Catholicos Lutheranos Caluinistas c. qui omnes dum Symbolum tenent Apostolicum vera sunt membra Ecclesiae licèt à nobis in particularibus dissentiant Which wordes M. Morton doth very dâ—ceiptfully English thus Emperours should endeuour a reconciliation betwixt Papists and Protestants because ProtestaÌ„ts hold the articles of the Creed and are true meÌ„bers of the Church although they dissent from vs in some particuler opinions So he 85. And here now you see first to be omitted cunningly and wilfully by this crafty Minister the wordes of much moment before mentioned to wit That whiles Princes do not find a fit meane of peace they ought to permit all to liue according to their particuler saith which sentence of his graue and learned Cassander not seeming to himselfe allowable in our English State or to his owne brethreÌ„ the English Caluinists that now hauing gotten the gouernment will suffer no other Religion but their owne he thought best to suppresse and cut them quite out Secondly insteed of the conditionall speach vsed by Cassander modò omnes acâ—ipiant Scripturam c. so that all do receiue the Scripture and Apostolicall Creed he putteth it downe in English with a causitiue clause as if it were quia omnes Symbolum tenent c. All Which Sects because they do hold the Articles of the Creed are true members of the Church leauing out the word Scripture and the English of dum that is whiles they receaue the Scripture and thereby doth as yow see peruert the other wholy in sense For who will not hold it absurd that Catholicks Lutherans Caluinists other Sectes of our tyme though in words they do admit both Scripture and Apostolicall Creed yet differing in sense and so many doctrines as they do are all to be held notwithstanding for true members of one and the self same Church Can any thing be more ridiculous then this 86. Thirdly he doth most notably cogge in thrusting in the words à nobis from vs which are not in the originall meaning therby to make Cassander seeme a Catholicke and to speake in the behalf of Catholicks which is plaine cosenage and to this end also he leaueth out dogmatibus And fynally you see that he shapeth euery thing to his owne purpose by making Câ—ssâ—nder as a Catholike seeme to wish and indeauour this vnion and Bellarmine to reiect it he would confirme his former calumniation that only by the insolency of Iesuites all such hope is debarred 87. And thus much for the corruption of the latin text But his English hath other corruptions also according to his ordinary custome For first he translateth Debent Principes that Emperours should endeauour a reconciliation to confirme therby his former vanity that Cassander was so great a man with Emperours as he talketh not but to Emperors wheras the word Principes vsed by Cassander doth coÌ„prehend all sortes of Princes Secondly he translateth Catholicos Lutheranos Caluinistasâ— c. which words of caetera comprehend all other Sects of our time as Anabaptists Arrians Trinitarians Hâ—ssites Picardians and the like he translateth them I say Papists and Protestants as though all those Sects of our tyme were to be comprehended vnder the name of Protestants of the English faith or as though Cassander yf he were a Catholike as here he is pretended would call vs Papists 88. Thirdly wheras in his owne Latin here set downe he saith Qui omnes dum Symbolum tenent c. All which to wit Catholiks Lutherans Caluinists other Sectaries whiles they hold the Apostolicall Creed are true members of the Church he doth English it thus because Protestants hold the Articles of the Creed and are true members of the Church excluding Catholicks from belieuing the said Articles or being true members which in his owne Latin and that of Bellarmines also are included And fourthly is the corruption before mentioned although they dissent from vs in some particuler opinions which in Bellarmine is although they dissent among themselues in particuler doctrines And finally the wordes by him cited of Bellarmines iudgment which he controlleth to wit falsa est haec sententia Cassandri non possunt enim Catholici reconciliari cum haereticis are not so in Bellarmine but these potest facilè reselli haec Cassandri sententia primum enim non possunt Catholici Lutherani Caluinistae eo modo conciliari c. This sentence of Cassander may easily be refelled first for that Catholicks Lutherans and Caluinists for example cannot so be reconciled as Cassander appointeth to wit by admitting only the wordes of the Creed for that we differ in the sense and somtimes in the Articles themselues as in that descendit ad inferos he descended into Hell in like manner we agree not about the sense of those other Articles I belieue the Catholicke Church and Communion of Saints Remission of sinnes c. So Bellarmine all which this fellow omitteth 89. And so you see there is no truth or sinceritie with him in any thing Neither can these escapes bâ— ascribed any way to ouersight errour mystaking or forgetfulnes but must needs be attributed to wilfull fraud malicious meaning purposely to deceaue as the things themselues do euidently declare For which cause I shall leaue him to be censured by his owne brethreÌ„ but specially by his Lord Maister for so notable discrediting their Cause by so manifest false manner of proceeding 90. These were my words in the other Treatise whereupon I insisted the more in regard of the multiplicitie of fraudes discouered And so M. Morton had not any iust pretence to say as he insinuateth that this with the rest of the Charges layd against him and pretermitted by him were either of lesse importance or lesse insisted vpon then those other fourteene which he chose out to answere THE EIGHTEENTH Falshood pretermitted by Thomas Morton §. XVIII AS the former example apperteyned vnto the abuse of two together so doth this that next weare to alleage which are indeed two distinct things but that drawing to an end I am forced to ioine diuers togeather Wherfore I accused him in my former writing to haue corrupted two Authors ioyntly Royard a Friar and Cunerus a Bishop which accusation I set downe in these words 92. And heere will I passe ouer said I many things that might be noted out of the sequent pages namely 30.31.34 where he doth so peruert and abuse both the wordes discourse and sense of diuers Authours alledged by him as is not credible to him that doth not compare theÌ„ with the bookes themselues from whence they are taken As for example Royardus the Franciscan Friar is brought in with commendation of an honest Friar for that he saith That a King when he is made by the people cannot be deposed by theÌ„ againe at their pleasure which is the same doctrine that all other Friars learned Catholiks do hold so long as he conteyneth himselfe within
on leap As for example wheras the Pelagians did hold two principall heresies among other saith Bellarmine the one That euery sinne though neuer so little is mortall depriueth vs of Gods grace That there is no originall sinne in man especially in Infants of faithfull parents he auerreth that the Protestants of our dayes do concurre in both points In the first all generally that there is no sinne Veniall of his owne nature in the second with some distinction for that Zuinglius â—aith he denieth Originall sinne in all Caluin and Bucer in Christian Infants only This is Cardinall Bellarmines assertion his latin words be these 62. Zuinglius negat simpliciter peccatum originale in quolibet homine Bucerus autem Caluinus solùm in filijs â—idelium quos dicunt sanctos nasci saluari etiam sine baptismo Zuinglius doth absolutly deny originall sinne to be in any man but Bucer and Caluin do only deny the same in the children of the faithfull whome they say to be borne Saints and to be saued also without baptisme So as Bellarmine is guilfully abused by M. Morton in setting downe his opinion as though he had said that Caluin had denyed with the Pelagians that there is any originall synne at all in Infants though lesse in the children of the faithfull citing his latin wordes in the margent peruersely â—hus Pelagiani docebant non esse in hominibus peccatum oriâ—inale praecipuè in filijs fidelium idem docent Caluinus Bucerus The Pelagians did teach that there was not originall synne in men and especially in the chilâ—ren of the faithfull the same do teach Caluin Buâ—er Thus he Whereas he saith differently as you â—aue heard that Caluin Bucer denyed it only in the â—hildren of the faithfull granting it in the rest and â—his could not M. MortoÌ„ but see know conseâ—uently is taken in a witting formall lye that knowâ—th one thing yet writeth the contary 63. And herupon wheras he willed me to aske of Cardinall Bellarmine in secret Confession with what conscience he had charged Caluin with the heresy of the Pelagians â—hat denyed originall synne in all men I must aske him in open confession with what conscience he could so â—alsify Bellarmine in making him to say that which he â—id not for that he doth not say also absolutly that Caluin denieth all originall sinne in all Infants but only in the childrin of the faithfull this doth not the L. Iesuite Valentia any way contradict as falsely heere is insinuated that he doth but rather to the contrary he expresly auouchâ—th the same this in the very place heere cited by M. Morton saying Zuinglio Caluino visum est filios â—idelium non contrahere peccatum originale It seemed to Zuinglius and Caluin that the children of the faithfull do not coÌ„tract originall synne and he quoteth the places where it is to be found in their workes and the same he doth in his 4. Tome vpon S. Thomas ciâ—ing other places of Caluiâ— where he houldeth the â—ame doctrine So as in this point Bellarmine and Valentia haue no more contradiction betweene them then it pleaseth M. Morton to deuise of his owne head and to publish in their names contrary to their owne apparent wordes meaning 64. But he citeth a place of Valentia that may seeme to make to the contrary where he saith Caluin and other Protestants are so farre oâ— from denying Originall sinne that they do monstrously extend the nature therof euen vnto persons regenerate and for this he quoteth certayne places oâ— Valenâ—ia as he might also haue done diuers of Bellarmineâ—or â—or he relateth of Caluin the very same and setteth downe the latin according to his owne English though not a litle differing from the wordes of the Author but that which most importeth is that he wittingly and deceiptfully abuseth the Reader with this citation as though Valentia did contradict both himselfe and Bellarmine and said That Caluin and Bucer were â—arre of from denying Originall sinne in the children of the faithfull Wheras he saith not so but that they do not absolutly deny all originall synne as the Pelagians did and as Zuinglius before is charged to haue done togeather with the Anabaptistes as Melancthon witnesseth and before them agayne the Armenians Albanenses and others but only denyed the same in the children of the faithfull as hath beene said and in the rest they graunted it and not this only but monstrously also do the said Caluin Luther and other Protestants extend the nature and guylt of originall synne eueÌ„ vnto such as are regenerate christened which is to be vndersâ—ood in that they hold that the very motions of concupiscence called foâ—es are synnes in themselues euen without the conâ—ent of our mindes which is an other extreme opâ—osition to Catholicke doctryne that teacheth these â—otioÌ„s not to be synnes at all without some coÌ„sent â—ealded vnto them but yet this assertion of Valentiaâ—s â—s not contrary nor contradictory to that which â—ardinall Bellarmine and himselfe affirmed before of â—aluin to wit that with the Pelagians he holdeth â—hat the InfaÌ„ts of faithfull people are deuoyd of oriâ—â—nall synne for that those motions of concupisceÌ„ce â—hich he calleth originall synnes in Christians aâ—â—lt are not in infants and therby he denyeth origiâ—all sinne in Christian Infants and granteth it in â—â—em that be of age in both which he is oppoâ—â—te to the Catholicke Church Let M. Mort. see how 〈◊〉 can defend him from contradiction to himselfe 〈◊〉 I haue defended Cardinall Bellarmine and Gregorius de â—alentia â—5 There remaineth then only to examine the â—eason alleaged by M. Morton why Bellarmines charge â—f Pelagianisme against Caluin could not be true thatâ—saith â—saith he this doctrine oâ— denying originall sinne was the proâ—er heresy of the Pelagians out of which confession of â—he L. Iesuite Valentia M. Morton would inferre that â—or so much as this was the proper heresy of the Peâ—â—gians therfore it could not be of the Protestants â—hich reason is so wise as it can serue to nothing â—ut to make the reader laugh For albâ—it the Pelaâ—â—ans were the peculiar Authors of this heresy yet â—ight the â—ame be made coÌ„mon by participation â—o doth Valentia expresly say that this heresy was â—aken vp afterward both by the Armâ—nians Albanenses Anabaptists citing Castro and Melancthon for the same So as to cite this reason or a proofe that Caluin did not deny orginaâ—l synne in Infants â—or that our owne L. Iesuite Valentia doth say that it was the proper errours of the Pelagians which yet are not his words but S. Augustines cited by him for the same is as ridiculous an inference as if a man should say it was the proper errour of Arius and his fellowes in old time to deny the equality of the Sonne of God with his Father ergo it cannot be that the moderne Arians of Transiluania
not truly that they denyed the Sacramentall vse therof Or for so much as Protestants do not concurre with the Nouaâ—ians in the one they do not in the other is a most absuâ—d kynd of reasoning called by Logitians à disparaâ—iâ— foâ— that both may be true and one excludeth not the other For it is most true which Bellarmin saith that NouatianoruÌ„ error praecipuus erat c. The principall errour of the Nouatians which word principall importing that they had other errors besids is craftily cut oâ— by M. Mort. was that there is not power in the Church to recoÌ„â—le men to God but only by Baptisme which last words also buâ— only by Baptisme were by M. Mort. and by the same art shifted ouâ— of the text for that they haue relation to the Priests of the Church to whom it appertayneth by publicke ordinary office to baptize and in this the Protestants are accused by Bellarmine to concurâ—â— with them in denyall of peÌ„nance as it is a SacrameÌ„t 71. And togeather with this it may be true that besides this praecipuus error the principall errour the Nouatians some or all denyed the fruit of all kynd of priuate and particuler pennance as sorrow teares punishment of the body and thâ— like wherin diuers Protestants do not agree with them nor yet are accused therof Wherby it appeareth that all this counterfait contradiction which M. Morton hath so much laboured to establish heere betweene Bellarmine on the one syde and Castro Vega Maldonaâ—e on the other commeth to be right nothing at all for that Bellarmine speaketh expresly of Pennance as it is a Sacrament and in that sense only saith that the Protestants deny it togeather with the Nouatians as they do also the vse of Chrisme in the Sacrament of Conâ—irmation which was an other errour of theirs obiected by Bellarmine to Protestants as much as the formâ—r but wholy dissembled by M. Morton The other three Authors as they do not exclude but rather include the Sacrament of Pennance yet do they mâ—ke â—ention of the other part of the Nouatian error â—â—at seemed to deny all pennance in generall wheâ—â—er Sacramentall or not Sacramentall and of this â—â—e not Protestants accused by Bellarmine but expreâ—â—y rather exempted by the words which heere M. â—orton setteth downe of his So as for him to play â—â—on his owne voluntary Equiuocation and mistaâ—â—ng of the word PeÌ„nance Nouatian heresy about the â—â—me is toto grosse an illusion Wherfore if you â—â—ease let vs briefly see how many false trickes he â—â—eth in this place â—2 The first of all may be that wheras Cardinall â—â—llarmine to proue that our moderne Protestants do â—â—mbolize and agree with the old Nouatian heresyes â—â—leageth two particuler instances the one in denyâ—â—g the power of the Church to remit synnes by â—â—e Sacrament of peÌ„nance the other in denying the 〈◊〉 of holy Chrisme in the Sacrament of ConfirmatioÌ„ â— Morton hauing nothing to say to the second replyâ—th only to the first by an Equiuocation as you haue â—â—ard and yet if the second only be true Bellarmine 〈◊〉 iustified in noting the ProtestaÌ„ts of Nouatianisme â—nd therfore to deny the one dissemble the other â—ust needs proceed of witting fraud granting that which is chiefly in controuersy to wit that Proâ—estants do hold in somewhat Nouatianisme â—3 The second fraud is for that in reciting Cardinall Bellarmines charge against Protestants he cutâ—eth from the latin sentence of Bellarmine being very small short in it selfe both the beginning end to wit Praecipuus error post baptismum as yow haue heard and that for the causes which now I haue declared 74. Thirdly he doth bring in guylfully the foresaid testimonyes of Castro Vega Maldonate as contrary to Bellarmine whereas they speake of an other thing to wit of peÌ„nance in another sense bâ—sydeâ— this do all expresâ—y set downe the two errouâ—s oâ— the Nouatians to witt that they did deny as welâ— the Sacrament of PennaÌ„ce as also the priuate vse therâ—f as it is a particuler vertue and that the Protesâ—anâ—â— of our dayes do concurre with them in the fiâ—stâ— though not in the second and that he could not buâ— euidently see and know this and so did write it against his conscience to deceyue the Reader 75. Fourthly when M. Morton doth alleadge Bâ—llarmine lib. 3. de Iustis cap. 6. to confesse that Protestants do require repentance in Christians that they may be iuâ—tified he well knew that this was not coÌ„trary to that which he had said before in his accusation lib. 4. de Notis Ecclesiae cap. 9. that Protâ—stants did ioyne with the NouatiaÌ„s in denying all power of the Church for râ—conciling men to God for he knew that in the former Bellarmine meant of priuate pennance as it is a vertue which euery man may vse of himselâ—e but in the second he meant of the Sacrament and keyes of the Church which require absolution of the Priest Heere then was wilâ—ull and malicious mistaking and so much the more for that in the very next wordes heere set downe by him both in English latin out of Bellarmines first booke de poâ—nitâ—ntia cap. 8. the Cardinall doth expresly declare that only Controuersy betweene Catholickes and Protestants in this matter is about the sacrament of peÌ„nance with absolutioÌ„ of the Church not the priuate peÌ„nance which euery particuler man may vse of himselfe So as vnder the cloud of priuate and sacramentall peÌ„nance he craftily endeauoreth to make some shew of a contradictioÌ„ which is none indeed 76. The fifth falshood is that M. Morton to make Cardinall Bellarmine contrary to himselfe or very forgetfull he alleadging heere his latin wordes maketh him to say first that Protestants require faith repentance to iustificaâ—ion and then presently in another place Luther reiecâ—eth pennance as though Luther were no Proteâ—â—ant wheras this is no contradiction in Cardinall Bellarmine but in Luther himselâ—e and anotoâ—ious fraud in M. Morton so paâ—pably to dâ—ceaue his Reader for that Cardinall Bellarmines wordes are these Lutherus lib. de Captiuitate Babylonica tria tanâ—um agnoscit Sacramenta Baptismâ—m Poenitentiam Panem tamen infra cap. de extrema Vnctione reijâ—it Poenâ—tentiam Luther in his booke of Babylonicall Captiuity in the Chapter oâ— the Eucharist acknowledgeth only three SacrameÌ„ts Baptisme Pennance and Bread and yet afterward in the same booke and in the Chapter of Extreme Vnction he reiecteth peÌ„nance These are the wordes of Bellarmine which M. Morton could not but haue seene and consideredâ— and yet to make some litle shew of ouersight in Bellarmine he was content against his coÌ„science to set downe Lutherus reijcit Poeniâ—entiam and to conceale and dissemble all the rest of the sentence alleadged When will he be able to produce one of our Authours with so manifest a wilfulnes 77. Let vs conclude then that M. Mort. is in a poore case when he is driuen to
ancient heresy but only that it was not altogeather the same with that of the Proâ—estants at this day and had an other foundation or â—otiue to wit for so much as those hereticks did â—ot belieue that Christ had taken any flesh at all â—hey consequeÌ„tly belieued not that he gaue it in the â—acrament But the Protestants though they beleeue â—hat he tooke true flesh yet do they not belieue that â—t is really giuen in the Sacrament for that they beâ—ieue not these wordes Hoc est Corpus meum in the â—ense that the Church doth so as these do formally â—mpugne the Reall Presence and the other but by a â—onsequence drawne from another heresy which â—s the cause that they caÌ„not properly be called Sacraâ—entaries as ours are but most ancient they are â—o in this he contradicteth not himselfe about their â—ntiquity 102. The last point of obiected contradiction in â—his place is that Bellarmine confesseth Caluin to hold that togeather with the Sacrament of the Eucharist God doth exhibit vnto the faithful not only a signe of Christs body but also the body and bloud it selfe yea and as Valenâ—ia addeth further that Caluin confesseth that our soules do coÌ„municate with the body of Christ substantially Wherto I answere true it is that in words Caluin doth affirme as much in some partes of his workes but denyeth it againe in others and therupon do both Bellarmine and Valentia conuince him of most euident and palpable contradictions in this matter he seeking to say something different not only from Luther but also from VVickliâ—â—e Zuinglius therby to make a sect of himselfe but yet not finding indeed wherin to subsist or be premanent in any deuise that he could find out for proofe wherof Cardinall Bellarmine dâ—th set downe seauen sâ—uâ—râ—ll propositions of his about this matter and proueth thâ— same substantially out of his owne wordes and discourses ech one of them different from the other and some of them so contradictory as by no possible meanes they may be reconciled or stand togeather As first that the flesh oâ— Christ is only in hâ—auâ—n and that in so certaine and determinate a place as it is as â—istant from the bread as the highest heauen is from the earth then this noâ—withstanding he saith as heere is cyted by M. Morton that in the supper the true body of â—hâ—ist is exhibitâ—d vnto the faithfull not only a signe yea that the very substance oâ— Christes body is giuen Next to that againe he saith that notwithstanding the distance bâ—tweene th◠〈◊〉 of Christ the Sacramentall signes yet are they ioyned â—oâ—â—ather by so miraculous and inexplicable meanes as neyther â—â—â—guâ— nor pen can vtter the same And then further tha◠〈◊〉 must not belieue that this coniunction is by any reall comâ—â—g downe of Chrâ—stes body vnto vs but by a certaine substaâ—â—ial force deriued from his flesh by his spirit Where he seemâ—â—â— to sâ—y that the coniunction is made not in the substance but in some essentiall quality And so in the fifth place more cleerly he saith that it is made by apprehensiâ—n of faith only wherby he contradicteth all that he sayd before of reall and substantiall coniunction And in the sixt place he confirmeth more the same by saying that wiâ—ked men receaue not the body at all quia corpus Christi solo ore fidei accipitur for that the body oâ— Christ is only receaued by the mouth of fayth And in theâ— and last place he concludeth that this Sacrament doth not giue the body oâ— Christ or faith vnto any that hath it not already but only doth testify and confirme that now it is there and so it is but as a signe or seale to vse his wordes of that which is thâ—re already And this being the variety of Caluins opinion it proueth no contradiction in Belâ—armine but in Caluin himselfe And so many corruptions hauing heere beene proued against M. Morton do conuince that in him which he would proue in Cardinall Bellarmine but cannot as how see and yet â—e concludeth so confidently as before yow haue heard saying All these contradictions do certainly euince â—hat he the Cardinall hath by publicke imputations slaunâ—ered those whome in his consâ—ience he did acquit and shall we â—hinke that his conscience could be sincere in alleadging other â—â—ns testimonyes and witnâ—sses who is sound thus persidiously â—â—iust in exâ—ibiting his owne Thus he And I remit me to â—he Reader whether he hath seene hitherto any one point of perfidious dealing proued against the Cardinall among so many as haue appeared on the part of M. Morton But yet now he will go forward as he saith to another subiect to wit to shew some exaÌ„ples oâ— falsifications out of Cardinall Bellarmine in allegation of other mens testimonyes Let vs see whether he performe any thing more then in the rest he hath done 103. But first before we enter into this other examen there occurreth vnto me a consideration worthy to be pondered by the Reader which is that all these six obiectioâ—s made against Cardinall Bellarmine for imputing old heresyes to Protâ—stants are taken out oâ— on only chapter of his which is the 9. of his 4. Booke Of the noâ—â—s of the true Church in which 9. Chapter as before yow haue heard he chargeth the Protestants of our time with different heresyes of twâ—nty seuerall condemned old Heresiarches or chiefe Heretiks and therof inâ—erreth that as the vnion and agreâ—ment in doctrine with the ancient Catholike Fathers is a note of the true Church and of true Catholiks so to participate with ancient heretiks in any one condemned heresy is a damnable note of the contrary which Chapter M. Morton perusing thought good to set vpon six only for clearing Protestants of them to wit the Pelagians the Nouatians the Manichees the Arrians and other two particuler heresyes wheras in reason he should haue eyther cleered all or none for so much as according to S. Augustines sentence and other ancient Fathers the holding of any one condemned heresy is sufficient to euerlasting damnation So as M. Morton picking out only a few leaueth all the rest as not excusable and vnder hand by his silence granteth thâ—t they are held by the Protestants which how markable a poynt it is I leaue it to the Reader to iudge and so shall passe to examine the other head of obiections that he hath against Cardinall Bellarmine THE â—HIRD PART â—F THIS CHAPTER CONTEYNING â—THER OBIECTIONS against Cardinall Bellarmine for falsifications in alleadging of othâ—r mens authoritiâ—s and first about S. Cyprian §. XIII MAISTER MORTON passing from Cardinall Bellarmines accusations imputations against Protestants for heresies vnto his allegations of their testimonies corruptly as he pretendeth â—andled by him he beginneth his accusation with a â—entence of S. Cyprian about traditioÌ„s in these words S. Cyprian saith he hath this quâ—stion he going
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
Morton but it would not come It must be our patience to expect the same at his more commodity hereafter THE FIFTEENTH Falshood pretermitted by Thomas Morton §. XV. FROM Sepulueda we passe to another Spanish Doctor his equall or rather much better learned named Sotus whom M. Morton erroneously taketh for Scotus vnder the title of subtil Doctor and abuseth him egregiously as I do shew in my former booke of Mitigation in these words 72. Behold sayth M. Morton one Doctor amoÌ„g you so subtile that for that faculty he hath by figure of excellencie byn called The subtile Doctor who doth conclude all your Equiuocators for Lyars saying To say that I did not that which I know I haue done although I speake it with this lymitation or reseruatioÌ„ of mind vt tibi significem it is not Equiuocation but a lye And then he quoteth Sotus in his books De iure iusâ—itia setting downe also in margent the Latin words conforme to this But all is treachery falshood and lying in this impertinent impugner of Equiuocation For first by the subtile Doctor according to the phrase of Catholike Schooles euery child knoweth to be meaÌ„t Ioan. Scotus not Dominicus Sotus who liued more then 200â— yeares after the other was of the order of S. Dominicke the other being of S. Francis so as this is folish ridiculous errour if it be errour but the other is cleerly false and malicious that these words as here they are cited are in Sotuâ— which M. Morton will neuer be albe to shew for â—auing his honestie in this point and much lesse will he be able to proue that Sotus doth conclude all Equiâ—â—cators for lyars which is an other incredible impudency in him to affirme For that Sotus in this very booke question and article by him cited doth teâ—ch and proue largely the plaine contrary â—o wit tâ—at to equiuocate is lawfull in diuers Cases to which eâ—â—ect wee haue citâ—d him before when he saith in generall Possâ—nt debent sic contra ius requisiti quacâ—â—que vti amphibologia They which are vnlawfully required to speake or sweare as we haue declared may and ought to vse any kind of Amphibologie or Equiuocation 73. This is his generall assertion but aâ—terward in particuler he putteth many examples to proue the same And first he setteth downe this proposition Dum testis de alieno actu interrogatur potest riâ—â— respondere Se nescire When a witnes is vnlawfully demanded of another mans actioÌ„ which he knoweth he may iustly answere he knoweth nothing the reason wherof he sayth is this Quia oratio illa nescio recipere hunc sensum citra mendacium potest nescio vt tibi modò dicam For that the answere I know nothing therof may without falsyty admit this sense I know it not â—o tell it yow at this tyme. Sicut silius hominis nescit diem iudicij vt dicat as Christ knew not the day of iudgment to tell or vtter yt to his disciples And doth it seeme to you that Sotus in this place doth go about to conclude all Equiuocators for lyars as M. Morton affirmeth If he did he concludeth one Sauiour Christ also in his sense What extreme impudencie is this in a Myniâ—ter But let vs heare Sotus yet further in this matter 74. In his booke De tegendo Secreto the third member and third question he repeateth againe the very same Conclusion heere mentioned That a witnes being iniustly demaunded whether he knoweth such such a thing of another may answere he knoweth nothing though he secretly know it and then going further he demaundeth Whether I hauing seene Peter kill Iohn and being after examined vpon the same iniustly whether I may say I know nothing therof To which he giueth this answere Respondetur quod iure possum respondere nescio quia iure intelligitur nescio vt dicam aut nescio eo modo quo iure debeam diâ—ere I affirme saith he that I may rightly ansâ—ere I know nothing therof â—or that by law it is vnderstood that I know it not to tell it or I know it not in such manner as by law I ought to vtter the same And prâ—sently he reâ—utâ—th T. Moâ—tons Doâ—tor Genesius Sepulueda that calleth this pulchrum commeÌ„tum a faire gloze and putting him in number of Iuniores quidam certaine yonger fellowes that would reprehend that which they vnderstood not sayth Hij aut non capiunt aut dissimulant vim argumenti These yonglings either do not vnderstand or do dissemble the force of the argument for this our doctrine c. 75. Thus wrote I in my former booke and hauing conuinced so euident falsificatioÌ„s as â—ere haue byn layed downe quite contrary to the meaning sense of the Author alleaged I meruaile that some litle place had not byn allowed for some piece of answere to this also among the rest But belike M. Morton was not ready THE SIXTEENTH Falshood pretermited by Thomas Morton §. XVI FROM the Spanish Doctor Sotus we come to the Flemish Doctor Cunerus for that from all sortes of men and from all Countries M. Morton draweth tâ—stimonies either gathered of himself or by others but allwayes bestoweth some sleight of his owne bugget to peruert them from their owne meaning Now then heare good Reader what I alleaged in my late Treatise as practized against a place of Cuâ—erus noe lesse iniuriously then against the former 77. Within few lynes after this M. Morton beginneth his third Chapter with these words That is only true Râ—ligion say your Romish Doctors which is tauâ—ht in the Romish Church and therfore whosoeuer mainteynâ—th any doctrine condemned in that Church must be accompâ—ed â—n obstinate hereticke And in the margent he citeth Cunerus alleaging his Latin words thus Haec est Religionis sola ratio vt omnes intelligant sic simpliciter esse credendum atque loquendum quemadmodum Romana Ecclesia credendum esse docet ac praedicat which words if they were truly alleaged out of the Author yet were they not truly translated For if only true Religion a corrupt translation of Religionis solaratio be applied to particuler positions and articles of Religion then we grant that such true Religion may be also among hereticks not only taught in the RomaÌ„ Church for that as S. Austine well noteth Hereticks also hold many articles of true Catholiâ—ke Religion But here the corruption and falsifycation goeth yet further and it is worthy the noting for that Cunerus hauing treated largly against the insurrections and rebellions of those of Holland and Zâ—land for cause of Religion and other pretences against their lawfull King taketh vpon him in his thirteenth Chapter to lay downe some meanes how in his opinion those dissentions may be compounded giuing this title to the sayd Chapter Quae sit vera componendi dâ—ssiâ—ij ratio what is the true way of composing this dissention And then after some discourse setteth downe
am content to stand heerin not only to any Iudge that sitteth vpon any of his Maiesties Benches at this day but euen to Syr Edward himselfe with condition only that he will be content with patience to heare my reasons which are these that ensue 4. First a Iudgment of Nihil dicit cannot proceed as I suppose but vpon one of these two causes that â—yther the party sayth nothing at all as when one standing at the barre to answere for his life will for sauing of his goods and lands vtterly hold his peace or when he speaketh his speach is nothing to the purpose But neyther of these causes can be iustly alleaged in our case Not the first for that the Catholicke Deuines printed Answere is large and conteyneth as I haue said aboue 400. pages in quarto Not the second as now shall euidently be declared ergo no iudgment could passe in iustice vpon a Nihil dicit in behalfe of Syr Edward against the sayd Deuine 5. Now then let vs come to demonstrate that the Catholicke Diuine did speake to the purpose in deed for better vnderstanding wherof we must recall to memory the true state of the question and what Syr Edward Cooke then Attorney vpon his offer and obligation was to proue to wit that Queene Elizabeth by the right of her temporall Crowne had supreme spirituall Ecclesiasticall authority ouer all her subiects in Ecclesiasticall affayrs as largely as euer any persoÌ„ had or could haue in that Realme and this by the common lawes of England before any Statute law was made in that behalfe For proofe wherof the sayd Attorney pretended to lay forth a great number of cases examples and authorityes out of his law-bookes which he said should proue the ancient practice of this authority in Christian English Kings both before and since the Conquest which being his purpose whatsoeuer his aduersary the Catholicke Deuine doth alleage substantially to ouerthrow this his assertion and to proue that Q. Elizabeth neyther had nor could haue this spirituall Authority though she had beene a man neither that any of her ancestours Kings and Queenes of EnglaÌ„d did euer pretend or practice the like authority this I say caÌ„not be iudged to be froÌ„ the purpose much lesse a Nihil dicit Let vs examine then the particulers 6. The Catholicke Deuine at his first entrance for procuring more attention in this great and weighty controuersy betweene M. Attorney and him about the Spirituall power and authority ouer soules in the moderne English Church doth auerre the question to be of such moment as that the determination of all other controuersies dependeth therof For that whersoeuer true â—pirituall authority and iurisdiction is found there must needs be the true Church to whom it appertaineth to determine of the truth of the doctrine taught therin or in any other false Church or coÌ„gregatioÌ„ for approuing the one condemning the other Wherof coÌ„sequently also depeÌ„deth euerlasting saluatioÌ„ or condeÌ„natioÌ„ of all those that belieue or not belieue those doctrines 7. He sheweth further that the life spirit essence of the true Church in this world consisteth in this true iurisdiction of gouerning and directing soules by preaching teaching bynding and absoluing from synne administring true Sacraments and the lyke And that where this true power Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction is not lawfully fouÌ„d but eyther none at all or violently assumed there wanteth this vitall spirit Neyther is it any Church at all but a Synagogue rather of Sathan and therfore that the firâ—t and chiefe care of euery Christian ought to be for sauing of his soule eâ—pecially in tymes of strife contentions and heresyes as are these of ours to study well this point and to informe himselfe diligently therin for if he fynd this he fyndeth all and iâ— he misse in this he misseth in all Nor is it possible for him to be saued 8. Moreouer he declareth that as in England at this day there be three different professioâ—s of religion the Protesâ—ant the Puritan and the Catholicke all three clayming this true and vitall power oâ— Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction to be in their Congregations so do they deriue the same from three different heads and fountaynes immediatly though all pretend that mediatly at leastwise it commeth from God The Protâ—stants taking it from the Temporall Princes authority giuen him from God by right of his Crowne as here is taught by M. Attorney The Puritans from the people gathered togeather in their congregation The Catholicks from their Bishops and Prelats descending by continuall succession from the Apostles to whome they belieue that Christ first gaue heauenly power and iurisdiction for gouerning of soules and especially to the cheefe Bishop Successor to S. Peter and not vnto temporall Princes or to lay people or popular Congregations made by themselues who cannot properly be called Successours of the Apostles and this difference as it is maniâ—est and euident so is it of such weight as it maketh these three sortes of men and their Congregations or Churches irreconciliable for that which soeuer of these three partes hath this true iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall hath therby the truâ— Church as hath beene said maketh the other two to be no Churches at all but rather prophane and Diabolicall Sâ—nagogues and such as haue neyther true Prelats nor Prelacy nor true preaching nor teaching nor SacrameÌ„ts nor absolutioÌ„ of sinnes nor any one act or thing oâ— a Christian Church in them And that the tryall of all this dependeth of the discussion of this controuersie betweene M. Attorney and him All this hath the Deuine in his first entrance And did he not herin speake to the purpose or can this be condemned for a Nihil diâ—it 9. Aâ—ter this for better vnderstaÌ„ding of the whole controuersie the Deuine layeth downe at large the ground beginning and origen of all lawfull power and iurisdiction of men ouer men both spirituall and temporall in this world shewing how both of them are from God though differently the spirituall being instituted immediatly by him and deliuered to the Apoâ—â—les and their Successours but the temporall mediatly that is to say giuen first to the Common wealth to choose what forme of gouernment they list and by mediation of that election giuing to temporall Princes supreme Authority in all temporall affaires 10. Then he â—heweth the different ends and obiects of these powers the end of spirituall power being to direct vs to euerlasting saluation both by instruction discipline direction and correction of the temporall or ciuill power by lyke meanes and helpes to gouerne well the Common wealâ—h in peace aboundance order iustice and prosperity And according to thâ—se ends are also their obiects matter meanes As for exaÌ„ple the former hath for her obiect spirituall things belonging to the soule as matters of sayth doctrine Sacraments such other and the later handleth the Ciuill affayres of the Realme and Common wealth as they
the barre are straÌ„g yet not so much to be woÌ„dred at as lamented for that there is no hope of redresse And whether Syr Edward himselfe haue beene one of these lawyers and had his share among them proportionable to the â—est or aboue the rest let his neighbours speake and his aboundant wealth lands and lyuings beare witnesse I do not meane to be his accuser but his answerer 59. Only I must say one thing more which I would not haue spoken at this tyme if Syr Edwards last contumelious speach at his departure from Norâ—ich in his publike Charge had not moued me therunto it is this That wheras in that speach to make his auditours merry he brought in an example framed by himselfe as may be supposed of a Prior or Monke that craftily induced a Gentleman to giue part of his lands from his sonne and heire to a Monastery for which act his sayd sonne comming into his sicke Fathers chamber whiles the matter was in doing did by his Fathers leaue beat the monke out of the ChaÌ„ber with good â—udgells which he caryed away with him insted of inheriting the laÌ„ds wherat the Auditory did laugh merrily But I must needs teâ—l Syr Edward not in iest but in very good earnest that â—f either Monke or Priest that is learned in Deuinity of a good coÌ„science should come to him on his death bed to helpe to make his testament according to the old custome for better discharge of his soule in the world to come and should heare but the coÌ„mon speach of people that runneth concerning his greaâ— wealth and hasty getting therof should be bound according to Catholicke religion to seeke further into matters and to tell him another manner of tale in his eare then euer yet he heard about restitutions and satisfactions necessarily vnder payne of euerlasting damnation to be made before his departure out of this life which doctrine if Syr Edward did belieue as all his ancestours did and aduentured their souls therin it may be that amoÌ„g other good works he would resolue himselfe perhaps to giue some laÌ„ds also to Monasteries Hospitals Churches other places of piety â—or satisfactioÌ„ of thinges not so well gotten though he left the lesse to his Sonne and heyre 60. I haue recyted I thinke in some other place occasion a true story that fell out not many yeares agone in the Indies where a great rich man being very sicke and hauing had great trafficke of affayres in his life sent for a Deuine to direct his conscience at his last vpshot who examining his estate found him obnoxious to great restitutions as of some hundreth thousand crownes perhaps which he had gayned vniustly and bestowed in rents and lyuings for his sonne and heire Wherfore the learned man telling him that eyther he must make restitution or be damned quia non dimittitur peccatum nisi restituatur ablatum he answered him that it was vnpossible for that his sonne and whole house would be vtterly decayed therby WheruÌ„to the other answered that theÌ„ it was vnpossible for him to be saued that heerof he did assure him vpon his conscience and skill in Deuinity that there was no other remedy to be taken or help to be had in that case for that no absolution can saue betweene the Priest and his Penitent where is included the interest or hurt of a third Wherat the sicke Father being somwhat astonishedâ— and terrified desired him to deale with his sonne but his sonne would not so much as heare any mention therof but rather was as ready to haue beaten out the sayd Deuine as Syr Edwards yong Gentleman was to beate out the Monke Wherupon the Deuine tooke this resolution to bring him before his Father and told him that vpon his conscience and soule his Father was to go to eternall flames of hell if due restitutioÌ„ were not made but yet that he had thought vpon a certaine meane how some satisfaction might be made wherby God perhaps might be moued to pardon his Father so great extremity of punishment which was that his said sonne should hold his finger but one halfe quarter of an houre in the fire or ouer a Candle therby to deliuer his Father from eternall fyre But he answered that he would not do it for ten tymes so much land as his Father was to leaue him Wherupon the Deuine inferred saying And will yow haue your Father to lye body and soule in eternall fire for these landes and yet will not your selfe suffer halfe a quarter of an houres burning of your finger for ten tymes as much WherupoÌ„ his Father resolued absolutly to make restitutioÌ„ though with no smal abatement of his sonnes estate 61. And now of this example I shall not need to make any application for it is cleere inough of it selfe I do not wish â—uill vnto the temporall state of Syr Edwards sonne and heire whom I know not but rather do heare him commended yet do I wish better vnto the Fathers eternall state of his soule no lesse theÌ„ to myne own And so much of this matter by his own prouocatioÌ„ coÌ„cerning the beating of the MoÌ„ke by the sonne heire for giuing that couÌ„sell to his Father which the prophet Daniel did to one that was heauily loadeÌ„ with sinnes peccata tua cleemosynis redime iniquitates tuas misericordijs pauperuÌ„ sorsitan ignoscet deliâ—tis tuis Deus Redeeme by almes thy synnes and by mercy towards the poore thy iniquities perchaÌ„ce God will pardon therby thy offences But this seemeth but a matter of iest to Syr Edward and so we shall leaue to treate any further therof and passe to peruse the second part of his present Preface wherin he pretendeth by foure cases or questions propounded by the student and answered by himselfe to confirme and establish his precedent assertion of the supereminent antiquity and excellency of our English Municipall lawes aboue all others but especially their antiquity which he doth performe in as strange a maÌ„ner as euer commonly I haue heard man dispute ABOVT FOVRE seuerall questions said to be propounded by the Student in law and solued by the Iudge for confirmation of the Antiquity and Eminency of our moderne English Lawes §. IIII. SYR Edward hauing set downe before the demaund of his student about the supereminent antiquity of the English Lawes maketh him to say thus That some of another profession are not perswaded that the common lawes of England are of so great antiquity as there in my Preface superlatiuely is spoken In which words no doubt but he meaneth the Catholicke Deuine and then as glad to see some doubt or coÌ„tradiction made therof for him to shew his skill and readines in answering he writeth thus I was right glad to heare of any exception sayth he to the end that such as were not perswaded might eyther be rightly instructed and the truth confirmed or that I might vpon true grounds be
truthes as if the credit of his whole worke consisted vpon the certainty of euery particuler period which if it be true then must it needs inferre a great preiudice to the credit first of the said 6. Part of Syr Edwards Reportes for so much as so many periods haue beene now found false in this very Preface And secondly it cannot but import the like discredit vnto his said fifth part for which he framed his former protestation for that vpon better view of the bookes Statutes lawes by him cyted it is found that he doth not only misalledge many both wordes and texts resolutions and iudgments but peruerteth many other by wrong inferences arguments detorsions and amplifications of his owne quite contrary to his former protestation which now breifly shall be declared more in particuler 82. First then not to iterate againe the number of those many and manifold falshoods vsed by Syr Edward in the cyting of the Charter of King Kenulphus before the Conquest for giuing priuiledge of Sanctuary to the Church of Culâ—am belonging to the Abbey of Abindon both by concealing the wordes that most imported That all was done by the consent and authority of Pope Leo as also the like vnsincere dealing in Iustice Thorps case concerning the question whether it were treason in the â—aigne of K. Edward the first for one subiect to bâ—ing in a Bull of excommunication against another subiect wherof we haue treated in two seuerall precedent Paragraphes of this Chapter and conuinced that there was much false and fraudulent dealing in them both this I say pretermitted we shall note some more examples out of his other instances vnder English kings since the Conquest 83. First he alleageth this instance vnder the Conquerour himselfe not out of any law of his but out of a fact K. VVilliam saith he the first did of himselfe as K. oâ— England make appropriation of Churches with Cure to Ecclesiasticall persons wherof he inferreth that he had Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction and cyteth for the proofe of his assertion 7. Ed. 3. tit Quare impedit 19. which obiection though it be fully and substantially answered by the Deuine shewing sundry and diuers waies and namely foure wherby a lay man may come to haue the collation or appropriation of beneâ—ices yet the booke by him cyted being since that tyme examined it is found that Syr Edward dealt very vnsincerly in alleaging this case to his purpose which maketh wholy against him For this is the case set downe briefly by Brooke in his Abridgement but much more larger by the law-booke it selfe of 7. Ed. 3. fol. 4. 84. In the 7. yeare of King Edward the third by reason of an action of Quare impedit brought against the Deane Chapter two Prebends of the Church of S. Peter of Yorke by the Abbot of Newenham for that they had refused to admit his Clerke presented by him to the Church of T. wherunto he pretended to haue right to present the case was handled in the Kings Bench and the defendants pleading Plenarty for their defence that is to say that the place was full and not voyd for that there was an appropriation or vnion made of the said Church of T. with soke sake that is with the appurtenances vnto the foresaid Church of S. Peter of Yorke and vnto two Prebends of the same by a Charter of King VVilliam the Conquerour and afterward by another of K. Ed. 1. The chiefe Iustice at that tyme named Herle did foure or fiue tymes at least during the discussion of that case giue his iudgement that by law the Conquerour nor K. Edward could not make any such appropriation And of the like opinion were the rest of the Iudges or at least contradicted not the same to wit Syr Iohn Stoner Syr Ioâ—n Cantabridge Syr Iohn Iugge Syr Iohn Shardelow and the rest though two of them spake in the case as may be seene and gathered by reading the booke it selfe and Stouffe and Trew that were of CouÌ„cell of the Plaintife affirmed flatly that no such appropriation could be made by the CoÌ„querour All which the Attorney craftily concealed in his narration of the case to the end that it might be deemed that the iudgemeÌ„t of the Court had beene in K. Edward the thirds tyme vnder whome this case was handled that the Conquerour might according to the coÌ„mon-law make an appropriation by his letters patent And is this good dealing euen in the very first case which he proposeth aâ—ter the Conquest 85. After this he passeth ouer all the Conquerours lyfe and six other kings ensuing as VVilliam Rufus Henry the first K. Stephen Henry the second Richard the first and K. Iohn fynding no one example among all those Kings actions lawes or orders that might seeme to haue any shew of spirituall IurisdictioÌ„ but only that in the lyfe of K. H. 1. he alleageth a Charter of the said King wherin he as founder of the Abbey of Reading doth appoynt out certayne orders and lawes about the temporalityes of that Abbey a thing very iust and lawfull for all founders to doe by their owne right and consequently maketh nothing to the purpose of our questioÌ„ of Ecclesiastical power and moreouer the Deuine proueth by diuers examples that sundry Popes were wont to giue faculty to Princes and other founders to prescribe spirituall priuiledges for diuers pious workes erected by them which the Popes themselues would afterward confirme and ratify so as this also was a fraud in M. Attorney to alleage so impertinent an example but it sheweth his pouerty and barennesse in examples of those yeares which being aboue 150. vnder 7. kings as hath beene said he could fynd but these two poore examples nothing prouing the purpose to bring forth in all this tyme wheras if he would looke ouer the tyme since K. Henry the 8. tooke vpon him indeed Ecclesiasticall authority by vertue of his temporall Crowne and the other three Princes who in that haue followed him whole volumes might be written of examples and presidents giuen therin of practising spirituall power wherby it is euident that those former Princes from the CoÌ„quest downward were not of the opinion and iudgement of these later Princes and that Syr Edward doth but squeese and strayne them to make them say or signify somewhat which they neuer meant indeed and this iniquity is not the least in the Attorneys proceeding in this matter and yet doth M. Morton say of him as you haue heard exhorting euery man to resort vnto Syr Edwards storehouse for aboundance of good proofes saying habet ille quod det dat nemo largius he hath store to giue and no man giueth more liberally Now then we shall peruse some of his store 86. Vnder K. Edward 1. he alleageth this instance for proofe of his supposed Ecclesiasticall IurisdictioÌ„ that when Pope Gregory the tenth had determined in a Councell at Lyons Bigamos omni priuilegio