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 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
But if we will consider the wise glosses Commentaries and comparings which the Minister maketh very Ministerially vpon euery one of those Cases after he hath related the same it will appeare much more ridiculous For to the first which euidently conuinced both him and M. Attorney of falsitie if you remember for affirming that to be treason by the Common law which is not he saieth thus CoÌ„pare this Bull which did only push at a Subiects benefice with that Bull which goareth Kings And to the second Compare this Bull of disturbans the Presentee of Kings with that which doth ordinarily violate kings persons And to the third Compare this English King imediatly not subiect to the Pope with the Iesuiticall principle All Kings are indirâ—ctly subiâ—ct to Popes And to the fourth CoÌ„pare this that the excoÌ„munication of the Pope is of no force in England with those excoÌ„munications which in these later times haue byn mâ—de against England 96. And to the fifth Compare this oâ— the punishment of theÌ„ that drew men â—or suites to Rome with their acts who haue made no other suite to Rome but â—or meanes to dâ—spossesse English Kings oâ— their Crowne and dignity All these comparings I say are not worth a paring and it was great idlenes in M. Mort. to fill vp paper spend time in such coÌ„parings wheras the matters things themselues wheron these â—on coÌ„d parisons are founded are fouÌ„d to be falsely applied as now hath byn shewed Wherfore this hath not serued any whit to iustify his ClieÌ„t or himselfe but rather to confirme aggrauate the former Charges giuen against them both And it is to be considered that if in these fiue Cases chosen out by M. Morton out of fiue fifty cyted by M. Attorney against the Popes authority before King HeÌ„ry the 8. his Reigne so many false tricks are found what would the number be if we should discusse all the rest with like suruey Surely if M. Attorney might be presumed to haue dealt no more sincerely in the rest of his Reportes wherof six seuerall parts are now published then he hath done in these concerning Râ—ligiâ— they might be called reportable reports indeed in respect of the infinite vntruths reported by them few Lawyeâ—s I think would be at the cost to buy them But I will not suspect this for that in those other there is no interest as I suppose to wrest them to partiality as there was in this both in regard of hiâ—â—erswasion in religion fauour with the Prâ—ce But now let vs paâ—se to peruse and saie somewhat of his late new preface which subministreth some new matter to be handled in this place THE EIGHT CHAPTER WHICH BY OCCASION OF TWO NEW PREFACES lately set forth by the sayd SYR EDWARD COOKE doth handle diuers Controuersies as well about a Nihil dicit obiected by him to his Aduersary AS also about the Antiquity Excellency of the Municipall Common lawes of England and some other points THE PREFACE AFTER I was well entred into this worke for answering M. Morton his Preamble I came to the sight of a new Preface set forth by Syr Edward Cooke before the sixt Part of his Reportes lately published for that the name and argument of Preamble and Preface came so ioyntly togeather from two different Authors and that the â—inall purpose of the one and the other tâ—erin for so much as concerneth our subiect of Religion and iustifying themselues about that which they had written therof to the slaunder iniury of Catholick profesâ—ioÌ„ semed to me to be one the very same which was to subtract their shoulders from the weight of the matter in answering the whole that was writtâ—n against them and by a new â—leight and deuise oâ— Preâ—aces and Preambles and promising further â—reatise to diuert the Readers attention from the principall busines and to intertayne him with other fancies and generall tearmes as though they had answered somewhat indeed For this I thought yt not amisse to ioyne them also togeather in this my Reply and as I had answered the one largely and particulerly so to say somwhat also to the other especially for so much as notwithstanding this Preface came forth long after that the Author therof Syr Edward had seene my former Charge layd against him in the last Chapter of my Treatise of MitigatioÌ„ yet heere doth he not only not answere any thing therunto but neyther so much as mentioneth the same as before hath beene said only in this place he hath a certaine snatch at the Deuines answere against his Reportes and I call it a snatch for that it conteineth scarce one page against the others whole Booke of aboue 400. and yet doth he so confidently condemne his aduersary both of ignorance and boldnes as if he had confuted him indeed by a large conuincement wherin yow shall heare his owne wordes 2. VVhen I looked into the booke sayth he euer expecting some answere to the matter in the end I â—ound the Author vtterly ignorant but exceeding bold as commonly those qualities concurre in the lawes of the Realme the only subiect of the matter in hand but could not fynd in all the booke any authority out of the bookes of the common lawes of the Realme Acts of Parlament or any legall or iudiciall records quoted or cited by him for the maintenance of any of his opinions or conceipts wherupon as in iustice I ought I had iudgment giuen â—or me vpon a Nihil dicit and therâ—ore cannot make any replication â—hus farre Syr Edward wherin as yow see he answered all that large worke of the Deuine in few words coÌ„demning him of ignorance boldnes and of saying nothing at all in so large a Discourse but as for the former two points of ignorance and boldnes and whether he cyted no one authority at all out of any law-books shall be afterward discussed more particulerly now only in this Paragraph shall we consider how true this last assertion is that the Deuine said nothing at all and that therupon Syr Edward had iudgment giuen for him vpon a Nihiâ— dicit WHETHER the Catholicke Deuine might be iustly condemned of a Nihil dicit or no §. I. FIRST then for trying of this pointâ— I would demaund what Iudge gaue this iudgement â—ithâ—r Syr Edward himselfe for he is now a Iudge or an other and vpon what due information If himselfe did giue sentence for himselfe it may easily be excepted against as suspected of partiality for that no man I thinke can be both iudge and party euen by Syr Edwards lawes for according to those of Saint Edward I am sure he could not in his owne cause But if another Iudge gaue the sentence let vs know who it was and vpon what proofes groundes for that such sentences I suppose are not yet brought to be arbitrary in England nor permitted to euery Iudges will and liking without any proofes or groundes at all which being supposed I
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
of any honourable family dieth all his kinred do gather themselues togeather to make inquiry of his death if there be any suspicion that he was made away then they do vse torments vpon the wiues as if they were slaues and if it be found that they were guilty of the sayd death then after they haue bene tormented by fire and all other torments they put them to death 72. In which narration first you see no mention of Britans but only of Frenchmen as hath bene noted the nobility wherof are deuided by Caesar into two sortes the one Druides that had care of their sacrifices and matters of Religion the other Equites Knights that made as it were the lay nobility and of whome he recounteth this that we haue here related You will aske then perchance with what truth or syncerity Syr Edward can recite this as the Law of the Britans which is related by Caesar as the Law of the Frenchmen He hath no other shift for excuse of this but to make this note in his margent See in the Preface to the third part of my Reportes out of Caesars Comment Disciplina Druidum in Britannia reperta atque inde in Galliam translata esse existimatur It is tâ—ought that the discipline oâ— the Druides was first found in Britanny and â—rom thence translated into France And is not this a good reason that whatsoeuer is recounted by Caesar of Frenchmen should be ascribed to Brittans â—or that in tymes past the discipline of the Druides is thought by some to haue come from Britanny What coherence hath this togeather May not all lawes of the Frenchmen be ascribed by this meanes vnto the Brittans Is not this a strange direct and demonstratiue proofe to proue one thing by another This indeed is an argumeÌ„t à disparatis as Logitians do call it But let vs see more tricks besids this 73. Why had not he alleaged the whole place out of Caesar as I haue done and why doth he cyte the words so cuttedly si compertum est igne c. interficiunt yet in the English leaueth out c. saying And if she be found guilty of the death of her husband which is petty treason the wife is burnt to death as she is in that case at this day Why had not he set downe c. also in the English therby to let his Reader vnderstand that there were some words left out to wit atque omnibus tormentis excruciatas interficiunt they do kill such wiues as are found culpable after they haue byn tormented with fyre and all other torments What needed the word c. for excluding so few syllables but that yt stood not well with Syr Edwards purpose to haue them seene read for that they shew plainly that neyther Brittans nor Frenchmen had any such Law or custome to put such wiues to death by burning though they vsed the same for a torment before their death No more then it may be truly sayd that Englishmen at this day haue a law or Custome to put Priests or other men to death by the Racke though diuers of them haue byn racked and aftâ—rward put to death And this could not my Lord but see in reading Caesar wherby is euident that his Lordship also commeth into the Classes of them that auouch wilfull and formall vntruthes against their owne conscience and knowledge when they make for their purpose and yet is this far from the office manner of proceeding of a Iudge that ought to be exact and punctuall in his truth 74. But now further to his inference suppose that he had related his Author truly and that Caesar had sayd as he sayth That the ancient Brittans had this law and custome to burne wiues that should be â—ound guilty of their husbands deathes which Syr Edward saith hath continued to our tyme why if it were so to answere coniecture with coniecture should not the other part of the same law haue remayned also that husbands should haue power of life and death ouer their wiues as the Brittans according to Syr Edward had or how where or when can he proue that that part of the Law was abrogâ—ted and the other of burning them left to remaine or if he cannot or that he will say that the other part in like manner doth in rigour remaine then would it go hard no dout with many wiues at this day that are scarse patient of farre lesse power and dominion in their husbands ouer them then is that of life and death which Case as it apperteineth not to me to discusse nor to Syr Edward I thinke to determine so is it sufficient for our purpose to haue demonstrated that his answere to this third question hath neither byn Direct nor Demonstratiue nor sincerly handled nor grounded vpon true relatioÌ„ Now then to the fourth and last 75. If in all the former three questions the Iudges answere haue byn found to haue byn defectuous much more in this then in all the rest For whereas before yow haue heard them say that the Students desire was to see some proofes that the Common law in these foure particuler Cases was before the Conquâ—st as now it is and that Syr Edward had no sooner seene them but that instantly he found direâ—t and demonstratiue answere to the same now comming to answere indeed he alleageth an act of Parliament holden in the 10. yeare of King Henry the second which was Anno Do. 1164. wherin it was enacted That iâ— any Appeale came â—rom any Archdeacon or Bishop vnto the Archbishop and he should fayle to do iustice it must lastly come to the King nor proceed any further without the assent of the King which is a straÌ„ge falling from the purpose if yow marke it well For that the question was whether this Common law of England that is now in vse was in vse also before the Conquest and that as now it is vsed which the iudge affirmeth and for proofe therof alleageth a Statute made an hundred yeares after the Conquest What will yow say to this Why had he not alleaged some one example or proofe before the Conquest as the Case and question required Or why had he not gone about to satisfy some of those examples to the contrary alleaged by me in the 6. Chapter of my former Answere to his Reportes and fiâ—th demonstration to wit of Appeales to Rome of the two Archbishops of Canterbury Lambert and Athelard vnder the two Mercian Kinges Offa and Kenulphus as also the two other famous Appeales of S. VVilfrid Archbishop of Yorke against the two Kinges successiuely of the Northumbers Egfrid Alfrid All which are recounted by S. Bede others long before the Conquest which in my sayd Booke are set downe and Syr Edward could not but haue read them and are full to the purpose to proue the lawfulnes of Appeales in our primitiue Church of EnglaÌ„d yet now he saith no one word
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
other Princes being of contrary beliefe haue also made the contrary lawes 16. These heads of demonstration togeather with foure more not vnlike to these which for breuity I do pretermit being laid forth at large by the Deuine with the manifest proofes and declarations out of the ancient and irrefragable histories of our Nation to make this euident inference that our Christian Kings before the Conquest did all of theÌ„ acknowledge the Popes supreme Iurisdiction in spirituall affayres and consequently they acknowledged also that it appertayned not to themselues And wheras the Attorney to proue his assertion alleageth two examples before the Conquest the one of K. Kenulphus about a Priuiledge he gaue to the Abbey of Abingdon the other of K. Edward the Conâ—essour that sayth That a King as Vicar of the highest must defend the Church it is answered by the Deuine that both of these examples do make against M. Attorney The first for that there is expresse mention that this Priuiledge was giuen by Authority from the Pope and the second that it is nothing to the purpose K Edward speaking of temporall Authority wheÌ„ he sayth That the King is Vicar of the highest and in the very same place insinuating most manifestly that in spirituall affayres the Pope is supreme and consequently that both these authorities were frandulently brought in by M. Attorney yea the former most willâ—ully corrupted as I do shew more largely and particulerly in the end of my twelfth Chapter of my booke of Miâ—igation And was not all this to the purpose Or will M. Attorney call this a Nihil dicit wheÌ„ the cause shall come before him in seat of Iudgment 17. Lastly the Deuine comming downe from the tyme of the Conquest vnto our dayes to wit to the raigne of K. Henry the viij sheweth largely in the seuerall liues of euery one of those Kings that in this point of the Popes supreme Ecclesiaâ—ticall Authority they were all vniforme in one the selfe same beliefe and acknowledgment which he proueth out of their owne wordes factes lawes histories other authenticall proofes And if at any time there fell out any disagreement or disgust betweene any King and the Pope that liued in his tyme it was only vpon particuler interests complaints of abuses by officers euill informers or the like for remedy wherof some restrictions agreements or concordates were made as now they be also in other Catholick Countries not for that any English King from the very first Christened vnto K. Henry the 8. nor he neyther for the first 20. yeares of his raigne did euer absolutly deny the Popes supreme Iurisdiction in Ecclesiasticall causes 18. And secondly the sayd Deuine answereth fully to all those pieces and parcels of lawes that M. Attorney produceth which are shewed either fraudulently to be alledged or wholly misconstred or vtterly to be impertinent to the conclusion which they should inferre And shall this in like manner be iudged from the purpose and a Nihil dicit where now is that Iudge that gaue sentence â—or him in this behalfe will he come forth stand to his sentence Or will Syr Edward Cooke be so vnreasonable in this behalf as to request any man to belieue him that such a Iudgment was giueÌ„ for him Or that he fouÌ„d so vniust a Iudge as would giue such a sentence so contrary to all conscience sense and reason But yow must note that many men haue noted this to be somewhat singular in Syr Edward Cooke as many other points be that when he talketh of Catholicks or their aâ—fayres he is so confident resolute precipitant in his asseuerations against them especially when he preacheth on the Bench or giueth his Charge that except we belieue him at his bare word contrary to all liklihood of truth the most part of that he speaketh will seeme to be wilfull vntruthes spoken against his owne conscience so litle he remembreth the saying of the prophet Pone ostium circumstantiae labijs meis I do not say they are lyes for that were inurbanity considering his present dignity but that they may seeme such to the wyser sort for that they lacke this doore of true circumstances to make them probable wherof we shall haue occasion to touch some more examples afterward Now we shall passe on to examine whether this Nihil dicit obiected to his Aduersary do not fall more iustly vpon himselfe and therwith also an opposite charge called a Nimium dicit which is to speake more then is true THAT THE Imputation of Nihil dicit doth fall more rightly vpon M. Attorney as doth also the Nimium dicit or euerlashing in his assertions §. II. HAVING shewed now that the Nihil dicit cannot be ascribed to the Catholicke Deuine for that he left written so much and so effectuall to the purpose he had in hand it would be an easie mâ—tter to shew in regard of the contrary effectes that the saâ—e remaineth with M. Attorney both for that he answered litle or nothing and that wholy from the purpose The â—irst is manifest by this new Preface of his wherin he answereth scarce halfe a page to more then 400. pages of my booke written against him The second also is not obscure by that I haue written in the precedent Paragraph of the impertinencie of proofs produced against vs which afterward perhaps may be better examined and consequently for both these respects the Nihil dicit lighteth vpon himselfe 20. Now then lâ—tting passe this Nihil dicit we shall contemplate a while the Nimium dicit when more is vttered then the truth with shall be the proper argument and subiect of this present section or Paragraph and this only about such matters as he hath now freshly and lasâ—ly vttered in this Preface that in all conteyneth but one only printed sheet wherby appeareth how great a volume it would arise vnto on our behalfe if we should examine the vntâ—uthes of all his other writings against vs. 21. To begin then with that which before we touched he auoucheth in this his Preamble That he could not fynd in all the booke any autâ—ority out of the bookes of Common lawes oâ— this Realme Acts of Parlaments or any legall and Iudiâ—iall records quoted or cyted by the Catholiâ—ke Deuine for the mantenance oâ— any of his opinions or conceipts wherupon as in Iustice sayth he I ought I had iudgment giuen for me vpon a Nihil dicit Thus farre the Knight wherby you perceaue that the immediate cause of this iudgment giuen in his fauour was grounded vpon this presumption that the Deuine neyther quoted nor cyted any one such witnesse throughout all his booke which if it be euidently false as now I shall proue it then must the Iudge confesse if he will not be Iudex iniquus that the sentence of Nihil dicit is to be reuoked as vniust 22. Let vs see then how true or false this assertion is or rather how many seuerall falshoods
their Ciuill gouerment among themselues long before the Britans yea before Moyses gaue them his written Lawes For that being a Nation so populâ—us as they were cannot well be imagined to hauâ— lâ—ued foure hundred yeares in Aegipt without some humane and Ciuill lawes among themselues also beâ—â—des those of the Aegiptians albeit they were forced alâ—o to kâ—epe perhaps the Aegiptians lawes which in that case may be accompted their lawes and so more ancient thâ—n thâ— Britans So as all these things were weakely considered by Syr Edward and he sheweth himselfe no good Antiquary though he would seme to couet much the opinion therof 41. But more then in any other point this defâ—ct of his is seene in setting downe his second Medium for proofe of the antiquity excellencie of his Municipall lawes in these words before recyâ—ed That if the ancient lawes of this noble Island had not excelled all the others speaking of humane it could not be but some of the seuerall Conquerours and Gouernours therof that is to say the Romans Saxons Danes or Normans and especially the Romans would haue altered or changed the same Where yow see he holdeth it for a supposed knowne receiued principle that none of all these Conquerous people entring into Britany did alter or chaÌ„ge the old British lawes and consequently that those which now we call the CoÌ„mon lawes of England were also the lawes of the ancient Brytans and theirs ours which is one of the most solemne absurdities in my opinion that euer proceded from the mouth of a man pretending to be learned in his owne Countrey affayres 42. For firâ—t besides the demonstration before made to the contrary out of reason and euident probability that the Britans generally hauing receiued very litle vse of Ciuill policy vntill two hundred yeares after Christ vnder the Emperour Alexander Scuerus and almost three hundred after they had byn vnder the Romans it was not likely that the sayd Romans their Conquerours would admit their lawes customes so much condemned by them of barbarismâ— and inciuility as by the former related Authors both Greeke and Latin hath byn declared Besides this I say there is expresse mention found in antiquity though M. Attorney seemeth not to know it of the change of those Lawes and customes by the Roman Emperours 43. For first Pliny that lyued presently after the Apostles recounteth that the Emperour Tiberius Caesar vnder whome our Sauiour suffered did take away diuers of their Lawes and customes especially about sacrificing of men women and Children in luâ—o Andates in a certaine groue dedicated to that Pagan Goddesse which signified Victory He remoued also Druidâ—s and cancelled their Lawes which were the instruments and ministers of those Cruelties â—hereupon the sayd Pliny maketh this consideration Non satis aestimari potest quantum Romanis debeatur qui sustulere Monstra in quibus hominem occidere religiosissimum erat mandi vâ—rò etiam saluberrimum It cannot be sufficiently esteemed how much the Britans do owe to the Romans that tooke away these monstrous customes and lawes wherby it was held a most religious thing to kill men and a most wholesome to eate them Wherby appeareth that diuers lawes of the Britans were changed by the Romans and namely those of their Pagan sacrifices which were their principall albeit the Romans were yet heathens and Pagans themselues so as this ouerthroweth quite Syr Edwards false principle that British lawes were neuer changed nor altered by the Romans 44. But yet further when very shortly after the forsaid speach of Queene Brundeuica that was vnder Nero Vespasian came to gouerne Britanny and had that famous victorie wherin he tooke King Aruiragus and his some Guiderius and diuers other principall persons of the Brytish Nobility Hector Boethius in his History of Scotland doth shew that vpon mature deliberation Iâ—ra paternas leges postea Britonibus ademit Vespasianus Romanas introduxit Vâ—spasian tooke away and changed their old British lawes customes and introduced those of the Romans in place therof Behold heere a whole change of lawes denied so resolutly by our two Iustices as you haue heard before were they good Antiquaries in this thinke yow If yow say yea I will oppose against them our other English Antiquary and King of Armes VVilliam CaÌ„bdâ—n who in his Description of Britany speaking of the said Emperour Vespasian and of his sonne Domitian in their gouerment of England sayth Britannis iugum impositum c. At this time the Britans receiued the Roman yoke foure Legions of souldiers being appointed to lye there that with terrour should hold them downe c. Neque legibus suis patrijs vti permissi sunt sed magistratus à populo Romano cum Imperio securibus missi qui ius dicerent Neither were they permitted to vse any more their owne Countrey lawes but Magistrates and Officers were sent to them from the people of Rome with supreme authority and â—nsignes of Iustice to administer law vnto them So he 45. What will Syr Edward say to this Was this a change of lawes or no And will he still stand to his former assertion that the Brytish lawes were neuer altered by the RomaÌ„s But let vs adde yet one witnes more and that of great credit to wit Gul. Malmesburiensis who as well in his story of England as in his Fasti signifiâ—th the same alteration saying in the later That vpon the fourth yeare of Domitian which was the 86. of Christ Britannia nunc penitus primùm subiugata ductu Agricolae auspicijs Domitiani Britany was now first of all vtterly subdued by the army of Agricolaâ— and authority of Domitian the Emperour c. which full and complete subiugation includeth also the necessity to accept of the vanquishers lawes and not to giue lawes to them And what will Syr Edward now say to this also Will he recall his temerarious assertion Will he remember now his former saying that Ignorance and bouldnes do commonly concurre 46. But let vs go yet forward for as we haue demonstrated of the Romans in this affaire so might we shew no lesse also of the other three nations by him mentioned â—o wit the Saxoâ—s Danes and Normans For that the Saxoâ—s comming in after the departure of the Romans about 450. yeares after Christ and falling into such extreme emnity and breach with the Brytans as our histories do testify both in regard of their quarrell about the Countrey and possession therof as also for that the Britans were Christians and the Saxons pagans so as one did not so much as communicate with the other but as enemies in the field This being so I say yt is not like nor any way in reason probable that they the sayd Saxonsâ— being Conquerours and such professed enemies would admit the Britans lawes or gouerne themselues thâ—rby both for that they brought theyr owne lawes with them nor vnderstood nor regarded those of their aduersaries conquered
truthes as if the credit of his whole worke consisted vpon the certainty of euery particuler period which if it be true then must it needs inferre a great preiudice to the credit first of the said 6. Part of Syr Edwards Reportes for so much as so many periods haue beene now found false in this very Preface And secondly it cannot but import the like discredit vnto his said fifth part for which he framed his former protestation for that vpon better view of the bookes Statutes lawes by him cyted it is found that he doth not only misalledge many both wordes and texts resolutions and iudgments but peruerteth many other by wrong inferences arguments detorsions and amplifications of his owne quite contrary to his former protestation which now breifly shall be declared more in particuler 82. First then not to iterate againe the number of those many and manifold falshoods vsed by Syr Edward in the cyting of the Charter of King Kenulphus before the Conquest for giuing priuiledge of Sanctuary to the Church of Culâ—am belonging to the Abbey of Abindon both by concealing the wordes that most imported That all was done by the consent and authority of Pope Leo as also the like vnsincere dealing in Iustice Thorps case concerning the question whether it were treason in the â—aigne of K. Edward the first for one subiect to bâ—ing in a Bull of excommunication against another subiect wherof we haue treated in two seuerall precedent Paragraphes of this Chapter and conuinced that there was much false and fraudulent dealing in them both this I say pretermitted we shall note some more examples out of his other instances vnder English kings since the Conquest 83. First he alleageth this instance vnder the Conquerour himselfe not out of any law of his but out of a fact K. VVilliam saith he the first did of himselfe as K. oâ— England make appropriation of Churches with Cure to Ecclesiasticall persons wherof he inferreth that he had Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction and cyteth for the proofe of his assertion 7. Ed. 3. tit Quare impedit 19. which obiection though it be fully and substantially answered by the Deuine shewing sundry and diuers waies and namely foure wherby a lay man may come to haue the collation or appropriation of beneâ—ices yet the booke by him cyted being since that tyme examined it is found that Syr Edward dealt very vnsincerly in alleaging this case to his purpose which maketh wholy against him For this is the case set downe briefly by Brooke in his Abridgement but much more larger by the law-booke it selfe of 7. Ed. 3. fol. 4. 84. In the 7. yeare of King Edward the third by reason of an action of Quare impedit brought against the Deane Chapter two Prebends of the Church of S. Peter of Yorke by the Abbot of Newenham for that they had refused to admit his Clerke presented by him to the Church of T. wherunto he pretended to haue right to present the case was handled in the Kings Bench and the defendants pleading Plenarty for their defence that is to say that the place was full and not voyd for that there was an appropriation or vnion made of the said Church of T. with soke sake that is with the appurtenances vnto the foresaid Church of S. Peter of Yorke and vnto two Prebends of the same by a Charter of King VVilliam the Conquerour and afterward by another of K. Ed. 1. The chiefe Iustice at that tyme named Herle did foure or fiue tymes at least during the discussion of that case giue his iudgement that by law the Conquerour nor K. Edward could not make any such appropriation And of the like opinion were the rest of the Iudges or at least contradicted not the same to wit Syr Iohn Stoner Syr Ioâ—n Cantabridge Syr Iohn Iugge Syr Iohn Shardelow and the rest though two of them spake in the case as may be seene and gathered by reading the booke it selfe and Stouffe and Trew that were of CouÌ„cell of the Plaintife affirmed flatly that no such appropriation could be made by the CoÌ„querour All which the Attorney craftily concealed in his narration of the case to the end that it might be deemed that the iudgemeÌ„t of the Court had beene in K. Edward the thirds tyme vnder whome this case was handled that the Conquerour might according to the coÌ„mon-law make an appropriation by his letters patent And is this good dealing euen in the very first case which he proposeth aâ—ter the Conquest 85. After this he passeth ouer all the Conquerours lyfe and six other kings ensuing as VVilliam Rufus Henry the first K. Stephen Henry the second Richard the first and K. Iohn fynding no one example among all those Kings actions lawes or orders that might seeme to haue any shew of spirituall IurisdictioÌ„ but only that in the lyfe of K. H. 1. he alleageth a Charter of the said King wherin he as founder of the Abbey of Reading doth appoynt out certayne orders and lawes about the temporalityes of that Abbey a thing very iust and lawfull for all founders to doe by their owne right and consequently maketh nothing to the purpose of our questioÌ„ of Ecclesiastical power and moreouer the Deuine proueth by diuers examples that sundry Popes were wont to giue faculty to Princes and other founders to prescribe spirituall priuiledges for diuers pious workes erected by them which the Popes themselues would afterward confirme and ratify so as this also was a fraud in M. Attorney to alleage so impertinent an example but it sheweth his pouerty and barennesse in examples of those yeares which being aboue 150. vnder 7. kings as hath beene said he could fynd but these two poore examples nothing prouing the purpose to bring forth in all this tyme wheras if he would looke ouer the tyme since K. Henry the 8. tooke vpon him indeed Ecclesiasticall authority by vertue of his temporall Crowne and the other three Princes who in that haue followed him whole volumes might be written of examples and presidents giuen therin of practising spirituall power wherby it is euident that those former Princes from the CoÌ„quest downward were not of the opinion and iudgement of these later Princes and that Syr Edward doth but squeese and strayne them to make them say or signify somewhat which they neuer meant indeed and this iniquity is not the least in the Attorneys proceeding in this matter and yet doth M. Morton say of him as you haue heard exhorting euery man to resort vnto Syr Edwards storehouse for aboundance of good proofes saying habet ille quod det dat nemo largius he hath store to giue and no man giueth more liberally Now then we shall peruse some of his store 86. Vnder K. Edward 1. he alleageth this instance for proofe of his supposed Ecclesiasticall IurisdictioÌ„ that when Pope Gregory the tenth had determined in a Councell at Lyons Bigamos omni priuilegio
fol. 10. that the Abbot and Prior of VVestminster had their possessioÌ„s in seueralty from tyme to tyme out of mynd c. Nor is there any thing spokeÌ„ there of the kings grauÌ„t at all and if there were yet must it be vnderstood according to that which is declared by the Catholicke Deuine of the concession and confirmation of priuiledges granted by Pope Leo the 9. and Nicolas the 2. to K. Edward the Confessor concerning the said Monastery of VVestminster to wit that they gaue him authority to graunt priuiledges which they themselues did ratify after they were granted and so in this case the separation and seueraltie of the said Abbot and Prior of VVestminster hauing bene time out of mind must necessarily be presumed to haue proceeded originally from the Pope as the booke 11. H. 4. saith and that the Grant of the K. was but his allowance and good leaue to the same 101. I might produce heere many other particulers both vnder this K. Edward the 3. and much more if I would desceÌ„d any lower to the raignes of other ensuing kings but I thinke best to stay my selfe heere leauing the rest to some other more fit oportunity which before I haue insinuatedâ— and this which already hath bene spoken may be sufficient to declare and make manifest that Syr Edward is neither so exact and punctuall in his truth as he would seeme when he saith That the credit of euery writers whole worke must depend of the verity of euery period therof nor yet so sincere in the simplicitie of his allegations as that he vseth not either inference argument or exaggeration as of him self you haue heard him protest before for so much as now more or lesse you haue seen beheld both these two asâ—euerations of his contradicted by himselfe in deeds the first by many vntruthes vttered in his behalfe the second by a perpetuall course of crafty dealing to inferre and inforce such things to his Readers apprehension as his Authors neuer meant nor the books by him cyted do affoard or beare wherof I do vnderstaÌ„d that he is like to heare more ere it be long froÌ„ a Catholick lawyer that meaneth to ioyne with the Catholick Deuine in defence of their coÌ„mon Catholicke saith about these poynts and to deale with Syr Edward in proprijs vpon his owne grounds as I doubt not but that he may with great aduantage in respect of the notorious difference of their cause the one hauing with him the authority prescription of almost a thousand yeares in our Country wherin all Lawyers Iudges and Learned men of that professioÌ„ were truly Catholick and of one faith iudgment and Religion and the other hath not yet full the prescription of one age to stand with him in his nouelties and consequently no meruaile though he meane to stand to his owne wit only OF ANOTHER Preface insâ—antly come vnto my hands prefixed before the L. Cookes seauenth Part of Reports conteyning new iniuries offered to Catholikes by him §. VI. BEING come to this place of my answere I receyued a new halfe sheet of paper printed in latin without the English conteyning another Preface of the Iustice before his 7. Part of Reports and albeit I expect the rest of the booke both in English Latin yet perusing ouer this in the meane space which already is come I perceyue Syr Edward Cookâ— to persist still in his old animosity of pursuing Catholiks vpon euery occasion offered or sought for by him so as nothing can come from him eyther in speach or writing but some part must concerne theÌ„ and their imputation And as for his speaches especially his Charges giuen vpon the Bench I haue said somewhat before and how bitter false and iniurious they are alleaging in particuler some passages of his Charge giuen at the Assises of Norwich vpon the 4. of August 1606. published in print by R. P. dedicated to the Right honorable Earle of Excester which two leters of R. P. I knew not at that tyme whom they meant vntill now in this Latin Preface Syr Edward calleth him inuidum maledicum Pricket an enuious and slaunderous Pricket for that belike he had pricked somwhat his Lordshipps patience by the edition of his said Charge without his licence he adding moreouer That the said Pricket had not set downe any one least sentence of his speach truly and sincerely in that sense and signification wherin himselfe had vttered the same which no doubt was a great fault in Pricket if it were true 103. But on the other syde is first the protestation of Pricket himselfe who saith to the foresaid Earle shewing both his sincerity and affection towards the Iustice. If therfore in this following worke saith he my memory hath giuen a true instruction to my pen I hope my labours shall be accompted profitable when it administreth a publike benefyt And agayne I humbly craue your Honour will vouchsafe to patronize this litle booke by me collected not out of myne owne but froÌ„ the words of that Reuerend and learned Iudge the L. Cooke who at his comming vnto Norwich did vpon the Bench deliuer a Charge so excellent as that it worthily deserueth to be continued in perpetuall memory These are Prickets words which seeme to free him much from the passion of enuy and malediction obiected by Syr Edward whom he pretendeth greatly to honour by this edition of his speach And that no affection towards Catholiks did biaz him in this relation may appeare by his other words that presently did ensue after the former saying I hope that this speach being produced to a publike view shall remayne vnto our publike weale a worthy president wherin Romes Champions may with shame discerne their long continued shamefull practises Puritans and Schismatiks learne to know with what iniustice they disturbe the happines of our most happy Peere So Pricket who sheweth himselfe as you see a perfect Protestant in profession and therby it is made very probable that the enuie obiected vnto him by Syr Edward did not arise vpon any diâ—parity or partiality of religion notwithstanding it may be that the difference of their two particuler states in purse and wealth considered Pricket being a poore souldiour might enuy somewhat the rich lawiers great wealth and aboundant flowing fortunes For thus he beginneth his Epistle to the said Earle lamenting his owne penurie 104. May it please your Honour the obseruation which this world begets may teach experience truly to report that loue and charity are for the most part growne so cold euen in the hoatest sun-shine of our profession as that despised pouerty though addicted to the religious exercise of endeauours coÌ„mendable is in the best imployment which seemeth with greatest fauour to smile vpoÌ„ our hope so coldly recompenced as that poore vnpittied deiected and miserable pouerty knoweth neyther meanes nor place how or where to warme herselfe Vnhappy I in this best tyme of greatest
a notorious vntruth in that he saith she did it by the coÌ„sent oâ— her Lordes Spirituall and Temporall for that all her Lords Spirituall which make the chieâ—e part of the Parlament resisted the matter as appeareth by their depriuations depositions restraints or imprisonments that theron ensued So as this is as true as that other which followeth in the very next page and hath beene handled by me in other places to wit that as well these that were restrayned or imprisoned as generally all the Papists of this Kingdome did come to the Protestants Church nor any of them did resuse during the first ten yeares of the said Queenes gouernment which I haue coÌ„uinced before by hundreds of witnesses to be most shamefully false as also the other deuised fable that Pius Quimê° did offer to approue the Communion Booke of English seruice by his owne letters to Q. Elizabeth if she would do him the honour as to accept it from him 109. I do pretermit willingly as vnworthy of my pen those scoffes and contemptible derisions which it hath pleased his L. to vse against that holy man and high priest of our soules Pope Pius Quintus calling him Pope Impius V. his hellishnesse his horriblenesse and the like which seemeth much to sâ—uour of the spirit of those that in Iudge Pilates house did scoffe at our Sauiour bowing their knees and crying Aue Rex Iudaeorum but yet there the maister Iudge did not descend to such scurrility But surely I am sory to see a Lord Iudge vse the same in publike auditory which were fitter for one of his Kitchin amongst his Companions and when such things as these are related vnto strangers they seeme incredible to men of eâ—timation and honour 110. But Syr Edward passing on in this manner throughout his whole speach bringeth in all the accidents fallen out froÌ„ the beginning of that Raigne vnto the end of the Irish warres Doctor Sanders his being there Steukley his going to Rome and afterward to Portugall the Duke of Guise his actions and of MeÌ„doza called by him Iesuite though he were a Noble man and Ambassadour of the K. of Spaine in EnglaÌ„d Campian Persons Heywood Shirwyn and other Priests comming into England vpon the yeare 1580. and many other such like things little appertayning to them of Norwich but that my L. would needs speake like a great Counsellour that day and be Propheta in Patria and fill mens eares with tales and terrours and yet in the end after all sayd and much therof knowne to be false to the greatest part of discret men in his auditory he commeth at length to be somewhat morâ— mild and placable saying by this then our English Papists eyther Iesuits or Seminaries may learne to know that it is not Religion that they striue for but only to mayntaine the Antichristian head of Romes vsurped Supremacy And if there be in this presence any Roman Catholiks or so many oâ— them as shall heare of that which now hath beene spoken I intreat theÌ„ as my deare and louing Country-men that they will not any longer be seduced by any lying spirit sent from Rome seing that the Pope whome they belieue hath himsâ—lfe allowed as before we have shewed that in our Church we haue a doctrine of faith and religion suâ—ficiently necessary to saluation Deare Country-men we haue then inough need not the help of any Pope sithence all the Papists generally came vnto our Churches beâ—ore our late Q. Elizabeth was excoÌ„municated c. Thus he 111. And do you see this Conclusion all grouÌ„ded vpon suppositions that are manifestly false or rather ridiculous in theÌ„selues for that first he would haue vs suppose as a thing by him proued before that it is not religion for which we striue but to maintayne the Popes supreme Authority in spirituall Causes as though the article of supremacy were no poynt of Religion at all among vs which is a great absurdity to imagine For doth not the Catholicke Deuine in the Preface of his Answere vnto him and we before haue also repeated the same shew demonstrate that this point of supreme spirituall authority is so principall an article of Religion as all other controuersies may be determined therby How then doth the Iustice trifle so in this matter Is he not ashamed to say in the face and ears of such an Auditory that Catholiâ—kes striue not for religion wheÌ„ they striue for their supreme Pastours spirituall Authority It is as good an argument as if a man should say that Syr Edward when he was a Counsellour pleaded not for money but for gold as if gold were no money 112. His second supposition is that we belieue Pope Pius Quintus to haue allowed the Protestant CoÌ„munion Booke for that Syr Edward saith and sweareth it vpon his credit saying and this vpon my credit and as I am an honest man is most true which I haue els where shewed to be most vntrue and that no Catholicke of crâ—dit doth or will giue credit vnto it Thirdly he supposeth that we belieue his former assertion that all Catholickes generally did come to the Protestants Câ—urch for the first ten yeares of Q. Elizabeths raigne which they do not only thinke but know to be most false 113. Fourthly he supposeth it to be a good consequence that if Catholicks did come to their Churches for the first ten yeares they haue inough for their saluation and need not the help of any Popes authority for absolution of their sinnes or other spirituall power For such is his inference when he sâ—ith Deare Country-men we haue then inough and need not any help of any Pope sithence all the Papists generally came to our â—hurches beâ—ore the late Queene was excommunicated which inference and consequence is both false and absurd For albeit some Catholicks came to the Church for feare or otherwise yet therby haue not Syr Edward and his partners inough for their saluation for that the other came to their Churches for they might come with a repugnant mynd condemning and detesting inwardly their Religion no lesse or perhaps more then they that were Recusants and openly refused to come as no doubt but at this day also many do who are forced to Church against their consciences 114. And it is to be noted that Syr Edward saith VVe haue a doctrine of â—aith and Religion sâ—fficiently necessary to saluation So as he ascribeth no perfection to his Religion nor any aboundant sanctitie latitude or degrees of holines one aboue the other but if it be sufficiently necessary it is inough for him And yet doth our Sauiour say that there be many mansions in the house oâ— my Father and exhorteth men to perfection Perfecti estote which importeth somewhat more then sufficiently necessarie But if seemeth that Syr Edward would be content with a litle and go no further then necessarily he must God grant he go so farre and keepe him in charitie
lib. 3. pag. 45. The British lawes changed by the Romanes CambdeÌ„ in descrip Brit. pag. 42. Guliel Malmesâ— in fastis Anno Domini 86. Why it is not likâ—ly that the Saxons or Danes would admit the â—ritish lawes Ingulphus in historia de CroylaÌ„d Malmesâ— in Guliâ—l pâ—rimo iâ—iâ—ue Pâ—lidorus Iohn Fox in his Acts and Monumenâ—s Doctor Haâ—pesfiâ—ld in â—istor 1 Sâ—culo 8. cap. 10. 2 Saeculo 9. cap. 5. 3 Saec 10. cap. 2. 4 Ibib. c. â— 5 Saec. 11. cap. 2. 6 Ibid. c. â— Three positions of the two Iustices ouerthrowen Polidor l. 9 p. 391. edit Gandau The iniquity of the Conquerours lawes that now are English Ingulf in â—isto de Croylâ—nd pag. 513. c. Fox acts mon. p. 154. col 1. â—um 83. Anno Christi 687 See the Saxon lawes imprinted at London cap. 3. 4 These also were printed anno 1568. Alred Rieual de Regibus in Edgarum See Fox Acts monuâ—â—ts pag. 148. Polydor. l. 8. hist. in Edwardo Confâ—ssore Defectuous lawes Answer to Râ—poâ—tes pag. 13 14â— 15. c. Iudgment of life and death Iury of 12. men Dowry of marriage Prouision for yonger Brothers Pupills Pupilage Liberty auarice of some Lawyers A merry tale deuised by Syr Edward against Monkes A true serious story answering to Syr Edwards tale The Fathers prudent and pious resolution Daniel 4. Preface to the 6. part of Reports Ibidem â—ower questions proposed solued Arist. lib. â— poster c. 2. Answere to the first The charter of Q. Ethelswith Anno 868. Syr Edwardes bad argumentatioÌ„ The true story of Q. Ethelswith Gul. Malmesb l. 1. de gestis reguÌ„ Angl. c. 5. Malmes l. â— câ—p 2. See Ethelwerd lib. 3. chron cap. 3. Huntingt lib. 5. histor prope initium Answer to the second question K. â—thelred Anno 995. Answer to the third question About burning of women for petty treason in Cesars time Caesar lib. 6 comment de bello Gâ—lliâ—o p. 157. edit Manucianae The custome of Frenchmen about authority ouer their wyues in Iulius Caesars tyme. Wilfull fraud by embezeling of words Why one part of the Brittish law desceÌ„ded to our tymes and not the other Answer to the 4. question Henricuâ— secundus Anno Domini 1164. Syr Edward flieth from the point in controuersie Answere to Reports Chap. 6 demonst 5. pag. 1 3. Iustice Rastall in his Abridgment of Statutes The CouÌ„cell of Claringdon An. 1164. Houed in vita Hen. 2. fol. 287. Houeden ibidem K. Henry the secoÌ„d very Catholicke in the point of the Popeâ— supremacy A shift of euasioÌ„ taken from Syr Edw. HouedeÌ„ in HeÌ„ 2.302 303. Baron Tom. 12. in An. 1172. non longè ab initio Reports part 5. fol. 40. Pref. to the 6 part of Reports f. 6. See before §. 4. 5. The first two falshoods Reportes fol. 10. b. The third fraud about the Conquerors case 7. Ed. 3. fol. 4. Fiâ—zh tit Quare impedit 19. Herle chiefe Iustice Henry the first founder of the Abbey of Reading Anno 26. Hâ—m 1. qui fâ—â—t anno Domini 1125. In the Answere to the 5. part of Reports c. 8. p. 18â— Straining squeesing of ancient Princes actioÌ„s for some shew of supremacy Ecclesiasticall 4. E. 1. Reportes fol. 13. a. In 6. Decretal l. 7. tit de Bâ—gaâ—is Reports p. 5. pag. 13. Arraigned Attainted Stanford l. 2. cap. 49. 18. E. 1. The statut of 9. E. 2. Articuli Cleri c. 16. 18. E. 1. FrauduleÌ„â— dealing Plowd CoÌ„ fol. 498. 25. H. 8. Reports f. 14. b. 17. E. 3.23 The Archdeacon of Richmond Sergeant Stouf 20. E. 3. ExcoÌ„m 9. c. â—itzh Nat. Br. f. 42. A. 2. H. 5. c. 1. Rastals Abridgment tiâ— Hospitals 27. E. 3. fol. 84. 22. E. 3. lib. Assâ— pl. 75. Notable abuses about the case of Tythes Poure vnâ—ruthes vttered in one case 22. E. 3. l. Ass. pl. 75. The state of the question Thorp chief Iustice 7. E. 3. f. 5. The Booke of Doct. studeÌ„t f. 25. printed by the dutch print in the time of K. Henry the 8. Brooke 22. E. 3. tit Prerogaâ—iue pl. 47. Concil Lateran can 53. 56. The law of paying tythes to particuler parishes 7. E. 3. f. 5.44 E. 3. f. 5.10 H. 7. fol. 1â— 38. E. 3. lib. Ass. pl. 22. Repoâ—ts fol. 16. b. 49. E. 3. lib. Aâ—s pl. â— Reports f. 17. Candish 11. H. 4. fol. 10. Answere to Reports c. 6. p. 30. et 31. 11. H. 4. A Catholick lawyer like to ioine with the Cath. Deuine against Syr Edward See before §. 4. â—â— R Prick accused by Syr Edw. Pricket in the Epist. dedicatory to the Charge Pore Pricket a cold in the heat of his gospelling sunshine Why Syr Edw. misliketh now Prickets narration Syr Edw. parable about a yong RomaÌ„ Iudge applyed to himself Prâ—fat ad part 7. Reâ—lat Syr Edw. protesteth against Nouelity when he practizeth the same Charge p. 10. Pag. 18. * Supra §. 4. Vndecent â—coffing for a Iudg. Charge p. 19. Mat 27. Marc. 15. pag. 36. Syr Edw. straÌ„ge exhortation The Article of supremacy in Spirituall matters of how great importance Ioan. 14. â— Mat. 5. 19. Charge p. 40. Syr Edw. intemperate rayling Charge p. 36.37 The fore-staling of his Maiesties will Prouerb 21. Rom. 5. Example of two persecuting Iudges Tertull. l. ad Scapul cap. 3. Cyprian l. ad Demeâ—rianum Math. 10. Syr Edw. tale of the fighting Abbot Syr Edw. loude tongue in speaking ill of Catholicks Prafat ad parâ— 7. Relat. A dreadfull new coÌ„minatioÌ„ of Syr Edw. against all Catholick bookes A charitable and equall offer to Syr Ed. About the intituling of his 7. part of Reports Syr Eâ—w his nouelties like to preiudice all his writings as not coÌ„forme to our ancient lawiers Spirituall bookes mislyked by Syr Edward New lyes added to old 1 About the Equiuocation of Saphyra In the Preamblatory â—pistle to P.R. Pream pag 47. 48. False purchase by lying Act. 5â— Mitig. pag 344.346 348. Pream pag 47. 48. A lying vertigo 2 About Theodoret corrupted Bellar. l. 1. de Euchar. cap. 1. mitio see supra cap. 3. num 99. Pream pag 65. Three falshoods in one allegation 3 About Claud. Espencaeus falsifyed PreaÌ„b pag. 28. See supra c. 1. num 100 4 The false allegation of T. M. about Costerus Cap. 3. quod est de summo Pontif. §. constat Pream pag 51. 5 About Gratian abused Bellar. l. 2. de Rom. Pont. c. 24◠§. Tertio The Decree of the Councell of Mileuâ—â— in Africk 6 About simbolizing with Pelagians Bellar. l. 4. de notis Eccleâ—iae c. 9. â— Pelagiani Preamb. pag. 63. Bellar. lib. 4. de notis Ecclesiae c. 9. §. Pelag. Three other falshoodeâ— 7 About the Councell of Eliberis Sixtus Senensis Sixtus Senenâ— Biblioth lib. 5. Annot. 247. 8 About Bullingers assertion of the Trinity 9 About S. Aug. S. Cyprian Supra c. 3. num 107.108 deinceps Bellar lib. 4. de