time vvhen this treason vvas plotted as to vse his owne wordes no 〈◊〉 grudge no invvard vvhispering of discōtentment did any vvay appeare VVhich assertion if you consider it well and compare it with our domesticall differences in Religion and variety of punishments laied vpon diuers sortes of men at that time euen before this fact fell out for the same will seeme a very great hyperbolicall exaggeration and ouerlashing for that the penalties of Recusancy and other like molestations were as rife then as at any other time before complaintes of Catholickes in diuers countreys no lesse pittifull 14. Another like Treatise followed this intituled A true reporte of the imprisonment arraignment and execution of the late Traitors imprinted by Geffery Chorlton VVhich so raileth vpon Catholicks and Catholicke Religion from the very beginning to the end therof as if none of them had byn free from the fact attempted or that their common doctrine had publickly allowed the same whereunto this seditious libell of the minister T. M. which now I am to confute endeauoreth to beare false witnes I will pretermit two other most virulent and spitefull Treatises intituled Pagano-Papismus and The picture of a Papist in which the Religion wherin all our auncestors both liued and died from the beginning of their Christianity vnto our daies and so many worthy nations great Princes and famous learned men doe professe round about vs at this day and doe hope to be saued therby is made worse then Paganisme vea the horrible sinke of all damnable heresies which notwithstanding were condemned by the same Religion and Church in former ages and consequently this censure sauoureth more of fury then of reason 15. But to leaue of the recitall of any more bookes or pamphlets to this effect there hath appeared further a matter of far greater importance which is a Catalogue of new lawes suggested in this Parlament against the said Catholickes wherin besides the former heape of penall statutes made to this affliction in precedent times diuers new are proposed for an addition and aggrauation of their Calamities far more rigorous if they passe then the former which being considered by forreine people doe make the state of English Catholickes vnder Protestant gouernement to seeme vnto them much more miserable and intolerable then that of the Ievves vnder any sorte of Christian Princes or that of the Grecians or other Christians vnder the Turke or Persian or that of bondsubiectes vnder the Polonians Svvecians Moscouians and other such Nations so as all this tendeth as yow see and as before we haue noted to more desperate disunion of mindes and exasperation of hartes 16. Only I must confesse that in two mens writings I finde more moderation then in any of the rest who yet being more interessed in the late grieuous designed delict then any of the other that write therof had most cause to be prouoked against the delinquents The first is his Maiesties speach both in his Proclamation and Court of Parlament In the former he professeth to distinguish betvveene all others calling themselues Catholicks the Authors of detestable treason and that by good experience he vvas so vvell persuaded of the loyalty of diuers of that 〈◊〉 as that he assured himselfe that they did as much abhorre that odious 〈◊〉 as himselfe And in the second his Maiesty speaking in Parlament distinguished betweene different sortes of Catholicks allowing to the one sort both the opinion of loyalty and possibility of saluation detesting in that point to vse his Highnes wordes the cruelty of the Puritanes and thinking it vvorthy of fier that vvill admit no saluation to any Papist VVhich is an argument of his Princely moderate meaning not to condemne the whole for a part though in our sense the distinction vsed by his Maiesty in that place of some Catholicks that holde some pointes of our Religion and of others that holde all cannot stand For that we accompt them not for Catholicks at all nor may wee that holde not all but a part for that Catholicum is secundum totum and not secundum partem as well S. Augustine noteth and consequently he that belieueth a part only or any one iote lesse then the whole cannot be in our sense nor in that of S. Augustine a true Catholicke 17. And surely though his Maiesty in this place out of the preiudicate persuasions of others and 〈◊〉 suggested informations seeme to be persuaded that no Catholicks of this condition that belieue and imbrace the whole can euer proue either good Christians or faithfull subiects yet is our hope and constant praier to almighty God that he will in time so illustrate that excellent vnderstanding of his Highnes as the same will see and discerne betweene these absolute and perfect Catholicks that yeeld themselues wholy in obsequium obedientiam fidei in all that the vniuer sall Church prescribeth vnto them to be belieued and others that chuse take and leaue what they like or list vpon their owne iudgement which choice or election called otherwise heresy if wee belieue the Holy Scriptures and sense of all antiquity in this behalfe is the most dangerous and pernicious disease in respect of both those effects heere mentioned by his Maiesty that is vpon earth And when his Highnes shall further with deliberation and maturity haue pondered how many ages his noble Auncestors Catholicke Kings and Queenes of both Realmes haue raigned in peace honour and safty ouer subiects of the first sorte and how infinite troubles turmoiles violences dangers hurtes and losses his Maiesties owne person and all his neerest in bloud and kinred haue suffered in a few yeares of those other new chusers to omit their doctrine I doubt not but that out of his great prudence and equanimity he will mollify and mitigate the hard opinion conceaued of the former notwithstanding this late odious accident fallen out by the temerity of a few as the world knoweth 18. The second example of some moderation before mentioned or at least wise meant was my L. of Salisburies answere to Certeine scandalous papers as he called them which though being written in the time and occasion they were the answerer wanteth not his stinges that pearce euen to the quicke yet supposing the pretended iniury offered by that fond menacing letter and the condition of men in his place and dignity not accustomed to beare or dissemble prouocations of that kind all may be called moderate that is not extreme though for the letter it self if any such were I presume so much of his Lordships wisedome and prudence as he could hardly deeme or suspect any Catholicke to be so mad as to write such a franticke commination but rather that it came from the forge of some such other as togeather with the blowe to be giuen therby to all Catholickes had furthermore a desire to drawe forth from his L. the answere therby to see and try his style and to that end gaue
Protestants But the Romish Seminaries and Iesuites doe so ergo This is his reason and manner of reasoning and in this sorte goe all the rest ech thing with his ergo that yow may know that the learned man hath studied Logicke or rather sophistry to set downe all in forme of syllogisme And to proue his propositions or premisses in this first argument he vseth two meanes first to cite the hard speeches of certaine Catholicke writers against the Caluinian faith as though it were none at all but rather infidelity wherin we shall see after what great store of Protestant writers they haue also with them in that point the other medium is a certeine odious enumeration of the penalties inflicted by Church-lawes and Canons of old time vpon heresy and Hereticks in generall all which T. M. will needes apply to himself and to English Protestantes at this day to breake therby all ciuill association with vs that are Catholickes but both the one and the other are proofes of no validity Let vs begin with the first 4. He citeth the wordes of Andreas Iurgiuicius Canon of Cracouia in Polonia affirming that Protestantes doe holde no one article of the Apostles Creed to wit rightly and entierly Of M. VVright in his articles teaching Protestantes to haue no faith no Religion no Christ. Of M. Reynoldes entituling his booke Caluino-Turcismus Of D. Gifford in the preface to the said booke auouching the pretented now Ghospel of Caluin in many things to be worse and more wicked then the Turkes Alcaron And finally of Antonius Posseuinus who wrote a booke De Atheismis Protestantium Of the Atheismes or pointes of doctrine leading to Atheisme which are taught by diuers Protestants especially by Caluin and his followers 5. Out of all which speeches T. M. inferreth the generall meaning of vs Catholicks to be That all humane society with Protestantes must be vtterly dissolued which is vtterly false and a meere mistaking For these speeches proue only that there cà be no society 〈◊〉 Catholickes and Protestants in their doctrine beliefe but not in life manners conuersation which is the point in question so as T. M. inferreth here quid pro quo And if he will heare one of his owne brethren hold this position also That there can be no vnion society or conformity betweene their our doctrine pretended by some let him read VVilliam Perkins epistle to S. VVilliam Bowes in the preface of his reformed or rather deformed Catholicke where he reprehendeth the new brethren of France and some also in England for giuing hope of this vnion So as in this point we agree that no agreement can be in Religion but in conuersatiō there may as we haue shewed by many examples in the precedent Chapter of people of different Religion that liue togeather at this day in vnion of obedience and quiet subiection vnder the 〈◊〉 Turke and Christian Emperour as also vnder the great Kings of France Polonia and other Princes Fondly then doth T. M. inferre the incompossibility of cohabitation conuersation out of the insociability of their doctrine and Religion 6. Now as for the hard and harsh speeches of the Authors alleadged though vnto many they may seeme somewhat sharpe exaggerations yet vnto him that shall consider well the matter in hand and the accustomed phrases of ancient Fathers in like occasions it will appeare far otherwise For first 〈◊〉 his meaning is nothing else as appeareth by his booke but that in all and euery article of the Creed Caluinistes haue innouated and altered somewhat in the true sense therof and added particuler errours of their owne as yow shall heare afterward proued and declared more largely out of the 〈◊〉 and assertions of diuers great Lutheran Protestants that hold Caluinists to haue peruerted all the articles of the said Creed Of which point our learned countriman M. VVilliam Reinoldes that had bvn diuers yeares a Protestant and Preacher of that doctrine after long study to proue the same by many demonstrations resolued to write a whole booke That Caluinistes belieue no one article of the Apostles Creed but afterwardes turned the same into that other worke entituled Caluino-Turcismus which is held by strangers to be one of the most learned that hath byn written of this kinde of controuersy in our age and M. Sutcliffe hath made himself ridiculous by attempting to answere the same 7. Those wordes also of M. VVright if he vsed them that Hereticks haue no faith no Religion no Christ but are meere infideles doe conteine an ancient position of Catholicke doctrine deliuered in schooles and Fathers writings against old Heretickes many hundred yeares before the name of Protestantes was heard of in the world so that this cannot be of malice properly against them The famous doctor S. Thomas aboue three hundred yeares gone hath this Question in his Treatise of faith Whether he that 〈◊〉 obstinatly in one point or article of his beliefe doth leese his whole faith in all the rest and holdeth yea alleadging for the same inuincible reasons And the same Doctor in like manner proposeth another question to wit which of three sinnes belonging to infidelity is most grieuous Iudaisme Paganisme or Heresy resolueth the question thus That albeit in some respects the former two may be thought more grieuous in that they deny more points of faith yet absolutely in regarde of the malice and obstinacy of an Hereticke that knew once the Catholicke truth and now wilfully impugneth the same against the iudgement of the vniuersall visible Church his sinne and damnation is much more grieuous and hereupon the ancient Fathers doe euery where aggrauate the heynousnes of this sinne aboue all other sinnes and in particuler doe deny them to be Christians but rather to be Infideles and worse then Infideles as now by S. Thomas hath byn said which is most conforme to the writinges of the Apostles themselues and Apostolicke men who detested this sinne in the highest degree as might largely be shewed out of their workes euen to the horror of the Reader if this place did beare it That seuere speach of S. Paul may be sufficient for all the rest exhorting his disciple Titus to auoide an hereticall man after one or two reprehensions knowing that such a one is subuerted and sinneth as damned by his owne iudgment Which is neuer found written of other sortes of Infideles 8. No man then ought to be offended with these earnest and sharpe speeches where heresy or the presumption therof is in question for that nothing is more dreadfull to Catholicke people then the very name and apprehension of heresy howsoeuer in our vnfortunate daies it be made a matter of dispute only or table-talke by many now in England and he that will see store of proofes and reasons laied togeather by the foresaid learned man M. Reynoldes to proue that the heresies of these
afterwardes that he is vnderstood and so decyphered as he may be vnderstood and pitted also by others And I know no sense wherin he may say that his workes are so published as not published but that they are not worthy indeed the publishing and much lesse the readinge wherin they doe differ much from those of Aristotle 22. It followeth in his said Epistle to his Maiesty For that this doctrine of Equiuocation saith he acknowledged by your admirable wisdome to be in religion most 〈◊〉 and detestable in politike State most pernicious and intollerable and in euery actor most banefull to the soule of man it may please your Excellent Maiesty to prouide in this behalse for your faithfull and religious Subiectes that they neuer be so intoxicated with this Antichristian spirite as either to deceyue or be deceyued therby c. Would God it might please his Highnes in his admirable wisedome to pervse ouer but two or three Chapters of this Treatise about Equiuocation and the reasons of the lawfulnes and necessity therof in some cases togeather with the grosse monstrous sacrilegious and detestable licence of lying taken vp and vied by the impugners of lawfull Equiuocation and especially Ministers that most talke and make profession of simple truth I do not doubt but his Excellent Maiesty out of his Christian piety would prouide in this behalfe for his faithfull and religious Subiectes that they should not be so much deceyued by 〈◊〉 as they are nor intoxicated with their Antichristiā lying spirite to their eternal perditiō And this is so much as I haue thought good to reply in this place cōcerning his Epistle to his Maiesty 23. As for the other which scornfully he directeth to the deceyued brethren it is so short fond ydle a thing that it deserueth no answere at all the principall point whervpon he standeth therin being this that Catholicke people are seduced by their priestes who will be Doctors saith he out of S. Paul to Timothy and yet vnderstand not what they say nor vvherof they affirme But whether this description of fond presumptuous Doctors touched by S. Paul do agree rather to Protestant-Ministers or to Catholicke priestes will appeare in great part by reading ouer this booke especially the 5. 8. and 10. Chapters if by Thomas Mortons errors and ignorances a scantling may be taken of the rest But now let vs 〈◊〉 how he doth go about to proue that our priests are such bad Doctors as S. Paul speaketh of 24. His chiefe proofe consisteth in a certayne comparing of them with those Iewish priestes of the old law in Christes tyme who taught the souldiers that watched at the Sepulcher of our Sauiour to say that whilest they were sleeping his disciples came stole him away Common sense saith he might haue replyed how could yow tell what was done when yow were all a sleepe But myndes enthralled in the opinion of a neuer-erring priesthood which confirmed that 〈◊〉 could not possibly but erre with their priestes such alas is the case of all them c. Do yow see how substantially he hath proued this matter Let vs examine the particulers 〈◊〉 the story then the inference 25. About the story S. Mathew recounteth in the 28. chapter of his Ghospell how Christ our Sauiour being raysed miraculously from death to lyse with a great and dreadfull earthquake and discent of an Angels so as the souldiers that kept the sepulcher were astonished and almost dead for feare some of them ranne and told the chiefe priests therof who making a consultation with the Elders deuised this shift to giue them store of money and to bid them say that in the night when they were a sleepe his disciples came and stole him away and so they did And S. Mathew addeth that this false brute ranne currant among the Iewes euen vntill that tyme wherin he wrote his Ghospell This is the narration what hath now Thom. Morton to say to this against vs for therunto is all his dryfte First he saith as yow haue heard that this deuise was improbable and against common sense it selfe Common sense saith he might haue replyed to the souldiers what could yow tell what was done when yow were all a sleepe Se heere the sharpenes of Tho. Mortons wit aboue that of the Priests Scribes and Pharisies But what if one of the souldiers had replyed to him thus VVe saw it not when we were a sleepe but afterward when we were awakened we perceyued that he was stolne away What reioynder would our minister make As for example if Tho. Morton were walking with a cōmunion-booke vnder his arme through a feild and wearyed should ly downe to sleepe with his booke by his syde and at his awaking should see his booke gone were it against cōmon sense for him to say that his booke was stolne from him while he was a sleepe Or is not this an assertion fit for one of those Doctors wherof S. Paul talketh that vnderstand not what they say or wherof they affirme But this will better yet appeare by the second point which is his inference Wherfore we must a litle also examine that 26. But 〈◊〉 saith he 〈◊〉 in the opinion of a neuer-erring priesthood which confirmed that answere could not possibly but erre with their priestes such alas is the case of all them c. The malitious man would deface Christian priesthood by the Iewish priesthood and our Priests by theirs but consider how farre he runneth from the marke in both Myndes enthralled saith he in the opinion of a neuer-erring priesthood which confirmed this answere Did the Priest-hood of Iury confirme this Answere Who saith so We read that the Priests with the Elders did deuise this answer and they knew they did euill and lye therin and so did the souldiers also that published the same But this was a matter of fact not a determination of faith Neyther among the Iewes nor Christians was there euer opinion that Priests or Priesthood could not erre in matters of fact lyfe or their maners How then is this to the purpose Or doth not this also proue him to be one of those forenamed Doctors that vnderstand not what they say or wherof they affirme How much more modesty and piety had it byn in Thom. Morton to haue followed the example of Christ and his Apostles who though persecuted by those Priests yet both thought and spake reuerently of the Priesthood 27. S. Iohn the Euangelist setting downe the speach of wicked Cayphas the High-Priest about the death of Christ to wit that it was necessary sor one to dye for the people addeth presently that Cayphas spake not this of himselfe but prophesyed as being High-Priest of that yeare S. Paul in like manner being apprehended and brought into a Counsell of the Iewes and vniustly stroken on the face by the commaundement of wicked Ananias the High-Priest whome thervpon in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called Paynted-wall as soone as euer
doctrine of Equiuocation ambiguity of speach amphibology or mentall reseruation in certaine cases lawfull which doctrine his Lordship termeth strange and grosse and that it teareth in sunder all the bandes of humane conuersation for that I am to handle this matter more largely and particularly in the ensuing Chapters of this booke especially from the fourth forward the whole bulke of our aduersaries calumniations consisting in these two pointes of Rebellion and Equiuocation I will heere make answere to his Lordship as to a man of science and experience that I maruaile greatly how he can thinke that doctrine to be strange which is so ordinary and vsually to be seene in all the bookes of Catholicke Deuines for the space of these three or foure hundred yeares by confession of his owne writers how also he can tearme it grosse that the greatest wittes of Christendome for so long at least haue held for learned and founded not only vpon euident groundes of reason nature equity and iustice in diuers cases and for such allowed throughout all tribunales of Christendome both Ecclesiasticall and Ciuill but warranted also by authority of many expresse examples of Holy Scriptures and Fathers and in some cases so necessary for auoiding the sinne of lying periury discouering of secrettes iniuring our neighbours and other such inconueniences as if I should heere set downe the said particular cases both concerning secrecy or safty of him that is forced to equiuocate as afterward I shall doe in conuenient place I presume his Lordship as so great a common-vvealthesman would allow therof with due circumstances as iust and necessary and recall that part of his censure wherin he saith That it teareth in sunder all the bandes of humane conuersation especially if he remember that we doe except from the licence of Equiuocation the common conuersation of men in contractes bargaines and other like affaires wherby any dammage or preiudice may grow to another man and much more in matters appertaining to the cleare and manifest profession of our faith And thus much for this place the refidue afterward 25. And now hauing spoken all this by way of Preface we shall returne to the particular Treatise of T. M. for more of his name we cannot yet find out entituled An exact discouery of 〈◊〉 doctrine in case of conspiracy c. which we haue taken in hand to answere in this place and to shew that as his meaning is malicious and meanes foolish so is his proposition pernicious and argumentes vaine to proue the same wherin I remit me to that which afterwardes yow shall see set downe THAT THE MAYNE PROPOSITION INSINVATED AND VRGED BY T. M. That Catholickes are not tolerable in a Protestant Common-vvealth in respect of Rebellion and Conspiracies Is vntrue indiscreet and pernicious and falleth rather vpon the Protestant-Subiect then the Catholicke CHAP. I. THe whole drift of the Author throughout this malignant inuectiue to be nothing els but to perswade that Protestantes and Catholickes cannot liue togeather in one common-wealth nor vnder one Prince or Gouernour if he be a Protestant is cleare and manifest by all his whole discourse proofes and argumentes which afterwardes we shall more particularly in due place discusse yea to the end he may make this diuorce and separation betweene the Kinges Maiesty of Great Britany and his Catholicke subiectes for thither he bendeth all his battery the more irreconciliable and remedilesse he placeth the ground of this incompossibility not in the will which may be changed but in the iudgement and beliefe of Catholickes to wit in their publicke and receiued doctrine which doctrine well he knoweth not to lye in the handes of particular men nor of particuler Prouinces to change or alter at their pleasure as Protestantes may and doe heere taking a part and there leauing as they list but they must stand firmely and vniuersally to the whole this being truely Catholicum as ancient Fathers define it And hence it is that T. M. inferreth thus It is taken out saith he of the expresse dogmaticall principles of their Priests and Doctors and collected from their owne publicke positions c. which how true or false it is shall appeare after Now let vs examine some other circumstances of this proposition 2. First then I say and auerre that this his maine and fundamentall axiome of the incompossibility of Catholicke and Protestant people togeather vnder the Gouernement of his Maiesty of Great Britany is not only false and erroneous in it selfe as afterward shal be declared but pernicious also to the common-wealth preiudiciall to his Maiesties both comfort safety hurtefull to the state seditious against peace scandalous to the hearers offensiue to forreine nations that liue vnder Princes of different Religion both Catholicke and Protestant and hatefull finally to the eares of all moderate peaceable and prudent people and is on the other side no waies profitable needfull expedient or conuenient thus in publique to be proposed For I would first demaund this famous mak-bate what gaine or vtility may be expected either to Prince or people by putting in print this so odious an assertion of extreeme diffidence and distrust betweene his Maiesty and so many thousande of his subiects that admitted him with all ioy comfort at his first entrance to the Crowne Is it perhaps to preuēt some dāger that may be doubted from such kind of people and to make his Maiesty more carefull and vigilant for his safty If that be so a priuate aduise had beene more important to himselfe or his Counsell for that the publishing and proclayming therof procureth not only diffidēce but also restles solicitude on both sides the one to preuēt the other 3. Secondly I would aske what he will doe or haue to be done with so great a multitude of people as in all his Maiesties Kingdomes doe loue and fauour the Religion which this masked Minister impugneth and would put them in despaire of any sufferance or tolerable condition vnder his Maiesties gouernment Will he haue them all made away from the face of the Earth This were hard except Noe his floud should come againe or some other equiualent inundation either of water fyer or sword And for the later though some thinke he could wish it yet who knoweth not but that the bowels of England are so combyned and linked togeather at this day in this point as hardly can the sword passe the one but it must wound also deeply the other What then Will he haue them to liue in perpetuall torment hatred suspicions iealosyes auersions detestations deadly hostilities the one with the other This is a state more fit for hell then for any peaceable and Christian common wealth nor of it selfe is it durable if we beleeue either reason or experience of former times For we know what Cicero what other wise-men among the very Heathens haue obserued what they haue written what they haue counselled to be done or to be
our times of such as call themselues Protestants but especially the followers of Caluin are farre more perillous and detestable then Paganisme Iudaisme or Turcisme let him read not only his foresaid fower bookes De Caluino-Turcismo but two speciall large Chapters or Treatises of this very matter in his booke De iusta Reipublicae potestate c. to wit the 4. and 5. and he will rest satisfied 9. Nor doe Catholicke writers only make these Protestations against Caluin and his doctrine but many of the most learnedest other Protestants of these daies as hath byn touched One most famous preacher and Protestant writer or rather Superintendent in Polonia called Francis Stancarus in an epistle to the King himself saith of him and to him Quis Diaboluste ô Caluine seduxit vt contra filium Dei cum Arrio obloquaris c. Cauete o vos Ministri omnes a libris Caluini praesertim in articulis de Trinitate incarnatione mediatore Sacramento Baptismi praedestinatione continent enim doctrinam impiam blasphemias Arrianas What deuill hath seduced thee o Caluin that thou shouldest speake iniuriously against the sonne of God with Arrius the Hereticke c. Beware all yee Ministers of Caluins bookes especially in the articles of the Bl. Trinity Incarnation of the mediator of the Sacrament of Baptisme and of predestination for they conteine impious doctrine and blasphemies of Arrius 10. Another brother and Protestant-Preacher no lesse zealous then he in Germany named Conradus Schlusselburge saith of him his 〈◊〉 that himself hath declared proued in three large books Hòs de nullo ferè Christianae doctrinae articulo rectè sentire That they scarcely belieue aright any one article of Christian beliefe which is the self same that the forenamed Catholicke writer Iurgiuicius obiected before which T. M. tooke so impatiently as yow haue heard And the same brother in one of his said bookes affirmeth Quod Caluinistae ipsum filium Dei mendacij arguunt Deum sua omnipotentia spoliant sunt abiurati hostes profligatissimi falsatores Testamenti filij Dei That Caluinists doe charge the Sonne of God with a ly doe spoile God of his omnipotency and are foresworne enemies and most wicked falsifiers of the Testament of the Sonne of God 11. And another famous Doctor of the same new Ghospell and spirit saith that this sect of Caluinists their doctrine Sentina quaedam est c. is a certeine sinke into which all other heresies doe flow it is the last rage of the diuell which he in his fury doth exercise against Christ and his Church c. And then further Qui partes eorum sequitur c. he that followeth their sect is a manifest and sworne enemy of God and hath denied his faith which he promised to Christ in his baptisme So he And consider now whether this be not as great detestation of Caluins doctrine by principal learned Protestants as T. M. hath picked out of Catholicks wrested wordes before recited 12. But yow must not thinke that heere is an end for there would be no end if I should prosecute all that might be said in this case Tilmannus Heshusius a Superintendent of the Protestants in the same countrey calleth Caluins doctrine Blasphemam Sacrilegam sectam a blaspemous and Sacrilegious sect and writeth a speciall booke of this title A defence of the Holy Testament of Christ against the blasphemous confession of Caluinists And AEgidius Hunnius writing a booke De Caluino Iudaizante of Caluin playing the Iew after a long confutation saith thus Dâ—â—â—â—um satis superque iudico c. we haue detected I suppose sufficiently and more then sufficiently that Angell of darkenes Iohn Caluin who comming forth of the pit of hell hath partly by his detestable wickednes in wresting Scriptures partly by his impious pen against the Holy Maiesty of Christ partly by his horrible and monstrous paradoxes about predestination drawne both himself into hell a great number of starres as the Apocalips speaketh 13. I pretermit many others as that of Philippus Nicolaus a Protestant-Minister of Tubinga who in the yeare 1586. set forth a booke in 4. with this title A Discouery and this I write for our discouerer of the fundaments of the Caluinian Sect and how they agree with old Arrians and Nestorians Wherby also is demonstrated that no Christian man can take part with them but that he must defend Arrianisme and Nestorianisme So he But the next yeare after there came another booke forth printed in the same Vniuersity with this title A demonstration out of the Holy Scriptures that Caluinists and Sacramentaries are not Christians but rather baptized Iewes and Mahometanes and a little after that againe came forth the booke of Ioannes Matthias the great Preacher in VVittenberge De cauendo Caluinistarum fermento how to auoid the leauen of the Caluinists and then another of Albertus Grauerus of like function vpon the yeare 1598. entituled BelluÌ„ Ioannis Caluini Iesu Christi The warre betweene Iohn Caluin and Iesus Christ and al this written set forth and printed by chiefe Protestant brethren which if the inference of T. M. be true against Catholickes that in respect of the difference of their doctrine and for that they holde Caluinists to haue no true faith they may not liue togeather vnder one Prince then must it follow also that neither these Lutherans and Caluinian Protestants can liue togeather and the very same ensueth betweene English Protestants Puritanes vpon the difference of their doctrine and belief which hath no lesse opposition in deed and detestation the one of the other in bitternes of speach then haue the Lutherane Protestants against them both as may easily be demonstrated out of their owne bookes if we would stand vpon it And this shall be sufficient for the refutation of his first medium brought forth to proue that Catholicks and Protestants cannot liue togeather in one common wealth for that the one side accompteth the other for Hereticks 14. But the second medium is yet more childish which is that for so much as we not only doe hold Protestants to be excommunicate Hereticks but subiect also to all the punishments penalties set downe in the Popes Ecclesiasticall Canons Decrees Constitutions for the same which are many and grieuous as that Hereticks must leese their goods cannot gather vp tythes nor recouer debtes nor institute heires and other such like and more sharpe penalties prescribed in old time by the Canon law against ancient Hereticks herof he inferreth that we detract all humane society from Protestants and consequently we are not tolerable in a Protestant common-wealth 15. But we answere first that touching the former part to wit the imputation of heresy and excommunication to the Protestant party of England that followeth the Sacramentary doctrine of Caluin and Zuinglius yow haue heard now immediately before how that imputation is
performed by these places alleadged yow haue seene 28. Finally to stand no longer vpon this whether we or they Catholicks or Protestantes doe attribute more to popular licence against Princes when they giue not contentment may aboundantly be seene in that we haue set downe before and will ensue afterward both of their doctrine and practises in like occasions And so much of this first charge now will we passe to the second 29. The second is that we ascribe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 power and souer aignty ouer Kings vnto the Pope wherin first what he saith of ciuill souer aignty is a meere fiction and calumniation of his owne if it be out of the Popes owne temporall Dominions For we ascribe no such vnto him ouer other Princes or their subiects but that authority or soueraignty only which Catholicke doctrine ascribeth to the Bishop of Rome as Successor to S. Peter Prince of the Apostles spirituall head of the vniuersall visible Church of Christ which is only spirituall for spirituall ends to wit for the direction and saluation of soules And if at any time he be forced to passe further then this and by a certeine consequence to deale in some temporall affaires also it must be only indirectly in defence or conseruation of the said spirituall that is to say when the said spirituall power apperteining to soules cannot other wise be defended or conserued as more largely hath byn treated before 30. This then is the summe and substance of Catholicke doctrine about this point of the Popes authority which from the beginning of Christianity hath byn acknowledged in Gods Church and in no place more then in England where it hath byn both held practised from the very first Christened King of our nation Ethelbert vnto K. Henry the 8. for the space of almost a thousand yeares without interruption as largely and aboundantly hath byn shewed and laied forth to the view of all men in a late booke written in answere to S. Edward Cookes fifth part of Reportes and this with great honor prosperity of the Princes therof and vnion of their people vnder their gouernment and without such odious or turbulent inferences as now are made therevpon by vnquiet spirittes that would set at warre euen mens imaginations in the ayer therby to mainteine disunion discorde and diffidence betweene Princes and namely betweene our present noble Soueraigne and his Catholicke subiects 31. And first of all let vs heare this turbulent T. M. how vpon the enuy of this authority he frameth and foundeth all his ensuing reasons VVe demaunde saith he how farre these pretended powers of people Pope may extende and heervpon we argue To which I answere that in imagination they may extend so farre as any fantasticall braine shall list to draw them but in the true meaning of Catholicke reall doctrine they can extend no further then hath byn declared And as for the popular power of people ouer Princes we haue now refuted the calumniation shewed that it is a mere fiction of his owne and no position of ours and that his Protestant doctrine doth ascribe much more licence to popular tumult then the Catholicke without comparison and for that of the Pope I haue declared how it is to be vnderstood to be of his owne nature in spirituall affaires only without preiudice of ciuill Princely gouernement at all and so the practice of the worlde and experience of so many Princes great States and Monarches liuing quietly securely vnder the same authority both in former times and ours most euidently doth proue and confirme 32. But yet let vs see and consider how falsely and calumniously this Make-bate doth herevpon argue in his third reason inferring for his assumption or minor proposition thus But all Popish Priestes vpon this pretended Supremacy and prerogatiue of Pope and people doe vtterly abolish the title of succession in all Protestant Princes Ergo. Wherin to shew him a notable liar it shall be sufficient to name all the Protestant Princes that haue had title of successiō in our coūtrey for therof he speaketh principally since the name of Protestant hath byn heard of in the world being three in number to wit K. Edward the sixt Q. Elizabeth and K. Iames that now raigneth all which were admitted peaceably to their Crownes as well by Priestes as Catholicke people who notwithstanding in some of their admissions wanted not meanes to haue wrought disturbances as the world knoweth so as if one instance only doth truly ouerthrow any general proposition how much more doth this triple instance not able to be denied ouerthrow and cast to the ground this vniuersal false assertion of T. M. which auerreth That all Popish Priests 〈◊〉 vtterly abolish the Succession of all Protestant Princes Will he not be ashamed to see himself cōuinced ofso great and shameles ouerlashing 33. And on the other side one only Catholicke Princesse being to succeed in this time to wit Q. Mary we know what resistance the Protestants made both by bookes sermons Treatises and open armes and how many Rebellions conspiracies robberies priuy slaughters and other impediments were designed and practised afterward during the few yeares she raigned we know also what was executed against the gouernment and liues of the two noble Catholicke Queenes her neerest neighbours one of them most straitly conioyned in bloud that raigned at that time in Scotland to omit others before mētioned that were debarred from their lawfull succession or excluded from their rightfull possession for their Religion in Sweueland Flanders other places as cannot be denied 34. Wherfore it is more then extraordinary impudency in T. M. to charge vs with that which is either peculier or more eminent in themselues and false in vs and what or how farre this fellow may be trusted in these his assertions may be gathered by the last sentence of all his discourse in this matter where he hath these wordes F. Persons in his Doleman doth pronounce sentence that whosoeuer shall consent to the succession of a Protestant Prince is a most grieuous and damnable 〈◊〉 And is it so in deed Syr 〈◊〉 and will yow stand to it and leese your credit if this be falsely or calumniously alleadged then if yow please let vs heare the Authors owne wordes 35. And now saith he to apply all this to our purpose for England and for the matter we haue in hand I affirme and hold that for any man to giue his helpe consent or assistance towardes the making of a King whome he iudgeth or belieueth to be faulty in Religion and consequently would aduance no Religion or the wrong if he were in authority is a most grieuous damnable sinne to him that doth it of what side soeuer the truth be or how good or bad soeuer the party be that is preferred So he And his reason is for that he should sinne against his owne conscience in furthering such aKing And is
the law Canon it self Consider I pray yow how many fraudes and falshoodes there be in one little quotation and what a volume I should be inforced to make if I would examine exactly such a multitude of citations as he quoteth against vs but yet one or two more shall I produce in the same kinde and matter 52. In the sixt page of his discouery he hath this grieuous accusation out of the Canon law against vs Haeretici filij vel consanguinei non dicuntur sed 〈◊〉 legem sit manus tua super eos vt fundas sanguinem ipsorum and then he quoteth thus Apud Grat. gloss in Decret li. 5. ex Decret Gregor 9. caus 23. q. 8. cap. Legi Which distracted kind of quotation seperating the first and last wordes that should haue gone togeather seeme to import that he scarce read the bookes themselues but cited the same out of some other mans notes but that fault were easily pardoned if he vsed no greater fraude in the thing it self For first he Englisheth the wordes thus Heretickes may not be termed either children or kindred but according to the old law thy hand must be against them to spil their bloud And then in the margent he setteth downe this speciall printed note The professed bloudy massacre against the Protestantes without distinction of sex or kinred And what can be more odiously vrged thē this Now then let vs see how many false trickes and shiftes fit for a Protestant-Minister doely lurking in this short citation 53. First of all is to be considered that this glosse or Commentary of the Canon law which heere is both vntruly cited and maliciously applied is vpon a Canon beginning Si quis which Canon is taken out of the third Councell of Carthage wherin the famous Doctour and Holy Father S. Augustine was present as a cheife Bishop that had voice in that Councell and the decree of the Canon is that if any Bishop should institute Heretickes or pagans for his heires whether they were consanguinei or extranei kinsmen or externes ei Anathema dicatur atque eius nomen inter Dei sacerdotes nullo modo recitetur Let him be accursed let not his name be remembred any way among the Priestes of God 54. This is the seuerity of that Canon for ground wherof another precedent Canon setteth downe out of the same S. Augustine Quod Haereticus perseuer ans aeternaliter damnatur c. That an Heretick perseuering in his Heresy is damned eternally neither can he recieue any profit by baptisme almes martyrdome nor any other good workes So hath the title of the Canon but the wordes of S. Augustine are these Firmissimè tene nullatenùs dubites c. Hold for most certaine and no wayes doubt but that euery Hereticke or Schismaticke shall be partaker of hel fier euerlastingly togeather with the diuell and his angelles except before the end of his life he be restored and incorporated againe into the Catholicke Church neither shall baptisme or almes neuer so aboundantly bestowed no nor death it self suffred for the name of Christ profit him any thing to saluation So S. Augustine 55. Vpon this ground then that Heretickes out of the Church so censured as heere yow haue heard though they be neuer so neere of kin may not be made heires especially by Church-men the glosse yeelding a reason therof hath these wordes Quia isti Haeretici iam non dicuntur filij vel consanguinei vnde dicitur in lege si frater tuus amicus tuus vxor tua aeprauare voluerit veritatem sit manus tua super illos For that these Heretickes are not now called childrē or kinsfolke therfore as such they cannot be made Inheritours by Ecclesiasticall men wherupon it is said in the law of Deuteronomie if thy brother and friend or wife will goe about to depraue the truth let thy hand be vpon them And presently he citeth to the same effect the authority of S Hierome out of another Canon in another place of the law as presently we shall see 56. So as first heere we may behold that T. M. hath not put downe this his quoted glosse as it is found in the true glosse it self but left out both the beginning 〈◊〉 isti Haeretici c. which imported somewhat to the vnderstanding of his meaning as also he left out the reason alledged by the glosse out of Gods owne wordes in Deuteronomy to wit the wilfull corrupting of his truth And thirdly he added these wordes Vt fundas sanguinem ipsorum which heere as yow see the glosse hath not but they are cited out of S. Hierome in another Canon and volume of the law where 〈◊〉 Holy Father excusing to his friend Riparius a Priest his earnest zeale and desire to haue Vigilantius the Hereticke against whome he had written punished by his Bishop alledgeth diuers examples of seuerity in like cases out of the Scripture as of Phinees Elias Symon Cananeus S. Peter S. Paul and lastly citeth also the foresaid wordes of Gods ordinance in Deuteronomy If thy brother thy wife thy friend c. shall goe about to peruert thee from Gods true worship c. heare him not nor conceale him but bring him forth to iudgment and let thy hand be vpon him first and then after the hand of all the people c. which is to be vnderstood according to the forme of law appointed afterward in the 17. Chapter That he be orderly brought forth to iudgment and then when sentence is 〈◊〉 against him he which heard or saw him commit the sinne and is a witnes against him must cast the first stone at him and the rest must follow And this also doth the ordinary Commentary or glosse of Lyranus and others vpon those textes of Scripture declare 57. And now let the iudicious Reader consider how many corruptions this crasty Minister hath vsed to bring forth to his purpose this one little distracted text for proof of professed bloudy massacres intended by vs against Protestantes For first he corrupteth the wordes of the glosse apparantly and that in diuers pointes leauing out that which the glosse saith and adding that which the glosse hath not then he corrupteth the meaning both of glosse and Canon deprauing that to a wicked sense of bloudy massacring without distinction of sex or kinred which the Canon and Councell of Carthage with S. Augustine meant only of ciuill punishment against Heretickes to wit that they could not be made heires to Ecclesiasticall men Thirdly he peruerteth in like manner S. Hieromes intent which was that albeit he wished that Heretickes should be punished also bodily yet by order and forme of law and not that any one should kill another much lesse by bloudy massacres as this fellow setteth it downe in his marginall note And lastly he presumeth to peruert the very wordes of God himself in the law by translating fundas sanguinem ipsorum spill their
some English Kings that seemed not to respect much the Popes authority in some occasions which he hath borrowed out of Syr Edward Cookes Reportes he may see the answere to that booke and so I thinke remaine satisfied Wherefore this shall suffice for the second head of argumentes throughout the new Testament though after also in the examination of some falsifications we shall haue occasion to say more Argumentes from Reason §. 3. 43. VVHerfore to passe no further in the second point of argumentes vnder the new Testament we shall say a word or two only of the third to wit of proofes affirmed to be deduced by vs from force of reason for so he intituleth them to wit Popish Argumentes from reason And to the end you may see his talent therin wee shal examine only the third reason in this place which he declareth in these wordes Except saith the Romish pretence there were a way of deposing Apostata Princes God had not prouided sufficiētly for his Church for this he citeth the Constitution Extrauagant of Pope Bonifacius and saith This obiection is in your Extrauagantes and so it may be called because it rangeth extra that is without the bondes of Godes ordinance c. But as in all his other citations generally he is neuer lightly true and sincere in all points no not thrice I thinke veryly throughout all this lying booke of his so neither heere and it would require a great volume alone to examine only some part of his leaues about this point of his shiftes and corruptions they are so many and thicke and craftily hudled vp togeather As for example heere first this sentence is not in the Popes Extrauagant at all but only in a certaine addition to the ordinary glosse or Commentary of Iohn Picard which addition was made by Petrus Bertrandus a late writer Secondly this Commentary saith nothing of deposing Apostata Princes but only affirming the foresaid opinion of Canonistes to be true that Christ was Lord absolutly in this life ouer all not only in spirituall authority but in temporall also he inferreth therby Christ should not haue sufficiently prouided for the gouernment of his Church Kingdome vpon earth Nisi vnicum post se talem Vicarium reliquisset qui haec omnia posset except he had left some such one substitute or Vicar after him as should be able to performe all these thinges to wit as belong both to spirituall and temporall power according as necessity shall require which later clause yow see that T. M. cut of as he added the other about Apostata Princes And thus much for his variety of corruptions in this little sentence now to the thing it selfe 44. The reason if we consider it without passion is strong and weighty and founded vpon the prouidence wisedome and goodnes of almighty God who hauing prouided diligently and admirably for the preseruation of all other thinges and Communities by him created or ordained should leaue the Christian Common-wealth vnfurnished of all remedy for the greatest euill of all others that possibly can fall out which is the corruption of the head that may destroy the whole body wherof he is head if it be not redressed As if for examples sake the Prince would extirpate Christian Religion bring in Mahometisme or other such abhomination ouerthrow all good lawes plant and establish vice dissolution Atheisme or commit some other such exorbitant wickednes as were not tolerable wherunto notwithstanding mans frailty without the helpe of Godes grace is or may be subiect In this case saith the obiection some remedy must haue byn left by Christ or els his diuine wisdome and prouidence had not prouided sufficiently for the preseruation of his Kingdome as by light of nature he left remedy to the body of euery Common-wealth vnder the Gentiles before his cōming which is euident both by Plato Aristotle Cicero others that wrote of Common-wealthes in those dayes and did alwayes presume that the said Common-wealthes had sufficient authority by law of nature to restraine exorbitant Princes when they were perilous to the publicke and the same haue held al other learned men that euer wrote of that argument afterward 45. But as for our Catholicke learned men both Deuines and Lawiers though they affirme as out of T. M. his frequent allegations of them in this his Treatise is euident that all obedience both externall and internall in conscience and workes is by Godes ordinance due vnto them yet that in such publicke perilles of the Church Common-wealth as before are mentioned when they fal out Christ our Sauiour hath not left his Church wholy remedilesse but rather that besides the naturall right which ech Kingdome hath to defend themselues in certaine cases he left also supreame power in his high Priest and immediate substitute to direct and moderate that power and to adde also of his owne whē extraordinary need requireth though with great deliberation consultation weighty motiues lawfull meanes and other like circumstances 46. This I say is Catholicke doctrine but what Protestants doctrine is were hard to set downe for that they speake therin as time and occasion serueth them hauing no rule or Canon at all wherto they are bound For what was both their doctrine and practice when and where they were discontented with their Princes both in England Scotland Flanders Geneua and France is euident by that which before we haue alledged in the first fourth Chapters of this booke now this man telleth vs another tale for the time present but what he would say or doe if he were in the discontented occasion of those his fellow-Authors that wrote so sharpely and violently no man can tell but let vs see now at length how substantially he doth satisfy this obiectiō for he giueth three or foure seuerall solutions therunto you shall heare what ones they are 47. The first is from Godes ordinance saith he for by the word of God as your Cunerus Deuinely reasoneth which is not partiall nor by the self pleasing fancy of sensuall affection must this question be determined though therfore it may seeme to vs a decree of nature for euery one to defend himself and the thinges he doth enioy yet the Law of God doth forbid to doe this by taking armes against the higher powers c. So T. M. out of our Cunerus And it is well that he alloweth this Catholicke writer to reason deuinely so far forth as he may seeme to make for him though in truth in the cōclusion of his discourse he is wholy against him For as first his whole speech in this seauenth Chapter by him cited is expresly against the Hollanders that vnder diuers pretences both of Religion and Scriptures for the same liberty of their countrey and the like tooke armes against their true naturall King which he reproueth and condemneth very piously and learnedly throughout this whole Chapter and in the
of the Church In this then we agree and haue no difference 24. There followeth in T. M. his assertion heere But not in the personall administration of them to wit of spirituall causes this now is a shift dissembling the difficulty and true State of the question which is in whome consisteth the supreame power to treate iudge and determine in spirituall causes which this man flying as not able to resolue telleth vs only that he cannot personally administer the same which yet I would aske him why For as a Bishop may personally performe all the actions that he hath giuen authority to inferiour Priestes to doe in their functions and a temporall Prince may execute in his owne person if he list any inferiour authority that he hath giuen to others in temporall affaires so if he haue supreame authority spirituall also why may he not in like manner execute the same by himself if he please But of this is sufficiently writteÌ„ of late in the foresaid booke of Answere to Syr Edward Cooke where also is shewed that a farre greater authority spirituall was giuen to King Henry the eight by Parlament then this that T. M. alloweth his Maiesty now for outward preseruation of the Church to wit To be head therof in as ample manner as euer the Pope was or could be held before him ouer England and to King Edward though then but of ten yeares old was granted also by Parlament That he had originally in himself by his Crowne and Scepter all Episcopall authority so as the Bishops and Archbishops had no other power or spirituall authority then was deriued from him to Queene Elizabeth by like graunt of Parlament was also giuen as great authority spirituall and Ecclesiasticall ouer the Church and Clergy of England as euer any person had or could exercise before which was and is another thing then this outward preseruation which T. M. now assigneth hauing pared the same in minced wordes to his purpose to make it seeme little or nothing but dareth not stand to it if he be called to the triall 25. Wherfore this matter being of so great importance and consequence as yow see I doe heere take hold of this his publicke assertion and require that it may be made good to wit that this is the substance meaning only of the English oath and that neither our Kinges of England doe chalenge more nor subiectes required to condescend to more then to grant to their authority for outward preseruation or ad Ecclesiae praesidium as S. Leo his wordes and meaning are and I dare assure him that al Catholickes in England will presently take the oath and so for this point there will be an attonement Me thinkes that such publicke doctrine should not be so publickly printed and set forth without publicke allowance and intention to performe and make it good Yf this be really meant we may easely be accorded if not then will the Reader see what credit may be giuen to any thing they publish notwithstanding this booke commeth forth with this speciall commendation of Published by authority c. 26. And for conclusion of all it may be noted that there hath byn not only lacke of truth and fidelity in citing Pope Leo for Ecclesiasticall Supremacy in Emperours aboue Popes but want of modesty discretion also for so much as no one ancient Father doth more often and earnestly inculcate the contrary for the preheminence of the Sea of Rome then doth S. Leo in so much that Iohn Caluin not being able otherwise to answere him saith that he was tooto desirous of glory dominion and so shifteth him of that way and therfore he was no fit instance for T. M. to bring heere in proofe of spirituall supremacy in temporall Princes 27. But yet in the very next page after he vseth a far greater immodesty or rather perfidy in my opinioÌ„ in calumniation of Cardinall Bellarmine whome he abuseth notably both in allegation exposition translation application and vaine insultation for thus he citeth in his text out of him Ancient generall Councelles saith the Romish pretence were not gathered without the cost of good and Christian Emperours and were made by their consentes for in those dayes the Popes did make supplication to the Emperour that by his authority he would gather Synods but after those times all causes were changed because the Pope who is head in spirituall matters cannot be subiect in temporall Bellarm. lib. 1. de Concil cap. 13. § Habemus ergo 28. And hauing alledged this resolutioÌ„ of Bellarmine the Minister insulteth ouer him in these words Who would thinke this man could be a Papist much lesse a Iesuit how much lesse a Cardinal who thus disableth the title of the Pope granting to vs in these wordes after these times that is after six hundred yeares the truth of purer antiquities challenging Popes to be subiect vnto Christian Emperours And yet who but a Papist would as it were in despite of antiquity defend the degenerate state saying after those times Popes might not be subiect in temporall matters As if he should haue said Then gratious fauour of ancient Christian Emperours then sound iudgment of ancient reuerend Fathers then deuout subiection of ancient holy Popes in summe then ancient purity and pure antiquity adieu But we may not so bastardly reiect the depositum and doctrine of humble subiection which we haue receaued from our Fathers of the first six hundred yeares and not so only but which as your Barkley witnesseth the vniuersall Christian world imbraced with common consent for a full thousand yeares So he 29. And doe yow see how this Minister triumpheth Who would thinke that men of conscience or credit could make such ostentation vpon meere lies deuised by themselues as now wee shall shew all this bragge to be And as for D. Barkley alledged in the last lines let any man read him in the booke and Chapter cited and he will wonder at the impudency of this vaunter for he speaketh no one word of gathering Councells or comparison of spirituall authority betweene the Pope and Emperour concerning their gathering of Councelles or Synodes but of a quite different subiect of taking armes by subiectes against their lawfull temporall Princes And what will our Minister then answere to this manifest calumniation so apparently conuinced out of Doctor Barkley But let vs passe to the view of that which toucheth Cardinall Bellarmine against whome all this tempest is raised 30. First then we shall set downe his wordes in Latin according as T. M. citeth him in his margent Tunc Concilia generalia fiebant saith he non sine Imperatorum sumptibus eo tempore Pontifex subiiciebat se Imperatoribus in temporalibus ideo non poterant inuito Imperatore aliquid agere idâ—irco Pontifex supplicabat Imperatori vt iuberet conuocari Synodum At post illa tempora omnes causae
by a certaine excellency doth only belōg vnto him as Caluin is accused to say which in all sensible construction must import that the Sonne is inferiour vnto him in substance of Godhead which is a cheif point of Arrianisine wheron the old Arrians did principally stand in all their disputes against Catholickes 102. And wheras T. M. for his last defense of Caluin saith that he was so farre of from Arrianisme that our owne Bellarmine doth acknowledge that Caluin did impugne the doctrine of the Arrians in this also as in all the rest he vseth great fraud For first Bellarmine hath not this affirmatiue proposition as heere is set downe Caluin did impugne the doctrine of the Arrians but only he confesseth that Caluin and other Sectaries who out of their wicked doctrine cōsenting with the old Arrians haue giuen occasion to the ofspring of new Arrians in our dayes doe notwithstanding write bookes against them as 〈◊〉 did which thing may arise vpon diuers occasions concerning either their persons or sect Bellarmins wordes are these Albeit Luther Melanchthon Caluin and their 〈◊〉 doe 〈◊〉 Arrius for an Heretick yet can they not deny but that themselues in their writinges did sow the seedes of this errour from whence afterwardes sprong vp these new Arrians which they themselues impugne So as Bellarmine doth not speake in this place particularly of Caluins impugning all the doctrine of Arrians as heere this man would seeme to impose vpon him citing falsly this sentence out of him Arrianos Caluinus impugnauit and no more but that he and other Sectaries of our dayes would seeme in some thinges to impugne thē wheras in other thinges they held with them For so presently in the very next wordes doth Bellarmine expresly declare himself where hauing reduced the Heresies of Arrius to two heades saith that the former sort are held publickly by the new Arrians of our dayes wherof the seedes were sowne by Caluin and others but the second sort are held expressely by Caluin and other moderne Sectaries Alterum 〈◊〉 Arrianorum docent omnes huius temporis Haeretici saith he So as in this also there is notable fraudulent dealing of T. M. as yow see yea nothing almost commeth from him without fraude 103. But as for this bragge of his his fellows that Caluin did write diuers books against the new Arrians and Trinitarians of our time as namely against Seruetus Gentilis Alciatus Blandrata and others Doctor Hunnius that hath read their workes his can best make answere decide the matter who saith Pridem hoc inclaruit in orbe Christiano quibus ex Scholis Ecclesiis ipsa illa 〈◊〉 portenta prodierint It is now well knowne in the Christian world out of what schooles and Churches those foule monsters the new Arrians Trinitarians haue proceeded that is to say from the Caluinistes c. And wheras saith he it is vaunted that Caluin did write against these Heretickes wee deny not but that therin he did well albeit in truth he gaue occasion to the diuell by his manner of dealing to raise vp no small number of enemies against the blessed Trinity and consequently he did no otherwise then if one hauing holpen some to set fire on a house should after the flame therof waxeth boysterous help other men also for extinguishing or restrayning the same So Hunnius who finally concludeth with this prayer Dominus Iesus Satanam sub pedes nostros conterat citò a lue Caluinistica clementer liberet Ecclesiam suam Amen Our Lord Iesus crush Satan quickly vnder our feet and of his clemency deliuer his Church from the infection of Caluinistes Thus he and with this praier he endeth his booke 104. And now if this man had byn a Papist great exceptions no doubt would be taken against him but being a brother of the same Ghospell one of those oath promise or other band of conscience As if an vniust Iudge or Magistrate should aske vs things that are without his iurisdiction to the preiudice of our selues or of others as by enquiring after secretes that doe not appertaine to him Or if a iealous husband should aske his wife whether she had euer comitted falshood against him proposing the present paine of death except she answered directly therunto and many other such like cases which I purposely pretermit And it seemeth that Thomas Morton hath not studied them but Catholicke writers both Deuines Scholasticall and Positiue as also Lawyers both Canon and ciuill among vs doe discusse how men may beare themselues therin without sin or offence to God when they fall out and this with more seuerity against lying then any Protestant Author is seene to doe as in the sequent Consideration will appeare 24. And heere I aske Thomas Morton further what he will say to all the stratagems in warre for so much as there may be aswell lying in factes as in wordes according as our S. Thomas and other Deuines doe hold how will T. M. excuse these stratagems that is to say pollicies deceiptes and dissimulations of enemies in warres from lies Will he condemne all such stratagems as sinfull as heathenish as hellish as impious Why then doe his Protestāt Captaines Leaders vse them why doe his Protestāt Ministers that liue with them allow therof Nay that which is much more why doth S. Augustine approue the same whose sentēce is Cùm iustum bellum quis susceperit vtrum aperta pugna vel insidiis vincat nihil ad iustitiam interest When a man taketh vpon him a iust war it importeth nothing to the iustice of the cause whether he ouercome by open war or sleights which sentence is so well liked by our Popes lawyers and Deuines as it is put into the corps of the Canon law And what will T. M. then say to all this yea to many expresse examples in Scripture it self 25. And namely what will he say to the fact of Iosue that going about to take the Citty of Hai gaue order to his Captaines Ponite insidias post Ciuitatem nos terga vertemus c. Lay an ambush behinde the Citty by night and we shall follow with an army in the norning and when those of Hai shal come forth to assaile vs we will seeme to flee simulantes metum feigning to be afraid What will he say to this stratageme will he deny it to be a dissimulation and consequently also an Equiuocation in fact The matter is euident to the contrary by the text it self will he call it a scarre of infirmity of the old Testament to vse his owne Ministeriall or rather Manichean phrase and thinke to escape therby But against this is the expresse order and commandment of God himself Pone insidias vrbi post eam lay an ambush behinde the Citty ergo stratagems in warre though they conteine deceiptes dissimulations and Equiuocations may be vsed in some cases and that lawfully without the sinne of
those to whome it belongeth principally to discusse examine and determine this matter as afterwardes shall be shewed And yet as though he had made no such exception but admitted all kind of writers throughout all times in this matter he maketh this new ridiculous vaunt Shew vs saith he for your mentall reseruation but one Father whether Greeke or Latin one Pope whether Catholicke or Antichristian one Author whether learned or vnlearned who did euer so fancy c. 4. Wherunto I may answere that if the maker of this vaunt had had but one dram of discretion he would neuer haue set downe so many ones to confound himself for that presently we shall shew so many Fathers Greeke and Latin to haue allowed of the foresaid speech as had occasions to handle such Scriptures as conteine like propositions and so many Popes to haue approued the same as haue allowed the said Fathers sentences or haue liued since the collecting of the Canon Lawes wherin the said Fathers sentences are aboundantly cited and set downe and that so many learned graue pious Authors haue byn of this fancy if it be a fancy as haue byn consulted in cases of most moment that comprehend this controuersy So as for this Minister to except against foure hundred yeares togeather which in effect conteineth a graunt of all the learned of that time and yet to challeng one Father one Pope one Author learned or vnlearned sheweth a broken phantasy of an ydle braine indeed 5. But now to lay before the Readers eyes some brief consideration what is reiected in the exclusiō of these last foure hundred yeares about our point in controuersy it is to be noted that the science of Deuinity called by the Greeks Theology for that it is properly immediatly about God matter belonging vnto God hath growne frō time to time according to the growth of mankind and to the most ordinate and excellent prouidence of almighty God as S. Paul diuinely 〈◊〉 in diuers partes of his Epistles which we shall heere indeauour to declare by this particuler deduction that from the beginning of the world vnto the deluge there passing aboue a thousand and six hundred yeares to wit more then from Christ to this time set downe in Scripture vnder the liues only of ten mē there was no other Theology in all that time but only by speech and tradition of Father to sonne freind to friend maister to scholler predecessour to successour and from this againe vnto the time of Abraham which was vpon the point of three hundred yeares the same was obserued and from him to Moyses which was aboue other foure hundred yeares no booke is extant that was written though in these last foure hundred yeares from Abraham to Moyses God had his seuerall people as is knowne which were gouerned without any written word at all 6. But Moyses hauing written the fiue first bookes of the Bible commonly called the Pentateuch so many ages after the beginning of the world and sundry other holy men diuers bookes and Treatises after him againe vntill the comming of Christ albeit the sciēce and study of Deuinity was much enlarged therby yet was it barren in a certaine sort in respect of that which ensued after vnder Christ in the writinges of the Apostles and Apostolicke men and large Commentaries and expositions written theron by succeeding Christian ages which in time growing to be so many and great volumes partly of the said expositions and explanations of Scriptures partly of Treatises bookes and dogmaticall discourses partly of Ecclesiasticall Histories partly of discussions and determinations of Councelles both Generall Nationall Prouinciall and partly finally of resolutions decrees of Bishops chiefe Pastors for directiō of their flocks especially of the highest that held the Chaire for gouerning and moderating of all the rest 7. These thinges I say growing at length to so great a bulke manifold multitude of bookes Treatises tomes and volumes as many men had not time to read them ouer and much lesse leasure and iudgement to digest or conceaue them with that distinction order and perspicuity which was necessary it pleased almighty God out of his continuall prouidence for his said Church to inspire certaine men 〈◊〉 foure hundred years past to reduce the said vast corpes of Deuinity to a cleare methode by drawing all to certaine common places and heades and by handling and discussing the same so punctually distinctly and perspicuously as any good wit in small time may come to comprehend the whole without reading ouer the other so many huge volumes as before was necessary And this method was called afterwardes Schoole-Deuinity for that it did principally consist in disputation and discussion of matters exactly by discending into particulers and dissoluing all doubtes wheras the other manner of 〈◊〉 of Scriptures Fathers Doctors Histories and Councells seuerally remained with the name of positiue Deuinity as contenting it self only with assertiue doctrine without disputation or further discussion 8. The first and principall Authors of this method or methodicall study is accounted to be Petrus Lombardus Bishop of Paris aboue foure hundred fifty yeares past who for that he gathered into the foresaid method of generall heades all that any way appertained to Deuinity out of the sayinges and sentences of Scriptures and Fathers deuiding the same into foure bookes and euery booke into seuerall distinctions he was called afterwardes the Maister of the sentences and many learned men in ensuing times wrote Commentaries theron enlarging with great variety of matter the said method which he had inuented Others also made seuerall Summes of Theology differēt in name but in effect to the same imitation wherof may be accounted one of the first our often named learned Countreyman Alexander of Hales in Suffolke and after him S. Thomas of Aquine vpon whome many other learned men since that time haue and doe vnto this day write large Commentaries Diuers also considering that this methodicall study hath two partes the one speculatiue which is handled principally by the exercise of our vnderstanding in dispute the other moral that apperteineth to manners and action of life sundry learned men doe betake themselues principally to this later as more necessary to practice of Christian life and cases therin to be resolued in Conscience 9. And about the very same time or little before it came to passe by the like prouidēce of almighty God that the same method was thought vpon for reducing the Decrees and Constitutions of Councels Fathers Bishops and Popes apperteyning to Ecclesiasticall gouernment which grew now to be many vnto like general heades bookes causes questions and Chapters 〈◊〉 more facility of comprehending and remembring the same the cheif Author therof being Gratian a learned Monke of S. Benedicts Order which laborious and methodicall compilation approued by Popes at that time and from time to time afterwards and expounded by the writinges and
Sauiour did hold him to be ignorant in deed of the day of Iudgment which being decreed and established by the Church ech Father endeauoured to find out the true reserued meaning of our Sauiour as hath byn said which by experience they proued to be so hard and therwith all to defend the same against the Arrians who vrged strongly the litterall signification of the wordes against Christes Diuinity as some of them held this text to be corrupted as appeared by the testimony both of S. Hierome vpon this place and S. Ambrose in his bookes de fide wherupon euen at this day in S. Matthewes Ghospell where Christ vseth the same speach the word neque filius neither the Sonne knoweth is not read either in Greek or Latin yet was it found in diuers Copies of both languages in old time as may appeare by Origen and S. Chrysostome in Greeke and S. Hilary and S. Augustine in Latin who did read it in their dayes in their Copies of S. Mathews Ghospell as we doe now in S. Marke and therupon as hath byn said indeauoured ech one to find out Christes hidden meaning and mentall reseruation therin 48. As for example Origen S. Epiphanius doe thinke Christes reseruation to haue byn that he knew not the day of Iudgment in this life but in the next and others that he knew it not quoad experientiam by experience for that he had not yet experienced the same nor doth S. Chrysostome seeme in one place altogeather to mislike this interpretation Other Fathers in great number doe thinke Christs meaning and reseruation to haue byn that he knew not of the certaine day of Iudgment as he was man that is to say by vertue of his humanity alone without his diuinity for though as he was man and God he knew it yet not by force or power of his humanity And of this opinion are S Athanasius S. Ambrose S. Gregory Nazianzen S. Cyril Theodoret and others 49. Many Fathers also yea the greatest number of all haue an other exposition expressing the very same reseruatiō in Christes wordes which we talked of in our former proposition affirming that Christes meaning was whē he said he knew not the day of Iudgment that he knew it not so as he might discouer it vnto them or make them know it And so doth hold S. Augustine in many places of his workes S. Chrysostome also in his homilies vpon S. Mathew and S. Marke S. Gregory in his Register S. Hierome and S. Bede in their exposition vpon this place with whome doe concurre Theophilact and diuers others 50. Now then we haue heere that there are three or foure sortes of reseruations at least sought out by the foresaid circūstances touched in the former example al which doe proue vnto vs that in the proposition of Christ the Sonne of man knoweth not of the day or houre of Iudgment is an amphibologicall and Equiuocall mixt proposition conteyning a mentall reseruation of our Sauiour not expressed in his wordes which ouerthroweth and vtterly vndoeth Th. Mortons whole Treatise and how doe yow thinke will he play the man heere to auoid all this battery Yow shall heare it presently and see him brought to miserable straites for thus he beginneth to answere the matter hauing confessed first out of his aduersaries Treatise of Equiuocation that Augustine Ambrose Chrysostome Basil and Theophilact doe expound it so as lastly hath byn said that Christ knew not the day of Iudgment to vtter it to his disciples wherunto he answereth thus 51. It will not saith he be pertinent to oppose the other exposition of Fathers who as your Maldonate saith were many expounding this text thus that Christ as he was man knew not the day and houre This is his first struggle and if it be impertinent as himselfe confesseth why doth he alleadge it but for lacke of better defence and that it is impertinent in deed is euident for that this exposition of some Fathers alleadged by him doth rather proue that there were diuers reseruations in Christes wordes then that there was none at all which he should proue Wherfore it falleth out to Thomas Morton in this case as when playing a bad game at Tables that is past recouery he should say this game is lost which way soeuer I play it and yet will I play it out with what shame soeuer rather then giue it vp Let vs see then what play he maketh 52. He followeth on immediatly after his former speach thus But the question is saith he whether the former exposition of S. Augustine and others doth imply any mentall Equiuocation and because Garnet at his arraignment did select only S. Augustine of all the Fathers we will appeale to S. Augustine for answere to them all by whose testimony it doth appeare that when our Sauiour said I know not the day signifying vt dicam vobis to tell vnto yow this clause wherby he meant to conceale the time was not concealed from thē who though they were by the sense of the speach held in ignorance not to know the day yet were they not ignorant of the sense of the speach which was I may not let yow know it So he And doe yow vnderstand him or doth he not labour asmuch to hold yow in ignorance of his meaning as Christ did his Disciples of the day of iudgment but let vs draw him out of this affected darkenes 53. First he saith the question is and he saith well whether the former exposition of S. Augustine other Fathers doe imply any mentall Equiuocation or rather mentall reseruation which maketh Equiuocation or doubtfulnes of meaning and I see not how he can deny it sor that the proposition Christ knoweth not of the day of Iudgment is false without some reseruation but with the reseruation gathered vpon S. Augustines exposition to wit that he knew it not to make them know it that is to say to vtter it vnto them it is true ergo S. Augustines exposition doth imply and declare vnto vs a manifest mentall reseruation and cōsequently also an Equiuocation For that as before we haue defined the matter Equiuocation or amphibology in this our controuersy is nothing els but when a speach is partly vttered in wordes and partly reserued in mind by which reseruation the sense of the proposition may be diuers 54. Secondly wheras Thomas Morton saith that Father Garnet at his arraignment did select only S. Augustine of all other Fathers to depend vpon concerning the former exposition of Christes wordes and therfore that he also will appeale to S. Augustine for answere to them all it is a shift therby to auoid the authority of all the other Fathers both in this and the other expositions before mentioned all which doe conclude against him as hath byn said that there is a mentall reseruation in Christes wordes without which vnderstood the proposition is false Neither did Father Garnet so select S.
reason therof being not only that which heere Sepulueda doth touch but 〈◊〉 for that which before hath 〈◊〉 insynuated that thinges knowne in Almighty Gods Court and trybunall and as vttered vnto himself may truly be denyed to be knowne in a humaine tribunall and as the priest is a priuate man and not a publicke minister of God 5. One only Case there is wherin all the said Deuines agree that a Confessor may vtter any Cryme confessed vnto him Vnus est solus casus saith Tolet in quo Confessarius potest alteri manifestare peccatum Confessionis c. One only case there is in which the Confessor may manifest a syn heard in Confession vnto an other to wit by licence and Commission of the penitent himself which thing Doctor Nauarre doth proue at large by the common opinion of S. Thomas other Schoole Deuines with the concurrence and consent of the Canon law and lawyes cyted by him And then must he reueale it also but to him alone for whom he hath licence qui 〈◊〉 casu reuelat grauissimè peccat 〈◊〉 saith Tolet and whosoeuer in any other case doth reueale it he doth sinne a most grieuous mortall sinne and 〈◊〉 also the punishment assigned by the church in the Canon law for so heynous a cryme And if further saith he any wicked Iudge should compell him to reueale the same vnder an oath he may 〈◊〉 that he knoweth no such sinne though he know it indeed but yet knoweth it not so as he may reueale it And this is the common Doctryne of all disputed more at large by the Reuerend and learned man Dominicus Sotus the Emperour Charles his Confessor in a speciall Treatise called Relectio de tegendo 〈◊〉 A Relection about couering secrets wherin he sheweth how farre a man may disclose them and what obligation he hath of conscience to conceale them in euery sorte or kind And thus much breifly for this first case The second case about Secretes of the Common welth §. 2. 6. THE second Case that for obligation of secrecy commeth next to this first though in a different degree is when Magistrates and such as haue gouernement in the Common wealth as Senatours Councellours Gouernours Secretaries Notaries and 〈◊〉 like and con equently do know the secrets therof 〈◊〉 pressed to vtter them which they may not do in matters of moment and that may turne to the preiudice of the said 〈◊〉 wealth or of any particuler man if the businesse be of great weight and handled secretly by the Cōmon wealth for any cause or peril whatsoeuer yea though their liues should go therin for that they are more bound by reason of their offices to the reseruation of publicke secrets both by law of nature humane diuine then priuate men are though as Dominicus Sotus in his foresaid booke De tegendo Secreto doth shew that a priuate man also comming to know any secrets of the Common wealth is bound vnder mortall sinne to conceale them and rather to suffer death then to disclose the same especially to enemyes as the Ciuil law also declareth but much more those that are in publicke office wherof Sotus giueth this example among other If a Iudge which heareth a weighty cause should be assayled by one party vt merita causae prodat to vtter the merites or secrets of the cause debet potius gladio succumbere quam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He ought rather to suffer himselfe to be slayne by the sword then to breake his faith by vttering that secret but much greater more greiuous sinne it should be to vtter the same for money or bribery hatred malice or other like cause Et idem crediderim saith he de Scribis quorum fidei causae graues committuntur and the same I would thinke of Notaryes Scribes or Secretaries to whose faith weightie matters are committed 7. And finally the said Author hauing handled in the first part of his said learned booke the great obligation that man hath by law both of faith iustice equitie and charitie to conceale secrets he putteth these degrees therof In primo gradu saith he est secretum Confessionis in secundo secretum publicum c. In the first degree is the secret of Confession wherof we haue handled before in the second degree is the secret of the Common wealth out of Confession in the third degree is the secret of priuate persons and that in different sort all which we are bound to conceale ordinarily vnder the payne of mortall sinne except the smalnes of the cause do sometymes excuse the same and make it veniall So this learned man and it is the common opinion of other Schoole-Deuines in like manner 8. Wherfore seing the obligation not only of concealing secrets heard in Confession but of those also that be secular out of Confession is so great especially of those that be publicke and appertayne to the common wealth it followeth that when a man shall be vniustly pressed to vtter the same he may not only deny to vtter them which he must do vpon payne of damnation as yow haue heard but also dissemble to know them by any way of lawfull speach that may haue a true sense in his meaning though in his that presseth to know them it be otherwise wherof besides that which in the precedent Chapters hath byn said we shall haue occasion to treate more in the next case ensuing which is more generall For if it be lawfull for any priuate man that is called in question touching matters concerning himselfe and is wrongfully vrged to vtter his secrets to make euasion by any kind of lawfull amphibologie or Equiuocation as presently shall be proued then much more in defence of the publicke secret that concerneth the good of the Common wealth may the said Magistrate or publicke officers when they are iniustly demaunded or vrged contrary to the forme of law vse the benefit of like euasion so they speake no lye which alwayes is presupposed to be forbidden as vnlawfull for what cause soeuer and so much the more for that being publicke persons and as such knowing the said secrets of the common wealth they may as 〈◊〉 persons deny to know the same with this or like true reseruation of mynd so as they are bound or may vtter the same vnto him that vnlawfully demaundeth c. 9. And for that this case as hath byn said is for the most parte included handled againe in that which ensueth we shall heere treate the same no further nor cite more Authors about the determination therof for that those arguments and authorities that determine the one do decyde also the other The third case about any Party accused or called in Question §. 3. 10. THE third Case considerable in this place is de Reo of the partie accused or called in question in iudgement what or how he is bound to answere vnto crymes laid against him or to interrogatoryes proposed
disputeth Caluin though more cyuilly and cunningly about the same matter saying Non est cur vlla hominum authoritate vel annorum praescriptione c. There is no reason why we should suffer our selues to be drawne a side from the doctrine we teach by any authority of men or prescription of yeares Where yow see that he graunteth both antiquity of time and authority of the ancient Fathers to be against him in that controuersy of the Masse and Sacrifice And as we haue shewed the same in this article so might we in all the rest if time and place did permit but this is sufficient to proue in my opinion that the protestation of M. Iewell before mencyoned which so solemnly he made in the presence of almighty God was feigned and hypocriticall when he saith Not one father not one Doctor c. and then addeth for more asseueration when I say not one I speake not in vehemency of spirite or heate of talke but euen as before God by the way of simplicity and truth For if M. Iewell did know that this his maisters and elders Luther and Caluin were forced to reiect generally all the Fathers or the most parte of them for that they were against him for the sacrifice of the Masse then was it notable cosening Equiuocation to sweare protest before God in simplicity that no one did make for vs either in this or the rest of the articles 26. The fifth reason is for that we see by experience that all other English Protestant writers succeeding M. Iewell and being as it were his schollers and participating of his spirite sense and meaning began presently to reiect and cast of the Fathers vpon euery occasion wherin they were pressed by their authority as by the writings of Doctor Calshill Doctor Humfrey Fulke Charke VVhitakers and others is euident wherof I will alleadge only one example out of the last named in steed of all who being pressed with the consent of Fathers in a 〈◊〉 controuersy against him answered in this wise We repose no such confidence in the Fathers writinges that we take any certain proofe of Religion frō them because we place all our Faith and Religion not in humaine but in diuine Authority If therfore you bring vs what some one Father hath thought or what the Fathers vniuersally altogeather haue deliuered the same except it be approued by testimonyes of scriptures auayleth nothing it gayneth nothing it conuinceth nothing For the Fathers are such witnesses as they also haue need of the Scriptures to be their witnesses If deceyued by error they giue forth their testimony disagreeing from Scriptures albeit they may be pardoned erring for want of wisdome we cannot be pardoned if because they erred we also will erre with them So Doctor VVhitakers Where yow see what accompt he maketh of ancient Fathers and Doctors Patres etiam simul 〈◊〉 to vse his owne wordes yea all Fathers put togeather without proofe of Scripture to Authorize them it 〈◊〉 nothing saith he gayneth nothing it conuinceth nothing So as if M. Iewell had dealt plainly he might only haue called for Scripture at our hands and not so often for Fathers knowing by all probability aswell as his schollers that the Fathers were at least in many controuersyes against him and what Equiuocation then was this to call so often and earnestly for ancient Fathers yea some one place or sentence some two lines for wynning of the field was not this singuler and extraordinary yea hypocrisy and lying Equiuocation in the highest degree 27. The sixt reason is the consideration of his earnest exhorting of Catholickes to answere his Chalenge Now it standeth vpon yow saith he to proue but one affirmatiue against me and so to require my promise of subscribing And againe If yow of your parte would vouchsafe to bring but two lynes the whole matter were concluded And yet further Me thinketh both reason and humanity would that yow should answere somewhat especially being so often and so openly required c. VVhy be yow so loth being so earnestly required to shew forth but one Doctor of your side c. VVhat thinke you there is now iudged of you that being so long tyme required yet cannot be wonne to bring forth one sentence in your defence And yet againe more earnestly I protest before God bring me but one sufficient authority in the matters I haue required and afterward I will gently and quietly conferre with yow further at your pleasure And therfore for as much as it is Gods cause if yow meane simply deale simply betray not your right if yow may saue it with one word the people must needs muse at your silence for thinke not that any wise man will be so much your friend as in so weighty matters he will be satisfied with your said silence c. And not content with this he concludeth in these wordes of earnest exhortation Wherfore heere I leaue putting yow eft-somes gently in remembrance that being so often and so openly desired to shew forth one Doctor c. Yow haue brought nothing and that if yow stand so still it must needs be thought yow do it conscientia imbecillitatis for that there was nothing to be brought And heere once againe I conclude as before putting yow in remembrance that this long tyme I haue desired yow to bring forth some sufficient Authority for proofe of your party Thus farre M. Iewell 28. And would yow not thinke that this desire this intreaty this vrging and prouocation did proceed from a great confidence in his cause Truly if the confidence were not great the crafte and dissimulation was singuler but what ensued M. Doctor Harding and other learned men lying in Flanders being moued by zeale of Religion and prouokd by these insolent eggings began soone after to write bookes in answere of these challenges and to lay open the vntruthes and vanities therof which labours wrought so great effect with diuers of the discreeter sorte both Catholickes Protestants in England as M. Iewell thought it best to procure the publike prohibition of those bookes by the Magistrate for which he had so earnestly called before wherupō there were diligēt searches made to find out the same both in the vniuersities townes cittyes portes of the Realme as one that was then a searcher among others and a Protestant preacher in Oxford but conuerted afterward by these very reasons and by the vntruthes found in M. Iewell bookes doth testifie at large in an answere of his written to M. D. VVhitakers whose wordes I haue thought good to sett downe in this place For hauing refuted a speach of M. VVhitakers who pretended to be very glad that the Rhemes English Testament was abroad in many mens handes M. Reynolds writeth thus With like phrase saith he and character of shamelesse vaunting wrote M. Iewell to Doctor Harding saying VVe neuer suppressed any of your bookes M. Harding as
last words M. Iewell leaueth out of purpose to couer and conceale the meaning of our Sauiour and addeth of himselfe quod vni dico which our Sauiour hath not And thirdly he peruerteth wholy the meaning of Christ which was to perswade attention and watchfulnes about the day of Iudgement and applyeth it against the preheminence of S. Peter his Authority which he well knew to be farre from our Sauiours meaning And moreouer there ensueth an other most grosse absurditie which is that our Sauiour speaking to all euery one of them that were present when he saith vigilate be watchfull it followeth I say that in M. Iewels sense and application of his wordes euery one to whome the word vigilate apperteyneth which are all sortes and sexes of people both there 〈◊〉 and absent should haue as great spirituall authority ouer the Church of God as S. Peter quia quod vni dico omnibus dico whatsoeuer I say to only Peter to wit that he must feede that he is the rocke and the like I say to all men And now let any indifferent man consider with what conscience M. Iewell could feigne Christ to say as he alledgeth For either he had read the place in S. Marke which he cyteth or had not If not it was great negligence the matter and subiect being so weighty as it was and if he did and yet alledged it quite otherwise then there it is found what shall we say of this 〈◊〉 dealing What of such lying and perfidious Equiuocation who in this can excuse or defend him for a man of any conscience at all 43. And yet was he forsooth the Father and chiefe maister of all 〈◊〉 Caluinian doctrine in Englād which was first established by Queene Elizabeth at her entring for that Zuinglianisme had bene only admitted in King Edwardes dayes he was not only held for the chiefe preacher and teacher therof but for the publicke Champion also to defend it and therfore as the doctrine was false so must he haue a more speciall eminent gift of cunning and falshood to beare it out then other men for that others were to take 〈◊〉 eius of his fulnesse in that science And albeit he had diuers brethren also at that time that did participate with him of that spirite in their writings as M. Horne Bishop of VVinchester by name and some others yet were they esteemed farre inferior to M. Iewell in this point especially in the elegancy of cōueyance though in will and substance they might be equall And so if yow looke vpon six hundred fourescore and ten vntruthes which Doctor Stapleton gathered out of one worke of the said M. Horne written against Doctor Fecknam about the oath of the supremacy yow shall fynd as many and grosse lyes as any lightly of M. Iewell but not so sleightly 〈◊〉 nor smoothly faced out 44. As for example where he auoucheth flatly that the cōuersion of our King 〈◊〉 of Britanie and of his whole Realme establishing therof was done without any knowledge or consent of Pope Eleutherius is so grosse alye as it is refutable by all historyes from that tyme to ours yea by Iohn Fox Bale themselues who were greatest enemyes to all Popes So as this matter was not handsomely carryed And againe in the same worke M. Horne pretending to alledge some temporall lawyers to his purpose against the Popes Ecclesiasticall preheminence in England cyteth one Broughton as saying That the king 〈◊〉 Supreme in his Kingdome and saffereth no equall or superior and other such pointes which are not denyed when speach is of temporall men and affayres and he leaueth out diuers other passages in the very same Author and place which he cyteth expresly affirming that in spirituall affayres the Pope Bishops are to Iudge not temporall men which is the very decision of the Controuersie 45. And in this kind I might alledge an excefsiue multitude both out of the one the other Bishops workes but that the repetition therof would be ouer tedious albeit it fell not out without Gods speciall prouidence in that beginning that so notorious falsityes should be vttered and published to the world by these chiefe ring-leaders for that sundry principall Protestants that were curious to read these books in that 〈◊〉 entrance of heresye were conuerted made Catholicke by this speciall and principall motiue that they 〈◊〉 so many notorious and inexcusable vntruthes vttered by these principall men in their writinges at that day wherof I my selfe knew sundry in some other place haue named three one in the vniuersity of 〈◊〉 M. VVilliam 〈◊〉 a learned and zealous preacher of the Protestant doctrine the other in the court Syr Thomas Copley made afterward Lord by the King of France a great follower of my Lord of 〈◊〉 and feruent in the new profession as being extraordinarily well seene for a man of his calling in controuersies himself the third in London M. Doctor Stephens Secretary to M. Iewell and well seene at that time in Deuinity and the learned tongues all which made change of their Religion though to their great temporal losses vpon the great auersion they tooke at the discouery of the wilfull falshood of these chiefe teachers of new Religion whervpon the first of the aboue named three maketh this marginall note in a booke of his written against M. Doctor VVhitaker The incredible lying saith he and falsisication vsed by the 〈◊〉 writers of our time are a great motiue to the Catholicke 〈◊〉 And then in the text he declareth the matter further in these wordes 46. I know many saith he who hauing byn brought 〈◊〉 not in Catholike Religion but in heresie with M. 〈◊〉 and continuing a long tyme in the same and 〈◊〉 it with all their hartes yet comming afterwards to better iudgement through the grace of God vpon consideration of such lying writers as 〈◊〉 VVhitakers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to wit Maister 〈◊〉 Maister Horne c. haue byn so altered as they haue detested his ghospell euen to hel gates of which number I confesse my selfe to be one So he 47. And surely if we consider the speciall learning and vertu of this man and how he had read exactly all writhers that could be gotten of the Protestants side of what sort or sect soeuer as by his writings doth well appeare as also with what singuler patiēce humility and contentement of mynd he lyued for many yeares after in voluntary banishment and pouerty for loue of the Catholicke Religion wheras by accommodating himselfe to the current of the tyme he might haue receyued great prefermēt in his country and was in the way towards them when he lefte the same he will say that this motiue of lying Equiuocation in Protestant writers had made deepe and strong impression in him in deed And thus much for the Bishops now let vs looke into the like spirite of Ministers in this behalfe The vse of Equiuocating in English Protestant-Ministers §.
any other faith but that which all Christian Churches haue but only that there is greater deuotion in them and greater simplicity to beleeue 71. These are S. Hieroms wordes which if Syr Francis had set downe wholy and simply as the lye in him he saw how they would make against him in diuers poynts and therfore he willingly and wittingly cut of both the beginning and ending as yow haue heard applied the midst to a wrong sense neuer thought of by the Author himselfe And the same is proued against him in the allegation of many other Authors as of S. Augustine pag. 18. of S. Bede and Arnobius pag. 34. 35. and of S. Chrysostome pag. 52. all to one end corruptly and fraudulently alleadged for some shew of proofe that publike seruice ought to be in vulgar tongues only which yet being truly examined make nothing for his purpose but quite contrary And thus much in this place for the first Knight 72. As concerning the second Knight Syr Philip Mornay his case is notorious that hauing published a great booke full of authorities against the Masse vpon the yeare 1599. seeming to shew great learning therin the same was fond afterward to be so full of deceipts and wilfull falsifications as a very learned man Monsieur Peron then Bishop of Eureux and now Cardinall made publike offer to proue aboue fiue hundred such wilfull falsifications to be in that booke requesting also by humble suite his Maiesty of France to command publike triall with his presence as at length it was effectuated in the presence of the King and great parte of his 〈◊〉 and other learned men on both sides vpon the yeare 1600. and 4. of May as appeareth both by the Kings owne letter extant in print as also by the publike Acts set forth by the approbation of the said King and his Counsell 73. In this Conserence of tryall fiue hundred wilfull falsifications being obiected as I said to this Knight and when the tyme grew neere three score 〈◊〉 exhibited vnto him by the said Bishop out of which to make his choise for the first dayes tryall the said Syr Philip Mornay choise 19. of those which he thought himselfe best able to defend or excuse and of this number also he placed in the first ranke such as seemed to him to be of least enormity wherof notwithstāding the straitnes of tyme permitting only 9. to be handled he was conuinced publikely in all and euery one of them and had sentence geuen against him by the Iudges as well Protestants chosen of his side as the other that were of the Bishops Religion the summe wherof I shall briefly touch in this place 74. The first was that he had falsified the Schole-Doctor Ioannes Scotus alleadging him as though he had doubted of the Reall-presence for that hauing proposed the question whether Christ were really in the Sacrament vnder the formes of bread and wyne he did according to the fashion of Scholes make arguments to the contrary saying Videtur quòd non it seemeth that he is not so there for these and these reasons which afterwards he solueth and holdeth the contrary position for true and Catholike to wit that Christs body is really there wherupon the sentence of the Iudges was that Mōsieur Plessis in this matter had taken the obiection of Scotus for his resolution 75. The second falsification wherof he was conuinced was that he had alledged Bishop Durandus an other Scholasticall Author very fraudulently about the controuersie of Transubstantiation affirming him to say and hold for his owne position that which he cyteth only as an obiection out of an other and answereth the same The third and fourth falsifications were that he had corrupted plainly S. Chrysostome in two seuerall places by him alledged about prayer for the dead producing two particuler testimonyes out of him quite contrary to his owne meaning and expresse wordes The fifth was out of S. Hierome about praying to Saints The sixth out of S. Cyrill about honouring the holy Crosse. The seauenth out of the Code or Imperiall lawes about painting or keruing the signe of the said Crosse. The eight out of S. Bernard about honouring our blessed Lady The ninth and last of an authority of Theodorete about Images 76. All which places being diligently examined and Syr Philipp Mornay suffred to say and alledge what he could for his defence or euasion he was conuinced manifestly by the said Bishop of Eureux and sentenced by all the Iudges to haue committed falfification and vntrue dealing in them all And the like would the said Bishop haue shewed declared in all the rest to the number of fiue hundred if the said Mornay could haue byn brought to haue continued the combat which he would not as yow may see in the said publike Acts printed in French vpon the yeare 1601. with approbation of the King himselfe And he that will see more particulers of this in the English tōgue may read a Treatise or relation therof set forth in the yeare 1604. taken out of the foresaid French publike Acts of the said tryall And so this shall serue for this French Knight wherby yow may see the conformity of spirit in them all when occasion is offered to Equiuocate in the worst sense 77. Our last example then shall be of S. Edward Cooke lately the Kings Attorney who hauing taken vpon him these yeares past to be both a sharpe writer and earnest actor against Catholiks seemeth therwith to haue drunke also of this spirite in such aboundant measure as he is like in tyme to ouer-runne all the rest if he go forward as he hath begonne For that being admonished not long agoe by one that answered his last booke of Reportes of diuers notorious his excesses committed in this kind he is men say so farre of from correcting or amēding the same as he hath not only in a late large declamatiō against Catholicks in a charge giuē by him at Norwich repeated and auouched againe the same excesses but hath 〈◊〉 others also therunto of much more apparant falsity As for example he was admonished among other points that it was a notorious vntruth which he had writen and printed that for the first ten yeares of Queene Elizabeths raigne no one person of what religion or sect so euer did refuse to go to the Protestants Church and seruice which the Answerer confuteth so clearly and by so many witnesses as a man would haue thought that the matter would neuer haue byn mencioned more for very shame and yet now they say that the Attorney being made a Iudge hath not only repeated the same but auouched it also againe with such asseueration in his foresaid Charge as if it had neuer byn controlled or proued false 78. Nay further they write that he adioyned with like asseueration diuers other things no lesse apparātly false then this as for example