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
6. His first reason of Impossibility and that confessed as he saith by me is for that Catholicke subiectes do belieue that in some cases there is power left by God in the Church and head therof the Bishop of Rome ouer Princes to vse not only spirituall Censures for restraint of exorbitant excesses but temporall remedies also eyther directly or indirectly when vrgent necessity of the Common-wealth should require and no other sweeter meanes could preuaile Wherof M. Morton will needs inferre that our combynation in ciuill concord and obedience to our temporall Prince can not stand no more sayth he then Iewes and Iebuzites in one kingdome Isaac and Ismael in one house Iacob Esau in one â—ombe and then a litle after that our concord staâ—deth of no more possibility then Pope no Pope Kings Supremacy and not Supremacy which opposites saith he can neuer be reconciled togeather Wherto I answere that in beliefe and doctryne they cannot be reconciled but in cyuill life and conuersation and practice of due temporall obedience they may be no lesse for any thing touching this point then if they were â—ll of one ReligioÌ„ iâ— such make-bates as these would â—ease to set sedition for that all Catholicke subiects also of other Countryes do hold and acknowledge this doctryne without any preiudice at all of their fidelity affection or dutifull Allegiance towardes their Soueraigne Princes liege Lordes though ther be sundry cases wherin their said Princes may be obâ—oxious to the execution of this doctryne besydes difference of Religion which one poynt of different Religion this Stickler doth only vrge in this our caâ—e as most odious 7. But iâ— all those Christian Princes that haue bin censured by the Church froÌ„ Christes tyme downeward were layd togeather whether Emperours Kings or others the far greater part of them would be found to haue byn chastised and pursued not so much for any difference of Religion as for other causes and crymes And if we looke vpon our tymes since Protestant Religion hath byn named in the world we shal fynd only two to haue beene proceded against by the Church and many other neuer touched as the King of Denmarke the Intruder of Suetia the Duke of Saxony the Count Palatine of Rhene the Marques of Brandeburge and diuers other Princes and States as also those of Holland and Zeland and lastly his Maiestie that raigned aboue 30. yeares in Scotland professing Protestant Religion and now some good number of yeares in England without that any Pope hath gone about to vse that authority against them which is heere made by M. Morton so perilous and pernicious as though it were impossibâ—e for his Kingdome and Crowne to be in safety while this doctrine is beleiued or extant in bookes which being throughout all Christendome receiued by the whole Catholicke world will be hard for the Minister to remoue or extinguish coÌ„sequeÌ„tly he laboureth but in vaine or rather far worse then in vaine endeauoring to intangle his Princes mind with a perpetuall restles remediles iealosy suspitioÌ„ solicitude impossible euer to be cured as himselfe striueth to proue by those his impossibilityes though they proue not indeed the point it selfe which he would perswade that there is no meane of ciuill quiet vnion in life whilest this doctrine of the Popes authoritie is belieued of his subiects 8. His other two next reasons of impossibilitie for he hath foure in all are so obscurely and intricately set downe as if he vnderstand them himself it is much in my opinon for as for me I confesse I see not what inference can be made out of them though I haue perused them ouer with much attention more then twice and the same I suppose the common Reader will say when he hath in like manner considered of them For they concerne onely the excoÌ„munication of Q. Elizabeth and of King HeÌ„ry the fourth of France which Censure was promulgated by two seuerall Popes of this our age and consequently the doctrine is dangerous saith he But I haue shewed now that more then three times so many Protestant Princes were tolerated by other Popes how theÌ„ do these two examples inferre so generall a necessitie of disobedience in all Catholicke subiects yea and an impossibilitie of the contrarie that they can be obedient â— His fourth and last reason of impossibility â— wherin saith he may be obserued a sportâ—ull or rather exâ—crable impostureshipp of P. R. consisteth in this that wheras I do write in my Treatise of Mitigation that â—ut of Catholicke doctrine concerning Papall auâ—hority in some cases to wit when we talke what â—opes may absolutly do M. Morton argueth and will â—eedes inferre that such such great dangers may â—â—sue to Princes thereby I do answere him thus â—hat all this arriueth but to a may so as the questiâ—n being but de fuâ—uris contingentibus of things continent and to come wherof the Philosopher sayth â—â—ere is noâ— sâ—ieÌ„ce all remaineth in doubtfull vncerâ—â—inty but only the suspitioÌ„ enuy hatred which â—â—e Minister would rayse against vs. But on the conâ—â—ary what the ProtestaÌ„ts doctrine hath donne and â—oth at this day against lawfull Princes in their â—â—almes their armies do shew c. This in effect I â—id then and vpon this M. Morton entreth now into â—reat choler saying not only that this my answere 〈◊〉 an execrable impostureshipp as before you haue heard â—ut also he further breaketh into these patheticall â—ordes of ridiculous exaggeration I cannot laugh saith â—e for wonder horrour to see any English man conceyt so basely 〈◊〉 the wits worth of his Countrymen as to imagine they could 〈◊〉 delâ—ded with so senslesse so shamelesse so pernicious so impiâ—â— a mitigation as this is to be perswâ—ded therefore not to â—â—bour â—or preuenâ—ing ensuing dangers because they be continâ—ent that is such as may happen what can be more senseles Do you see this mans heat and do you marke how â—ocond and prachant he is when he getteth a little matter wherat he may make a shew to speake somewhat probably 10. Heere then he inueigeth and insulteth against me as though I did hold that there were no prouideÌ„ce or care to be had of future perills that are contingent saying Doth not nature in beasts reasoÌ„ in man precept of God teach vs the law of prouidence euen thâ—rfore to â—eeke to preuent ensuing dangers because they are contingent and may be heraâ—ter But M. Morton doth either willfully misâ—ake me or els I cannot conceyue so well of his wit and worth as he would haue me if he vnderstand me not For I doe not dispute against prouidence in generall in things that are contingent and may fall out for I know conâ—esse that prouidence is a principall part of the high vertue of prudeÌ„ce surnamed Cardinall wherby man is likned to God surpasseth all other terrene creâ—tures yet say I therwithall that it
happines who being as I am a poore despised hated scorned and vnrespected souldiour so vnfortunate as no commended meanes though many vsed with confirmation both of loue and loyalty can be of power to raise a spirit drowned in the worst of misery froÌ„ despayres gulfe c. Wherby it may appeare that Prickets chief endeauour was rather indirectly by laying forth his owne temporall needs to draw somewhat from Syr Edwards purse and by writing the story of his glorious speach at Norwich to gayne vnto himself his good will and affection for his reliefe then any way to shew malignity against him wherof I fynd no cause or probability but rather his pricking stomake against vs whom Syr Edward also impugned and consequently if any thing be found in his narration that at this present displeased Syr Edward it must be thought to proceed eyther from the errour of the others memory that directed not well his pen or from some change of mynd in Syr Edward himselfe who now perhaps reprehendeth that which before he misliked not but was well content to haue it published And to this later coniecture I am the rather induced to incline for that there are now two yeares past more since Pricket set forth in print this speach and I neuer heard that Syr Edward did mislike it vntill at this present I see it so greiuously reprehended by him in this last Preface for in the former that was prefixed before his sixt part of Reports which seemeth to haue come forth after Prickets relation no complaynt or mention is made therof 105. But you will aske me perhaps why so great a charge should be found in Syr Edward that he should so sharpely and vehemently inueigh against that which before he liked or at leastwise tolerated for so long tyme wherunto truly I know not what other thing to answere but that it may be that the exceptions I tooke in my answer to M. Morton against diuers things in that narration as notorious vntruthes might displease or stinge somewhat Syr Edward who hauing no list to answere the matters theÌ„selues thought best to fall aboard the relator to lay the fault on him saying that he hath not related matters aright wherin as I meane not to excuse him so on the other side it seemeth very hard vnto me that the substance of those points wherin I touched Syr Edwards vntrue dealing and many other wherin I might haue said much more should be feigned or deuised by Pricket or related by him more maliciously against vs then they were meant or vttered by the Iustice himself which is euident partly by that which I haue heard to be continued still by him both there and in other places where since that tyme he hath giuen Charges to the Iurie wherin the greatest part and most bitter of his speach is allwayes commonly against the Catholicks as though they were the greatest malefactours of the realme to be inquired of And in this very Charge and speach related by Pricket his malicious inâ—ectiue against them conteyneth aboue a dozen leaues printed the whole thing it self scarce being as much againe 106. And if you will behold the impertinency vanity therof considering the auditory of Norwich his Countrey where he would needs triumph gloriously in that first Charge if I be not deceyued after he was Iudge you shall fynd it not only like to be Syr Edwards but worthy also of his veyne in that vanity for that hauing first by a seuerall Exordium set down a tale of a Noble yong Roman that was by the Senate made a Iudge in his tender yeares and for diuers reasons and considerations of the dignity therof made some delay and difficulty in admitting the same he did notwithstanding vpon some friends persuasion yeald at length to accept therof all which Parable the Iustice applying to himselfe beginneth his Charge with such plausible Oratoricall wisedomes eloquence to vse the words of his Relatour M. Pricket as first he expounded vnto them vpon his fingers the Grammaticall verse Quis quibus quid quomodo and de quibus that is who sent this Commission to wit his Maiesty To whom to Syr Edward and others vnder him What did it coÌ„teyne Great and high authority How must it be executed By doing iustice Of whom and what causes must inquiry be made Principally and in the first place against Catholiks that do professe the Roman religion and obedience of the Pope 107. And is not this a goodly deduction Was there euer any English Iudge before the Apostacy of Martyn Luther that gaue a Charge from the bench against such men for being such If all the Iudges lawiers of our Nation that euer gaue Charges to inquire of malefactours for nine hundred yeares together and more in our Iland after Christian religion receyued did giue such a Charge for such a crime then hath Syr Edward somewhat to excuse his insolency heerin But if there be none as most certainly there is not how then doth he performe his promise made heere in this new Latin Preface of auoyding fiue things in setting downe his Reports Wherof the fourth he termeth Nouitatem Nouelty which he defyneth to be then when si ad amussim nostrorum librorum antiquorum exempla applicentur nequaquam quadrant If the things which he speaketh being applyed to the exact rule of their law-bookes and examples of their ancients do not agree therunto Which he holdeth for a thing most vnworthy of their profession indignissimam studiis nostris VVherefore eyther he must bring forth such ancient bookes lawes and examples for himself and his cause that precedent Iudges haue giuen such Charges or els he conuinceth himselfe to be most vnworthy of that place and dignity of law which he holdeth 108. But to returne to the Charge giuen at Norwich after he had expounded the verse of Quis Quibus c. according to his manner of ostentation he beginneth his narratioÌ„ thus Our worlds admired Queene renowned Elizabeth did as you do know in the beginning of her Raigne change the State of religion in this kingdome in her first Parliament by the consent of her Lordes Spirituall Temporall c. and then he goeth forward to shew the continuall reclayme and resistance made by Catholicke men from tyme to tyme for their religion wherby thinking to disgrace them as rebellious for their reluctation doth in deed giue them the highest coÌ„mendation that can be giuen to Christian men which is to stand firme constaÌ„t to the worlds end in their Religion once receiued and continued to their tyme. And for himselâ—e doth insinuate therby that for the gayning of aduancement and pleasing a worlds admired Queene or any other worldly Prince it were no hard matter to make him admit any change of Religion whatsoeuer for so much as he alloweth so easily of this which this VVoman-Queene made with admiration and wonder oâ— the world yet doth he vtter
this be like to my cause P. R. saith he a litle after discusseth some of my answers to this obiection oâ— practise yet now will not acknowledge the beginning So he And let the iudicious Reader iudge how aptly this is applied yet to the thing it selfe I say that true it is that he indeauoureth both before and after to answere to diuers proofes of seditious practises obiected by his aduersary against Caluin and Beza but weakly God-wot as may be seene by my Reply and yet out of his owne confidence or that courage rather which before I mentioned of a Cocke of the game he would make that crowing vaunt Thus is Caluin iustified saith he concerning his doctrine and in him also Beza you haue heard their opinions haue you any thing to except against their practises Would not you thinke that he meant that we had none at all to obiect no more against their practises then their doctrine And that as he held the one for iustified so did he hould the other for iustifiable and that herin there was no exception to be made Wherin then standeth this wilfull malice of mine Yea this intollerable impudency or impotency of malice to vse his owne words But for that they were spoken in impatience I will not greatly vrge the same nor yet seeke to recompence them least I should go against the title of this Treatise which is A quiet and sober Reckoning the moderate iudicious Reader shall be the iudge of all where passion and where modesty is found HIS NINTH obiected falshood against P. R. §. IX HIS ninth obiection is a strange one and signifieth that the poore man is exhausted and cannot well tell what to obiect with any shew or probability in matter of wilfull falshood so as he falleth to lay hands of things quite against himselfe For wheras I had proued in my Treatise Of Mitigation two or three manifest vntruthes vttered voluÌ„tarily by him in going about to defend the Rebellion of Syr Thomas VViat and the Duke of Suffolke in Queene Maries time and so conuinced the same as there was no place left of probable defence M. Morton vpon meere necessity commeth here now to haÌ„dle these points againe and in part to excuse himself by the feeble meanes which presently you shall heare concluding nothing more against me but this which are the last words of all his discourse VVherefore saith he these two lies which P. R. would haue bestowed vpon me he by vertue of his place and Patent may keep to himself And is not this a great inference when he should conuince me of wilfull falsity But you shall heare vpon what grounds he obiecteth these two vntruthes to me for that I conuinced him of foure 43 First then my speach vpon his weake defence of the foresaid Rebellion was this in my Treatise of Mitigation To that of Syr â—homas VViat the Duke of Suffolke and others quoth I he answereth diuersly First he saith that the Historie relateth the pretence of VViat thus A Proclamation against the Q. marriage desiring all English-men to ioyne for defence of the Realme c. Then that in Q. Maries Oration against Wiat there is not to be found any scruple concerning the cause of religion Thirdly that no Minister of the ghospell was brought in question as a coÌ„motioner in that cause Lastly that ys inteÌ„â— might 〈◊〉 for ProtestaÌ„ts accused in that name thâ— is it plain saith M. Morton that it was not Religion ys for Wiat and his folloâ—ers it is playne it was not against the Queene or State but for both So he that is to say M. Morton in his Full SatisfactioÌ„ 44. But in all these foure different clauses I then sayd and now doe repeat agayne that there is not so much as one that in rigour may be defended for true For as for the first though the historie of Holinshed doth relate the pretence of VViat to haue bene against the Q. marriage conâ—â—aling and dissembling the poynt of ReligioÌ„ in that place which els where he confesseth as aâ—ter shal be seene yet Iohn â—ox a more ancieÌ„t and authenticall Historiographer then he doth plainely set downe that together with the pretence of the marriage the cause of Religion was also pretended in these words The mention of marriage with Spaine quoth he was very ill taken of the people and of many of the Nobility who for this and for Religion conspiring among theÌ„selues made a Rebellion wherof Syr Thomas VViat knight was one of the cheifest And againe They sayd that the Q. the CouÌ„sell would by forraine marriage bring vpoÌ„ this Relme miserable seruitude and establish Popish Religion So Fox And it cannot be presumed but that M. Morton had seene and read this yet durst affirme that there was no mention of Religion at all in VViats pretence which is the first lye 45. The second also that in the Oration of Q. Mary against VViat there was not found any scruple concerning the cause of Religion is proued likewise false by the same authority of M. Fox in his Acts and Monuments who writeth that Q. Marie in hâ—r Oration in the Guildhall sayd publickely that she had sent diuers of her Counsell to learne the pretences of that Rebellion and it appeared to our said Counsell said she that the matter of the marriage seâ—â—â—ed to be but a Spanish cloake to couer their pretensed purpose against our Râ—ligion And this testimonie also of Fox must needes haue bene knowne to M. Morton and consequently here is a second witting lye affirming that there is not so much as any scruple to be found concerning the cause of Religion in that her Oration 46. The third point likewise that there was no Minister of the Ghospell brought in question as a CoÌ„motioner in that cause is both false in it selfe and cautelously set downe for that the commotion of VViat and the Duke of Suffâ—lke ensuing within the coÌ„passe of fiue moneths aâ—ter the death of the Duke of Northumberland that did conspire the depriuation of Q. Mary the first being put to death vpon the 22. of August 1553. the other beginning his rebellion vpoÌ„ the 25. of â—anuary 1554â— it being well knowne the coÌ„fessed both by Fox Holinsâ—ed Stow and others that the motiue of Protestant Religion was common to them both and pretended for chiese in them both and it being notorious that in the first both Cranmer Ridley Hooper Rogers Iewell all the chief Protestant Minisâ—ers of England did concurre who can doubt but that in the second aâ—lso being but an appendix of the former they â—ad their harts therin though not â—o â—ully their hands as actuall Commotioners for that the Râ—bellion was suppressed in the very beginning by taking away the two heads VViat and Suffolke 47. Wherby you may see the craftie speach of M. Morton who saith that Ministers were not the Commoâ—ioners nor brought into quâ—stion for such that is to say
that all was for the safety good of their State and persons and no lesse in the cause of Syr Thomas VVyat 53. Heere then you see that he is conuinced of foure seuerall false assertions which he could not choose but know to be false before he set them downe if he read and belieued M. Fox and other Protestant writers But how now thinke you doth all this conuince or so much as accuse me of any willfull falsitie And if it doth not as euery man seeth why then is it brought in hâ—eâ—e in this place for a seuerall obiection of faâ—shood against me Yea with words of great reproach saying VVe may sufâ—er professors of the â—eates oâ— lâ—gier-de-main to delude the behoulders to conuey onâ— mans ring into another mans pocket and then call him a cosner but for vs Diuines to play such tricks as P. R. hath donne changing Holinshed into M. Fox and then to tax me for â—alsâ—od is a deuise inexcusable So he 54. And did you euer heare a sober man in this tune Stand attâ—nt I pray to the controuersy He cited the proclamation of Syr Thomas VViatt as not making mention of Religion and quoteth Holinshed in the margent I produced M. Fox that wrote before Holinshed and liued in Q. Maâ—yes time who set downe not only VViatts temporall pretenses but that also for religion and for all the other three points I do alleage the same Fox and M. Morton quoteth no author at all but Holinshed as holding his peace and saying nothing therin which he wil needes take for a deniall albeit in the last point as you haue heard Holinshed himself expresly testifieth against him which he dissembleth And do I then heere play Legier-de-main coÌ„ueying rings into other mens pockets and changing Holinshed into Fox Doth this man know or care what he saith Or is there any one of these points that prooueth any least falshood in me not rather all foure in him How then is it heere againe brought in against me in this ninth obiection of â—alsity I am content that any indiffereÌ„t friend of his answere for him in this point whether in leauing to me the charge of two vntruthes draweth not vnto himselfe all foure much more forcibly then they were layd vpon him before in our Treatise of Mitigation 55. Nay I must tell the Reader further that haâ—â—ng considered better the impudency of this his laâ—t Preambling Reply wherein he would shroud himseâ—â— from a maniâ—est conuiction of lying in the first point for that Holinshed speaketh nothing of religioÌ„ in VViats pretence I tooke the paines to search hâ—m ouer more diligently and found that he did expressely affirme also the same that Fox doth saying The Commons and many of the Nobility for the marriage and for the cause of Religion conspired to rayse warre And the very same doth affirme Iohn Stow in his Chronicle saying that for this marriage and for religion they conspired against the Queene c. So as now hauing found out this M. Morton cannot say that I do wilily like a Fox prey furthest from home for that before I did vrge only the authority of M. Fox seeing that now both his proper Author Holinshed and Stow are found expressely to affirme the self same VVhich way will M. Morton turne himself heere For he is conuinced of an open and manifest falshood in denying that in two seuerall Replyes and Editions of his bookes which now his owne author Holinshed is found flatly to affirme FOVRE OTHER obiections of M. Morton against P. R. in matter of willfull falsitie to witt the tenth eleauenth tweluth and thirteenth in M. Mortons Catalogue §. X. IN signe that M. Mortons matter now groweth barren in obiâ—cting of willâ—ull falsities against me he beginneth to â—uddle vp diuers of them togeather but of so small moment and so fully answered and confuted before as it is euident he seeketh but some shew of number to help himself for some ostentatioÌ„ towards which help I doe willingly increase his number more by one then he maketh it in his owne reckoning though he indeed set all downe but yet being ashamed of the first about my erring in his name T. M. he giueth thereunto no number at all of a distinct obiection as I haue donne in my answere Let vs see thenâ— what manner of obiections these foure are beginning in his accompt from the 8. in these words 57. A ninth falshood sayth he may be accompted his peremptory râ—prehensâ—on of our English translation vpon that oâ—â—say the Prophet 29. as dissâ—nting from the Latin Greâ—ke and Hebrew both in woâ—ds and sense in which censure he hath bâ—ne conuicted oâ— a grossâ— falshood in both by the iudgment oâ— his owne Doctours Thus farre he And for this he noteth in the margent see aâ—oâ—e § 5. nu 15. meaning that the same is handled before betweene vs in this Preamble consequently condemneth himself of impertinency and oâ— lacke of matter to obiect against me when he bringeth it forth heere againe for making vp a number of many obiections though neuer so vaine and idle quite contrary to his solemne promise in the begining that he would bring forth nothing but only such falles of mine as may seeme to be â—ecouerable by no excuse and inforce me neuer hereafter to credit my self and the Reader to thinke that I haue no conscience at all All this he threatned and now do you iudge whether these obiections of his do inforce thus much or no being in themselues both trifles not prooued by him 58. And for this first about the text of Esay wherin he accuseth me of grosse falshood there could be none therin on my part at all it being but a reprehension of mine against him for that he translated the sentence falsely which if it could be prooued that he did not yet should it be bâ—t an errour in me and no witting falshood and consequently nothing to our purpose but he that shall peruse the place heere cited where this matter is before discussed shall find M. Morton and his English translation if there be any such extant cleerly conuinced that they neither agree with the Latin Greeke or Hebrew nor with S. Hierom most skilfull in all three languages so as this obiection might haue bene left oâ—t but only for want of other store And as for that he saith in the last words of this obiection that I am conuinced of grosse falshood by the iudgment of my owne Doctours it must needs be grosse presumption for M. Morton to affirme it For that there is no one of mine that is to say Catholicke that euer tooke out that sense of the words of Esay that he doth nor could they do it the text not bearing any such interpretation as before hath bene declared Wherfore his subâ—ility in forcing Esay to say that which he doth not is contemptâ—bâ—e to vs in comparison of our grosâ—enesse that cannot vnderstand him but in
meaning and of desyre to deceaue And so much for this to prooue in M. Morton mentem reaÌ„ a guilty mind that according to S. Augustins iudgement maketh him mendacij reum guilty of willfull lying though it be but in smaller things where malyce is more theÌ„ the matter it self 102. Hytherto M. Morton hath gone vp and downe seeking and picking out the weakest sort of imputatioÌ„s layd against himâ— wherunto he thought himself best able to make some shew of probable answere wherin notwithstanding you haue seene how litle he hath beene able to performe in any substance of truth and how in three or foure of these eyght aready proposed he hath beene forced eyther to confesse that he saw not the Authour which he cited or to remit vs to other men for answering the falshoodes therin obiected And now he betaketh himselfe to another shift for making vp a number of imputations as satisfyed by him for it seemed somewhat to touch his credit to answere fourteene imputations which was the nuÌ„ber he obiected against me though he leaue more then twice fourteene vnanswered and this new shift is to repeate and bring in agayne in this place fiue seuerall imputations treated both by him and vs before and some of them twice at least and yet would he nedes fetch them in the third tyme not for want of other layd against him of much more force difficulty to be answered but for that these being things of small moment and lightly obiected for such by me they do serue him to make a bulke of worke as though he had dispatched much matter and solued great difficultyes wheras indeed they are nothing but wordes on his behalfe and ostentatioÌ„ without substance Let vs see then what they are THE NINTH Imputation twice handled before and now againâ— brought in by M. Morton §. IX THIS is about a place of Isay the Prophet in the 29. Chapter and 9. verse where it is said in the common Latin traÌ„slation of S. Hierome Obstupescite admiramini fluctuate vacillate inebriamini non à vino mouemini non ab ebrietate Be ye astonished and wonder wauer yee and reele yee are drunke but not with wine ye are moued but not with drunkennesse and coÌ„forme to this are the other texts also both in Hebrue Greeke VVhich sentence M. Morton translateth into English setteth it forth for his poesie in the first page of his booke in these wordes But stay your selues and wonder they are blind and make you blind applying it to our Catholicke Doctors and doctrine for which I noted him only in the end of my second Chapter for falsly alleaging corrupting and mangling this place the Reader will se my reason by looking vpon the text And how little he hath bene able to say for himselfe in iustification of this his fancy may be seene in the two Chapters before mentioned And so we passe to another as trifling as this THE TENTH Imputation twyce also handled before and now againe brought in by M. Morton §. X. THIS also is a Colewort twice already sodden and now brought in agayne the third tyme for lacke of better victualls to witt about the text of Carerius the Paduan Doctor whether it should be Nuperrimè verè Celsus or nuperrimè verò Celsus wherof I spake but a word or two in my Treatise of Mitigation censuring it for a trifle and now M. Morton hath so stretched out the matter for that he may seeme to haue some litle patronage for his errour by the later errour of another prynt as hauing brought it in twice already in two seuerall Chapters for an ostentation of his manhood he coÌ„meth now againe the third tyme with the same thing as you see wheras my booke might haue lent him a great many of other more reall Charges wherin his said manhood might better haue beene tryed But he desired only to make a florish THE ELEVENTH Imputation pretended to be answered which is handled also before §. XI THIS Imputation was for that M. Morton had affirmed that Doleman doth pronounce seÌ„tence That whosoeuer shall consent to the succession of a Protestant Prince is a most grieuous and damnable synner VVhich sentence I do affirme in my Treatise of Mitigation that it is neyther in wordes nor in sense to be found in Doleman which I do proue by producing his whole text that hath no such wordes though M. Moâ—ton hath sett them downe in a different letter as Dolemans propeâ— wordes Nor are they there in true sense as more preiudiciall to Protestants then to men of other religion for that the discourse is generall for all sortes of men of what ReligioÌ„ or sect soeuer that they do sinne grieuously if willingly they doe concurre to the making of a King whome they thinke in their conscience to be contrary to Gods true religion Where M. MortoÌ„ saying nothing to the substance of the matter it selfe indeuoureth to shew that as a man may sometymes alleage the sense of Scriptures only and not the very wordes citing for the same diuers examples as Ephes. 5.14 Heb. 1. 1. Heb. 3.5 Act. 10.43 and so might he alleage the sense of Doleman though he varied from his wordes But I deny that eyther the true wordes or true sense of Doleman was related by him and consequently it cannot be excused from a witting falshood See this matter handled before Cap. 1. § 7. THE TWELVTH Imputation handled before Chap. 1. and pretended now againe to be answered §. XII THIS Imputation was about false dealing on M. Mortons behalfe in setting downe a generall asâ—ertion that all Popish Priests vpon the pretended supremacy and prerogatiuâ— of Pope and People ouer Princes do vtterly abolish the title of succession in all Protestant Prinâ—es Wherin he is conuinced of diuers falshoods handled before by vs in the first Chapter of this Treatise where we haue shewed euidently that he cannot defend his position but with multiplying more falâ—ityes one vpon another for view wherof I remitt the Reader to the place quoted for so much as M. Morton in this last Reply writeth only fiue lines therof in this place remitting vs in like maÌ„ner to that which before hath bene handled THE THIRTEENTH Imputation handled also before and now brought in againe by M. Morton §. XIII IT is a great argument of M. Mortons penury that he is forced to repeat things so often thereby to make some shew of answering to somwhat though in truth it be nothing in effect for that he dissembling aboue 30. weighty and maine Charges giuen him by his Aduersary as will appeare in the next Chapter he seeketh to intertaine his Reader heere with smaller matters twice or thrice repeated And now this thirteenth Imputation if yow remeÌ„ber was about alleaging the authority of the Historiographer Otto Frisingensis against the cause of Pope Gregory the seauenth in fauour of the Emperour
award they made him abiure the Land though this also was not due vnto him by rigour of law to pacify thereby the Kings wrath And it is not vnlike to that Case that fell out in England Anno Domini 1578. vnder Q. Elizabeth when in her anger she would haue had Peter Bourchet to haue byn put to death by Martiall law when he had wounded Syr Iohn Hawkins insteed of Syr Christopher HattoÌ„ but the Iudges would not yeald therunto as being against law therefore found out this temperament that he should be committed to the Tower and accused of matters of Religion as Puritanisme and the like Where afterwards he gaue them a iust cause of putting him to death by killing his keeper But as the Queenes will passion made this no law so neither did that other vnder K. Edward the first So as M. Attorney did much abuse his Reader in auerring it to be treason by the common law adiudged for such out of this Case 84. And if he will vrge that the punishment of haÌ„ging and drawing implieth treason it is answered no but that this rather maketh much for vs. For that the punishment of treason I meane high treason is not only hanging and drawing but quartâ—ring also excepting only the Case of counterfeyting of money Stat. de 25. Edâ— 3. de proditionibus as appeareth by Stanford in his Booke of the Pleas of the Crowne fol. 182. but petty treasons as of killing the maister or Mystresse by the seruant or of any Prelate by his subiect c. which in effect are but fellonies are punished by hanging drawiâ—g oâ—ly wheâ—eof is consequent that albeit K. Edwards will and commandment had byn according â—o law as â—t was not yet had it inâ—erred no treason at all 85. And further to satisfy this matter and make it more cleere that the Reader was abused in this assertion I will adde foure seuerall Reasons argumeÌ„ts more out of the law-books themselues The first is concerning the abiuring the Realme for pacifying the King awarded in iuâ—tice Thoâ—ps Case which proueth euidently that it was not an offence of treason in the delinquent for that abiuraâ—ce is no punishment for treason but only for fellony as appeareth by the said Iustice Standâ—ord in his said Booke fol. 116. where he setteth downe the beginning of abiurance how it was first ordeyned by S. Edwaâ—d before the Conquâ—st and was grounded vpon mercy when a maÌ„ had committed fellonie and fled to a Church or Churchyard for safety of his life and did choose rather perpetuall banishment then to stand to the law So as abiurance by the old lawes of England was at tâ—e election of the Offendours and not at â—he will of the Prince And afterward the said Stanford shewing for what offences in particuler a mâ—n might abiure the Realme saith that abiuration doth not lye â—or hâ—m that hath offended in high treason 86. The second Reason is that the said Stanford in his said booke of the Pleas of the Crowne fol. 182. inteÌ„ding to set down all offencâ—s of treason which were either by the Common-law or Statute-law doth not relaâ—e any such matter to be treason as the bringing into the Realme Bulles of excommunication by one Subiect against an other which he would neuer haue concealed if he had found it held for such in any law booke before him 87. The third Reason is to the same effect that the Statute of 25. Ed. 3. being made for declaration of treasons doth â—et downe what offences were treasons by the Common law In this Statute I say no mention at all is made that the bringing in of Bulls of excommunication was treason or any other offence which of likelyhood cannot be presumed that they would haue pretermitted to touch or mention if any such thing had bin 88. The fourth Reason and most concludent is that we read in many Bookes of law as 31. Ed. 3. â—xcommunicat 6. Fitzh tit Excom pl. 6.14 â—en 4. â—ol 14.8 Hen. 6. fol. 3 and ells where that diuers Excommunications were pleaded in the Kings Courts and no matter of treasoÌ„ or other offence made therof by the Iudges which no doubt they would neuer haue passed ouer so negligently carelesely if it had bin treason by the common-law Neither would any Counsel haue presumed to plead the same so often in the said Courts if there had byn such perill or offence therein at that tyme as M. Attorney now pretendeth Neither doth the authority of Brooke here cyted by M. Attorney patronize him in his voluntary mistaking misconstruyng of the law-books a foresaid For that Brooke doth not say that the bringing in of Bulls was iudged treason by law as M. Attorney doth but onâ—y maketh this note So see punishment of that before the Statute of Premunire which maketh nothing for M. Attorn purpose and if it did yet were it not to be equalled with so many graue authorities euideÌ„t coÌ„uincing reasons as before we haue alleaged to the contrary 89. Wherfore we must conclude that in this first Case M. Attorney hath sundry wayes dealt vnsincerly and gone about to deceiue his Reader making him belieue that the bringing in pleading of the Popes Bulles in ancient time was treason according to the Common-lawes which being now proued to be false yet doth he so often repeate the same vpon all occasions against Catholikes both in wryting speaking pleading and vbrayding as if it were a most certaine truth or principle and not to be controlled Let vs see somewhat of the other Cases TO THE OTHER FOVRE CASES obiected by M. Morton out of Syr Edward Cooke §. VI. IT were ouer long to answere so largely vnto all the other Cases as we haue done to this first especially for so much as the Deuine hath done it very sufficiently and fully before the second Case conteyning only a temporall matter about Advowsons and authority thereby to present Clearks to benefices which was an ancient custome of the Church of England where teÌ„porall men hauing founded Churches and benefices reserued to themselues the nominatioÌ„ and presentation of the persons that should enioy the same who if they were found fit and nothing to be proued against theÌ„ that might iustly be opposed for their exclusion then the Bishop of the diocesse was bound to admit them And if he did not the Aduowsoner might haue an Action against the said Bishop at the Commonlaw of Quare non admisit as in a temporall Case and if the Bishop could not excuse his not admitting of the Clerke of the Recouerer by some sufficient cause then the Plaintif should recouer domages against the Bishop or els he might haue vpon the not executing the first writ to the Bishop an Alias or a Pluries against him And if these were not serued or sufficient excuse made vpon the return thereof why they were not serued then the partie grieued might haue an Attachment against the Bishop
of Equiuocation ibid. nu 20. 22 he is much troubled about the example of Saphyra ibid. n. 26.27 his childish mistaking ibid. n. 36. his miraculous victory cap. 2. num 44. The excesse of M. Mort. malice c. 3. n. 3. He vseth fiue seuerall false shiftes and voluntary corruptioÌ„s in one accuâ—ation of Card. Bellar. ibid 72 73 c. his three fraudes concerning the Manichean heresy obiected by Bellarm. to the Protestants ibid num 79 c. he calleth diuers of the Fathers Knights of the posts ibid. n. 136 his false accusation of Catholicke writers n. 137. He is much pressed with wilfull lying about the matter of Purgatory n 139 M. Morton in obiecting a contradiction to P. R. lieth himself cap 4 n. 6 he denieth Syr Thomas VViats attempt to haue bene against either Queene or State ib. nu 48. Fox conteÌ„ned by M. Morâ—â— and Holinshead belied ibid n 50 c. He vseth 5. different fraudes at one time about Azor cap 4 n. 74 His fraud in alleaging Emanuel Sà n. 75 76 c. the like he vseth in citing Maldonate n. 82 83 M. Morton citeth diuers authors for that thing which they expressely do refuâ—e in the same places cap 5 nu 34 he confesseth an exorbitant fault casteth it on my L. of Canterburie nu 88 for want of more matter he doth handle the selfe same things diuers times to fill vp paper cap 5 nu 103 104 c. M. Mortons corruptions in citing Cassander and Bellarm. cap. 6 n 79. What substantiall matters handled in the Mitigation are wholy pretermitted by him cap. 6. nâ— 116. M. MortoÌ„s debts and accoÌ„pts cap 7 n 2 3 c. n 29. his bad dealing n 31 he defendeth not Syr Edw. Cooke n 48. his helping the die n 75.76 c his fiue cases out of Syr Ed. Cookes Reports at large discussed and answered ib n 74 75 c. his fond comparings n 95 96. his pretermissions cap 6 per totum his new lies added in his Preamble cap 9 per totum His vanting chalenges c. 10. per totuÌ„ N NAucleruâ— abused by M. Morton about the death of Pope Adrian the fourth cap 5 n 20 22. The Nicene Councell not falsified by Zozimus cap 3 n 30. For a Nihil and Nimium dicit see in Syr Edward Cooke Two causes of a Nihil dicit c 8. nu 2 3 c. Nouatian heresy in ProtestaÌ„ts see Bellarmine O OTho Frifingensis abused c 1 n 87 88. P PElagianisme in Protestants See Bellarmine Persecuting Iudges come to ill ends ca 8 nu 117. S. Peters answer to thâ— mayd concerning Christ. cap 2 n 33. Pius V. scoffed at by Syr Edw. Cooke cap 8 nu 108. Polidore Virgil belied c 5 n 12. Preamble of M. Morton vayne obscure confused cap 2 n 1. It is a great head with litle wit ca 2 num 19. M. Mortons vaine descants vpon the letters P. R. cap 10 nu 18 19 P.R. his iust demaund to haue M. Mortons bookes purged by fire cap 10 n 3â— Pricket pricked by Syr Edw. Cooke for seting forth in print his Charge giuen at Norwich cap 8. num 101. He is cleared from all malice against the Knight n 102 103. Protestant Princes neuer censured by the Sea Apostolike c. 2 numero 7. Protestants agree with the Nouatian heretikes cap 3 n 71 inexcusable in matters of rebellion cap 4 n. 39. Prouidence a principall part of prudence cap 2 nu 10. Purgatory prooued by Cocâ—ius out of many Fathers cap. 3 n 130. Q THe Question betweene M. Morton P. R. cap. 2. n 17. Of Queene Marie see VViat Of Queene Elizabeth see the Appendix against King the Minister In fine operis R REbellion by what religion most taught and practized c 7 n 13 14 Rebellion of Protestants c 4 num 39 Rebellion of VViat See VViat M. Reynolds exorbitantly abused cap 5. n. 88. the blame and shame cast vpon the B. of Canterbury Ibid. S THe Salamanders nature ca 8. n. 20. Saphyra See Morton The sleeping souldiers at our Sauiours Sepulcher cap 1 § 1 n. 2. c. The distinctiue signe of true false spirits cap 3 n 5. The Stage-play of M. Morton cap 2 num 1 2 3 4 c Stratagemes in warre lawful although they be Equiuocations cap 4 num 88. The Popes Supremacy confirmed by an inuincible argumeÌ„t of Costerus cap 3 num 13. see more in S. Leo. Suspitions without grounds breed nothing but vexations iealousies in Princes mindes cap. 2 n 11 c. Sutcliffs manner of answering Catholike bookes cap 6 n 57. The absurd Sillogisme of T. Morton againe examined cap. 1. num 27â—28 c. T THe case of Tythes examined cap. 8. num 92 93. c. ToleratioÌ„ of diuers ReligioÌ„s see M. Morton Traditions vnwritten allowed by S. Cyprian cap 3 nu 111 V VNtruthes vrtered by M. Morton See cap 6 and 8 alibi passim Vntruthes of other ProtestaÌ„ts See vnder the names of Iewell Horne Fox c. Vowes of voluntary pouerty approued by the Fathers cap â— num 23. Pope Vâ—banus his death See Binius W THe sweet waters of Meribah grosly mentioned by M. MortoÌ„ for the bitter waters of Marah cap. 10. n 3 VVh the Minister his Equiuocation in Append. n. 2 3. c. VVitaker reiecteth all the Fathers at once cap. 7. n. 45. VVilliam Conquerour changed our English lawes cap. 8. nu 50.51 Misreported about appropriatioÌ„s by Syr Edward Cooke n. 82.83 The VVit of P. R. taxed by M. Morton cap. 1 n. 2 3 c. The lying VVoman and lying Priests foolishly paralleled by M. Morton cap 2 n 38. VViats rebellion falsely defended by M. Morton cap 4 nu 48. c. See more in M. Morton FINIS In his Epistle dedicatory La preface de la sixiesme paâ—t des Reports Preamb. pag. 2. M. Mort. diuisioÌ„ of his worke Impertinent proceeding The methode vsed for M. Mort. confutation First Inquiry Witlesse contentioÌ„ about wit Second Inquiry See his Preamble pag. 31. Preamble pag. 32. Threates of scratches What was principally required of M. Mort. and what he performeth The contâ—ary succesâ—e of M. Mort. expectation The suÌ„mâ— of all this my Answere in 10. Chapters The reasoÌ„ of the tytle of this booke Two calumniations August lib. 2. coÌ„t Petil. cap. 83. ep 48. ad Vinâ—ent Rogat Optatus l. 2. cont Paâ—m lib. 6. August cont Donat in psalm 132. cont Petil. lib 3. c. 40. lib. 4. Preamb. p. 43. 48. About the Equiuocation of Saphyra That I am in charity with M. Morton Three causes of exasperation M. Mort. great presumptioÌ„ Preamb. p. 51. The secoÌ„d cause of exasperation A story out of Lactantiê° about the circuÌ„staÌ„ce of time which an enemie of Christian Religion tooke for his aduaÌ„tage The third cause of exasperation M. Mort. prouocatory speaches Act. 5. Preamb. pag. 48. A fond insultatioÌ„ Preamble p. 48. M Morton taken in an open contradictioÌ„ M. Mort. epistle to the Earle of