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
graÌ„t the said immunityes and priuiledges And also those words of King Edwyn which of his Catholike predecessors S. Leo King Kenulphus were granted And againe By â—orce of the Letters and Bulles aâ—oresaid the said village of Culnam was a Sanctuary and place priuiledged 63. And hereby also is euident that the King did not by his Charter in Parlament for it appeareth to be made by the Counsaile and consent of his Bishops and Senators not by Parlamâ—nt as M. Attorney doth misreport it neither was there any Parlament held at that time in the land or many hundreth yeares after for as it appeareth by Holinsheads Chronicle pag. 34. the first vse of Parlaments in England was in the tyme of King Henry the first it is cleare I say that the King did not discharge and exempt the said Abbot from Iurisdiction of the Bishop nor did grant vnto the said Abbot Ecclesiasticall IurisdictioÌ„ within the said Abbey neyther had that abbot any Ecclesiasticall IurisdictioÌ„ deriued froÌ„ the Crowne But as it appeareth by the autheÌ„tike report of the Case the Pope the King did ioyne both in making the said Sanctuary according to their seuerall powers authorityes So that the exemptioÌ„ from Episcopall IurisdictioÌ„ proceeded duly from the grant of Pope Leo as likewise the exeÌ„ption froÌ„ all Regall temporall Iurisdiction proceeded froÌ„ the Charter of King Kenulphus Note also that King Edwins Grant was only that the said Monastery should be free from all earthly seruitude toucheth not any spirituall immunities or Iurisdiction at all 64. Thus far my friend out of England and by this now you may see how well M. Attorney hath obserued his foresaid protestation that he had cyted the very wordes textes of the Lawes without any inference argument or amplification at all And this being my friends aduertisment from England with like obseruation of manie other places cyted by M. Attorney with like fydelity I thought good to produce this one amongst manie being the first in order for a tast in this place reseruing the rest to a fitter or at leastwise to a second edition of the foresaid answere of the Catholike Deuine where euery thing may be referred to his due place and with this will I end this Chapter Thus far wrote I at that tyme in charg of Syr Edward THE DISCHARGE AND Reckoning about the former Charge made to Syr Edward Cooke §. V. YOV haue heard now this Charge how important substantiall yt is and who would not haue thought but that either Mâ— Morton or Syr Edward himself would haue answered somwhat to the same in their Replyes made since the publishing hereof or at leastwise would haue asmuch as mentioned yt especially M. Morton who in a certaine manner and law of vrbanitie was more obliged to take the patronage of Syr Edwards wrytings then himself for so much as the Charge was giuen in a Booke against M Morton and he had so highlie commeÌ„ded the sayd worke of his Reports as he calleth them The allwaies reportable and memorable Reports taking out of them sundrie heads of examples as his words are that improue the Popes Supremacie in causes Ecclesiasticall ascribe it to the king which that yow maie see how substantiall they are I shall take the paynes to set them downe here as they stand in his Book 66. I will point at some â—ew heads oâ— examples saith he oâ— our ancient ChristiaÌ„ kings which Syr Edward Cooke his Maiesties Attorney generall in his allwaies reportable memorable Reports hath lately published In the Raigne oâ— king Edward the fyrst saith he a Subiect brought in a Bull of excommunication against another Subiect oâ— this Realme published it But yt was answered that this was thâ—n according to the ancient lawes oâ— England Treason against the King and the Offendor had byn drawen and hanged but that by the mercie of the Prince he was only abiured the Realme c. 67. At the same tyme the Pope by his Bull had by way of prouision bestowed a benefice vpon one within the Prouince of â—orke the King presented another the Archbishop reâ—useth the Kings presentation and yelded to the Popes prouision This Archbishop then by the common law oâ— the land was depriued oâ— the lands oâ— his whole Bishopricke during lyâ—e And in the Raigne of king Edwâ—rd â—he third the king presented to a Benâ—â—ice his Presentee was disturbed by one who had obtayned a Bull from Rome for the which cause he was condemned to perpetuall imprisonment c. 68. In the Raigne oâ— Richard the second yt was declared in the Parliament R. 2. c. 2. that England had allwayes byn â—ree and in subiection to no Realme but imediatly subiect to God to none other and that the same ought not in any thâ—ng touching the Regaltie of the Crowne to be submitted to the Bishop of Rome nor the lawes of their Realme by him frustrated at his pleasure c. 69. In the Raigne of King Henry the fourth it was confirmed that Excommunication made by the Pope is oâ— no force in England c. In the Raigne of King Edward the fourth the opinion of the Kings Bench was that whatsoeuer spirituall man should sue another spirituall maÌ„ in the Court of Rome for a matter spirituall where he might haue remedy beâ—ore his Ordinary within the Realme did incur the danger of â—remunire being an heynons offence against the honour of the King his Crowne and dignity 70. Thus far M. Morton out of Syr Edward Cooke then he addeth Many other examples of like nature I pretermit and remit the Reader desirous to be further satisfied vnto the booke oâ— Reportes habet enim ille quod det dat nemo largiùs For he hath to giue and no man giueth more aboundantly This is his Encomium But what doth he giue truth or falshood sincere or wrested allegatioÌ„s matter to the purpose or impertinent That we shall here now discusse shew that neither the exaÌ„ples themselues are altogeather true as here they are set downe nor if they were yet doe they not prooue the purpose for which they are alleaged And first we shall proue the second which most importeth and it is easily proued 71. For first Syr Edwards purpose obligation was to proue that Q. Elizabeth by force of her temporall Crowne had all manner of Supreme authority in spirituall affaires no lesse then any person euer had did or could exercise in England as the words of the Statute haue alleaged by him and the purpose of M. Morton was as appeareth by the title of his Treatise to improue the Popes supreme authority in Causes Ecclesiasticall So as both their ends and purposes were by different meanes to proue that the Pope had no supreme authority in Ecclesiasticall matters for time past in England the one by ascribing all to the King the other by denying it to the Pope But this purpose of theirs
of theÌ„ but coÌ„meth in with an impertinent instance that there was a prohibition of Appeales made vnder King Henry the second by Act of Parliament in the tenth yeare of his Raigne whereas yet there was no Parliament in vse nor Statute law was begone vntill the 9. yeare of King Henry the third which was aboue 60. yeares after as appeareth both by the Collection of Iustice Rastall and other Law-bookes 76. I do not deny but that King Henry the second entring into passion against S. Thomas Archb. of Canterbury made a decree at a certayne meeting of the Nobility at Claringdon rather moderating as himselfe pretended then taking away Appeales to Rome not denying that they ought to be made in respect of the Popes supreme authority Ecclesiasticall but for restrayning of abuses in appealing thither without iust cause or necessity especially in temporall affaires he ordeyned that matters should first orderly be handled in England in the Bishops and Archbishops Courtes and if that way they could not be ended they should not be carried to Rome without the Kings assent which declaratioÌ„ of the kings intention is set downe by Roger Houeden out of the Epistle of Gilbert Bishop of London to Pope Alexander the third written by the kings own Commission which not being admitted afterward by the said Pope the king recalled the same with an Oath vnder his owne hand wherof the said Houeden writeth thus Iurauit etiam quòd neque Appellationes impediret neque impediri permitteret quin liberè fierent in Regno suo ad RomanuÌ„ Pontificem in Ecclesiasticis causis He swore also that he would neither let AppellatioÌ„s nor suffer them to be letted but that they might be made in his kingdom to the Bishop of Rome in causes Ecclesiasticall c. 77. All which things could not but be knowne to Syr Edward before he wrote this his Preface and that the Catholicke Deuine in his aÌ„swer to the fifth part of his Reports had produced so many euident arguments and probations that King Henry the 2. was most Catholick in this point in acknowledging the Popes supreme Ecclesiasticall authority notwithstanding the coÌ„tention he had with S. Thomas about the manner of proceding therin for the execution as none of his Ancestours were more which in like manner is euidently seene and confessed in effect by Syr Edward himself in that in his whole discourse of Reportes for improuing the said Popes Supremacy he alleageth not so much as one example or instaÌ„ce out of the raigne of this King which in reasoÌ„ he would not haue pretermitted if he could haue found any thing to the purpose therin 78. But yet now finding himselfe in straytes how to answere the Students demand about the aÌ„tiquitie of prohibiting Appeales to the Sea of Rome he was forced to lay hands on this poore example which was neither to his purpose in regard of the time being after the conquest as now you haue heard nor of the thing it selfe for that it was against him as being only a moderation of abuses yea and that in temporall things as Bishop Gilbert of London expresly aâ—oucheth recalled by the same King afterwardâ— and finally is wholy from the purpose chiefe question about the Popes supreame authority whereof this of Appeals is but one little member only And thus we see both how well and subâ—tantially Syr Edward hath mainteyned his assertion of the supereminent antiquity and excellency of his Municipall lawes and how direct and demonstratiue answers he hath made to the foure Questions or Cases deuised by himselfe for confirmation of the â—ame 79. And whereas he inserteth a note of Record of the decree of Claringdone that this recognition was made by the Bishops Abbots Priors c. of a certaine part of the Customes and liberties of the Predecessours of the king to wit oâ— King Henry the first his Grandfather and of other Kings which ought to be obserued in the kingdome wherby it semeth the Knight would haue vs imagine though he vtter it not that the same prohibition of Appeales might haue byn made and practized by other former Kings liuing before the Conquest it is found to be but a meere Cauill both by the Catholicke Deuine that shewed out of authenticall histories the coÌ„trary practise vnder all our Catholicke Kinges both before after the Conquest as here likewise it is conuinced by the words and confession of this King Hâ—Ì„ry the second himself that these pretended liberties of his Ancestours were brought in by himself only and in his tyme as is testifyed by Houeden in two seuerall Charters one of the Pope and the other of the King as also by an authenticall Record of the Vatican set downe by Baronius in his tweluth Tome So as here the Iudge hath nothing to lay hands on but to giue sentence against himself both of the Nimium and Nihil dicit as now yow haue seene And so much for this matter HOW THAT THE foresaid Nimium dicit as it importeth falsum dicit is notoriously incurred by Syr Edward Cooke in sundry other assertions also apperteyning to his owne faculty of the law which were pretermitted by the Catholike Deuine in his Answere to the 5. Part of Reportes §. V. FOR so much as the most part of this seauenth Chapter hath beene of omissions and pretermissions as you haue seene and these partly oâ— M. Morton in concealing such charges of vntruthes as had byn laid both against him as also against his Client Syr Edward partly of Syr Ed. himself in not answering for himself when he ought to haue done I thought it not amisse in this place to adioyne some other omissions in like manner on the behalfe of the Catholike Deuine who passed ouer in silence sundry notable escapes of his aduersary M. Attorney which he coÌ„mitted in cyting law-books and lawyers authorities against the Popes ancient iurisdictioÌ„ in spirituall cases in England and this partly for that he had not as then all the Bookes by him which were quoted and partly vpon a generall presumption that in this poynt M Atâ—orney would be exact for that he had so solemnly protested the same in his booke of Reportes as before hath byn touched to wit that he had cyâ—ed truly the verâ— words and textes of the lawes resolutions iudgments Acts of Parlament all publike and in print without any inference argumeÌ„t or amplification quoting particulerly the bookes yeares leaues chapters and other such like certaine references as euery man at his pleasure may see and read them 81. This is his protestation who would not belieue a man especially such a man and in such a matter at his word or rather vpon so many words so earnestly pronouÌ„ced especially if he had heard his new and fresh confirmation therof which he setteth â—orth in this other Preface to his sixt part wherin he sayth that euery man that writeth ought to be so careâ—ull of setting downe
belongeth as appeareth euidently by Cirendon and the Bishop of Lincolnes case in Plowdens Commentaries fol. 498. where it is said that because all aduowsons and lands within the realme are held eyther immediatly or mediatly of the King the land where the Church is situate before the Church was builded was held of the king so in respect of the tenure of the king the presentment by lapse accrueth vnto him as supreme Patron and not in respect of the supreme iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall which the Statute of 25. H. 8. did first of all ascribe vnto his temporall Crowne 90. Vnder the same king 17. E. 3.23 he citeth another law-booke thus The king may not only exempt any Ecclesiasticall person from the iurisdiction of the Ordinary but may graunt vnto him Episcopall iurisdiction as thus it appeareth there the king had done in ancient tyme to the Archdeacon of Richmond So he But if you read the booke it self here cited of 17. E. 3 23. you shall fynd that no such assertion can be founded there For thus the case standeth in that booke Stouff a Sergeant at law sayd that the Archdeacon of Richmond had the office of the Ordinary and I thinke quoth he by lâ—aue of the king This is all the case there related where you see that Sergeant Sâ—ouâ—â— affirmeth not that he knew it to be so but did thinke so that the said Aâ—chdeacon of Ricâ—mond had the office of tâ—e Ordinary by leaue of the king and much lesse did he auouch as Syr Edward doth for him that the king gaue or graunted vnto him that â—piscopall iurisdiction which is not warranted but rather ouerthrowne by that booke as you see for that the Archdeacon might haue his Episcopall Authority if he had any by grâ—unt from the Pope and licence only of the king and so this aâ—â—â—ueraâ—ion â—tanding but vpon a collection of M. Attorney falleth to the ground 91. It â—olloweth in M. Attorney his Reports vnder the same K. Ed. 3. All religious or Ecclesiasticall houses saiâ—h he wherof the king was founder are by the king exempt frâ— ordinary Iurisdiction only visitable corrigible by the K. Ecclesiasticâ—ll commission and for this he citeth tâ—ese books 20. E. 3. ExcoÌ„ 9.16 E. 3. titâ— Brâ— 660.21 E. 3.60.6 H. 7.14 Fitz. Nat. Breuâ— But in none of these bookes shall you find these words that thâ—y are only visitable or corrigible by the K. Ecclesiasticall commissioÌ„ This is Syr Edwards owne inuention The books quoted do speake of hospitals and free Chappels of the Kings foundation which are not visited by the Ordinary for that they are things temporall and without cure of soules and therfore not spirituall or Ecclesiasticall nor to be visited in those dayes according to the common-law by the Bishop but by the kings Chancellour as a temporall officer as testifyeth Fitzherb in his Nat. Br. â—ol 42. A. though afterward in K. H. 5. tyme for remedying of discoâ—ders it was decreed in the 2. yeare of his raigne that the visitation and correction of such Hospitals and free Chaphels of the Kings foundation or of his subiects should be done by the Ordinaries according to the Ecclesiasticll laws 2. H. 5. cap. 1. in Rastals Abridgment tit Hospitals So as heere the principall wordes of controuersie to wiâ— by the kings Ecclesiasticall â—ommission are feigned and put in by M. Attorney and this is his ordinary art to seeme to haue somewhat in fauour of his purpose when it is nothing at all but agaiâ—st him 92. It followeth in Syr Edw. instances â—ol 15. The king shall present in his free Chappels in default of the Deane by lapse in â—â—spect of his supreme Ecclesiastiâ—all iurisdiction citing for iâ— 27. Ed. 3. fol. 84. But heere againe I find a â—oule fitten for his booke hath not these words in respect of the kings supreme Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction which is heere made the principall verbe of this part of speach and often thrust in by M. Attorney of his owne inuentioÌ„ but the meaning of his booke is as he cannot but know that the king in such cases shall present not in respect of supreme Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction but as supreme Patron temporall for that aduowsons or patronage of such benefices are meere temporall inheritances according to our coÌ„mon-lawes as ofteÌ„ hath beene declared and therfore the King being founder may by lapse present 93. An other like fitten or rather more foule is coÌ„mitted by him in the same place alleaging out of 22. Edward 3. lib. Assis. pl. 75. that tythes arising in places out of any parish the king shall haue them â—or that he hauing the supreme Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction he is bound to prouide a sufficient Pastour that shall haue the cure of soules of that place which is not within any parish And by the common lawes of Englâ—nd saith he it is euident that no man vnlesse he be Ecclesiasticall or haue Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction can haue inheritance of tythes Thus much M. Attorney to proue that K. Ed. 3. had supreme Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction not the Pope in his dayes But heere be so many scapes fraudes and errours as is a shame to see For first in his booke quoted there is not fouÌ„d those words that principally import the controuersie that he as hauing supreme Ecclesasticall iurisdictionâ— is bound to prouide a sufficieÌ„t Pastour but all this is thrust in by M. Attorney to make vp his market Secondly much lesse is this yeelded for a reason by his booke why the king should haue such tythes as lay out of all parishes but another reason more substantiall is to be alleaged of being temporall Lord of the Lands which presently we shall touch 94. Thirdly it is not true that the king as hauing supreme Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction is bound to prouide a sufficieÌ„t Pastour to haue cure of soules of that place which is not within any parish both for that it may appertaine to a particuler subiect to dispose of those tythes if he be temporall Lord of the place without hauing supreame Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction and the emolument may be so small or the place it selfe so vast and remote as eyther there be few soules to haue cure of or the maintenance not sufficient for a Pastour Fourthly it is false that by the common-laws of England no man vnlesse he be Ecclesiasticall or haue Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction can haue the disposing of tythes for that euery man before the diuision of particuler parishes was made though he was bound by diuine and Canonicall-law to pay his tythes of his lands yet might he according to the coÌ„mon-lawes of England haue assigned them to what Parish he would Now let vs see the case it selfe as it is proposed in 22. Ed. 3. lib. Asâ— pl. 75. 95. The king granted certayne tythes vnto the Prouost of C. out of certayne lands newly asserted in the forest of RockingaÌ„ and the said Prouost therupon brought a writ of Scire facias
A QVIET AND SOBER RECKONING VVITH M. THOMAS MORTON somewhat set in choler by his Aduersary P. R. CONCERNING Certaine imputations of wilfull falsities obiected to the said T. M. in a Treatise of P. R. intituled Of Mitigation some part wherof he hath lately attempted to answere in a large Preamble to a more ample Reioynder promised by him But â—eere in the meane space the said imputations are iustified and confirmed with much increase of new vntruthes on his part returned vpon him againe So as finally the Reckoning being made the Verdict of the Angell interpreted by Daniel is verified of him Daniel 5. vers 27. Appensus es in statera inuentus es minus habens You haue byn weighed in the ballance are found to want weight There is also adioyned a peece of a Reckoning with Syr Edward Cooke now L. Chief Iustice of the CoÌ„mon Pleas about a Nihil dicit some other points vttered by him in two late Preambles to his sixt and seauenth Partes of Reports Permissu Superiorum M. DC IX THE STATE OF THE QVESTION handled in this Booke MAISTER Thomas Morton vpon the yeare 1606. tooke vpon him to write a malicious Disâ—oâ—erie against Catholicks and their doctrine about Rebellion presently vpon the powder-treason and the Pamphlet was soone after confuted and returned vpon himselfe by the Moderate Answerer he replyed with a discourse intituled A full Satisfaction adding therunto another Treatise against Equiuocation To this opposed himselfe P. R. Author of the Treatise tending to Mitigation and handled in the same both the one and other subiect charging him further with many foule faultes of witting falsehood wherunto M. Morton hath exhibited now lastly a large new Preamble with promise of another booke to follow in time that is to say he hath presented a great head without a body and this with no small signes of extraordinary impatience For pacifying wherof P. R. hath takeÌ„ the paines to reuiew oâ—â—er againe the accompts and findeth him farre more faultie then before For that in lieu of clearing old debts he contracteth new and in excusing former falsities he multiplieth many other So as now The chiefe question commeth to be Whether M. Mort. in the cause he defendeth can write truely or no whether his falshood therin be voluÌ„tary or necessarie or rather both that is to say voluntary in respect of himselfe that might haue omitted them and necâ—ssarie in regard of his cause that could not be defended without themâ— and consequently in different respects both voluntary and necessary In which point M. Morton holdeth the negatiue I the affirmatiue The Reader shall see the proofes of both sides A BRIEF NOTE OF THE CHAPTERS VVHICH ARE set forth more largely in the end of this Booke with their seuerall Paragraphes THE first conteyneth the Answere to M. Morton his first Inquiry about the VVit Learning Memorie c. of his Aduersary P.R. 2 The second answereth the secoÌ„d Inquiry about some points touching the subiect of Rebellion and Equiuocation 3 The third haÌ„dleth a part of the third Inquiry about many falsities obiected by M. Morton against Cardinall Bellarmine 4 The fourth discusseth like imputations of falsities obiected by him against his Aduersary P. R. 5 The fift examineth how substaÌ„tially M. Morton endeauoureth to â—â—â—are himselfe from many wilfull vntruthes obiected against him by P.R. 6 The sixt layeth forth a great number of vntruthes obiected to M. Morton which he pretermitteth without answere or mention 7 The seauenth wherin are haÌ„dled diuers other sorts of voluntary omissions of M. Morton aswell in defending himself as the credit of his Clients commended vnto him and namely of Syr Edward Cooke now Lord Chiefe Iustice. 8 The eight treateth diuers seuerall points with the sayd Syr Edward Cooke about two new Prefaces of his lately set forth in print 9 The ninth returning to M. Morton againe layeth togeather another choice number of new falsities and falshoods made in excuse of the old 10 The tenth and last handleth twelue new Challenges made by M. Morton after the Victory lost There is added for an Appendix in the end a Case of Equiuocation newly written from England to be resolued about the false Oath of two Ministers VVherin there is mention also made of D. Kings Sermon at the Court vpon the fiâ—th of Nouember 1608. Cyprian lib. 4. Ep. 9. A pud prophanos extra Ecclesiam positos esse aliud non potest nisi mens praua fallax lingua odia venenata sacrilega mendacia Idem lib. 1. Ep. 3. ad Cornelium Haec est verè dementia non cogitare nec sentire quòd mendacia non diu fallant noctem tamdiu esse quamdiu illucescat dies clarificato autem die sole oboâ—to luci tenebras caliginem cedere Hilarius lib. de Trinit Haeretici cùm stultè mentiantur stultiùs tamen in mendacij sui defensione sapiunt THE EPISTLE DEDICATORY TO THE VNIVERSITIES OF ENGLAND MVCH more then one yeare is not yet past learned CouÌ„try-men since I preseÌ„ted vnto you a Treatise intituled of Mitigation in answere of an other most bitterly writteÌ„ by M. Thomas Morton Miniâ—â—er about Rebellion Equiuocation In which Treatise of myne besydes the two said poynts of principall argument handled at large especially the later as more capable of varietie in the Treatise therof a great multitude of falsities were layd open as vttered by M. Morton and those so frequent grosse and palpable as they must needes be thought to haue beene both willfull and witting the censure wherof notwithstanding I was content to remitt vnto yow as presuming more of the integrity of your iudgments in poynts of learning and matter of fact then distrusting the sequele of your vnequall affections by reason of our difference in religion 2. This Treatise M. Morton perusing fynding himselfe as it seemeth not a litle strayned therein was carried therby into so great exorbitant a streame of passion as neyther he could stay himselâ—e from answering somewhat out of hand therby to preueÌ„t the Readers preiudice as himselfe confesseth nor yet daring to ioyne yssue vpon my booke and argument therof as it lay did after a strange new fashionâ— deuise to set forth a Preamble for some present remedy accompanied with a promise of a larger booke Reioynder to ensue afterwards And I do call this a strange deuise not only for that I haue not seene the same often practized by any writer lightly except Syr Edward Cooke who perhaps by this mans imitation hath answered of late with a Preface of lesse then foure leaues in quarto his Aduersaries booke of more then two hundred against him but also for that in this Preamble which inlargeth it selfe to aboue two hundred twentie pages there is not the tenth part bestowed vpoÌ„ the two chiefe Questions of Rebellion Equiuocation but rather vpon other matters subiects framed by himselfe of nâ—w wheâ—of thâ— most may iusâ—ly be deâ—med wholy
lacke of Charity for the same yea making this questioÌ„ in the last lynes therof How in so manifest impudency any argument of modestie can appeare wherby we see the power of anger when it taketh possession of our tongue what it can doe 76. But this tempest of passion being past you haue seene I sâ—ppose that we two haue quietly and soberly made vp this reckoning betweene vs the total summe wherof commeth to be this in effect that as I had reason to charge M. Morton as I did finding him so different from the Originall booke so he though he had lighted vpon an other edition had no reason out of iudgmeÌ„t discretion to vrge so manifest an escape of the print for so it must be taken to the exprobration of two worthy learned authours as Carerius and Mancinus are and coÌ„sequently that M. Morton notwithstanding all his dâ—fence must needes be thought to haue dealt craftely and to haue equiuocated eyther materially or formally in vrging so much verè for verò bringing the same in againe two or three times aftâ—rward as you will see Let vs passe then to some other poynt if you please of more importance THE OBIECTION OF M. Morton against the Modâ—stie of P. R. §. VII TThe proper tytle of this Paragraph as it standeth in M. Morâ—oÌ„s booke is this An argument oâ— P. R. his kind oâ— modestie accompanied with a presumptuous falshood and in the Catalogue of his Chapters P. R. his presumptuous falshood in charging T. M. with falsiâ—ie in the allegation of the testimonie of Doleman Where you see that besides falshood he chargeth me with prâ—sumption and theÌ„ce belike with lacke of modestie for presuming to charge so vpright a man as he with falsitie Wherfore let vs make the accompt friendlâ— and see where the measure eyther of modestie or truth or want of both will be found The charge given by P. R. 78. First I do shew in the former part of my Treatise of Mitigation about Rebellion that M. Moâ—ton leauing the questions of Diuinitie attending principally to sedition exacerbation matters of meere sycophaÌ„cie against Catholicks in generall in respâ—ct of their receiued doctrine to make them therbâ— diffident and odious to his Matie of England sâ—tteth downe this Minor proposition out of a calumnious syllogisme framed by him But all Popish Priests vpon this pretended Supremacie and prerogatiue of Pope and people do vtterly abolish the title of succession in all Protestant Princes Ergo And his ergo is to a good purpose as you may asâ—ure your selfe In which heynous slaunder you may note first that albeit he name heere only Priests yet doth he meane it also of all lay-meÌ„ that hold the same doctrine with Priests therby strikâ—th at all their throats at once so raÌ„ke is his malice 79. After this I shewed sundrie sortes of malignaÌ„t falsities to be contayned in this minor proposition of his That all Priests without exception vpon this pretended Supremacie and prerogatiue of Pope and people do vtterly abolish all title of succession in all ProtestaÌ„t Princes For first I shew that Catholicke doctrine giueth not Supremacie or prerogatiue ouer Princes to the people but that this is rather the doctrine of the chiefest Protestants of our time so taught and so practised by them in all countryes where they haue dealt against their Superiours and especially in England and Scotland 80. Secondly I do shew that for so much as no such prerogatiue of people is pretended by our doctrine it cannot truly be said that vpon this pretended prerogatiue all Popish Priestes do abolish c. No nor vpon the suprâ—macie or prerogatiue which we ascribe to the Pope himselfe for that the right or not right of Protestant Princes succession to Kingdomes dependeth not of the Popes prerogatiue but of the Canons of the Church and temporall Statutes of particuler Realmes and Kingdomes Thirdly that it is an exaggeration to say as he doth that all Priestes do vtterly abolish c. in all Protestant Princes c. And now you know that exaggerations in capitall accusations are heynous crymes and shew great lack of conscience and charity in the accusers 81. And to proue this to be an exaggeration that all Priestes did vtterly aâ—olish the tytle of succession in all Protestant Princes I alleadged contrary examples in all the protestant Princes that euer succeeded in England since the beginning of the world who are knowne to be but three in number King Edward Queene Eliâ—abeth and King Iames who were admitted both by Priestes and lay-men ergo all Priestes do not vtterly abolish all succession in all protestant Princes c. and consequently some moderation must be granted on our side against this odious exaggeration 82 Next after this M. Morton bringeth in no lesse enuious and hatefull a proposition out of Doleman saying that Doleman doth pronounce sentence that whosoeuer shall consent to the succession of a Protestant Prince is a most grieuous and damnable sinner but the booke is examined Dolemans wordes are found to be these only that for any man tâ— giue his helpe consent or assistance towardes the making of a King whom he iudgeth or belieueth to be faultie in Religion c. is a most grieuous and damnable sinne in him that doth it oâ— what side soeuer the truth be or how good or bad soeuer the partie be that is preferred which last wordes do shew M. Morton to be a calumniator in suppressing them and affirming that to be spoken only against the succession of protestant Princes which is spoken as well against Catholicks as Protestants and meant more principally of election then successioÌ„ as may appeare by these words If any man shall giue his helpe to the making of a King c. 83. Here now M. Morton runneth aside from the purpose and to auoid the necessitie of defending himselfe directly alleadgeth out of M. Reynolds D. Stapleton and Simancas diuers sentences wherby they signifie that in preferring of a Prince religion ought to haue the first place in consideration which he applying to vs that do condemne Protestant religion will needes inferre therof that wee do vtterly abolish all tyâ—le oâ— succession in Protestant Princes 84. But doth not the malicious man see that the same inference may be made of all Professours of other Religions in like manner As for example If Protestants were to admit a King in France and it lay in their handes to preferre eyther a Protestant or a Catholicke would any man doubt whome they would prefer or whome they ought to preferre according to the rules of their owne conscience or will any learned or honest Protestant deny eyther that Religion in generall is chiefely to be respected or that his one religion is not to be preferred before others if it lay in his power Let vs put the case that a King of England or France hauing diuers Princely Children and one of them being taken by the Turkes or
a more ancient edition then this by 26. yeares this treasure so much bragged of by M. Morton is not extant 9. And as for the two pointes touched therin the one a iest as himselfe tearmeth it about changing of names by antiphrase the other of the first occasion therof by Pope Sergius neither of them hath any sound subsistance at all for that to speake first of the second the narration of Platina in the life of Pope Sergius 2. who was chosen Pope vpon the yeare of Christ 844. that he being called first Os Porci or Os-Porcius changed his name into Sergius himselfe proposeth the matter very doubtingly saying Sunt qui dicant there are some who say that Sergius 2. was called before Os Porci and so changed his name Vtâ—unque sit constat Sergium ex Illustri familia natum howsoâ—uer be it it is â—uident that this Sergius was of a Noble Familie so as heere Platina relateth it but as a report of some and namely as is thought out of Martinus Polonus a simple credulous writer as all learned men do know 10. But further then this Onuphrius Panuinus a very learned man of our age confuteth this tale much more effectually out of the history of Anastasius Bibliothecarius that according to the accompt of Tritemius other learned men lyued in that very tyme when Pope Sergius did and had chiefe care of the Roman Library and wrote the life of this Sergius 2. and therin sheweth euidently where of what noble parents he was borne how brought vp by what meanes chosen Pope and that before his Popedome he was called Sergius and saith no word of changing of his name nor of Os Porci and yet he may be presumed to haue byn present at his election by the many particularityes which he setteth downe of the same Besides it is to be noted that Os Porci or Os-Porcius is the surname of the family which no Pope is wont to change but only the Christian or proper Name as when of late Hippolytus Aldobrandinus was called Clemens 8. he changed not the name of Aldobrandinus but only of Hippolytus and the like in other Popes wherefore though the surname of Sergius had bin Os Porci yet would he neuer haue changed that but only his proper name 11. The forsaid Onuphrius also in his notes vpon the life of Pope Iohn the 12. a noble Roman called before Octauianus who was chosen Pope vpon the yeare 955. more then a hundred yeares after Sergius sheweth by many arguments that he was the first of the Popes that changed their names at their election And Cardinall Baronius hauing found an old Epitaph written in marble in the Church of S. Iohn Lateran in Rome of Pope Sergius the fourth chosen Pope vpon the yeare 1009. an other hundred yeares after the forâ—said Pope Iohn the 12. doth manifestly shew out of this Epitaph that the said Sergius the fourth being called Peter before did out of the reuerence and respect he bare to that name leaue it and tooke the name of Sergius which was the cause why others especially Martinus Polonus mistaking one Sergius for another did ascribe it to Sergius the second 12. But howsoeuer this be as Platina before said concerning the first Author oâ— this changing of names which litle importeth certayne it is that M. Morton did falsely maliciously abuse this iest of Polidore or of whom soeuer it be about naming Popes by Antiphrase Nor is he able to defend himselfe now but rather as iâ— falleth out commonly in vntwisting of lies he hath entangleth himselfe much more or rather conuinced himselfe of open falsity For first he saith to his Maiesty as now yow haue heard that Polidore obserueth that Popes for a long time in their election had their names changed by Antiphrase viz. the elected if he were by naturall disposition fearfull was named Leo iâ— cruell Clemens if vnciuill Vrbanus if wicked Pius c. But now by the latin words of Polidore brought in by M. Morton himself it appeareth that he saith not so to witt that Popes for a long tyme had their names so changed by Antiphrase Nay he affirmeth it not of any one of all the whole ranke of Popes but saith only and in iest that some might be so called by changing of names not answerable to their dispositions 13. This then is the first inexcusable vntruth wittingly and willingly auouched to the Kings Maiesty and now againe auerred to the Honour of my Lord of Salisbury to whome notwithstanding he writeth in the Dedicatory Epistle of this Preamble that he is content to vndergo all the crimes obiected against him if it may be proued that he durst affirme an vntruth before his Lordship But he that durst do it so confidently to the King it may easely be presumed that he will dare it to the other also And heere I must charge him to haue done it vnto them both vntill he can defend himselfe 14. His second falshood was the leauing out of those words of Polidore non extra iocum dictum sit let not this be spoken by vs or be vnderstood to be spoken by vs but in iest or for a merriment wherby the writer would signify that this pleasant conceipt came into his head that by this changing of names such an Antiphrase or contrariety of names and dispositions might be practised which wordes if M. Morton had related in his first quotation of Polidore the matter had bin well qualified of it selfe But this made not for his purpose which was to scoffe at Popes and make them contemptible by the help of Polidore And I doubt not but that this was the cause why he quoted neyther booke nor Chapter in that allegation least we should haue found out this which now himselfe is forced to produce to his owne shame and condemnation 15. But now perhaps the reader will demaÌ„d what hath M. Morton answered to these two Chapters in this his Preamblatorie Reply Hath he cleered himselfe of falshood No but rather doubled the same For to the first this only he answereth What haue I reported from Polidore viz. that Popes names were changed by Antiphrase or contrary speach to couer their defectes this is no whit differeÌ„t from the testimony of Polidore who saith that if the Pope were before his creatioÌ„ wicked he did take the name of Godly vpon him if rigorous then Gentle c. This is his defence But we haue shewed now the same to be false and it is conuinced out of the foresaid latin wordes of Polidore who saith only that by the liberty of changing names there may such Antiphrases be brought in but saith not that it was practised in any one Liceat mutare saith he they may chaÌ„ge their names if they will This falshood then is doubled by himselfe which is the first 16. The second is of concealing or leauing out deceiptfully in his firâ—t citation the
the testimonies of all other writers especially of Italy that liued with him therby knew best both his life and death And yet said I all this notwithstanding will this false ladde T. M. needes set downe this history as true affirming it for such and neuer so much as giuing his Reader to vnderstand that any other denyed the same or that the only Author himselfe of this fiction doubted therof And is not this perfidious dealing Or can any man excuse him from falshood and malice in this open treachery The pretended discharge 22. This was the Charge What doth he now answere for the discharge of this imputation First for a ground of euasion he saith I do truly protest for the man is euery where full of protestations that I did not write this out oâ— the Author himselfe which I had neuer seene but from collection out of some other bookes So he Which though it be a thing litle standing with his owne credit to confesse yet in this protestation he must giue me leaue not easely to beleeue him and this â—or two or three reasons First for that he hath made many protestations in his former bookes to God the King the L. of Salisbury and others of true and sincere proceeding and doth iterate the same heere againe in many places and especially in the end of this Preamble with great solemnity vnder the names of new Chalenges wherin notwithstanding I find him to haue practized the quite contrary to his protestations 23. The second reason is for that it is not probable that he hauing to lay so great and greiuous an accusation vpon our English Pope Adrian held by the Christâ—an world of his tyme for a holy and renowned man and this vpon the only testimony of Nauclerus he would presume to do it without looking vpon the Author himselfe or if he did it must needes argue him of great temerity and of the same crime that heere he would auoyd to wit of falshood and malice and perfidious dealing For iâ— in England one should accuse another of murther or any other like greiuous crime and that resolutly and affirmatiuely in publike iudgment as this was presented by him to the Kings Maiestie of England and to all Englishmen besides in a printed booke and this only vpon hear-say that some man had spoken it and the man being in the Citty to be found out as Nauclerus booke was in London yet that he would not so much as seeke him out nor speake with him but go presently to the Kinges Bench and accuse the other and cause the arraignment to be made and when the witnesse denied the same he should excuse himselfe saying as M. Morton doth heere It is true and I do truly protest that I did neuer see the man or speake with him but framed my accusation vpon hear-say were not this sufficieÌ„t to condemne this man of falshood and malice 24. My third reason is for that he set downe in the citation the very latin wordes themselues of Nauclerus thus Hadrianus Pontifex excommunicationem Henrico secundo dâ—nuÌ„cians ipse à Dâ—o maledictus a musca suffocatus est Naucler geuer 139. Adrian the Pope pronouncing excommunication against the Emperour Henry the second himself being cursed by God was choked with a flye Which wordes are not to be found in Nauclerus as heere they lye nor yet in Vrspergensis out of whom Nauclerus reciteth this fable but his wordes are these Cumque venisset ad quendaâ— fontem haâ—sit et bibit ac continuò vt fertur musca os cius intrauit c. And when as he came to a certaine well he tooke water and drunke it and presently as it is reported a fly entred into his mouth could not be gotten forth vntill he died So Vrspengensis saith Nauclâ—rus And then refuteth it both by the testimonies of all Italian writers which he could read of Iohn Salisburiâ—nsis whome he calleth Falsboriensis who was familiar with Adrian himself and testified his vertues And if M. Morton had not seene nor read Nauclerus as heere to excuse himself he saith how did he presume to sett downe his latin wordes so precisely as his reader could haue noe probable cause to doubt but that they were his owne proper wordes VVas not this craâ—tie perfidious dealing So as to me it seemeth that M. Morton by this first part of this euasion which consisteth in his protestation that he he had not seene nor read the booke doth more intangle himselfe in the crimes of falsity and malice which he pretendeth to auoyd then if he had simply confessed the same But let vs see the other parts of his Answere 25 Secondly then he confesseth that he erred in the misquotatioÌ„ of the GeneratioÌ„ cited out of Nauclerus to wit 139. for 39. and goeth about to proue that there was no malice therin which I easily graunt nor did I obiect it as any corruption but only aduised him of it as an errour And therfore his long excuse of that matter which was neuer vrged against him sheweth that he seeketh occasions to intertaine himselfe and to make a shew that he answereth somwhat where in effect he saith nothing 26. Thirdly he confesseth that he should haue sayd Fredericke the first for Henry the second against whome he accused Pope Adrian to haue moued sedition and saith for his excuse VVhat skilleth it whether it was Henry an Emperour or Fredericke an Emperour that was excommunicatedâ— wheras the intended conclusion was only this that Adrian the Pope did excommunicate an Emperour and conspired against him But this now is not so tollerable as the former excuse no nor tollerable at all in a learned man especially in an accusation of so great weight wherin the accuser ought to be exact and precise M. Morton saith it importeth no more then in an examinatioÌ„ of a murther whether the wound were giuen by the right hand or by the left but â—e is deceiued or would deceiue in this For that error personae is of another maÌ„ner of weight in such kind of accusatioÌ„s then M. Mort. would seeme to make For if Thomas Haruey for example should be accused to haue murthered secretly Henry Denham and that Thomas Harueys friends could proue that Henry Denham was dead two hundred yeares before Tho. Haruey was borne as Henry the second was very nere before Fredericke and Adrian should this import no more then whether Denham were slaine with the right or with the left hand of Haruey wheras he could not be slaine by him at all Heere then you see that matters are not exactly handled by M. Morton in this his false accusation of Pope Adrian 27. Wherfore in the fourth place concerning the principall point it selfe of alleaging Nauclerus as a witnesse of the disastrous death of Pope Adrian by a fly he answereth litle or nothing to the purpose for excuse of his guilfull dealing therin though he turne
here recounteth them Et hoc regnum terrenum vmbra tamen suit spiritualis regiminis in Ecclesia Christiana and yet this earthly Kingdome of the Iewes was a shaddow of the spirituall gouerment that was to be in the Christian Church meaning therby the most excellent spirituall power and gouerment ouer soules which Christ was to institute in his Church at his comming in flesh to wit the power of absoluing from synnes vpon earth the assistance giuen by the Sacraments and the like were shadowed in a certaine manner by the earthly Ecclesiasticall Kingdome among the Iewes And how doth T. M. now translate these wordes and frame our obiection out of them The old Testament sayth he was a figure of the new in Christ therfore in the new the Popedome is the substantiue c. Here are two short propositions you see the Antecedent Consequent and both framed with falshood for that the Antecedent set downe as out of Salmeron is not that which he affirmeth in his Latin words as already we haue shewed though otherwise in it selfe the proposition be true to wit that the old Testament was a figure of the new in Christ nor will I thinke T. M. denie it There followeth then the Consequent or second proposition that therefore in the new the Popedome is the substantiue which is no lesse corruptly inferred in our name then was the Antecedent affirmed for that we do not inferre nor yet the Author Carerius in the said second propositioÌ„ or CoÌ„sequence by him alleaged that for so much as the old Testament is a figure of the new therefore in the new the Popes spirituall authority is the substantiue c. for that this were a weake inference as euery man seeth Nay Carerius maketh no infereÌ„ce at all in the place by him alleaged but only vseth that similitude which before you haue heard of the substantiue and adiectiue So as this inference is only a fiction of the Minister to make himselfe other men merry and to giue occasion to play vpon his aduersarie with reproach of Childhood and babish grammer as now he hath done but indeed the true Consequence that may be made vpon the Catholicke Authors words which hitherto he hath alleaged is only this that for so much as the Kingdome and gouerment among the Iewes euen in Ecclesiasticall things was but earthly and a figure or shadow in respect of that which was to be ouer soules in the Christian Church it followeth that this in respect of spirituality was to be much more emynent then the other as the thing figured then the figure or shadow it selfe And what inconuenience hath this doctrine that it should be called Childhood and babish grammer So much I set downe in my former reprehension of M. Morton for this abuse of Salmeron all which he now in his last Reply thought best to passe ouer with sylence for that belike he esteemed it not sufficiently insisted vpon by me therby to presse him to answere it But this may be amended at another tyme and so I passe on now to recount others of like sort THE NINTH Pretermitted falshood by Thomas Morton §. IX THERE followeth now against Dolman a like sleight thus recorded by me in my booke M. Mortons second reason why his Maiesties Catholicke Protestant subiects may not liue togeather in England is For that all Popish Priests sayth he dâ— attribute a double prerogatiue ouer Kings that is to say a Democraticall and Monarchicall soueraigne Ciuill power the first to the people the second to the Pope And for proofe of the first concerning the people he alleageth foure seueral authorities of Catholick wryters but so corruptly perfidiously as if nothing els did shew his talent of cogging treacherous dealing this were sufficient to discouer the same though afterwards greater store will occure we shall runne ouer briefly all those foure 45. First he saith that Dolman in his Conâ—erence about Succession hath these words The common wealth hath authority to choose a King and to lymit him lawes at their pleasure which if it were truly alleadged as it lieth in the Author yet here is no mention oâ— the people or of Democraticall state but only of the Common wealth which includeth both nobility and people and all other States Secondly Dolmans words are not of choosing a King but of choosing a forme of gouerment be it Democraticall Aristocraticall or Monarchicall Let vs heare the Author himselfe speake In lyke maÌ„â—â—r saith he it is euideÌ„t that as the CoÌ„mon wealth hath this authority to choose chaÌ„ge her gouerment as hath byn proued so hath it also to lymit the same with what lawes and condiâ—ions shee pleaseth wherof ensueth great diuersâ—â—y of authority aâ—d power which ech one of the â—ormer gouerments hath in it selfe So he Where we see that Doleman speaketh of the power which a Common wealth that is deuoid of any certaine gouerment to chuse vnto themselues that forme that best liketh theÌ„ with the limitatioÌ„s they thinke most expedient so we see in Englaâ—d France Polonia Germany Venice Genua and in the Empire it selfe different formes and manners of gouerment with different lawes and lymitations according to the choice and liking of ech Nation This place then of Dolman is corrupted by T. M. both in words and sense For he neither speaketh nor meaneth as the false Minister auoucheth him of gyuing Democraticall power to the people ouer Princes established 46. So wrote I in my former booke And albeit I do not insist and dwell vpon the matter so long as vpon some other sleights yet doth it conteine notable falshood yf yow consider it well first to alleage the words of an Author that are not his and theÌ„ to inferre therof that which neither the words theÌ„selues do beare nor the Author euer dreamed of 47. And here I might alleage diuers other Wryters but especially Iesuits wrongfully abused by him both in cyting of their works and words and falsifying their meaning as namely those three whome he bringeth in for witnes in the end of the fourth Chapter against Equiuocation euen in those places where they do most resolutely affirme Equiuocation to be lawfull namely Azor Emanuel Sà Maldonatus but these will haue their place afterward And so from Iesuits I passe to other Authors who haue receiued the like sort of dealing from him THE TENTH Pretermitted falshood by Thomas Morton §. X. AS you haue heard how M. Morton hath dealt fraudulently with the Iesuits so shall you see him vse the same measure also towards others as namely toward the Paduan Doctor Carerius out of whome he hath made great styrre before if you remember in answering three seuerall tymes at leaâ—t a certaine reprehension of myne for that he cyted the words Celsus verè for Celsus verò though I obiected the same but sleightly by the way said expresly that I held yt for a triâ—le But now you shal
impiety 59. Secondly I say that these words of his are corruptly set downe as ouer commonly els where and that both in latin and English In latin for that he leaueth out the beginning of the Canon which sheweth the drift therof whose title is Damnatur Apostolicus qui suae â—raternae salutis est negligens The Pope is damned which is negligent in the affaire of his owne saluation and oâ— his brethren and then beginneth the Canon Si Papa suae fraternae salutis negligens c. shewing that albeit the Pope haue no Superiour-iudge in this world which may by authority check him vnles he fall into heresie yet shall his damnation be greater then of other synners for that by reason of his high dignity he draweth more after him to perdition then any other Wherby we may perceiue that this Canon was not writteÌ„ to flatter the Pope as Protestants would haue it seeme but to warne him rather of his perill togeather with his high authority 60. After this the better to couer this pious meaning of S. Boniface T.M. alleaging two lines of the same in Latin he cutteth of presently a third line that immediatly ensueth to wit Cum ipso plagis multis in aeternum vapulaturus that such a Pope is to suffer eternall punishmeÌ„ts and to be scourged with many stripes togeather with the Diuell himselfe if by his euill or negligent life he be the cause of others perdition which threat this man hauing cut of he ioyneth presently againe with the antecedent words these as following immediatly in the Canon Huius culpas redarguere praesumet nemo mortalium This mans faultes to wit the Pope no mortall man shall or may presume to reprehend and there endeth In which short phrase are many â—raudes For first he leaueth out iâ—tiâ— here in this life and then for praesumit in the present tense that no man doth presume to checke him in respect of the greatnes of his dignity this man saith praesumet in the future tense that is no man shall presume or as himselfe translateth it may presume to cotroll him which is a malicious falshood And lastly he leaueth out all that immediatly followeth conteining a reason of all that is sayd Quia cunctos ipse iudicaturus à nemine est iudicandus nisi depreâ—endatur à fide deuius c. for that whereas he is Iudge of all other men he cannot himselâ—e be iudged by any except he be found to swarue from the true faith Here then is nothing but fraudulent cyting abusing of Authors 61. But now thirdly remayneth the greatest corruption and abuse of all in his English translation which is that which most importeth his simple Reader that looketh not into the Latin and this is that he translateth the former sentence of the Canon thus as before you haue heard Though he should carry many peoâ—le with him to hell yet no mortall creature may presume to say why do you so But in the Latyn neither here nor in the Canon it selfe is there any such interrogation at all as why do you so And therefore I may aske T. M. why do you lye so Or why do you delude your Reader so Or why do yow corrupt your Author so Or why do yow translate in English for the abuâ—ing of your Reader that which neither your selfe do set downe in your Latin text nor the Canon yt selfe by yow cited hath yt at all Is not this wilfull and malicious fraud Wherin when you shall answere me directly and sincerely it shal be a great discharge of your credit with those who in the meane space will iustly hold you for a Deceiuer 62. Thus I pleaded with M. Morton at that tyme and was earnest inough as you see if not ouer earnest but all will not get an answere Now we shall expect that in his promised Reioinder he will answer all togeather and that he may the better remember to do it I thought conuenient to giue him this new record for remembring the samâ— THE THIRTEENTH falshood wittingly pretermitted by Thomas Morton §. XIII FROM S. Boniâ—ace an Archbishop and the Popeâ— Legate we shall passe to a Pope indeed namely S. Leo the first a man of high esteeme in the Churcâ— of God as all Christians know and therefore the abuse offred to him by M. Morton is the more reprehensible wherof I wrote thus in my last Treatise 63. The eight Father sayth M. Morton is Pope Leo writing to a true Catholike Emperour saying You may not be ignorant that â—our Princely power is giuen vnto you not only in worldly regiment but also spirituall for the preseruation of the Church As if he said not only in Causes teÌ„porall but also in spirituall so far as iâ— belongeth to the outward preseruation not to the personall administration of them and this is the substance of our English Oath And further neither do our Kings of England challeng nor Subiects condescend vnto In which words you see two things are conteined first what authority S. Leo the Pope aboue eleuen hundred yeares agone ascribed vnto Leo the Emperour in matters spirituall and Ecclesiasticall â— The second by this mans assertion that neither our Kings of England challeng nor do the Subiects condescend vnto any more in the Oath of the Supremacy that is proposed vnto them which if it be so I see no cause why all English Catholickes may not take the same in like manner so farre forth as S. Leo alloweth spirituall authority to the Emperour of his tyme. Wherfore iâ— behoueth that the Reader stand attent to the deciding of this question for if this be true which here M. Morton auoucheth our controuersie about the Supremaâ—y is at an end 64. First then about the former point let vs coÌ„sider how many wayes T. M. hath corrupted the foresaid authority of S. Leo partly by fraudulent allegation in Latin and partly by false translation into English For that in Latin it goeth thus as himselfe putteth it downe in the margent Debes incunctanter aduertere Regiam potestatem non solùm ad mundi regimen sed maximè ad Ecclesiae praesidium esse collatam You ought o Emperour resolutly to consider that your Kingly power is not only giuen vnto you for gouerment of the world or wordly aâ—â—aires but especially for defence of the Church and then do ensue immediatly these other words also in S. Leo suppressed fraudulently by the Mynister for that they explicate the meaning of the Author Vt ausus nefarios comprimendo quae bene sunt statuta defendas veram pacem hijs quae sunt turbata restituas To the end that yow may by repressing audacious atteÌ„pts â—oth defend those things that are well ordeined and decreed as namely in the late generall Councell of Calcedon and restore peace where matters are troubled as in the Citty and Sea of Alexandria where the Patriarch Proterius being slayne and murdered by the conspiracy of the
for the tyme to come by the yoke of any Bâ—shop or his Officers but that in all euents of things Controuâ—rsies of Cases they shal be subiect to the dâ—cree of the Abbot of the said Monastery So as c. And theÌ„ doth M. Attorney continue his speach thus 58. This Charter was pleaded in 1. H. 7. vouched by Stanâ—ord as at large appeareth which Charter granted aboue 850. yeares sytâ—ece was aâ—ter confirmâ—d per Edwinum BritaÌ„niâ—e AngioruÌ„ Regem Monarcham anno Domini 955 By which appeareâ—h that the King by this Charter made in Parliament for it appeareth to be made by the Counsâ—ll and consâ—â—nt of his Bishops and Senators of his Kingdome which wâ—re assâ—mâ—led in Parlamâ—nt did discharged and exâ—mpt the said Abbot frâ—m the iurisdiction of the Bishop c. And by the same Charter did grant to the same Abbot Ecclâ—siasâ—icall iurisdiction within his said Abbâ—â— whâ—ch Ecclesiasâ—icall Iurisdiction bâ—ing deriued fâ—oÌ„â—he Câ—oâ—â— contynned vntill the dissoluâ—ion oâ— the said Abbey in the Raigne 〈◊〉 K. Henry the eight So he 59. And by this you may see what an important ConclusioÌ„ he doth inâ—erre of the Kings supreme Iurisdiction in spirituall affaires at that tyme whereunto the Deuine comming to answere and supposing that M. Attorney would not â—alsify or bely his Authors hauing protested most solemnly fol. 40. oâ— his Booke that he had citâ—d truly the very words and texts oâ— the lawes resolutions iudgmâ—nts and actes of Paâ—lament all 〈…〉 and in print without any inâ—erence argumâ—nt or ampliâ—icaâ—iâ—n quoting particulerly the Bookes years leaues Chapters and other such lâ—ke certayne referencâ—s as euery man at his 〈◊〉 may see and read them c. The Answerer I say hearing this formall protestation and supposing besides that the man would haue some respect to â—is credit honour in this behalf granting all as it lay answered the same as you may see in his Booke But now vpoÌ„ better search it falleth out that this whole Case was falsely alleaged by M. Attorney in the very point of the principall CoÌ„trouersy in hand about the Kings spirituall Iurisdiction for that whatsoeuer the Charâ—ter did ascribe expresly to the Pope and his authority the Attorney suppressing the true words relateth it as procâ—eding from the King temporall authority of his Crowne For proofe wherof I shall set downe the very words of my learned freÌ„ds letter out of England about this point after view taken of the law bookes themselues and then let any man say how far M. Attorney is to be credited in any thing he writeth or speaketh against Catholicks 60. As concerning saith my friend the Charter of King Kenulphus for the Sanctuary of the Monastery of Abindon you must know that M. Attorney hath egregiously abused his Reader in that and other pointes for the Case standeth thus That in the first yeare of King Henry the 7. Humfrey Stafford was attainted by Act of Parlament of high treason tooke Sanctuary first in Colchester in Essex and after fled to Culnam and tooke Sanctuary in the Abbey of Abindon and being taken from thence brought vnto the Tower of London and from thence brought vnto the Kings Bench he pleaded that he was drawne by force out of the said SaÌ„ctuary of Culnam and praied his Counsaile to pleade that point which by all the Iudges of both Benches was granted vnto him And so they pleaded in this manner 91. Idem Humphridus per Consilium suum dixit quòd Kenulphus Rex MercioruÌ„ per Literas suas pateÌ„tes consilio coÌ„sensu EpiscoporuÌ„ SenatoruÌ„ gentis suae largitus suit Monasterio de Abindon accuidam Ruchino tunc Abbati Monasterij illius quandam ruris sui portionem id est quindecim Mansias in loco qui à Ruricolis â—unc nuncupabatur Culnam cum omnibus vâ—ilitatibus ad eandâ—m partinentibus tam in magnis quam in modicis rebus in aeternam haereditatem Et quòd praedicius Ruchiâ—us ab omni Regis obstaculo â—piscopali â—ure in sâ—mpitâ—rnum esset quietus vt inhabitatorâ—seius nullius Regis aut Miniâ—â—roruÌ„ suorum Episcopiâ—e aut suorum Offiâ—ialium iâ—go inde deprimerentur sed in cunctis rerum euentibus disâ—tissionibus causarum Abbatis Monasterij praedicti decreto suâ—ijâ—â—râ—ntur Ita quòd c. And here ceaseth M. Attorney leauing out as you see in his recitall the wordes that go before ab omni Regis obstaculo that the Monastery should be free from all obstacle of the King as also these words vt inhabitatores eius nullius Regis aut MinistroruÌ„ suorum iugo deprimantur that the inhabitaÌ„ts be not opprest with any yoake of any King or his Ministers Wherby is euideÌ„t that the King in his Charter did for his part giue exemptions from temporall and Royall power But especially the fraud is seene by cutting of the wordes that do ensue which decide the whole controuersy which are these Et etiam allegauit vltra quòd Leo tunc Papa concessit dicto Abbati dictas immunitates priuilegia Et quod Edwinus tunc Britanniae Anglorum Rex Monarchus coÌ„â—â—ssit quòd praesatum Monastâ—rium omnis terrâ—nae sâ—râ—â—tuâ—is esset liberum quae à prâ—decâ—ssoriâ—us suis Catholicis videlicet à dicâ—o sancto Lâ—â—ne Papa dicâ—o Rege Kâ—nâ—lpho c. Et quòd virtute literarum Bullarâ—m praediciarum tâ—mpore conâ—ecâ—ionis earuâ—dâ—m eadem villa de Culnam suit Sanctuarium lâ—cus priuilegiatus c. Which in English is thus And moreouer the said â—umphrey Stafford by his CouÌ„saile alleaged further for himselfe that Pope Leo had granted vnto the said Abbot the said immunities prâ—uiledges that king Edwin theÌ„ King Monarch ouer all the English in Britany had granted that the said Monastery should be free from all earthly seruitude which by his Catholicke predecessors to wit the said holy Pope Leo and the said King Kenâ—lphuâ— was granted and that at the time of the making of the foresaid letters Patents and Bulles the said village or Towne of Culnam was a Sanctuary priuileged place by vertue of the said Patents and Bulles 62. This is word for word the very plea of Humphrey Stafford for the Sanctuary of the Monastery of Abindon as it was pleaded by his learned Counsaile in law euen as it is recorded in the Reports of the years of K. Hâ—nry the seauenth as they are printed by Pinson the law printer in the tyme of K. Henry the eight before the Protestant religion came vp And the Lord Brooke in his Abridgement of the law in the title of Corone placito 129. doth accordingly set downe the same Case with mentioning of the Bulles of Pope Leo for the said immunities and priuileges But all the Protestant editions in the tyme of the late Quene Elizabeth printed by Tottell and Yestwort haue committed a notable tricke of falsification in leauing out altogether these markable words That Leo then Pope did
either in the one or the other point is not proued by any one of all these examples nor by them altogeather though they were granted to be true as here they lye For that they do not proue that either our Kings here mentioned did assume to theÌ„selues to haue Supreme authority in spirituall affaires or to take it from the Pope nay the Catholike Deuine in answering to Syr Edwards obiections herein doth euidently shew and proue yea conuinceth that these fiue English Kings here mentioned to wit King Edward the first Edward the third Richard the second Henry the fourth Edward the fourth vnder whom these Cases fell out did all of them most effectually acknowledge the Popes supreme authority in Ecclesiasticall matters and were obedient Children to the same as he shewed by sundry most cleare and apparant examples of their owne actioÌ„s towards the Sea Apostolike and that these particuler Cases supposing they were all true and fell out as heere they are set downe to wit that the publishing of a Bull of Excommunication in some Causes and vnder some King might be held for Treason as also that the Archbishops lands might be seysed vpon for refusing to admit the Kings presented Clerke that in Parlament it was said that the Regality of the Crowne of England depended not of Rome and that in certaine Cases no suites might be made thither without recourse first to the Ordinaries of England 72. Albeit I say that these things were all granted as they lie yet do they not inferre by any true coÌ„sequence that which the Knight and Minister should proue to wit that for this either these kings were or held themselues for supreme in spirituall authority at that tyme or that it was denied vnto the Pope Wherof this one is a most conuincent argument that the like Cases do or may fall out at this day in other Catholicke Countries and Kingdomâ—s as in France Spaine Naples and Sicily where â—here be diuers Concordates resâ—rictions limitations agreed vpon for auoyding further inconuenieÌ„ces betweene the Pope and Catholicke Kings and Princes concerning the manner of execution of Ecclesiasticall authority without any derogation to the Supremacy therof in the Pope And so might men be punished by the said Princes for breaking rashly the said agreements as they may and are dayly in the said Kingdomes especially in the last and yet do not these Kings thereby either deny the Popes supreme authority or take it to themselues as M. Attorney M. Morton do falsely ininferre in these our cases And thus it is manifest that albeit these exaÌ„ples were in all râ—spects truly alleaged yet are they impertinent to proue that which is pretended And this for the first point 73. But neither is it all true that heere is set down nor as it is set downe which is the second point to be considered For which cause though I find these fyue Cases sufficiently answered by the Catholicke Deuine in his late Booke against M. Attorney yâ—t for tâ—at the said Knight in his last Preface to the sixt part of his Reports doth say that he fyndeth him vtterly ignorant in the lawes of the Realme though as a Deuine he made no profession to be skilfull in the same yet shall I adde somewhat to the reuiew of these Cases whereby it may appeare at leastwise whether he to wit the Deuine or M. Attorney or M. Morton haue vsed the skill of their professions with more sincerity in this matter 74. The first Case thâ—n is thus set downe by M. Morton out of the Attorneys booke though not altogether as it lyeth in his booke but with some aduantage as the Attorney did out of his Bookes whereof he tooke his Case So as here is helping the dye on all haÌ„ds as you see In the Raigne of King Edward the first saith M. Morton a Subiect brought in a Bull of excommunicatiâ— against another Subiect of this Realme and published it But it was answered that this was then according to the ancient lawes of England treason c. as before is set downe 75. Wherein I must note first before I come to examine the answere already made that M. MortoÌ„ can not choose as it seemeth but to vse a tricke or two of his art of iugling euen with M. Attorney himself For whereas he relateth to with the Attorney that this Bull of excommunication was published to the Treasurer of England M. Morton clyppeth of all meÌ„tion of the Treasurer which notwithstaÌ„ding in this Case is of great moment for so much as it semeth that if he had published the same to the Archbishop or Bishops appointed to haue the view of such things and had brought their authenticall testimonies for the same it seemeth by the very booke it self of Iustice Thorpe who recounteth this Case by occasion of the Case of Syr Thomas Seaton and Lucy 30. E. 3. that it had byn litle or no peril at all vnto the publisher for that this reason is alleaged for the offence therein committed that for so much as the partie to wit Lucie against Syr Thomas Seaton did not shew any writ of excommunication or any other thing sealed by the Archbishop of England nor any other Seale that was authentike prouing this therfore the Bull was not allowed c. 76. This then was a fine tricke to cut of all mentioÌ„ of the Treasurer the other also immediatly following hath some subtilitie in it though not so much as the former to wit that it was answered that this was Treason c. for that in none of the bookes cited either of Thorpe or Brooke is any mention of such answere giuen as M. Morton feygneth nor any such iudgment of Treason passed theron as M. Attorney would make his Reader belieue as preseÌ„tly shall be proued So as these are the first two trickes of M. Morton to helpe his dye all the rest for the substance of the matter is like to fall vpon M. Attorney 77. First then the Answere of the Deuine vnto this Case not hauing commoditie at that time to see the two bookes of Thorpe and Brooke cyted in the margent was that it could not possibly be imagined by reason that the Case stood altogeather as M. Attorney did set it downe espâ—cially with this note in the margeÌ„t that the bringing in of a Bull against a subiect was Treason by the ancient coÌ„mon lawes of England before any Statute law was made therof for that the Deuine demandeth what this Common law was not made by Statute How was it made By whome Where At what time Vpon what occasion How introduced and commonly receiued for all this a Common law supposeth especially for so much as the said Deuine had shewed and aboundantly proued now that all precedent Kings of England both before and after the Conquest were most Catholicke in this very point of acknowledging the Popes supreme and vniuersall authority in spirituall affaires wherof the power
of excommunication throughout the world vpon iust causes is a principall member so as except they would introduce a law contrary to their owne beliefe or suffer a law to grow and be made coÌ„mon in their Realme without their knowledge or assent it is absurd to imagine that there could be such a Common law against the Popes ExcoÌ„munications before the dayes of King Edward the first and before any Statute was made against the same as M. Attorney auoucheth 78. Secondly he sheweth out of the testimony of Matth. VVestmonast that this King Edward being in a great heat of offence against the Cleargy of England for that they denied to giue him the halfe of their Rents and goods towards his warres vpon the expresse prohibition of Pope Bonifacius to the contrary which prohibition some Cleargie men vpon feare transgressing had compounded made their peace with the King in that behalfe he doubting least some of the other part of the Cleargy would bring in an ExcoÌ„municatioÌ„ against him or against some of those that had compounded with him made a Decree saith VVestmonaster commanding vnder payne of imprisonment that no man should publish any sentence of Excommunication against the King himselfe or those that had newly sought his protection he making also a prouocation or appeale as well for himselfe as those that stood on his side to the Court of Rome Thus he And now let the prudent Reader consider saith the Deuine that if the King euen in his passion of choler did appoint but imprisonment to be the punishment for bringing in an Excommunication against himselfe and Cleargy men that stood with him how vnlike is it that by the common law it was treason against the King his Realme Crowne and dignity as M. Attorneys thundring words are to bring in an excommunication against a Subiect which is much lesse then against the Kings person himselfe 79. Thirdly the said Deuine though he had not perused the law bookes at that time yet did he yeld the true Cause why priuate men might not bring in excoÌ„munications and publish them at their pleasure as now also is prohibited in other before named Catholicke Kingdomes but they were to be shewed first to a Bishop vnder his Seale were to be certified vnto the Kings Courts which since that time I haue fouÌ„d to be set down expresly in the law-bookes themselues and craftily concealed by M. Attorney for thus is it found written 11. Henr. 4â— fol 64. Hancford the chieâ—e Iustice said that he found in his bookes that in the time of VVill. â—erle who was Iudge in the beginning of the raigne of K. Edward the third euery officer or coÌ„missary of the Bishop might certify excoÌ„municatioÌ„ in the K. Court and for the mischeefe that ensued therof it was aduised by the ParlameÌ„t that none ought to certify excoÌ„munication but only the Bishop soe it is vsed at this day Thus far are Hanckefords words wherby we may see why the partie that published a Bull to the Treasurer of England without the Bishops approbatioÌ„ incurred so high displeasure 80. Fourthly the said Deuine doth conuince M. Attorney out of a Case alleaged by himself afterward in the 31. yeare of the Raigne of King Edward the third where he saith that in an attachment vpon a prohibition the defendant pleading the Popes Bull of excommunication of the Plainâ—iâ—e the Iudges demanded of â—he defendant if he had not the Certificate of some Bishop within the Realme testifying this excommunication c. VVhereby saith he it is made euident first that priuate men were obliged to shew their Bulles vnto some Bishop before they published the same and secondly it appeareth most clearly by the answers of the Iudges that they held it not for treasoÌ„ in those daies nor made any such infereÌ„ce therof for that their only resolution was this that for lacke of this Certificate the partie excoÌ„municated was not thereby disinabled to follow his plea in that Court without saying any one word of danger or punishment against him that had pleaded the Popes Bull of excommunication which they would neuer haue omytted to do if 50 yeares before that vnder K. Edward the first it had bin held for treason by the CoÌ„mon-law to bring in or publish any Excommunication against a Subiect 81. This then was the substance of the Deuines answere at that tyme which though it doth sufficiently conuince M. Attorney to haue abused his Reader egregiously in auouching with such resolution that in K. Edward the first his tyme yt was by the ancient law of England adiudged treason against the king his Crowne and dignytie to publish any Bull of the Popes against any Subiect of the Realme yet hauing synce that tyme had better commodity to informe my self of the lawbooks here meÌ„tioned I wil adde some more proofes to those which now you haue heard 82. First then I must let the Reader vnderstand that neither of those two bookes cited by M. Attorney lib. Ass. pl. 19.30 Ed. 3. and Brooke tit Premunire pl. 10. neither of them I say doth affirme that it was Treason or that there was any iudgment of Treason giuen in that Case which Case is related by Iustice Thorpe 30. Edwardi 3. thus That wheras Syr Thomas Seaton sued a Bill in the Exchequer against a woman named Lucie for calling him Traytor fellon and robber in the presence of the Treasurer and Barâ—ns of the Exchequer in contâ—mpt of the King and slaunder of the Court. Hereupon the said Lucy shewed forth the Popes Bull prouing the plaintiâ—e to be excommunicate and therfore demanded Iudgement whether he should be answered or not And for that she did not shew any writ of excommunication nor any other thing sealed by the Archbishop c. the Bull was not allowed whervpon she was forced to answere and â—leaded not guilty And in that plea Thorpe Iustice said that in the tyme of the Grandfather of the King which was K. Edward the first â—or that one did notify an excommunication of the Apostle to the Treasurer of the King the King would he should haue byn drawne and hanged notwithstaÌ„ding that the Chanceloâ—r and Treasurer did kneele before the King â—or him yet by award he did abiure the Realme and said that the woman was in a hard Case â—or shewing forth this excommunicatioÌ„ if the king would Thus far the said Book 83. VVherein we see first that here is no answere made about treason as M. Morton affirmeth nor iudgment giuen as M. Attorney auoucheth nor any such inference made by the Iudges but only a case related of what K. Edward the first in his anger would haue had to be done to a man that presented an excommunication to the Treasurer to wit he would haue had him hanged and drawne about the same which seming to his Iudges not to be iust or according to law did intreat the King not to put it in execution but rather by way of
for his contempt And if he were attached and would obstinateâ—y reâ—use to obey the Kings commandment in admitting the saiâ— Clerk then might the King for his contempt seyse vpon his tempoâ—alities which were oâ— tâ—e Kings endowment And this was the vttermosâ— that the King could by law do against him for that he could neither imprison nor depose or degrade him there being no presideÌ„t to be found as I suppose of the first And for the second the law it selâ— semeth cleare against it as may appeare by Bracton fol. 401. Stanford â—ol 130. c. But howsoeuer it be this proueth nothing against the Popes spirituall Iurisdicâ—ion in England this matter of Aduowsons being meere tempoâ—all things and of the kings temporall inheritance wherein as in all other temporall affaires Bishops were bound to obserue the temporall lawes 91. The other point also that happened out vnder K. Edward the 3. when one was condeÌ„ned to perpetuall prison for hauing disturbed the Kings Presentee by Bulls from Rome is nothing to the purpose at all for that it apperteined not to the Pope but to the Kings temporall inheritance as hath byn said to present Clerkes to such benefices as were of his peculiar patronage and therfore it was ordeined in the Statute of Carliâ—le in the 25. of Edw. the first that such as went about to disâ—urbe the same vniustly by false informations and negotiations at Rome should be punished at the discretion of the Prince so it were not with losse of lyfe meÌ„ber or of his liuood And what inferreth this Are not the like lawes at this day in Spaine and Sicily and els where against them that traÌ„sgresâ—e ordinations of those Realmes about like affaires Or doth this proue that those Catholike Realmes do not acknowledge the Popes Ecclesiasticall Supremacy Euery child may see the weaknes of these inferences and yet vpon these and the like doth all M. Aâ—torneys Treatise layne and consist 92. As for the other Case vnder K. Richard 2. where it was propounded by the Commons in a certaine narration that the Crowne of England hath byn at all tymes â—ree and in subiection to no Realme nor to the B. of Rome touching the Regality of the Crowne c. it is so fully answered by the Deuine in his Reply to the Reports as no more needeth to be said For that they speake but of temporall regalities and haue some reference also as may be supposed vnto the time when the Sea Apostolicke after the concession of K. Iohn preteÌ„ded teÌ„porall right also in that Crown And the answere oâ— the Bishops in that Parliament with distinctioÌ„ that they would â—eld to that Statute so far forth as they did not preiudicâ— the ancient iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall of the said Sea Apostolicke in spirituall affaires doth euidently shew that this obiection maketh nothing to the purpose to denie thereby any part of the Popes supreme Ecclesiasticall authority and consequently as it was impertinently alleaged by M. Attorney to that effect in his Reports so much more fondly was it chosen out by M. Morton as a matter of moment to furnish his Booke withall 93. And as for the last Case vnder K. Edward the fourth where he saith That it was the opinion of the Kings Bench that whatsoeuer spirituall man should sue another spirituall man in the Court of Rome for a maâ—ter spirituall where he might haue remedy before his Ordinary that is the Bishop of the diocesse within the Realme he incurreth the danger of Premunire being an heynous ofâ—ence against the honor of the King his Crown dignity though the former answeâ—e of the Deuine be very sufficient in this case yet must I needes adde â—n this place that it is rather an heinous offence in such a man as M. Attorney is or should be to misreport and misconster his law-bookes therby to make someâ— shew oâ— probability against the ancieâ—t power Ecclesiasticall of the Sea Apostolicke in England whereas the said Books being rightly alleaged vnderstood do make wholy for it As for example heere in this case alleaged out of 9. Ed. the 4. â—ol 3. the saying is only of Yeluerton of the kings Bench and his Report is meant when a spirituall man shall sue an other that is a temporall man in the Court of Rome for a thing meere temporaâ—l he shall incurre the said punishment For that for one spirituall man to sue another spirituall man in the Court of Rome in spirituall Causes was a thing all waies lawfull and vsuall both before the tyme of K. Ed. 4. and after vntill it was forbid by King Henry the eight And that this is true that it was lawfull by the CoÌ„mon-law in K. Henry 4. tyme appeareth expressely by the Booke of 14. H. 4. fol. 14. Neither can I thinke M. Attorney alleage any example where the same is prohibited either by CommoÌ„ or Statute law during the tyme aforesaid 94. And whereas for strengthning this his false assertion he citeth in his Margent vide Fitzh in Nat. Breu. fol. 45. lit â— agreeing herewith And further adâ—eth a Notandum for the same as a matter notorious he doth notoriously abuse his Reader For that Fitzh speaketh not at all of a Premunire but only That if one sueth another out of the Realme for debt or other cause wherof the kings Court may haue conusance he shall haue a prohibition against him And so if one Clearke sue an other vpon title of Collation oâ— any Prebendary out of the Realme c. he shall haue also this prohibiâ—ion And if a man purchaseth out of the Court oâ— Rom against any Clerk or others any Citation directed vnto the Archbishop of Canterbury or any others to cite such a person to appeare beâ—ore the Pope c. to answere for the Collation or Presentation vnto any benefice or Prebendary a prohibition shall lye in this Case Hitherto Fitzher in his writt of prohibition And this is all that he hath in that place of this matter So you see that all that Fitzherbert saith is but that a prohibitioÌ„ shall lye for suyng in the Court of Rome for debt or title of Patronage or such other temporall Causes wherof the Kings Court may haue conusance and he maketh no mention of any Premunire And yet euery puny StudeÌ„t in the Law can tell how much difference there is betwixt a Premunire and a Prohibition that Syr Edward delt not sincerely wheÌ„ he brought in the one for the other 95. So then we soe what striuing wresting worse vsage M. Attorney offereth to his law-bookes to make them seeme to say somwhat against vs and for Protestant religion against which most of them were written as all of them before our times without exception in fauour of the Catholicks We see also the pittifull choice that M. Morton hath made of these fiue Cases out of all M. Attorneys Reportable Reports against the Popes supreme Ecclesiasticall authority
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
appertayne to the temporall good and prosperity therof 11. Next after the declaratioÌ„ of these three pointes to wit of the origens ends obiects of these two powers spirituall and â—eÌ„porall the sayd Catholicke Deuine deduceth out of the same the differeÌ„t dignity excellency eminency of the one the other power the one being called Deuine the other Humane for that the ends and obiects of the one are immediatly concerning the soule as now we haue declared and the other concerning humane affaires immediatly though mediatly in a Christian Common wealth referred also to God And this diâ—ference of these two powers he declareth by the similitude likenesse of flesh and spirit out of S. Gregory Nazianzen who in a certaine narration of his doth most excellently expresse the same by the comparison of spirit and flesh soule and sense which thing saith he may be considered as two distinct Common wealthes separated the one from the other or conioyned togeather in one Common wealth only An example of the former wherin they are separated may be in beasts and Angels the one hauing their common wealth of sense only without soule or spirit and the other CoÌ„mon wealth of Angels being of spirit only without flesh or body but in man are conioyned both the one the other And euen so sayth he in the Common wealth of Gentils was the Ciuill and Poliâ—icall Earthly and Humane power giuen by God to gouerne worldly and humane things but not spirituall for the soule wheras coÌ„trarywise in the primitiue Chriâ—tian Church for almost three hundred yeares togeather none or few Kings Princes or Potentates being conuerted the Common wealth of Christians was gouerned only or principally by spirituall authority vnder the Apostles and Bishops that succeeded them 12. Out of which consideration confirmed and strengthened by sundry places of holy scripture ancient Fathers alleaged by him he sheweth the great eminency of spirituall Authority aboue temporall being considered seuerally in themselues though they may stand ioyntly and both togeather in a Christian Common wealth where the temporall Princes be ChristiaÌ„s though with this necessary subordination that in spirituall and Ecclesiasticall affaires belonging to the soule the spirituall gouernours be chiefly to be respected as in Ciuill affaires the temporall magistrate is to be obeyed and this he sheweth by diuers examples and occasions out of S. Ambrose S. Chrysostome S. Gregory Nazianzen and other Bishops and Prelats that in Ecclesiasticall affayres prefered themselues and their authorities before that of Christian Emperours with whome they lyued expresly affirming that in those respects they were their Superiours Pastours the said Emperours their sheep subiects though in temporall affaires they acknowledged them to be their Superiours 13. All this is set downe by the Catholicke Deuine with great variety of proofes many examples facts and speaches of ancient Fathers And will Syr Edward Cooke say that this was froÌ„ the purpose a Nihil dicit doth not this quite ouerthrow his assertioÌ„ that all teÌ„porall Kings by vertue power of their temporall Crownes haue supreme authority also in spiritual affaires If the forsaid three Fathers to pretermit all others S. Gregory Nazianzen S. Chrysostome and S. Ambrose that had to do with Christian Emperours which had teÌ„porall authority ouer all or the most part of the Christian world did yet notwithstanding affirme vnto their faces that they had no authority at all in spirituall matters belonging to soules but were and ought to be subiect to thâ—m their Pastours in that Ecclesiasticall gouerment how much lesse could a woman-Prince haue the same by right of her temporall Crowne as most absurdly M. Attorney auerreth Which absurdity the Catholicke Deuine doth conuince so largely by all sortes of proofes both diuine and humane as well vnder the law oâ— Nature as Mosayâ—all and Christian that a person of the feminine sâ—xe is not capable of supreme Spirituall iurisdiction ouer man as nothing seemeth can be answered theruÌ„to And was this also â—rom the purpose to proue that Queene Elizabeth could not haue it What will Syr Edward answere here for his Nihil dicit 14. After all this and much more alleaged by the Catholicke Deuine which I pretermit for breuities sake he commeth to reduce the whole controuersie betweene M. Attorney and him vnto two generall heads of proofe the one de Iure the other de facto that is of right and fact shewing that in the first of these two proofes de Iure which is the principall M. Attorney did not so much as attempt to say any thing â—or proofe that by right Queene Elizabeth or any of her Ancestours had supreme iurisdiction in causes Ecclesiasticall but only that de â—acto some of them had sometymes taken and exercised such an authority Which if it were without right was as yow know nothing at all and therfore the sayd Deuine hauing proued more at large that by no right of any law whatsoeuer diuine or humane Queene Elizabeth or her predecessours had or could haue supreame authority Spirituall he coÌ„meth to ioyne with M. Attorney also in the second prouing that neyther in fact any such thing was euer pretended or practised by any of her Predecessours before the tyme of her Father K. Henry the viij either before or after the Conquest 15. And as for before the Conquest there haue beene more then an hundred Kings of different Kingdomes within the land he proueth by ten large demonstrations that none of them did euer take vpon him such supreme spirituall authority but acknowledged it expresly to be in the Bishop of Rome of which demoÌ„strations the first is of lawes made by them generally in fauour and confirmation of the liberties of the English Church according to the directions and Canons deriued â—rom the authority of the Sea Apostolicke The second that Ecclesiasticall lawes in England made before the Conquest were made by Bishops and Prelats who had their Authority from Rome and not by temporall Kinges The third that all determination of weighty Ecclesiasticall affayres were referred not only by the Christian people generally of that Realme as occasions fell out but by our Kings also in those dayes vnto Rome and the Sea Apostolicke The â—ourth that the Confirmations of all Priuiledges Franchises of Churches Monasteries Hospitals and the like were in those dayes demaunded and obteyned from the Pope The fifth that in all Ecclesiasticall controuersies suites and grieuances there were made Appeales and complaints to the Sea of Rome for remedy The sixth the succession of Bishops Archbishops in England during that time all acknowledging the supremacy of the Pope were notwithstanding in high fauour and reuerence with the English Kings with whom they lyued wherof is inâ—erred that these Kings also must needs be of the same iudgment and beliefe and consequently make lawes conforme to that their fayth and beliefe as contrariwise since the schisme began by K. Henry the 8.
there are conteyned in one First then page 163. The Deuinâ— doth cite the seuerall lawes of William Conquerour out of Roger Houeden parte 2. Annalium in vita Henrici 2. â—ol 381. and by them doth proue that the Conquerour acknowledged the Popes supreme Authority in causes Ecclesiasticall And is not this a legall record And in the next two leaues following he doth cyte aboue twenty diâ—ferent places out of the Canon law and Canonists which though perhaps M. Attorney will not cal legall in respect of his Municipall lawes yet iudiciall records they cannot be dâ—nyed to be Moreouer pag. 245. 246. he doth alleage the testimony of Magna Charta cap. 1. made by king Henry the third as also Charta de â—oresta made vpon the ninth yeare of his raigne Charta de MertoÌ„ made in the 18. of the same Kings raigne as other lawes also of his made vpon the 51. yeare oâ— his Gouernement all in proofe of the Popes iurisdiction and are all legall authorityes And furthermore he doth cyte pag. 248. statut anno 9. Henrici 6. cap. 11. and pag. 262. he citeth againe the said Great Charter and Charter of the Forest made by K. Henry the 3. and confirmed by his sonne King Edward the first diuers tymes And pag. 271. he citeth two lawes anno 1. Edward 3. stat 2. cap. 2. 14. eiusdem statut 3. pro Clero and doth argue out of them for profe of his principall purpose against Syr Edward And how then or with what face doth or can the Knight auouch heere that the said Deuine alleageth no one Act or law of Parlament or other iudiciall record throughout his whole booke doth he remeÌ„ber his owne saying in this his Preface That euery man that writeth ought to be so carefull of setting downe truth as if the credit of his whole worke coÌ„sisted vpoÌ„ the certainty of euery particuler period Doth he obserue this How many periods be there heere false of his But let vs see further Pag. 277. in the life of king Edward the first the said Deuine doth cite an expreâ—se law of King Edward 3. Anno regni 25. as also pag. 283. he doth alleage statut de consult editum anno 24. Edwardi 1. and another Anno 16. Edwardi 3. cap. 5. and all these things are cited by the Deuine before he commeth to treat peculierly of the lyfe of King Edward the third but vnder him after him he doth not alleage as few as 20. legall authorities and statutes of Acts of Parlaments so as for M. Attorney to auouch here so boldly peremptorily as he doth that the Deuine in all his booke did not alleage so much as any one authority eyther out of the coÌ„mon lawes or Acts of Parlament or other legall or iudiciall record is a strange boldeneâ—se indeed And yet he sayth that he found the Author vtterly ignorant and exceeding bold But if he could conuince him of such boldnes as I haue now conuinced himselfe for affirming a thing so manifestly false I should thinke him bold indeed or rather shameles for that heere are as many vntruthes as there are negatiue assertions which is a Nimium dicit with store of witnesses 23. It is another Nimium dicit also yf yow consider it well that which he writeth in the same place that when he looked into the booke euer expecting some answere to the matter he found none at all Wheras he found all that is touched in the former Paragraph and much more which was so much in effect as he saw not what reply he could make therunto which himselfe confesseth a litle before in these wordes saying Expect not from me good Reader any reply at all for I will not answer vnto his Inuectiues and I cannot make any reply at all vnto any part of his discourse yet doth he endeauour to mitigate this also saying That the Deuine answereth nothing out of the lawes of the Realme the only subiect sayth he of the matter in hand And a litle afâ—er againe I will not sayth he depart from the State of the question whose only subiect is the Municipall lawes of this Realme But this reâ—uge will not serue both for that I haue now shewed that the Deuine hath alleagâ—d many testimonies out of the Municipall lawes as also for that this is not true that the question is only about these lawes for that as before hath beene shewed the true state of the question betweene vs is VVhether supreme Ecclesiasticall authority in spirituall afâ—aâ—res did remayne in Queene Elizabeth and her Ancestours by right of their temporall Crownes or in the Bishop of Rome by reason of his primacy in the Chaire of S. Peter which great matter is not to be tryed only as in reason yow will see by the Municipall lawes of England or by some few particuler cases deduced from them but by the whole latitude of diuine and humane proofes as Scriptures Fathers Doctors histories practises of the primitiue Church lawes both Canon and Ciuill and the like as the Deuine doth teach in differeÌ„t occasions of his booke adding further That albeit it should be graunted to Syr Edward that this matter should be discussed by the common Municipall and Statute lawes of England only yet would he remayne wholy vanquished as largely doth appeare by the deduction of the said Deuine throughout all the succession of English Kings from Ethelbert the first Christened to King Henry the 8. that first fell into schisme against the Church of Rome This then was a notorious Nimium dicit 24. Another is when he sayth in reproofe of the Deuines answer to his Reports that the booke is exceeding all bounds of truth and charity full of maledictions and calumniations nothing pertinent to the state of the question and that it becommeth not Deuines to be of a fiery and Salamandrine spirit soming out of a hoat mouth c. which indeed will seeme to any indifferent man a stange passionate exaggeration of Syr Edward exceeding all tearmes of simple truth for that there is nothing found in that booke but temperatly spoken and with respect as it seemeth both to his Office and Person but yet when he saw the exobitant intemperance of the Attorneyes hatred against Catholicks to draw him to such acerbity of bloudy calumniations that he would needes inuolue them all in the heynons cryme of treason by meere sycophancy malicious collections vpoÌ„ false supposed groundes and fictions of Pius quintus his Bull and such like impertinent imputations no meruaile though he were more earnest in the repulsion of such open wronges but yet with that moderation as I perswade my selfe no iniurious or contumelious speach can be alleaged to haue passed from him in all that booke much lesse such inuâ—ctiues as heere M. Attorney chargeth him withall as also with that fierie Salamandrine spirit foming out of a hoat mouth wherein besydes the contumely which he will easily pardon Syr Edward speaketh more
satisfyed in one speciall point of my Epistle to the second part of my Reports where I affirmed that yf the ancient Lawes of this noble â—and had not excelled all others speaking of humane it could not be but some of the seuerall Conquerours â—ouernours therof that is to say the Romans Saxons Danes or Normans and especially the Romanes who as they iustly may do boast of their Ciuill Lawes would as euery of them might haue altered or changâ—d the same And sayth he some of another proâ—â—ssion are not persuaded that the Common Lawes of England are of so great antiquity as there superlaâ—iuâ—ly is spoken So he And in these last words I presume he vnderstood the Deuine that impugâ—ed this excessiue imaginary antiquity of our Municipall â—awes in his Answere to the Reports and Syr Edward hauing seene the same should in reason haue answered somewhat therunto if he had byn prepared for it 30. But he thought that course not best but rather to help himselfe with the pretendâ—d authority of Syr Iohn Fortescue chiefe Iustice of England in the Raigne of King Henry the 6. saying that he was a great Antiquary he was a notable man indeed though more as it seemeth in the skill of our Common Lawes then in matters of Antiquity out of whome Syr Edward to help his cause and assertion citeth the words following As touching the antiquity of our Common Lawes sayth he neither are the Roman Ciuill Lawes by so long continuance oâ— ancient tymes confirmed nor yet the Laâ—es oâ— the Venetians which aboue all other are reporâ—ed to be of most antiquity â—or so much as their Island in the beginning of the Britans was not then inhabited as Rome also then vnbuilded neither the Lawes of any Nation of the world which worshipped God are of so old and ancient yeares wherâ—ore the contrary is noâ— to be said nor thought but that the English customes are very good yea oâ— all other the very best Thus he if he be rightly cited for I haue not his booke by mâ— 31. And though I do respect and reuerence both these mens professions and much more their state place of Iudges yet doth force of truth oblige me to contradict their errour which seemeth to me very grosse and palpable or rather their errours and mistakinges in sundry points here downe As first in that yt is auerred that the Ciuill law and Roman lawes are not of so long continuance of ancient tymes as the ancieÌ„t Municipall Lawes of England are which he goeth about to proue by two seuerall meanes wherof both do conteine aswell falsyties as absurdities if I be not greatly deceiued therin 32. His â—irst meanes of proofe is â—or that in the beginning oâ— the Britans Rome was then vnbuylded and conquently that the British Lawes are more ancient then those of the Romans And then supposing further that those British Lawes which were in the beginning of the Britans were neuer changed but recâ—iued in England fâ—oÌ„ time to time haue indured to our dayes are the Common Lawes of our Realme at this day Wherin there are many suppositions as yow see strange to heare but harder in my opinion to be proued As first that the Britans in their beginning euen before Rome was buylt had such good Lawes as the Romans in EnglaÌ„d seauen huÌ„dred years after the said building of Rome were coÌ„tent to accept for their Lawes in that land And the lyke after them the Saxons other CoÌ„querous people that ensued which is such a paradox vnto men of reason learning as the very naming therof cannot but cause laughter For albeit the British nation be more ancient then the Roman according to the Story of Geffrey Monmouth that affirmeth theÌ„ to discend from Brutus a Nephew of Aeneas from whom Romulus the founder of Rome some ages after descended and that they were a valiant warlike nation from the beginning yet that they had such good politicke and ciuill Lawes themselues being vnciuill in those dayes is a matter incredible which I proue thus That wheras the Roman Lawes began from Romulus himselfe from Numa Pompilius other ancient Law-makers among them and this soone after the building of Rome I meane the more older Lawes of the twelue Tables and the lyke continued from tyme to tyme afterwards vntill the coÌ„ming of Iulius Caesar into Britany which was aboue 600. yeares after Rome was built aboue a thousand after Brutus had byn in England in which tyme yt is probable that the British Lawes would haue growne to greater perfectioÌ„ theÌ„ they were in the beginning yet I say that the said Lawes customes of the Britans are recorded to be such in Iulius Caesar his daies set downe by his owne penne as also by the writings of diuers other Roman Greeke Authors that succeded for two or three hundred years after him as must needs be incredible that they should be continued by the Romans Saxons and other people that followed them And then if they were such and so rude so many ages after their beginning what may we imagine they were at their very begynning it selfe which was a thousand yeares before from which tyme our two Knights heere do inferre their antiquity and eminency aboue the Roman Lawes 33â— Let vs see then what ancient Histories do report of the British Lawes and Customes in Iulius Caesar his tyme and afterwards Caesar the Roman-Captaine hauing made two iourneys into England and informed himselfe diligently about the Lawes and Customes of the Brytans in those dayes which was about 60. yeares before the Natiuity of our Sauiour setteth downe many things of their small policy in that time As first the description of their manner of consultations in their warre wherin he sayth that in commune non coâ—sulunt they haue no common Counsells and then describing the chiefe Citty of the Realme where their K. CassiuelaÌ„ that was head of all the rest had his Court Counsaile somewhat about the Thames though not where London was afterward built he sheweth that it was in a wood and that the walles were trees cut downe round about insteed of fortresses within which they inclosed both themselues and their Cattle and this was the symplicity of that tyme. 34. After this he setteth downe many Lawes and customes of theirs farre vnfit to be receiued by the Romans other people after them as Nummo aereo aut annulis ferreis ad certuÌ„ pondus examinatis pro numâ—o vtebantur Their money was of brasse and rings of yron giuen out by weight And then againe that they had a law and custome luto se inficere quod caeruleum efficit colorâ—m to paint themselues with a certaine earth that made a blew colour And Solinus wryting more then an hundred yeares after Caesar againe sheweth this law and custome to haue byn so inuiolable among them in his dayes that the very Children had the figures and shapes
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
Clâ—ricali esse nudatos correctioni fori saecularis addictos that all such as had beene twice married are depriued of all priuiledge of Clergy men and are subiect to the iurisdiction of the secular Court There arose a question in England in tyme of Parliament how this decree of the Pope should be executed and obserued some of the Prelates inclining that it should be vnderstood only of such Bigamies as should fall out after the CouÌ„cell and therfore demaunded to haue deliuered into their hands and freed from the temporall gaole such as presently were in prison and had beene bigamies before the Councell But the K. his Counsell were rather bent to haue all bigamies excluded froÌ„ that priuiledge both present and to come for that the Popes Constitution now alleaged seemed rather to sound that way for that it is generall and without exception Vpon which determination produced the Attorney hath this note insteed of an inference Obserue saith he how the King by aduise of his Counsell that is by authority of Parlament expounded how this Councell of Lyons should be vnderstood and in what sense it should be receyued and allowed And therof would inferre that the king and his Counsell held themselues to be aboue the Pope for that they tooke vpon them to determine in what sense the Popes decree should be vnderstood And yet M. Attorney protesteth as before you haue heard that he maketh no inferences but only alleageth the bare law books as they lye but yet heere euery man will see that it is vntrue for that heere he maketh an inference and that very false and impertinent For he should rather haue made the quite contrary inference to wit that for so much as the King and his CouÌ„sell did subiect themselues to the acknowledgment and obseruation of the Popes decree and did accommodate the law of England therunto which before was otherwise they did therby acknowledg that the Popes power in making lawes for Ecclesiasticall matters was Superiour to that of the King and can Syr Edward or any man else deny this consequence And this shall suffice for this case but only I may not let passe this one note by the way that wheras M. Attorneys words are that certayne Prelats when such persons as haue beene attaynted for fellons haue praied to haue them deliuered as Clerkes he forgot himselfe for that the wordes in the booke are quando de felonia rectati â—uerâ—nt when they had beene arraigned of â—elony not when they had beene attainted of felony for that Clerkes beâ—ore attainder were wont to be deliuered to their Ordinaries but being once conuicted and attainted they cannot make their purgation afterward as appeareth by Stanford l 2. c. 49. 87. Vnder K. Edward 2. the Attorney writeth thus Albeit by the ordinance of Circumspectè agatis made in the 21. yeare of K. Edward 1. and by generall allowance and vsage the Ecclesiasticall Courts hâ—ld plea of Tythes obuentions oblatioÌ„s mortuaryes c. yet did not the Clergy thinke themselues assured nor quiet from prohiâ—itions purchased by subiects vntill that K. Ed. 2. by his letters patents vnder the great seale and by conseÌ„t of Parlament c. had graunted vnto them to haue iurisdiction in those cases c. So M. Attorney And what doth he inferre heerof thinke you the questioÌ„ in hand teacheth vs to wit that K. Edward 2. is proued by this to haue had supreeme spirituall iurisdiction An inference you will say very farre fecht but this is the manner of Syr Edwards disputing and yet he saith that he maketh no inference nor argumentatioÌ„ at all marke then his guilfulnes 88. He coÌ„â—esseth that before king Edward the 2. there was generall allowance and vse of Ecclesiasticall Courts in England for Ecclesiasticall matters as appeareth by the ordinance of Circumspectè agatis vnder K. Edward 1. and of magna Charta before him againe vnder K. H. 3. many other proofes he confesseth also that this vse and allowance was confirmed according to the Custome of his Ancestours by the same K. Edward 2. by a new statute made in the ninth yeare of his raigne called Articuli Cleri But what of this hence he inferreth that the king was supreme in spirituall authority for that he graunted â—aith he to them to haue iurisdiction and do you see the good consequence I will reason with him in the like The parlameÌ„t de prerogatiuis Regis held in the 17. yeare of the same K. raigne did nuÌ„ber and explaine and confirme all the kings prerogatiues which were allowable at the coÌ„mon law ergo this statute did giue vnto the king his prerogatiues and that he had them not before which consequeÌ„ce I doubt not but M. Attorney himselfe will deny to be good and yet is it as good as the other for K. Edward 2. in his statute of Articuli Cleri did but concurre with his Ancestours in confirming those priuiledges which had beene vsed before time out of mind and in subiecting his temporall lawes to the lawes of the Church in the cases there specified so farre of was he froÌ„ taking supreme iurisdiction vpon himselfe as falsely and fondly M. Attorney would make his reader belieue But let vs passe from K. Edward 2. to his sonne K. Edward the third out of whose raigne M. Attorney alleageth more examples instances then almost out of all the rest wherof we shall touch some few for all would be ouer longe and perhaps we shall desceÌ„d no lower then the time of his raigne reseruing the more â—ull discussion of these and other exaÌ„ples vntill the Catholicke Deuine or some body for him shall prepare a second edition of his forsaid answer to Syr Ed. Reports 89. First then fol. 14. b. of this his fifth part of Reports he reciteth out of the raigne of this K. Edward 3. but quoting no particuler place that it is often resolued that all the Bishopricks within England were â—ounded by the kings progenitors and therfore the aduowson of them all belonged to the king c. And that when a Church with cure is void if the particulâ—r Patron or Bishop of that Diocese do not present another within the space of 6. monethes then may the Metropolitan conferre the same and if he also do it not within six other moneths then the comon law giueth to the king as to the supreme within his owne kingdome not to the Bishop of Rome power to prouide a competent pastour for that Church This is Syr Ewdards narration full of deceipt as now you shall see For albeit the coÌ„mon law doth giue to the king as to the supreme within his owne Kingdome to present by lapse as hath beene said yet not as supreme in spirituall authority as he would haue his reader mistake and belieue but as supreme in the temporall patronage or as supreme temporall Patron of that Benefice to whoÌ„ in such cases the aduowson of presenting
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.
a litle in following his owne comparison of apples 32. Fourthly and lastly saith he If I shew not that the chiefest aduantage of Roman aduersaries doth consist in falsifications then c. VVherunto I must answere with this distinction for so much as M. Morton speaketh somewhat doubtfully that if falsifications be taken heere passiuely with relation to Protestants then I grant that one of the chiefest aduaÌ„tages which their Roman aduersaries hauâ— against them consisteth in falsifications discouered daily in their bookes and writings For that I confesse that no one thing doth more confirme a Catholicke mind in the truth of that Religion which he proâ—esseâ—h then to see the enemies and aduersaries thereof to be driuen to vtter such and so infinite apparent wilfull falsities in defending the contrary For that no man doubtles of any credit honesty or good nature would lye or falsity willingly if he could defend his cause with truth VVhich consideration doth greatly worke also with many Protestants that be iudicious and desyre indeed the truth it â—elâ— So as in this sense I confesse that one of the chiefest aduantages of RomaÌ„ Aduâ—rsaries doth consist in the falâ—ifications of Protestant writers 33. But if we take it as I thinke M. Morton meaneth it actiuely in regard of Catholicke writers as though our owne falâ—ifications were our chiefest aduantages against the Protestant Religionâ— it is meerly false For how poore should our Cause be if we had no better proofe for tho truth therof then our owne fictions and falâ—ifications deuâ—â—ed by our selues whereof M. Morton hath not byn able to proue any one against any sort of Catholicke writers in all this his Preambling Reply though wholy it was bent and intended by him to that end as may appeare by the third and fourth Chapters of this our Reâ—konâ—ng And on the other side there are so many proued conuinced against him as he neither is nor euer will be able to answere the half of them as you may behold in the fifth sixth and eight Chapters immediatly going before So as this contradiction being so manifest in it self I see not why I may not call for iudgement and iustice against M. Morton that his bookes be purged with fyre and himself challenged to recantation 34. But presently he leapeth away to the contrary syde and placeth himself in the â—eaâ—e of a Conquâ—â—our saying thus But these things being 〈◊〉 Gods grace dirâ—ctly by me perâ—ormed the fruite therof wiâ—â—be Chrâ—stian Reader to establish thee in the truth of speach and dutifull allegiance and to put my aduersary P R. I hope vnto silence I pray god to repentance So he and with this he endeth his Booke 35. And as for my silence what successe M. MortoÌ„s hope hath had you see by this my Answere which hath byn drawne out to somewhat more prolixity as I suppose then my â—ormer Treatise it self of Miâ—igation which notwithstanding was far from my intent and purpose at the beginning meaning only to haue made a brief conference of things vttered by me in my Treatise of Mitigation with the Answere of M. Morton in his Reply but I found such great store of aduantagious matter â—ast out by him vpon necesâ—ity of his bad cause as I could not possibly passe ouer the same without saying somewhat to ech point so as I haue byn inforced to write more then I had thought to haue done for that he hath giuen more aduantage then I imagined he would oâ— reasonably could in so short a worke And thus much for my silence 36. But as for my repentance for which he praieth I must professe that hitherto I find no least motion of mind therunto nor yet cause to moue that motion for the substance of the controuersy it selfe though for the asperity of speach I could haue wyshed that sometimes it had byn more mollified but the reasons inciting thereunto are sâ—t downe more largely in the Admonitory Epistle to M. Morton himself Here only I will adde that if I could perswade my selfe that he could proue or performe directly or indirectly the things which here he promiseth I should not only be sory that I had written against him in these matters but should endeauour alâ—o to do the works of true repeÌ„tance indeed which were to recall my said wrytings and confesse that M. Morton had reason and truth on his side and were not iâ— these points to be contradicted But hauing seene read and examined with attention so much of his workes as I haue and this also with so great equâ—nimity and indifferencie of iudgment as the loue of truth and regard of myne owne soule could worke in me I haue not found any one thing in the matters themselues affirmed by me that might cause the least scruple of mynd thâ—y being cleere and euideÌ„t truthes in the sight of him that hath the light of a Catholicke conscience And for the manner of M. Mortons dealing I must protest that I find it so vnsyncere which I ascribe to the necessity of his cause as I take great compassion of him and do beseech almightie God to giue him true light to see the dangerous way wherein he walketh whilest he seeketh by sleightes and indirect meanes to defend fancies of his owne of his sect against the truth grauity and authority of his Mother the Catholicke Church AN APPENDIX CONCERNING A CASE OF EQVIVOCATION LATELY written out of England wherin resolution is demaunded about the false Oath of two Ministers Whether it may be salued by the licence of Equiuocation or no TOGEATHER WITH A NOTE OVT OF DOCTOR King his Sermon preached at the Court 5. Nouembâ— 1608. so far forth as it toucheth Equiuocation TO THE READER I Receaued Gentle Reader not long since by a letter of the 8. of Nouember anno 1608. from a friâ—nd of mine dwelling in the North parts of Englandâ— a certaine Aduertisment about a case of Equiuocation fallen out in those parts wherin my sayd friend requested my iudgement whether the same where tollerable or excusable or not And for that it seemed he had some right to vrge me in this matter in respect of the Treatiâ—e written by me of that argument against Mâ— Morton I thought my self the more bound to yeld him some satisfaction to his demand The case then in effect was this 2. A certayne Minister in Yorkeshire named VVh for I thinke not good to set downe all the letters thereof dwelling at a towne called Thorneley if I misse not the name being married and loaden with many children and there vpon â—ot content with the ordinary tiâ—heâ— that weâ—e wont to be giuen and payd in that parish begâ—n to vrge one of his parishioners to pay him other tithes also out of a certayne closse or field that was pretended not to haue payed tithes before to other precedent Incumbents Wherupon this Minister deuising with himself how he might further his owne cause resolued vpon this meane among others to
and concealed by him pag. 490. § 4. Of M. Mortons omissions concerning the deâ—ence of Syr Edward Cooke wholy pretermitted by him pag. 500. § 5. The discharge and reckoning about the former charge made to Syr Edward Cooke pag. 510. § 6. To the other â—oure Cases obiected by M. Morton out of Syr Edward Cooke pag. 523. THE EIGHT CHAPTER VVHich by occasion of two new Prefaces lately set forth by Syr Edward Cooke doth handle diuers controuersies with him aswell about a Nihil dicit obiected by him to his Aduersary as also about the antiquity and excellency of the Municipall Common-lawes of England and some other points It hath 6. Paragraphes pag. 529. § 1. Of a new Preface set â—orth lately by Syr Edward Cooke now Iudge wherin he condemneth his Aduersary the Catholicke Deuine of a Nihil dicit and with what iustice or iniustice he doth the same pag. 531. § 2. That the imputation of Nihil dicit doth fall more rightly vpon M. Attorney as doth also the Nimium dicit which is to vtter more then is true pag. 542. § 3. VVhether the common Municipall lawes of England be more ancient and excellent then any other humane lawes of the world pag. 551. § 4. About foure seuerall questions sayd to be propounded by the student in law and solued by the Iudge for confirmation of the antiquity and eminency of our moderne English lawes pag. 573. § 5. How that the foresayd Nimium dicit as it importeth Falsum dicit is notoriously incurred by Syr Edward Cooke in sundry other assertions also appertayning to his owne faculty of the law which were pretermitted by the Catholicke Deuine in his Answere to the fifth part of Reports pag. 587. § 6. Of another Preface instantly come vnto my hands prefixed before the L. Cookes seauenth part of Reportes conteyning new iniuries offered to Catholickes by him pag. 604. THE NINTH CHAPTER VVHich layeth togeather another choice number of new lyes made willfully by M. Morton ouer and aboue the old in this his Preamble whilst he pretendeth to excuse or defend the said old It hath 20. severall heads pag. 625. 1. About the equiuocatioÌ„ of Saphyra he affirmeth me to say that there is an Equiuocation which no reseruation can saue from a lie p. 262. 2. About Theodoret egregiously corrupted by him pag. 629. 3. Claudius Espencaeus falsified and made to say that which he doth not pag. 629. 4. Of Doctor Franciscus Costerus notably abused made to write that which he neuer thought pag. 630. 5. About Gratian falsely accused for â—alsification pag. 631. 6. About symbolyzing of Protestants with Pelagians three witting vntruthes pag. 632. 7. Concerning the Councell of Eliberis and Sixtus Senensis misvnderstood pag. 634. 8. Of Bullingers blasphemous doctrine about the Trinity falsely ascribed to Gregory de Valentia pag. 635 9. The contention betweene S. Augustine and S. Cyprian about rebaptizing misrelated pag. 636. 10. VVhether Catholike authors do speake contrary to their owne iudgments in the article of Purgatory pag. 637. 11. VVhen the letters of T. M. came to be vnderstood what they signified pag. 638. 12. About Holinshead and Iohn Fox guilfully alleadged and stood vpon pag. 638. 13. Fraudulent dealing in relating the death of Pope Anastasius pag. 639. 14. About Pope Gregory the thirteenth his licence for printing the Câ—nnon-law egregiously calumniated pag. 640. 15. How the Manichean heresie is imputed to Caluin and T. Mortons deceiptfull dealing therin pag. 641. 16. About the Nouatian heresy obiected to Protestants and false trickes therin pag. 642. 17. D. Azorius his fiue rules about Equiuocation fraudulently and falsely applyed pag. 643. 18. VVhether the Iesuit Emanuel Sà doth coÌ„tradict all EquiuocatioÌ„ or no and how egregiously he is abused therein pag. 644. 19. VVhether Iohn Maldonate were against all Equiuocation and whether P. R. did fly to answer him pag. 645. 20. About Polydore Virgil falsified in two very materiall points pag. 646. Out of which twenty heads aboue fifty particuler falsities are deduced and plainely demonstrated besides the former THE 10. AND LAST CHAP. COnteyning new Challenges Protestations vaunts and other vehemeÌ„t assertions of M. Mort. that wrappe him in baÌ„ds of further absurdâ—â—ies then any of his â—ormer errours and ouersights before layd downe It hath 3. Paragraphes conteyning 12. new Challenges of M. Morton pag. 649. § 1. First concerning his owne person and what new protestations and Challenges he maketh thereabout pag. 651. § 2. Then concerning the person of his aduersary P. R. and foure new Challenges against him pag. 659. § 3. Thirdly about his book cause it self foure other Challenges wherwith he concludeth his whole worke offering to haue it burned if he performe not what he promiseâ—â—â— pag. 664. AN APPENDIXâ— COncerning a case of Equiuocation lately written out of England wherin resolution is demaunded about the false oath of two Ministers VVhether iâ— may be salued by the licence of Equiuocation or no Togeather with a note out of Doctour King his Sermon preached at the Court 5. Nouemb. 1608. so â—ar â—orth as it toucheth Equiuocation p. 671. AN ALPHABETICAL TABLE OR INDEX OF THE CHIEF MATTERS HANDLED IN THIS BOOKE A ABsurdities of M. MortoÌ„ cap. 2. num 34. AdriaÌ„ the Pope whether choked with a fly c. 5. n. 20.22 Ananias and Saphyra their fact discussed cap. 2. num 23. c. The ridiculous Antiquity of the Venetian lawes cap. 8. n. 40. Appeales to Rome cap. 3. num 18. cap. 8. num 75. seq Azor alleaged to condemne EquiuocatioÌ„ in that place wher he expresly auoucheth it c. 4. n. 69. c. cap. 6. n. 16.17 c. See ibidem num 9.10.11 c. B BEllarmine charged to impute falsely Pelagianisme to the Protestants cap. 3. num 58. His true assertion touching the same ibid. num 61. He truly chargeth Protestants with the heresy of Nouatus ibid. n. 67. Most falsely accused of contradiction by M. Morton touching a place out of Theodoret. ibid. n. 94. c. Item for cyting S. Cyprian and S. Augustine for traditions Ibid. n. 104.105 c. Item for alleaging S. Ambrose S. Hilary S. Augustine for Purgatory num 123. Bellarmines words cuÌ„ningly clipped and changed by M. Morton concerning an errour of Caluin and Beza cap. 5. num 96. Binius abused about the death of Pope Vrban cap. 5. num 34. Broughtons censure of the English Bible cap. 1. num 67. Britans their manners conuersaâ—â—on and lawes in Cesars time c. 8. n. 35.36.37 deinceps British lawes See Lawes Q. Brundeâ—ica her speach cap. 6. num 38. C CAluin intangled about Purgatory and concerning his atrium or porch c. 3. n. 92. Caluinisme is heresy by the iudgment of other Protestants cap. 7. num 6.7 9. L. of CaÌ„terbury charged to haue corrupted a passage in M. Reynolds cap. 5. num 88. The place in Carerius about Verè Verò examined c. 1. n. 70.71 Cassander abused cap. 6. n. 79. The Catholicke Deuine defeÌ„ded against Syr
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