about to refute 〈◊〉 tradition VVhence is this tradition It is deriued from the Lords Authority or frâ—m the prâ—câ—pt of the Apostles For God willâ—th that we â—hoâ—d do those things which are written From whence ProtestaÌ„ts conclude that the Scriptures are of sufficiency for our direction in all questions of faith Bellarmine answereth that Cyprian spake this when he thought to defend an error and therfore iâ— is no meruaile iâ— he erred in so reasoning for the which cause S. Augustine saith he did worthily reâ—ute him The question is not what error Cyprian held but whether his manner of reasoning from the sufficiency of Scripture were erroneous or no. Bellarmine pretendeth that S. Augustine did worthily reproue him But whosoeuer shall consult with S. Augustine in the Chapter specified shall find that this poynt by him is excellently commended That Cyprian warneth vs saith S. Augustine to runne vnto tâ—e â—ountaine that is vnto the tradition oâ— the Aposâ—les from thence to deriue a conduct to our tymes it is chiâ—fly good and doubtlesse to be perâ—ormed 105. This is M. Mortons whole obiection wherin we must examine what wilfull deceipt to falsification he findeth here in Cardinall Bellarmines allegation of Cyprian For if he find not this then findeth he nothing to his purpose he hauing intituled this his Paragraph of Bâ—llaâ—mines falsiâ—ications but if he find no falshood nor falsity at all either wilfull or not wilfull then is he more in the briers but most of all if finding nothing in his aduersary himselfe be taken in manifest falshood both witting and wilful Let vs examine then this poynt more particulerly 106. And first I do note that he proposeth this obiection very obscurely that for the cause which will presently be seâ—ne for he doth not explicate vpon what occasion these words of S. Cyprian were vttered by him nor alleadged by Protestants as an obiection against vnwritten traditions Wherfore the Reader must know that the holy man S. Cypâ—ian hâ—uing conceaued an infinite auersion froÌ„ hereticks and herâ—sies of his time did vpon indiscreet zeale â—all into this errour that as their faith was not goodâ—â—o neither their baptisme and consequently that â—uch as left them and were conuerted to the Cathoâ—icke religion should be baptized againe after the Catholicke manner and hauing found some other Bishops also of Africk vpon the same groundes to ioyne with him in the same opinion for that it seemed to them to be most conforme to Scriptures that detested euery where hereticks and heresies he wrote therof vnto Stephen Bishop of Rome who standing vpon the coÌ„trary custome alwayes vsed in the Church not to rebaptize such as were conuerted from heresie misliked S. Cyprians opinion and wrote vnto him against the same wherwith the good man being somwhat exasperated wrote a letter vnto Pompeius Bishope of Sabrata in Africk cited heere by M. Morton wherin amongst other sharp speaches he hath this interrogation here set downe Vnde est ista traditio c From whence is this tradition of not rebaptizing heretickes Is it deriued from our Lords Authority c. vpon which forme of arguing in S. Cyprian M. Morton saith that Protestants do lawfully argue in like manner this or that tradition is not in the Scriptures ergo it is not to be admitted 107. But saith Cardinall Bellarmine this was no good forme of arguing in S. Cyprian nor euer vsed by him but in this necessitie for defending his errour as Protestantes also are driuen to vse the same for defence of theirs and this he proueth by two wayes First for that S. Augustine doth of purpose out of the sense of the vniuersall Church of his dayes refute that inference and forme of argument and secondly for that S. Cyprian himselfe in other places where he was not pressed with this necessity doth yeald and allow the authority of vnwritten traditions which later proofe as the most conuincent M Morton doâ—h suppresse with silence in reciting Bellarmines answere and saith only to the first that S. Augustine is so farre of from condemning S. Cyprians mannâ—r of reasoning from the sufficiency of Scriptures as he doth excellently commend the same this then is briefly to be examined out of S. Augustines ovvne wordes 108. And first I graunt as S. Augustine also doth that when any Tradition or doctryne can cleerly be shewed out of the Scriptures optimum est siâ—e dubitatione facieâ—dum it is the best way of all and questionles to be obserued And for that S. Cyprian in that his errour did certainly perswade himselfe to be able to prooue the same out of holy Scriptures as appeareth by the many places alleadged by him to thâ—t effect though wrongfully vnderstood especially in the sayd Epistle to Pompeius and else wherâ— which places of Scripture S. Augustine doth particulerly ponder and refute and shew not to be rightly applied by S. Cyprian who seeing the generall custome and tradition of the Church to be contrary vnto him in this cause prouoked to the Scriptures alone as the Protestants do in as bad a cause But now let vs see what S. Augustine teacheth in this behalfe and how he confuteth S. Cyprians prouocatioÌ„ to only Scriptures in this case of controuersy betweene them notwithstanding he allowed for the best way to haue recourse to the fountaynes when things from thence may as I sayd cleerly be proued 109. Let vs heare I say S. Augustine recounting the case betweene S. Cyprian on the one side himselfe with â—ll Catholike meÌ„ of his dayes on the other NoÌ„dâ—â—â—râ—tâ—â—aith â—â—aith he diligentâ—rilla Baptismi quâ—stio pertracta c. The question of Baptisme or rebâ—ptizing heretiks was not in S. Cyprians tyme diligently discussed albeit the Catholike Church held a most wholsome custome to correct that in Schismatiks Heretiks which was euill not to iterate that which was giuen them as good which custome I belieue to haue come downe from the Apostles tradition as many others which are not found in their writings nor yet in the later Councels of their successours neuerthelesse are obserued through the whole vniuersall Church and are belieued not to haue beene deliuered and commended vnto vs but from the sayd Apostles This most wholsome custome then S. Cyprian sayth that his predecessour Agrippinus did begin to correct but as the truth it selfe being more diligently after examined did teach he is thought more truly to haue corrupted theÌ„ corrected the same Thus S. Augustine of the state of the question and of the authority of Customes and Traditions vnwritten Now Let vs see what he saith to S. Cyprians maÌ„ner of reasoning from the sufficiency of Scripture as M. Morton tearmeth it 101. Ad Pompeium saith S. Augustine scribit Cyprianus de hac re c. S. Cyprian doth write to the Bishop Pompeius about this matter where he doth manifestly shew that Stephen whome wee vnderstand to haue beene Bishop of Rome at that tyme did not
only not consent vnto him verùm etiam contra scripsisse atque praeâ—â—pisse but also did write and gaue commandement to the contrary c. S. Cypryan did obiect Apostoli nihil quidâ—m exinde praeceperunt the Apostles did command nothing in the Scriptures about this matter It is true saith S. Augustine Sed consuetudo illa quae opponebatur Cypriano ab eorâ—m traditione exordium sumpsisse credenda est sâ—â—uâ— sunt multa quae Vniuersa tenet Ecclesia ob hoc ab Apostâ—â—â—s prâ—câ—pta bene creduntur quamquam scripta non reperiantur But that custome which was opposed to S. Cyprian by the Church is to be belieued to haue taken beginning from the tradition of the Apostles as there are many things which the Vniuersall Church doth hold and they are therfore rightly belieued to haue beene ordayned by the Apostles though they be not found written Thus S. Augustine 111. Wherby we vnderstand first his full meaning about the Authority of traditions in the Church though they be not found written in the holy Scripture and secondly that albeit in some cases it is good and lawâ—ull to runne to Scriptures when the matter may be clearly by them decided yet is it no good argument alwaies to say It is not in the Scripture and therfore we are not bound to belieue it which was the argument of S. Cyprian when he was in errour and for maintenance of the same as M. Morton cannot deny nor dareth reproue S. Augustine and the Church of his time that condemned this manner of reasoning in S. Cyprian And what now doth there result against Bellarmine in all this obiection Is he found false in any one thing which heere is said Nay is not M. Morton coÌ„uinced of euident fraud in setting downe this accusation First for concealing the true state of the questionâ— then for that S. Augustine doth not reproue but excellently commend the manner of reasoning in S. Cyprian pretermitting all that I haue alledged out of S. Augustines expresse words to the coÌ„trary which he could not but know and haue read Thirdly by cutting of the words immediatly following in Bellarmine conteyning his second reason which was that S. Cyprian in other traditions besides this of not rebaptizing heretickes which erroneously he thought to be repugnant to Scripture he allowed vrged also the force of Traditions in the Church of God though they were not writtenâ— wherof Caâ—dinall Bellarmine himselfe alleadgeth two euident exaÌ„ples the one about the necessity of holy Chrisme or Vnction vrged by S. Cypriâ—n out of only Tradition lib. 1. Epist. 12. and the offering wine togeather with water in the Sacrifice which he vrgeth as Dominicam Traditionem a Tradition of our Lord lib. 2. Epist. 3. whereas notwithstanding nothing is found written in the Scriptures of either of these traditions And if I would alleage other traditions allowed by him though not written in the Scriptures I might be large heerin as for example that of renunciation accustomed to be made in the Church before baptisme wherof he treateth in his 7. and 54. Epistles and in his booke de disciplina habitu Virginum as also of the demaundes answeres accustomed to be made in the Church about the articles of the Creed Epist. 70. of Exorcismes to be made before baptisme Epist. 2. 72. lib. conâ—ra Demetrianum 112. The tradition of baptizing Infants Epist. 59. which S. Augustine holdeth to stand only vpon vnwritten tradition and the like This second argument then of Bellarmine being craftily left out and his former from S. Augustines authority wittingly peruerted M. Morton insteed of an obiectioÌ„ against the Cardinall hath brought in a flat condemnation of two notable fraudes against himselfe Let vs see another of like sort and suite if he can haue patience to heare it HIS SECOND OBIECTION against Cardinall Bellarmine touching false allegations about Anacletus §◠XIIII SECONDLY saith he Bellarmine to establish the authority of the Pope doth giue this prerogatiue to S. Peter to wit That S. Peter was the only Bishop and that other Apostles tooke their Orders from him which he laboureth to euince from the testimonies of Anacleâ—us Clemens Alexander Eusebius Cyprian where he is refelled by his owne doctors One saying that indeed those Fathers meane no such thing Another that the Epistles of Anacletus are counterfaite which many vrge more then is meete to the end they may aduance the authority of the Sea of Rome 114. Thus farre the obiection in his owne wordes Wherin I meruaile what wilfull falshood may be found such as the writer himselfe must needes know it to be so except it be on the behalfe of M. Morâ—oÌ„ who entreth presently with a shift at the first beginning saying as you haue hard that Bellarmine giueth this prerogatiue to S. Peter that he was the only Bishop and that other Apostles tooke their orders from him wheras Bellarmines saying is some authors to be of opinion quòd solus Petrus à Christo Episcopus ordinatus fuerit caeteri autem à Petro Episcopalem consecrationâ—m acceperint that only S. Peter was ordeined Bishop immediatly by Christ and the other receaued their Episcopall consecration from S. Peter So as in so litle a sentence he leaueth out first that S. Peter was ordeined Bishop alone by Christ and then changeth Episcopall consecration into holy Orders as though they had not bene made so much as Priests by our Sauiour himselfe but only by S. Peter wheras all authors agree that Christ in making them Apostles made theÌ„ all Priests though some do doubt whether immediatly by himselfe he made them all Bishops So as no one thing is sincerely handled heere by M. Morton without some nippe or other as you see 115 Secondly wheras he saith that Bellarmine laboureth to euince froÌ„ the testimonies of Anacletus Clemens AlexaÌ„drinus c. the proofe of this prerogatiue he abuseth him egregiously for that Bellarmine doth alleadg this opinion that Christ hauing made all his Apostles Priests did make only S. Peter Bishop with authority to coÌ„secrate the rest as the opinion of Turrecremata alleadging diuers manifest reasons and proofes for the same as namely one that either Christ did ordaine none of his Apostles Bishops or all or some certaine number or one only The first cannot stand for that if Christ had ordained none then should we haue at this day no Episcopall authority among vs. Nor can it be said that he ordained all immediatly for that S. Paul was ordained by imposition of handes by the Ministers of the Church as appeareth Act. 13. and by S. Leo Epist. 81. ad Dioscorum as also by S. Chrysost. in hunc locum S. Iames in like manner is recorded not only by Anacletus Epist. 2. but by Clemens Alexandrinus Eusebius lib. 2. hist. cap. 1. and by S. Hierome de Viris Illustribus in Iacobo to haue beene made Bishop by S. Peter 116. The third
This is his demaund and for ground heerof he citeth these latin words of Bellarmine out of the forenamed place Pelagiani docebant non esse in hominibus peccatum originale praecipuè in filijs fidelium Idem docent Caluinus Bucerus The Pelagians did teach that there was not Originall synne in men especially in the children of the faithfull And the same do teach Caluin Bucer which words if you conferre them with the words themselues of Bellarmine before cited who accuseth not Caluin Bucer of all the Pelagian doctrine in this poynt but only Zuinglius and as for the other two to wit Bucer Caluin he accuseth them for a part only Zuinglius denying originall synne in all and these later only in Christian Infantes two trickes at least of wilfull falsity are discouered the first that in his charge he wiâ—leth Bellarmine to be examined in confession about Caluin wheras he â—pake of three togeather to wit Zuinglius Bucer and Caluin the second that he accuseth Bellarmiâ—e as though he had charged Caluin with all the Pelagian heresie in this matter wheras he expresly profâ—ssâ—th to charge him only with one point therof coÌ„cerâ—ing the infantes of the faithfull Wherfore these words â—deÌ„ docent Caluinus Bucerus and this may be the third false tricke are not to be found in Bellarmine but are thrust in by M. Morâ—on nor cannot agree with the distinction of Cardinall Bellarmine before set downe these things then I leaue to the Readers discretion For though the points themselues for their substance be not of great weight yet is the mynd of the writer as much discouered in false tricks of small moment as of great see more of this matter before Cap. 3. num 62.63.64 c. 13. It followeth pag. 55. of this his preamble that treating of the prohibition made by the ancient Councell of Eliberis in Spayne consisting of 19. Bishops not to set vp Images in the Churches the diuers expositions of Catholicke doctours about the same what the causes and motiues might be of this prohibition for that tyme of the fresh and new conuersioÌ„ of that nation from Idolatrie to Christian Religion among other expositors he citeth the opinion of Sixtus Senensis for the last vpshot of the whole matter â—aying thus So that whatsoeuer the occasion of forbidding might haue beene this is a confessed conclusion of Senensis that the Councell of Eliberis did absolutly forbid the worship of Images And then â—etteth down the same in latin in his margent as out of Senensis alâ—o in these wordes Idcirco omnino veâ—uit Synodus Elibertina imaginum calâ—um But he that shall looke vpon the text of the Authour himself shall not fynd any such confessed conclusion or any such words of absolutly forbidding and consequently this is conuinced to be an absolute vntruth for it appeareth cleerly in Senensis that the prohibition was only for a time vntill the new conuerted Spaniards should be better instructed in Christian Religion and made to vnderstand better the difference betweene Pagan Idols and sacred Images so as heere are two grosse falsityes first in obtruding as the latin sentence of Senensis that which Senensis hath not in words or sense and then in translating the same so punctually into English setting it down in a different letter as though it were exactly so in good earnest and can there be any excuse for these sortes of procedings Let the Reader see more before c. 3. nu 38. 14. Gregorius de Valentia is brought in by M. Morton against Bellarmine as allowing of a sentence of Tertullian vsed by Bullinger the Caluinist as orthodoxall and iustifiable to wit Tres sunt in Diuinitate personae non statu sed gradu non substantia sed forma non potestate sed specie differentes and M. Morton stoutly cyteth in his margent for approuing therof Gregorius de Valentia Iesuita de vnitate Trinitate c. 9. § item Bullingerus meaning therby to oppose the one of theÌ„ against the other in this matterâ— but when the thing is examined the wordes of Gregorius de Valentia are found to be these Bullingerus Sacramentarius c. Bullinger the Sacramentary affirmeth that there are three persons in Deity which differ not in state but degree not in substance but forme not in power but kind by which wordes sayth Valentia he doth not only ouerthrow the Godhead of the sonne but euen the whole Mystery of the most holy Trinity 15. So sayth ValeÌ„tia against Bullinger for whose defeÌ„ce against Cardinall Bellarmins accusation of Arianisme he is produced And let the reader iudge whether this be an allowancâ— of that sentence for orthodoxall which Valentia sayth as yow see to be so blasphemous as it doth ouerthrow the whole mystery of the Blessed Trinity And the lyke lye yow may behold vttered by M. Morton against Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe in this very matter affirming him to expound as orthodoxall and iustifiable the forsayd hereticall paradox of Tertullian wheras he expoundeth only in good senâ—e the former part therof So as heere are two conuinced falsiâ—yes wherof yow may read more largely cap. 3. num 88.89 c. 16. There falleth out a question betweene M. Morton and Cardinall Bellarmine whether the forme of arguing vsed by S. Cyprian were good and sufficient or no whâ—Ì„ he defended the errour of rebaptizing hereticks à sufficientia scripturarum exclusiuè to wit this or that is not in the Scripture ergo it is not to be defended it being the common forme of arguing in the Protestants of our dayes and Bellarmine sayth no alleaging S. Augustine for his Authority who defending the negatiue against S. Cyprians error to wit that men returning froÌ„ heresy were not to be rebaptized which was the opinion of the whole Church in his time grounded vpon vnwritten tradition of the sayd Church reprehended that forme of arguing in S. Cyprian as not goodâ— and sufficient shewing both that many thinges bâ—sydes this are taught and belieued in the Church by tradition which are not in Scripture that S. Cyprian himselfe wheÌ„ he was out of necessity of defending this article made recourse vnto vnwritten traditions wherunto M. Mortoâ— answereth thus But whosoeuer shall consult with S. Augustine in the Chapter specifyed shall fynd that this point by himselfe is excellently commended saying that wheras Cyprian warneth vs to runne vnto the fountayne that is vnto the traditions of the Apostles from thence to deriue a coÌ„duct vnto our times is chiefly good and doubtles to be performed So he 17. But when S. Augustines discourse is examined it is found wholy against M. Morton for though he do allow and prayse recourse vnto Scriptures when things may euidently be proued from thence yeâ— doth he not hold that only such things are to be belieued as are expresly therin conteyned but rather both in this controuersie of râ—baptization wherin S. Cyprian doth pretend to hold
ancient heresy but only that it was not altogeather the same with that of the Proâ—estants at this day and had an other foundation or â—otiue to wit for so much as those hereticks did â—ot belieue that Christ had taken any flesh at all â—hey consequeÌ„tly belieued not that he gaue it in the â—acrament But the Protestants though they beleeue â—hat he tooke true flesh yet do they not belieue that â—t is really giuen in the Sacrament for that they beâ—ieue not these wordes Hoc est Corpus meum in the â—ense that the Church doth so as these do formally â—mpugne the Reall Presence and the other but by a â—onsequence drawne from another heresy which â—s the cause that they caÌ„not properly be called Sacraâ—entaries as ours are but most ancient they are â—o in this he contradicteth not himselfe about their â—ntiquity 102. The last point of obiected contradiction in â—his place is that Bellarmine confesseth Caluin to hold that togeather with the Sacrament of the Eucharist God doth exhibit vnto the faithful not only a signe of Christs body but also the body and bloud it selfe yea and as Valenâ—ia addeth further that Caluin confesseth that our soules do coÌ„municate with the body of Christ substantially Wherto I answere true it is that in words Caluin doth affirme as much in some partes of his workes but denyeth it againe in others and therupon do both Bellarmine and Valentia conuince him of most euident and palpable contradictions in this matter he seeking to say something different not only from Luther but also from VVickliâ—â—e Zuinglius therby to make a sect of himselfe but yet not finding indeed wherin to subsist or be premanent in any deuise that he could find out for proofe wherof Cardinall Bellarmine dâ—th set downe seauen sâ—uâ—râ—ll propositions of his about this matter and proueth thâ— same substantially out of his owne wordes and discourses ech one of them different from the other and some of them so contradictory as by no possible meanes they may be reconciled or stand togeather As first that the flesh oâ— Christ is only in hâ—auâ—n and that in so certaine and determinate a place as it is as â—istant from the bread as the highest heauen is from the earth then this noâ—withstanding he saith as heere is cyted by M. Morton that in the supper the true body of â—hâ—ist is exhibitâ—d vnto the faithfull not only a signe yea that the very substance oâ— Christes body is giuen Next to that againe he saith that notwithstanding the distance bâ—tweene th◠〈◊〉 of Christ the Sacramentall signes yet are they ioyned â—oâ—â—ather by so miraculous and inexplicable meanes as neyther â—â—â—guâ— nor pen can vtter the same And then further tha◠〈◊〉 must not belieue that this coniunction is by any reall comâ—â—g downe of Chrâ—stes body vnto vs but by a certaine substaâ—â—ial force deriued from his flesh by his spirit Where he seemâ—â—â— to sâ—y that the coniunction is made not in the substance but in some essentiall quality And so in the fifth place more cleerly he saith that it is made by apprehensiâ—n of faith only wherby he contradicteth all that he sayd before of reall and substantiall coniunction And in the sixt place he confirmeth more the same by saying that wiâ—ked men receaue not the body at all quia corpus Christi solo ore fidei accipitur for that the body oâ— Christ is only receaued by the mouth of fayth And in theâ— and last place he concludeth that this Sacrament doth not giue the body oâ— Christ or faith vnto any that hath it not already but only doth testify and confirme that now it is there and so it is but as a signe or seale to vse his wordes of that which is thâ—re already And this being the variety of Caluins opinion it proueth no contradiction in Belâ—armine but in Caluin himselfe And so many corruptions hauing heere beene proued against M. Morton do conuince that in him which he would proue in Cardinall Bellarmine but cannot as how see and yet â—e concludeth so confidently as before yow haue heard saying All these contradictions do certainly euince â—hat he the Cardinall hath by publicke imputations slaunâ—ered those whome in his consâ—ience he did acquit and shall we â—hinke that his conscience could be sincere in alleadging other â—â—ns testimonyes and witnâ—sses who is sound thus persidiously â—â—iust in exâ—ibiting his owne Thus he And I remit me to â—he Reader whether he hath seene hitherto any one point of perfidious dealing proued against the Cardinall among so many as haue appeared on the part of M. Morton But yet now he will go forward as he saith to another subiect to wit to shew some exaÌ„ples oâ— falsifications out of Cardinall Bellarmine in allegation of other mens testimonyes Let vs see whether he performe any thing more then in the rest he hath done 103. But first before we enter into this other examen there occurreth vnto me a consideration worthy to be pondered by the Reader which is that all these six obiectioâ—s made against Cardinall Bellarmine for imputing old heresyes to Protâ—stants are taken out oâ— on only chapter of his which is the 9. of his 4. Booke Of the noâ—â—s of the true Church in which 9. Chapter as before yow haue heard he chargeth the Protestants of our time with different heresyes of twâ—nty seuerall condemned old Heresiarches or chiefe Heretiks and therof inâ—erreth that as the vnion and agreâ—ment in doctrine with the ancient Catholike Fathers is a note of the true Church and of true Catholiks so to participate with ancient heretiks in any one condemned heresy is a damnable note of the contrary which Chapter M. Morton perusing thought good to set vpon six only for clearing Protestants of them to wit the Pelagians the Nouatians the Manichees the Arrians and other two particuler heresyes wheras in reason he should haue eyther cleered all or none for so much as according to S. Augustines sentence and other ancient Fathers the holding of any one condemned heresy is sufficient to euerlasting damnation So as M. Morton picking out only a few leaueth all the rest as not excusable and vnder hand by his silence granteth thâ—t they are held by the Protestants which how markable a poynt it is I leaue it to the Reader to iudge and so shall passe to examine the other head of obiections that he hath against Cardinall Bellarmine THE â—HIRD PART â—F THIS CHAPTER CONTEYNING â—THER OBIECTIONS against Cardinall Bellarmine for falsifications in alleadging of othâ—r mens authoritiâ—s and first about S. Cyprian §. XIII MAISTER MORTON passing from Cardinall Bellarmines accusations imputations against Protestants for heresies vnto his allegations of their testimonies corruptly as he pretendeth â—andled by him he beginneth his accusation with a â—entence of S. Cyprian about traditioÌ„s in these words S. Cyprian saith he hath this quâ—stion he going
poynt also that Christ ordayned some certayne nuÌ„ber he refuteth for that it appeareth by the Euangelicall History that all the Apostles were equall saue only S. Peter in whom he proueth 25. seuerall priuiledges to haue beene giuen by Christ aboue the rest wherof this of his being ordayned Bishop alonâ— immediatly from Christ is the 22. and the second reason alleadged by Turrecremata of the Appellation of the Mother Church giuen aboue all other Churches to Rome by testimony as he proueth of all antiquity seemeth to confirme greatly the said priuiledge though notwithstanding it be a matter not so determined by the Church but that there may be diuersity of opinions as in effect there are amongst learned men about the same in which number is Franciscus de victoria heere cyted who albeit he confesse this opinion to be grauissimoâ—uÌ„ Virorum of most graue Authority yet thinking the contrary assertion more probable that Christ himselfe did ordayne immediatly all his Apostles Bishops doth answere the argumeÌ„ts of Turrecremata saying that the Fathers cyted for the same reuerà non significant id quod Auctores huius sententiae volunt that in truth they do not signify so much as the Authority of this sentence or opinion would haue them And to like effect doth Cardinall Cusanus here cyted being of a different opinion endeauour to answere the said arguments but yet not saying absolutly that the Epistles of Anacletus are couÌ„terfaite as heere is alleadged by M. Morton sed â—ortassiâ— quaedam scripta Sancto Anacleto attributa apocrypha sunt but perhaps certayne writings attributed to S. Anaclete are Apocryphall which two moderatioÌ„s of fortassiâ— and quaedam M. Morton craftily left out both in English and Latin as he doth in like manner diuers other things that make against himselfe and namely these wordes of the same Cusanus In quibus volentes Romanam Sedem omni laude dignam plusquam Ecclesiae Sanctae expedit decet exaltare se penitus aut quasi fundant that some men intending to exalt the Roman Sea worthy of all commendation more then is expedient or decent for the holy Church it selfe do found themâ—elues eyther wholy or for the most part vpon these â—pocryphall and vncertayne writings And then agayne Non opus foret diuinam ipsam omni laude super excellentissimam Romanam primam Sedem c. it shall not be needfull that the diuine Roman Primate Sea most eminently excelling in all praise to helpe herselfe with doubtfull arguments taken out of those Epistles wheras the truth may be proued sufficiently and more cleerly by vndoubted records c. All this and much more is in Cusanus in the place cited by M. Morton which he partly imbezeling partly corrupting and playnly falsifying hath brought forth the broken sentence which heere you may see both in English and latin far different from the Originalls 1â—â— And this is his common tricke neuer lightly to alleadge any one sentence eyther in English or latin as it lyeth in the text but still with some helping of the dye as his owne phrase is some crafty cogging must alwayes enter which I desire the learned Reader to take the paynes but alitle to examine if he fynd not this fraud very ordinary I am contented to leese my credit with him 118. And fynally let him note for coÌ„clusion of this obiection that all this which M. Morton alleadgeth heere if it were graunted as it lyeth conteyneth nothing but two different opinions betweene learned men in a disputable question Whether Christ did immediatly and by himselfe consecrate all or some of his Apostles Bishops or one only with authority to consecrate the rest Turrecremata and Bellarmine do hold the one for more probable but Victoria Cusanus and some others do allow rather the other What wilfull falshood is there in this Or is it not singular folly to call it by that name But let vs see an other obiection no wiser then the rest THE THIRD OBIECTION against Bellarmineâ—or â—or false allegations about Platina §. XV. HIS third obiecton against Cardinall Bellarminâ— beginneth in these wordes Againe saith he where Bellarmine citeth the testimony of Plaâ—ina for the commendation of Pope Hildâ—brand And in another place finding Platina obiected in the question of Confession answereth for the disabling of the Author saying that Platina had no publike authority to pen the liues of the Popes from publike Recordes Which is notably false Platina himselfe in his Epistle dedicatory vnto the then Pope writing thus Thou ô Prince of Deuines and chiefe of Bishops hast commanded me to write the liues of the Popes Whose history is therfore greatly commended by Ballus as being true and takâ—n out of publike Monuments I could furnish P. R. with infinite such like delusions and will also whensoeuer my Aduersary shall renew his demauÌ„d for such a multitude of examples I could bring that I find it a greater difficulty for me to subtract then to multiply So he 120. And I answere that the more he multiplyeth in this kind the greater store of testimonies and suffrages he produceth of his owne folly and impertinent dealing for that Cardinall Bellaâ—mine his denying of Platina to be of absolute credit publick authority in all matters touched by him in his history doth not proue wilfull malice in the Cardinall but rather a true prudent censure concurring with the iudgment of diuers learned men of our time especially of Onupâ—rius Panuinus who writing obseruatioÌ„s vpon the history of Platina concerning Popes liues doth oftentimes note the said story of diuers defects both in the Chronologie of times and truth of matters set downe by him and I doubt not but whosoeuer shall haue read the works of Onuphâ—ius of Balbus heere cited in commendation of Platina will greatly preferre the iudgmâ—nt of the first before the later in matters of history But let vs see what Cardinall Bellarmine saith of Plaâ—ina and vpon what ground and to what effect and so shall you see also how weake a calumniation M. Morton hath taken in hand in this obiection 121. The occasion of censuring Platina was in the confutation of a certaine manifest lie auouched as the Cardinall saith by Caluin who affirmed that there was neuer any certaine Ecclesiasticall law extant binding men to Sacramentall Confession before the Councell of Lateran vnder Pope Innocenâ—ius the third some 300. yeares past and for proofe of this Caluin citeth the story of Platina as affirming the same with this preface of his owne to authorize more the writer Eorum Annales narrant their Annales or publike histories of the Catholickes do declare And againe Ipsis testibus nondâ—m clâ—psi sunt anni trecenti themselues being witnesses to witt the Catholickes and their publike histories there are not 300. yeares yet past since the law of Confâ—ssion began Which manifest vntruth Bellarmine coÌ„futing by great store of antiquityes commeth at length to Platina who
reason which God powred into man and which is a litle beame of diuine light drawne from that infinite brightnes of Almighty God therfore doth the Apostle S. Paul pronounce that there is no power but from God and that he which resisteth this povver resisteth God himselâ—e So M. Reynolds 49. In which wordes we see that M. Renoyldes is so farre of from debasing Kings in this his discourse or subiecting them vnto the people as he doth both extoll magnifie their dignity as proceeding froÌ„ God himselfe and reconcileth togeather the speach of P. Peter calling a King a humane creature with the wordes of S. Paul pronouncing it to be of God and vnder payne of damnation to be obeyed And can there be any more vntrue dealing then this Let vs see then how M. Morton will heere discharge himselfe you shall see him somwhat more humiliated then before would God to his conuersion and not to his greater obduration and confusion and yet will he in any case defend not ameÌ„d his error for thus he procedeth The pretended discharge 50 This Allegation is saith he of all which yet I haue fouÌ„d most obnoxious and alliable vnto taxation which God knoweth that I lye not I receiued froÌ„ suggestion as the Author therof R. C. can witnesse For at that time I had not that Rosaeus aliâs Reynolds neither by that present importunity of occasions could seeke after him which I confesse is greatly exorbitant for I receiued it as a testimony debasing the authority of Kings So he And truly when first I read the beginning of this answere and heard him so earnestly and solemnly to protest before God that he receyued this fraud against M. Reynolds by suggestion I imagined he would haue said of the Diuell for that he coÌ„monly is the proper suggestour of all such vniust and wicked calumniations but when I saw the letters of R. C. follow insteed of the Diuell I began to muse and thinke with my selfe whether there were any Diuell of that name or no or if it were no Diuell himself what instrument or chosen seruant of Sathan it might be that had made this false suggestion which M. Morton himselfe confesseth heere to be greatly exorbitant from the truth and insteed of one thing to haue suggested the quite contrary that wittingly against his conscience yea with a double malice as may seeme The first to calumniatâ— M. Reynolds and Catholike doctrine by him and the other to disgrace M. Morton by making him put in print so notorious a lye and corruption 51. But when afterwards I was aduertised by some that would seeme to know the mistery that R. C. did signify Ri. Can. I was driuen into a farre greater meâ—uaile how M. Morton could be permitted to publish such a matter in print the thing hauing to pasâ—e the view of R.C. his officers and how he could presume to haue more care of his owne credit then of the others that is his head and Chiefteyne For as a scarre the more higher it standeth in the forhead the more deformity it worketh to the whole body so such a notorious cryme of wilfull falsification being proued to be in the Head it self euen by the asseueration and testimony of so principall a member of the same Head cannot be but very disgracefull to the whole body though it may be that M. Morton being the party most interessed might pretend in this not only his owne personall defence in this particuler escape but a protection also more generall heerby for all Ministers to vse this art with lesse reprehension when the Head of Ministers should be conuinced to vse the same with such liberty and lacke of conscience especially in a matter so odious preiudicious and calumnious to all the ranke of Catholiks I do confesse saith M. Morton that it is greatly exorbitant for I receyued it as a testimony debasing the authority of Kings And from whome From R. C. But did he gather it himselfe thinke you or did he take it also by tradition of others vpon credit as you professe your selfe to haue donne The later were disgracefull the first hatefull For if he looked vpon the Authour himselfe he must needs see that M. Reynolds drift was to aduance Kingly authority and not to debase it and therfore for R. C to sett downe the quite coÌ„trary and make another to print it also with his allowance and approbation was a double or triple iniquity And surely if the like may be proued in any Prelate of ours let him haue for pennance neuer to be trusted after which is the greatest satisfaction that I would wish to be exacted of R. C if he acknowledge this accusation of M. Morton for true 52. But now though this charging of R. C. be some disburdening to T. M. that he inuented not the slaunder of himselfe yet doth it not wholy free him froÌ„ all falshood in the matter For he should not haue yealded to the false suggestion norâ— eâ— admitted so vniust a temptation for supposing that R. C. would needes play the part of the tempting and lying serpent yet ought T. M. not to haue followed the frailty of the credulous infirme womaÌ„ although R. C. had deliuered vnto him the note so baâ—ely as he puteth it downe out of M. Reynolds to wit Rex humana creatura est quia ab hominilus coÌ„stituta yet could not M. Morton but remember that the effect therof was in the Epistle of S. Peter and that in no sense it could be truly Englished as he doth A King is but a creature of mans creation both for that the word but which is a particle aduersatiue or exclusiue is not to be found in the latin wordes of M. Reynolds nor could it stand in any reasonable good meaning that a Kings authority is nothing els but a humayne creature as though it had no dependance or causation from God Wherfore as there was great malice in the suggestor of this false imputation so was there no lesse want of truth in him that so willingly yealded to so bad and false a suggestion But what saith he heere for his defence This which now ensueth 53. Vpon this presumption saith he if true to wit that M. Reynolds had spoken to the debasemeÌ„t of Kings authority as he did not but to the contrary it could be no falshood in me to insert the particle but especially being acquainted with the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine who that he may disable the authority of a King in comparisoÌ„ of the dignity of a Pope doth defend â—hat Kings being chosen by men are not immediatly created by God and yet the Pope elected by Cardinalls hath his authority immediatly from God 54. Wherto I answere that well he might say so for that Christ both God and man did institute in particuler and immediatly the Supreme Authority of S. Peter and his successors when he gaue to him and by him to them the keyes of
partes the first wherin he sheweth how Iohn Caluin most wickedly maliciously vnder pretence of interpreting the Scripture in differeÌ„t sense from the ancient Fathers did go about couertly to weaken infringe or take from the Christiâ—ns all the strongâ—st arguments which they had or haue out of the Scriptures for the Godhead of Christ and his equality and consubstantiality with the Father c. And in the second part of his booke Doctor Hunnius sheweth that the said Caluin vseth the same fraud and malice by ouerthrowing all the predictions fortellings of Prophets about Christ is he was man 11. Thus far I wrote at that time and then produced somewhat largely and particulerly 18. examples partly out of the old and partly out of the new Testament maliciously peruerted by him in fauour of Iewes and Arrians against the truth and certainty of Christian Religion leauing out 20. more which Doctor Hunnius doth handle and in the end concludeth thus Quapropter vt receptui canam detectuÌ„ satis superque iudico Angelum illum tenebrarum Ioannem Caluinum qui ex abyssi puteo emergens c. VVherfore that I may now saith he retire my selfe I do iudge that Angell of darknes Iohn Caluin to be sufficiently and more then sufficiently discouered who being raysed from the pit of hell to the peruerting of mankind hath partly by his detestable desire of wresting Scriptures ouerthrowing the bulwarkes of ChristiaÌ„ Religion which it hath against Iewes and Arians partly also by his impious pen against the holy and sacred Maiestie of Iesus Nazarenus now exalted in heauen partly also by his peruerse doctrine of the Sacraments and horrible monstrous paradoxes of his absolute predestination hath obscured in these our later dayes no small part of the light and sunne of Gods truth and drawne with him a great number of starres as the Apocalyps saith headlong into hell from whom God euerlasting by his mercy signe protect his seruants least they may be inâ—ected with this most pestilent plague oâ— Caluinian errour conuert those that are infected vnto Iesus Christ the Pastour of their soules to the end they perish not in their error but be saued euerlasting with those that faithfully do loue God And this I had to warne the Church of Christ of the most wicked deceipts of Iohn Caluin 12. Hitherto are the wordes of Doctour Egidius Hunnius which you see with what vehemency of spirit and protestation he vttereth them against the heresies of Caluin and Caluinists so as they may easely be seene to come from his hart full determination of his setled iudgemeÌ„t who being so principall a Protestant and learned Doctour and Professour of Deuinity held for a brother of the selfe same Church by which M. Morton meaneth to be saued if he haue any such meaning I meruaile what impression it maketh in him or whether it maketh any thing at all which I should haue beene glad to haue vnderstood by a word or two of his answere but nothing commeth from him and so this debt must be laid vp with the rest vntill the day of payment come which when it may be or how much or what he will be able to pay yea though he deâ—erre it vntill doomesday is a matter easily to be coniectured by such as caÌ„ cast vp accompts looke into debtors abilityes or possibilityes for their discharge But yet one thing is cleare without any answere of his I would haue it noted by the reader that all his inuectiues to his Maiesty against vs for calling and holding them as heretiks out of the foâ—said definition of S. Augustâ—n other Fathers do fall to the ground as vayne friuolous for so much as so principall men of their own brotherhood do affirme the same as now you haue heard And thus much about the first head or questioÌ„ whether the Protestant Religion of Englaâ—d so fâ—r forth at leastwise as it followeth the doctrine of Caluin be truly accompted heresy or no And consequeÌ„tly damnable to the holders thereof 13. Two other great heads of coÌ„trouersy there were betweene vs in this first part of my forsaid Treatise about Rebellion the first whether the doctrine of Catholicks or of Protestants did more fauour obedience vnto their temporall princes secondly which part did most practize the same And about the first for Catholicke doctrine it is largely proued by me throughout the whole first part of my Treatise that it is exact in all respects for obliging men to do all due obedieÌ„ce both vnto temporall spirituall superiours not only when they are good and vertuous but also disâ—â—lis that is bad fastidious as the Apostles word is that we must obey theÌ„ out of conscience as Ministers of God froÌ„ whom they haue their authority power And when the exorbitaÌ„t defects of any Prince or gouernor shall impose necessity of redresse or restraint it may not be by priuate Authority or popular mutiny but by order iudgmeÌ„t publike authority Wheras on the other side the ProtestaÌ„t doctrine is shewed out of their owne words writers authors to teach the quite coÌ„trary which authors I do cite as namely Caluin Beza HottomaÌ„ others in France by the testimonyes of Launay Belforest other French writers in England Scotland Goodman Gilby VVhittingham Knox Buchanan others by the testimonies of their owne writings stories of the Archbishâ— of Canterbury out of his first Booke Of dangerous positions of D. Sutcliffe in his Suruey oâ— preteÌ„ded discipline against the PuritaÌ„s that is the most zealous sort oâ— Caluinists all which haue set downe their resolute opinioÌ„s that it is lawfull when the Prince offereth iniuries or becometh as they call it a Tyrant especially in matters of ReligioÌ„ they hold it lawfull I say by their Deuinity for the Nobility or people or priuate men as they haue or may haâ—e coÌ„modity to do it to make reuenge either vpoÌ„ his person or otherwise yea by death it selfe 14. And as for the second point which is the practise of this doctrine I do shew such a notorious difference betwene Catholicke Protestant people out of the experieÌ„ce of this our preseÌ„t age as nothing can be more conuincing out of publike histories mens memory yeâ— aliue that there hath byn more violence offered by the Protestant people subiects to their lawfull true Princes by armes actions coÌ„spiracies rebellions other forcible means within the compasse of almost one halfe age in the Northern pâ—rts of the world to wit Germanie France Flanders England Scotland Denmarke Sweueland Polonia and other partes then was pracâ—ised or heard of in a thousâ—nd yeares before throughout all the Christian worâ—d Wherin for that his Maiestie of England that now is vnto whom my Aduersary presumed to dedicate his booke can be the best and most honorable aâ—d authenticall testimony of any Prince perhaps lâ—â—â—â—g in regard
am content to stand heerin not only to any Iudge that sitteth vpon any of his Maiesties Benches at this day but euen to Syr Edward himselfe with condition only that he will be content with patience to heare my reasons which are these that ensue 4. First a Iudgment of Nihil dicit cannot proceed as I suppose but vpon one of these two causes that â—yther the party sayth nothing at all as when one standing at the barre to answere for his life will for sauing of his goods and lands vtterly hold his peace or when he speaketh his speach is nothing to the purpose But neyther of these causes can be iustly alleaged in our case Not the first for that the Catholicke Deuines printed Answere is large and conteyneth as I haue said aboue 400. pages in quarto Not the second as now shall euidently be declared ergo no iudgment could passe in iustice vpon a Nihil dicit in behalfe of Syr Edward against the sayd Deuine 5. Now then let vs come to demonstrate that the Catholicke Diuine did speake to the purpose in deed for better vnderstanding wherof we must recall to memory the true state of the question and what Syr Edward Cooke then Attorney vpon his offer and obligation was to proue to wit that Queene Elizabeth by the right of her temporall Crowne had supreme spirituall Ecclesiasticall authority ouer all her subiects in Ecclesiasticall affayrs as largely as euer any persoÌ„ had or could haue in that Realme and this by the common lawes of England before any Statute law was made in that behalfe For proofe wherof the sayd Attorney pretended to lay forth a great number of cases examples and authorityes out of his law-bookes which he said should proue the ancient practice of this authority in Christian English Kings both before and since the Conquest which being his purpose whatsoeuer his aduersary the Catholicke Deuine doth alleage substantially to ouerthrow this his assertion and to proue that Q. Elizabeth neyther had nor could haue this spirituall Authority though she had beene a man neither that any of her ancestours Kings and Queenes of EnglaÌ„d did euer pretend or practice the like authority this I say caÌ„not be iudged to be froÌ„ the purpose much lesse a Nihil dicit Let vs examine then the particulers 6. The Catholicke Deuine at his first entrance for procuring more attention in this great and weighty controuersy betweene M. Attorney and him about the Spirituall power and authority ouer soules in the moderne English Church doth auerre the question to be of such moment as that the determination of all other controuersies dependeth therof For that whersoeuer true â—pirituall authority and iurisdiction is found there must needs be the true Church to whom it appertaineth to determine of the truth of the doctrine taught therin or in any other false Church or coÌ„gregatioÌ„ for approuing the one condemning the other Wherof coÌ„sequently also depeÌ„deth euerlasting saluatioÌ„ or condeÌ„natioÌ„ of all those that belieue or not belieue those doctrines 7. He sheweth further that the life spirit essence of the true Church in this world consisteth in this true iurisdiction of gouerning and directing soules by preaching teaching bynding and absoluing from synne administring true Sacraments and the lyke And that where this true power Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction is not lawfully fouÌ„d but eyther none at all or violently assumed there wanteth this vitall spirit Neyther is it any Church at all but a Synagogue rather of Sathan and therfore that the firâ—t and chiefe care of euery Christian ought to be for sauing of his soule eâ—pecially in tymes of strife contentions and heresyes as are these of ours to study well this point and to informe himselfe diligently therin for if he fynd this he fyndeth all and iâ— he misse in this he misseth in all Nor is it possible for him to be saued 8. Moreouer he declareth that as in England at this day there be three different professioâ—s of religion the Protesâ—ant the Puritan and the Catholicke all three clayming this true and vitall power oâ— Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction to be in their Congregations so do they deriue the same from three different heads and fountaynes immediatly though all pretend that mediatly at leastwise it commeth from God The Protâ—stants taking it from the Temporall Princes authority giuen him from God by right of his Crowne as here is taught by M. Attorney The Puritans from the people gathered togeather in their congregation The Catholicks from their Bishops and Prelats descending by continuall succession from the Apostles to whome they belieue that Christ first gaue heauenly power and iurisdiction for gouerning of soules and especially to the cheefe Bishop Successor to S. Peter and not vnto temporall Princes or to lay people or popular Congregations made by themselues who cannot properly be called Successours of the Apostles and this difference as it is maniâ—est and euident so is it of such weight as it maketh these three sortes of men and their Congregations or Churches irreconciliable for that which soeuer of these three partes hath this true iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall hath therby the truâ— Church as hath beene said maketh the other two to be no Churches at all but rather prophane and Diabolicall Sâ—nagogues and such as haue neyther true Prelats nor Prelacy nor true preaching nor teaching nor SacrameÌ„ts nor absolutioÌ„ of sinnes nor any one act or thing oâ— a Christian Church in them And that the tryall of all this dependeth of the discussion of this controuersie betweene M. Attorney and him All this hath the Deuine in his first entrance And did he not herin speake to the purpose or can this be condemned for a Nihil diâ—it 9. Aâ—ter this for better vnderstaÌ„ding of the whole controuersie the Deuine layeth downe at large the ground beginning and origen of all lawfull power and iurisdiction of men ouer men both spirituall and temporall in this world shewing how both of them are from God though differently the spirituall being instituted immediatly by him and deliuered to the Apoâ—â—les and their Successours but the temporall mediatly that is to say giuen first to the Common wealth to choose what forme of gouernment they list and by mediation of that election giuing to temporall Princes supreme Authority in all temporall affaires 10. Then he â—heweth the different ends and obiects of these powers the end of spirituall power being to direct vs to euerlasting saluation both by instruction discipline direction and correction of the temporall or ciuill power by lyke meanes and helpes to gouerne well the Common wealâ—h in peace aboundance order iustice and prosperity And according to thâ—se ends are also their obiects matter meanes As for exaÌ„ple the former hath for her obiect spirituall things belonging to the soule as matters of sayth doctrine Sacraments such other and the later handleth the Ciuill affayres of the Realme and Common wealth as they
appertayne to the temporall good and prosperity therof 11. Next after the declaratioÌ„ of these three pointes to wit of the origens ends obiects of these two powers spirituall and â—eÌ„porall the sayd Catholicke Deuine deduceth out of the same the differeÌ„t dignity excellency eminency of the one the other power the one being called Deuine the other Humane for that the ends and obiects of the one are immediatly concerning the soule as now we haue declared and the other concerning humane affaires immediatly though mediatly in a Christian Common wealth referred also to God And this diâ—ference of these two powers he declareth by the similitude likenesse of flesh and spirit out of S. Gregory Nazianzen who in a certaine narration of his doth most excellently expresse the same by the comparison of spirit and flesh soule and sense which thing saith he may be considered as two distinct Common wealthes separated the one from the other or conioyned togeather in one Common wealth only An example of the former wherin they are separated may be in beasts and Angels the one hauing their common wealth of sense only without soule or spirit and the other CoÌ„mon wealth of Angels being of spirit only without flesh or body but in man are conioyned both the one the other And euen so sayth he in the Common wealth of Gentils was the Ciuill and Poliâ—icall Earthly and Humane power giuen by God to gouerne worldly and humane things but not spirituall for the soule wheras coÌ„trarywise in the primitiue Chriâ—tian Church for almost three hundred yeares togeather none or few Kings Princes or Potentates being conuerted the Common wealth of Christians was gouerned only or principally by spirituall authority vnder the Apostles and Bishops that succeeded them 12. Out of which consideration confirmed and strengthened by sundry places of holy scripture ancient Fathers alleaged by him he sheweth the great eminency of spirituall Authority aboue temporall being considered seuerally in themselues though they may stand ioyntly and both togeather in a Christian Common wealth where the temporall Princes be ChristiaÌ„s though with this necessary subordination that in spirituall and Ecclesiasticall affaires belonging to the soule the spirituall gouernours be chiefly to be respected as in Ciuill affaires the temporall magistrate is to be obeyed and this he sheweth by diuers examples and occasions out of S. Ambrose S. Chrysostome S. Gregory Nazianzen and other Bishops and Prelats that in Ecclesiasticall affayres prefered themselues and their authorities before that of Christian Emperours with whome they lyued expresly affirming that in those respects they were their Superiours Pastours the said Emperours their sheep subiects though in temporall affaires they acknowledged them to be their Superiours 13. All this is set downe by the Catholicke Deuine with great variety of proofes many examples facts and speaches of ancient Fathers And will Syr Edward Cooke say that this was froÌ„ the purpose a Nihil dicit doth not this quite ouerthrow his assertioÌ„ that all teÌ„porall Kings by vertue power of their temporall Crownes haue supreme authority also in spiritual affaires If the forsaid three Fathers to pretermit all others S. Gregory Nazianzen S. Chrysostome and S. Ambrose that had to do with Christian Emperours which had teÌ„porall authority ouer all or the most part of the Christian world did yet notwithstanding affirme vnto their faces that they had no authority at all in spirituall matters belonging to soules but were and ought to be subiect to thâ—m their Pastours in that Ecclesiasticall gouerment how much lesse could a woman-Prince haue the same by right of her temporall Crowne as most absurdly M. Attorney auerreth Which absurdity the Catholicke Deuine doth conuince so largely by all sortes of proofes both diuine and humane as well vnder the law oâ— Nature as Mosayâ—all and Christian that a person of the feminine sâ—xe is not capable of supreme Spirituall iurisdiction ouer man as nothing seemeth can be answered theruÌ„to And was this also â—rom the purpose to proue that Queene Elizabeth could not haue it What will Syr Edward answere here for his Nihil dicit 14. After all this and much more alleaged by the Catholicke Deuine which I pretermit for breuities sake he commeth to reduce the whole controuersie betweene M. Attorney and him vnto two generall heads of proofe the one de Iure the other de facto that is of right and fact shewing that in the first of these two proofes de Iure which is the principall M. Attorney did not so much as attempt to say any thing â—or proofe that by right Queene Elizabeth or any of her Ancestours had supreme iurisdiction in causes Ecclesiasticall but only that de â—acto some of them had sometymes taken and exercised such an authority Which if it were without right was as yow know nothing at all and therfore the sayd Deuine hauing proued more at large that by no right of any law whatsoeuer diuine or humane Queene Elizabeth or her predecessours had or could haue supreame authority Spirituall he coÌ„meth to ioyne with M. Attorney also in the second prouing that neyther in fact any such thing was euer pretended or practised by any of her Predecessours before the tyme of her Father K. Henry the viij either before or after the Conquest 15. And as for before the Conquest there haue beene more then an hundred Kings of different Kingdomes within the land he proueth by ten large demonstrations that none of them did euer take vpon him such supreme spirituall authority but acknowledged it expresly to be in the Bishop of Rome of which demoÌ„strations the first is of lawes made by them generally in fauour and confirmation of the liberties of the English Church according to the directions and Canons deriued â—rom the authority of the Sea Apostolicke The second that Ecclesiasticall lawes in England made before the Conquest were made by Bishops and Prelats who had their Authority from Rome and not by temporall Kinges The third that all determination of weighty Ecclesiasticall affayres were referred not only by the Christian people generally of that Realme as occasions fell out but by our Kings also in those dayes vnto Rome and the Sea Apostolicke The â—ourth that the Confirmations of all Priuiledges Franchises of Churches Monasteries Hospitals and the like were in those dayes demaunded and obteyned from the Pope The fifth that in all Ecclesiasticall controuersies suites and grieuances there were made Appeales and complaints to the Sea of Rome for remedy The sixth the succession of Bishops Archbishops in England during that time all acknowledging the supremacy of the Pope were notwithstanding in high fauour and reuerence with the English Kings with whom they lyued wherof is inâ—erred that these Kings also must needs be of the same iudgment and beliefe and consequently make lawes conforme to that their fayth and beliefe as contrariwise since the schisme began by K. Henry the 8.
only true and Catholike Religion and that by false and indirect meanes whereof God is an enemie Not to our Country for that these Reports of law being contrary to all auncient lawes and written with a contrary spirit to all our ancient lawiers Iudges law-makers before this our present age can profit nothing our Country but set greater breaches and diuisions therein To Me also that am the Reader or Student it can neither profit nor import any thing but losse of time and breaking my head with conâ—radictions For so much as all this must once againe be cast of and forgotten as nouelties when our old course of Commonlaw must returne to follow her ancient streame againe 124. Wherfore a much more honourable and profitable course had it bene for so great a witt learned a man in our lawes as my L. is said held to be that to the end his labours in writing might haue remayned gratefull and commodious to posterity he had conformed himselfe his spirit knowledge and penne to that of ancient precedent lawyers of our land as Plowden did and some others whose wrytings for that cause wil be immortall But Syr Edward taking to himselfe a contrary new course by wrenching and wresting lawes to a contrary meaning froÌ„ the common sense both of the lawes themselues law-makers as also of the times wherin they were made and torrent of authority that gouerned the the same his labours must needs in the end proue to bâ— both vnprofitable and contemptible 125. For I would demand him what sound common lawier will ioyne with him in this point which he so reâ—olutly auerreth in his last Preface that all bookes coÌ„ming à Roma vel à Romanistis from Rome or Romanists that is from any sort of Catholicks haue punishment according to our ancieÌ„t lawes for of those I suppose he speaketh of losse of goods liberty and life Will any man belieue him that this is conforme to any ancient law of England Doth he not know as I doubt not but he doth much better then I the old ancient honour that was wont to be borne to Rome and Romanists by our English Common lawes Can he deny but that the Bishop of Rome is tearmed Apostolus and Apostolicus almost euâ—ry where in the same ancient lawes yea Prince of the Church and that our Archbishop of Canterbury the greatest Peere and Prelate of England is called in our law Apostoli Legatus Legate of the Apostle and Roman Bishop And that his spirituall Court is but a member of the Court of Rome which Court in England is called Curia Christianitatis the Court Christian or Court of Christianity throughout our Common law-bookes as I might shew by multiplicity of authorities if it were not a matter so notoriously knowne as no meanest lawier will or can denie it And is it likely then that according to those lawes it may be prooued that it is Praemunire and treason to bring in a Booke from Rome or Romanists to read it to praise it or to lend it to another as heere our new Iustice doth tell men with terrour against iustice especially when he addeth Hi sunt illi libri qui splendidos c. These are those bookes which doe carry goodly and religious titles which do professe to help and comfort the infirme consciences of men that are in trouble These are they that take vpon them to bring miserable and sinfull soules vnto the desired port of tranquillity and saluation By which words it seemeth that Syr Edward hath a chiâ—â—e mislike of spirituall Catholick bookes which treat the argument of quieting of soules Which if it be so then I hope that our bookes of Controuersies may passe with some lesse danger though indeed I doe suspect that he meaneth these when he speaketh of the other for that they doe most coÌ„cerne him For what doe spirituall bookes trouble Syr Edward which I suppose that either he neuer readeth or litle esteemeth the argument they handle his cogitations being imployed about farre other obiects of this world for the present Albeit I doe not doubt but if in some other circumstance of time state and condition of things he should read them or they should be read vnto him as namely on his death-bed when flesh and bloud and worldly preferments doe draw to an end and himselfe neare to the accompting day they would make other impression in him Which being so true wisdome would that what we must doe in time perforce and perhaps to late or with out profit we should out of good will and free choice preuent by Christian industrie Which almighty God graunt vs his holy grace to doe And this is all the hurt I wish to Syr Edward for all his asperity against vs. 126. Now let vs returne to M. Morton againe whome we haue left for a long time to giue place to this piece of Reckoning with Syr Edward It followeth then in consequence after the precedeÌ„t Chapter of his omissions and concealments in diuers and different charges layd against him for vntruthes wherwith he was charged in the Treatise of Mitigation that we see what new vntruthes he hath super-added in his defence therof for increasing the burden THE NINTH CHAPTER WHICH LAYETH TOGEATHER ANOTHER CHOICE NVMBER of new lyes made wilfully BY Mr. MORTON ouer and aboue the old in this his Preamble whilst he pretendeth to defend or excuse the sayd old being aboue fifty in number WE haue made a large intermissioÌ„ as you see of M. MortoÌ„s affayres by interlacing some of Syr Edwards now must we returne to our principal scope which is to shew more new and fresh vntruthes of later date in this last Reply of M. Morton And albeit those that are to be touched in this Chapter haue beene for the most part handled discussed before yet to the end that they may more effectually be represented to the eye and memory of the Reader by putting the principall of them togeather in ranke vnder one muâ—â—er I haue thought it expedient to take this paynes also wherby may appeare how ruinous and miserable a cause M. Morton hath in hand that cannot be defended but by addition of so many new lyes vnto his old and euen then when he standeth vpon his triall for the sayd old and seâ—keth by all meanes possible to hide and couer the same in such manner as before yow haue heardâ— And no maruaile for that both truth reason and experience do teach vs that an old lye can neuer be well cloathed or couered but by a new Let vs passe then to the suruey of this Chapter noting by the way that we are rather to touch certayne heades or principall branches that conteine commonly sundry and seuerall lyes vnder them then simple single vntruthes if they be well examined nor is it our purpose to name all for that would imply too large a prolixity for this place especially for so much as I am to remit the Readâ—r commonly to