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
of excommunication throughout the world vpon iust causes is a principall member so as except they would introduce a law contrary to their owne beliefe or suffer a law to grow and be made coÌ„mon in their Realme without their knowledge or assent it is absurd to imagine that there could be such a Common law against the Popes ExcoÌ„munications before the dayes of King Edward the first and before any Statute was made against the same as M. Attorney auoucheth 78. Secondly he sheweth out of the testimony of Matth. VVestmonast that this King Edward being in a great heat of offence against the Cleargy of England for that they denied to giue him the halfe of their Rents and goods towards his warres vpon the expresse prohibition of Pope Bonifacius to the contrary which prohibition some Cleargie men vpon feare transgressing had compounded made their peace with the King in that behalfe he doubting least some of the other part of the Cleargy would bring in an ExcoÌ„municatioÌ„ against him or against some of those that had compounded with him made a Decree saith VVestmonaster commanding vnder payne of imprisonment that no man should publish any sentence of Excommunication against the King himselfe or those that had newly sought his protection he making also a prouocation or appeale as well for himselfe as those that stood on his side to the Court of Rome Thus he And now let the prudent Reader consider saith the Deuine that if the King euen in his passion of choler did appoint but imprisonment to be the punishment for bringing in an Excommunication against himselfe and Cleargy men that stood with him how vnlike is it that by the common law it was treason against the King his Realme Crowne and dignity as M. Attorneys thundring words are to bring in an excommunication against a Subiect which is much lesse then against the Kings person himselfe 79. Thirdly the said Deuine though he had not perused the law bookes at that time yet did he yeld the true Cause why priuate men might not bring in excoÌ„munications and publish them at their pleasure as now also is prohibited in other before named Catholicke Kingdomes but they were to be shewed first to a Bishop vnder his Seale were to be certified vnto the Kings Courts which since that time I haue fouÌ„d to be set down expresly in the law-bookes themselues and craftily concealed by M. Attorney for thus is it found written 11. Henr. 4â— fol 64. Hancford the chieâ—e Iustice said that he found in his bookes that in the time of VVill. â—erle who was Iudge in the beginning of the raigne of K. Edward the third euery officer or coÌ„missary of the Bishop might certify excoÌ„municatioÌ„ in the K. Court and for the mischeefe that ensued therof it was aduised by the ParlameÌ„t that none ought to certify excoÌ„munication but only the Bishop soe it is vsed at this day Thus far are Hanckefords words wherby we may see why the partie that published a Bull to the Treasurer of England without the Bishops approbatioÌ„ incurred so high displeasure 80. Fourthly the said Deuine doth conuince M. Attorney out of a Case alleaged by himself afterward in the 31. yeare of the Raigne of King Edward the third where he saith that in an attachment vpon a prohibition the defendant pleading the Popes Bull of excommunication of the Plainâ—iâ—e the Iudges demanded of â—he defendant if he had not the Certificate of some Bishop within the Realme testifying this excommunication c. VVhereby saith he it is made euident first that priuate men were obliged to shew their Bulles vnto some Bishop before they published the same and secondly it appeareth most clearly by the answers of the Iudges that they held it not for treasoÌ„ in those daies nor made any such infereÌ„ce therof for that their only resolution was this that for lacke of this Certificate the partie excoÌ„municated was not thereby disinabled to follow his plea in that Court without saying any one word of danger or punishment against him that had pleaded the Popes Bull of excommunication which they would neuer haue omytted to do if 50 yeares before that vnder K. Edward the first it had bin held for treason by the CoÌ„mon-law to bring in or publish any Excommunication against a Subiect 81. This then was the substance of the Deuines answere at that tyme which though it doth sufficiently conuince M. Attorney to haue abused his Reader egregiously in auouching with such resolution that in K. Edward the first his tyme yt was by the ancient law of England adiudged treason against the king his Crowne and dignytie to publish any Bull of the Popes against any Subiect of the Realme yet hauing synce that tyme had better commodity to informe my self of the lawbooks here meÌ„tioned I wil adde some more proofes to those which now you haue heard 82. First then I must let the Reader vnderstand that neither of those two bookes cited by M. Attorney lib. Ass. pl. 19.30 Ed. 3. and Brooke tit Premunire pl. 10. neither of them I say doth affirme that it was Treason or that there was any iudgment of Treason giuen in that Case which Case is related by Iustice Thorpe 30. Edwardi 3. thus That wheras Syr Thomas Seaton sued a Bill in the Exchequer against a woman named Lucie for calling him Traytor fellon and robber in the presence of the Treasurer and Barâ—ns of the Exchequer in contâ—mpt of the King and slaunder of the Court. Hereupon the said Lucy shewed forth the Popes Bull prouing the plaintiâ—e to be excommunicate and therfore demanded Iudgement whether he should be answered or not And for that she did not shew any writ of excommunication nor any other thing sealed by the Archbishop c. the Bull was not allowed whervpon she was forced to answere and â—leaded not guilty And in that plea Thorpe Iustice said that in the tyme of the Grandfather of the King which was K. Edward the first â—or that one did notify an excommunication of the Apostle to the Treasurer of the King the King would he should haue byn drawne and hanged notwithstaÌ„ding that the Chanceloâ—r and Treasurer did kneele before the King â—or him yet by award he did abiure the Realme and said that the woman was in a hard Case â—or shewing forth this excommunicatioÌ„ if the king would Thus far the said Book 83. VVherein we see first that here is no answere made about treason as M. Morton affirmeth nor iudgment giuen as M. Attorney auoucheth nor any such inference made by the Iudges but only a case related of what K. Edward the first in his anger would haue had to be done to a man that presented an excommunication to the Treasurer to wit he would haue had him hanged and drawne about the same which seming to his Iudges not to be iust or according to law did intreat the King not to put it in execution but rather by way of
by name excommunicated and denounced for such yet for so much as concerned the guilt of heresy as it is a choice of a particuler sect and difference of ReligioÌ„ from that which the knowne Catholicke Church doth hold and professe I alleaged sundry autheÌ„ticall proofes as well out of the definition of heresy and an hereticke set downe by S. Augustine vnto Honoratus infected with the heresy of the Manicheans out of the same Father against the Donatists defining who is properly an heretike to wit Qui manifestata sibi doctrina Catholicae â—idei resistere maluerit illud quod tenebat elegâ—rit he that after the doctrine of the Catholicke faith generally held is made knowne vnto him shall determine notwithstanding rather to resist and make choice of that which before he held As also I shewed and demonstrated the explication of this definition vnto English Protestants and professors of the English Religion of our dayes out of great variety of other ProÌ„testant Authors of other Countreys who all affirme aâ—d determine that the Religion doctrine of Iohn Caluin which is now most followed in England is formâ—lly and truely heresy consequently the Proâ—essors and manteyners therof must needs be hereticks for which I alleaged not only the Censure oâ— Franciâ—â—us Stancarus a chiefe Protestant Superinâ—endâ—nt in Polonia who saith that they are deploraâ—issimi haereticâ— most desperate hereticks but also the Censure of a whole Lutheran Vniuersitie in Germany named Tubinga whose cheefe Reader of Deuinity Philippus Nicolaus in the name of the whole Vniuersity decreâ—th that Caluinists are daÌ„nable heretikes intituling his booke thus FuÌ„damentorum Caluinianae sectae cum Arianis Nestorianis communium detectio A discouery of the â—ouÌ„dations of the Caluinian sect which are common to them with the Arians and Nestorians In which booke this Doctor proueth throughout many Chapters togeather that Caluinists are no lesse Hereticks then the said Arians Nestorians that they agree with them at least in 17. or 18. articles alleaging also Luthers Authority to the same effect who saith that they are alieni ab Ecclesia Dei Sathanae membra cut of from the Church of God and members of Sathan 7. And after this I added further to this effect I will passe ouer quoth I the testimony of many other learned protestant Ministers Doctors teachers as namely Conradus Sclusselburgius who affirmeth Caluinists To belieue and teach rightly no one article of the Creed as also I will do that of Heshusiê° affirming That their associatioÌ„ is a most blasphemous sacrilegious sect that of Hunnius That it is most damnable the right way to hell that of Ioannes Schutzius That it is the sinke of all wicked heresyes that of Ioannes Modestus that affirmeth Caluinists To be as bad as Iewes Mahomets that of Ioannes Matthias and of Albertus Grauerus and others that affirme all those that follow the doctrine of Caluin to be professed enemyes of Christ. All which I do cyte in my last book against M. Mort. quoting their names works and Chapters years when they wrote more largely particulerly in the pages heere set downe in the margent All which men being chiefe Doctors Readers Preachers or Pastours of our Protestant people such as our ProtestaÌ„t Ministers of EnglaÌ„d hold for their brethreÌ„ against vs that are Catholicks do easely wype away with these their asâ—euerations the childish clamour of M. Morton against Catholiks for holding his CaluiniaÌ„ doctrine to be heresy seing that so many learned graue Protestants inlightened with the spirit of God as they must needs graunt do hold auerre the same 8. And why then had not he answered somwhat to this Charge being so weighty substantiall as it is Why had he not giuen some satisfaction Or at leastwise meÌ„tioned the same in this his last Reply Was not this as necessary a subiect to be handled as to put himself to discusse the wit memory skill and other qualities of his Aduersary Or when do you thinke will he be able to answere this matter Or what substance hath he or may be presumed to haue for making this payment 9. Nay that his substance is small or rather none at all for discharging these debts may well appeare for that he being further pressed by me afterward about the like argument of Iohn Caluins being an hereticke and that most heinous damnable by the publike testimony of his said Protestant brethren the Lutheran Doctors and this not only in the common known controuersies betweene theÌ„ about the Reall presence other Sacraments for which by Luther they were called Sacramentaries but euen about the highest articles of the blessed Trinity Diuinity of Christ equality with his Father Godhead of the Holyghost the like he hath shifted of the same in this his Reply by no lesse silence then the former not so much as naming the matter but in generall termes telling vs that he will pay all his debts in time yet did I vrge him as much as might be to draw froÌ„ him some answere For thus I said vnto him when he had accused al our writers of extreme malignity in ceÌ„suring Caluin Caluinists for heretiks insinuatiâ—g also in his booke of Full satisfaction that the former Lutheran Doctors wherof some had bene obiected before by the moderate answerer had bene corrupted depraued by vs a poore shift you see when their owne bookes are extant in print the places knowne of their printing I told him I say that I would bring against him a new booke of a famous late Lutheran Doctor Reader of Deuinity called Aegidius Hunnius printed at VVittemberg vpon the yeare 1593. which should confirme this and much more My words were these 10. VVe shall heere quoth I with as much breuity as may be bring â—orth the Iudgment of another renowned Protestant Doctor coÌ„curring with the forsaid he being a publike Reader of Deuinity in another famous Vniuersity of Germany namely Wittemberg where Martin Luther himselfe once held the chaire as Caluin did in Geneua this Doctour whose name is Agidius Hunnius in a seuerall Treatise set forth about a dozen yeares gone intituled by him Caluâ—us Iudaizans dedicated vnto one Dauid Pareus a principall Caluinian Doctor setteth downe the argument of his booke thus in the first front therof This booke is to shew saith he that Iohn Caluin hath most detestably presumed to corrupt in â—auour of Iewes Arians the most cleare places testimonies of Scripture concerning the glorious Trinity Deity of Christ of the Holy-ghost aboue all the predictions of Prophets â—or the comming of the Messias his Natiuity passion ascension and sitting at the right haÌ„d of God c. with a cleare confutation of his false corruptioÌ„s therin c. This is the title argument of the booke which he doth prosecute for almost two hundred pages togeather diuiding the same into two
appertayne to the temporall good and prosperity therof 11. Next after the declaratioÌ„ of these three pointes to wit of the origens ends obiects of these two powers spirituall and â—eÌ„porall the sayd Catholicke Deuine deduceth out of the same the differeÌ„t dignity excellency eminency of the one the other power the one being called Deuine the other Humane for that the ends and obiects of the one are immediatly concerning the soule as now we haue declared and the other concerning humane affaires immediatly though mediatly in a Christian Common wealth referred also to God And this diâ—ference of these two powers he declareth by the similitude likenesse of flesh and spirit out of S. Gregory Nazianzen who in a certaine narration of his doth most excellently expresse the same by the comparison of spirit and flesh soule and sense which thing saith he may be considered as two distinct Common wealthes separated the one from the other or conioyned togeather in one Common wealth only An example of the former wherin they are separated may be in beasts and Angels the one hauing their common wealth of sense only without soule or spirit and the other CoÌ„mon wealth of Angels being of spirit only without flesh or body but in man are conioyned both the one the other And euen so sayth he in the Common wealth of Gentils was the Ciuill and Poliâ—icall Earthly and Humane power giuen by God to gouerne worldly and humane things but not spirituall for the soule wheras coÌ„trarywise in the primitiue Chriâ—tian Church for almost three hundred yeares togeather none or few Kings Princes or Potentates being conuerted the Common wealth of Christians was gouerned only or principally by spirituall authority vnder the Apostles and Bishops that succeeded them 12. Out of which consideration confirmed and strengthened by sundry places of holy scripture ancient Fathers alleaged by him he sheweth the great eminency of spirituall Authority aboue temporall being considered seuerally in themselues though they may stand ioyntly and both togeather in a Christian Common wealth where the temporall Princes be ChristiaÌ„s though with this necessary subordination that in spirituall and Ecclesiasticall affaires belonging to the soule the spirituall gouernours be chiefly to be respected as in Ciuill affaires the temporall magistrate is to be obeyed and this he sheweth by diuers examples and occasions out of S. Ambrose S. Chrysostome S. Gregory Nazianzen and other Bishops and Prelats that in Ecclesiasticall affayres prefered themselues and their authorities before that of Christian Emperours with whome they lyued expresly affirming that in those respects they were their Superiours Pastours the said Emperours their sheep subiects though in temporall affaires they acknowledged them to be their Superiours 13. All this is set downe by the Catholicke Deuine with great variety of proofes many examples facts and speaches of ancient Fathers And will Syr Edward Cooke say that this was froÌ„ the purpose a Nihil dicit doth not this quite ouerthrow his assertioÌ„ that all teÌ„porall Kings by vertue power of their temporall Crownes haue supreme authority also in spiritual affaires If the forsaid three Fathers to pretermit all others S. Gregory Nazianzen S. Chrysostome and S. Ambrose that had to do with Christian Emperours which had teÌ„porall authority ouer all or the most part of the Christian world did yet notwithstanding affirme vnto their faces that they had no authority at all in spirituall matters belonging to soules but were and ought to be subiect to thâ—m their Pastours in that Ecclesiasticall gouerment how much lesse could a woman-Prince haue the same by right of her temporall Crowne as most absurdly M. Attorney auerreth Which absurdity the Catholicke Deuine doth conuince so largely by all sortes of proofes both diuine and humane as well vnder the law oâ— Nature as Mosayâ—all and Christian that a person of the feminine sâ—xe is not capable of supreme Spirituall iurisdiction ouer man as nothing seemeth can be answered theruÌ„to And was this also â—rom the purpose to proue that Queene Elizabeth could not haue it What will Syr Edward answere here for his Nihil dicit 14. After all this and much more alleaged by the Catholicke Deuine which I pretermit for breuities sake he commeth to reduce the whole controuersie betweene M. Attorney and him vnto two generall heads of proofe the one de Iure the other de facto that is of right and fact shewing that in the first of these two proofes de Iure which is the principall M. Attorney did not so much as attempt to say any thing â—or proofe that by right Queene Elizabeth or any of her Ancestours had supreme iurisdiction in causes Ecclesiasticall but only that de â—acto some of them had sometymes taken and exercised such an authority Which if it were without right was as yow know nothing at all and therfore the sayd Deuine hauing proued more at large that by no right of any law whatsoeuer diuine or humane Queene Elizabeth or her predecessours had or could haue supreame authority Spirituall he coÌ„meth to ioyne with M. Attorney also in the second prouing that neyther in fact any such thing was euer pretended or practised by any of her Predecessours before the tyme of her Father K. Henry the viij either before or after the Conquest 15. And as for before the Conquest there haue beene more then an hundred Kings of different Kingdomes within the land he proueth by ten large demonstrations that none of them did euer take vpon him such supreme spirituall authority but acknowledged it expresly to be in the Bishop of Rome of which demoÌ„strations the first is of lawes made by them generally in fauour and confirmation of the liberties of the English Church according to the directions and Canons deriued â—rom the authority of the Sea Apostolicke The second that Ecclesiasticall lawes in England made before the Conquest were made by Bishops and Prelats who had their Authority from Rome and not by temporall Kinges The third that all determination of weighty Ecclesiasticall affayres were referred not only by the Christian people generally of that Realme as occasions fell out but by our Kings also in those dayes vnto Rome and the Sea Apostolicke The â—ourth that the Confirmations of all Priuiledges Franchises of Churches Monasteries Hospitals and the like were in those dayes demaunded and obteyned from the Pope The fifth that in all Ecclesiasticall controuersies suites and grieuances there were made Appeales and complaints to the Sea of Rome for remedy The sixth the succession of Bishops Archbishops in England during that time all acknowledging the supremacy of the Pope were notwithstanding in high fauour and reuerence with the English Kings with whom they lyued wherof is inâ—erred that these Kings also must needs be of the same iudgment and beliefe and consequently make lawes conforme to that their fayth and beliefe as contrariwise since the schisme began by K. Henry the 8.
satisfyed in one speciall point of my Epistle to the second part of my Reports where I affirmed that yf the ancient Lawes of this noble â—and had not excelled all others speaking of humane it could not be but some of the seuerall Conquerours â—ouernours therof that is to say the Romans Saxons Danes or Normans and especially the Romanes who as they iustly may do boast of their Ciuill Lawes would as euery of them might haue altered or changâ—d the same And sayth he some of another proâ—â—ssion are not persuaded that the Common Lawes of England are of so great antiquity as there superlaâ—iuâ—ly is spoken So he And in these last words I presume he vnderstood the Deuine that impugâ—ed this excessiue imaginary antiquity of our Municipall â—awes in his Answere to the Reports and Syr Edward hauing seene the same should in reason haue answered somewhat therunto if he had byn prepared for it 30. But he thought that course not best but rather to help himselfe with the pretendâ—d authority of Syr Iohn Fortescue chiefe Iustice of England in the Raigne of King Henry the 6. saying that he was a great Antiquary he was a notable man indeed though more as it seemeth in the skill of our Common Lawes then in matters of Antiquity out of whome Syr Edward to help his cause and assertion citeth the words following As touching the antiquity of our Common Lawes sayth he neither are the Roman Ciuill Lawes by so long continuance oâ— ancient tymes confirmed nor yet the Laâ—es oâ— the Venetians which aboue all other are reporâ—ed to be of most antiquity â—or so much as their Island in the beginning of the Britans was not then inhabited as Rome also then vnbuilded neither the Lawes of any Nation of the world which worshipped God are of so old and ancient yeares wherâ—ore the contrary is noâ— to be said nor thought but that the English customes are very good yea oâ— all other the very best Thus he if he be rightly cited for I haue not his booke by mâ— 31. And though I do respect and reuerence both these mens professions and much more their state place of Iudges yet doth force of truth oblige me to contradict their errour which seemeth to me very grosse and palpable or rather their errours and mistakinges in sundry points here downe As first in that yt is auerred that the Ciuill law and Roman lawes are not of so long continuance of ancient tymes as the ancieÌ„t Municipall Lawes of England are which he goeth about to proue by two seuerall meanes wherof both do conteine aswell falsyties as absurdities if I be not greatly deceiued therin 32. His â—irst meanes of proofe is â—or that in the beginning oâ— the Britans Rome was then vnbuylded and conquently that the British Lawes are more ancient then those of the Romans And then supposing further that those British Lawes which were in the beginning of the Britans were neuer changed but recâ—iued in England fâ—oÌ„ time to time haue indured to our dayes are the Common Lawes of our Realme at this day Wherin there are many suppositions as yow see strange to heare but harder in my opinion to be proued As first that the Britans in their beginning euen before Rome was buylt had such good Lawes as the Romans in EnglaÌ„d seauen huÌ„dred years after the said building of Rome were coÌ„tent to accept for their Lawes in that land And the lyke after them the Saxons other CoÌ„querous people that ensued which is such a paradox vnto men of reason learning as the very naming therof cannot but cause laughter For albeit the British nation be more ancient then the Roman according to the Story of Geffrey Monmouth that affirmeth theÌ„ to discend from Brutus a Nephew of Aeneas from whom Romulus the founder of Rome some ages after descended and that they were a valiant warlike nation from the beginning yet that they had such good politicke and ciuill Lawes themselues being vnciuill in those dayes is a matter incredible which I proue thus That wheras the Roman Lawes began from Romulus himselfe from Numa Pompilius other ancient Law-makers among them and this soone after the building of Rome I meane the more older Lawes of the twelue Tables and the lyke continued from tyme to tyme afterwards vntill the coÌ„ming of Iulius Caesar into Britany which was aboue 600. yeares after Rome was built aboue a thousand after Brutus had byn in England in which tyme yt is probable that the British Lawes would haue growne to greater perfectioÌ„ theÌ„ they were in the beginning yet I say that the said Lawes customes of the Britans are recorded to be such in Iulius Caesar his daies set downe by his owne penne as also by the writings of diuers other Roman Greeke Authors that succeded for two or three hundred years after him as must needs be incredible that they should be continued by the Romans Saxons and other people that followed them And then if they were such and so rude so many ages after their beginning what may we imagine they were at their very begynning it selfe which was a thousand yeares before from which tyme our two Knights heere do inferre their antiquity and eminency aboue the Roman Lawes 33â— Let vs see then what ancient Histories do report of the British Lawes and Customes in Iulius Caesar his tyme and afterwards Caesar the Roman-Captaine hauing made two iourneys into England and informed himselfe diligently about the Lawes and Customes of the Brytans in those dayes which was about 60. yeares before the Natiuity of our Sauiour setteth downe many things of their small policy in that time As first the description of their manner of consultations in their warre wherin he sayth that in commune non coâ—sulunt they haue no common Counsells and then describing the chiefe Citty of the Realme where their K. CassiuelaÌ„ that was head of all the rest had his Court Counsaile somewhat about the Thames though not where London was afterward built he sheweth that it was in a wood and that the walles were trees cut downe round about insteed of fortresses within which they inclosed both themselues and their Cattle and this was the symplicity of that tyme. 34. After this he setteth downe many Lawes and customes of theirs farre vnfit to be receiued by the Romans other people after them as Nummo aereo aut annulis ferreis ad certuÌ„ pondus examinatis pro numâ—o vtebantur Their money was of brasse and rings of yron giuen out by weight And then againe that they had a law and custome luto se inficere quod caeruleum efficit colorâ—m to paint themselues with a certaine earth that made a blew colour And Solinus wryting more then an hundred yeares after Caesar againe sheweth this law and custome to haue byn so inuiolable among them in his dayes that the very Children had the figures and shapes
of beasts imprinted in their flesh by launcing cutting the same first to the end that the sayd painting with terrible colors might the better sinke in and Pliny doth adde that the very women also did obserue the same custome which seemeth also to haue continued somes ages after for that the Poet Claudianus vnder the Emperours Arcadius and Theodosius about foure hundred yeares after Christ speaking of the Britans of his time sayth of them Inde Caledonio velata Britannia monstro Ferro picta genas cuius vestigia verrit Caerulus oceaniqueâ—stum mentitur amictus In which verses the words ferro picta genas and caerulus amictus signifying that their faces were paynted with the dint of iron their habit blew do importe that this law and custome was long continued among them yet neuer receyued by the Romans Saxons nor Danes And Caesar yet goeth further shewing their Lawes and Customes about their wiues and Children Vxores habent deni inter se communes c. Ten men agreeing among themselues haue their wiues and Children in common 35. The same Caesar also and Diodorus Siculus and Strabo which two lyued soone after him vnder Augustus Caesar do recount other Lawes and Customes of the Britans of their dayes wherof we see no signe in ours as their order of fight in Chariots and Coaches with other thinges belonging to Chiualry And Pomponius Mela lyuing vnder the Emperour Claudius that went with an imperiall army into England some fyftie yeares after Christ saâ—th of the Britans in those dayes Inculti omnes tantùm pecore â—inibus dites that they were all withoâ—t poâ—icie and only rych by their cattle and pastures which importeth thaâ— they had no good Lawes to lend the RomaÌ„s in those daies and much lesse to deliuer them ouer to posterity 36. And yet further an hundred fyfty yeares after that againe wrote Cornelius Tacitus vnder the Emperour Domitian as also Solinus before mentioned who do both concurre in this that in their dayes the Britans were a people as on the one syde stout and valiant so on the other very rude and vnciuill for policy without discipline and order as also Counsaile or good direction especially in their warres Whervpon Tacitus sayth Dum singuli pugnant vniuersi vincuntur whiles euery one fighteth a part after his owne fancy they are all ouercome And I might hereunto adde diuers Greeke Historians as well as Latyn specially Herodian Dio Nicetus Xephilinus and others writing oâ— the Brytans their manners and customes vnder the Raigne of Seuerus the Emperour who went thither in person and dyed in Yorke two hundred yeareâ— after Christ and almost 300. after the Brytans had byn vnder the Roman gouerment and yet do the sayd Historiographers recount such extreame want of pollicy and Lawes among the Britans at that tyme which I take to be meant principally of the Northerne as scarce of any Countrey the like Nec moenia habent say they nec Vrbes nudi sine calceis vestis vsum ignorantes c. they had neither walles nor townes bâ—t weÌ„t naked without shoes not being acquainted with the vse of apparrel And to the end we may not think that the Southerne pâ—rtes were in much better state for policy Dio Nicetuâ— recouÌ„teth the speach of the Qu. Brundeuica vnder the Raigne of Nero which Queene dwelt in the most ciuill wealthy partes of Britany and yet obiected to the Romans that they were delicate and could not liue without corne meale wyne oyle shelter of house and other lyke commodities Nobis autem sayth shee quaeuis herba radix â—ibus est quiliâ—et succus oleum omnis aqua vinum omnis arbor domus But vnto vs and let vs marke that she putteth her seâ—fe among the â—est being a woman Captaine and Queene euery herb and roote is meate euery ioyce is oyle euery water is wyne and euery tree is a house Thus shee 37. And now here Syr Edward perhaps will say aâ— before he did of Theologicall authorities that I do alleage all these Histories ad faciendum populum which I do not but rather to shew that he hath no cause to vaunt that either himselfe or his fellow-Iustice are such Antiquaries as here he mentioneth not hauing seene as it seemeth nor considered this variety of auncient Histories wherby is proued that the lawes and customes of the Brytans were not such from the beginning and before Rome was builded as they may be preferred for their antiquity and excellency before the Roman Lawes whereas almost a thousand yeares after that the Roman Lawes had byn receyued in the world the Brytans had scarce any vse of policy or common Ciuility though afterward when by the benefit of Christian Religion especially they receiued the same they exceeded perhaps many otheâ— Countries in piety and religious polycie 38. Thus then is the first medium of Syr Edwards probation ouerthrowne about the antiquity of the Brytan Lawes before the Romans which is neyther true nor yf it were yet maketh it nothing to his purpose to pâ—oue that the CoÌ„mon Muâ—â—cipall Lawes of England were of that antiquity as prâ—sently shal be shewed And as for the other two instances that the sayd British Lawes are more anâ—ient then the Lawes of the Venetians which are most ancient of any othâ—r Nation of the world that worshipped God this I say is litle lesse thâ—n ridiculous For that first the Venetians as Blondus theiâ— owne Countrey man and Historiographer testifieth writing of their antiquity began â—irst to build their Citty and Common wealth vpon the yeare oâ— Christ foure hundred fiâ—ty and six which was vpon the point of twelue hundred yeares after the building of Rome and consequently the Venetian Lawes cannot be imagined to be oâ— more antiquity then the Romaâ— and much lesse then of other Nations more ancient then the Romans as the Carthaginians Grecians Aegiptians Medians Persians Syrians and the like 39. And secondly wherâ—as to temper the matter somewhat he addeth that the British Lawes are more anciâ—nt then of any naâ—ion of the world that worshipped God this addition of worshiping God is both from the purpose vntrue From the purpose for that Syr Edward exprely heere preteÌ„deth to speake only of humane Lawes so as whether the people whose Lawes they are do worship God or not is from the question Besides that M. Cooke I thinke will not deny but that the Romans worshipped God and were Christians at least many of them before the Britans if this made any thing to the purpose and yet will he haue the Britans Lawes to be more ancient then those of the Romans so as this circumstance of worshipping God is neyther true or to the purpose 40. Secondly it is vntrue that the British Lawes were before the Lawes of any Nation that worshipped God for that the Iewes worshipped God and may be presumed also to haue had some politicall Lawes for
called also otherwise Adelnulphus K. of the VVest Saxons who did not only help assist him but gaue him also this his daughter Ethelswith in marriage with such wealth and riches as it seemeth that it eased both vectigalium penâ—â—uâ—â— â—â—ostiuÌ„ depâ—â—dationeÌ„ to vse Malmesb. his words that is both the paying of his pension or tribute to the Danes as also the spoile of his enemies And againe in another place he saith of him Burghredum regem Merciorum additamento exercitus contra Britones iuuit filiae nuptijs â—on parâ—m exaltauit King Ethelwolfe of the VVest Saxons did both help King Burghred of the Mercians against the Britans by increasing his army as also did not a litle exalt him with the marriage of his daughter Ethelswith And the lyke hath Huntington and Ethelwerd in their histories wherby it is euident that Queene Ethelswith came rich and powerable to her husbaÌ„d King Burghred was a great stay vnto him in his great distresse and therfore she might well presume to dispose of such things as were her own propriae potestatis especially her said husband and Brother King Ethelred then raigning after his Father consenting and subscribing to the same as now yow haue seene And so this first demonstratiue answer of Syr Edward doth demonstrate nothing els but that he answereth nothing at all to the purpose Let vs see the second â—hether it will be any better 69. The second question was as you well remember whether it was a law before the Conquest that a man seysed in â—ee simple shall forseyte both lands and goods by attaynder of â—ellonie or by out-lawry and that therâ—y his heyres shall be disiâ—herited Vnto which question sayth Syr Edward I haue heere sâ—t downe anotâ—er Charter of Record made long before the Conqueâ—t â—or direct answere And then he relateth a donation made by King Ethâ—ldred Father of K. Edward the Confessoâ—â— vpoÌ„ the yeares 995. Which was but 71. yeares before the Conquest though Syr Edward sayd it was long and the donation was of a certaine piece of land that was forfeyted to the King by one Ethelsig that hauing committed theft and flying to the woods was out-lawed therupon whereby the King came to haue his goods and lands made donation therof to another to wit Vlsâ—icke And this is all the proofe direct or indirect which Syr Edward alleageth But heere againe I would aske him how doth this prooue the principall question of the great antiquity of the moderne English Common lawes before the Danes Saxons and Romans seeing the case fell out so neare before the Conquest SecoÌ„dly â— would demand of him how he can prooue that it is proper alone to our English Common lawes to punish theft murther out-lawry and other such crimes by losse of laÌ„ds goods for that I do see it practized commonly in all other countreis besides except only in the Kingdome of Naples where by peculiar graunt and Concession of the Kings of Spayne since it came to their dominion the goods and lands of such delinquents are reserued to their children except only in crymes of high treason But in other Kingdomes to my knowledge there is no such reseruation And I haue vnderstood that diuers Great men haue forfeyted their lands from their heyres not only for being outlawes themselues vpon murthers and such other fellonies but also â—or fauouring ayding such men wherof I could giue diuers examples fresh yet in memorie but that it is not expedient for vs to medle in matters of other Common wealthes so as this is no proper law of England as heere it seemeth to be presumed by Syr Edward but coÌ„mon to all or most Nations and therefore no maruayle though it were in vse also among the English before the Conquest 70. His third case proposed is this that a wise being attaynted of petty treason for killing her husband should be burnt as now is vsed in England to proue that this is an ancieÌ„t law of the Brittans froÌ„ them come down to our tyme without change or alteration he citeth a place out of Caesar in his Commentaries lib. 6. affirming that iâ— the wise be suspected oâ— the death of her husband si compertum est igne c. interficiunt that is saith he if she be sound guilty of the death of her husband which is petty treason she is burnt to death as she is in that case at tâ—is day in England So the Iudge For now he speaketh as a Iudge though not like a Iudge that is truly and sincerely as presently yow will see For first though the matter were so in Iulius Caesar his CoÌ„mentariâ—s as here is related yet what doth this make to the maine questioÌ„ to prooue that the English municipall lawes are the same now that they were vnder the Brittans in Caesars tyme without alteration Is one example of similitude sufficient to proue this May not the different lawes of diuers countries agree in some one case or other without this inference that therefore they are the same lawes Was not hanging for theft in vse also among the Brittans Romans and Grecians and yet were not the lawes one and the selfe same And supposing that the Brittans had had this punishmeÌ„t of wiues for killing their husbands in Cesars tyme how will Syr â—dward proue that this endured allwayes afterward was neuer changed by the Romans Saxons Danes or Normans why had he not alleaged some examples of the continued vse and practise of the same throughout the raignes of the subsequent Kings and Nations Was his store house so barren that he had but one only example to bring forth and that so farre fecht as from Cesar by a leap to our time heere Natura â—acit salâ—um indeed or rather my Lord leapeth froÌ„ nature against nature in making such a skippe ab extremo ad extremâ—â—n sine medic which nature neuer doth or can do 71. But now I must shew that nothing is heere sincerely related but all corrupted peruerted For first Caesar in the place of his CoÌ„mentaries heere alleaged doth not talke of Britans but expressely of Frenchmen when he setteth downe their lawes and customes coÌ„cerning the power and vse they haue in punishing their wiues beginning his narration thus Galli se omnes sayth Caesar ab Dite patre prognatos praedicant all Frenchmen do affirme themselues to descend from Pluto the God of riches c. And then a little after addeth further Viri in vxores sicuti in liberos vitae necisque habent potestatem cùm paterfamilias illustriore loco natus decessit cius propinqui conueniunt de morte si res in suspicionem venit in seruilem modum quaestionem habent si compertum est igne atque omnibus tormentis excruciatas intâ—rficiunt Men in France haue power of life and death vpon their wiues as also vpon their children and when the head
out of the Chancery against some that tooke away the said tythes c. and then after some altercation to what Court the said sute belonged the plaintiâ—e that is the Prouost prayed execution but Thorp the chiefe Iustice said that it was wont to be law when there is a certayne place that is not of any parish as in Engelstwood and such like that the king should haue the tythes and not the Bishop oâ— the place to graunt them to whom he should thinke good as he hath graunted them vnto you notwithstanding saith he the Archbishop of Canterbury hauing sued vnto the kings Counsel to haue those tythes for that the matter is not yet tryed vntil it by tryed you shall not haue execution So he And this is all the Case wherin you see that albeit Iustice Thorp said that it was wont to be law that the king should dispose of the tythes of such places as wâ—re newly assertâ—d and cultiuated that were of his inheritance yet doth he not so resolutly affirme it that he would giue seÌ„tence of execution against the defendants albeit they had made default after they had pleaded to the issue as there is manifest but would haue the Archbishop of CaÌ„terburies sute to the coÌ„trary to be heard also And indeed he could not but know but that in the booke of 7. Ed. 3. fol. 5. which was 16. yeares before this case was treated the opinon of Herle chiefe Iustice was that the Bishop should haue such tythes and much lesse doth Iustice Thorp assign the cause of right of those tythes vnto the king for that he hath supreme Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction as our Iudge doth now but for that commonly such new wast asserted landes appertained vnto the king albeit as now hath beene said they might haue appertayned also to a particuler subiect if he had beene Lord of the place as is most perspicuously declared and set forth in an ancient Treatise intituled Oâ— the power of the Parliament annexed to the Old Doctour and Student or booke so intituled where it is said as followeth 96. If wast ground saith the Booke wherof was neuer any profit taken and that lay in no parish but in some forest or that which is newly wonne from the sea were brought into arable land if the freehold therof were to the king he might assigne the tythes to whom he would and if the freehold were to a common person he might do the like For though tythes be spirituall yet the assignement of tythes to other is a temporall act For before parishes were deuided and before it was ordayned by the lawes of the Church that euery man should pay tythes to his owne Church euery man might haue payed his tythes to what Church he would might one yeare haue giuen his tythes to one Church and another yeare to another or haue graunted them to one Church for euer if he would And like as euery man before the seuering of the parishes might haue giuen the tythes to what Church he would because he was bound to no Church in certayne so may they do now that haue laÌ„des that lie in no parish for they be at liberty to assigne theÌ„ to what Church they will as all men were before the sayd law was made that tythes should be payd to their proper Churches 97. So farre this Law-booke which doth not ascribe anything to the kings Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction as heere you see as neyther doth Iustice Brooke who in his Abridgement abridgeth the foresaid caâ—e of 22. E. 3. lib. assis vnder the tytle of the Kings Prerogatives signifying therby that the said tythes are due to the king if they be due in regard of his prerogatiue Royall and not of his spirituall supreme power aâ—d iurisdiction See Booke 22. Ed. 3. tit Prerogatiue pl. 47. 98. And as for the law mentioned in the foresaid Treatise wherby men were appointed to pay their Tythes to their peculiar parishes wheras before thâ—y were free to pay them where they would it is meat of a Canon of the great Generall Councell of Latâ—ran held at Rome vnder Pope Innocentius 3. in the dayes of K. Iohn of England vpon the yeare 1216 which was aboue a hundred yeare before this other case fell out in 22. E. 3. in which Councell it was ordayned That euâ—ry man should pay his Tythes to his proper Church and parish To which Ordination of the Pope and Councell the kingdome of England submitted it self and the temporall lawes therof and so the matter endured vntill the breach of K. H. 8. So as in all this tyme the Popes supreme Authority and spirituall iurisdiction was acknowledged and obeyed about this matter of Tithes in England as is euident also â—y these books ensuing to wit 7. E. 3. fol. 5.44 Ed. 3. f. 5.10 H. 7. fol. 16. but yet for that the said Canon of Lateran did not comprehend expresly all such landes as were then wast and should after be asserted K. Edward 3â— in the case proposed might according to the former ancient law that was vsed before the said Canon giue and appoynt the tythes of these newly asserted lands of Rockingham to whom he would as he did though not vnder the title of his supreme spirituall iurisdiction as the Attorney very falsely doth pretend but as temporall patron of that land for the causes before specified And so much of this Case 99. Another he cyted out of 38. E. 3. lib. Ass. pl. 22. in these wordes The king dâ—d by his Charter translate Chaâ—ons secularâ— into Regular and religious persons which he did by his Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction and could not do it vnlesse he had had iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall So he And heere is false dealing againe for all that is said in that booke is this that it was pleaded for the king that by his Charter he did graunt that the Prior CoueÌ„t of Plymouth might transferre Secular into Regular ChanoÌ„s which was but a grant or licence as you see Nor did the king translate Chanons Secular into Regular which belonged vnto the Pope but graunted only and gaue licence that they might be so transferred nor hath the law-booke any one word of the kings Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction but all this is feigned by M. Attorney himselfe 100. Agayne he cyteth out of 49. Ed. 3. lib. Ass. pl. 8. where the Abbot of VVestminster saith he had a Prior Couent who were Regular and mort in law yet the king by his Charter did deuide that corporation and made the Prior and Couent a distinct and capable body to sue and to be sued by theÌ„selues whereof M. Attorney would inferre the kings supreme spirituall authority and iurisdiction But his booke fauoureth him not at all heerin for albeit Candish said that the possessions of the Abbot Prior of VVestminster were seuered the one from the other and that this began with the Charter of the king yet is it playne by the law 11. H. 4.
euer done 8. And as for the other part whose finger did she euer cause to ake and her hart aked not with him is too to childish and ridiculous no man can read or heare it but with derision and laughter her hart being knowne to haue bene of other mettall then to ake for other mens fingers For to pretermit these particuler afflictioÌ„s layd vpon particuler people whome now I haue mentioned without compassion or aking of her hart who doth not know that when all Countries round about her France Flanders Holland Zeland Scotland Ireland and some other states were all in warre and combustion killing and destroyng one another about quarrels of Religion principally set one foot and mainteyned by herselfe she passed her dayes in England in mirth ioy as all Courtiers of that tyme will remember nor did so much as her finger ake for their harts aking for any thing that euer I heard of to the contrary How then can this be excused without some shift of Equiuocall meaning in this false Minister saying one thing meaning another For that in no sincerity of conscience can he possibly thinke it to be true This is then one example let vs see another 9. He writeth of the Iesuits thus in the same place That their whole order institute and practice are such as they say in effect vnto Christ as the Diuels did Quid nobis tibi est Iesu VVhat haue we to doe with thee ô Iesu This sentence being vttered in such an auditory as that was wherin his Maiesty was present and much of the Nobility of the land so many learned hearers besides must needes presuppose as to me it seemeth that the vtterer had perused well the Iesuits institute and had conferred the same exactly as also their life and practice with the law and life of Iesus and had found therin this extreame opposition and contradiction between Iesus and Iesuites no lesse then between him and the Diuels themselues But then me thought on the other side if this had beene so he should haue alleaged some particulers at least wherin this contradiction did stand and it had bene perhaps no vnfit argument to be handled in that so great an assembly for discrediting that sort of people throughout the world and thoâ—e of the same order in England would haue blushed to haue made any answere for not discouering further their owne wickednesse wants or imperfections 10. But now seing nothing at all brought forth to the view or triall except only certaine idle Nick-names as that the Iesuites are the great Mercurialists of the world Archimedians Centimans or men of a hundred haÌ„ds a peece oâ— couÌ„terfait names Iesuits by antiphrasis Suitae by apheresis flyers of Iesus by diëresis Iebusites by agnomination Ignatians in Spaine Theatines in Italy Iesuines in Campania Scotiots in Ferrara Priests of S. Lucia in Bononia reformed Priests in Modena and other such like inuentions of a ridiculous Grammaticall and Hystrionicall head far vnfit for that place and noble auditory Seing this I say I assured my selfe that the Authour had no substaÌ„tiall matter to produce against them for that otherwise this had bene a worthy market to haue sold his wares with great gaine and applause if any he had had worth the bringing forth 11. Wherfore I coÌ„clude with my self that this speach of the Minister concerning the opposition betweene Iesus and Iesuites was as false an exageration and lying Equiuocation as that other before of the aking of Q. Elizabeths hart at the aking of other folkes fingers And furthermore I coâ—sidered what a compariâ—â— might be made betwene the Institute and life oâ— Iesuites and this Minister with his fellowes in England in respect of the law and life of Iesus which of them goe nearer the same And albeit I do not meane to entâ—r inâ—o that matter but rather leaue it to some other that may chance to answer that idle vaine Sermon haÌ„dle this point more largely particulerly yet are there so many things apparently seene and knowne in the world which do lay foâ—th this dâ—fference betweene Iesuits and Ministers actions in this behalf as noe intelligent man can but obserue the same 12. For what shall we say of the labours of Iesuiteâ— throughout the whole world for conuersion of Infidels as in Mexico Perù Brasile Aethiopia China Iapone and in other vast Kingdomes wherin aboue a hundred of them besids other afflictions haue shead their bloud Is this opposit to Iesus or no Is this to be coÌ„pared to the actions of Diuels Do English Ministers take vpon them these labours What shall I say of their manner of life bare diet simple apparell punctuall obedience strait pouerty exact chastity much prayer sâ—uere discipline coÌ„tinuall mortification Do not these thingâ— simbolize with the life of Iesus Or do Englsh Ministers trouble themselues much with such matters And hath not this contumelious Minister that so desperatly presumeth thus to speake a wiâ—e and good benefices fareth delicatly sleepeth his fill fasteth seldome or neuer pestreth the Colledgâ— with his brattes which the founder neuer thought of decketh his body with the best apparrell he can get pampreth his flesh pursueth all wayes and meanes of ambition flattereth raileth lieth in this his SermoÌ„ against Catholicks without all respect of truth ciuility or honesty Are not these actions opposite to Iesuites oposite also to Iesus himselfe and conforme to those of Diuels whome he bringeth in saying quid nobis tibi est Iesu 13. But I would not the Reader should thinke that the impoteÌ„t passionate behauiour of this Minister had put me also into passion though somwhat I coÌ„fesse it hath moued me But I shall passe no further therin it may be that some other will supply herafter more fully as before hath bene sayd For as for matter it will not want him for if euer there was published a more fond vnlearned malicious spitefull opprobrious and contumâ—lious libell then this I am much deceiued and hardly can it be answered with patience which yet I wish the Answerâ—râ— 14. But yet notwitâ—standing I cannot but adde some few words more about the point it self of Equiuocation in regard of the excessiue intâ—mperate sâ—olding which as now in part you haâ—e heard our English Ministers do vse against the same and I take it to be peculiar to them alone and this not so muâ—h out of ignorance or stupidity as some may imagine in respect of the clearenesse of the casâ— it self as of obstinate wilfull peruicacity in defending an absurd cauillation which once they haue taken in hand to prosecute by right or wrong And so you haue seenâ— that the last named Minister King though a very trifler and not able to answere any one of the arguments reasons Scriptures Fathers examples and other anthorities alleaged for the lawfulnesse of Equiuocation in the booke of Mitigation or at least wise did attempt to answer none wherin notwithstanding