A preamble vnto an incounter with P.R. the author of the deceitfull treatise of mitigation concerning the Romish doctrine both in question of rebellion and aequiuocation: by Thomas Morton. Published by authoritie.

An Answer to the Accusations of falshood, which the Mitigator hath obiected to his Aduersary Th. Morton, singling out of many, not such which might seeme vnto me most easilie answered: but those which P. R. hath most vehemently pressed and vrged, as by his insolent insultations will appeare.

§ 18.

100. ALthough the discouered calumnious spirit of P. R. might so preiudice the credit of his other taxations, that, in the opinion of any religious Reader, I might seeme to be absolued euen before I be accused; yet considering that in slander, as in a bodily hurt Etsi vulnus sanetur, cicatrix manet tamen Though the wound be cured, yet the scarre doth remaine: and that it was no sufficient iustification for the one thiefe vp∣on the Crosse to tell his fellow, saying:* 1.1 Thou also art in the same condemnation: Therefore doe I willingly addresse my A∣pologie and defence against his calumniations, especially such wherein he insisteth and insulteth most; wherunto I shall giue (I hope) such satisfaction, as that not only the wound of slan∣der may be cured, but euen also the suspicious scarre of impu∣tation may be wiped away.

The first obiected falsifica∣tion, whereupon he ma∣keth this insultation: It is a malicious lie of the Mini∣ster, hauing neither simplicitie nor truth, but of a lost consci∣ence by manifest and malicious calumniations.

101 P. R. beginneth thus: a 1.2

He (Tho. Morton) laieth before his Maiesty a certaine obseruation about Popes names, as full fraught with malice and deceitfulnesse, as the former with vanity: and he layeth the obseruation vpon Polydore Virgil, though ci∣ting no place for it. Polydore obserueth (saith hee) that the Popes a long time in their election had their names changed by Antiphrasis, viz. the elected if he were by naturall disposi∣tion fearefull, was named Leo, if cruell, Clement, if vnciuill Vr∣banus, if wicked Pius, if couetous Bonifacius, if in all behauior intolerable, Innocentius. And with this hee thinketh to haue laid downe an obseruation of importance. But why had he not adioined also, that if he were carelesse of his flocke, then Gregory must bee his name, which importeth a vigilant Pastor? But now let the iu∣dicious Reader obserue the malice and falshood of this obseruation, and thereby iudge whether the Authour thereof bee a Minister of simple truth, or no. Polydore saith onely that sometimes Popes as other Princes in like maner haue had names that haue beene different, or rather contrary to their nature and maners, which is an ordinary case, if we examine the signification of men and womens names; but that Popes names were changed of purpose by Anti∣phrasis, or contrary speech to couer their defects, as heere is set downe, this is a malicious lie of the Minister, and hath neither sim∣plicity nor truth in it: for that all these names heere mentioned of Leo, Clemens, Vrbanus, Pius, Bonifacius, Innocentius and Gregory were chosen by the Popes that tooke them for the great reuerence and estimation they had of certaine excellent men of that name, that went before them, as also for the good abodement of their future gouernment, and to be stirred vp the more by the memory of those names to the vertues signified by them: but especially for the honour and imitation of the first Popes that bare those names.

The Answer.

102 The first note of falshood he intimateth to be, because I laid my obseruation vpon Polydore, citing no place for it. Would not his preiudicate Reader now thinke that I had fraudulently suggested a testimonie in the name of Polydore, which cannot be found; and in the guiltinesse heereof to haue cited no place? But heere I make a Nouerint vniuersi, to giue euery Reader to vnderstand, that the sentence which I reported vpon my me∣mory is certainly extant in the ancient Editions of Polydore, lib. 4. Inuent. ca. 10. in these words, Primus honos, &c. which sentence because it doth not a little offend the superstitious Romanists, therfore An. Dom. 1572. by the authority of Pope Pius Quin. it is commanded in these words [b 1.3 Vsque ad, aliud sibi nomen aptaret, Deleatur] that is, faire and cleane to bee blotted out. Can then this be ought but a transcendent impudency to blame me for not citing that testimony, which his Pope, lest it should be cited hath vtterly razed out? Hee seeth his Pope pulling out a mans tongue, and then would compell mee to looke whether I can find it in his mouth: but although they haue made Polydore by their Index expurgatorius, almost in e∣uery page dumbe, not suffering him to beare witnesse against the pride of Popes, the licentiousnesse of Monkes, the supersti∣tions of their Church, the nouelties of their manifold traditi∣ons and inuentions; yet our ancient Polydore now dwelling a∣mongst Protestants (Printed An. 1570. Basileae) hath a tongue which will tell tales, saying plainely that,c 1.4 This is the first ho∣nour which is giuen vnto the Pope of Rome, that if peraduenture his name (before election) be somewhat vnseemely, he may change it as soone as he is created. As for example, (which may not bee spoken without a iest) if peraduenture hee had beene before (his creation) a wicked man, that then he should be called Bonifacius, that is, a good doer: if fearefull, then Leo, that is, a Lion: if rusti∣call, then Vrbanus, that is, ciuill: if vngodly, then Innocentius, that is, innocent: if furious, then Clemens, that is, gentle: if in∣famous, then Benedictus, that is, a man of a good report, should be his name. The first Author of this change of names (which was

Anno 1052.) was Pope Sergius Secundus, whose proper name was Hogs-face: who, that he might auoid the ignominy of his own name, was permitted to chuse another.

103 Obserue now what I haue reported from Polydore, viz. that Popes names were changed by antiphrase, or contrary speech, to couer their defects. And this is no whit different from the testimony of Polydore, who saith, that If the Pope were before his creation wicked, he did take the name of godly vpon him: if ri∣gorous, then gentle, &c. Which kind of alteration of names is not vnlike a Gregorian, (as some call it) or artificiall couer for a baldhead. Let therefore the iudicious Reader iudge from what spirit, whether of ignorance or malice, haue proceeded these slanderous inuectiues, calling my true relation malice and falshood: and againe, a malicious lie of the Minister, which hath neither simplicity nor truth in it. It is no rare thing for women of suspected conuersation, lest they should bee called by their proper names, to miscall honest Matrons first. Peraduenture P. R. vseth the same art in naming me a Liar. But I had rather interpret his meaning in the best part, to imagine that hee might meane by his owne open and false detraction to proue me his Aduersary, to be A Minister of simple truth.

A second obiection of fals∣hood, whereupon hee insulteth thus: This false Lad setteth downe his owne fiction: and is not this per∣fidious dealing? can any excuse him from falshood and malice in so open treachery?

104 P. R. groweth yet hotter, and casteth coales about him, thus;d 1.5

He (viz. Tho. Morton) hath these words: Pope Adrian being guiltie of like seditious practise against the Emperour Henry the Second, was choaked with a ••lie. And in his quota∣tion citeth Nauclerus for it, Generatione 139. which should bee 39. for that Nauclerus hath nothing neere so many generations in that part; and in stead of Henry the Second, hee should haue said Fredericke the First of that name, for that Henry the Second was before the time of our conquest, and almost two hundred yeers before Adrian the fourth our English Pope, of whom we now speak,

who liued in the time of King Stephen and King Henry the Se∣cond of England, and was an holy man, and accounted the Apostle of Noruegia for conuerting the same vnto our Christian faith, be∣fore he was Pope, and all Authours do write honourably of him▪ and so doth Nauclerus affirme: and therefore though hee make mention of such a fable related by Vrspergensis that was a schis∣maticall writer in those daies (who also doth not absolutely auouch it, but with this temperament, vt fertur, as the report goeth) yet doth the same Nauclerus reiect the same as false, and confuteth it by the testimonies of all other writers, especially of Italy that liued with him, and thereby knew best both his life and death. And yet all this notwithstanding will this false Lad T. M. needs set downe this history as true, affirming it for such, and neuer so much as gi∣uing his Reader to vnderstand, that any other denied the same, or that the only Authour himselfe of this fiction doubted therof. And is not this perfidious dealing? or can any man excuse him from fals∣hood and malice in this open treacherie?

The Answer.

105 Not so Sir, both because (as I truly protest) I did not write this out of the Author himselfe, which I had neuer seene, but from collection out of some other booke: yet in the relation it selfe there appeareth no shadow of malicious falshood. First, there could not be malice in misquotation of the Generation, as an 139. for 39.* 1.6 which neither added nor detracted anything from the matter it selfe, no more than to say Peter is 10. or an 100. yeeres of age doth conuince a man of fraud who inten∣deth only to prooue that Peter is a man. And whosoeuer shall obiect error of quotation, he may be quoted for one that is ig∣norant either what it is to write, or transcribe, or to print; for all these are subiect vnto misquotations. Now if there bee a fault in a peece of cloth, must we necessarily iudge that the spinner was to blame?

Secondly, what skilleth it whether it was Henry an Empe∣rour, or Fredericke an Emperour, that was excommunicated by the Pope, when as the intended conclusion was onely this, that Adrian the Pope did excommunicate an Emperour, and

conspired against him? no more than if, when one should bee examined of murder, the accuser should say that the mortall wound was giuen with the right hand; and the party accused should gainesay it, proouing it was done with the left hand; could this difference be of any moment, when the maine que∣stion is, whether this man committed the murder, or no? in all this there is error (I confesse) but yet no falshood.

Thirdly, if where one only witnesse is required, I should say vnto N. you told me (I think) that A. did conspire against F. and died miserably. No (quoth N.) I did not: but heere is my brother V. that said something to this purpose. In all this we discerne only an errour in misciting the Authour (N) but no falshood for want of a witnesse. So heere, where V. that is, the Abbat of Vrspurg was ready to say that which N. that is, Nauclerus was vnwilling to affirme, concerning the conspira∣cie of A. that is, the Pope Adrian against F. that is Fredericke the Emperour. O but Abbas Vrspurgensis did say onely, fer∣tur, that is, It is so reported: and this a man may say of a fable. But I pray you Sir, what is there in Historiographers of after times but only case of report? So that whosoeuer shall cite any Historian who was not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, an eie-witnesse him∣selfe of that which he writeth; doth in citing him confesse that he speaketh but vpon report: yet euen this word [fertur] that is, [It is so said, or, It is reported, or, The same is, &c.] doth not necessarily betoken doubtfulnesse in him that vttereth it: which your owne Iesuite 1.7 Del Rio would haue his Reader to obserue in a certaine sentence of S. Gregory.

106 The only colour of iust exception hee can bring, is this: Because (saith he) Nauclerus reiecteth it to be false, and confu∣teth it by all writers, especially of Italy. And what then? Notwith∣standing will this false Lad T. M. needs set it downe as true. If age make diseases desperate, it is better be a lad then (that I may so say) a dad in falshood; for by how much more any is a father in lying, the more neere hee is in degree of kindred vnto the father of lies, in which line of descent I feare P. R. will ap∣peare to be. For Nauclerus endeth his censure thus: Verùm cùm multi Itali nullam de hoc mentionem faciunt, &c. hec & alia

ambiguum me reddunt quid potiùs eligendum quid{que} credendū sit. Scribimus enim res gestas affectu nonnunquam plus quàm verita∣tis amore ducti. He saith not that Italians denied this maner of death, but that they make no mention of it: neither can Nau∣clerus be said to haue confuted that which he left as doubtfull, saying, I know not whether part to beleeue. As for the truth of the story (for this is it which we should contend for) wee oppose the Abbat Vrspergensis vnto Nauclerus. But it is obiected, Vr∣spergensis was an enemie to the Pope. Well; and it may be an∣swered, that the Monke Nauclerus was a friend to the Pope. And therefore we may know that as the bodily sight may bee hindered aswell by hot rheume as by colde, so falleth it out in passions of the mind, that loue may beget as blind commenda∣tion as hatred may a blind detraction.

107 But why should it be thought a matter incredible that such a dismall, and as it were disastrous end should befall a Pope? For, I feare, this is the only thing which so greatly offen∣deth the cholericke old man. Wherfore I entreat his patience (if yet there can be patience in so extreame malignity) to vn∣derstand what his owne Doctours haue written concerning the death of diuers Popes.f 1.8 Benè legitur Anastasium diuino nutu percussum interijsse: that Anastasius was strooke with the hand of God and perished. Their last Chronologer Binius, highly priuiledged, telleth vs, thatg 1.9 Ioannes decimus, quem infamis foe∣mina infami opere in solium Petri intrusit, per impudicam Theo∣dorae filiam ceruiciali suffocatus obijt: that is, Pope Iohn the tenth, whom an infamous woman by a l••wd practise, did thrust into Peters chaire, afterward by the vnchaste daughter of Theodora hee was choaked or strangled with a pillow. Again, of Iohn the twelfth, he citeth one whom he calleth an Aduersary to this Pope, repor∣tingh 1.10 Ioannem duodecimum quadam nocte, dum se cum alterius vxore oblectaret, in temporibus à diabolo percussum & inter pau∣cos dies mortuum esse: huius historiae veritatem non controuerto: How this Pope one night in the midst of his dalliance with another mans wife was stroke in the head by the Diuell and shortly after di∣ed. A little after; I doe not contend about the truth of this que∣stion. What is now awanting but that an example of one Pope

be produced, vpon whom the vengeance of God seazed be∣cause of his rebellious opposition against temporall Lords? Thisi 1.11 Vrbanus Tertius (inquit Abbas Vrspergeniss) quem multi Turbanum appellabant, eò quòd in odium Imperatoris turbaret Ecclesiam, nutu Dei percussus interijt: Pope Vrbane the third, (saith Abbas Vrspergensis) commonly called Turbane, because in hatred of the Emperour he troubled the Church, was strooke by God and perished. So little cause could I haue to wound my Ad∣uersaries with forged inuentions, being thus sufficiently furni∣shed and prepared to confound them with true and plain con∣fessed testimonies.

A third obiection of fals∣hood, whereupon he thus insulteth: With such wee are forced to deale, that haue no conscience at all in cosenage.

108 P. R. doth further charge me thus;k 1.12

And another like tricke he plaieth some few pages before this, again citing out of Do∣ctour Bouchiers booke De iusta abdicatione, these words: Ty∣rannum occidere honestum est, quod cuiuis impunè facere per∣mittitur; quod excommuni consensu dico: and then he English∣eth the same thus: Any man may lawfully murder a tyrant; which I defend, saith he, by common consent. But hee that shall read the place in the Authour himselfe shall find that hee holdeth the very contrary, to wit, that a priuate man may not kill a tyrant that is not first iudged and declared to bee a publike enemy by the Common∣wealth: and he prooueth the same at large: first out of Scriptures, and by the decree of the generall Councel of Constance: his words be these: Neque verò eo iure quod ad regnum habet nisi per pub∣licum iudicium spoliari potest, &c. Neither can a tyrant be de∣priued of that right which he hath to a kingdome but onely by pub∣like iudgement: yea further also, so long as that right of kingdome remaineth, his person must be held for sacred; wherof ensueth, that no right remaineth to any priuate man against his life: and albeit any priuate man should bring foorth neuer so many priuate iniuries done by the said tyrant against him; as that hee had whipped him with iron rods, oppressed him, afflicted him, yet in this case must hee haue patience, according to the admonition of S. Peter 1. 2. That

we must be obedient not only vnto good & modest lords, but also vn∣to those that be disorderly, & that this is grace when a man for Gods cause doth sustain & beare with patience iniuries vniustly done vn∣to him, &c. And a little after P. R. thusl 1.13 Let the Reader consider the malicious falshood of this Minister T. M. who in alleging that little sentence before mentioned, about killing of a tyrant, stroke out the words of most importance: quem hostem Respub. iudi∣cauerit; whom the common-wealth shall iudge for a publike ene∣mie: and adding that other clause, which I say by common con∣sent, which is not there to be found. And with such people we are forced to deale, that haue no conscience at all in cosenage, &c.

So. P. R.

The Answer.

110 The Accusation is grieuous, viz. Malicious cosenage; the Matter is hainous, viz. Killing of Kings; my Aduersarie is se∣rious and vrgent, saying, Consider &c. and the issue impor∣tant: which will be either a branding me for a notorious Slan∣derer, or else my Aduersarie for a toxicall and pestilent Miti∣gator. In thy examination and censure hereof (Christian Rea∣der) I require only iustice.m 1.14 Bouchier in the place controuer∣ted, doth make a double consideration of a Tyrant; one is, as he doth iniurie vnto any priuate man [Qui iusta potestate ad priuatorum iniurias abutitur.] In this case he resolueth, That à priuato occidi proptereà non licet: That is, It is not lawfull for any priuate man to kill him. The second consideration of a Ty∣rant is, as he doth commit any publike iniurie, whether the case concerne Religion or the ciuill State, whereof he doth determine thus: Qui inreligionem ac patriam tyrannidem exer∣ceat, hunc occidere respub. possit &c. That is, The Common∣wealth may kill him, who shall tyrannize and iniurie the religion, and the countrey: it is so manifest that none can doubt of it, but such as are destitute of common sense: for if the people may arme themselues against any noisome beast, which may indanger the common safetie; then much more against such a Tyrant, who is woorse than any beast. But who may attempt the execution heereof? It followeth in the place by me formerly alleged:

Priuato cuiuis Tyrannum, quem hostem Resp. iudicauerit, occi∣dere licitum est. That is, It is lawfull for euery priuate man to kill him, whom the Common-wealth shall iudge to be a Tyrant. We see now that Bouchier hath defended, both that No pri∣uate man may kill a Tyrant for iniurie against priuate men, and also, that Any priuate man may kill a Tyrant for common iniuries.

111 I haue alleged the latter, P. R. hath opposed the former; both of vs haue affirmed a truth: where then is the falshood? This must be imputed to him who reporteth a truth, but not truly, that is, to a false purpose: wherof our Reader may easily iudge: for I haue obiected the testimonie of Bouchier, affirm∣ing, that in the case of common iniuries, whether in matter of Religion or State, euery priuate man is licensed to kill a Ty∣rant: and Bouchiers words auouch no lesse. P. R. opposeth the other negatiue testimonie of Bouchier, denying, that in priuate iniuries any priuate man may murder a Tyrant: and doth he therby conuince me of falshood? Nay rather doth he not seeke to iniurie me with falshood? For my whole Treatise of Discouerie intendeth only the publike, and neuer medleth with priuate occasions.

112 This will be plaine by example. The common rule of humanitie teacheth, that the Father, being but an Esquire, may in priuate conuents and meetings haue place aboue his sonne, though a Knight; but in places of publike resort, the Knight,* 1.15 though a sonne, is preferred before his Father. Heere be two considerations of the sonne and the father; the one is in respect of priuate, the other in regard of publike occasions. This Assertion of ciuility standing thus: Suppose my first Ad∣uersarie the Moderate Answerer should auerre that T. M. saith that any sonne, being a Knight, may take place of his father, being but an Esquire: then my second Aduersarie P. R. hea∣ring this, should oppose and say, It is false which thou alle∣gest, for T. M. sayth the contrary, viz. That any Father, be∣ing an Esquire, may priuately take place of his sonne, though he be a Knight. Can this his taxation of falshood be thought true? It is not altogether impertinent? For the assertions of T. M. were two: the first, That any such sonne must be pre∣ferred

in publike: the second, That any such father must be preferred in priuate. And are these contrary? Are they not both true? And can one truth shoulder out another? The falshood therefore resteth in the Pleader, who sayd, That the allegation was false.

Wee reade in the Gospell this command of our Sauiour: n 1.16 The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses chaire: whatsoeuer they bid you obserue, that obserue and doe: but after their works doe not, &c. Here we heare vs charged To do, and Not to do as the Pharisees. And are these contrary? No: for the [Doe] is a commanding to follow their godly doctrine; the [Doe not] is a forbidding to imitate their vngodly life.

113 A second crime is in adding (as he sayth) of this clause [Which I say by common consent.] Looke in the Cha. 15. where the ground of this Position is layed, That it is lawfull to kill a Tyrant, he affirmeth it, saying, Mirum est quàm magnum affir∣mando consen••um habeat. That is, It is maruellous what a great consent this hath. Then come to the 16. Chap. vpon the point now in question, he hath sayd, He that denieth this, is distitute of common sense. If therefore maruellous consent according to common sense may be thought more than equiualent vnto a common consent, then is my Aduersarie vnconscionably con∣tentious to accuse me, as saying too much, where I had war∣rant to haue sayd more.

114 It may be, that the striking out of the words of importance Whom the Common-wealth shall iudge to be a publike enemie] may somewhat preiudice my conscience. None can imagine this, but he that is not acquainted with the Authour,o 1.17 who

spendeth a whole Chapter in prouing this Position; Praeue∣nire iudicum vrgente negotio posse. That is, That the case may be so vrgent, that the publike iudgement (against such a publike tyrant) need not be expected, because where the crime is notorious, it is sufficiently condemned without further iudgement: for if theeues and beasts (sayth he) when they suddenly assault vs, may be resisted without iudiciall proceeding; then much more a tyrant, who is woorse than any beast. And this doctrine he assumeth to proue necessarie both in case Temporall, when the King doth iniurie the Countrey, and in Ecclesiasticall transgression, when he offendeth publikely against Religion: particularly instan∣cing in Henry 3. King of France, who was murdered by Iacob Clemens a Frier, before any publike iudgement of the King∣dome, which hee ascribeth to a Parliament, or els of the Church, which he attributeth to the Popes Consistorie. And yet he magnifieth the murderer (a priuate man) and extolleth him aboue those who are recorded in holy Writ, not vpon their priuate spirit, but by diuine inspiration to haue accom∣plished noble attempts. Heere, heere is matter indeed, where∣by to decypher my Aduersarie to be no better than a painted Sepulcher, who is outwardly gaily adorned with the titles of Moderation and Mitigation: but inwardly (by holding Boucheirs doctrine) full of dead mens bones, I meane the dead bodies of Protestants: But how dead? Euen (as S. Hierome speaketh in the like case) Voto occidunt, cùm gladio nequ••ant. That is, They wish them to be killed, whom they can not kill as they wish. But this I reserue vnto my Incounter. I proceed to the next.

A fourth Obiection of falshood, wherin hee insulteth thus: This testimonie is egregiously abused, &c.

115p 1.18

His fourth and last place is out of M. William Reinolds in his booke De iusta Reip. auctoritate, &c. whom he abuseth ••∣gregiously, both in ascribing to him that which is not his, and in de∣liuering the same corruptedly: and by a little you may learn much, Ex vngue leonem His words he citeth thus: Rex humana cre∣atura est, quia ab hominibus constituta: and Englisheth in this

maner: A King is but a creature of mans creation. Where you see first, that in the translation hee addeth [but] and [mans creation] of himselfe: for that the Latine hath no such but, nor creation, but constitution. Secondly, these words are not the words of M. Reinolds, but only cited by him out of S. Peter. And thirdly, they are alleged heere by T. M. to a quite contrary sense from the whole discourse and meaning of the Author, which was to exalt and magnifie the authoritie of Princes, as descending from God; and not to debase the same, as he is calumniated. For proofe heereof whosoeuer will looke vpon the booke and place it selfe, be∣fore mentioned, shall finde that M. Reinolds purpose therein is to prooue, That albeit earthly principalitie, power and authoritie, be called by the Apostle, humana creatura: yet that it is originally from God, and by his commandement to be obeyed. His words are these: Hinc enim est, &c. Hence it is, that albeit the Apostle doe call all earthly principalitie a humane creature, for that it is pla∣ced in certaine men (from the beginning) by suffrages of the peo∣ple, yet election of Princes doth flow from the law of nature, which God created; and from the vse of reason, which God powred into man, and which is a little beame of diuine light drawen from that infinite brightnesse of Almighty God: therefore doth the Apostle S. Paul pronounce, That there is no power but from God, and that he which resisteth this power, resisteth God himselfe.

So M. Reinolds.

The Answer.

116 This Allegation is, of all which yet I haue found, most obnoxious and alliable vnto taxation; which (God knoweth that I lie not) I receiued from suggestion, as the Author there∣of R. C. can witnesse. For at that time I had not that Rosaeus, aliâs Reinolds, neither by that present importunitie of occasi∣ons could seeke after him: which, I confesse, is greatly exor∣bitant: for I receiued it as a testimony debasing the authoritie of Kings: Vpon which presumption (if true) it could be no falshood in me to insert the particle But, especially being ac∣quainted with the doctrine of Card. Bellarmine, who, that he may disable the authoritie of a King in comparison of the dig∣nitie of a Pope, doth defend, That Kings, being chosen by men,

are not immediatly created by God: and yet, The Pope, elected by Cardinals, hath his authoritie immediatly from God. What is this els, but in a certeine degree to distinguish the creation of a King and creation of a Pope, the one as mans immediate cre∣ature, the other as Gods? And may it not be lawfull for any thus to repeate this comparison of Bellarmine, saying thus: Kings (after the doctrine of Bellarmine) haue their authoritie immediatly But from man, and that the Pope hath his immedi∣atly from God? Is the Interiection But in this repetition like a theefe by the way to seduce and robbe, and is not rather as a true man to direct thee?

117 Let P. R. imagine,* 1.19 that a boy in any of their Colleges should be so refractary, as knowing himselfe to descend from gentry, he should denie obedience to his Superior, because he thinketh him but of base parentage: the boy is brought be∣fore P. R. his Accuser allegeth, That hee had gloried in his owne gentilitie, and sayd that his Superiour was But basely borne. Will he thinke the accusation is false, because of the ad∣dition of But? No verily, but is by it made more plain & true, which is generall in all speeches of abasement: the But is (as I may so say) a Butte which hath infixed in it the marke and scope of the whole speech. Thus much for my addition But.

118 Furthermore, this I dare aduenture to say in behalfe of my Suggestor, That though that place alleged doe not agree vnto the collection, yet the scope of that Chapter and the next following doth imply as much, proouing that a King may be deposed by the people. Which doctrine hee there applieth vnto our English State, and by name to our late Souereigne Q. Elizabeth: which indeed is to account a King nought els but an humane creature.

119 I know that P. R. may possibly insist, That he cited the text of S. Peter, 1. Pet. 2. who calleth a King or Gouernour constituted by man, Humanam creaturam, An humane crea∣ture. And then how could these words be reprehensible in M. R. which are warrantable by S. Peter? Wee must vnder∣stand, That the same speech may differ from it selfe by the di∣uers intention of the speakers. The faithfull Disciples of our

Sauiour did often salute Christ with Haile Master: we reade also of the malicious Iewes saying likewise Haile Master: but the Disciples in reuerence, the Iewes to scorne him. Looke to the words, heere is not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, nothing can be more the same; looke to the sense and intention it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, nothing can be more repugnant. Simon Peter maketh this confession of Christ: q 1.20 Thou art Christ the Sonne of the liuing God. The Diuell like∣wise maketh this confession of Christ,r 1.21 Thou art the Sonne of the Most High. The same confession in the sense of words, but not in the intention of the speakers: for Peter confessed, that he might confirm others in the faith; and the Diuel did it, that he being priuileged to preach, might seduce mē from the truth. And so it might haue been presumed, that M. Reinolds vsed S. Peters words, but not in S. Peters sense; which was to dignifie such an humane creature, as to teach the orde••er man in all temporall condition [subditi estote] to be subiect: but in his owne sense which followeth in the next Chapter, to abase that humane ordinance, teaching Subiects to depose their Princes. What is the difference? The generall scope of S. Pe∣ter is subiection, the aime of M. Reinolds is rebellion. This is heereby most plaine, because S. Peter writ his sentence in the dayes of Nero a most cruell and sauage Tyrant, and notwith∣standing doth not incite Christian people or others to betake themselues vnto armes to depose Nero. But M. Reinolds hol∣deth it to bes 1.22 naturam generosiorem,. i. a more generous & noble disposition, to kill Tyrants. Amongst whom he recounteth for England, K.t 1.23 Henry the Eight. By al which it may appeare, that though not the place alleged, yet the scope of his whole booke doth conuince him of rebellious doctrine: as will more large∣ly appeare in the Incounter. In the interim, let euery Christian learne, that that Gouernour whom S. Peter calleth a creature of man, S. Paul callethu 1.24 the ordinance of God: and both of them, after that Kings be once established by consent of the Common-wealth, doe require in all temporall causes an vnui∣olable subiection vnto them without violent resistance, teach∣ing that they are more than mans creatures, because he that resisteth them resisteth the ordinance of God.

The fift obiection of fals∣hood, whereupon hee insulteth thus: Consider, I pray you, how may frauds and falshoods there be in one little quotation.

120 P. R. preferreth another indictment against mee, thus; a 1.25

But will you heare a case or two more out of the Canon law, how dexterous Sir Tho▪ is in corrupting that which he loueth not, nor seemeth well to vnderstand. You may read in the 4. page of this his pamphlet (the Discouery) an ancient decree (for so he calleth it) alleged by him out of Gratian in the glosse, determining that though a man haue sworne to pay money to one that is excommunicated, yet is he not bound to pay the same, and he allegeth the Latine text thus: Si iuraui me soluturum alicui pecuniam, qui excommu∣nicatur, non teneor ei soluere: If I haue sworne to pay money to any man that is excommunicated, I am not bound to pay it, adding this reason: Quia qualiter cunque possumus, debemus vexare malos, vt cessent a malo: We ought to vex euill mē by what means so euer we may, to the end they may cease from doing euill. In the allegation of which little text, a man would hardly beleeue how many false trickes there be, to make Catholike doctrine to seeme o∣dious and absurd. For first, these words not being found in any text of law or decision of any Pope or Councell, but only in the glosse or Commentary, they make not any ancient or modern decree, as the Minister falsly auoucheth, but rather shew the opinion of him who writeth the Commentary: if his words were, as heere they are alle∣ged. The causes. First, the words of the glosse containe onely an obiection in these words: What if I haue sworne to pay money to any person, or haue promised the same vnder some forfeiture, and in the meane space he, to whom I made the promise, be excommunicated, am I bound to pay the same, or not? This is his question, and then he argueth it on both sides: but his resolution is in these words, I doe beleeue the truer opinion to be, that albeit he that is so excōmuni∣cated, do leese the right to demand his money, yet is the other bound to pay it him. And for this he citeth diuers lawes and reasons. So heere our Minister not of ignorance, but of falshood taketh the ob∣iection for the resolution. The second deceit is wilfull leauing out of the first words of the Authour, Sed quid dices si iuraui? which

plainly shew an obiection. Thirdly he allegeth, Quia qualitercun{que} &c. for a reason of the resolution, which is made against that rea∣son. Fourthly the true resolution of the Commentator is vtterly concealed, and the contrary determination put downe for an ancient decree. Consider, I pray you, how many frauds and falshoods there be in one little quotation.

The Answer.

121 My Aduersary P. R. may satisfie himselfe for me, who a little after concerning this same allegation of this Author hath said thatb 1.26, It may seeme to import that hee (T. M.) scarce read the bookes themselues, but cited the same out of some other mans notes. Heere, we see, in his vehement crimination of malici∣ous falshood, he hath inserted a charitable and true diuination of my integrity. I am glad to see in the mingling of a pound of worme-wood, and ten ounces of gall, hee had the grace to let fall this dram of sugar, and that so seasonably: For the truth is that I tooke vp these allegations of Gratian vpon credit, and therefore returne these peeces vnto him, of whom I receiued them: who is to prooue them currant, and to satisfie for him∣selfe.

122 Thus then he:c 1.27 This allegation, with some others, I Ric. St. brought vnto the Author of the Discouery, which P. R. chal∣lengeth to be maliciously cited, partly for that the words of the glosse were only set downe, when the decree is mentioned: wherein I conceiue P. R. complaineth no otherwise, than one, who being smitten with the scabbard, should complaine that he was not struck with the sword: So he, because T. M. talked of the decree, and vr∣ged only the glosse. For the decree is far more plaine against them than the glosse, Nos sanctorum praedestinatorum statuta tenen∣tes, eos, qui excommunicatis fidelitate aut Sacramento con∣stricti sunt, apostolica authoritate à iuramento absoluimus: & nè sibi fidelitatem obseruent, omnibus modis prohibemus, quousque ipsi ad satisfactionem veniant. This is the decree, which in the generall carrieth as much or more, as is set downe by him, and so cleereth him from any malice in this point. Be∣sides, in the very glosse it selfe, (though it was not so fullie

brought to his hand) is set downe not by way of obiection, but of a resolute conclusion. For after the obiection and answer the conclu∣sion is: Probabiliter dici potest, quòd excommunicato non sit soluendum, cum nemo debeat participare cum eo. Yea and further, that in this he was not led by malice, is prooued thus: be∣cause he left out another more waighty allegation which was deli∣uered him with this, namely, out of Greg. Decret. lib. 5. Tit. c. 16. Absolutos se nouerint à debito fidelitatis, dominij, & totius ob∣sequij, quicun{que} lapsus manifeste in haeresin aliquo pacto qua∣cun{que} firmitate vallato tenebantur astricti. Now the glosse par∣ticularly and expresly for the present purpose hath it thus: Ergo si sub poena aliquis tenetur soluere certa die, & non soluat, non incidit in poenam: & eodem modo si per iuramentum, quod & verum est argumentum quòd Papa potest absoluere laicum à iuramento fidelitatis, quoniam ad ipsum spectat interpreta∣tio iuramenti: in illa autem obligatione & iuramento tacitè subintelligitur, si talis permanserit, cui communicare liceat. Which decree and Glosse doth a great deale more strongly smell of that impietie, teaching that a man is not bound in such a case to pay his debt: and yeelding to the Pope a power of absoluing men from such like obligations. Thus farre R. S.

123 By which Answer of R. S. wee may perceiue that the te∣nor of the Popes Canon in the outward letter doth denie the paiment of debts: and the glosse it selfe concludeth a probabi∣lity of non paiment, which being applied by Romish Priests vn∣to Protestants in the name of Excommunicats, it is but an haz∣zard whether Protestants (except it bee by the vigour of law) shall recouer their debts. Which I prooued in the next testimonie out of their Cardinall Tollet, expounding the for∣me Canon. I prooued that their ordinary Tenet is in that case, d 1.28 Not to pay any debt, which consisteth only in promise. Wherein my Reader may discerne an argument of my sincerity, because I would not allege the Canons in their generality of not paying any debt, though it might haue made my Aduersaies more odious; but chose rather the Comment. of Tollet, in the re∣straint and limitation for not paying debt of onely promise. This my intire, and in a maner partiall dealing in behalfe of my Ad∣uersaries,

P. R. could not be ignorant of, and yet spared not to spot me with his cōmon note of maliciousnes. There followeth▪

A sixt obiection of falshood, with this insultation: Let the iudicious Reader consider how ma∣ny false trickes and corruptions this craf∣ty Minister hath vsed.

124. P. R. hath another Article against me, thus;e 1.29

In the sixt page of his Discouery he hath this grieuous accusatione out of the C••••on law against vs. Haeretici••••ly 〈…〉〈…〉 dicun∣tur, sed in 〈◊〉〈◊〉 legem, 〈…〉〈…〉 super eos, vt ••und•••• fangui∣nem ipsorum. And then he quoteth thus: apud Grat. gloss. in decret. li••••. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ex De••re••. Gregor. 9. caus. 22. q. & cap. Legi. Which distructed kind of quotation; s••parating the first and last words, that should haue 〈◊〉〈◊〉 together, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to import that hee 〈…〉〈…〉 the book as themselues, but 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the same out of so••e o∣ther 〈…〉〈…〉; but that fault were easily pardoned, if he vsed no greater fraud in the thing it selfe. For first he Englisheth the words in th•••••• maner: Heretikes may not bee termed either 〈◊〉〈◊〉, or kindred, but according to the old law, thy hand must bee a∣gainst them to spill their bloud. And then in the margi•• h•••• set∣teth downe this speciall printed note. The professed bloody mas∣sacre against the Protestants, without distinction of ••ixe or kindred. And what can be more 〈◊〉〈◊〉 vrged than this? Now then let vs see how many false trickes and shifts fit for a Protestant Minister, do lie lurking in this short citation. First this glosse or Commentary of the Canon law, is vpon a Canon beginning. Si quis, which Canon is taken out of the third Councell of Carthage, &c. Secondly, he hath left out the beginning of the glosse. Thirdly, hee addeth these words, vt fundas sanguinem, which the glosse hath not. And now let the iudicious Reader consider how many corrup∣tions this crafty Minister hath vsed to bring foorth to his purpose this one little distracted text for proofe of professed bloudy massa∣cres intended by vs against Protestants. Wherein lastly he peruer∣teth the very words of God himselfe in the Law, by translating, vs fundas fanguinem ipsorum, spill their blood, instead of, slied their blood: as though God were a blood-spill••••, or 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to be vniustly done by others. By this one (of 〈◊〉〈◊〉

but one) you 〈…〉〈…〉 &c.

Thus farre P. R.

The Answer.

125 To the allegation of this place of Gratiam, R. S. doth owe you an answer, which hee hath performed in these wordes: f 1.30 This second place also I brought (saith hee) vnto T. M. the whole being no otherwise distractedly quoted, then the glosse, whence I had it, warranted by me: So that of P. R. reprooue me, he must chocke his glossary: for when the glosse had set down the first part, he quoted for the latter, causa 23. q. 8. cap. legi, meaning in the decrees where it is, Sit manus tua super eos, vt fundas san∣guinem ipsorum.

126 So hath he satisfied for his allegation. It remaineth that I likewise iustifie both my collection and translation. For the first, I would demand of P. R. if, Romish ones applying this Canon of Murdering their kindred, &c. against Protestants, when the Pope shall iudicially denounce them Heretikes, whether it may bee called a massacre, or no? I haue now my Mitigator vpon a Logicke ••acke, either he must say that it is no bloudy massacre,* 1.31 but Catholike iustice: and then what shall his Reader thinke vpon his Mitigation otherwise than a Iudas his lips in be traying his Master? If he shall hold it an ex∣ecrable mischiefe, then how shall he iustifie the application of this canon, when the Pope shall extend it against Protestants? He cannot answer directly, but hee must manifest himselfe ei∣ther a Traitor to his Country, or a preuaricator to his cause.

127 His other censure is vpon my interpretation, Vt fundas sanguinem, to spill their blood, in stead (saith he) of shed their blood. Why so? because otherwise, (the man may seeme to haue some pious and religious deuotion in him) God should be said to be a blood-spiller. And must it therefore be rather translated, shed? why, so God should bee said to bee a blood-shedder. I maruell what new Dictionary (for he is altogether verbal) P. R. doth follow. I hope that so profound a Clerke will not want a rea∣son of his subtilty: let vs heare him. To spill blood (saith hee) doth signifie an vniust deed. Is this it? as though shedding of blood might not likewise signify an vniust deed. Let him consult with

their own Remish translation, Rom. 3. 15. Their feet (viz. of the wicked) are swift to shed blood. And Act. 22. 20. When the blood of the Martyr Stephen was shed. And Apoc. 16. 6. They haue shed the blood of the Saints, therefore hast thou giuen them blood to drinke. And Luc. 11. 50. That the bloud of the Prophets shed from the beginning of the world may bee required of this generati∣on.* 1.32 Will P. R. haue the face to say, that the blood of the Mar∣tyr Stephen, and of the Prophets by the Iewes, or of the blood of Saints by the Heathen was shed iustly? Againe, the Rhemists Mark. 2. 22. No man putteth new wine into old bottles, other∣wise; the wine breaketh the bottles, and the wine will be shed. This is spoken of the wine, which being shed perisheth. So is it vulgarly vsed, [drinke is spilt, and drinke is shed.] Now then what a notable Critick haue I met withall, whom euery good∣wife is able to conuince of idle dottage? But this is a man pri∣uiledged to send me to the Vniuersitie to make a Syllogisme, whom I may more iustly send vnto an Ale-house to learne English.

128 The last point, which is obseruable in our Mitigator, is, that he affirmeth this Canon to haue beene decreed in the 3. Councell of Carthage,g 1.33 where no such thing can be found. Therefore must his owne termes of falshood, fraud, treacherie, reuerberate vpon himselfe. And yet againe we may consider how zealous P. R. is in authorizing that Canon, and in vrging the text of Scripture, saying, If thy brother; or friend, or wife will goe about to destroy the truth, let thy hand be vpon him. To what end must all this be, but that Protestants, being in their opinion heretikes, may haue all the penalties which are awar∣ded against heretikes executed vpon them (as Bouchier and o∣thers defend) before, or at least (as P. R. holdeth) after denuncia∣tion of sentence? And consequently Protestants may be, by these Romishones, without exception of sex, or kindred, or friend∣ship, as it was by execution in the cruell Massacre inh 1.34 France, and by intention in the Powder-treason, vtterly consumed at once. Which being performed, the* 1.35 Conspiracie shal be called an holy League the Actour a zealous Ahod, the Act a Sacrifice. All which proceedeth from a false and perfidious application

both of the Scripture, and of the Canon. For the law of Deu∣teronomy mentioneth such transgressions, Who shall intice thee, saying, Let vs go and serue other gods, which thou hast not knowen, nor thy fathers before thee. And the Canon was directed only against such heretikes, who did ruinate the foundation of Christian faith. But Protestants are so farre from idolatrie, that for feare thereof, they haue (in the dayes of Q. Marie) yeelded their bodies to the fire; so farre from heresie, that they are ready to seale euery fundamental Article of faith with their blood.

A seuenth obiection of falshood, wherein he insulteth, saying: Seeing hee hath corrupted a text of Scripture, you may thinke what li∣bertie hee will take afterward tho∣rowout his whole booke.

129 Ii 1.36 haue already answered vnto this calumniation, shew∣ing, that both the English text, the Latine Commentaries, the Hebrew Originall, and the confession of their owne Doctour doe free me from all suspition of corruption: wherein our Rea∣der may imagine, whether P. R. by obiecting the Hebrew text, hath not deserued the title of an êbrition.

An eighth obiection of falshood, wherin he insulteth in this maner: Thus much for his varie∣tie of corruptions in this little sentence.

130 P. R. pretermitting (as his maner is) such points where∣in he saw the Romish Arguments most forcibly confuted, in∣sisteth only vpon such, wherein hee thinketh his abilitie will serue to make some sensible resistance. Therefore hee sayth: k 1.37

To the end you may see his Talent (in deducing proofs out of Romish Writers) wee shall examine only the third Reason in this place, which he declareth in these words: Except, sayth the Ro∣mish pretence, there were a way of deposing Apostata Prin∣ces, God had not prouided sufficiently for his Church. And for this he citeth the Constitution extrauagant of Pope Bonifa∣cius, and sayth, This obiection is in your extrauagants, and so it may be called, because it rangeth extra, that is, without the

bonds of Gods ordinance, &c. But as in all his other citations generally hee is neuer lightly true and sincere in all points, no not thrice (I thinke verily) thorowout all this lying booke of his, so nei∣ther heere: and it would require a great volume alone to examine only some part of his leaues about this point of his shifts and cor∣ruptions, they are so many and thick, and craftily huddled vp toge∣ther. As for example heere: First, this sentence is not in the Popes Extrauagant at all, but only in a certeine addition to the ordinarie Glosse or Commentarie of Io. Picard, which addition was made by Petrus Bertrandus a late Writer. Secondly, this Comment sayth nothing of deposing of Apostata Princes, but only affirming the foresayd opinion of Canonists to be true, That Christ was Lord absolutely in this life ouer all, not only in spirituall au∣thority, but in temporall also: he inferreth thereby, That Christ should not haue sufficiently prouided for the gouernment of his Church and Kingdome vpon earth,* 1.38 Nisi vnicum post setalem Vicarium reliquisset, qui haec omnia posset: except he had left some such one Substitute or Vicar after him, as should be able to performe all these things, to wit, as belong both to spirituall and temporall power, according as necessitie shall require. Which lat∣ter clause you see that T. M. hath cut off, as he added the other of Apostata Princes. And thus much for his variety of corrupti∣ons in this little sentence. Now to the thing it selfe.

So farre P. R.

The Answer.

131 If I had not purposed to set downe little sentences, I am sure my Aduersarie his sentences and censures could not haue beene so great: where breuity (which I thought would be most gratefull to any iudicious Reader) is inuerted vpon me by a calumnious Aduersary as most preiudiciall to my cause. First, for citing the Extrauagants of the Pope, whereby an in∣genuous Reader would haue vnderstood a figure Synecdoche, where the part is put for the whole; as when wee say, This man shall not come vnder my roofe; meaning by roofe, which is but a part of the house, the whole house it selfe: So heere by Extrauagant might haue been meant the whole body of these Constitutions, which conteine both Extrauagants and Glosses:

which is heerein, found to be most consonant, because Pope l 1.39 Gregory 13. hath ratified the foresayd Glosse and Annotati∣ons with priuilege and authority equiualent and answerable to the authoritie of the Decretat•• and Extrauagants them∣selues. If, hearing one of P. R. his scholars make a Syllogisme, like that which P. R. himselfe framed, which hath neither mood not figure, & this likewise had been approued by him, some should presently say to the boy, Sirra, this is P. R. his Syllogisme; I do not thinke that P. R. would call him a lier.

132 To the second P. R. might haue answered for me, That the words, Apostata Princes, were not my Addition, but the obiections of my Aduersary the Moderate Answerer, as may appeare by P. R. his owne relation. And when I sayd, That the same obiection was in the extrauagants, I could not think that any Aduersary euer could haue beene either by reason of igno∣rance so sottish, or by malice so peruerse, as to exact, that the obiection be found in the place 〈…〉〈…〉 for so there should be no end of cauilling, but be contented to finde it in the true sense: which sense euen this my Accuser doth plainly acknowledge, laying (as we haue heard) this same Extraua∣gant as the ground of Gods prouidence in the Pope (his sup∣posed Vicar of Christ) by whose power spirituall and tempo∣rall, any Prince, extirpating Christian religion, may be remoo∣ued: which is no more than I sayd was contained in the Ex∣trauagants. But such is the malignity of this Mitigator, that he will not allow in his Aduersarie, which he practisethm 1.40 him∣selfe: and not he only, but euen the known canons of his Popes are guilty (if it be a guilt) of the same, citing the text of Deut. ••3. 6. 〈◊〉〈◊〉: If thy brother, or friend, or wife go about to depra•••• 〈…〉〈…〉 thy hand be vpon him▪ Wheras the text is, If they in∣tice

thee saying,* 1.41 let vs goe serue strange Gods, &c. But these words, Depraue the truth, &c. are not to be found; yet because they containe the true sense I should thinke it impiety either in another or in my selfe, to note (as he doth me) his Canons, and consequently his Popes of lying shifts and corruptions.

133 The last shift he findeth fault with, is for cutting off the clause, Nisi vnicum. What needed any addition of that which was sufficiently expressed in my Aduersaries obiection, and by me acknowledged to bee contained in the Extrauagants, as we haue heard? If there bee any shift in my citation, I must confesse it thus: viz. the not adding these words of that glosse, Iesus de iure naturali in Imperatorem, & quascunque alios depo∣sitionis sententiam ferre potuisset, & damnationis, & quascunque alias, &c. & eadem ratione vicarius eius potest. That is, As Ie∣sus by his naturall right might enter into iudgement, and pronounce sentence of deposing an Emperour, or any other person: So may (meaning the Pope) Christs vicar also. This is the Popish glosse, and the ground of those Romish & rebellious positions, which I did discouer, and which prooueth our Mitigatour an excellent shifter, who saith that heere was nothing said of de∣posing Apostata Princes,* 1.42 to the end his Reader might conceiue my Answer to haue beene altogether impertinent. But I pray you P. R. can Apostata Princes be excepted, where All Prin∣ces and Emperonrs are included? But I will not vrge against my selfe the former omission of the foresaid sentence of the glosse. I know P. R. will too easily pardon me this fault.

A ninth obiection of fals∣hood, therein insulting thus: A witting and a manifest lie, and co∣senage. His Latine words were perfidiously alleged.

134 P. R. obiecteth thus: n 1.43

He (Thomas Morton) allegeth the words of Bellarmine thus: Dum rem ipsam excutio, non facilè audeo pronunciare illos in errore fuisse, While I do examine well the thing it selfe, I dare not presume to pronounce them to haue beene in error, to wit, Caluin and Beza; whereas Bellarmines words are, Dum rem ipsam excutio, & Caluini sententias dili∣genter considero, non facilè audeo pronuntiare illum in hoc

errore fuisse. While I examine the matter it selfe, and diligently consider Caluins opinions, I do not easily presume to pronounce him to haue beene in this error: to wit, in the particular error or here∣sie of the Autotheans, set downe and confuted by ••••enebrard, and in his sense condemned expresly by the ancient Catholike Church, for denying Christ to bee and to haue his essence from the Father: but yet though in some sense it seemeth to Bellarmine, that Caluin may be excused in this priuate and particular meaning of his, yet not absolutely, as T. M. would haue his Reader to thinke, by stri∣king out cunningly the particle hoc (this error) and leauing the word Errour in common, as though Bellarmine had excused him from all kind of error, which is most false, for that presently after he both impugneth of purpose, and confuteth by many arguments his maner of speech as hereticall in this behalfe. And againe. So is his cosenage heerein in striking out hoc out of Bellarmines words: so, for the same purpose he turneth illum into illos: which he could not do but wittingly and of purpose, and yet the man forsooth will not equiuocate for the world, and yet will he lie for much lesse, as you see.

Thus P. R.

The Answer.

135 He would not wittingly lie for all the world, who would not for all the world equiuocate, lest hee might he, as I feare he doth, who calleth this lapse of words [Errore and illos] a perfidious cosenage. For if I had been of so diuellish a disposition as to seek to cosen my Reader, then sure (according to the ma∣lice of the Diuell, who seeketh whom he may deuour, that is, to deuoure all) I should not haue left that Latine sentence vn∣translated, but would haue Englished it, that by the Latin and English as by a double net my cosenage might haue beene, for the number of the seduced, farre more succesfull: which con∣siderations, I hope, may free me from wilfull falshood.

136 That there is also no falshood at all, the matter it selfe will shew. For our dispute was onely concerning this one su∣spected error of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which many Iesuites and others, condemned as a Paradox, a blasphemy, an atheisme: against whom I opposed Bellarmine to acquit Caluin ab errore, that

is,* 1.44 from error, (which is all one as if I had said This error) which is the proper and only matter in question. Let P. R. procure a suspected fellow to bee arraigned at the barre, whom the Iudge knoweth to be a drunkard, a prophane swearer, and a person adulterous: but the inditement preferred against him is only cōcerning felony: the witnesses are brought forth all cir∣cumstances are examined: in the end the Iudge perceiuing the presumptions to be friuolous, shall giue this iudgement, say∣ing, Now that I haue heard the matter examined, I finde no fault in the man. By and by P. R. shall stand vp, saying, O Iudge thou knowest him to be a drunkard, a blasphemer and a lewd liuer, and canst thou find no fault with him? thou shoul∣dest haue said, I find not this fault of felony in him; and there∣fore thou hast deliuered a perfidious and a cosening sentence. A∣gaine, when our Sauiour Christ said to his Disciples,o 1.45 Pray, &c. for the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weake; would the Di∣uinity of P. R. correct the speech, and say, though it bee spo∣ken of mankind, yet it is too generally deliuered, because there is a flesh of beasts, and a spirit of Diuels: and therefore should be more expresly set downe, This kind of flesh, and this kinde of spirit? P. R. sitteth at his table, and when he seeth two sorts of bread, fine manchet, and courser; and expressing that hee de∣sireth rather the meaner kinde, should say to one of his serui∣tors a Sophister, Sirra, giue me the courses bread: would hee (for want of mentioning This bread no the Table) allow his So∣phister to runne into the stable, and bring him an horse loafe? Would he not rather whip him, for his insolency, if he would not; or for his follie, if he could not perceiue that when a man speaketh of This kinde of bread, which is before his face, it is all one as if he had said, of this bread? Such is my case, concer∣ning which (as I professe) I could not be so absurdly subtle, as willingly to conceale hoc, so am I perswaded, that no aduersa∣rie (I only except P. R.) could be so peruersly grosse, as to ex∣act a particle Hoc, i. This, knowing that the matter in que∣stion was particularly de hoc e••none, of this only error.

137 Although this last taxation be very idle,* 1.46 yet this se∣cond is (if I may so say) more friuolous, illos for illum, that is,

them in steed of him. If Bellarmine iustifie Caluin for this opi∣nion of Autotheos, doth he not likewise therein iustifie all o∣ther Protestants, which are of the same opinion? For if I con∣demne P. R. for a gracelesse Sophister, because of his defense of mentall equiuocation, do I not therein condemne all others, who are professed Aequiuocators? This is true, will P. R. say, yet the Authors word illum, should not haue beene changed into illos. This Aduersary, we see, is rigorous, I will appeale therefore vnto another Aduersary, whom I find more ingenu∣ous, euen Bellarmine himselfe; who in the place alleged, after that he had said of Caluin, I dare not say that he was in this error doth in the same Chapter iustifie Beza also, and more expres∣ly Simlerus, another Protestant, saying, Non video cur haec sen∣tentia Catholica dicenda non sit, that is, I see no cause why this sen∣tence should not be thought Catholicall: iustifying not only illum, that is, Caluin, but also Beza and Simlerus, which will make illos, euen in that opinion, which Campian, the Rhemists, their Genebrard, and others haue calumniously and wickedly called a Paradox, an Heresie, a Blasphemy, an Atheisme. Such is the blindnesse of their malice, which (God willing) I shall shew more fully in the Incounter.

A tenth obiection of fals∣hood, with this insul∣tation: Is not this rather falshood than fol∣ly? where is his naked innocen∣cy? where is his vpright consci∣ence? where is his simplicity in Christ Iesus?

138 The matter is only for changing a title of the booke of Carerius, and altering the word verò into verè: but trifles (saith P. R.) yet such as bewray a guilty minde and meaning. But I haue p 1.47 shewed euidently, that I neither altered the title, nor the text, so that P. R. standeth chargeable to his Reader to satisfie for his owne mind and meaning, which must haue beene either giddily rash, or gracelesly false.

An eleuenth obiection of falshood, with this in∣sultation: How can this malicious cauilling Mi∣nister expect to bee trusted heere∣after? or how may any thinke, that he writeth from his conscience, see∣ing him vse such grosse shifts and falshoods in so important a matter?

139 Iq 1.48 haue discussed this obiection already: the point is concerning the testimony of Doleman, because it was not ci∣ted in the very literall words, although (as I haue manifestly euinced) it was deliuered according to the reall and demon∣stratiue sense. And if such accusations might preuaile, then might P. R. (but I hope he will not be so blasphemous) accuse the diuine Oracles of God,* 1.49 the holy Scriptures, where the A∣postles citing the testimonies of the old Testament, doe not commonly allege the words, but the sense: As Ephes. 5. 14. Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall giue thee light. The words [He saith] sig∣nifie God speaking in Scripture, yet not by manifestation of words, but by collection and comprehension of sense. There be many such like places, as Heb. 1. 1. Heb. 3. 5. Act. 10. 43. Nay himselfe and their owne Popish Canon (asr 1.50 hath beene shewen) haue alleged the text of Deuteronomie, but not ac∣cording to expresse words, although not disagreeable from the true sense. And may Popes thus presume in alleging of Gods truth, and may not man make as bold with mans testi∣monie, so that still there be no deprauation of the true sense?

A twelfth obiection of falshood, wherupon he thus insulteth: Consider how falsly and calumniously this Make-bate doth reason: will hee not bee ashamed to see himselfe condemned of so great ouerlashing?

140 The question is about the hinderance of the due successi∣on of a Protestant prince vnto his crowne: This P. R. inde∣uoured to condemne by a triple instance, ands 1.51 hath himselfe beene confuted both by his owne Doctours, and also by a tri∣ple instance taken from himselfe.

A thirteenth obiection of falshood, with this spight∣full insultation: Hee allegeth Frisingensis quite contrary to his owne meaning. Is this the assurance of his vpright conscience, whereof he braggeth so much?

141 In this cauill about the testimonie of Frisingensis P. R. hath played foure treacherous parts, that he might (though falsly) conuince me of one: as hath beene alreadyt 1.52 prooued. Yet in this, together with that which followeth, he triumph∣eth more than of any taxation he hath in the whole booke.

A foureteenth and most rigo∣rous obiection of falshood, with this insultation: It is a fraud and impudencie, or rather impudent impietie, a slandrous obiection, shamelesse dealing. Will euer any man credit T. M. heereafter?

142

I am ready to heare this grand crimination of P. R. who beginneth thus:u 1.53 But the next fraud or impudencie, or rather impudent impietie, is that which insueth within foure lines after, in these words: Pope Gregorie the seuenth (sayth your Chronologer) was excommunicate of the Bishops of Italie, for that he had defamed the Apostolike See by Symonie, and other capitall crimes. And then citeth for proofe heereof, Lam∣bertus Scaffnaburg. Anno 1077. As if this our Chronogra∣pher had related this as a thing of truth, or that it were approoued by him, and not rather a slanderous obiection cast out by his Ad∣uersaries that followed the part of Henrie the Emper••r. Let any man reade the place and yeere heere cited, and if hee be a modest man he will blush at such shamelesse dealing. For that no Author of that time doth more earnestly defend the cause and vertuous life of Pope Hildebrand,* 1.54 then this man, whose words are: Sed a∣pud omnes sanum aliquid sapientes luce clarius constabat falsa esse quae dicebantur: Nam & Papa tàm eximiè támque Apo∣stolicè vitam instituebat, &c. But with all men of sound wise∣dome it was more cleere then the Sunne, that the things which were spoken against Pope Hildebrand were false, for that th

Pope did lead an excellent and Apostolike life, as the sublimitie of his conuersation did admit no least spot of wicked rumour against him, he li••ing in that great citie and open concourse of men, it could not haue beene hidden, if he had committed any vnlawfull thing in his life: and moreouer the signes and miracles, which by his pray∣ers were often-times done, and his most feruent zeale for God in defence of Ecclesiasticall lawes did sufficiently defend him against the poisoned tongues of his detractors. And againe: Hildebrandi constantia & inuictus aduersus auaritiam animus omnia ex∣cludebat argumenta humanae fallaciae: The constancie of Pope Hildebrand and his inuincible minde against the corruption of a∣uarice, did exclude all arguments of humane fallacie and deceit. So Lambertus. And now let the reader consider with what con∣science and fidelitie T. M. hath cited him for condemnation of Pope Hildebrand. Hee relateth indeed what certaine noblemen, cap∣taines, and others, that came with the Emperour to the castle of Canusium, and would not haue had him made peace with the Pope in that place, saide in their rage afterwards, for that against their counsell he had submitted himselfe vnto the said Pope: and when a certaine Bishop named Eppo was sent to their campe by the Pope and Emperour to enforme them of the agreement and submission made;* 1.55 Fremere omnes (saith this story) & insanire, verbis & manibus coeperunt, Apostolicae legationi irrisorijs exclamati∣onibus obstrepere, conuicia & maledicta turpissima quaecun{que} furor suggessisset, irrogare. All of them began to fret and wax fierce both in words and casting their hands, and with scornefull outcries to contradict this holy Apostolical legation sent vnto them, and to cast vpon the Pope all the most foule reproches and maledi∣ctions that furie could suggest vnto them. Thus saith Lambertus, and setteth downe the particular slanderous reproches heere cited by T. M. which he approoueth not, but condemneth, as you haue heard, and highly commendeth not onely the vertue but also the sanctitie of the Pope. And will euer any man credit T. M. any more in any thing that he alledgeth, when this consciencelesse falsifi∣cation is once discouered in him? yea though it were but once thorowout his whole booke, it were sufficient to prooue that he dea∣leth not out of any faith or conscience at all. If an enemie would dis∣credit

both Christ, and Christian religion, and say, your own Euan∣gelists doe recount foule things against him (as heere this Mini∣ster saith our Historiographer doth of Pope Gregorie) and name∣ly that he was accused by the Scribes and Pharisees for casting out Diuels by the power of Beelzebub, for deceiuing the people, for denying tribute to be paid to Caesar, for moouing sedition, and other like crimes, which our Euangelists doe recount indeed, but do con∣demne them as false and calumnious; were not this as good and as faithfull a maner of reasoning, as this other of Thomas Morton out of Lambertus and Frisingensis against Pope Hildebrand, who is by them both most highly commended as you heard, and his aduersaries condemned? Truly if any man can shew me out of all the Catholike writers that be extant, English or other, that euer any of them vsed this shamefull fraud in writing, where no excuse can free them from malicious and witting falshood, then will I grant that this is not proper to the Protestant spirit alone. Hitherto I must confesse that I neuer found it in any, and if I should, though it were but once, I should hold it for a sufficient argument not to be∣leeue him euer after. And this shall suffice for a taste onely of M. Mortons maner of proceeding, for that to prosecute all particulars would require a whole volume, and by this few you may guesse at the mans veine and spirit in writing.

Hitherto P. R.

The Answer.

143 Thou seest (Christian Reader) I haue had patience to heare my indictment deliuered vnto the full, and suffered my Aduersarie without any interruption to say so much in this accusation, as that by this time he may seeme to haue run himselfe out of breath. For what could either the dexteritie of Art, or the violence of passion force more, then to note his Ad∣uersarie of so shamelesse falshood, as to be without comparison maliciously fraudulent, and vtterly vnwoorthy to be credited euer any more in any thing that he alleadgeth? Now therefore I turne my selfe vnto thee (good Reader) as to my Iudge, who may seeme by this time to exact of mee an Answer; and of whom I must desire and expect a iust censure. Vouchsafe therefore (I pray thee) an intentiue examination, and I dare

presume thou wilt acknowledge this Accusation to be both so false and foolish, and vnfortunate to his cause, and indeed blasphemous, as though he had studied to be either faithlesse, or fond, or vnlucky, or impious.

I. The falsitie of this crimination.

144 In the beginning I am charged with impudent impietie for citing Lambert Scaffnaburg to affirme that The Bishops of Italy did excommunicate Pope Gregorie for capitall crimes. But why is this impudency? As if (saith P. R.) this our Chronogra∣pher had related this as a thing of trueth, or that it were approoued of him, and not rather as a slanderous obiection cast out by his Ad∣uersaries that followed the part of Henrie the Emperor, &c. The point now in question is, whether this Author Lambertus Scaffnaburg did thinke that those Bishops of Italy had condem∣ned this Pope Gregory (for whether they did it iustly or vn∣iustly is the second question) for such crimes or no; I haue af∣firmed that Lambertus Scaffnaburg was of this opinion: but P. R. denieth it, calling my assertion an impudent impietie. Let vs be iudged by the euidence of the Author himselfe: who in the place alledged hath these words: Postquamper Italiam fa∣ma percrebuisset, &c. After that the fame was spred abroad thorowout Italy, that K. Henry had set his foote in their coasts; [certatim omnes Italiae Episcopi, &c] All the Bishops of Italy did flocke by troupes vnto him, receiuing him with all honour woorthie the magnificence of such a person, and within a few daies after an armie of an infinite multitude was gathered vnto him: for from the first time that he was King, they longed for his comming into Italy, because at this time Italy was pestered with theeuery. And what els? It followeth a little after. Besides, they (viz. the Bi∣shops and people) did congratulate his comming, because it was reported that he came with a resolute courage to depose (Grego∣ry) the Pope. Heere we see it granted by Lambert that All the Bishops of Italy were desirous to haue this Pope Gregory de∣posed. But after all this the Emperour goeth to Rome, seeketh absolution of the Pope, returneth backe againe, and the Bi∣shop Eppo is sent after to signifie to the Italians this submission

to the Pope. What now? Now followeth the testimony which was alledged: Qui cùm causam Italis exposuisset, &c. When Eppo had told his message to the Italians, all of them began to rage and fret, &c. casting vpon the Pope all opprobrious reproches, whom all the Bishops of Italy had before iustly excommunicated, because by Simonie he had defiled the sea Apostolike. Could this Chronologer but acknowledge that the Pope had beene ex∣communicated by the Bishops of Italy, who (as he confessed in the beginning) did reioice at the comming of the Emperour, because he came with a resolution to depose the Pope? Which is a thing so notoriously knowne, that neuer Author did denie it: Insomuch that Bimus their last and best authorized Compi∣ler of the Councels, an Author wholly deuoted to that Sea of Rome, confesseth thatx 1.56 Anno 1076. (viz. the yeere before this happened, which hath beene related out of Lambert) In the Councell of Papia, a city in Italy, the Bishops gathered themselues together, and excommunicated the Pope. Although he call that Councell, Conciliabulum, and the Bishops Schisma∣ticos, Schismatikes, as peraduenture Lambert also did esteeme them; yet this trueth is acknowledged of all, that The Bishops of Italy did excommunicate this Pope. Which is all that either hath, or needed to haue been said. And could this deserue so ri∣gorous a censure of impudent impietie, and whatsoeuer bitter∣nesse the gall of this man could vent out? I proceed to the se∣cond point, which is

II. The foolishnesse of his Accusation.

145 That being granted, which neuer any Historian did de∣nie, that The Bishops of Italie did excommunicate Gregorie, ali∣âs Hildebrand, and sought by the power of the Emperor Hen∣rie to haue him deposed: the sottishnesse of the second obie∣ction will bewray it selfe at the first hearing, to wit, The Au∣thour Lambertus condemneth such proceedings against the Pope, and highly commendeth not only the vertue, but also the sanctitie of the Pope: And therefore will any man credit T. M. any more? Yes, I hope, any who shall rightly discerne the rea∣son of my allegation. For my proofe, taken from the testi∣monie

of this Lambertus, consisteth not in his censure of com∣mending, or of discommending the proceedings of the Italian Bishops against the Pope, but in the iudgement of those Ita∣lian Bishops, who all (as Lambertus confesseth) wished that that Pope might be deposed. A collection vsed of all men in the citing of all Chronologers, knowing that the proper office of an Historian is to be a witnesse of things done, and not a Iudge. For if any fauourite of my Mitigator should report, saying thus, That P. R. (I doe but suppose this) was expelled out of a College of Oxford by the Fellowes, who did censure him for some misdemeanour; but yet I thinke (saith his fa∣uourite) that the Fellowes did him wrong: For I haue heard him to haue beene accounted by others of very commenda∣ble conuersation. Then presently some by-stander should make bold to giue out that the Felowes of a College in Oxford did so censure P. R. and name his Author; could any say that he had abused that testimonie, because he gaue more credit to the wisdome of those Fellowes who expelled him, than to the contrarie coniecture of the reporter? Shall that by-stander be therefore thought euer after vnworthie of all credit?

146 Whosoeuer of his faction shall read the late Catholike Apologie (as it is intituled) out of Protestant writers, hee will wish P. R. had beene a newly professed Pythagorean, to whom a fiue yeeres silence had beene inioined: for Protestant Authours are there cited, as confessing (but how truly we are not heere to dispute) that some Fathers 400. yeeres after Christ haue held some Romish positions: notwithstanding the same Protestant Authours doe condemne those positions as vtterly superstitious. In which allegations the Apologists are contented to receiue from Protestants a confession of so much antiquitie of some Romish Doctrine; and yet often∣times doe not acknowledge or regard the iudgement of the cited Authors in condemning such opinions. Will now P. R. permit vs to answer these Apologists after his example, saying, ô impudent impietie, and malicious falshood! Will you cite Pro∣testants for confessing such Doctrines as ancient, which they condemne to haue beene superstitious? I would wish P. R.

to call his fiue wits into one Senate, and after due deliberation to shape me an answer▪ I feare he will be driuen to a non plus: For either must he teach vs to confute their Apologists, and to note them to haue beene fraudulent disputers; or else con∣fesse himselfe to haue plaid the part of an idle, impudent, and an intolerable accuser.

III. The vnfortunatenesse of this his declamatorie calum∣niation.

147 P. R. will not haue his Reader to count otherwise of this Pope Gregorie, aliàs Hildebrand, than of a man commenda∣ble, not only for vertue, but also for sanctitie: as if he had said, not only for a good man, but also for a godly: wherein it may be that P. R. hath beene not only not acute, but also absurd: For as easily may godlinesse be separated from goodnesse, as sanctitie from any perfect vertue. But to the matter. As it is written, Oportet haereses esse, there must be heresies, so is it impli∣ed that there must be contradictions, but to this end, that the truth may be victorious; which I hope will be verified in this present example of Pope Gregorie, who may be vnto vs (if wee beleeue the Romish historians) a mirrour of all impietie.

First, Cardinall Benno liuing in his time, set foorth his life, and writeth thaty 1.57 He entred into the Popedome by force: that he suborned a man to murther the Emperour, when he was at diuine seruice: that hee cast the Eucharist into the fire: that hee was a Necromancer; and a contemner of religion.

Secondly, the Abbat Vrspergensis writeth,z 1.58 That he was an vsurper of the sea of Rome, not appointed by God, but intruded by fraud and money; a disturber of the Empire; a subuerter of the Church.

Thirdly, Sigebertus Gimblacensis, a Monke, writeth that a 1.59 Hildebrand troubled the States of Christendome; raised vp the Saxons against their liege Prince; discharged subiects from their oth of fidelitie; and caused Rodulph the Duke of Burgundie to proclaime himselfe Emperour. After reporting from a writing found after his death in exile thus; We giue you to wit who haue the care of soules, that Pope Hildebrand, aliàs Gregorie, being

at the point of death, called vnto him one of the Cardinals, whom he did specially affect, confessing to him that he had greatly offen∣ded God and his Church in the abuse of his pastorall charge, and by the perswasion of the Diuell raised hatred and wrath against mankinde. If three witnesses be not sufficient against a Pope, of whom one is a Monke, an other an Abbat, the third a Car∣dinall, let vs further vnderstand that

Fourthly, Seuerinus Binius in his new editions of the Coun∣cels, b 1.60 confesseth that the Bishops in a Councell At Woormes, Anno 1076. declared that Gregorie was to bee deposed: And that The Councell at Papia Anno 1076. did excommunicate him: And that The Councell of Bishops at Brixia did depose him: the Acts of which Councell, as they are recited by Vrspergensis, shew these causes;c 1.61 Because he was an vsurper of the Sea, &c. And The Councell at Mentz Anno 1085. declared him to bee iustly deposed. Thus we see that P. R. by denying one Coun∣cell of Bishops of Italie in Papia to haue opposed themselues against this Gregorie, hath, contrarie to his desire, gained with that one of Papia three other Councels, one of Brixia, another of Woormes, the last of Mentz. So vnluckie hath hee beene (to vse his owne Simile) in a lost game to see the last man borne. I must yeeld him therefore the priuilege of a loser, which is to fret, and rage, and raile, and to call mee malicious. The matter were lesse hainous in him to haue beene onely slande∣rous against man, if he were not also, in a sort, blasphemous a∣gainst the Gospell of Christ.

IIII. His blasphemie.

148 If any man (saith he) would discredit both Christ and Chri∣stian Religion, and say our Euangelists did recount foule things a∣gainst him (as heere this Minister saith our Historiographer doth of Pope Gregorie) and namely that he was accused of the Scribes and Phariseis for casting out Diuels by the power of Belzebub, for deceiuing the people, for moouing sedition, &c. and the like crimes, which our Euangelists doe recount indeed, but doe con∣demne them also as false and calumnious: were not this as good a maner of reasoning as this of Tho. Mortons out of Lambertus

against Pope Hildebrand, who is by them so highly commended, as you haue heard, and his aduersaries condemned? Thus P. R. Thomas Morton will tell you that your maner of reasoning is not so good. For suppose that T. M. in his reasoning had beene guiltie of some errour, yet this your comparison cannot be free from blasphemie; the consequence whereof is this: It is like impietie in T. M. in citing the witnesse of Lambert, concerning the opposition of the Bishops of Italie, which Lambert condemned; and to giue more credit vnto them condemning the Pope, than vnto Lambert condemning those Bishops: As it is for a man reading the Gospell, where it is recorded that the Scribes and Phariseis opposed themselues a∣gainst Christ, to beleeue rather those Scribes and Phariseis, condemning Christ, than to giue credit vnto the Euangelists, condemning the Phariseis. Whosoeuer shall exactly exa∣mine the Analogie of this comparison, must needs acknow∣ledge it to be in a maner blasphemous. For either must Christ the sonne of God be compared with Pope Gregorie, a sinfull man, and (as some iudge) the man of sinne, as though it were a like impudencie to say that Gregorie, a sinner, might no more iustly be condemned of the Italian Bishops, than Christ, who was righteousnesse it selfe, of the Scribes and Phariseis, which in the schoole of Christianitie must necessarily be iud∣ged a blasphemie. Or else the likenesse consisteth in the com∣parison of the reporters, matching the holy Euangelists and their Monks Frisingensis and Lambertus together, to thinke it no lesse impietie not to beleeue rather these two Monks con∣demning the Italian Bishops (who they say were aduersaries to the Pope) than those Bishops, though condemned by the Monks; then it is not to beleeue rather the Euangelists con∣demning the Scribes and Phariseis (who were enemies vnto Christ) than the same Scribes and Phariseis, though condem∣ned by the Euangelists. But to compare in like beleefe the holy Euangelists who were Calami Spiritus sancti (as S. Hie∣rome calleth them) that is, The pens of the holy Ghost, and could not erre, and the reports of superstitious Monks, who, almost, could not but erre, is an inference altogether impious.

146 But if P. R. (as I hope hee will) wish his consequent to be rather prooued ridiculous than so sacrilegious, then let him vnderstand the dissimilitude and vnlikenesse of his compari∣son. For first the iudgement of those Historiographers, Frisin∣gensis and Lambertus, two Monks, in condemning those Itali∣an Bishops is different from the iudgment of Sigebert a Monke, of Vrspergensis an Abbat, of Benno a Cardinall: but the Euan∣gelicall Historiographers doe all of them fully consent toge∣ther; therefore hee not acknowledging the Euangelists con∣demnation of the Scribes and Pharisies, and that Lambertus his condemnation of the Italian Bishops, are nothing alike.

Secondly the Pharisies were of different profession vnto the Euangelists, the Italian Bishops were of the same religion with the obiected Historians: therefore to credit the Pharisies against the Euangelists, and to credit Bishops against Monks, cannot bee proportionable, But why doe I trouble my selfe with these my Aduersaries madling conceits? I hasten, for con∣clusion to

Notes

• * 1.1

  Luc. 23.
• a 1.2

  Treatise Mitig. epist. dedic. num. 18. & 19.
• b 1.3

  Ind. Expurg. Belg. pag. 195.
• c 1.4

  Primus ho∣nos Romano Pontifici ha∣betur, vt si mi∣nùs pulchro honestetur no mine, e••statim creato liceat illud mutare Verbi gratia, non extra io∣cum dictū sit, Si homo ma∣leficus anteà fortè fuerit, vt Bonifacius ap∣pelletur: si ti∣midus, Leo: si rusticus, Vr∣banus: si im∣probus, Inno∣centus: si fe∣rox, Clemens: si malè audi∣uerit, Benedi∣ctus: vt saltem nomine Pon∣tifex ornamē∣to sit dignita∣ti. Eius autem rei auctor fuis∣se dicitur Ser∣gius secundus, cui cum Os por∣ci diceretur, ad obscoen•• no∣minis vocem tollendā, da∣tum est, vt ali∣ud sibi nomē aptaret. Polyd. lib. 4. de Inu. rerū, c. 10.
• d 1.5

  Treatise Mitig. ca. 2. n. 46. pa. 79.
• * 1.6

  His Cauill compared.
• e 1.7

  Posterior Caietani con∣iectura, quia Gregor. mag∣nus in homi∣lia de amissa drachma non fuit aufus hos libros B. Dio∣nysij asserere, & tantum am∣biguè loquitur vtēs voce [fer∣tur:] respōdeo sic loqui non quia ipse du∣bitauerat qui in Graecia e∣ius libros le∣gerat, &c. Del Rio vi••d. Areopa. cap. 6. §. Posterior. pag. 29.
• f 1.8

  Ioan. de turre 〈◊〉〈◊〉. lib. de sum. Eccles. de Anastati••. Idē habet Platina: Supplementum Cronicho. & li∣ber Pontificalis in decret. Ana∣stasi secundi.
• g 1.9

  Binius in tom. 3. conc. pag. 1054. anno Dom. 912. Binius quo su∣pra pag. 160.
• h 1.10

  The dismall ends of di∣uers Popes.
• i 1.11

  Binius cir••. Ann. Domin. 1198. pa. 1441.
• k 1.12

  Treatise Mitig. ca. 2. n. 47. p. 80.
• l 1.13

  Mitig. ib. n. 48. pa. 81.
• m 1.14

  Bouchier lib. 3. de Abdicat. Hen. 3. cap. 16. pag. 267.
• * 1.15

  P. R. con••u∣ted by a Si∣mile.
• n 1.16

  Matth 23 2.
• o 1.17

  In publicis notorij••{que} cri∣minibus tan∣to alitèr id fi∣eri debet, quā∣to damnata ea per se pub∣lico praeco∣nio, ac natu∣rae sensu esse solent, vt Au∣gust. de Cain & Abel, Eui∣dentia crimi¦nis non eget clamore ac∣cusationis. Si latrones, si be∣stiae, cùm irru∣u••t, omni iu∣re expugnan∣tur, cur non tyrānus quo∣uis latrone & bestiâ deteri∣or? Duplex poenae genus, positiuae vnū, priuatiuae alterum: quaepositiua est, formulam expectare debet; in priuatiua certè alitèr se res habet, quod pertecto scelere, vele tra nonum iudicium vim habere inter Theologos confessam sit. Then cap. 3. Praeueniri iudic um Ecclesiae posse specialis probatio, vt Deut. 13. Statim interficies, ac sit primùm manus tua supra eum, vt Phinees scortum, Num. 25. ari epto pugione consodit. Sic Mattathias se gessit aduersus Israëlitam idololatram, 1. Machab. 2. Tales alij Israëlitis liberatores Othoniel, Aiod, Barach. And a little after would prooue this out of the Councell of Lateran, out of the Decree of Pop. Gelasius. And in the former Chap. Ecclesiae iudicium non est, nisi celebri illo Apostolicae fedis theatro, nec reip∣nisi in plenis & liberis comitijs esse potest. In the end of the Chapter after Chap. 5. Expe∣ctandi iudicij causas omnes in Henrico praeclusas esse. After in Chap. 23. Frater Iacobus Clemens, non ita pri∣dem Sacer∣dos factus—post celebra∣tū Missae sacri∣ficium Henri∣cum cultello, vt Aeglonem Moabitem al∣ter Aiod im•• etiam fortitèr in abdomine traijcit. Ni∣hil iam vt fit quod Iudithae Holophernē, aut Dauidis Goliathum obtruncantis, aut Samsonis maxiliâ Asini mille viros in∣ter ficientis historias ad∣miremur, quia maiora his vi∣dimus, & cla∣more meritò debeamus, Dextra Do∣mini fecit vir∣tutem, &c. Thus much Bouchier.
• p 1.18

  Treatise Mitig. cap. 2. num. 26. pag. 68.
• * 1.19

  P. R. reproo∣ued by a Si∣mile.
• q 1.20

  Matth. 16.
• r 1.21

  Marc. 5. 7.
• s 1.22

  Reinolds in his Rosaeo. cap. 2. pag. 62. spea∣king of such Tyrants not as are inua∣ders of a coū∣trey, but those who haue beene iustly possessed of their King∣domes.
• t 1.23

  Pag 135. Traiterous doctrine.
• u 1.24

  Rom. 13. Apostolicall doctrine of subiection.
• a 1.25

  Treatise Mitig. cap. 2. num 49. pag. 82.
• b 1.26

  Mitig. pa. 84. num. 52.
• c 1.27

  M. Stock, a learned Prea∣cher in London answereth for himselfe.
• d 1.28

  Non tenen∣tur reddere rē verbis con∣tractam. Card. Tollet lib 1. Instruct. Sacerd. ca. 13. § Sextus in his last edition. An vndoub∣ted argument of the Autors sincerity.
• e 1.29

  Mitig. cap. ••. num. 52▪ 53. 54. 55▪ 56. 57. pag. 84.
• f 1.30

  M. Stock.
• * 1.31

  A dile••ma.
• * 1.32

  P. R. his ba∣bish foolery.
• g 1.33

  Reade Su∣rius vpon that Councel. tom. 1. Conc.
• h 1.34

  See Thuanus hist. lib. 52.
• * 1.35

  This I shall proue in the Incounter out of Bouchier.
• i 1.36

  See aboue §. 5. pag. 12.
• k 1.37

  Treatise Mitig. cha. 5. num. 43. pag. 174. Extr••••. com. de mai. & obed. § vnā Sanctam.
• * 1.38

  Addit. ad Com. Extra. de Ma••. in c. 1. ad finē.
• l 1.39

  Gregor. 13. ad futurā rei memoriam. Reliquum est vt eiusdē De∣creti vnà cum Annotatio∣nibus praedi∣ctis tàm abs{que} Glossis, quàm ipsum totum cùm Glossis, Sextumque & Clementinas simul & extrauagantes à dilecto filies S. F. recognoscenda omnia & approbanda &c. imprimi & impressa diuulgari iusse••imus, ac ad maiorem Christi fidelium vbi{que} commo••antium commoditatem, hoc 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Canonici corpus fide∣liter & incorrup•••• 〈◊〉〈◊〉 exemplar Rom•••• 〈◊〉〈◊〉, imprimi possit. Nos opportunè prouidere volentes, vt hoc ius Canonicum sic expurgatum ad omnes vbi{que} Christi fide∣les sartum tectum perueniat, ac ne cuiquam liceat e••dem operi quicquam addere, vel immutare, aut inuertere, nullauè interpretamenta adiungere, &c.
• m 1.40

  Treatise Mitig. ca. 2. n. 55. pag. 86.
• * 1.41

  P. R. his accu∣sation redoun¦ding vpon his Popes.
• * 1.42

  A fond cauill.
• n 1.43

  Treatise Mitig. cap. 6. num. 55. pag. 231.
• * 1.44

  A stupid cauill.
• o 1.45

  Matt. 26. 42.
• * 1.46

  Another fri∣uolous cauill.
• p 1.47

  See aboue §. 6. pag. 1••.
• q 1.48

  See aboue §. 7. pag. 22. nū. 23. 24. 25. &c.
• * 1.49

  An impious cauill.
• r 1.50

  See a little before in this §. num. 132.
• s 1.51

  See aboue §. 7. pag. 19. nū. 21, &c.
• t 1.52

  See aboue §. 8.
• u 1.53

  Treat. Mitig. ca 6. num 37. pag. 215.
• * 1.54

  La. S••aff. hist Germ. ann. 1077. sub fin.
• * 1.55

  Lamb. vbi••sup.
• x 1.56

  Binius tom. 3. Conc. pag. 1281.
• y 1.57

  Benno hist. de vita Greg.
• z 1.58

  Vrsperg. an. 1080.
• a 1.59

  Sigeb An. 1074. & anno 1085.
• b 1.60

  Binius conc. tom. 3. pag. 1281. and pag. 1191. Although he call them not Concilia but Conciliabula.
• c 1.61

  See a little before out of the testimony of Vrsper. lit. z.