condemne any neuer so wrongfully there is no punishment for it in this life but only before God but if they deliuer him against the inclination of Prince or Courtâ— which is easely to be knowne or coniectured great perill hangeth ouer their heads to be troubled vexed and forced to weare papers for periury This I say considered by learned men that are indifferent in the cause doth make them wonder and thinke that no NatioÌ„ liuing hath more harder lawes in this point nor more vnequall for the subiect then ours 56. The like may be sayd about the dowry of women that do marry which if it be in money goods or Chattels may be spent and consumed by the euill husband against whome she hath no remedy nor security at all which by the Roman Ciuill lawes is most carefully prouided for So as whatsoeuer disorders the euill husband doth commit eyther in speÌ„ding or offending yet is his wiues dowry secure nor can he spend or dilapidate any thing therof but only the rent or annuall Income for what occasions soeuer 57. Another also not vnlike to this is the small prouision by our common lawes for yonger brothers especially of the Gentrie and Nobility who being brought vp during their Fathers life in equall condition with the elder brother are afterward inforced to great inequality yea oftentymes to great misery our common lawes not prouiding for them in the diuident of their Fathers goods nor yet obliging their said elder brother to allow them competent maintenance conforme to their state and birth which other Countreys do 58. The Case also of Pupils seemeth strange to forraine nations that the wardship of them both for education and liuings I meane of such as haue any tenure from the King in Capite should be in the Princes hand without any obligation of yealding accompt for the Rents receaued spent or wasted Nay that their marriage and marriage-money or wyues dowry must appertaine to the Prince and be in his disposition wheras in all other Kingdoms abroad there is singular care had and prouision made by their lawes for Pupills and Pupillage and so doth their case in all equity require as being orphanes and destitute of their Father that should protect them I might touch heere diuers other markable points which foreiners do consider and one not the least that our law doth not seeme to haue sufficiently prouided for the exorbitant liberty and auarice of some of our lawyers for all are not culpable in taking money without lymit and enriching themselues therby more swiftly and excessiuely then any other sort of men whatsoeuer which being ioyned with their authority power to oppresse whom they will they become a terrour euery one in his CouÌ„trey to the best of the Kings subiects so as no man dare to speake or looke against them And truly the particulers that are recounted of exorbitant Fees taken by diuers to purchase as it were their looke without saying any one word for theÌ„ at
conuerted Do yow see how confidently he writeth And do yow thinke that he will be a true Conuertite in deed If he meaneth sincerly we haue alleaged him now many and sufficient groundes which either he must acknowledg or take vpon him to answere them Let vs heare how he goeth forward 63. I desired quoth he to know some particulers as many as they would at length their great desyre was to see some proofs that the common law in these 4. cases was before the Conquest as now it is First that the Queene being wise to a King regnant was a person sole by the common law to sue and be sued to giue and take c. solely without the King Secondly that a man seised of lands in see simple shall â—orseit his landes and goodes by Attainder of â—ellony by out-lawry and therby his heirs should be desinherited Thirdly that a woman being attaynted oâ— petite treason for killing her husband should be burnt Fourthly whether the ancient lawes of England did permit any appeale to Rome in causes spirituall or Ecclesiasticall 64. Thus farre the questions framed by Syr Edward insteed of his student for that he persuaded himselfe to haue somewhat to say for their proofe though in deed it be nothing as presently yow will see for that no student of any capacity would haue proposed these particuler cases to proue a generall assertion that the lawes of England were the most ancient of all other lawes For though we suppose all these 4. points were true and to be proued as he setteth them downe that they were in vse before the Conquest yet do they not inferre that the moderne English lawes are the same without change or alteration that were of the Britans Saxons and Danes For that diuers particuler cases may be common to different lawes as there were in the lawes of the LacedimoniaÌ„s Carthaginians Athenians Romans and yet we may not for that cause conclude that they were the selfe same lawes deliuered from the one people to the other without alteration which is heere the badde inference of Syr Edward But now let vs see whether these particulers can be proued as heere they are promised and first let vs heare him vaunt yet once againe 65. I had no sooner sayth he seene these questions but instantly I found direct and demonstratiue answers to the same Behold the fertility and felicity of his wit that fyndeth instantly so direct and demonstratiue proofes that is to say such as are euident cleere vniuersall and irrefragable for such only may be called demonstratiue according to the rules of Logicke and yet shall yow now presently perceaue that no one of them is demonstratiue For the first sayth he behold an ancient Charter made long before the Conquest which followeth in these wordes Our lord Iesus Christ raigning for euer I Ethelswith Queene of the Mercians by Gods graunt with consent of my Eldermen will giue by graunt to Cuthwolfe my most faythfull seruitour a certaine peece of land being part of my peculiar power that is to say a peece of land of 15. Manses in a place which is called Laking for his obedience and payable money in this manner that is to say a thousand fiue hundred shillings of syluer and gold or fifteene hundred siâ—les that he may haue possesse and enioy at his pleasure as long as he liueth and after his end and limit of his dayes he may leaue it to whome soeuer he will for euerlasting power and perpetuall inheritance And this my donation is couenanted in the yeare of our Lords Incarnation 868. the first Indiction And we do charge all secular powers in the name of God the Father the sonne the holy ghost to obserue the forsaid inuiolate These witnesses subscribing and consenting therunto whose names heere recited are vndâ—râ—râ—tteÌ„ I Ethelred King of the Westsaxons haue consented and subscribed I â—urghred K. of the Mercians haue coÌ„sented subscribed I Ethelswith Queene haue consented and subscribed c. 66. Thus farre this Charter but now I would demaund what Syr Edward meaneth to proue heerby He pretendeth to proue that the common law was the same before the Conquest as it is now about the priuiâ—edge of Queenes to be able to buy and sell giue and take of theÌ„selues solely without licence of their husbandes But first if he could shew this or somewhat like to this out of some particuler fact of some particuler English Queene before the Conquest yet what were this to proue eyther the antiquity of the common law before the Danes Saxons and Romans as heere he promiseth or that this particuler fact of Qu. Ethelswith was a law or according to the coÌ„mon law in those dayes doth one particuler instance or action make a law or proue a law with Syr Edward Might not Queene Ethelswith make that sale and gift which heere she doth to her seruant out of her own dowry portion or inheritance which she brought with her from her Father and brother Kings of the VVest Saxons And if she did the case proueth nothing For so may not only married Queens but all other wiues also giue of their owne 67. And supposing she had receaued that land in gift from the King her husband and had had his leaue and consent also to alienate sell or giue the same it had byn no proofe of a common law but a particuler fact by licence of her husband as euery one will confesse Now then that not only one but both these conditions were in this fact of Queene Ethelswith to wit that she disposed of her owne this also with the speciall consent of her husband appeareth clearly by the very wordes of the Charter it selfe where first it is sayd Donabo aliquam telluris partem meae propriae potestatis I will giue a certaine part of land which is of my owne proper power that is to say of my owne right and possession And secondly both her brother King Ethelred of the VVest Saxons in whose dominions it may be that the sayd pâ—ece of land or part of it did lye and her husband King Burghred of the Mercians did expresly consent subscribe and beare witnesse therunto And was this a good exaÌ„ple to proue that it was a law at that tyme that euery Queene might take giue solely without the King her husband did Syr Edward when he was Attorney make such good consequences and frame such demonstratiue arguments in his pleadings at the barreâ— Surely among vs heere he would neuer haue gotten haâ—fe his wealth by such like disputing 68. But to vnderstand better this Charter it is to be considered that as all our ancient wryters do testify this King Burghred of the Mercians being in great distresse by the â—anes of one syde and the northerne Britans of the oâ—her â—â—at ioyntly inuaded his Kingdome knowing not what to do for defending the same which after also was lost to the Danes he made recourse to Athulâ—hus
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
happines who being as I am a poore despised hated scorned and vnrespected souldiour so vnfortunate as no commended meanes though many vsed with confirmation both of loue and loyalty can be of power to raise a spirit drowned in the worst of misery froÌ„ despayres gulfe c. Wherby it may appeare that Prickets chief endeauour was rather indirectly by laying forth his owne temporall needs to draw somewhat from Syr Edwards purse and by writing the story of his glorious speach at Norwich to gayne vnto himself his good will and affection for his reliefe then any way to shew malignity against him wherof I fynd no cause or probability but rather his pricking stomake against vs whom Syr Edward also impugned and consequently if any thing be found in his narration that at this present displeased Syr Edward it must be thought to proceed eyther from the errour of the others memory that directed not well his pen or from some change of mynd in Syr Edward himselfe who now perhaps reprehendeth that which before he misliked not but was well content to haue it published And to this later coniecture I am the rather induced to incline for that there are now two yeares past more since Pricket set forth in print this speach and I neuer heard that Syr Edward did mislike it vntill at this present I see it so greiuously reprehended by him in this last Preface for in the former that was prefixed before his sixt part of Reports which seemeth to haue come forth after Prickets relation no complaynt or mention is made therof 105. But you will aske me perhaps why so great a charge should be found in Syr Edward that he should so sharpely and vehemently inueigh against that which before he liked or at leastwise tolerated for so long tyme wherunto truly I know not what other thing to answere but that it may be that the exceptions I tooke in my answer to M. Morton against diuers things in that narration as notorious vntruthes might displease or stinge somewhat Syr Edward who hauing no list to answere the matters theÌ„selues thought best to fall aboard the relator to lay the fault on him saying that he hath not related matters aright wherin as I meane not to excuse him so on the other side it seemeth very hard vnto me that the substance of those points wherin I touched Syr Edwards vntrue dealing and many other wherin I might haue said much more should be feigned or deuised by Pricket or related by him more maliciously against vs then they were meant or vttered by the Iustice himself which is euident partly by that which I haue heard to be continued still by him both there and in other places where since that tyme he hath giuen Charges to the Iurie wherin the greatest part and most bitter of his speach is allwayes commonly against the Catholicks as though they were the greatest malefactours of the realme to be inquired of And in this very Charge and speach related by Pricket his malicious inâ—ectiue against them conteyneth aboue a dozen leaues printed the whole thing it self scarce being as much againe 106. And if you will behold the impertinency vanity therof considering the auditory of Norwich his Countrey where he would needs triumph gloriously in that first Charge if I be not deceyued after he was Iudge you shall fynd it not only like to be Syr Edwards but worthy also of his veyne in that vanity for that hauing first by a seuerall Exordium set down a tale of a Noble yong Roman that was by the Senate made a Iudge in his tender yeares and for diuers reasons and considerations of the dignity therof made some delay and difficulty in admitting the same he did notwithstanding vpon some friends persuasion yeald at length to accept therof all which Parable the Iustice applying to himselfe beginneth his Charge with such plausible Oratoricall wisedomes eloquence to vse the words of his Relatour M. Pricket as first he expounded vnto them vpon his fingers the Grammaticall verse Quis quibus quid quomodo and de quibus that is who sent this Commission to wit his Maiesty To whom to Syr Edward and others vnder him What did it coÌ„teyne Great and high authority How must it be executed By doing iustice Of whom and what causes must inquiry be made Principally and in the first place against Catholiks that do professe the Roman religion and obedience of the Pope 107. And is not this a goodly deduction Was there euer any English Iudge before the Apostacy of Martyn Luther that gaue a Charge from the bench against such men for being such If all the Iudges lawiers of our Nation that euer gaue Charges to inquire of malefactours for nine hundred yeares together and more in our Iland after Christian religion receyued did giue such a Charge for such a crime then hath Syr Edward somewhat to excuse his insolency heerin But if there be none as most certainly there is not how then doth he performe his promise made heere in this new Latin Preface of auoyding fiue things in setting downe his Reports Wherof the fourth he termeth Nouitatem Nouelty which he defyneth to be then when si ad amussim nostrorum librorum antiquorum exempla applicentur nequaquam quadrant If the things which he speaketh being applyed to the exact rule of their law-bookes and examples of their ancients do not agree therunto Which he holdeth for a thing most vnworthy of their profession indignissimam studiis nostris VVherefore eyther he must bring forth such ancient bookes lawes and examples for himself and his cause that precedent Iudges haue giuen such Charges or els he conuinceth himselfe to be most vnworthy of that place and dignity of law which he holdeth 108. But to returne to the Charge giuen at Norwich after he had expounded the verse of Quis Quibus c. according to his manner of ostentation he beginneth his narratioÌ„ thus Our worlds admired Queene renowned Elizabeth did as you do know in the beginning of her Raigne change the State of religion in this kingdome in her first Parliament by the consent of her Lordes Spirituall Temporall c. and then he goeth forward to shew the continuall reclayme and resistance made by Catholicke men from tyme to tyme for their religion wherby thinking to disgrace them as rebellious for their reluctation doth in deed giue them the highest coÌ„mendation that can be giuen to Christian men which is to stand firme constaÌ„t to the worlds end in their Religion once receiued and continued to their tyme. And for himselâ—e doth insinuate therby that for the gayning of aduancement and pleasing a worlds admired Queene or any other worldly Prince it were no hard matter to make him admit any change of Religion whatsoeuer for so much as he alloweth so easily of this which this VVoman-Queene made with admiration and wonder oâ— the world yet doth he vtter
only true and Catholike Religion and that by false and indirect meanes whereof God is an enemie Not to our Country for that these Reports of law being contrary to all auncient lawes and written with a contrary spirit to all our ancient lawiers Iudges law-makers before this our present age can profit nothing our Country but set greater breaches and diuisions therein To Me also that am the Reader or Student it can neither profit nor import any thing but losse of time and breaking my head with conâ—radictions For so much as all this must once againe be cast of and forgotten as nouelties when our old course of Commonlaw must returne to follow her ancient streame againe 124. Wherfore a much more honourable and profitable course had it bene for so great a witt learned a man in our lawes as my L. is said held to be that to the end his labours in writing might haue remayned gratefull and commodious to posterity he had conformed himselfe his spirit knowledge and penne to that of ancient precedent lawyers of our land as Plowden did and some others whose wrytings for that cause wil be immortall But Syr Edward taking to himselfe a contrary new course by wrenching and wresting lawes to a contrary meaning froÌ„ the common sense both of the lawes themselues law-makers as also of the times wherin they were made and torrent of authority that gouerned the the same his labours must needs in the end proue to bâ— both vnprofitable and contemptible 125. For I would demand him what sound common lawier will ioyne with him in this point which he so reâ—olutly auerreth in his last Preface that all bookes coÌ„ming à Roma vel à Romanistis from Rome or Romanists that is from any sort of Catholicks haue punishment according to our ancieÌ„t lawes for of those I suppose he speaketh of losse of goods liberty and life Will any man belieue him that this is conforme to any ancient law of England Doth he not know as I doubt not but he doth much better then I the old ancient honour that was wont to be borne to Rome and Romanists by our English Common lawes Can he deny but that the Bishop of Rome is tearmed Apostolus and Apostolicus almost euâ—ry where in the same ancient lawes yea Prince of the Church and that our Archbishop of Canterbury the greatest Peere and Prelate of England is called in our law Apostoli Legatus Legate of the Apostle and Roman Bishop And that his spirituall Court is but a member of the Court of Rome which Court in England is called Curia Christianitatis the Court Christian or Court of Christianity throughout our Common law-bookes as I might shew by multiplicity of authorities if it were not a matter so notoriously knowne as no meanest lawier will or can denie it And is it likely then that according to those lawes it may be prooued that it is Praemunire and treason to bring in a Booke from Rome or Romanists to read it to praise it or to lend it to another as heere our new Iustice doth tell men with terrour against iustice especially when he addeth Hi sunt illi libri qui splendidos c. These are those bookes which doe carry goodly and religious titles which do professe to help and comfort the infirme consciences of men that are in trouble These are they that take vpon them to bring miserable and sinfull soules vnto the desired port of tranquillity and saluation By which words it seemeth that Syr Edward hath a chiâ—â—e mislike of spirituall Catholick bookes which treat the argument of quieting of soules Which if it be so then I hope that our bookes of Controuersies may passe with some lesse danger though indeed I doe suspect that he meaneth these when he speaketh of the other for that they doe most coÌ„cerne him For what doe spirituall bookes trouble Syr Edward which I suppose that either he neuer readeth or litle esteemeth the argument they handle his cogitations being imployed about farre other obiects of this world for the present Albeit I doe not doubt but if in some other circumstance of time state and condition of things he should read them or they should be read vnto him as namely on his death-bed when flesh and bloud and worldly preferments doe draw to an end and himselfe neare to the accompting day they would make other impression in him Which being so true wisdome would that what we must doe in time perforce and perhaps to late or with out profit we should out of good will and free choice preuent by Christian industrie Which almighty God graunt vs his holy grace to doe And this is all the hurt I wish to Syr Edward for all his asperity against vs. 126. Now let vs returne to M. Morton againe whome we haue left for a long time to giue place to this piece of Reckoning with Syr Edward It followeth then in consequence after the precedeÌ„t Chapter of his omissions and concealments in diuers and different charges layd against him for vntruthes wherwith he was charged in the Treatise of Mitigation that we see what new vntruthes he hath super-added in his defence therof for increasing the burden THE NINTH CHAPTER WHICH LAYETH TOGEATHER ANOTHER CHOICE NVMBER of new lyes made wilfully BY Mr. MORTON ouer and aboue the old in this his Preamble whilst he pretendeth to defend or excuse the sayd old being aboue fifty in number WE haue made a large intermissioÌ„ as you see of M. MortoÌ„s affayres by interlacing some of Syr Edwards now must we returne to our principal scope which is to shew more new and fresh vntruthes of later date in this last Reply of M. Morton And albeit those that are to be touched in this Chapter haue beene for the most part handled discussed before yet to the end that they may more effectually be represented to the eye and memory of the Reader by putting the principall of them togeather in ranke vnder one muâ—â—er I haue thought it expedient to take this paynes also wherby may appeare how ruinous and miserable a cause M. Morton hath in hand that cannot be defended but by addition of so many new lyes vnto his old and euen then when he standeth vpon his triall for the sayd old and seâ—keth by all meanes possible to hide and couer the same in such manner as before yow haue heardâ— And no maruaile for that both truth reason and experience do teach vs that an old lye can neuer be well cloathed or couered but by a new Let vs passe then to the suruey of this Chapter noting by the way that we are rather to touch certayne heades or principall branches that conteine commonly sundry and seuerall lyes vnder them then simple single vntruthes if they be well examined nor is it our purpose to name all for that would imply too large a prolixity for this place especially for so much as I am to remit the Readâ—r commonly to
albeit I cannot let passe to set downe the iudgement of another learned stranger extant in a printed booke of his in defence of Cardinall Bellarmin whome M. Morton chiefely pretendeth to impugne but so weakely and absurdly as the said learned man giueth a very contemptible censure of the whole worke saying Hoc opus merito suo inter stulcissima quae ex Nouatorum officina prodierunt sedem sibi deposcit adeò fatuè stolidè insulse non dissertat sed delirat Which words also for the forsaid cause I leaue vntranslated And this may suffice for his first chalenge there followeth the second 12. If I haue not earnestly desired saith he and by the law of loue challenged of my frends strict iustice in noting such deprauations as might any way occur and least they should suspect their reprehension to become lesse acceptable vnto me if I haue not proâ—essed it to be my greatest offence not to be in that maÌ„ner offended If I haue bin euer so peruersly obstinate as not willing to be reformed by any aduersary then I will confesse my selfe worthie of all criminations fraudes trickes deceipts cosenages c. 13. To which challeng I answere that if M. Morton haue had this earnest desire indeed which he speaketh of and haue requested his friends by the law of loue to note in strict iustice his dâ—prauatioÌ„s as he protesteth we must needs conclude that either he hath had few faithfull friends to performe that friendly office vnto him or that they were very carelesse in their annotations or he not very prompt to follow their aduertismeÌ„ts supposing the multitude of faults that are found wherof neither he nor they did take any notice or seeke to correct them And as for his willingnes to be reformed by any aduersary and that his greatest offence was and is not to be in that manner offended I do not see how it can be true or held for probable for so much as my selfe being his aduersary in the cause and controuersy betwene vs hauing sought friendly in my booke of Mitigation to admonish and reforme him in many errours and falsities vttered by him he hath byn so farre of from taking it in good part or not being offended therewith as he hath vtterly lost himselfe through impacience in diuers passages in this his answer as before you haue heard vpon diuers occasions no where will it more appeare then by the second part of this his challenge concerning his aduersary presently to ensue wherein he passeth the scolding of any bad woman lightly that euer I haue heard of if inuectiue scurrility be scolding Wherfore in this he protesting one thing and doing the contrary within so few lines it may easely be seene what credit may be giuen to his wordes Let vs passe to his third chalenge 14. Although I can not saith he but choose to be strooke rather of a friend who woundeth that he may heale tâ—en of an enemy who intendeth only to hurt a friendly animaduersion being as an Antidote which is a reprehending of me least I might be reprehensible and the taxation of an enemy beiâ—g as toxicum calummously poysoning whatsoeuer deserueth good yet if I haue euer byn so wickedly peruerse as not whensoeuer iustly to be willingly reproued by my aduersary turning his venome inâ—o treacle his deformation into reformation then I say I will confesse my self worthy of all the criminations as before 15. This Challeng if we consider it well is only a multiplication of words without new sense or substance for that in the later part of the former Challeng he protested the same that he doth heere that he was willing to be reâ—ormed by any Aduersary which here he repeateth againe with some more Rhetoricke of phrases but no more truth For that I being his Aduersary and reprouing him of so many vntruthes and offering to stand to the triall as now I haue done he hath not only not taken it patiently nor turned venome into treacle but quite contrariwise treacle into venome for that my admonitions were treacle indeed to resist the venome of a lying spirit infused by heresy if he would haue taken the benefit thereof And as for the Antidote which here he speaketh of to be reprehended friendly least he might be reprehensible if it be so much to be estemed as he saith so it is indeed then much more obligation is there to be patient in receauing reprehension where a man is actually reprehensible indeed and that in so high a degree as I do pretend and proue that M. Morton is by his false dealing before laid downe which yet he holding for toxicum I haue very litle hope though much desyre that it may do him good but to others I trust it will that are not so partially and passionatly interessed in the matter 16. His fourth Challeng is vttered in these words If in my ordinary course of life saith he any man can charge me with a bent to this vice of â—alsity though it were for hope of whatsoeuer aduaÌ„tage c. then I will confesse my selfe worthy c. Vnto which Challenge if so he will needs call it for I neuer saw Challenges runne in this forme I haue this only to answere that the falsifications obiected are extant à parte rei and auouched out of his Bookes published in his name and whether he wrote the same either of a bent to this vice or of a back that is to say of a necessity or kind of compulsion for manteyning of a bad cause I will not stand to dispute or determine Neither will I alleage any thing iniuriously against M. Mortons person which I do loue from my hart in the true loue of Christ our Sauiour wishing his best spirituall good as myne owne and do esteme him also for the good partes that God hath bestowed vpon him though I do pitty the euill imployment thereof in the cause he defendeth And this shal be sufficient concerning his chalenges protestatioÌ„s about his owne persoÌ„ Now to the person of P. R. his Aduersary CONCERNING the person of his Aduersary P. R. and absurd Challenges made against him §. II. IF in any other place of his whole Booke which yet are many as you haue seene by the perusall therof and of my answere M. Morton forgot himself or rather lost himself by vehemency of passion grief and choller he seemeth principally to haue done it in this place where he ceÌ„sureth his aduersary in foure seueral challeÌ„ges which I haue thought best to set downe together not to answere theÌ„ seuerally as I did in the foâ—mer Paragraph For that indeed there is nothing in these but excesse of intemperate heat in coÌ„tumelious speach Thus then he writeth 18. Concerning the disposition of my Aduersary saith he if he be not manifâ—sted to haue so behaued himself in tearmes so dispitefully malâ—gnâ—nt as if the Capitall letters oâ— his name P. R. did iustly