The vvarn-vvord to Sir Francis Hastinges wast-word conteyning the issue of three former treateses, the Watch-word, the Ward-word and the Wast-word (intituled by Sir Francis, an Apologie or defence of his Watch-word) togeather with certaine admonitions & warnings to thesaid [sic] knight and his followers. Wherunto is adioyned a breif reiection of an insolent, and vaunting minister masked with the letters O.E. who hath taken vpon him to wryte of thesame [sic] argument in supply of the knight. There go also foure seueral tables, one of the chapters, another of the controuersies, the third of the cheif shiftes, and deceits, the fourth of the parricular [sic] matters conteyned in the whole book. By N.D. author of the Ward-word.

ABOVT S. THOMAS of Canterbury whether he were a traytor or no as malitiously he is called by sir Francis and O. E. and what notorious impostures both they and Fox do deuise to disgrace him, against the testimony of all ancient wryters. CAP. X.

BVt now we must come to a greater [ 1] controuersy about S. Thomas Becket Archbishop of Canterbury whome Syr Francis without all occasion bringeth into controuersy among other impertinent points to maintayne matter of talk. For his subiect being of lay-men debarred the scrip∣tures, and therby, (as he sayth) made carelesse of God & all godlynes; how might it fal to his pur∣pose

(think yow) to rayle at this blessed archbishop martyred so long agoe, and raig∣ning now in heauen for so many hundred yeares; but that such prince-parasits as these, do think they cannot grace themselues suffi∣ciently with Kings and Queenes now a dayes in Englād, except they haue a fling at this ho••y man who stood in the gappe and lost his lyfe for the defence of his Churches liberty.

[ 2] Wherfore S^r. F. hauing both falsely and foolishly witten in the watchword, that among Catholyks there was no more required at lay-mens handes to the exercise of pie••y, but only to go deuoutly to masse, and to confession once a yeare, and then though he were to be taynted with the grossest sinnes, yet Rome had a trick to hale them into the rabble of their saints and so to canonise them. Yow se how liberal this gentleman is in canonizing, that requireth no more perfection, but once a yeare to go to masse and confession, and then he addeth: Of this we haue example of Tho. Becket in K. Henry the 3. his tyme, whose treason to the Prince was appa∣rant and manifest, &c.

Thus saith he in his Watchword, wherin the Warder tooke him vp for diuers vntru∣thes and absurdities as namely for saying that we hold it for sufficient perfection of holines, to heare masse and confesse once a yeare, and that a man may be a Saint▪ with vs yea cano∣nized though he be taynted with the grossest sinnes that may be: That S. Tho. of Canter∣bury was such a one canonized in the tyme of K. Henry the third, &c. which last point (to

omit the rest) about the tyme of the death,* 1.1 and canonization of S. Thomas vnder K. Henry the third (as this man saith) and not the se∣cond, is shewed not only to be false, but of grosse ignorance also, seing that K. Henry the 3. nephew to the second was borne more then 30. yeares after the death and canoniza∣tion of S. Thomas, to which represension of error in story I do not fynd that S. F. giueth any reason of iust excuse in this his reply now, nor yet O. E. for him, but rather as though nothing had byn said against him for it turneth to repeat againe the same error vn∣der pretence of a namelesse author, though in the manner of telling his tale he would co∣uertly seeme somwhat to answere the ob∣iection, for thus he wryteth:

To examyne a litle (saith he) the State of this [ 3] Becket,* 1.2 who was a traitor as I do affirme (and not I only but * 1.3many before me) against king Henry the se∣cond, but (to vse the words of my author) taken vp and shryned for a new saint made of an old rebel 50. yeares after his death, which was in the fourth yeare of king Henry the third, &c. But this being so notorious an vntruth (if he meane of his ca∣nonization as by his former woords in the Watch word may appeare) & he being repre∣hended for it before (as yow haue heard) for modesties sake should at least haue named his author for some shew or defence. For if it be Iohn Fox, or some such other of as light cre∣dit as himself, you see what cogging it is one of them to aleadge another, especially seing

Fox also citeth the same woords, with the same parenthesis (to vse the words of my author) but neyther the one or the other citeth any author at all. And most certayne it is that neuer any author of credit in the world said or wrote that S. Thomas eyther practised treason or was made a saint in K. Henry the 3. his tyme, as in the former woords of his watch our knight affirmed, for that his con∣ten••ion was with K. Henry the 2. grand fa∣ther to K. Henry the 3. and his canonization was by Pope Alexander the 3. many yeares be∣fore K. Henry the 3. was borne, as all wryters do agree. And the poore shift which heere the knight runneth vnto for saluing of his former error (to wit that S. Thomas his body was translated,* 1.4 or as he tearmeth it, shr••ned the 4. yeare of K. Henry the 3.) maintayneth not his former assertion that Thomas Becket committed treason and was made a Saint in K. Henry the 3. his tyme. For what if S. Tho∣mas body was translated from one shrine to another vnder K. Henry the 3. doth this proue that he was not canonized before? or that he comm••tted treason against this prince that was scarsely borne 30. yeares after his death?* 1.5 VVe haue an example (saith he) of Thomas Becket in Henry the 3. his tyme, whose treasons to the prince were apparant and manifest, &c. And is it not hereby apparent and manifest, that he told vs before that Tho. Becket committed trea∣sons vnder Henry the 3•• and can this be excu∣sed now with telling vs that his body was

translated vnder Henry the 3? But these are the ordinary shifts which our aduersaryes vse when they are taken trip, to runne to imper∣tinent matter, therby to dazel the eyes of the reader.

Let them read but Iohn Stow in the 25. [ 4] yeare of K. Henry the 2. his raigne, which was of our Lord 1179. and 41. before the translation of S. Thomas his body mentioned heere by them and they shal find that both the s••d K. Henry the 2. and K. Lewes of France went in pilgrimage to S. Thomas his Tombe and offered rich Iewels for their deuotion being but 8. yeares after his death which hap∣pened in the yeare 1171. So as herby is seene that he was canonized vnder K. Henry the 2. and not the third. To which effect also and for cleering this whole story let the ancient authentical authors be read which liued with S. Thomas or presently after him as for ex∣ample those fiue that wrote his whole lyfe, actions and death,* 1.6 to wit: Herbert Hoscan after∣wards Cardinal, Iohn Salisbury bishop of Char∣ters, Allen Abbot of Teukesbury, VVilliam and Edward monks of Canterbury, all which liued with him, as did also Peter of Blois Archdea∣cō of VVels. And soone after vnder K. Richard the first, sonne to K. Henry the second, wrote Roger Houeden doctor and cheef reader of di∣uinity in Oxford the whole life of S. Thomas, as is extant in his story, and so did Nubergen∣sis also handle thesame at the same tyme, and so consequently after these, Mathew Paris, Ma∣thew

of VVestminster, Thom. VValsingam, Polidor Vir∣gil, and others downewards in their histo∣ries, all which do agree in this point against Sir Francis. First that S. Thomas was slayne and canonized vnder Pope Alexander the 3. and K. Henry the second, and not vnder Henry the 3. his nephew, and secondly that he was a most holy man of lyfe, euen setting the priuiledge of his martyrdome a side, and neyther taynted with grosse sinnes as these grosse tongues do slaunder him nor comitted euer any point of treason against his king, but as primate and head of the English Churche stood for the Ecclesiastical libertyes therof as in conscience he was bound, and by the issue of this my reioynder shal appeare.

[ 5] Wherin first I must note vnto yow that the knight in the beginning of the combat about S. Thomas of Canterbury doth com∣playne that I in my former answere seemed to threaten, that they who striued against Saynts would remayne in the end with bro∣ken heads and that in some place I speak of bastinados, but all this is but picked matter by him to make a quarrel for wel he knoweth, that this is not to be vnderstood but figurati∣uely, and that we are not to enter bataile or to stand with so puissant a knight in material ar∣mes. Wherfore the bastinados or broken heads which I say he is like to gaine by figh∣ting with saints is in his credit and reputation with men,* 1.7 and in his demerit also with God, if he esteeme that any thing, as it is like inough

he doth, but litle. But for the first about dis∣credit I do remit it to the iudgment of the in∣different reader, what men wil or may think o•• the honour of such a knight, as is not asha∣med to come foorth in print with so many op probrious speeches, made out (as it seemeth) of his fingers ends against so honorable a perso∣nage as S. Thomas of Canterbury was, whilst he liued, and so highly praysed and esteemed by all wryters for 4. hundred yeares after his death, and this without alleadging any one author old or new, good or bad, credible or without credit for proof of that which he wryteth: For so doth S. F. deale with, vs in his rayling narration against S. Thomas, set∣ting downe as he pretendeth the whole sub∣stance of that whieh passed betweene him & the King without cyting book or author, and quite contrary to all that (for the most part) which all ancient wryters that liued with him haue left behind them wrytten of this affayre; and moreouer hath corrupted (which is farre worse) and falsified also witingly and wil∣lingly diuers things which he found in other authors,* 1.8 therby to make them seeme somwhat to his purpose: all which yow shal see eui∣dently proued in this examination of the two foresaid points, to wit of his lyfe & cōtention with the King.

And for the first about his lyfe and conuer∣sation, [ 6] whatsoeuer S.F. tatleth of grosse sinnes here or els where, most certayne and cleere it is, that all the foresaid ancient authors, and

whosoeuer hath wrytten of him besides (not∣withstāding they wrote vnder the foresaid K. Hēry his enemy or Richard the first his sonne) do giue most high prayses to this man for his integrity of lyfe according to those words of D. Houeden:* 1.9 Vita etus irreprehensibilis erat coram Deo & hominibus. His lyfe was irreprehensible before God and man, yea his very aduersaries themselues as Ihon Fox by name, after he hath shewed the greatest gaule against him, yet cō∣fessing the helps of nature that were in him (to vse his owne words) he addeth:* 1.10 Besydes this (sayth he) he was of a chast and strickt lyfe yf the hi∣stories be true.

[ 7] Mark Iohn Fox his exception (if the histories be true) & why should he cal in doubt auncient histories, more in this point, then in others? But yow must vnderstand that this Fox ha∣uing a special spite against this blessed man, & being desirous by all meanes possible to dis∣grace him and his actions in his false lying martyrologe, and finding no authors in the world before Luthers heresy to serue his pur∣pose or to speak or wryte euil of him, but all rather highly in his commendation, what course taketh the miseriable man think yow? truly a most desperate, which is to vse these authors against themselues and against both their owne sayings and meanings and so pat∣cheth he vp, as it were out of them a long trea∣tese and narration of aboue 40. pages of paper against S. Tho. pretending to take it out of the foresaid authors, but yet spicing it with so

many ••fs & ands,* 1.11 & adioyning so many glosses, parentheses, notes, obseruations, interpreta∣tions, commentaries and censures of his owne both in the text and margent, as he maketh all those wryters to tel a quite contrary story to that they purposed, and for which they wrote their books, in such sort, as if a man should set out the byble or new Testament it self with such corruption and peruersion it would more disgrace Christian religion (for whose confir∣mation it was wrytten) thē any other wicked book whatsoeuer, yea then the Turks Alcaron it self.

And this is the dealing of Iohn Fox in cy∣ting [ 8] and corrupting authors, as after shal ap∣peare more particularly. But Sir Francis ta∣keth another course which is to tel his tale at his pleasure, without cyting any testimony or author at all, wherof I take the reason to be that which Iohn Fox telleth vs in these words plainly:* 1.12 Scarse any testimony is to be taken of that age, being all blynded and corrupted with superstition. Thus he saith and this is the cause why Sir F. alleageth no author, and Fox forceth them to speake as he would haue them. But I would aske Iohn Fox againe, if no wryter of the age it self wherin S. Tho. liued be to be credited about his affaires, how shal we beleeue wry∣ters of later ages that must needs take it from the former, if they write with foundation & not deuise matter of themselues? Againe, I would aske whether it be probable that so great a king as K. Henry the second was,

could get no man to wryte the Story indiffe∣rently for him in his age? How likely a fiction is this of Fox? And this may be sufficient for the first point; for seing all the foresaid wry∣ters and their woorks are ful of high prayses of S. Thom. for his sanctity and perfection of lyfe, and for that cause are specialy discredi∣ted heere by Iohn Fox it shalbe sufficient to remit the reader in this behalf to thesaid vo∣lumes and wrytings before mentioned.

[ 9] For the second which is his cause with the king whether his resisting as Primate of Eng∣land for liberty to the English Churche were treason to the K. or no,* 1.13 is easy to be iudged by him, that is not passionate, and wil with∣out flattery of temporal Princes consider in∣differently, the dignity, preheminence, duty, and obligation of Ecclesiastical gouernours in this behalf, for defence of their spiritual iu∣risdiction; To which purpose the Warder said as followeth:

[ 10]

If in euery contention or dissention, that a bishop,* 1.14 priest, or other spiritual subiect or Ecclesiastical Prelate may haue with his tem∣poral prince,* 1.15 the subiect shal presently be con∣demned of treason (according to this seruile cēsure of our knight who for flattering prin∣ces doth make them absolute lords both of body and soule) then Iohn Baptist also must be accompted a traitor that dealt so perempto∣rily with his king Herod his liege lord in tem∣poral affaires. Or yf yow wil haue examples of christian princes, S. Ambrose must be a tray∣tor,

first for resisting openly his ••ord and King,* 1.16 Valentinian the yonger, and then for handling so hardly the elder Theod••sius in Miliayn as he shut him out of the Churche, and made him go home againe with shame and do pennāce.* 1.17 S. Hilarius also and S. Athanasius shalbe traytors for their contentions with Constantius their lawful Emperor and temporal lord who ba∣nished them from their bishopricks, and the former of the two wrote two vehemēt books and inuectiues against thesaid Emperor, and yet no man euer accompted him a traytor for thesame, but rather a great Saynt, for his chri∣stian liberty and constancy.

S. Chrysostome in like maner shalbe condem∣ned [ 11] for a great traytor who had greater con∣tentions with his temporal lords Arcadius and Honorius christian Emperors,* 1.18 and with their wiues Theodosia and Eudoxia then euer S. Tho∣mas had with K. Henry the second:* 1.19 for he preached against them publikely with great vehemency and thundered out excommuni∣cation against them,* 1.20 and was twice banished and dryuen out of his bishoprick by their dis∣fauours, and died in exile. And yet was he ne∣uer called or accompted a traytor, but a singu∣lar holy man: and Theodosius the yonger, sonne of Arcadius, brought his body with great so∣lemnity honor and reuerence into Constanti∣nople, and wept most bitterly for the synnes of his parents in persecuting so blessed a man, & (as the Story saith) made prayer to him now dead for pardon of his fathers synnes; as did also often

both our K. Henry the second himself and his sonne for the offence of his father,* 1.21 who had ben some cause of the death of this iust man his pastor and spiritual father.

[ 12] Thus wrote the Warder then, and what replyeth now our knight or his minister to all this? yow shal heare the knight in his owne woords: VVho (saith he) but such a one as hath sold himself to all impudency and shamelesse gayn∣saying the truth,* 1.22 would seek to couer Beckets rebellion by the facts of S. Iohn Baptist, Ambrose, Hilary, Atha∣nasius, and Chrysostome, which haue as much agree∣ment with the cause of Becket, as hath light with darknesse, good with euil, sweet with sower. Heer yow se the knight in a great heat, but his mi∣nister O. E. answereth somwhat more tempe∣rately saying only, that These examples fit not Thomas Becke••s cause. Wel then of two poynts contayned in this matter, the one we haue gotten that in some cases, spiritual prelates, though subiects in temporalityes may repre∣hend and resist, yea chasten also by Ecclesiasti∣cal punishment their liege lords and temporal princes without being traytors for the same. The second whether the examples be like, we are to examine a litle in this place.

[ 13] And first I would aske our minister that denyeth the fitnes of the examples,* 1.23 as also his master that chafeth at them. what and where about were the foresayd Saints contentions with their temporal Princes, were they not for the defence of the lawes of Christ and his Churche, did not S. Iohn Baptist withstand

Herod his temporal Lord to his face for breaking the lawes of wedlock and was not the strife of S. Ambrose with Valentinian his Emperour first for that he would not deliuer vp a Catholike Churche to the vse of Arrians as he and his mother had commaunded, and secondly for that he would not giue vp the treasure and vessels of his Churche into the Emperors owne hands as he required. Heare his owne testimony thereof.* 1.24 Cum esset propo∣sitū (saith hee) vt ecclesiae vasa iam traderemus, &c. when it was proposed vnto vs in the Emperours name that wee should deliuer him the vessel of our churche I gaue this answere. If any thing of my owne were demaunded, eyther land howse gold or siluer I would easely yeild vnto him any thing that were belonging vnto mee. But from the Churche of God I told him that I could take nothing, for that I had receyued it not to deliuer but to keep. And that with this I had respect also of the Emperours saluation. For that it was ney∣ther expedient for mee to giue, nor for him to receyue. Accipiat ergo vocem liberi sacerdotis, &c. Let his Maiestie then receyue the word of a free priest if he wil haue care of his owne saluation, let him cease to offer iniury to Christ.

Lo here the answeare of an ecclesiastical [ 14] Prelate but a temporal subiect to his highest Prince, doth not this seeme to bee speach of some Catholyke Bishop to a Protestant Prince that would inuade Churche goods & posses∣sions against which poynt S. Ambrose was so resolute to stand as he sayth in the same place: that yf sorce were vsed towards him his flesh might

bee troubled but not his mynd, and that he was readie yf the Emperour would vse his kingly authority in of∣fring violence to stuffer that which belonged to a good Priest to beare. And what doth this differ now from the cause of S. Tho. of Canterbury who stood vpon defence of his Ecclesiastical iuris∣dictiō against K. Henry his temporal Prince that vsurped the same. Heare the words of S. Thomas himself vsed to K. Henry in a Coūcel at Chynon in Frāce as D. Houeden sets them downe:* 1.25

Non deberetis Episcopis praecipere absoluere aliquem vel excommunicare trahere Clericos ad saecu∣laria examina iudicare de decimis, de ecclesits interdi∣cere Episcopis ne tractent de ••ransgressione fidei vel Iu∣ramenti, &c. Yow ought not to take vpon yow to commaund Bishops to absolue or exco∣municate any man neyther to draw cleargie men to the examinatiōs of seculars, neyther to iudge of tythes or of churches or to forbid Bishop•• to treat of transgressiōs against faith, or against oathes broaken or the like, &c.

Doe not wee seme to heare in this place the voice of S. Ihon Baptist to his K. Herod. It is not lawful for the to haue the wyfe of thy brother.* 1.26 Or is not this agreable to the speach of S. Am∣brose to Valentinian that he could not force him to deliuer any churche or holy vessels thereof, and that he would dy in that quarrel against him.

[ 15] But let vs heare an other controuersy of his with another Emperour more deuout & religious then the former,* 1.27 to wit: Theodosius the great in Millain for that he would not do

publike pennance prescribed by this holy B. to him for the excesse in punishing those of Thessalonica, and had not this beene rebelliō and treason by Protestants law for a priest to driue his king and Emperour (that by their diuinity was head of their churche) to publike penance and to go out of his Churche as S. Ambose did compel Theodosius to go out of the churche of Millan. But let vs go forward and see the rest of examples before touched,* 1.28 was not the contention of S. Chri∣sostome with Arcadius and Honorius his Princes & Emperours and with their wyues when he kept some of them by force out of his churche about ecclesiastical liberty and iurisdiction also. And that also of S. Athanasius & Hilarius against Constantius their Emperour and su∣preme head also according to the Protestants opinion in spiritual matters, for that he fauo∣red Arrians, deposed Catholike Bishops and made himself vmpyre in ecclesiastical affay∣res as Protestants Princes doe now a dayes. Did S. Tho. Primate of England say or write more to K. Henry at any tyme then S. Gre∣gorie Nazianzen a particular Archbishop sayd vnto his Emperour that was present and an∣gry with him.* 1.29 Vos quoque potestati meae meisque subsellijs lex Christi subiecit, scio se esse ouem mei gre∣gis, sacri gregis, sacram ouem. Yow also (o Em∣perour) the law of Christ hath made subiect vnto my power, and to my tribunal. I know thee to bee a sheep of my flock, a sacred sheep of a holy flock. If Nazianzene had sayd

this to an English King or should doe at this day, how would our Protestants Prince-pa∣rasytes cry out and say that he were a proud Prelate as they say of S. Thomas.

[ 16] The cheif and onelie contention of king Henry with the Archbishop as before in part you haue heard was about ecclesiastical iurisdiction as the articles set downe by all wryters doe testify,* 1.30 as namely, that no Bishop might appeale to the Sea Apostolike without licence of the king that no seruant or tenant holding of the king might be excommunicated without his licence, that no Bishop should bee able to punish any man for periury or breaking his faith, that all cleargie men might bee forced to secular iudgments as all controuer∣syes also pert••yning to tythes and other like cases. And now yf these controuersyes should haue fal∣len out as in part they did betweene the aun∣cient christian Emperours and the holy Bi∣shops before named would they not think you haue stood in them with no lesse feruour then S. Thomas did.

[ 17] But now let vs heare and examine how Syr F. doth proue this holy Archbishop to bee a traytor. Thus he writeth of the begin∣ning of the controuersy. There was (as authors doe affirme) in that time of Henrie the second,* 1.31 more then a hundred murthers besydes other felonyes proued vpon the cleargie which when the king would haue punished according to the lawes of the land,* 1.32 Becket op∣posed himself and beardeth the king in this so iust an action, vnder title of standing for the libertyes of the Churche & from this straūge ground these proceedings

ensued. In which words of the knight there is to bee noted first that where he saith: authors doe affirmè that more then a hundred murders besides other ••ellonies were proued vpon the cleargie: no other author is found to mention any such thing but onelie Nubergensis who yet doth not say that they were proued vpon the clergie, but his words are:* 1.33 that it was said to haue byn tould the king at a certaine time that aboue a hundred mur∣ders had byn committed within the kingdome of Eng∣land since his raigne, by Cleargie men.

In which woords as you see Nubergēsis doth [ 18] not say, that it was true, or that it was proued, as our knight doth: and secondly he speaketh of the whole tyme of king Henries raigne, vntil this contention, which was some 14. or 15. yeares: and thirdly the falling out of the Archbishop with the king was not for that he would not haue these clergie men punished if they had offended (as wickedly this knight giueth to vnderstand, saying presently after; This proud prelate durst protect fellons and murderers against the king and iustice of the lan••) but the con∣trouersy was only about the maner of pu∣nishing those that did offend, and by what iudges and iurisdiction they should be pu∣nished, to wit whether by ecclesiastical or temporal power, for that the Archbishop af∣firmed that equity required that clergie men offending should first be iudged condemned and degraded by ecclesiastical power accor∣ding both to the cannon lawes as also the mu∣nicipal lawes of the land confirmed by all

former Christian Kings ••rom the first conuer∣sion of England, and that they being thus con∣demned, should be deliuered to secular power for execut••on of the sentence, which is a case that fa••leth out dayly in Spayn, Italy, France and other Cath. contreys, where Bishops do defend their Ecc••es. iurisdiction in punish∣ing Eccles. persons, taking them also by force of censures out of secular iudges hands when occasiō is offered without all note of rebellion or treason. And no lesse was this law of the realme of England confirmed by ancient par∣liaments and other antiquities then were the secular lawes, for which S^r. F. standeth, and fondly calleth the defence of eccles. lawes treason and rebellion.

[ 19] Wherfore hauing set downe so false a rela∣tion of the beginning of this controuersy (fal∣sifying Nubergēsis, as yow see, in many points) he doth prosecute the same with lyke vntruth, as presently yow shal see. And first he begin∣neth with a certayne letter of Maud the Em∣presse vnto the Archbishop which she wrote at the instance of the King her sonne, and vpō the informatiō of such courtyers as were contrary to the Bishop and his cause. In which letters she chargeth him, that (to vse S^•. F. owne words) as much as in him lay, he went about to disinherit the King and depriue him of his crowne. Whervnto I answere, that truth it is, Iohn Fox hath such a letter of thesaid Empresse Maud without telling where,* 1.34 or whence, or how he had it, or where we may read it, for

in none of all the authors aboue mentioned I do fynd it. Yet one thing I would haue the reader to note,* 1.35 which testifieth the conti∣nuance of S^r. F. vntrue dealing in this affayre, that wheras in Iohn Fox the whole charge of the empresse against the Archbishop is miti∣gated by this parēthesius (as the report is) which sheweth that these were but suspitions only and reports of his enimies;* 1.36 S^r. F. hath left out the parenthesis (as the report is) as though she had charged him vpon her owne knowledge, which is no true dealing or right meaning as yow see.

But let vs heare further S^r. F. his words pre∣tending [ 20] a more certayne proof, of treason & rebellion in S. Thomas:* 1.37 But if the Empresse (saith he) might be thought to speak partialy on the K. her sonnes behalf, yet the two Card. sent by the Pope to heare all this controuersy, out of question wil not con∣demne him without iust cause, and yet in a letter sent from them to the Pope, they do condemne him, &c. Yf S. F. proue himself a true K^•. in verifying this one poynt which here he sayth, I am to par∣don much of that which hath passed before: But yf in this matter of so great moment he be taken in lyke falshood, who wil then trust him hereafter? Let vs examine then the matter & I wil haue none other euidēces or witnesses but his owne woords: for presently after he setteth downe a part of the letter of VVilliam and Otho. Card. sent by Pope Alexander to heare the cause betwene the King & the Archbishop and hauing trauayled therin, the King being

in Normandie and the Archb. at Paris, they found the matter more hard then they imagined to compoūd,* 1.38 for that the Archbishop demaunded restitution to his lyuings for himself and for his frends, and reuocation of certayne lawes lately made, preiudicial to ecclesiastical iuris∣diction, before he could end the matter wher∣with the-sayd Card. being somwhat dis∣pleased, for that they desired to carry with them to the Pope the glory of this accord made by them, and for that the King had much gay∣ned their good wil by liberallity towards thē; for these causes they wrote to the Pope som∣what fauorably in the Kings behalf, but yet nothing condemning the Archbishop as vn∣truly out K^•. doth auow, which now I shal shew out of the woords of their owne letter alleaged heere by S.F. which are these.

[ 21] VVilliam and Otho Card. of the Churche of Rome to Alexander the Pope,* 1.39 &••. VVe comming to the land of the K. of England found the controuersy betwixt him and the Archbishop of Canterbury more sharp and vehement then we would, for the King, & the greater part about him said, that the Archbishop had s••y••red vp the french King greuously against him, as also the Earle of Flaunders his kinsman, (who was very louing and kynd to him before) whome he made his open ad∣uersary ready to wage warre against him, as is by di∣uers euidences most certayne, &c. These are the words of the Card. by S. F. relation, which supposing they were truly alleaged, yet he that shal consider and ponder them wel, wil see that out of them no more can be vrged against

the Archbishop, but that the King and those about him did say, that the Archbishop had styrred vp the K. of Fraunce and the Earle of Flanders against them, and that this was held by them for most certayne vppon diuers eui∣dences. But what these euidences were none of them do set down.

So that heere is no condemnation at all [ 22] from the Card▪ themselues, but only that they relate what the King and his part sayd, and yet yow must note that S. Francis (besydes other euil translation of the words) hath wilfully corrupted the last clause of all to make it seeme as though it proceeded from the Card. iudg∣ment, to wit,* 1.40 as is by diuers euidences most certayn, wheras in latyn after the first words: Asserebat Rex & sucrum pars, &c. The king with the greater part of his affirmed that the Archbishop had done this &c.) yt followeth, Sicut sibi pro ce••to constabat, & euid••ntibus apparebat indicijs, as to them it was held for certayne and appeared by euident signes. Out of which woords S. F. of purpose cutteth of both sibi and indicijs,* 1.41 to them & signes: For that by the first yt was euident that this was spoken in the name of the King and his frends and not of the Card. and by the second appeareth that the euidence which the King and his had of this matter and accusation was founded only in signes and coniectures: which being euident to our K^•. he did not only stryke out the sayd words, but maketh also a seuere inference vpon the rest, that are left mangled by him self, as yow haue seene: his inference

is this:* 1.42 Now (sayth he) for a subiect to styrre vp forrein states to make warre vpon his soueraygne, and countrey, was at all tymes high treason: but that Becket did so by the Card confession, was by diuers euidences most certayne. Therfore Becket, not now his enemies, but his brethren the sonnes of his owne mother being iudges, was a traytor.

[ 23] Lo heer the inuincible argument of our learned knight: yf any man can trust him here∣after vpon his woords, I shal much maruaile seing him so shamelesse in a matter so euidēt. For who discouereth not the impudency of his second proposition, when he sayeth that Becket did so by the Card. confession, wh••ras the Card. confesse no such thing, but only say that the king and his people did affirme it; nether did the Card. say as our K^t. falsly char∣geth them, that the matter was certayne to them by diuers euidences, but only that the king sayd yt was certayn or seemed so to him by diuers eui∣dent signes and coniectures. Shamefully then hath our K^t. abused the authority of these Card. as he doth comonly all authors that come through his hāds. And with this I end this controuersy of S. Thomas his cause with the King: which cause whatsoeuer the K^t. tatleth to the cōtrary yet was yt neuer accoūpted treason or named so by any author that wrote in that tyme, eyther frend or foe, nor shal S. F. be able to alleadge me any one instance to the contrary before Luthers dayes.

[ 24] And as for the King himself though he pur∣sued him eagerly, for that he would not yeild

to his desyre touching Eccles. iurisdiction, yet neuer is it read that he euer called or coūpted him for a traytor, nor any forrayne Prince whatsoeuer. And within 8. yeares after his death (as before I noted) both he, and Lewes the K. of Fraunce went in Pilgrimage to his tombe at Canterbury, which is lykely they would not haue done, nether the one nor the other, yf they had reputed him for a traytor. Iohn Stow putteth downe the relation thus. The 27. of August both the Kings came to Canterbury,* 1.43 where they were with due honor receaued, &c. Lewes K. of France offered vpon the tombe and to the shryne of Thomas Becket a riche cup of gold: he gaue also that renowned pretious stone▪ that was called the regal of France, which K. Henry the 8. put afterwards in a ring, & wore yt on his thombe, &c.

Thus saith Stow out of other authors. And [ 25] whether king Lewes of France would haue taken a iorney into England to the shryne of a man that he knew, and had talked withal few yeares before, and would haue offered such pretious gyfts, yf he had suspected him for a traytor, or that his miracles had byn faynd as after Sir F. affirmeth; and whether king Henry himself being no way forced therunto wold haue accompained him in such an action to his owne disgrace (who commonly was reputed to haue byn the cause of his death) yf he had held him for a traytor, let euery man iudge. And so we shal passe from his point to another about his mi∣racles

wherin the cauillers shew themselues more vayne, conscienslesse and malitious (yf it may be) then in the former.

Notes

• * 1.1

  A grosse er∣ror About the tyme of S Thomas his death.
• * 1.2

  Pag 55.
• * 1.3

  None euer except some late heretiks.
• * 1.4

  Se Math. Paris and Matth VVest. an. Dn̄i 1220. Henr. reg. 3. an. 5 of the translation of S Tho. 6. Iuly.
• * 1.5

  VVard. pag. 2••.
• * 1.6

  The authen∣tical authors of the story of S. Tho. of Canterburie.
• * 1.7

  VVhat basti∣nados and brokē heads are threatned to S. F.
• * 1.8

  False dealing of S. Francis.
• * 1.9

  D. Houeden annal. part. 2. fol. 2••7.
• * 1.10

  Fox act. and mon. pag. 1••6 col. 2. n. 4.
• * 1.11

  Fox his egre∣giou•• fal••e dealing against S. Thomas.
• * 1.12

  Iohn Fox discrediteth all ould vvry∣ters.

  Pag. 204. col. 1. n. 4.
• * 1.13

  VVhether S. Thom. vvas a traitor.
• * 1.14

  VVard. p. 22.
• * 1.15

  That all spi∣ritual men re¦sisting tem∣poral magi∣strats in Ec∣clesiastical matters are not traytors. Marc. 18.
• * 1.16

  Theod. lib 4. ca. 6. & lib. 9. cap. 17 & deinceps.
• * 1.17

  Zozomenus lib. 8 fere pet totum.
• * 1.18

  Socrat. lib. 6. cap. 16.
• * 1.19

  Zozom lib. 8 cap. 17.
• * 1.20

  Niceph. li. 14. cap. 43.
• * 1.21

  Math. Pari∣sien in vit. Henr.
• * 1.22

  Pag. 54.
• * 1.23

  The compa∣rison of S. Thom vvith S. Ambrose, Hillary and other fathers.
• * 1.24

  S. Ambr. in orat. in Auxō. de Basilicia traden.
• * 1.25

  Rog. Houe in vit. Henr. 2. pag. 285.
• * 1.26

  S. Marc. 1••.
• * 1.27

  The conten∣tion of S. Ambrose vvith Theo∣dosius the Emperor.
• * 1.28

  Pallad. in vit. Chrysost.
• * 1.29

  Nazian. orat. ad Ciues & Imper. ••rascē∣tem.
• * 1.30

  The articles vpon vvhich S. Tho. disa∣greed vvith the king.
• * 1.31

  Pag 56.
• * 1.32

  A f••lse and sl••und••rous beginning of the 〈…〉〈…〉.
• * 1.33

  Nuberg hist. Angl. l. 2 16.
• * 1.34

  Pag ••8.
• * 1.35

  S. F vntrue dealing in cyting mat∣ters, against S. Thom.
• * 1.36

  Fox Pag. 201.
• * 1.37

  Pag. 58.
• * 1.38

  False dealing of Syr Fraun∣ces.
• * 1.39

  The letter of the tvvo Car∣dinals to the Pope.
• * 1.40

  Quadrileg. de vita B. Thom. lib. 5. cap. venien∣tes.
• * 1.41

  False dealing of Syr Fran∣cis.
• * 1.42

  Pag. Ibid.
• * 1.43

  Stovv anno Domini 1179 reg Hent. 21. 25.