other infidells as he trauailed vpoÌ„ the sea brought to CoÌ„staÌ„tinople should there be peruerted made a Turke or Infidell and that afterwards his parents and brethren dying the right of succession should iustly fall vpon him what learned couÌ„sell would M. Morton giue in this case to the common wealth of England or France Will he thinke it lawfull to admitt him notwithstanding the diuersity of his religion It may endaunger the whole state of Christianitie round about Will he say it is lawfull to exclude him Then will it follow that succession may be resisted for Religion I expect M. Mortons answere to this Dilemma 85. Moreouer it is shewed by me in the booke of Mitigaâ—ion that the Protestants are not onely the first and chiefe in this doctrine that Princes may be resisted for Religion which I shew by manifold testimonies but are the first also in practice therof â—s all histories do beare witnes as of the warres of â—he Hussites in Bohemia and Albigenses in France of more â—ncienter tymes and of the Lutherans in Germanie â—he Zuinglians in Switzerland the Trinitarians in Tranâ—â—luania the Hugonots in France the Caluinists almost in euery place where they put foote to wit in Holland Zealand Scotland Hungarie and els where And as for princes debarred by them from their due succession â—pon difference of Religion the examples of his Ma ties Mother notorious to all men and the King â—f Polonia held from the succession of Sueâ—ia at this â—ay being his naturall birth-right do beare witnes â—o the world The Reckoning of this accompt â—6 Wherfore to come to knit vp this reckoning briefly with M. Morton we see first that he hath not beene able exactly to verify any one of his two former propositions out of his owne syllogisme concerning Dolemans assertion but that he hath vsed exaggeration and calumniation in them both and that whatsoeuer he hath vrged neuer so bloudily to incyte his Maiestie against vs may with much more reason force of argument be retorted against himselfe and his as well in England if the Puritans be his as in other Countryes against all sortes of Protestants And when for ending of this Paragraph he frameth a syllogisme inuincible as he pretendeth to conclude against vs saying One syllogisme will assoyle the whole doubt he setteth downe such a one as may wholy be turned vpon himself changing only the person of whome it is made The syllogisme is this Maior Euerie man is a daÌ„nable sinner who admitteth any to the Crown whom he thinketh faultie in Religon Minor But euery Romish Catholicke thinketh all Protestant Princes faulty in Religion Ergo Euery Romish Catholicke who admitteth a Protestant to succeed in the Crowne is a damnable sinner 87. All this syllogisme I say is as well veryfied of Protestants as Catholicks and consequently the force of his argument concludeth nothing at all against vs more then against himselfe and his For as for the maior proposition no Protestant of sense I thinke will but grant that it is a damnable synne to admit any Prince if it lye in his hand to preferre or hinder whome he thinketh to be faulty in Religion for that otherwise we must say that Protestants haue no conscience concerning Religion if they will aduance wittingly any one that will in their opinion destroy the same And then I make the minor But euery true Protestant thinketh Roman Catholikes to be faulty in Religion Ergo euery true Protestant that admitteth a Catholicke Prince to succeed in the Crowne is a damnable synner And what then shall wee say of the Dolphin of France when he commeth to yeares to succâ—ed in that Crowne after the death of the King his father will the Protestants receaue him or no And if there were some such busy seditious spirites among Catholike preachers there as this of M. Mort. and some others sheweth it selfe to be in England that would in all their sermons and bookes raise quarrels and contentions before hand about this matter and procure his Christian Maiestie to enter into new doubtes and iealosyes to propose new Oathes to his Protestant subiectes and not to belieue them when they haue sworne but to giue care to such clamorous makebates as these are should he euer haue quiet Or his subiectes contentment â—his then may suffice that these wicked and maligâ—ant calumniations against Catholickes to set them 〈◊〉 perpetuall iealosy and diffidence with the tempoâ—all Prince and state in regard of their Religion â—octryne are both extreme malitious and foolish â—alitious in grating coÌ„tinually vpon this seditious â—â—ference of treason from Religion foolish sottish â—â—cause the same infâ—rence may be made against â—â—mselfe or any Sectaryes whatsoâ—uer as hath bene â—â—â—wed and the factes of those of his side are so noâ—â—â—ious to the world and continually in mens eyes 〈◊〉 the very naming of this argument so often conâ—â—mneth him manifestly of both the vices before â—entioned of malignity and imprudencie Let vs 〈◊〉 passe to another Paragraph of this his first Inâ—â—irie wherein he seeketh most to make some oâ—tenâ—â—â—ion of reason for himselfe though he haue lesse 〈◊〉 in the former AN ANSWERE OF M. Mortons calumniation about the Truth of P. R. impugned §. VIII THE wordes contayning the tytle of this last Paragraph in M. Morton are these An argument of â—â—R his kind of Truth full of triumphaÌ„t treacherie but in â—â—e seuerall Catalogue of his said Paragraphes 〈◊〉 putteth it downe thus P. R. his 4. malitious trickes of â—â—lshood in obiecting a falsity concerning the testimonie of Frisinâ—â—nsis And then he beginneth his Paragraph with â—hese words Though all the former arguments sayth he of P. R. his wit memory learning and â—odesty conteyne in them the liuely characters and demonstrations of a lyer yet haue I reserued to this last place of truth such an accusation from wheÌ„ce one would thinke he had gayned a triumph So he And then he setteth downe my wordes of Charge against him for abusing the testimony of Frisingensis which presently we shall recite But first we must admonish the Reader that he which in wordes obiecteth heere vnto me so many characters and demonstrations of a lyer hath not hitherto in fact shewed any one least signe at all of such proceeding but hath beene conuinced of many himseâ—fe which if it had not bene made euident inough by thâ—sâ— few Paragraphes hitherto handled hauing matâ—â—rsâ— of lesse moment yet will it appeare more substantially and aboundantly afterward when we come to examyne punctually the difference of vntruthâ—s obiected on both sides especially such as be wittiâ—g and willfull and some tast therof will be giuen in the tryal of this very Paragraph wherin he chargeth me with so many characters of lying For if I do not make it heere manifest that M. Morton hath dealt shiftingly and with no sincere and vpright conscience in the matter obiected vnto him I am content that the Reader do condemne me and
must go accoÌ„panied with iudgemeÌ„t discretion and moderation which are other branches also of the same most excellent vertue of prudence For if they be wanting they do make prudeÌ„ce vnprofitable yea oftentimes pernicious turning it into malignant suspitions mistrustfullnesse frights feares iealosies other like effects which do worke the greatest infelicitie that in the world can be imagined And of these pestilent effects are efficient causes for the most part in Princes the cunning sycofancy subtility malitious informations suggestions eggings of flatterers makebates about theÌ„ who for their owne gaine priuate endes care not what seedes of iealosyes they sow in Princes heades against others so they may reape fauours theÌ„ selues by seeming to be prouident and benâ—uolous noâ— do they weigh what eating and consuming cares and sollicitudes they plant in the mindes of their Maisters so themselues may rest at ease as one said well of Dionysius the King of Sicily his spye when after supper he had secretly filled his Princes head with many false imaginations and iealosies himselfe went merily to the tauerne and after liberall drinking he slept souÌ„dly all that night but his Lord going to bed could sleepe nothing at all 11. But to returne to our present case I doe not denie nor euer did that due prouidence prouision ought to be held for â—uture cases as M. Morton doth heere most vntruly affirme theron fraudulâ—ntly doth found his whole discourse but my saying is that it must haue due limitts least it become hurtfull to witt a vaine vexing iealosie I say morcouer that euery may be is not a mâ—st be to fill Princes eares with possibilities onely of dangers without some particuler circumstaÌ„ces of probabilities or credibilities is an officious wounding them vnder pretence of fawning good will As for example if one should doe nothing els but lay before his Maiestie that now raigneth the disasters and perills that haue happened to his noblâ— aunceâ—â—ors in our Land without â—urther particuler ground of likelihood against himselfe but onely that they haue happened and therfore may happen againe it were an importune babling King VVilliam Ruâ—us was slaine in hunting his elder brother Richard as also his nephew of the same name sonne of Robert Duke of Normandie had like disasterous ends in hunting therfore his Maiesty must hunt no more The children of King Henry the first were drowned on the sea therfore no more Princes children must passe the seas vpon no occasion Some Kinges of England were pursued by their owne Children as King Henry the second and â—dward the second and the last also by his wife the Queene thereâ—ore his Maiestie must stand in iealosie of his owne bloud King Stephen King Richard the secoÌ„d Edward the second Henry the 6. and some others are thought to haue bene betrayed by some of theiâ— owne Counsellours and King Iohn was pursued by his owne Barons and Nobility therfore his Maiesty at this day must rest in iealosie both of the one other sort of subiectes do not you see how farre this lyeth open to iniurious calumniation and sedition 12. But I will giue an example more proper yet to the matter If a seditious fellow in England that had great authority with the people and small affection towards the Prince should continually cry and beat into their heads that they looke well about them and stand vpon their guard for that their King may abuse his Authority and become a Tyrant and may oppresse them at his pleasure when they thinke not of it alleadging no other probabilities and arguments of likelihood but only that he may do it or that some such thing hath fallen out before as here M. Morton doth against the Popes authority and Catholickes that acknowledge the same and when any one should say to that turbulent fellow pretending to be so studious of the Common-wealth and iealous of the Kings proceedings that he vrgeth only a may be and that there is no great likelihood of any will be or that such euents will follow as he threatneth and draweth into suspition he should fall into choler rage as M. Morton doth saying that he caÌ„not laugh for wonder horror to see any Englishman conceyte so basely of the wittes and worth of his countâ—eymen as to imagine that they can be deluded with so senseles so shameles so perniciouâ— so impious a Miâ—igaâ—ion as this is not to preuent ensuing dangers c. And yet further that this is a stupiâ—ying receipt casting the state and people into a slumber of not regarding ensuing dangers c. 13. This exclamation I say of this troublesome fellow that would put in iealosie the people and Common-wealth against their King or Monarch only vpon a may be or possibilitie were it not iustly to be reprehended Were not the partie to be cast out as a tumultuous make-bate But he will say peâ—hapes that there is more then may be in this our case there want not probabilities and nearer arguments of intended troubles These then if you please let vs examine breifly and see of what weight or worth they are 14. And truly in this point I see not what probabilities there may be in reason to perswade his Maiestie that his Catholike subiects would not liue quietly and confidently vnder him if they might â—e vsed as subiects and haue that Princely and Faâ—herly protection from him which both lawes do â—llow to freeborne subiects and they may hope and â—xpect from his benignity where no personall or â—ctuall delict shall haue made theÌ„ vnworthy therof There are now no quarrels or differeÌ„ces of titles no â—ed Rose or white no Lancaster or Yorke within the â—and to draw men into partes or factions or passionate courses his Maiestie hath vnited both Realmes â—ogeather is the sonne and heire of the most dearest Princesse vnto English Catholickes that euer liâ—ed in many ages hath goodly issue of his owne which our Lord blesse is setled in his Crowne ioyâ—ed in freÌ„dship and league with all Princes in Chriâ—tendome round about him both of the one and â—he other Religion hath beene hitherto beloued â—nd highly esteemed for many yeares though a Protestant Prince euen by the very spirituall Head himselfe of Catholicke Religion what cause then what reason what motiue what hope what probability may English Catholickes haue to seeke or atteÌ„pt alteâ—ations in State if any tolerable coÌ„dition of Christian subiects may be permitted vnto them 15. I will not adde the experience of so many ages throughout Christendome and of ours that is present nor the comparison or antithesis betweene the doctryne and practice of Catholicke and Protestant subiects in this behalfe which I haue handled more largely in my former treatise tending to Mitigation and well knowne and experienced also by his Maiestie in sundry pointes occasions only I must say that M. Morton here hath dealt very partially in that he taking vpon him to lay before his
for the tyme to come by the yoke of any Bâ—shop or his Officers but that in all euents of things Controuâ—rsies of Cases they shal be subiect to the dâ—cree of the Abbot of the said Monastery So as c. And theÌ„ doth M. Attorney continue his speach thus 58. This Charter was pleaded in 1. H. 7. vouched by Stanâ—ord as at large appeareth which Charter granted aboue 850. yeares sytâ—ece was aâ—ter confirmâ—d per Edwinum BritaÌ„niâ—e AngioruÌ„ Regem Monarcham anno Domini 955 By which appeareâ—h that the King by this Charter made in Parliament for it appeareth to be made by the Counsâ—ll and consâ—â—nt of his Bishops and Senators of his Kingdome which wâ—re assâ—mâ—led in Parlamâ—nt did discharged and exâ—mpt the said Abbot frâ—m the iurisdiction of the Bishop c. And by the same Charter did grant to the same Abbot Ecclâ—siasâ—icall iurisdiction within his said Abbâ—â— whâ—ch Ecclesiasâ—icall Iurisdiction bâ—ing deriued fâ—oÌ„â—he Câ—oâ—â— contynned vntill the dissoluâ—ion oâ— the said Abbey in the Raigne 〈◊〉 K. Henry the eight So he 59. And by this you may see what an important ConclusioÌ„ he doth inâ—erre of the Kings supreme Iurisdiction in spirituall affaires at that tyme whereunto the Deuine comming to answere and supposing that M. Attorney would not â—alsify or bely his Authors hauing protested most solemnly fol. 40. oâ— his Booke that he had citâ—d truly the very words and texts oâ— the lawes resolutions iudgmâ—nts and actes of Paâ—lament all 〈…〉 and in print without any inâ—erence argumâ—nt or ampliâ—icaâ—iâ—n quoting particulerly the Bookes years leaues Chapters and other such lâ—ke certayne referencâ—s as euery man at his 〈◊〉 may see and read them c. The Answerer I say hearing this formall protestation and supposing besides that the man would haue some respect to â—is credit honour in this behalf granting all as it lay answered the same as you may see in his Booke But now vpoÌ„ better search it falleth out that this whole Case was falsely alleaged by M. Attorney in the very point of the principall CoÌ„trouersy in hand about the Kings spirituall Iurisdiction for that whatsoeuer the Charâ—ter did ascribe expresly to the Pope and his authority the Attorney suppressing the true words relateth it as procâ—eding from the King temporall authority of his Crowne For proofe wherof I shall set downe the very words of my learned freÌ„ds letter out of England about this point after view taken of the law bookes themselues and then let any man say how far M. Attorney is to be credited in any thing he writeth or speaketh against Catholicks 60. As concerning saith my friend the Charter of King Kenulphus for the Sanctuary of the Monastery of Abindon you must know that M. Attorney hath egregiously abused his Reader in that and other pointes for the Case standeth thus That in the first yeare of King Henry the 7. Humfrey Stafford was attainted by Act of Parlament of high treason tooke Sanctuary first in Colchester in Essex and after fled to Culnam and tooke Sanctuary in the Abbey of Abindon and being taken from thence brought vnto the Tower of London and from thence brought vnto the Kings Bench he pleaded that he was drawne by force out of the said SaÌ„ctuary of Culnam and praied his Counsaile to pleade that point which by all the Iudges of both Benches was granted vnto him And so they pleaded in this manner 91. Idem Humphridus per Consilium suum dixit quòd Kenulphus Rex MercioruÌ„ per Literas suas pateÌ„tes consilio coÌ„sensu EpiscoporuÌ„ SenatoruÌ„ gentis suae largitus suit Monasterio de Abindon accuidam Ruchino tunc Abbati Monasterij illius quandam ruris sui portionem id est quindecim Mansias in loco qui à Ruricolis â—unc nuncupabatur Culnam cum omnibus vâ—ilitatibus ad eandâ—m partinentibus tam in magnis quam in modicis rebus in aeternam haereditatem Et quòd praedicius Ruchiâ—us ab omni Regis obstaculo â—piscopali â—ure in sâ—mpitâ—rnum esset quietus vt inhabitatorâ—seius nullius Regis aut Miniâ—â—roruÌ„ suorum Episcopiâ—e aut suorum Offiâ—ialium iâ—go inde deprimerentur sed in cunctis rerum euentibus disâ—tissionibus causarum Abbatis Monasterij praedicti decreto suâ—ijâ—â—râ—ntur Ita quòd c. And here ceaseth M. Attorney leauing out as you see in his recitall the wordes that go before ab omni Regis obstaculo that the Monastery should be free from all obstacle of the King as also these words vt inhabitatores eius nullius Regis aut MinistroruÌ„ suorum iugo deprimantur that the inhabitaÌ„ts be not opprest with any yoake of any King or his Ministers Wherby is euideÌ„t that the King in his Charter did for his part giue exemptions from temporall and Royall power But especially the fraud is seene by cutting of the wordes that do ensue which decide the whole controuersy which are these Et etiam allegauit vltra quòd Leo tunc Papa concessit dicto Abbati dictas immunitates priuilegia Et quod Edwinus tunc Britanniae Anglorum Rex Monarchus coÌ„â—â—ssit quòd praesatum Monastâ—rium omnis terrâ—nae sâ—râ—â—tuâ—is esset liberum quae à prâ—decâ—ssoriâ—us suis Catholicis videlicet à dicâ—o sancto Lâ—â—ne Papa dicâ—o Rege Kâ—nâ—lpho c. Et quòd virtute literarum Bullarâ—m praediciarum tâ—mpore conâ—ecâ—ionis earuâ—dâ—m eadem villa de Culnam suit Sanctuarium lâ—cus priuilegiatus c. Which in English is thus And moreouer the said â—umphrey Stafford by his CouÌ„saile alleaged further for himselfe that Pope Leo had granted vnto the said Abbot the said immunities prâ—uiledges that king Edwin theÌ„ King Monarch ouer all the English in Britany had granted that the said Monastery should be free from all earthly seruitude which by his Catholicke predecessors to wit the said holy Pope Leo and the said King Kenâ—lphuâ— was granted and that at the time of the making of the foresaid letters Patents and Bulles the said village or Towne of Culnam was a Sanctuary priuileged place by vertue of the said Patents and Bulles 62. This is word for word the very plea of Humphrey Stafford for the Sanctuary of the Monastery of Abindon as it was pleaded by his learned Counsaile in law euen as it is recorded in the Reports of the years of K. Hâ—nry the seauenth as they are printed by Pinson the law printer in the tyme of K. Henry the eight before the Protestant religion came vp And the Lord Brooke in his Abridgement of the law in the title of Corone placito 129. doth accordingly set downe the same Case with mentioning of the Bulles of Pope Leo for the said immunities and priuileges But all the Protestant editions in the tyme of the late Quene Elizabeth printed by Tottell and Yestwort haue committed a notable tricke of falsification in leauing out altogether these markable words That Leo then Pope did
graÌ„t the said immunityes and priuiledges And also those words of King Edwyn which of his Catholike predecessors S. Leo King Kenulphus were granted And againe By â—orce of the Letters and Bulles aâ—oresaid the said village of Culnam was a Sanctuary and place priuiledged 63. And hereby also is euident that the King did not by his Charter in Parlament for it appeareth to be made by the Counsaile and consent of his Bishops and Senators not by Parlamâ—nt as M. Attorney doth misreport it neither was there any Parlament held at that time in the land or many hundreth yeares after for as it appeareth by Holinsheads Chronicle pag. 34. the first vse of Parlaments in England was in the tyme of King Henry the first it is cleare I say that the King did not discharge and exempt the said Abbot from Iurisdiction of the Bishop nor did grant vnto the said Abbot Ecclesiasticall IurisdictioÌ„ within the said Abbey neyther had that abbot any Ecclesiasticall IurisdictioÌ„ deriued froÌ„ the Crowne But as it appeareth by the autheÌ„tike report of the Case the Pope the King did ioyne both in making the said Sanctuary according to their seuerall powers authorityes So that the exemptioÌ„ from Episcopall IurisdictioÌ„ proceeded duly from the grant of Pope Leo as likewise the exeÌ„ption froÌ„ all Regall temporall Iurisdiction proceeded froÌ„ the Charter of King Kenulphus Note also that King Edwins Grant was only that the said Monastery should be free from all earthly seruitude toucheth not any spirituall immunities or Iurisdiction at all 64. Thus far my friend out of England and by this now you may see how well M. Attorney hath obserued his foresaid protestation that he had cyted the very wordes textes of the Lawes without any inference argument or amplification at all And this being my friends aduertisment from England with like obseruation of manie other places cyted by M. Attorney with like fydelity I thought good to produce this one amongst manie being the first in order for a tast in this place reseruing the rest to a fitter or at leastwise to a second edition of the foresaid answere of the Catholike Deuine where euery thing may be referred to his due place and with this will I end this Chapter Thus far wrote I at that tyme in charg of Syr Edward THE DISCHARGE AND Reckoning about the former Charge made to Syr Edward Cooke §. V. YOV haue heard now this Charge how important substantiall yt is and who would not haue thought but that either Mâ— Morton or Syr Edward himself would haue answered somwhat to the same in their Replyes made since the publishing hereof or at leastwise would haue asmuch as mentioned yt especially M. Morton who in a certaine manner and law of vrbanitie was more obliged to take the patronage of Syr Edwards wrytings then himself for so much as the Charge was giuen in a Booke against M Morton and he had so highlie commeÌ„ded the sayd worke of his Reports as he calleth them The allwaies reportable and memorable Reports taking out of them sundrie heads of examples as his words are that improue the Popes Supremacie in causes Ecclesiasticall ascribe it to the king which that yow maie see how substantiall they are I shall take the paynes to set them downe here as they stand in his Book 66. I will point at some â—ew heads oâ— examples saith he oâ— our ancient ChristiaÌ„ kings which Syr Edward Cooke his Maiesties Attorney generall in his allwaies reportable memorable Reports hath lately published In the Raigne oâ— king Edward the fyrst saith he a Subiect brought in a Bull of excommunication against another Subiect oâ— this Realme published it But yt was answered that this was thâ—n according to the ancient lawes oâ— England Treason against the King and the Offendor had byn drawen and hanged but that by the mercie of the Prince he was only abiured the Realme c. 67. At the same tyme the Pope by his Bull had by way of prouision bestowed a benefice vpon one within the Prouince of â—orke the King presented another the Archbishop reâ—useth the Kings presentation and yelded to the Popes prouision This Archbishop then by the common law oâ— the land was depriued oâ— the lands oâ— his whole Bishopricke during lyâ—e And in the Raigne of king Edwâ—rd â—he third the king presented to a Benâ—â—ice his Presentee was disturbed by one who had obtayned a Bull from Rome for the which cause he was condemned to perpetuall imprisonment c. 68. In the Raigne oâ— Richard the second yt was declared in the Parliament R. 2. c. 2. that England had allwayes byn â—ree and in subiection to no Realme but imediatly subiect to God to none other and that the same ought not in any thâ—ng touching the Regaltie of the Crowne to be submitted to the Bishop of Rome nor the lawes of their Realme by him frustrated at his pleasure c. 69. In the Raigne of King Henry the fourth it was confirmed that Excommunication made by the Pope is oâ— no force in England c. In the Raigne of King Edward the fourth the opinion of the Kings Bench was that whatsoeuer spirituall man should sue another spirituall maÌ„ in the Court of Rome for a matter spirituall where he might haue remedy beâ—ore his Ordinary within the Realme did incur the danger of â—remunire being an heynons offence against the honour of the King his Crowne and dignity 70. Thus far M. Morton out of Syr Edward Cooke then he addeth Many other examples of like nature I pretermit and remit the Reader desirous to be further satisfied vnto the booke oâ— Reportes habet enim ille quod det dat nemo largiùs For he hath to giue and no man giueth more aboundantly This is his Encomium But what doth he giue truth or falshood sincere or wrested allegatioÌ„s matter to the purpose or impertinent That we shall here now discusse shew that neither the exaÌ„ples themselues are altogeather true as here they are set downe nor if they were yet doe they not prooue the purpose for which they are alleaged And first we shall proue the second which most importeth and it is easily proued 71. For first Syr Edwards purpose obligation was to proue that Q. Elizabeth by force of her temporall Crowne had all manner of Supreme authority in spirituall affaires no lesse then any person euer had did or could exercise in England as the words of the Statute haue alleaged by him and the purpose of M. Morton was as appeareth by the title of his Treatise to improue the Popes supreme authority in Causes Ecclesiasticall So as both their ends and purposes were by different meanes to proue that the Pope had no supreme authority in Ecclesiasticall matters for time past in England the one by ascribing all to the King the other by denying it to the Pope But this purpose of theirs
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
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 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
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
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