The sum of the conference between John Rainoldes and John Hart touching the head…The summe of the conference betwene Iohn Rainoldes and Iohn Hart touching the head…

Rainoldes. Yet there is a writer who saith that king Richard did not usurp the crown. And for proof thereof, he bringeth forth sundry old records and evidences of the house of York: by which it is showed that Richard had lands in Calais, in Canterbury, in Kent, in Northumberland, in Ireland, in England, in Guernsey and in Jersey, before Prince Edwards time wherein •ir Thomas More reporteth him to have usurped.

Rainoldes. Yet there is a writer who saith that king Richard did not vsurpe the crowne. And for proofe thereof, hee bringeth forth sundrie old recordes and euidences of the house of Yorke: by which it is shewed that Richard had landes in Calice, in Canterburie, in Kent, in Northumberland, in Ireland, in England, in Garnsey and in Iersey, before Prince Edwardes time wherein •ir Thomas More reporteth him to haue vsurped.

Hart. He might have those lands, while he was Duke of Gloucester, and not king of England. Wherefore, the writer who bringeth this to prove that he usurped not the crown, disproveth not the history of Sir Thomas More, but bewrayeth his own frowardness or folly.

Hart. He might haue those landes, while he was Duke of Glocester, and not king of England. Wherefore, the writer who bringeth this to proue that he vsurped not the crowne, disproueth not the historie of Sir Thomas More, but bewrayeth his owne frowardnesse or follie.

Rainoldes. You are the writer, M. Hart. I showed by the history of Sigonius, and others, most worthy of credit, that the Popes usurped Rome, and the dominion of the Roman Dukedom, defrauding the Emperor of his right by treason. You affirm the contrary. And for proof thereof you allege sundry epistles of S. Gregory, whereby it appeareth that they had possessions in Africa, in Naples, in Campania, in Dalmatia, in France, in Italy, in Sicily, and in Sardinia, before the time wherein Sigonius declareth them to have usurped. But, as your self answered, they might have these possessions while they were Bishops, and not Princes. Wherefore in bringing this to prove that they usurped not the Princedom (so to term it) and temporal dominion of the Papal State: you disprove not the history of Sigonius, and the rest, but bewray your own frowardness or folly. Nay you bewray greater faults of evil & guileful dealing, as you handle it. For whereas Sigonius, & the rest, whom I cited to prove the Popes usurping, are of y Popes religion, & therefore of greater credit against the Popes: you say nought to them, but name in their steed our authors of the Centuries. Even as if the writer (whom I told you of) being urged with the credit of sir Thomas More and English historians, should answer that although Funccius, a German, report in his Chronicle that Richard did usurp, yet is he notably disproved by the evidences of the house of York. Again, where your conclusion ought to be resolute that the Churches possessions were more in S. Gregory's time, then they be now: you say they were more, as it may probably be thought. To overbear verity with probability; the truth, with likelihood of truth: and leave your self a lurking hole, that, although the thing be found to be false, yet you may escape who vouch it not as true, but probable. Moreover, the time of Gregory's being Bishop, you term it his reign: thereby to breed opinion that he had the temporal dominion, as they have now. Wherein that word is used so much the more deceitfully: because it prepareth a way to the mistaking of that