A QVIET AND SOBER RECKONING VVITH M. THOMAS MORTON somewhat set in choler by his Aduersary P. R. CONCERNING Certaine imputations of wilfull falsities obiected to the said T. M. in a Treatise of P. R. intituled Of Mitigation some part wherof he hath lately attempted to answere in a large Preamble to a more ample Reioynder promised by him But â—eere in the meane space the said imputations are iustified and confirmed with much increase of new vntruthes on his part returned vpon him againe So as finally the Reckoning being made the Verdict of the Angell interpreted by Daniel is verified of him Daniel 5. vers 27. Appensus es in statera inuentus es minus habens You haue byn weighed in the ballance are found to want weight There is also adioyned a peece of a Reckoning with Syr Edward Cooke now L. Chief Iustice of the CoÌ„mon Pleas about a Nihil dicit some other points vttered by him in two late Preambles to his sixt and seauenth Partes of Reports Permissu Superiorum M. DC IX THE STATE OF THE QVESTION handled in this Booke MAISTER Thomas Morton vpon the yeare 1606. tooke vpon him to write a malicious Disâ—oâ—erie against Catholicks and their doctrine about Rebellion presently vpon the powder-treason and the Pamphlet was soone after confuted and returned vpon himselfe by the Moderate Answerer he replyed with a discourse intituled A full Satisfaction adding therunto another Treatise against Equiuocation To this opposed himselfe P. R. Author of the Treatise tending to Mitigation and handled in the same both the one and other subiect charging him further with many foule faultes of witting falsehood wherunto M. Morton hath exhibited now lastly a large new Preamble with promise of another booke to follow in time that is to say he hath presented a great head without a body and this with no small signes of extraordinary impatience For pacifying wherof P. R. hath takeÌ„ the paines to reuiew oâ—â—er againe the accompts and findeth him farre more faultie then before For that in lieu of clearing old debts he contracteth new and in excusing former falsities he multiplieth many other So as now The chiefe question commeth to be Whether M. Mort. in the cause he defendeth can write truely or no whether his falshood therin be voluÌ„tary or necessarie or rather both that is to say voluntary in respect of himselfe that might haue omitted them and necâ—ssarie in regard of his cause that could not be defended without themâ— and consequently in different respects both voluntary and necessary In which point M. Morton holdeth the negatiue I the affirmatiue The Reader shall see the proofes of both sides A BRIEF NOTE OF THE CHAPTERS VVHICH ARE set forth more largely in the end of this Booke with their seuerall Paragraphes THE first conteyneth the Answere to M. Morton his first Inquiry about the VVit Learning Memorie c. of his Aduersary P.R. 2 The second answereth the secoÌ„d Inquiry about some points touching the subiect of Rebellion and Equiuocation 3 The third haÌ„dleth a part of the third Inquiry about many falsities obiected by M. Morton against Cardinall Bellarmine 4 The fourth discusseth like imputations of falsities obiected by him against his Aduersary P. R. 5 The fift examineth how substaÌ„tially M. Morton endeauoureth to â—â—â—are himselfe from many wilfull vntruthes obiected against him by P.R. 6 The sixt layeth forth a great number of vntruthes obiected to M. Morton which he pretermitteth without answere or mention 7 The seauenth wherin are haÌ„dled diuers other sorts of voluntary omissions of M. Morton aswell in defending himself as the credit of his Clients commended vnto him and namely of Syr Edward Cooke now Lord Chiefe Iustice. 8 The eight treateth diuers seuerall points with the sayd Syr Edward Cooke about two new Prefaces of his lately set forth in print 9 The ninth returning to M. Morton againe layeth togeather another choice number of new falsities and falshoods made in excuse of the old 10 The tenth and last handleth twelue new Challenges made by M. Morton after the Victory lost There is added for an Appendix in the end a Case of Equiuocation newly written from England to be resolued about the false Oath of two Ministers VVherin there is mention also made of D. Kings Sermon at the Court vpon the fiâ—th of Nouember 1608. Cyprian lib. 4. Ep. 9. A pud prophanos extra Ecclesiam positos esse aliud non potest nisi mens praua fallax lingua odia venenata sacrilega mendacia Idem lib. 1. Ep. 3. ad Cornelium Haec est verè dementia non cogitare nec sentire quòd mendacia non diu fallant noctem tamdiu esse quamdiu illucescat dies clarificato autem die sole oboâ—to luci tenebras caliginem cedere Hilarius lib. de Trinit Haeretici cùm stultè mentiantur stultiùs tamen in mendacij sui defensione sapiunt THE EPISTLE DEDICATORY TO THE VNIVERSITIES OF ENGLAND MVCH more then one yeare is not yet past learned CouÌ„try-men since I preseÌ„ted vnto you a Treatise intituled of Mitigation in answere of an other most bitterly writteÌ„ by M. Thomas Morton Miniâ—â—er about Rebellion Equiuocation In which Treatise of myne besydes the two said poynts of principall argument handled at large especially the later as more capable of varietie in the Treatise therof a great multitude of falsities were layd open as vttered by M. Morton and those so frequent grosse and palpable as they must needes be thought to haue beene both willfull and witting the censure wherof notwithstanding I was content to remitt vnto yow as presuming more of the integrity of your iudgments in poynts of learning and matter of fact then distrusting the sequele of your vnequall affections by reason of our difference in religion 2. This Treatise M. Morton perusing fynding himselfe as it seemeth not a litle strayned therein was carried therby into so great exorbitant a streame of passion as neyther he could stay himselâ—e from answering somewhat out of hand therby to preueÌ„t the Readers preiudice as himselfe confesseth nor yet daring to ioyne yssue vpon my booke and argument therof as it lay did after a strange new fashionâ— deuise to set forth a Preamble for some present remedy accompanied with a promise of a larger booke Reioynder to ensue afterwards And I do call this a strange deuise not only for that I haue not seene the same often practized by any writer lightly except Syr Edward Cooke who perhaps by this mans imitation hath answered of late with a Preface of lesse then foure leaues in quarto his Aduersaries booke of more then two hundred against him but also for that in this Preamble which inlargeth it selfe to aboue two hundred twentie pages there is not the tenth part bestowed vpoÌ„ the two chiefe Questions of Rebellion Equiuocation but rather vpon other matters subiects framed by himselfe of nâ—w wheâ—of thâ— most may iusâ—ly be deâ—med wholy
endeuour to deceiue Three things also I must confesse to haue bâ—ne the speciall causes of this griefe and indignation sâ—metimes conceiued The first to see a yong man as they say you are so lately come from the Schooles so lightly furnished and so little expâ—rienced in greater studies as scarsely you could haue life or leasure to looke at the varietie of Bookes Authors that haue written therof especially concerning the Catholick religion for a thousand yeares togeather which you grant to be ours to come forth as it were in his hose and dublet challeng the whole Church of God and the whole ranke of profound learned men therof whose bookes for deep learning iudgement and varietie of reading you can not but confesse in truth and modestie that you are not able to beare after them And fynallie they are thousands and you are but one thy were ould you are yong their beards were hoarie and gray yours is yet red they wore out their ages with studie you haue yet but lately begone they haue had the continuance of many ages the wit learning experience diligence of all Christian Nations that held the same Religion with them your prescription of tyme is small your association of fellowes Fathers Doctors or Councells lesse For if you goe out of the little Iland of Britany where all that professe themselues Protestants in all things are not wholy with you you shall fynd abroad all the rest in most things against you And yet do you so confidently tryumph and insult euery where as though you alone were able to ouercome and vanquish whatsoeuer was established before you in our ReligioÌ„ different from yours saying euery where with contempt when you speake of this ranke of learned men and when any thing displeaseth you in them your owne Bishops your owne Doctors your owne CouÌ„cells your owne Fathers your owne Popes say this or that yea though they were neuer so ancient and holie As of three Popes togeather Zozimus Bonifacius Celestinus that liued with S. Augustine and were highly commended by him aboue twelue hundred yeares agoe you speake so contemptuouslie as if they had byn some three petty Ministers of your owne ranke And this I confesse to haue byn one principall cause of my sharpe wryting against you which yet if you would once amend on your part you should quiâ—klie fynd correspondence on myne And so I suppose â—ou will perceaue that I haue begone in this Booke â—hough whiles you perseuâ—re in your old vayne of preâ—â—mption and insolencie you are like to drawe forth â—nsweres nothing pleasing your owne humor which â—ing of pryde as in all Sectaries as accustâ—med to be 〈◊〉 liketh humility and patience in all people but only 〈◊〉 themselues Another cause was the circuÌ„stance of tyme when 〈◊〉 wrote your first Discouerie against Catholikes 〈◊〉 not being contented to haue set abroad diuers â—â—â—tings of yours in Latin touching fâ—ygned absurdâ—â—â—es and contraries of dâ—ctrine fâ—und as you preâ—â—â—â— in their wrytings wherof you are like shortlie â—heare out of Germany to receiue the said abâ—â—â—dities and falshoods doubled vpon your self as â—â—u will perceiue by that piece of the latyn Epistle â—â—itten from thence which I haue imparted with â—â—u in the last Chapter of this my râ—â—koning not â—â—ntented I saie with this iniurie offered vs â—ou watching a tyme of pressure and tribulation fynding the same to fall out in full measure by the hatefull accident of the powder-treason you raÌ„ne as the Rauen to the fallen sheep to picke out her eyes that is to say to adde exasperation to exasperation affliction to affliction calumniation to sycophancy against all sortes of Catholicks And then came forth in hast your litle infamous bloudie Lybell without a name which out of your charitie would needs make all Catholiks Traytors in the very roote of Catholicisme it self that is to say in the fundamentall doctrine of their Religion So as euerie one of them must be forced to denie his faith in that ReligioÌ„ or else acknowledge himself trayterous in his duty of temporall allegiaÌ„ce and subiection Which paradox to make somewhat probable you were forced to accompanie with so manie fraudulent shiftes deceipts and falsities as haue byn conuinced against yow in my former Treatise coÌ„firmed now in this which though of it self it moued no small indignation to see so many manifest falshoods so bouldly auouched and ratified againe by you afterwards as in this fynall reckoning will apeare yet must I confesâ—e that the forsaid circumstance of time did principally mooue me to be more sharpe in my CoÌ„futation And it made me also to remember a certaine historie that I had read in old Lactantius Firmianus in his first booke intituled De Iustitia which I shall recite as I fynd it in hym yow may apply vnto your self so much therof as yow maie thinke to fit you The storie is of a certayne heathen Philosopher who in tyme of persecution tooke occasion to write against Christian religion Ego saith Lactantius cùm in Bithynia Oratorias litteras accitus docerem c. When as I being sent for taught Rhetoricke in Bithynia and the Churches of Christians by the Edicts of Diocletian Maximinian were commanded to be ouerthrowne a certaine chief Philosopher taking the occasion of that tyme nescio vtrum superbiùs an importuniùs iacenti atque abiectae veritati insultaret did insult ouer the truth of Christes Religion oppressed and trodden vnder foot I know not whether with greater pryde or importunity c. And then he describeth at large the manners of this Philosopher which were ouerlong to repeate heere I meane of his Lybertine life of his good fare of his ambiâ—ion with the Magistrate and Princes And fyâ—ally he saith of him Disputationes suas moribus destruebat mores disputationibus arguebat ipse aduersus se grauis censor acerâ—imus accusator He ouerthrew his disoutations â—ith his manners and condemned his owne manners by his disputations being a graue Censurer and most sharp accuser against himselfe And theÌ„ saith further Eodem ipso tempore quo iustus populus nefariè lacerabatur tres Libros euomuit contra Religionem nomenque Christianum In the very self same time that the innocent Christian people were impiously torne in pieces by the persecutor he cast forth three Bookes against the Religion and name of Christians And Lactantius addâ—th that albâ—it he was effusus in PrincipuÌ„ laudes and flattered the Emperors then liuing no lâ—sse thâ—n M. Morton hath done ours yet all sortes of men aswell Hâ—athen as others did mislyke and detest his cruell deuise to wryte against themâ— when as they lay vnder so heauie a yoke of present persecution Id omnes arguebant saith he quòd illo potissimùm tempore id opeâ—is esâ—et agressus quo furebat odiosa crudelitas All sortes of men did condemne this that he had taken in hand to put forth his bookes at that
Suarez and last of all Baronius do yeald most euident probabilityes and others that admitting it for the speach of Epiphanius do very sufficiently answere the same otherwise yet that in deed it maketh nothing at all against the Catholicke vse of sacred Images is so euident by conferring their answeres togeather as nothing can be more 48. As namely first for that Baronius and others do proue abundantly out of Paulinus Venantius Fortunatus Euodius other ancient authors that the vse of images was ordinary frequent in the tyme of S. Epiphanius Suarez confirmeth the same out of old holy Fathers Doctors of the Greeke Church his equals to wit S. Chrysostome S. Basill S. Gregory NanianzeÌ„ Gregory Nissen others wherof is inferred that it is not probable that S. Epiphanius would set downe a thing so coÌ„trary to the coÌ„mon receaued doctrine practice of his tyme or yf he had it would haue byn noted contradicted by some 49 Secondly it is proued out of the second Nicene Councell that the disciples of S. Epiphanius did set vp his picture publiquely in his Church of Cyprus soone after his death which they would neuer haue done if S. Epiphanius in his life tyme had held it for an abuse contrary to the authority of Scriptures to haue the picture of any man set vp in the Church 50. Thirdly S. Iohn Damascenus that liued very neere 900. yeares gone testifyeth in his first Oration of Images that the said Church of S. Epiphanius in Cyprus had continued from that tyme to his imaginibus exornata adorned with images and therupon inferreth that whatsoeuer is found in him sounding against the pious vse of Images is counterfaite thrust into his workes by the Iconoclast Heretiks And in the foresaid Councell of Nice it selfe which was held in his tyme one Epiphanius a Deacon did shew two other like places to haue bene thurst into his bookes by the same Hereticks 51. Fourthly it appeareth by the sayd Councell by S. Iohn Damascen in his forsaid Oration that this place of S. Epiphanius in his Epistle to Iohn of Hierusalem was neuer obiected against Images eyther in the Councell it selfe or by Claudius Taurinensis or any other Iconoclast at that tyme which they would not haue omitted to do if in those dayes such a testimony had byn extant in so graue an author as was S. Epiphanius 52. Fifthly S. Gregory the Great obiecting to a certayne Bishop of Massiles called Serenus somewhat the like fact of breaking Images saith vnto him as is extant in his owne Epistle Dic Frater à quo factuÌ„ Sacerdote aliquando est quod fecisti Tell me brother of what Priest was it euer heard that he attempted a fact like vnto this of yours Which he would neuer haue said if the other might haue answered I haue heard and read the same done by the great and holy Archbishop S. Epiphanius 53. Lastly to omit diuers proofes which our men do alleage if S. Epiphanius had held for an errour and abuse against the Authority of Scriptures to haue Images in the Church as our moderne Protestants will needes force it vpon him then is it likly that he writing so large a worke against all the heresyes and erroneous doctryne perilous abuses that had sprong vp in the Church of God from Christ vntill his tyme he would not haue omitted to warne men also of this that was so dangerous preiudiciall to the honour and seruice of Almighty God but no word is to be found of this amongst all his heape of heresyes and consequently we may for certayne inferre that he did not thinke this doctryne or practice or setting vp Christian Images in ChristiaÌ„ Churches to be vnlawfull or against the authority of Scriptures 54. And this for the matter it selfâ— which is more then was necessary for me to say considering that whatsoeuer diuersity of Iudgements there was or is about the exposition answere defence or impugnation of this place of Epiphanius yet is there no one iote to be inferred therof that any of them did wittingly or willingly write false against their owne conscience which is the question in hand which we are ready to proue against our aduersaryes Nor yet do I meane to stand vpon the examen of the Interlude brought in by M. Morton of our Catholicke writers differences of opinions wherein againe he delighteth him selfe only I wish the Reader that wheras Cardinall Bellarmine is heere caluÌ„niated about Epiphanius Epistle translated by S. Hierome for denying the last clause therof to be his he repayre for the solution therof vnto Cardinall Baronius who more largly detecteth the fraud then is expedient for me at this present to relate especially for so much as I am to passe to other particuler caluÌ„niatioÌ„s against Cardinall Bellarmine in his very next example or instance THE SECOND PART OF THIS CHAPTER OF INSTANCES AGAINST CARDINALL Bellarmine in particuler touching imputation of old heresies §. VI. IF you haue seene how litle able M. Morton hath byn to performe his promise before for wilfull falsityes committed by any of our writers hitherto much more shall you see it now when leauing the multitude of other Authors he singleth out Cardinall Bellarmine alone to deale withall who as he hath written much so were it not great maruaile if in so many bookes he should haue left some things whereupon his aduersaryes might probably wrangle but as for wilfull vntruth it is so farre from his knowne and confessed integrity as M. Morton could neuer haue made choice of an vnfitter match for that poynt Nor can it be thought that he chose him vpon hope to find any such aduantage in him in deed but only to honour himselfe somwhat by contending with such an aduersary and to cast some cloudes at least in the mindes of the simpler sort vpon the shining beames of Cardinall Bellarmines estimation by obiecting the name of wilfull falsityes vnto him But as when the said cloudes are driuen away from the ayre the force of the sunne is more sensibly felt so Card. Bellarmines workes being cleared heere from M. MortoÌ„s calumniatioÌ„s will be more highly esteemed by euery iudicious Reader as not lending any least true aduaÌ„tage vnto any impugnatioÌ„ of the aduersarie this is al the hurt that he is like to receaue by this assault 56. And yet as if M Morton had some great matters in deed to lay against him and that the proofes were prompt certaine euideÌ„t he according to his former excessiue vaine of vaunting falleth into the sâ—me againe writing thus P. R. requireth an example of any one who hath byn found so grosly false that in the eie of man he may not be acquitted either by ignorance of translation c. which demand if it proceed froÌ„ vnfeynednesse it seemeth vnto me so intollerably reasonable that now I am driuen to a two fold trouble in yeelding satisfaction The one
the testimonies of all other writers especially of Italy that liued with him therby knew best both his life and death And yet said I all this notwithstanding will this false ladde T. M. needes set downe this history as true affirming it for such and neuer so much as giuing his Reader to vnderstand that any other denyed the same or that the only Author himselfe of this fiction doubted therof And is not this perfidious dealing Or can any man excuse him from falshood and malice in this open treachery The pretended discharge 22. This was the Charge What doth he now answere for the discharge of this imputation First for a ground of euasion he saith I do truly protest for the man is euery where full of protestations that I did not write this out oâ— the Author himselfe which I had neuer seene but from collection out of some other bookes So he Which though it be a thing litle standing with his owne credit to confesse yet in this protestation he must giue me leaue not easely to beleeue him and this â—or two or three reasons First for that he hath made many protestations in his former bookes to God the King the L. of Salisbury and others of true and sincere proceeding and doth iterate the same heere againe in many places and especially in the end of this Preamble with great solemnity vnder the names of new Chalenges wherin notwithstanding I find him to haue practized the quite contrary to his protestations 23. The second reason is for that it is not probable that he hauing to lay so great and greiuous an accusation vpon our English Pope Adrian held by the Christâ—an world of his tyme for a holy and renowned man and this vpon the only testimony of Nauclerus he would presume to do it without looking vpon the Author himselfe or if he did it must needes argue him of great temerity and of the same crime that heere he would auoyd to wit of falshood and malice and perfidious dealing For iâ— in England one should accuse another of murther or any other like greiuous crime and that resolutly and affirmatiuely in publike iudgment as this was presented by him to the Kings Maiestie of England and to all Englishmen besides in a printed booke and this only vpon hear-say that some man had spoken it and the man being in the Citty to be found out as Nauclerus booke was in London yet that he would not so much as seeke him out nor speake with him but go presently to the Kinges Bench and accuse the other and cause the arraignment to be made and when the witnesse denied the same he should excuse himselfe saying as M. Morton doth heere It is true and I do truly protest that I did neuer see the man or speake with him but framed my accusation vpon hear-say were not this sufficieÌ„t to condemne this man of falshood and malice 24. My third reason is for that he set downe in the citation the very latin wordes themselues of Nauclerus thus Hadrianus Pontifex excommunicationem Henrico secundo dâ—nuÌ„cians ipse à Dâ—o maledictus a musca suffocatus est Naucler geuer 139. Adrian the Pope pronouncing excommunication against the Emperour Henry the second himself being cursed by God was choked with a flye Which wordes are not to be found in Nauclerus as heere they lye nor yet in Vrspergensis out of whom Nauclerus reciteth this fable but his wordes are these Cumque venisset ad quendaâ— fontem haâ—sit et bibit ac continuò vt fertur musca os cius intrauit c. And when as he came to a certaine well he tooke water and drunke it and presently as it is reported a fly entred into his mouth could not be gotten forth vntill he died So Vrspengensis saith Nauclâ—rus And then refuteth it both by the testimonies of all Italian writers which he could read of Iohn Salisburiâ—nsis whome he calleth Falsboriensis who was familiar with Adrian himself and testified his vertues And if M. Morton had not seene nor read Nauclerus as heere to excuse himself he saith how did he presume to sett downe his latin wordes so precisely as his reader could haue noe probable cause to doubt but that they were his owne proper wordes VVas not this craâ—tie perfidious dealing So as to me it seemeth that M. Morton by this first part of this euasion which consisteth in his protestation that he he had not seene nor read the booke doth more intangle himselfe in the crimes of falsity and malice which he pretendeth to auoyd then if he had simply confessed the same But let vs see the other parts of his Answere 25 Secondly then he confesseth that he erred in the misquotatioÌ„ of the GeneratioÌ„ cited out of Nauclerus to wit 139. for 39. and goeth about to proue that there was no malice therin which I easily graunt nor did I obiect it as any corruption but only aduised him of it as an errour And therfore his long excuse of that matter which was neuer vrged against him sheweth that he seeketh occasions to intertaine himselfe and to make a shew that he answereth somwhat where in effect he saith nothing 26. Thirdly he confesseth that he should haue sayd Fredericke the first for Henry the second against whome he accused Pope Adrian to haue moued sedition and saith for his excuse VVhat skilleth it whether it was Henry an Emperour or Fredericke an Emperour that was excommunicatedâ— wheras the intended conclusion was only this that Adrian the Pope did excommunicate an Emperour and conspired against him But this now is not so tollerable as the former excuse no nor tollerable at all in a learned man especially in an accusation of so great weight wherin the accuser ought to be exact and precise M. Morton saith it importeth no more then in an examinatioÌ„ of a murther whether the wound were giuen by the right hand or by the left but â—e is deceiued or would deceiue in this For that error personae is of another maÌ„ner of weight in such kind of accusatioÌ„s then M. Mort. would seeme to make For if Thomas Haruey for example should be accused to haue murthered secretly Henry Denham and that Thomas Harueys friends could proue that Henry Denham was dead two hundred yeares before Tho. Haruey was borne as Henry the second was very nere before Fredericke and Adrian should this import no more then whether Denham were slaine with the right or with the left hand of Haruey wheras he could not be slaine by him at all Heere then you see that matters are not exactly handled by M. Morton in this his false accusation of Pope Adrian 27. Wherfore in the fourth place concerning the principall point it selfe of alleaging Nauclerus as a witnesse of the disastrous death of Pope Adrian by a fly he answereth litle or nothing to the purpose for excuse of his guilfull dealing therin though he turne
by name excommunicated and denounced for such yet for so much as concerned the guilt of heresy as it is a choice of a particuler sect and difference of ReligioÌ„ from that which the knowne Catholicke Church doth hold and professe I alleaged sundry autheÌ„ticall proofes as well out of the definition of heresy and an hereticke set downe by S. Augustine vnto Honoratus infected with the heresy of the Manicheans out of the same Father against the Donatists defining who is properly an heretike to wit Qui manifestata sibi doctrina Catholicae â—idei resistere maluerit illud quod tenebat elegâ—rit he that after the doctrine of the Catholicke faith generally held is made knowne vnto him shall determine notwithstanding rather to resist and make choice of that which before he held As also I shewed and demonstrated the explication of this definition vnto English Protestants and professors of the English Religion of our dayes out of great variety of other ProÌ„testant Authors of other Countreys who all affirme aâ—d determine that the Religion doctrine of Iohn Caluin which is now most followed in England is formâ—lly and truely heresy consequently the Proâ—essors and manteyners therof must needs be hereticks for which I alleaged not only the Censure oâ— Franciâ—â—us Stancarus a chiefe Protestant Superinâ—endâ—nt in Polonia who saith that they are deploraâ—issimi haereticâ— most desperate hereticks but also the Censure of a whole Lutheran Vniuersitie in Germany named Tubinga whose cheefe Reader of Deuinity Philippus Nicolaus in the name of the whole Vniuersity decreâ—th that Caluinists are daÌ„nable heretikes intituling his booke thus FuÌ„damentorum Caluinianae sectae cum Arianis Nestorianis communium detectio A discouery of the â—ouÌ„dations of the Caluinian sect which are common to them with the Arians and Nestorians In which booke this Doctor proueth throughout many Chapters togeather that Caluinists are no lesse Hereticks then the said Arians Nestorians that they agree with them at least in 17. or 18. articles alleaging also Luthers Authority to the same effect who saith that they are alieni ab Ecclesia Dei Sathanae membra cut of from the Church of God and members of Sathan 7. And after this I added further to this effect I will passe ouer quoth I the testimony of many other learned protestant Ministers Doctors teachers as namely Conradus Sclusselburgius who affirmeth Caluinists To belieue and teach rightly no one article of the Creed as also I will do that of Heshusiê° affirming That their associatioÌ„ is a most blasphemous sacrilegious sect that of Hunnius That it is most damnable the right way to hell that of Ioannes Schutzius That it is the sinke of all wicked heresyes that of Ioannes Modestus that affirmeth Caluinists To be as bad as Iewes Mahomets that of Ioannes Matthias and of Albertus Grauerus and others that affirme all those that follow the doctrine of Caluin to be professed enemyes of Christ. All which I do cyte in my last book against M. Mort. quoting their names works and Chapters years when they wrote more largely particulerly in the pages heere set downe in the margent All which men being chiefe Doctors Readers Preachers or Pastours of our Protestant people such as our ProtestaÌ„t Ministers of EnglaÌ„d hold for their brethreÌ„ against vs that are Catholicks do easely wype away with these their asâ—euerations the childish clamour of M. Morton against Catholiks for holding his CaluiniaÌ„ doctrine to be heresy seing that so many learned graue Protestants inlightened with the spirit of God as they must needs graunt do hold auerre the same 8. And why then had not he answered somwhat to this Charge being so weighty substantiall as it is Why had he not giuen some satisfaction Or at leastwise meÌ„tioned the same in this his last Reply Was not this as necessary a subiect to be handled as to put himself to discusse the wit memory skill and other qualities of his Aduersary Or when do you thinke will he be able to answere this matter Or what substance hath he or may be presumed to haue for making this payment 9. Nay that his substance is small or rather none at all for discharging these debts may well appeare for that he being further pressed by me afterward about the like argument of Iohn Caluins being an hereticke and that most heinous damnable by the publike testimony of his said Protestant brethren the Lutheran Doctors and this not only in the common known controuersies betweene theÌ„ about the Reall presence other Sacraments for which by Luther they were called Sacramentaries but euen about the highest articles of the blessed Trinity Diuinity of Christ equality with his Father Godhead of the Holyghost the like he hath shifted of the same in this his Reply by no lesse silence then the former not so much as naming the matter but in generall termes telling vs that he will pay all his debts in time yet did I vrge him as much as might be to draw froÌ„ him some answere For thus I said vnto him when he had accused al our writers of extreme malignity in ceÌ„suring Caluin Caluinists for heretiks insinuatiâ—g also in his booke of Full satisfaction that the former Lutheran Doctors wherof some had bene obiected before by the moderate answerer had bene corrupted depraued by vs a poore shift you see when their owne bookes are extant in print the places knowne of their printing I told him I say that I would bring against him a new booke of a famous late Lutheran Doctor Reader of Deuinity called Aegidius Hunnius printed at VVittemberg vpon the yeare 1593. which should confirme this and much more My words were these 10. VVe shall heere quoth I with as much breuity as may be bring â—orth the Iudgment of another renowned Protestant Doctor coÌ„curring with the forsaid he being a publike Reader of Deuinity in another famous Vniuersity of Germany namely Wittemberg where Martin Luther himselfe once held the chaire as Caluin did in Geneua this Doctour whose name is Agidius Hunnius in a seuerall Treatise set forth about a dozen yeares gone intituled by him Caluâ—us Iudaizans dedicated vnto one Dauid Pareus a principall Caluinian Doctor setteth downe the argument of his booke thus in the first front therof This booke is to shew saith he that Iohn Caluin hath most detestably presumed to corrupt in â—auour of Iewes Arians the most cleare places testimonies of Scripture concerning the glorious Trinity Deity of Christ of the Holy-ghost aboue all the predictions of Prophets â—or the comming of the Messias his Natiuity passion ascension and sitting at the right haÌ„d of God c. with a cleare confutation of his false corruptioÌ„s therin c. This is the title argument of the booke which he doth prosecute for almost two hundred pages togeather diuiding the same into two
for the tyme to come by the yoke of any Bâ—shop or his Officers but that in all euents of things Controuâ—rsies of Cases they shal be subiect to the dâ—cree of the Abbot of the said Monastery So as c. And theÌ„ doth M. Attorney continue his speach thus 58. This Charter was pleaded in 1. H. 7. vouched by Stanâ—ord as at large appeareth which Charter granted aboue 850. yeares sytâ—ece was aâ—ter confirmâ—d per Edwinum BritaÌ„niâ—e AngioruÌ„ Regem Monarcham anno Domini 955 By which appeareâ—h that the King by this Charter made in Parliament for it appeareth to be made by the Counsâ—ll and consâ—â—nt of his Bishops and Senators of his Kingdome which wâ—re assâ—mâ—led in Parlamâ—nt did discharged and exâ—mpt the said Abbot frâ—m the iurisdiction of the Bishop c. And by the same Charter did grant to the same Abbot Ecclâ—siasâ—icall iurisdiction within his said Abbâ—â— whâ—ch Ecclesiasâ—icall Iurisdiction bâ—ing deriued fâ—oÌ„â—he Câ—oâ—â— contynned vntill the dissoluâ—ion oâ— the said Abbey in the Raigne 〈◊〉 K. Henry the eight So he 59. And by this you may see what an important ConclusioÌ„ he doth inâ—erre of the Kings supreme Iurisdiction in spirituall affaires at that tyme whereunto the Deuine comming to answere and supposing that M. Attorney would not â—alsify or bely his Authors hauing protested most solemnly fol. 40. oâ— his Booke that he had citâ—d truly the very words and texts oâ— the lawes resolutions iudgmâ—nts and actes of Paâ—lament all 〈…〉 and in print without any inâ—erence argumâ—nt or ampliâ—icaâ—iâ—n quoting particulerly the Bookes years leaues Chapters and other such lâ—ke certayne referencâ—s as euery man at his 〈◊〉 may see and read them c. The Answerer I say hearing this formall protestation and supposing besides that the man would haue some respect to â—is credit honour in this behalf granting all as it lay answered the same as you may see in his Booke But now vpoÌ„ better search it falleth out that this whole Case was falsely alleaged by M. Attorney in the very point of the principall CoÌ„trouersy in hand about the Kings spirituall Iurisdiction for that whatsoeuer the Charâ—ter did ascribe expresly to the Pope and his authority the Attorney suppressing the true words relateth it as procâ—eding from the King temporall authority of his Crowne For proofe wherof I shall set downe the very words of my learned freÌ„ds letter out of England about this point after view taken of the law bookes themselues and then let any man say how far M. Attorney is to be credited in any thing he writeth or speaketh against Catholicks 60. As concerning saith my friend the Charter of King Kenulphus for the Sanctuary of the Monastery of Abindon you must know that M. Attorney hath egregiously abused his Reader in that and other pointes for the Case standeth thus That in the first yeare of King Henry the 7. Humfrey Stafford was attainted by Act of Parlament of high treason tooke Sanctuary first in Colchester in Essex and after fled to Culnam and tooke Sanctuary in the Abbey of Abindon and being taken from thence brought vnto the Tower of London and from thence brought vnto the Kings Bench he pleaded that he was drawne by force out of the said SaÌ„ctuary of Culnam and praied his Counsaile to pleade that point which by all the Iudges of both Benches was granted vnto him And so they pleaded in this manner 91. Idem Humphridus per Consilium suum dixit quòd Kenulphus Rex MercioruÌ„ per Literas suas pateÌ„tes consilio coÌ„sensu EpiscoporuÌ„ SenatoruÌ„ gentis suae largitus suit Monasterio de Abindon accuidam Ruchino tunc Abbati Monasterij illius quandam ruris sui portionem id est quindecim Mansias in loco qui à Ruricolis â—unc nuncupabatur Culnam cum omnibus vâ—ilitatibus ad eandâ—m partinentibus tam in magnis quam in modicis rebus in aeternam haereditatem Et quòd praedicius Ruchiâ—us ab omni Regis obstaculo â—piscopali â—ure in sâ—mpitâ—rnum esset quietus vt inhabitatorâ—seius nullius Regis aut Miniâ—â—roruÌ„ suorum Episcopiâ—e aut suorum Offiâ—ialium iâ—go inde deprimerentur sed in cunctis rerum euentibus disâ—tissionibus causarum Abbatis Monasterij praedicti decreto suâ—ijâ—â—râ—ntur Ita quòd c. And here ceaseth M. Attorney leauing out as you see in his recitall the wordes that go before ab omni Regis obstaculo that the Monastery should be free from all obstacle of the King as also these words vt inhabitatores eius nullius Regis aut MinistroruÌ„ suorum iugo deprimantur that the inhabitaÌ„ts be not opprest with any yoake of any King or his Ministers Wherby is euideÌ„t that the King in his Charter did for his part giue exemptions from temporall and Royall power But especially the fraud is seene by cutting of the wordes that do ensue which decide the whole controuersy which are these Et etiam allegauit vltra quòd Leo tunc Papa concessit dicto Abbati dictas immunitates priuilegia Et quod Edwinus tunc Britanniae Anglorum Rex Monarchus coÌ„â—â—ssit quòd praesatum Monastâ—rium omnis terrâ—nae sâ—râ—â—tuâ—is esset liberum quae à prâ—decâ—ssoriâ—us suis Catholicis videlicet à dicâ—o sancto Lâ—â—ne Papa dicâ—o Rege Kâ—nâ—lpho c. Et quòd virtute literarum Bullarâ—m praediciarum tâ—mpore conâ—ecâ—ionis earuâ—dâ—m eadem villa de Culnam suit Sanctuarium lâ—cus priuilegiatus c. Which in English is thus And moreouer the said â—umphrey Stafford by his CouÌ„saile alleaged further for himselfe that Pope Leo had granted vnto the said Abbot the said immunities prâ—uiledges that king Edwin theÌ„ King Monarch ouer all the English in Britany had granted that the said Monastery should be free from all earthly seruitude which by his Catholicke predecessors to wit the said holy Pope Leo and the said King Kenâ—lphuâ— was granted and that at the time of the making of the foresaid letters Patents and Bulles the said village or Towne of Culnam was a Sanctuary priuileged place by vertue of the said Patents and Bulles 62. This is word for word the very plea of Humphrey Stafford for the Sanctuary of the Monastery of Abindon as it was pleaded by his learned Counsaile in law euen as it is recorded in the Reports of the years of K. Hâ—nry the seauenth as they are printed by Pinson the law printer in the tyme of K. Henry the eight before the Protestant religion came vp And the Lord Brooke in his Abridgement of the law in the title of Corone placito 129. doth accordingly set downe the same Case with mentioning of the Bulles of Pope Leo for the said immunities and priuileges But all the Protestant editions in the tyme of the late Quene Elizabeth printed by Tottell and Yestwort haue committed a notable tricke of falsification in leauing out altogether these markable words That Leo then Pope did
Scripture â—ith The Sonne shall not beare the iniquitie of â—â—e Father nor the Father of the Sonne but eâ—â—ry one must answere for himselfe let vs seâ—â—â—en how M. Morton doth performe this point â—â—en then saith he when I was in greatest â—â—â—lousie of mine owne myscarriage I conceiâ—â—d a double matter of comfort First from â—â— selfe that knowing I durst present my â—â—plications vnto the Iudge of the secret â—â—ughts of all hartes I doubted not but that â—ng able with true confidence to appeare â—ore God I should not greatly feare the â—â—sure of man This is one defence more Rhetoricall then reall 〈◊〉 how could he dare with such confidence appeare before God with the burthen of so many â—ntruthes as afterward you will see conuinced â—â—ainst him especially in the three last Chapters â—f this our Answere And if he be not able to â—efend them before man how will he iustifie theÌ„â—efore God Let vs see his second defence for this first standeth only vpon his owne confidence SecoÌ„dly saith he from my aduersary tooke I matter of comfort presuming that he that would write in defence of mentall Equiuocation would be found to equiuocate in writing also This you see is but a presumption and that a very poore one For as a man may write of warre and yet not fight and of Agriculture or husbandry and yet neither plow nor sow So may he write of Equiuocation and yet not Equiuocate and Equiuocate also and yet not lye So as this could be but a silly comfort for M. Morton to presuppose and hope that I would Equiuocate in writing of Equiuocation which was not needfull And if I had yet might I do it without lying and so nothing therby haue relieued his case that was so deeply charged with that fault And finally if I had bene able to be conuinced of any point in that kind as afterward you will see that I was not yet S. Augustines rule is Quod societas peccantium auget potiùs quà m excusat peccatum Fellowship in sinne increaseth rather then excuseth the fault Though truly it may seâ—me that M. Morton would highly esteeme this fellowship with me if he could bring it about and thinke himselfe well defended if he could attaine it Which I am lead to belieue not only by his labour diligence solicitude therin but by the last Conclusion of his forâ—named Epistle to my self which he endeth thus for an vpshoot I may thinke saith he the Scripture verified vpon you where it is thus written Therfore art thou inexcusable O man whosoeuer thou be that iudgest for doing the same thinges by iudging an other thou condemnest thy selfe Out of which text of the Apostle M. Morton would proue that I doing the same things with him in this point of fraud and false dealing I cannot condemne him without condemning also my selfe which consequence I grant but deny the antecedent Which I assure my self M. Morton will neuer be able to proue in any one point of moment throughout this whole concertation of ours himselfe being taken faultie almost at euery turne as you will see And yet doth he vaunt as though his integritie were extraordinary in this behalfe telling vs that as the Greeke CoÌ„maunder being in appaâ—aÌ„ce mortally wounded demanded of his souldiers whether the Citie were safe whether his â—uckler or shield were sound and being saâ—isfied in them receiued health and after beâ—ame victorious So he vnder so ghastly wouÌ„ds â—f my penne hauing generally inquired â—prightly answered himself that his cause was â—afe and his conscience sound began more resolutely to confront me Thus you see that he hath cleared himselfe is become victorious vpon a suddayne by force of a similitude only And in truth the tale is pretily told by him in wordes but let vs come to the substance of the things If M. Mortons cause be so safe and his conscience so sound how do there stand togeather afterward in the sixt Chapter of this my Answere aboue thirty vntruths pretended to haue bin wittingly pretermitted by him in his last Preamblatorie Reply as vnanswerable now aboue fiftie more newly added out of the said Reply which are set downe in my seauenth Chapter If these can be really defended by him he doth somewhat And for diuers of them he ought to haue done it before But if they cannot as I assure my selfe without making of more new they cannot then is neither M. Mortons cause safe nor his conscience sound in this behalfe Nay his sheild and buckler is vtterly broken and his Cittie of refuge quite ouerthrowne But he promiseth vs a more forcible EncouÌ„ter to ensue after he hath discharged his part in another taske of more importaÌ„ce in the Answere of the Catholicke Apologie which saith he by this calumnious Treatise of P. R. his Mitigation as by an aduerse tempest hath receiued some interruption And by this you see that M. Morton is still doing whether well or euill God knoweth I maruaile he feareth not the scratch due to his ytch wherof he speaketh in his Preamble For if out of Germanie there come that multitude of scratches that is threatned by him whose letter I haue mentioned in the latter end of this Answere do ioyne themselues with these scratches of myne both old and new that do march togeather in this my answere against him they are like to make a great squadron And M. Morton will haue his hands full in defending himselfe from them and in procuring that of scratches and scarres they do not beâ—ome deeper wounds vnto his credit But indeed I do not expâ—ct any such new Encounter as he promisâ—th For if he had reallie meant it and had seene himselfe able to performe it he would haue answered substantially in this Preamble some of the chiefest difficulties that were laid against him to the end to make his Reader belieue that he would be able to satisfie the rest in the said promised EncouÌ„ter But not doing this but shewing rather his extrâ—me weaknes in clearing any one point obiected against him it seemeth but a iest to talke of a new Encounter to come And as for answering the Catholicke Apoâ—ogie which he saith he is in hand withall as 〈◊〉 taske of more importance I do easely graunt 〈◊〉 if he can performe his taske well But M. Morton well knoweth the Topicall place à maâ—ori ad minus è conuerso If he haue not â—yn able to performe lesser matters nor defend the things by himselfe written either in Latin or English but by so many vntruthes as haue bin exhibited against him what will he be able to do in another mans worke especially of such moment difficulty as the said Apologie is where he must answere to other mens sayings especially ProtestaÌ„ts out of whose testimonies the Author of that Apologie doth so clerely conâ—ute their Religion and conâ—irme the Catholicke if I mistake not the worke as neuer any booke
written in our language hath more â—ffâ—ctually done And consâ—quently the confutation of this booke would râ—quire an impugnâ—r of more substance and strongâ—r sâ—nâ—wes then those of M. Morton though othâ—rwise I vndâ—rstand that God be thanked his bodily consâ—itution be neither weake nor feeble But to come to an end let vs see how he conâ—ludâ—th his Epistle to the Earle of Salisbury If by this brief Preamble it be not manifest saith he that P. R. hath in this Treatise preuaricated in his whole cause both in the question of Rebellion and Equiuocation betraied his Countreys State disgraced the Romish Schooles and strangled his owne conscience I refuse not that to the crimes obiected against me by him this may be added that I durst affiâ—me so much before your Lordship To which Rhâ—toricall and florishing conclusiâ—n I know nâ—e better answere thâ—n to accâ—pt of the ofâ—er And for triall thâ—rof to referre me to the Booke hâ—re in hand which treateth euery thing punctually and â—xâ—ctly inuiting by this occasion the Honourable Personage hâ—re namâ—d to tâ—e râ—ading and pâ—rusâ—ng thâ—rof For though the difâ—â—râ—nâ—e of our cause be disfauourable vnto me with his Lordshippe yâ—t dare I câ—nfide in the equanimitie of his Iudgâ—mâ—nt in a case of such quality as hâ—re is sâ—t downe about preuaricating in my cause betraying my Countrey disgracing our Schooles and strangling my owne Conscience All which depending vpon our maÌ„ner of proceeding in the ensuing pointes of this Booke his Lordâ—hippe will easily discouer with the quicke â—ye of â—is Iudgment the truth of things though it were â—gainst himselfe And therefore I do willingly â—ay hands vpon the last clause of this Challenge of â— Morton to wit that if he proue not all â—hese things here obiected against me and cleere â—imselfe from all imputations of wilfull vntruthes â—yd against him in my Treatise of Mitigation 〈◊〉 is content to haue this added also as the greaâ—â—st sinne of all the rest that he durst affirme â—â—e same vnto his Lordshippe Wherin I could conuince him presâ—ntly if I â—ould without further dispute For that he taâ—â—ng vpon him in this his Prâ—amble to answere â—â—ly 14. vntruthes of more then 40. obiected â—â—ainst him it is euident that he â—learâ—th himâ—â—â—fe not frâ—m the rest tâ—at hee pretermitted â—nd then laâ—ing vnto this that in the said 14. he 〈◊〉 found not to haue cleared himsâ—lfe substantially â—â—om any one of moment but to haue adioyned â—boue 40. or 50. more as is declared in the â—ubsâ—quent Treatise how can he defend himsâ—lfe bâ—fore my L. of Salisburies Honour from open preuaricating in this his Challenge But I will not prâ—sse him any further heere let the ensuing Combate discâ—rne try betweene vs. And so returning to talke with M. Morton againe whome for a time I haue left and spokeâ— in the third person to the end I might not seeme to obiect to his face so many important defaultes together I do saie Syr that now you see that I haue bin bould to vse the libâ—rty that you gaue me in the subscription of your Letter when you saie that you are myne to warne and to bâ— warned I haue râ—ceiued your warning and returned mine I beseech allmightie God it mayâ—be to his greater glorie and both our goods or at leastwise of other men that shall read or heare the same Yours Wishing you all good in the author of all goodnes P. R. Faultes escaped in the Printing â—pist Dedic pag. 6 lin 4 for he read wee â—pist Admon pag. 4â— lin 13 for nor read not â—agâ— Line Fault Correction 〈◊〉 24 in latin in relating 〈◊〉 27 heares hearers 〈◊〉 18 vse the vse 〈◊〉 23 impawing impawning 〈◊〉 vlâ— competèt competent 〈◊〉 28 stuly study 〈◊〉 â— some all 〈◊〉 Ibid. Equiuocation be Equiuocation or lying be 〈◊〉 28 said say 〈◊〉 31 indeed though indeed my father is not dead though ◠〈◊〉 18 euident euidently 〈◊〉 26 is in 〈◊〉 14 one owne 〈◊〉 2 had had he had had 〈◊〉 34 begin being 〈◊〉 35 pertracta pertractata â—â—2 10 Clemens AlexaÌ„der Clemens Alexandrinus â—â—7 â— these are these â—01 29 Chapters Charges 314 28 quod quid â—â—1 28 verue vertue â—01 5 answere Answerer â—11 27 these those 427 25 the law the new spi the new law the spirituall c. 434 5 ouer euer 462 11 which with 477 3 is as 540 7 to do 640 16 obiection others obiection of otherâ— 642 14 Chap. 5. Chap. 3. 648 4 fourth Chap. fifth Chapâ— THE FIRST CHAPTER ANSVVERING TO THE FIRST OF â— THOMAS MORTONS three vaine Inquiryes concerning the Witt Memorie Learning Charitie Modestie and Truth of his Aduersarie P. R. THE PREFACE THE very title of this M. Mortonâ— first Inquiry about the insufficiency of his aduersary doth plainly shew that he was in choler passion when he wrote it for that otherwise in so graue and weighty controuersies as are betweene vs he would ueuer haue rifled so manifestly as by leauing the matter to ruÌ„ne â—o the person and fall a scolding and scratching acâ—ording to his former threat For what are these perâ—onall impugnations but scratches whereof you shall haue heere store to witt some seauen or eight whole Paragraphes which yet are such as draw noe bloud nor doe scarre any man but the scratcher himselfe as by further examination it will appeare For first what doth he gaine to his cause if he could prooue indeed that his Aduersarie had scarcitie both of witt memorie learning Greeke Hebrew Logike and other abilities heere mentioned Were not his victorie the lesse in ouercoÌ„ming so weake an aduersarie And were not his shame the greater yf he should be ouercome by him Yes truly 1. Moreouer M. Mortons intention being or ought to be principally to satisfy the charges and imputations of falshood and vntrue dealing layd vnto him in the Treatise of Mitigation for hastening whereunto for that they raysed great scarres in the readers eye he omitted to handle any thing at all of the chief argument of that Treatiâ—e it seemeth veriâ— impertinent that he should leese so much time and spend so much paper in premising so manie skirmishes as are these Paragraphes about the sufficiency or insufficiency of his aduersarie before the maine battaile it self but the reason is conceaued to be the small comfort he had to come to the said battaile and therefore as schollers that are truants doe seeke occasions to loyter and linger and â—ntertayne themselues in euerie corner of the streete thereby to prolong their iourney so M. Morton in this affayre For albeit he pretend and professe his purpose to beâ— to cleare himselfe from the sayd imputatios yet knowing how little able he is to doe it and how small coÌ„fort he is to receyue therein wheÌ„ he cometh to the point he differreth the matter as loÌ„g as he can which is to the verie last end of his booke speÌ„ding first in this first Inquiry eight or nine Paragraphes as hath bene said to inquyre of my sufficiency
Thâ— Chaldean paraphrase hath it thus Be astonished wonder you are terâ—ified and do maruaile you are drunke but not with wine The old latin translation both of S. Hierome and before him speaketh thus Be astonished and maruaile wauer yee and reele you are drunke but not with wyne you are moued but not with dronkenesse 70. These are the ancientest textes both of Heâ—rew Greeke Chaldy and Latin out of all which 〈◊〉 would pray M. Morton quietly soberly without passion to forme and frame this his predominant â—entence against Catholicks Stay your selues and wonâ—er they are blind and make you blynd Is there any such â—hing in this verse He would fayne for shew of â—ome defence help himselfe also of the next verse foâ—â—owing which is the tenth and sayth thus as himâ—elfe traÌ„slateth it Because the Lord mingled for you the spirit 〈◊〉 slumber he will shut your eyes he will couer your Prophets â—nd chiefe-ones which see visions But what is this to the â—urpose He cyted but the ninth verse and neyâ—her in this nor in the tenth that eâ—sueth as you see â—s conteyned his sentence oâ— staying our selues to see bâ—â—nd men make other men blynd And wheras he runneth to S. Hieroms CoÌ„mentaries and those of Hector Pintus where they apply some words of the later verse to the blindnesse of the Scribes and Pharisies it is nothing to our purpose for they iustifie not his sentence and poesy taken out of the ninth verse and much lesse do they go about to shew hereby as he doth that Catholickes are blynd in respect of Protestants and do make other men blynd which is his purpose to proue And it is to be noted that sentences prefixed for posyes ought to be cleare not so forced and wrested as this is which was the cause that I noted it and M. Morton can no way iustifie the allegation therof in reall truth and substance as now you haue heard Other contumelious speachâ—s of his I let passe as meere scratchings and scoldings indeed and shall take in hand the view of another complaynt against me noe lesse feeble and impertinent then this WHAT M. MORTON alleadgeth against the Charitie of P. R. §. VI. THE tytle of this Paragraph in M. Morton is layd forth in these wordes An argument of P. R. his kind of charity attended with a triumphant falshood And this he saith for that I had reprehended him in my booke of Mitigation for a place cyted out of a treatise of Alexander Carerius Doct. of the Canon law in Padua which he wrote of late de Potestate Romani Pontificis wherin after cyting of many other writers whome he saith to be of his opinion he addeth the testimony of one Celsus Mancinus saying Nuperrimâ— verò Celsus Mancinus in tractatu de Iuribus Principatuum c. But last of al Celsus Mancinus doth hold the same opinion with vs in his Treatise of the Rights of Principalityes c. Which wordes M. Morton alleadging and making his aduantage of them he was noted by me for two differences from the booke of Carerius printed in Italie by direction of the Authour himself first that after the title de potestate Romani Pontificis was added in M. Mortons booke aduersus impios politicos et nostri temporis haereticos which addition was not in my copy of Carerius owne booke 72. The second that he had Nuperrimè verè Celsus Mancinus in steed of nuperrimè verò which being contrary to the first edition which I had of Carerius his booke and seing no reason why I should suspect it to be otherwise in any other later impression I did lay it to his charge especially for that I did see him abuse it â—gregiously to his aduantage as hath byn said as though Carerius had ridicâ—lously exalted his witnesse Mancinus by naming him verè Celsus truly â—â—fty whereas his meaning was but only to say that â—elsus was his Christian name And had I not reaâ—â—n to note such a slippery shift deuised by M. Morton 〈◊〉 a scoffe against a Catholike learned Authour â—hat lacke of charitie can he find heerin â—3 But now M. Morton will cleere him selfe and â—roduceth to this purpoâ—e another edition printed 〈◊〉 Cullen that hath these points as he â—yteth them â—hich edition though I haue not seene nor heard 〈◊〉 before yet do I thinke it meet to giue credit to 〈◊〉 affirmation nor will I offer him that iniuri◠〈◊〉 to doubt therof especially for so much as he saith 〈◊〉 he hath shewed the same to many friendes of 〈◊〉 naming also the yeare and forme in which it is â—â—inted All which being graunted that in this 〈◊〉 Cullen impression the addition of contra haeretiâ—â—s c. may haue bin added which was not in mine 〈◊〉 doth this inferre nothing against me nor my â—haritie For that where I saw a defect I noted 〈◊〉 nor could I learne of any other edition nor suâ—pect that if there were or might be yet thaâ—â—here would be cause to alter the title of his first ediâ—ion which himselfe ouerlooked so as this hath 〈◊〉 least scratch against me 74. But now for the second point obiected of verè for verò though M. Morton do alleadge in like maÌ„ner for his excuse the Authority or rather errour of his CulleÌ„ editioÌ„ yet can he not so easely discharge himselfe therof for that the very contexture of speach must needes argue to his conscience that it should be verò and not verè for that otherwise there should haue byn no apt sense nor any coniunctiue particle to connect the testimony of Celsus Mancinus to the former The great letter C. also in the beginning of Celsus if this be not in like manner altered in M. Mortons edition froÌ„ the original must needs haue shewed vnto him that it was no nowne adiectiue but a proper name of a man and consequently must be ioyned with verò and not with verè 75. And fynally if the thing had byn doubtfull or might haue byn as hardly it could to any indifferent or iudicious reader yet ought not he nor could with a good conscience vse the same for an insultation sâ—offe against two such learned men as Carerius and Mancinus are for these are his wordes Carerius citeth another called Câ—lsus by interpretation high or lofâ—y and therfore ensignes him with verè Celsus as truly so named and so truly he may be if wee iudge him by the loftines of his stile and Conclusion Thus farre his scoffe which for so much as to me it seemed to stand vpon the voluntarie mistaking of verè for verò and so it must still albeit he fell vpon an erroneous print I had iust causâ— to repell the said scorne as I did with some acrimony of speach but yet nothing comparable to the excessiue bitternes of M. Morton who condemneth me not only of Malice but also of madnes for my reprehension intituling his whole Paragraph as you haue heard against my
of malice and malitious dealing remayneth still with you vnpurged vntill you blot it out by contrary deedes and not only wordes and this may serue by way of Preface to this Chapter OF WILFVLL falshoods obiected by M. Morton in sundry Catholiâ—kâ— writers and namely his abuse offered to Franciscus Costerus §. I. NOW then to come to the matter it selfe the occasion oâ— this labour of M. Morton to seeke out some errours or shewes of falsities in Catholickâ— Authors was for that I hauing pressed him very sore in the last Chapter of my booke of Mitigation with great multiplicity of vntruthes vttered by him and his consortes which seemed to me both witting and willfull I said that it might well be assigned for a signe distinctiue betweene vs and theÌ„ to haue the spirit of vttering wilâ—ull vntruthes and therby also might be determined the differeÌ„ce of our causes which is good and which is bad For as in a good cause there is no need of lying and a bad cause cannot be defended but by lying so no man willingly of any good nature will choose to lye but vpon some necessity The wordes of my former discourse in the book of Mitigation are these 6. And for that say I this matter is of great importance for the reader well to conceyue in these dayes of controuersies betweene vs I meane to stay my selfe somwhat in this Chapter vpon this point â—nd to shew that indeed it is a substantiall signe diâ—tinctiue betweene all sectaryes and vs at this tyme â—nd that in matters of controuersy our writers shall â—euer be found guylty in these kindes of false lying â—nd malitious equiuocations where not only vnâ—â—uth is vttered but it is wittingly also vttered the â—riter knowing that he writeth vntruth as often â—ow hath beene said which manner of dealing inâ—â—rreth two pointes the one that such a writer or â—â—eaker hath no conscience that vttereth thinges â—gainst his owne knowledge and which God seeth 〈◊〉 be false and falsely meant in his heart and the â—her that his cause hath no ground of substantiall â—uth which cannot be defended without such â—ilfull lyes â—â— In this then if you please let vs insist a while 〈◊〉 Tho. Morton bring forth any Catholicke Authors â—hatsoeuer that wrote against Protestants since â—ese heresyes began that hath bene taken in this â—piety I meane that hath set downe in print any â—â—â—h falsity as cannot be excused eyther by ignoâ—â—nce ouersight negligence error of print translaâ—â—â—n diuersity of editions or the like but that it â—ust needs be presumed that he knew the vntruth â—â—d yet would set it forth of this kynd I say let â—im shew me but one example among all Cathoâ—â—cke writers of our tyme and I will in my consciâ—â—ce greatly mistrust and discredit the Author â—hether it be an other or my selfe But if he shew â—e two or three in any writer of this kynd I shall hardly be able euer afterward to belieue him more And wheras the number and variety of Catholicke writers is so great as the world seeth it were no great â—abour to shew it in some if that spirit did raigne among them as it doth in Protestant writers 8. To this speach of mine doth M. Morton now in this his last Preamble frame a rhetoricall answere in these wordes Doth the man who maketh mention of his interruption by sicknesse know what he hath now said Whetâ—er he spake this being in his feauer-fit or in temper Whether in a dreame or a wake Whether in his right mynd or in distraction For sure I am that this ostentation will prooue in the issue as vnfortunate vnto P. R as euer was boast either by Thraso on the stage or by Goliah in the Campe or by Gorgias in the schooles by the which he must be driuen vnto so miserable and shamefull a palinody as euer herafter vtterly to discredit his owne frends and worke a perpetuall discontent within himselfe as presently will appeare So he 9. And to this appearaÌ„ce I am conteÌ„t to remit meâ— only I desire the reader to stand attent to the conditioÌ„ heâ—re put downe that the faâ—shood obiected must be willfull and not excusable either by error ignoraÌ„ce ouersight or the like as many of those were not nor could possibly be defended which in my booke I brought against M. Morton and his and more shall I do in this his Reply And surely it is worth the noting that he being to begin a list of falsities against Roman writers as he pretendeth should in the very first lynes sâ—t downe a notorious wilâ—ull vntruth of his owne against that graue and learned man Franciscus Costerus as prâ—sently will appeare For wheras I had said in mâ— former alleadged discourse Let Thomas Morton bring forth any Catholicke Autâ—ours whatsoeuer that wrote against Protestants since these heresies began that hath bene taken in this impiety he maketh this anâ—were I mâ—y not deny euen this my Aduersary his due comâ—endation of modesty who being ashamed we may thinke of the Romish fraudes and falsifications of former times will insist only vpon such mens examples as haue professedly written of late against Protestants It were to be wished that his fâ—llow Iesuite Costerus had kept himselfe within the same precincts but he maketh a more generall challeng thus Nemo hactenuâ— vel Princeps vel Praesul vel Scriptor fuit qui mendacij vel malae fidei Romanos arguerit that is Neuer yet saith he did any Prince or Prelate or writer accuse the Romanists of falshood So he 10. And heere now I must demand of the Reader what he vnderstandeth M. Morton his purpose to be in this place Is it not to shew that Costerus was lesse modest then I for so much as I said if in any one Catholicke writer of controuersies of our age there might be found but two or three examples of wilfull lying I would neuer trust him more but that Costerus went further saying that no Prince Prelate â—r writer had euer hitherto accused any Romanists oâ— falshood Is not this M. Mortons plaine meaning thinke you as both his words and drift do shew Yes truly Which being so I would aske him first why he did clippe the latin words of Costerus being so few as â—hey are for that he saith Atqui verò nemo hactâ—nus fuit Catholicus vel Princeps vel Praesul vel Scriptor c. but neuerthelesse there was no Catholicke man hitherto to wit vnto the time assigned wheÌ„ Bishops of Rome were Saints and Martyrs eyther Prince Bishop or writer c. why did he cut of the words but â—euerthelesse Catholicke man and those both in latin and English wheras they be in Costerus 11. Why was this paring think you but that they being sâ—t down truly as they staÌ„d in the Author they would haue bâ—wrayed his falshood for that the words but neuerthelesse do shew a refereÌ„ce to somwhat going before and the words no Catholicke Prince
for any thing â—â—omised against Cardinall Bellarmine whose estimaâ—â—on is like to be highly increased with all indiffeâ—â—nt men by this assault both for conscience sincere â—ealing and learning and M. Morton greatly blemiâ—â—ed in them all for that coÌ„monly no one instance â—ath he alleaged of fraud in his aduersarie but with â—ome fraud in himselfe none perhaps with more theÌ„ in this sixt last obiectioÌ„ in that kynd concerning the testimony of Tâ—eodoret for the Reall Presence â—or that heere be so many foule faults wilfull corâ—uptions as truly after so many admonishments if â— should vse the same it would make me ashamed to â—ooke any man in the face 96. He indeauoureth to frame a contradiction â—â—out of Bellarmine in that he chargeth Caluin with an ancient heresy recorded by Theodoret which heresy â— did affirme that there is only a figure of Christes body in the Sacrament and then will he proue out of Bellarmine himselfe for contradiction of this first that the said heresy is not ancient then that it is not to be found at this day in Theodoret thirdly that Caluin doth not deny the Reall Presence and so he concludeth as you haue heard heere is no more oddes then betweene anâ—â—â—â—â— and not ancient heresy not heresy But if in all and euery one of these three poyntes M. Morton be conuinced wittingly to haue falsifyed and that he could not but know that he did so what excuse then will he make or what will the discreete and honest Reader say or thinke of him Novv then to the particulers 97. The charge which Cardinall Bellarmine maketh vpon Zuinglius Caluin not Caluin only as M. Mortâ—â— text importeth is taken from the last of those 20. old heresies before signified to be obiected by the Cardinall to the Protestants of our time in his booke of the Notes of the Church and by him is set downe in these wordes The twentith old heresie saith Bellarmine wherin the Protestants of our time do participate with old heretickes is of them that denied the Eucharist to be truly the flesh of Christ would haue it to be the figure or image of the body of Christ. So it is related in the seauenth Generall CouÌ„cell and sixt Action Tom. 3. and long before that Theodoret in his Dialogue intituled Impatibilis doth relate the same out of S. Ignatius Scholler to the Apostles And this heresy is taught in these our daies by Zuinglius in his Booke De verbis Coenae Domini by Caluin lib. 4. Instit. cap. 17. § 12. And so we haue layd forth the heresies of 20. Archeretickes that were coÌ„demned by the Church within the first seauen hundred yeares after Christ which heresies being â—â—lden by vs for such and by our Aduersaries for 〈◊〉 articles of their faith it followeth that our doctrine doth agree with the doctrine of the ancient Church â—â—d the doctrine of our aduersaries with the anciâ—â—t heresies So he â—â— And this is Cardinall Bellarmines charge Let â—â—e Reader now marke how brokeÌ„ly it is set downe 〈◊〉 M. Morton For first he mentioneth only Caluin to 〈◊〉 challenged for this last heresy of the Sacramentaâ—es against the Reall Presence as now I haue said â—auing out Zuinglius who is equally charged by the â—â—rdinall for the same thing which is one tricke â—hen he omitteth wholy the mention of the 7. Geâ—â—rall CouÌ„cell which so long agoe related confuâ—â—d the said heresy this is another tricke Furtherâ—ore he coÌ„cealeth in like maÌ„ner the name authoâ—â—tie of old S. Ignatius who in his tyme which was â—â—mediatly after the Apostles held the denying of 〈◊〉 Reall Presence to be an heresy this is a third â—icke All which poyntes could not be pretermitted 〈◊〉 M. Morton nor any one of them indeed but by voâ—â—ntary deliberation and consequently he must be â—â—esumed to haue done it of set purpose to deceyue â—ut let vs come to his two heads of contradiction â—hich he will needs find in Bellâ—rmine â—9 The first is that Cardinall Bellarmine is affirmed â—y him to say that that hereticall opinion cited â—â—fore against the Reall Presence out of Theodoret is 〈◊〉 ancient nor yet now to be found in Theodoret and â—or this he citeth Bellarmines owne wordes as he saith â—â—b 1. de Euchar. cap. 1. initio and that in latin to wit â—uae sententia citaâ—ur à Theodoreto in Dialogo vbi tamen nunc â—on habetur VVhich sentence of S. Ignatius against old â—eretiks is cited by Theodoret in his dialogue where â—otwithstanding now it is not to be found So he telâ—eth vs out of Bellarmine both in Latin English â—ut corrupteth him egregiously in both lauguages First in allegation and then in translation as now shall be demonstrated For first the true vvordes of Cardinall Bellarmine in latin are these Quae sententia ciâ—atur à Theodoreto in 30. Dialogo ex epist. Ignatij ad Smyâ—â—â—ses vbi tamen nunc non habetur That is to say This sentence concerning old heretiks denying the Reall Presence is cyted by Theodoret in his third dialogue out of S. Ignatius his Epistle to the Christians of Smyrna where notwithstanding it is not now found meaning expresly that it is not found at this day in that Epiâ—tle of S. Ignatius but in Theodoret it is found and is extant both in Greeke and latyn as euery man may see that will read the place quotedâ— So as heere agayne M. Morton corrupteth Bellarmâ—â—â— both in Latin and English leauing out not only the mention of S. Ignatius his Epistle ad Smyrnenses and then making his Reader belieue that the testimony of Theodoret was not to be found at this day in him but also vpon this falsification of his owne will needs frame a contradiction in Bellarmine And can there be any more witting and wilfull falshood then this Can this dealing stand with the solemne and extraordinary protestations which he maketh of sincerity in the end of his booke euen against hiâ— owne infirmityes 100. But let vs see yet further how he proueth that Bellarmine hauing said before that this heresy of denying the Reall Presence was very ancient contradicteth himselfe and saith in the very same place that it is not ancient for which he alleadgeth these wordes of the Cardinall Ne autem glorientur Caluinistae c. And to the end that the Caluinists may not glory that their opinion against the Reall Presence is very ancient it is to be noted that those most ancient hereticks mentioned by S. Ignatius did not so much impugne the SacrameÌ„t of the Eucharist as the mistery of Christ his incarnation For so much as therfore they denied the Eucharist â—o be the flesh of Christ as S. Ignatius doth signifie in â—he same place for that they deny Christ to haue â—lesh c. â—01 Which testimony if you consider it well â—oth not proue at all that the denyall of the Reall â—resence was no
that vnderstood them to mâ—ane of Purgatory and will our owne doctors thinke yow say that these fiâ—teene places are all tortured and forced against their meaning and all the Fathers expositions violented against their owne iudgement If our doctors will say so they must be M. Mortons doctors and not ours 141. And finally it is the repetition of a fond vauÌ„t when he concludeth thus Lastly sayth he almost euery one of the indeauouring the defence of the same doctryne is in his owne assertion contradicted by himselâ—e c. For what one example hath M. Morton beene able to bring hitherto to proue this All his assaults against Cardinall Bellarmine haue bene sagittae paruuloruÌ„ arrowes of childreÌ„ weake in force and returned commonly vpon himselâ—e All which notwithstanding let vs see how peremptory he is in the end of this Chapter in iustifying of himselfe and condemning his aduersary 142. These obseruations sayth he may giue our Reader such a scantling of their dealing that we may iustly pronounce P. R. his censure vpon themselues Not to be belieued heereafter So desperate hath his demand bene when he required any one ouertaken in a triple â—alsitie as though he would venture all the credit of all the Annotations vpon the Rhemish Testament all the Volumes of Baronius his Annales all the Monuments of Counceâ—s in their Binius and Surius all the disputes of Bellarmine oâ— Greg. de Valentia oâ— Coâ—cius and all other their late doctors vpon as I may so call it only tre-trippe a triple falsity and then neuer to be crâ—diâ—ed agaâ—ne I am perswaded that no Protestant who hath bene conuersant in reading and examining their Authors but he will stand astonished to heare this grant our Mitigator maketh as being as I haue sayd intolerably disaduaÌ„tagious vnto the Romish part but he will easily cease to maruaile when he perceyueth by whome it is made to wit P. R. the Authour of the Booke of MitigatioÌ„ who himselfe is guilty of thrice three palpable falsityes so that none shall hereafter need to wonder why he hath beene so lauish in hazarding other mens credits seeing he is so desperately prodigall of his owne So farre he 143. Wherunto that I may answere briefly I say that for my selfe if there may be found thrice three palpable falsities such as before we haue described and agreed vpon to wit as cannot be excused by any ouersight or errour but must needes be iudged malicious and wittingly vntrue I do not demand any pardon or relaxation from my first offer that I be neuer credited more yea if it be but thrice which is the measure that I offred to others Hytherto we haue seene no one alleaged proued and truly I do confesse that if I did perswade my self or doubt that M. Morton or any other could proue any such one vntruth vttered by me I should be much troubled in conscience therwith but for that I am sure I neuer had such meaning I stand very confident that he will neuer be able to bring any one example and much lesse thrice three as he braggeth 144. And whâ—ras he seâ—meth to accuse me of lacke of prouidâ—nce in aduâ—nturing the credit both of my selfe and all other Catholicke writers vpon only tre-trip as he calleth it or triple â—alsity I do not lay any thing theron â—or that falsities may pâ—oceed of diuers cauâ—es and in diuers degrees and with sundry circumstances of more or lesse â—ault so as there may be a falsity without falshood whereof my meaning is not in this place but whosoeuer shall be found in a wilfull and witting falsity or rather falshood such as often before hath bene spoken of that is knowne to be such by the vtterer I do thinke it to abhorre so much from the nature it selfe of an honest ciuill man as of what religion soâ—uer he be of he will not commit it once and much lâ—sse thrice And vpon this tre-trip I thinke I might aduenture the credit of all those that would be accompted honest in both religions And it seemeth to me that except M. Morton and his fellowes were much interessed therin and mistrusted their owne partes he would neuer so often and so earnestly mislike the same offer calling it despeâ—atly prodigall which notwithstanding I hold to be so iust and reasonable yea strictly necâ—ssary also to be exacted as no man that hath care of his consciâ—nce or estimation can repine against it or seeke exemption therin And so much of this THE SVMME And Reckoning of all this whole Chapter §. XVIII NOW then M. Morton to ioyne friendly with you and to make vp the Reckoning quietly of all this Chapter wherin you tooke vpon you to proue that our Catholicke Authours were to be conuinced of manyfold witting vntruthes â—o vttered by them as they must needs be presumâ—d to haue knowne that they were vntruthes wheÌ„ they wrote them you see what poore successe you haue had in the enterprize in that you haue beene able to proue no one thing of any moment eyther against Popes or Popish Authours by you impugned and much lesse against Cardinall Bellarmine whome you singled out in particuler but much hath bene proued against your selfe in that kind wherof you wrongfully accused him The three Popes Zozimus Bonifacius Celestinus haue beene cleared from the slaunder of falsifying the Councell of Nice and Costerus and Gratian haue complayned of your wilfull falsifying their words and meaning and with euident arguments haue iustified their complaint Your obiections of different expositions of our Authours concerning the Councells of Eliberis in Spaine and Franckeford in Germanyâ— about the vse of Images haue byn shewed both to be impertinent to the state of our question to proue wilfull malice and further also intangled with dâ—uers â—alsâ—ties of your owne and the like about the Authority of Epiphanius concerning the same controuersy of the Catholicke vse of Images 146. And when you come to ioyne with Bellarmine in both the heads by you set downe first of wilfull falsities and slanders euicted as you say by his owne confession and then of falsifications in the allegation of other mens testimonies though you stretch your selfe farre I meane not only your wit but your conscience also to charge him with somewhat that may seeme probable against him for which you haue threescore bookes of his to offer you variety of matter yet are you so farre of from hauing produced any one thing of substance whereunto the name or nature of a witting and wilfull vntruth may agree as you haue wonderfully established the credit of his workes by these your vaine assaults made against the same and disgraced your selfe with the note of many witting and wilfull vntruthes so vttered by you as they make you in euery indifferent mans iudgment inexcusable in that obiecting falsely such vntruthes to others haue so exceedingly multiplied the same your selfe 147. And as for the last matter handled by you heere against
that all was for the safety good of their State and persons and no lesse in the cause of Syr Thomas VVyat 53. Heere then you see that he is conuinced of foure seuerall false assertions which he could not choose but know to be false before he set them downe if he read and belieued M. Fox and other Protestant writers But how now thinke you doth all this conuince or so much as accuse me of any willfull falsitie And if it doth not as euery man seeth why then is it brought in hâ—eâ—e in this place for a seuerall obiection of faâ—shood against me Yea with words of great reproach saying VVe may sufâ—er professors of the â—eates oâ— lâ—gier-de-main to delude the behoulders to conuey onâ— mans ring into another mans pocket and then call him a cosner but for vs Diuines to play such tricks as P. R. hath donne changing Holinshed into M. Fox and then to tax me for â—alsâ—od is a deuise inexcusable So he 54. And did you euer heare a sober man in this tune Stand attâ—nt I pray to the controuersy He cited the proclamation of Syr Thomas VViatt as not making mention of Religion and quoteth Holinshed in the margent I produced M. Fox that wrote before Holinshed and liued in Q. Maâ—yes time who set downe not only VViatts temporall pretenses but that also for religion and for all the other three points I do alleage the same Fox and M. Morton quoteth no author at all but Holinshed as holding his peace and saying nothing therin which he wil needes take for a deniall albeit in the last point as you haue heard Holinshed himself expresly testifieth against him which he dissembleth And do I then heere play Legier-de-main coÌ„ueying rings into other mens pockets and changing Holinshed into Fox Doth this man know or care what he saith Or is there any one of these points that prooueth any least falshood in me not rather all foure in him How then is it heere againe brought in against me in this ninth obiection of â—alsity I am content that any indiffereÌ„t friend of his answere for him in this point whether in leauing to me the charge of two vntruthes draweth not vnto himselfe all foure much more forcibly then they were layd vpon him before in our Treatise of Mitigation 55. Nay I must tell the Reader further that haâ—â—ng considered better the impudency of this his laâ—t Preambling Reply wherein he would shroud himseâ—â— from a maniâ—est conuiction of lying in the first point for that Holinshed speaketh nothing of religioÌ„ in VViats pretence I tooke the paines to search hâ—m ouer more diligently and found that he did expressely affirme also the same that Fox doth saying The Commons and many of the Nobility for the marriage and for the cause of Religion conspired to rayse warre And the very same doth affirme Iohn Stow in his Chronicle saying that for this marriage and for religion they conspired against the Queene c. So as now hauing found out this M. Morton cannot say that I do wilily like a Fox prey furthest from home for that before I did vrge only the authority of M. Fox seeing that now both his proper Author Holinshed and Stow are found expressely to affirme the self same VVhich way will M. Morton turne himself heere For he is conuinced of an open and manifest falshood in denying that in two seuerall Replyes and Editions of his bookes which now his owne author Holinshed is found flatly to affirme FOVRE OTHER obiections of M. Morton against P. R. in matter of willfull falsitie to witt the tenth eleauenth tweluth and thirteenth in M. Mortons Catalogue §. X. IN signe that M. Mortons matter now groweth barren in obiâ—cting of willâ—ull falsities against me he beginneth to â—uddle vp diuers of them togeather but of so small moment and so fully answered and confuted before as it is euident he seeketh but some shew of number to help himself for some ostentatioÌ„ towards which help I doe willingly increase his number more by one then he maketh it in his owne reckoning though he indeed set all downe but yet being ashamed of the first about my erring in his name T. M. he giueth thereunto no number at all of a distinct obiection as I haue donne in my answere Let vs see thenâ— what manner of obiections these foure are beginning in his accompt from the 8. in these words 57. A ninth falshood sayth he may be accompted his peremptory râ—prehensâ—on of our English translation vpon that oâ—â—say the Prophet 29. as dissâ—nting from the Latin Greâ—ke and Hebrew both in woâ—ds and sense in which censure he hath bâ—ne conuicted oâ— a grossâ— falshood in both by the iudgment oâ— his owne Doctours Thus farre he And for this he noteth in the margent see aâ—oâ—e § 5. nu 15. meaning that the same is handled before betweene vs in this Preamble consequently condemneth himself of impertinency and oâ— lacke of matter to obiect against me when he bringeth it forth heere againe for making vp a number of many obiections though neuer so vaine and idle quite contrary to his solemne promise in the begining that he would bring forth nothing but only such falles of mine as may seeme to be â—ecouerable by no excuse and inforce me neuer hereafter to credit my self and the Reader to thinke that I haue no conscience at all All this he threatned and now do you iudge whether these obiections of his do inforce thus much or no being in themselues both trifles not prooued by him 58. And for this first about the text of Esay wherin he accuseth me of grosse falshood there could be none therin on my part at all it being but a reprehension of mine against him for that he translated the sentence falsely which if it could be prooued that he did not yet should it be bâ—t an errour in me and no witting falshood and consequently nothing to our purpose but he that shall peruse the place heere cited where this matter is before discussed shall find M. Morton and his English translation if there be any such extant cleerly conuinced that they neither agree with the Latin Greeke or Hebrew nor with S. Hierom most skilfull in all three languages so as this obiection might haue bene left oâ—t but only for want of other store And as for that he saith in the last words of this obiection that I am conuinced of grosse falshood by the iudgment of my owne Doctours it must needs be grosse presumption for M. Morton to affirme it For that there is no one of mine that is to say Catholicke that euer tooke out that sense of the words of Esay that he doth nor could they do it the text not bearing any such interpretation as before hath bene declared Wherfore his subâ—ility in forcing Esay to say that which he doth not is contemptâ—bâ—e to vs in comparison of our grosâ—enesse that cannot vnderstand him but in
proofe amongst other points that which Mortonâ—iteth â—iteth to the contrary to wit that Genesius Sepulueda of this our last age seemeth to be the only first Author that M. Morton can produce for disallowing absolutely Equiuocation though indeed he do not and therby doth plainely prooue that in the first three hundreth of these foure there was no opposition found to haue byn made to the contrary among so many multitudes of bookes and Authors as are extant of those times or if there had that their opposition had byn extant aswell as this of Sepuluâ—da 64. Neither did I say as M. Morton would seeme to perswade his Reader that expressely and by name he graunted the generall vse therof in all Schooles Chaires Vniuersities Tribunalls and the like for these foure hundreth yeares but I did by force of consequence inferre that he must needes graunt so much vpon his first confession of foure hundred yeares as hath bene sayd Neither can he auoid that inference and consequence as hath byn demonstrated for if it were a receiued doctrine among vs and no ancient contradiction to be fouÌ„d then must it needes in that antiquity be supposed to haue byn generall current doctrine in our Schooles Vniuersities Tribunalls c. For where no contradiction is found there generall approbation may be presumed Neither do I vouchsafe to answere to that obscure comparison of the French â—ox which M. Morton though a Minister is not ashamed to bring in for an example that some yea many haue had them in this age and yet may we not conclude that all haue had them And the like saith he in the doctrine of Equiuocation though some Schooles and Doctors haue taught it yet not all Wherto I answere that there is no parity For if there had bene as many writers that had opposed them selues against the doctrine of Equiuocation and vse therof in the foure hundred yeares and detesting the same as there haue bene cleane men and women that haue detested that other fowle disease proâ—essing themselues to be free therof M. Morton would not haue bene in those straites that he is for finding out one Author that contradicteth the same in all the time by him appointed before Genesius Sepulueda that only in some particuler Cases reproueth the same though granting and defending it in others So as I leaue the filth of this comparison to the Author and do conclude in this first point that heere is nothing at all to be found either of falshood or falsity in this obiection against me For what I said is iustified by M. Morton his owne wordes 65. There remaineth then the second point to be discussed But noting first by the way the lauish immodesty of M. Mortons tongue in citing the learned Doctor Gabriell Biel out of Genesius Sepulueda by the contemptuous title of lewd Sophister whereas Sepulueda stileth him in the same place Theologum doctissimum a most learned Diuine and Tritemius who liued with him saith In diuinis Scripturis eruditus ingenio excellens vita conuersatione praeclarus c. Learned in the diuine Scriptures excellent in wit and famous for his good life and conuersation Gouernor of the Vniuersity of Tubinga in Germany euen from the beginning therof vnto the yeare 1494 which praises and â—uloges will neuer I doubt me be verified or giuen by any Author of credit or accompt to M. Morton that so scorneth and iniureth so graue and learned a man And yet doth his grauity and humility make no bones to censure him for a lewd Sophister at the very first blow whome perhaps he hath not read and without perhaps vnderstandeth not in many points of chiefest learning And this is the priuiledge of our new Doctors to contemne reproach all others though neuer so much learneder then themselues But let vs go forward 66. The second point in his Paragraph is that he taketh vpon him to checke the generall acceptaÌ„ce of Equiuocation which I said to haue byn admitted in all Schooles Vniuersities c. for the space of foure hundreth yeares by alleaging the contradiction of three â—amous learned â—esuits oâ— our time for so now he calleth them when they seeme somâ—what to serue his turne to wit Ioannes Azorius Emanuel Sâ— and Ioannes Maldonatus who in some particuler cases do reprehend or not admitt all manner of Equiuocation VVherin first is to be noted that whereas M. Morton should haue shewed some contradictour of the three ages past he nameth only the writers of our tyme and those Iesuits also which sort of men are euery where accused by him as the Authors and speciall fauourers of Equiuocation and now fyndeth none in effect to contradict it but them VVherfore M. Morton and his fellowes must cease hereafter to accuse Iesuits so generally as defenders of this doctrine or els say that they are contrary one to the other or that there is some meaning and particuler sense in those that seeme to deny the same which M. Morton therfore concealeth for that being discouered no contradiction would be found amongst them 67. And this mistery by him concealed is which before also sundrie times we haue noted not that any Iesuite doth vtterlie deny the lawfulnes of Equiuocation in all cases whatsoeuer as bouldly and ignorantlie M. Morton doth but for the restrayning of such abuses as may fall out in the practise therof yf to much libertie be permitted they are more seuere then other men in limiting the same as more fullie may appeare in part by our discourse in the last Chapter of the Treatise of Mitigation where Catholicks are exhorted to vse the lawfulnes therof with great restraint and parsimony And further the speach that inâ—ueth about these three learned writers Azor Sà Maldonatus all three Iesuites and misalleadged by M. Morton will more plainly make manifest the same THE OPINION OF the Doctor Iesuite Ioannes Azor about Equiuocation falsly obiected by M. Morton as making for him wheras it maketh wholy against him §. XII AND as for the first which is Azor M. Morton bringeth him in with this Encomion saying in a speciall title The first witnes conuincing P. R. of falshood is Azorius a learned Iesuite but I do wonder that M. Morton will bring him in againe heere or suffer him to be so much as mentioned I hauing conuinced him in my Treatise of Mitigation of so notorious and wilfull a fraud and corruption in alleadging Azor his words about Equiuocation in an Oath as could not but shame any man of modesty to haue it seene or vnderstood by the Reader wherin I referre my selfe to the place quoted in the Margent But now let vs see notwithstanding further what Azorius saith against Equiuocation in generall for to this effect he is brought in in this place as though he held that all Equiuocation were to be reiected as lying for proofe wherof he citeth two places out of the selfe same leafe
and Sotus togeather as he saith I do but only of Genesius alone neither do I there indeauour to satisfy any of their testimonies as he falsely affirmeth for that there are none in that place brought forth against me but rather to the coÌ„trary I do bring forth an euident vnanswerable testimony of Genesius in defence of Equiuocation against M. Morton which he doth not so much as go about to answere here nor euer wil be able How then will he be able to iustify this quotation Or how can he defend that I do indeauour to satisfy Genesius and Sotus togeather as specified in the same place but pretermitting Maldonat as an vnequall mâ—tch For in the place quoted I do not treate of them both as now hath bin sayd nor do I remember that I do ioyne Genesius and Sotus in any place togeather throughout my Booke though they be cyted within the coÌ„pasâ—e of one page in M. Mortons Full Satisfaction togeather with Azor and Maldonate which authorityes I do examine in different places of my Booke according as the matter and subiect requireth 85. It may be therefore that by some errour he meaneth of Azor and Sotus and not Genesius and Soâ—uâ— whoâ—e authorities I do examine and ponder togeather some twenty pages after the former quotation oâ— M. Morton But truly me thinkes he should haue bin greatly ashamed to send the Reader thither â—or he shall fynd there the most intollerable corruptions falsifications of those two Authours proued against M. Morton that perhaps are obiected against him in the whole Booke For that Azor is cyted by him quite contrary to his owne words meaning as for example that he condemneth his fellow Iesuits for allowing Equiuocation where he doth expressely defend the same and that he condemneth the Couentry Case beâ—ore mentioned of comming from an infected place when as he doth by name allow of that Case And the like falsifications are demonstrated out of Dominicus Sotus as may be seene in the booke And M. Morton taketh not vpon him to answere or so much as touch them here in this his Preambling Reply and consequently should haue blushed to diâ—ect the Reader thither where he should find these wounds laid open but durum telum necessiâ—as And wheÌ„ thornes are on euery side of the path to runne barefooted and blindfold as M. Morton seemeth to do is a hard Case â—or of no side he can step without incurring some perill Now then let vs come to Maldoâ—at whose authority he saith I did of purpose as vnanswerable pretermitt 86. For to make Maldonate of more weight credit as though he had said somewhat against me and in his behalfe he beginneth with this description of him Maldonate saith he a principall Iesuite and Casuist resolueth thus c. and in his booke of Full Satisfact he citing the selfe same sentence of Maldonate which he doth heere beginneth with this preamble Not only Sotus saith he called among you the subtil Doctor but euen the subtilest of all your Iesuits calleth your Equiuocating ranke lying saying whosoeuer doth endeuour by feigning to deceaue another although he intend to signifie somewhat els doubtles he lyeth In which two Prefaces to pretermit all other pointes yow maie note two grosse ouerslippes the first in stiling Maldonate a Casuist who is neuer knowne to haue read or written of Cases in his life but Scholasticall diuinitie he professed many yeares in Paris and left very learned Commentaries vpon all the foure Euangelists though the Roman Index Expurgatorius Anno Dom. 1607. doe mention that certaine Cases of Conscience published by another printed at Lions An. 1604. were falslie ascribed to him The second that Dominicus Sotus was Iohn Scotus the subtile doctor which liued aboue 200. yeares before Sotus wherof I admonished him before in the Treatise of Mitigation and yet he would needs renew againe the memory therof in this Preamble by sending meÌ„ to peruse what I answered before to Sotus and thereby reueale his owne shame 87. But now what hath Maldonatus here in the sentence alleaged that I should willinglie pretermit to answere as being ouermatched therewith doth Maldonate say any thing in this sentence that is not conforme to our Common doctrine of Equiuocation Noe truelie For we graunt that whosoeuer doth endeuour by feigning to deceiue another doth lye In so much as it agreeth well with the definitioÌ„ of a lye set downe in S. Augusâ—ine Mâ—ndacium â—st salsa â—ocis significatio câ—m intâ—ntione salâ—â—ndi A lye is a â—alse significatioÌ„ of speach with intentioÌ„ to deceiue which two clauses of the definition of a lye I do proâ—ue and demonstrate â—or diuers leaues togeather in the eight Chapter of my former Treatise that they can not agree with the nature of â—quiuocation and by consequence that Equiâ—ocation is no lye 88. Not the first Clause a false signifâ—caâ—ion of spâ—ach which is wheÌ„ the speach doth diâ—â—er from the meaning and sense Not the second oâ— intention to deceiue for that the first and principall intention of him that is forced for some iust cause to equiuocate â—or otherwise he maie not vse it is to delâ—uer himself from that iniurie which is oâ—â—ered him and not to deceiue the Iudge or hearer though consequentlie that do follow And this I do proue to be â—o cleare as that by this are iusâ—ified all Stratagems in war which are indeed nothing but Equiâ—ocaâ—ions in fact that otherwise should be vnlawfull and sinfull Which yet S. Augustine with all other ancient Fathers do expresâ—ly iustify saying Cùm iustum bellâ—m qâ—is suscepâ—rit vtrum aperta pugna vel insidijs vincat â—ihil ad iusâ—itiam interest When a man wageth iust war it importeth not in respect of iustice whether he ouercome by open fight or els by sleightes or stratagâ—ms which stratagems are indeed nothing els but lawfull dissimulations that seeme to haue deceipt in them and consequently to be lyes in fact and vnlawfull but indeed are not as I do shew by sundry examples out of Scripture it selfe where God that cannot lye did either commauÌ„d or allow such sleights and deceipts in stratagems as that of Iosue at the Citty of Hay wherin many thereby were sâ—aine the stratagems of Elizeus at the Citty of Dothaim that of Iudith at Bethulia and the like And I do alleage diuers other examples both in fact and woâ—d aswell of our Sauiour out of the Euangelistes as of S. Paul and other Saints whereby it is most euident that in some Cases a man may equiuocate 89. I do shew also at length in the same Chapter to witt the eight but much more in the nynth that the Clause intentio fallendi conteyned in S. Austines definition of a lye doth in no case truly enter into â—quiuocation For that he which vseth lawfull â—quiuocation hath not his firsâ— and principall end to deceiue the hearer but to auoid the
obiection also in this Chapter about the succession of ProtestaÌ„t Princes and the 13. about an allegation out of Frisingensis haue byn all handled before and brought in by him againe and agayne therby to make a shew that he answereth to many things wheras in truth he answereth to nothing truly and substantially no not indeed to the easiest of these which heere he hath picked out to shew his manhood in defending them And yet he saith in the Preface of this Chapter That he hopeth to giue such satisfaction to all as that not only the wound of slaunder may be cured but euen also the suspicious scarre of imputation may be wyped away THE FIRST obiected falsity pretended to be answered by Thomas Morton §. I. IN the first front of his squadroÌ„ of 14. obiected falsities chosen by him heere to be defended he placeth a reprehension of mine made vnto him in my Epistle dedicatory to the Vniuersities for that in his Epistâ—e to the K. Maiestie of his Treatise intituled A full Satisfaction he vseth these calumnious words Polidore obserueth saith he that the Popes a long time in their election had their names changed by Antiphrase viz. the elected if he were by naturall disposition fearfull was named Leo if cruell Clemens if vnciuill Vrbanus if wicked Pius if couetous Bonifacius if in all behauiour intollerable Innocentius c. This speach as malicious and contumelious fraught with deceiptfulnes I iustly reprehended noting by the way that he had cited no place in Polidore wheras he hath written sundry books besides his histories I noted also that diuers Kinges and Princes might haue names whose significations might be farre different from their qualities and actions and that Popes since the beginning of that custome of changing their names after their election did not take names by antiphrase or contrariety of sense as this man seditiously did insinuate but for reuerence commonly of other holy Popes who pasâ—ed beâ—ore thâ—m whose names they tooke as I exemplified in many and yet not hauing Polidore then by me I meane that worke of his de Inuentoribus Rerum I passed ouer diuers other pointes of deceiptfull sleightes in him which I might haue vrged and now must needes in part touch for that to this accusation of myne he hath nothing to answere in this his Reply but this which ensueth 5. First that albeit he cited not any certayne booke or place out of Polidores workes yet that the sentence reported by him vpon his memory is found in Polidore his fourth booke de inuentoribus Rerum c. 10. which is intituled De origine honorum qui Romano Pontifici habâ—ntur de eius authoritate in omnes Ecclesias of the beginning of the honors that are giuen to the Bishop of Rome of his authority ouer all Chuâ—ches And albeit this obseruation of Polidore mentioned by M. Morton be not found in any of our Bookes now commonly extant yet he saith that they are in his booke of the edition of Basilea of the yeare 1570. and that two yeares after that by order of Pope Pius Quintus the Index expurgatorius did put out these wordes but he telleth not what Index it was for I haue one containing both the Spanish Flemish Index wherin it is written about Polidore Virgil thus Ex Indice Louaniensi quae in Polidoro Virgilio de rerum inuentoribus Basileae impresso anno 1544. in octauo corrigenda sunt atque delenda The things that are to be corrected or blotted out in Polidore Virgil in his eight bookes of the first inuentors of things which worke of his was printed at Basilea in octauo vpon the yeare of Christ 1544. 6. Out of which wordes it may be presumed as to me it seemeth that vpon the said yeare of Christ 1544. whiles Polydore Virgil lyued yet in England his worke de inuentoribus Rerum though it were printed at Basile where Protestant Religion was entred yet this place of Polidor about changing of Popes names was not found for that being both scandalous and vntrue as presently shall be shewed it is very like or rather certaine that this our Index expurgatorius would haue noted it at least as it doth diuers other thinges not only out of the same worke but euen out of the same 4. booke and 2.3.4.5.6.7 and 8. Chapters and yet saith nothing at all of any thing of the tenth where M. Morton saith this his obseruation is now found in his booke printed at Basile 1570. which was 26. yeares aâ—ter the former edition wherof must needes be inferred that either M. Morton dealeth not sincerely with vs which yet in this matter I will not bee so vnfriendly as to suspect or that his edition of 1570â— which hitherto I cannot see hath receaued this addition about the Popes changing their names after the foresaid edition of 1544. which could not be from Polidore himselfe who was dead before but from some new merry brother of Basile then hereticall who to make sport put it in for a merriment indeed for so in the text it selfe he professeth that he wrote it in iest though it pleaseth M. Morton to take it vp in earnest 7. But let vs heare the wordes themselues which M. Morton setteth downe as found in his Polidore Primus honos saith he Romano Pontifici habetur vt si minùs pulchro honestetur nomine ei statim creato liceat illud mutare verbi gratia quòd non extra iocum dictum sit si homo maleficus antea fuerit vt Bonifacius appelletur si timidus Leo si rusticus Vrbanus c. This is the first honour giuen to the Bishop of Rome after his creation saith he that if his name be not fayre he may chaÌ„ge the same as for example which yet be not spoken but in iest if before he had byn perhaps an euill doer he may be called Bonifacius that is a good doer if he had byn fearfull then may he be called Leo a lyon if â—usticall then Vrbanus or ciuill c. And the first Author or beginner of this custome is said to haue bin Pope Sergius the 2. whose name hauing bin before Os Porci which signyfiâ—th the mouth of a hogge it was permitted vnto him saith the supposâ—d Polidore for auoyding the obscenity of his former name to change the same 8. Thus much out of M. Mortons Polidore wherof he vaunteth according to his fashion in these words Although they haue made Polidore by their Index expurgatorius almost in euery page dumbe not suffering him to beare witnesse against the pryde of Popes c. yet our ancient Polidore now dwelling among Protestants printed anno 1570. Basileae hath a tongue that will tell tales So he Speaking more truly then perhaps he imagineth that his Polidore in this poynt telleth meere tales indeed and consequently is no great iewell of antiquity to be bragged of as dwelling now among Protestants For now I haue shewed that in
learnedly by a distinction for that as he saith the selfe same Tyrant may be killed and not killed by a priuate man in regard of publicke or priuate iniuries 43. But this euasion is ouerthrowne by the words whole discourse of Doctor Boucher now alledged for that he speaketh not only against killing a TyraÌ„t for priuate iniuries by a priuate man but also in publicke iniuries for so doth shew his allegation of the Decree of the Councell of Constance that condemned as an errour in faith to hold with Iohn VVickcliffe that euery Tyrant may be slayne meritoriously by any vassall or subiect of his by open or secret treasons which is vnderstood as well for publicke as priuate iniuries 44. But it is graunted by D. Boucher saith M. Morton that when the common wealth hath condemned and declared any Tyrant for a publick enemy he may be slaine by a priuate man Wherto I answere that then he is no priuate man for that he doth it by a publike authority of the Common Wealth as doth the exâ—cutioner that cutteth of a Noble mans head by order and authority of the publicke Magistrate so as in this M Morâ—ons distinction seâ—ueth him to no purpose for that neither for priuate or publicke iniuries can a priuate man as a priuate man that is to say by priuate authoritie kill any Prince though he were a Tyrant for any cause either priuate or publicke whatsoeuer So as in this principall charge M. Morton remaineth wholy conuicted as you see 45. There do rest the two other wings of falshod obiected vnto him the first that he stroke out the wordes of most importance froÌ„ D. Bouchers discourse which made the matter cleare to wit quem hostem Respublica iudicauerit whome the Common-wealth hath adiudged for a publicke enemie him may a priuate man kill and the second that he addeth the other clause of his owne that are not found in Bouchers wordes VVhich I say by common consent The first of these two falshoods he would excuse by saying that albeit that D. Boucher in the place before alleadged out of his third booke doth set downe this position with the foresaid restriction priuato etiam cuiuis Tyrannum quem hostem Respub iudicauerit occidere licitum esse that it is lawfull also to any priuate man to kill a Tyrant whome the Commonwealth hath iudged for a publike enemy for then he doth it not by priuate authority yet that in his fourth booke he hath a whole Chapter to proue that in some vrgent cause the matter may be preuented as when the thing is so notorious instant and perilous as the said publicke iudgement cannot well be expected and may be presumed as graunted especially saith he in poâ—na priuatiua in priuatiue punishment that is to say when subiects in punishmeÌ„t of open and manifest tyranny do withdraw their due respect and obedience by seeking only to defend themselues though not in positiua in positiue punishment of actuall rebellion or warre offensiue But this doth not any way satisfy the falshood obiected in striking out thesâ— wordes in the former booke place where D. Boucher set them downe for declaration of this doctrine that a priuate man was not licenced to kill a Tyrant by his owne priuate authority for when Subiects are forced to vse this way of preuention by armes defensiue before the common-wealth can make publicke declaration in such cause they do it not as priuate men but as the body of the Common-wealth So as considering what heere is in question he must needs be condemned of a nihil dicit if not also of â—alsum dicit 46. And the very like may be said about the second accessory vntruth for adding the wordes which I say by common consent for excuse wherof he runneth to the other Chapters wherin he saith that D. Boucher auoucheth Mirum esse in affirmandâ— consensuÌ„ there is woÌ„derfull coÌ„sent in allowing this doctrine and then in another Chapter that he who denieth this that he sayth is destitute of common sense But these are of other matters and spoken vpon other occasioÌ„s and not annexed to the former sentence of D. Boucher produced and corrupted by M. Morton and consequently they are mere impertinent euasions that do more confirme and establish then any way remoue the fraudes and falshoods obiected against him And so much of this matter which would grow ouer long if we should prosecute the same as M. Mortons manner of answere would inuite vs. THE FOVRTH Charge of falshood pretended to be answered or rather shifted of by M. Morton and cast vpon R. C. §. IIII. AMONG other examples that I alleaged of M. Mortons spirit in dealing vnsincerely by calumniating our Catholicke writers therby to get some shew of aduantage against them and the Catholick cause I produced a place out of M. VVilliam Reynolds his booke de Reipublicae authoritate most notoriously abused and peruerted to make him seeme to abase the authority of Kings and Princes in that very place where M. Reynolds did specially imploy himselfe in aduancing their dignity I shall heere lay forth the fraude you shall iudge what manner of consciences these men haue and whether they defend their cause as a cause of truth or no. This then was my former repreheÌ„sion about his dealing in this point The Charge 48. In his booke of Discouery pag. 8. hauing set downe this false proposition that all Catholick Priests did proâ—esse a prerogatiue oâ— the people over all Princes for prooâ—e therof he cyâ—ed this position of M. Reynoldeâ— in the place aforsaid Rex humanâ— creatura est quia ab hominibus constiâ—uta and englisheth it in this manner a King is but a creature of mans creation where you see first that in the translation he addeth but mans creation of himselfe â—or that the latin hath no such aduersatiue clause as but nor creation but rather the word constitution Secondly these words are not the words of M. Reynolds but only cited by him out of S. Peter and thirdly they are alleaged heere by Thomas Morton to a quitte contrary sense from the whole discourse and meaning of the Author which was to exalt and magnify the Authority of Princes as descending from God and not to debase the same as M. Reynolds is calumniated to say For proofe heerof whosoeuer will looke vpon the booke and place it selfe before mentioned shall fynd that M. Reynolds purpose therin is to proue that albeit earthly Principality power and authority be called by the Apostle humana creatura yet that it is originally from God and by his commandement to be obeied His words are these Hinc enimest c. Hence it is that albeit the Apostle do call all earthly principality a humane creature for that it is placed in certayne men from the beginning by suffrages of the people yet election of Princes doth flow from the law of Nature which God created and from the vse of
Catholicos Lutheranos Caluinistas c. qui omnes dum Symbolum tenent Apostolicum vera sunt membra Ecclesiae licèt à nobis in particularibus dissentiant Which wordes M. Morton doth very dâ—ceiptfully English thus Emperours should endeuour a reconciliation betwixt Papists and Protestants because ProtestaÌ„ts hold the articles of the Creed and are true meÌ„bers of the Church although they dissent from vs in some particuler opinions So he 85. And here now you see first to be omitted cunningly and wilfully by this crafty Minister the wordes of much moment before mentioned to wit That whiles Princes do not find a fit meane of peace they ought to permit all to liue according to their particuler saith which sentence of his graue and learned Cassander not seeming to himselfe allowable in our English State or to his owne brethreÌ„ the English Caluinists that now hauing gotten the gouernment will suffer no other Religion but their owne he thought best to suppresse and cut them quite out Secondly insteed of the conditionall speach vsed by Cassander modò omnes acâ—ipiant Scripturam c. so that all do receiue the Scripture and Apostolicall Creed he putteth it downe in English with a causitiue clause as if it were quia omnes Symbolum tenent c. All Which Sects because they do hold the Articles of the Creed are true members of the Church leauing out the word Scripture and the English of dum that is whiles they receaue the Scripture and thereby doth as yow see peruert the other wholy in sense For who will not hold it absurd that Catholicks Lutherans Caluinists other Sectes of our tyme though in words they do admit both Scripture and Apostolicall Creed yet differing in sense and so many doctrines as they do are all to be held notwithstanding for true members of one and the self same Church Can any thing be more ridiculous then this 86. Thirdly he doth most notably cogge in thrusting in the words à nobis from vs which are not in the originall meaning therby to make Cassander seeme a Catholicke and to speake in the behalf of Catholicks which is plaine cosenage and to this end also he leaueth out dogmatibus And fynally you see that he shapeth euery thing to his owne purpose by making Câ—ssâ—nder as a Catholike seeme to wish and indeauour this vnion and Bellarmine to reiect it he would confirme his former calumniation that only by the insolency of Iesuites all such hope is debarred 87. And thus much for the corruption of the latin text But his English hath other corruptions also according to his ordinary custome For first he translateth Debent Principes that Emperours should endeauour a reconciliation to confirme therby his former vanity that Cassander was so great a man with Emperours as he talketh not but to Emperors wheras the word Principes vsed by Cassander doth coÌ„prehend all sortes of Princes Secondly he translateth Catholicos Lutheranos Caluinistasâ— c. which words of caetera comprehend all other Sects of our time as Anabaptists Arrians Trinitarians Hâ—ssites Picardians and the like he translateth them I say Papists and Protestants as though all those Sects of our tyme were to be comprehended vnder the name of Protestants of the English faith or as though Cassander yf he were a Catholike as here he is pretended would call vs Papists 88. Thirdly wheras in his owne Latin here set downe he saith Qui omnes dum Symbolum tenent c. All which to wit Catholiks Lutherans Caluinists other Sectaries whiles they hold the Apostolicall Creed are true members of the Church he doth English it thus because Protestants hold the Articles of the Creed and are true members of the Church excluding Catholicks from belieuing the said Articles or being true members which in his owne Latin and that of Bellarmines also are included And fourthly is the corruption before mentioned although they dissent from vs in some particuler opinions which in Bellarmine is although they dissent among themselues in particuler doctrines And finally the wordes by him cited of Bellarmines iudgment which he controlleth to wit falsa est haec sententia Cassandri non possunt enim Catholici reconciliari cum haereticis are not so in Bellarmine but these potest facilè reselli haec Cassandri sententia primum enim non possunt Catholici Lutherani Caluinistae eo modo conciliari c. This sentence of Cassander may easily be refelled first for that Catholicks Lutherans and Caluinists for example cannot so be reconciled as Cassander appointeth to wit by admitting only the wordes of the Creed for that we differ in the sense and somtimes in the Articles themselues as in that descendit ad inferos he descended into Hell in like manner we agree not about the sense of those other Articles I belieue the Catholicke Church and Communion of Saints Remission of sinnes c. So Bellarmine all which this fellow omitteth 89. And so you see there is no truth or sinceritie with him in any thing Neither can these escapes bâ— ascribed any way to ouersight errour mystaking or forgetfulnes but must needs be attributed to wilfull fraud malicious meaning purposely to deceaue as the things themselues do euidently declare For which cause I shall leaue him to be censured by his owne brethreÌ„ but specially by his Lord Maister for so notable discrediting their Cause by so manifest false manner of proceeding 90. These were my words in the other Treatise whereupon I insisted the more in regard of the multiplicitie of fraudes discouered And so M. Morton had not any iust pretence to say as he insinuateth that this with the rest of the Charges layd against him and pretermitted by him were either of lesse importance or lesse insisted vpon then those other fourteene which he chose out to answere THE EIGHTEENTH Falshood pretermitted by Thomas Morton §. XVIII AS the former example apperteyned vnto the abuse of two together so doth this that next weare to alleage which are indeed two distinct things but that drawing to an end I am forced to ioine diuers togeather Wherfore I accused him in my former writing to haue corrupted two Authors ioyntly Royard a Friar and Cunerus a Bishop which accusation I set downe in these words 92. And heere will I passe ouer said I many things that might be noted out of the sequent pages namely 30.31.34 where he doth so peruert and abuse both the wordes discourse and sense of diuers Authours alledged by him as is not credible to him that doth not compare theÌ„ with the bookes themselues from whence they are taken As for example Royardus the Franciscan Friar is brought in with commendation of an honest Friar for that he saith That a King when he is made by the people cannot be deposed by theÌ„ againe at their pleasure which is the same doctrine that all other Friars learned Catholiks do hold so long as he conteyneth himselfe within
no Father had any one place or sentence against Protestant religion he would neuer so much haue discredited them all as heere he doth Wherfore the false EquiuocatioÌ„ of M. Iewell is notable in this place 46. But besides this I do lay forth six seuerall examples of egregious wilâ—ull corruptions taken out of M. Iewells bookes and wordes which are ouâ—r long to be repeated heere two or three also of M. Hornes practise in that behalfe who possessed the bishopricke of VVinchester for some yeares sundry out of M. Calfield diuers out of M. Charke and M. Hanmer and no lesse notorious and wilfull out of M. Perkins some very markable out of Syr Francis Hastings a great nuÌ„ber intolerable out of Syr Philip Mornay who was chalenged by the Bishop of Eureux for 800. and affroÌ„ted with threescore at one offer and conuinced of nine in one dayes conference before the present King of France and his Counsell 47. And finally I adioyne to the former for my last witnesse of false dealing Syr Edward Cooke late Attorney Generall to his Maiesty and not long since manifesting himselfe to the world for a writer against Catholiks whose spirit I do shew by sundry examples to be like the rest in that behalfe leauing the defence both of him and the others to M. Mortons patronage who hath had so litle care of their credit as it seemeth that he hath not so much as once meÌ„tioned them or any one of theÌ„ in this his Reply but leaueth euery one to shift for himselfe which omission cannot but seeme somewhat preiudiciall vnto them for that euery man will therof inferre that their causes were so bad as he durst not take their defence in hand but especially will this seeme to be true in the cause of Syr Edward Cooke whome M. Morton had more obligation to deâ—end in that in his booke of full Satisfaction against me he serued himselfe of diuers examples authorityes taken out of the said Knightes booke allwayes repoâ—table Reportes as there he calleth them VVhich he hauing seene answered since that tyme in my Treatise of Mitigation and shewed to be impertinent and nothing to the purpose had obligation therby to haue defeÌ„ded somewhat in this his Reply eyther the things themselues or the Author or both but neyther of them hath he donne and therfore do I meane to handle this omission seuerally in the sequent Paragraph OF M. MORTONS OMISSIONS Concerning the defence of Syr Edward Cooke wholy pretermitted by him §. IIII. ALBEIT perhaps M. Morton may say that his meaning was to take in hand the dâ—fence of his Client Syr Edward Cooke in his other promised Reioynder and therfore said nothing of him now in this his Preambling Reply yet hauing now seene him very hardly charged in two seuerall Bookes the one of the Catholick Deuine in aÌ„swering to the fiâ—th part of his Reportes the other the Treatise of Mitigation with the like imputations of vntrue dealing as are laid against M. Morton himselfe it seemed that it had byn a point of frendship if not of duty to haue said somewhat for preuenting and staying at least the Readers preiudice as in his Preface he said he did for himselfe especially for so much as he had seene now and read all those places which he borrowed out of M. Cooke to furnish one whole Chapter of his full Satisfaction fully answered and confuted by the Catholicke Deuine in his foresaid Booke which M. Morâ—â—â— might haue at leastwise mentioned among so many other poyntes of lesse importance which he handleth if his hart had not serued him to take vpon him the whole defence 49. But all these indeed are signes of feeblene in both parties I meane as well in the Patron 〈◊〉 the Client for that it is no lesse strange that Syr 〈◊〉 Cooke himselfe hauing set forth a certaine Preface for some excuse of himselfe and this after my Treatise of Mitigation wherin he was so deeply charged with sundrâ— grosse and willfull falshoods had byn seene and read by him and yet to say neuer a word of this charge nor how he could discharge it this silence I say is no lesse straÌ„ge vnto me then the other of M. Morton but rather more for that Syr Edward was to defend himself M. Morton another propria magis premunt our owne affayres do more presse vs then other mens Wherfore to the end that I may somewhat oblige both M. Morton in his promised Reioynder to be more myndfull of this matter and Syr Edward himself if he meane to write any more Bookes against vs to cleare somewhat this Charge that was layd against him I shall repeate the same againe here as it was there set downe in my other Treatise Thus theÌ„ I wrote at that tyme. 50. Our last example said I shall be of Syr Edward Cooke lately the Kings Attorney who hauing taken vpon him these yeares past to be both a sharpe writer and earnest Actor against Catholicks semeth therwith also to haue drunke of this spirit in such abouÌ„dant measure as he is like in time to ouerrunne all the rest if he go foreward as he hath begunne For that being admonished not long a goe by one that answered his last Booke of Reportes of diuers notorious his excesses committed in this kind he is men say so far of from correcting or amending the same as he hath not only in a late large declamatioÌ„ against Catholiks in a Charge giuen by him at Norâ—ich repeated and auouched againe the same excesses but hath added others also therunto of much more apparant â—alsity As for example he was admonished among other points that it was a notorious vâ—truth which he had wrytten and printed that for the first tenne yeares of Q. Elizabethes Raigne no one person of what religion or Sect soeuer did refuse to go to the Protestants Church Seruice which the Answerer confuteth so clearly by so many witnesses as a man would haue thought that the matter would neuer haue byn mentioned 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 51. Nay further they wryte that he adioyned with like asseueration diuers other things no lesse apparantly false then this As for example that Pope Pius Quintus before he proceded to any Ecclesiasticall Censure against Q. Elizabeth wrote vnto her a Letter offering to allow ratiâ—y the English Seruice Bible and Communion booke as now it is in vse in that kingdome if she would accept it as from him which she refusing to doe he did excoÌ„municate her By which tale he acquiteth notwithstanding Catholiks if you marke it from procuring that Excommunication for rebellion which elswhere he ofteÌ„ obiecteth most odiously against them For if vpon this cause she were excommunicated what part
But if we will consider the wise glosses Commentaries and comparings which the Minister maketh very Ministerially vpon euery one of those Cases after he hath related the same it will appeare much more ridiculous For to the first which euidently conuinced both him and M. Attorney of falsitie if you remember for affirming that to be treason by the Common law which is not he saieth thus CoÌ„pare this Bull which did only push at a Subiects benefice with that Bull which goareth Kings And to the second Compare this Bull of disturbans the Presentee of Kings with that which doth ordinarily violate kings persons And to the third Compare this English King imediatly not subiect to the Pope with the Iesuiticall principle All Kings are indirâ—ctly subiâ—ct to Popes And to the fourth CoÌ„pare this that the excoÌ„munication of the Pope is of no force in England with those excoÌ„munications which in these later times haue byn mâ—de against England 96. And to the fifth Compare this oâ— the punishment of theÌ„ that drew men â—or suites to Rome with their acts who haue made no other suite to Rome but â—or meanes to dâ—spossesse English Kings oâ— their Crowne and dignity All these comparings I say are not worth a paring and it was great idlenes in M. Mort. to fill vp paper spend time in such coÌ„parings wheras the matters things themselues wheron these â—on coÌ„d parisons are founded are fouÌ„d to be falsely applied as now hath byn shewed Wherfore this hath not serued any whit to iustify his ClieÌ„t or himselfe but rather to confirme aggrauate the former Charges giuen against them both And it is to be considered that if in these fiue Cases chosen out by M. Morton out of fiue fifty cyted by M. Attorney against the Popes authority before King HeÌ„ry the 8. his Reigne so many false tricks are found what would the number be if we should discusse all the rest with like suruey Surely if M. Attorney might be presumed to haue dealt no more sincerely in the rest of his Reportes wherof six seuerall parts are now published then he hath done in these concerning Râ—ligiâ— they might be called reportable reports indeed in respect of the infinite vntruths reported by them few Lawyeâ—s I think would be at the cost to buy them But I will not suspect this for that in those other there is no interest as I suppose to wrest them to partiality as there was in this both in regard of hiâ—â—erswasion in religion fauour with the Prâ—ce But now let vs paâ—se to peruse and saie somewhat of his late new preface which subministreth some new matter to be handled in this place THE EIGHT CHAPTER WHICH BY OCCASION OF TWO NEW PREFACES lately set forth by the sayd SYR EDWARD COOKE doth handle diuers Controuersies as well about a Nihil dicit obiected by him to his Aduersary AS also about the Antiquity Excellency of the Municipall Common lawes of England and some other points THE PREFACE AFTER I was well entred into this worke for answering M. Morton his Preamble I came to the sight of a new Preface set forth by Syr Edward Cooke before the sixt Part of his Reportes lately published for that the name and argument of Preamble and Preface came so ioyntly togeather from two different Authors and that the â—inall purpose of the one and the other tâ—erin for so much as concerneth our subiect of Religion and iustifying themselues about that which they had written therof to the slaunder iniury of Catholick profesâ—ioÌ„ semed to me to be one the very same which was to subtract their shoulders from the weight of the matter in answering the whole that was writtâ—n against them and by a new â—leight and deuise oâ— Preâ—aces and Preambles and promising further â—reatise to diuert the Readers attention from the principall busines and to intertayne him with other fancies and generall tearmes as though they had answered somewhat indeed For this I thought yt not amisse to ioyne them also togeather in this my Reply and as I had answered the one largely and particulerly so to say somwhat also to the other especially for so much as notwithstanding this Preface came forth long after that the Author therof Syr Edward had seene my former Charge layd against him in the last Chapter of my Treatise of MitigatioÌ„ yet heere doth he not only not answere any thing therunto but neyther so much as mentioneth the same as before hath beene said only in this place he hath a certaine snatch at the Deuines answere against his Reportes and I call it a snatch for that it conteineth scarce one page against the others whole Booke of aboue 400. and yet doth he so confidently condemne his aduersary both of ignorance and boldnes as if he had confuted him indeed by a large conuincement wherin yow shall heare his owne wordes 2. VVhen I looked into the booke sayth he euer expecting some answere to the matter in the end I â—ound the Author vtterly ignorant but exceeding bold as commonly those qualities concurre in the lawes of the Realme the only subiect of the matter in hand but could not fynd in all the booke any authority out of the bookes of the common lawes of the Realme Acts of Parlament or any legall or iudiciall records quoted or cited by him for the maintenance of any of his opinions or conceipts wherupon as in iustice I ought I had iudgment giuen â—or me vpon a Nihil dicit and therâ—ore cannot make any replication â—hus farre Syr Edward wherin as yow see he answered all that large worke of the Deuine in few words coÌ„demning him of ignorance boldnes and of saying nothing at all in so large a Discourse but as for the former two points of ignorance and boldnes and whether he cyted no one authority at all out of any law-books shall be afterward discussed more particulerly now only in this Paragraph shall we consider how true this last assertion is that the Deuine said nothing at all and that therupon Syr Edward had iudgment giuen for him vpon a Nihiâ— dicit WHETHER the Catholicke Deuine might be iustly condemned of a Nihil dicit or no §. I. FIRST then for trying of this pointâ— I would demaund what Iudge gaue this iudgement â—ithâ—r Syr Edward himselfe for he is now a Iudge or an other and vpon what due information If himselfe did giue sentence for himselfe it may easily be excepted against as suspected of partiality for that no man I thinke can be both iudge and party euen by Syr Edwards lawes for according to those of Saint Edward I am sure he could not in his owne cause But if another Iudge gaue the sentence let vs know who it was and vpon what proofes groundes for that such sentences I suppose are not yet brought to be arbitrary in England nor permitted to euery Iudges will and liking without any proofes or groundes at all which being supposed I
of theÌ„ but coÌ„meth in with an impertinent instance that there was a prohibition of Appeales made vnder King Henry the second by Act of Parliament in the tenth yeare of his Raigne whereas yet there was no Parliament in vse nor Statute law was begone vntill the 9. yeare of King Henry the third which was aboue 60. yeares after as appeareth both by the Collection of Iustice Rastall and other Law-bookes 76. I do not deny but that King Henry the second entring into passion against S. Thomas Archb. of Canterbury made a decree at a certayne meeting of the Nobility at Claringdon rather moderating as himselfe pretended then taking away Appeales to Rome not denying that they ought to be made in respect of the Popes supreme authority Ecclesiasticall but for restrayning of abuses in appealing thither without iust cause or necessity especially in temporall affaires he ordeyned that matters should first orderly be handled in England in the Bishops and Archbishops Courtes and if that way they could not be ended they should not be carried to Rome without the Kings assent which declaratioÌ„ of the kings intention is set downe by Roger Houeden out of the Epistle of Gilbert Bishop of London to Pope Alexander the third written by the kings own Commission which not being admitted afterward by the said Pope the king recalled the same with an Oath vnder his owne hand wherof the said Houeden writeth thus Iurauit etiam quòd neque Appellationes impediret neque impediri permitteret quin liberè fierent in Regno suo ad RomanuÌ„ Pontificem in Ecclesiasticis causis He swore also that he would neither let AppellatioÌ„s nor suffer them to be letted but that they might be made in his kingdom to the Bishop of Rome in causes Ecclesiasticall c. 77. All which things could not but be knowne to Syr Edward before he wrote this his Preface and that the Catholicke Deuine in his aÌ„swer to the fifth part of his Reports had produced so many euident arguments and probations that King Henry the 2. was most Catholick in this point in acknowledging the Popes supreme Ecclesiasticall authority notwithstanding the coÌ„tention he had with S. Thomas about the manner of proceding therin for the execution as none of his Ancestours were more which in like manner is euidently seene and confessed in effect by Syr Edward himself in that in his whole discourse of Reportes for improuing the said Popes Supremacy he alleageth not so much as one example or instaÌ„ce out of the raigne of this King which in reasoÌ„ he would not haue pretermitted if he could haue found any thing to the purpose therin 78. But yet now finding himselfe in straytes how to answere the Students demand about the aÌ„tiquitie of prohibiting Appeales to the Sea of Rome he was forced to lay hands on this poore example which was neither to his purpose in regard of the time being after the conquest as now you haue heard nor of the thing it selfe for that it was against him as being only a moderation of abuses yea and that in temporall things as Bishop Gilbert of London expresly aâ—oucheth recalled by the same King afterwardâ— and finally is wholy from the purpose chiefe question about the Popes supreame authority whereof this of Appeals is but one little member only And thus we see both how well and subâ—tantially Syr Edward hath mainteyned his assertion of the supereminent antiquity and excellency of his Municipall lawes and how direct and demonstratiue answers he hath made to the foure Questions or Cases deuised by himselfe for confirmation of the â—ame 79. And whereas he inserteth a note of Record of the decree of Claringdone that this recognition was made by the Bishops Abbots Priors c. of a certaine part of the Customes and liberties of the Predecessours of the king to wit oâ— King Henry the first his Grandfather and of other Kings which ought to be obserued in the kingdome wherby it semeth the Knight would haue vs imagine though he vtter it not that the same prohibition of Appeales might haue byn made and practized by other former Kings liuing before the Conquest it is found to be but a meere Cauill both by the Catholicke Deuine that shewed out of authenticall histories the coÌ„trary practise vnder all our Catholicke Kinges both before after the Conquest as here likewise it is conuinced by the words and confession of this King Hâ—Ì„ry the second himself that these pretended liberties of his Ancestours were brought in by himself only and in his tyme as is testifyed by Houeden in two seuerall Charters one of the Pope and the other of the King as also by an authenticall Record of the Vatican set downe by Baronius in his tweluth Tome So as here the Iudge hath nothing to lay hands on but to giue sentence against himself both of the Nimium and Nihil dicit as now yow haue seene And so much for this matter HOW THAT THE foresaid Nimium dicit as it importeth falsum dicit is notoriously incurred by Syr Edward Cooke in sundry other assertions also apperteyning to his owne faculty of the law which were pretermitted by the Catholike Deuine in his Answere to the 5. Part of Reportes §. V. FOR so much as the most part of this seauenth Chapter hath beene of omissions and pretermissions as you haue seene and these partly oâ— M. Morton in concealing such charges of vntruthes as had byn laid both against him as also against his Client Syr Edward partly of Syr Ed. himself in not answering for himself when he ought to haue done I thought it not amisse in this place to adioyne some other omissions in like manner on the behalfe of the Catholike Deuine who passed ouer in silence sundry notable escapes of his aduersary M. Attorney which he coÌ„mitted in cyting law-books and lawyers authorities against the Popes ancient iurisdictioÌ„ in spirituall cases in England and this partly for that he had not as then all the Bookes by him which were quoted and partly vpon a generall presumption that in this poynt M Atâ—orney would be exact for that he had so solemnly protested the same in his booke of Reportes as before hath byn touched to wit that he had cyâ—ed truly the verâ— words and textes of the lawes resolutions iudgments Acts of Parlament all publike and in print without any inference argumeÌ„t or amplification quoting particulerly the bookes yeares leaues chapters and other such like certaine references as euery man at his pleasure may see and read them 81. This is his protestation who would not belieue a man especially such a man and in such a matter at his word or rather vpon so many words so earnestly pronouÌ„ced especially if he had heard his new and fresh confirmation therof which he setteth â—orth in this other Preface to his sixt part wherin he sayth that euery man that writeth ought to be so careâ—ull of setting downe
out of the Chancery against some that tooke away the said tythes c. and then after some altercation to what Court the said sute belonged the plaintiâ—e that is the Prouost prayed execution but Thorp the chiefe Iustice said that it was wont to be law when there is a certayne place that is not of any parish as in Engelstwood and such like that the king should haue the tythes and not the Bishop oâ— the place to graunt them to whom he should thinke good as he hath graunted them vnto you notwithstanding saith he the Archbishop of Canterbury hauing sued vnto the kings Counsel to haue those tythes for that the matter is not yet tryed vntil it by tryed you shall not haue execution So he And this is all the Case wherin you see that albeit Iustice Thorp said that it was wont to be law that the king should dispose of the tythes of such places as wâ—re newly assertâ—d and cultiuated that were of his inheritance yet doth he not so resolutly affirme it that he would giue seÌ„tence of execution against the defendants albeit they had made default after they had pleaded to the issue as there is manifest but would haue the Archbishop of CaÌ„terburies sute to the coÌ„trary to be heard also And indeed he could not but know but that in the booke of 7. Ed. 3. fol. 5. which was 16. yeares before this case was treated the opinon of Herle chiefe Iustice was that the Bishop should haue such tythes and much lesse doth Iustice Thorp assign the cause of right of those tythes vnto the king for that he hath supreme Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction as our Iudge doth now but for that commonly such new wast asserted landes appertained vnto the king albeit as now hath beene said they might haue appertayned also to a particuler subiect if he had beene Lord of the place as is most perspicuously declared and set forth in an ancient Treatise intituled Oâ— the power of the Parliament annexed to the Old Doctour and Student or booke so intituled where it is said as followeth 96. If wast ground saith the Booke wherof was neuer any profit taken and that lay in no parish but in some forest or that which is newly wonne from the sea were brought into arable land if the freehold therof were to the king he might assigne the tythes to whom he would and if the freehold were to a common person he might do the like For though tythes be spirituall yet the assignement of tythes to other is a temporall act For before parishes were deuided and before it was ordayned by the lawes of the Church that euery man should pay tythes to his owne Church euery man might haue payed his tythes to what Church he would might one yeare haue giuen his tythes to one Church and another yeare to another or haue graunted them to one Church for euer if he would And like as euery man before the seuering of the parishes might haue giuen the tythes to what Church he would because he was bound to no Church in certayne so may they do now that haue laÌ„des that lie in no parish for they be at liberty to assigne theÌ„ to what Church they will as all men were before the sayd law was made that tythes should be payd to their proper Churches 97. So farre this Law-booke which doth not ascribe anything to the kings Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction as heere you see as neyther doth Iustice Brooke who in his Abridgement abridgeth the foresaid caâ—e of 22. E. 3. lib. assis vnder the tytle of the Kings Prerogatives signifying therby that the said tythes are due to the king if they be due in regard of his prerogatiue Royall and not of his spirituall supreme power aâ—d iurisdiction See Booke 22. Ed. 3. tit Prerogatiue pl. 47. 98. And as for the law mentioned in the foresaid Treatise wherby men were appointed to pay their Tythes to their peculiar parishes wheras before thâ—y were free to pay them where they would it is meat of a Canon of the great Generall Councell of Latâ—ran held at Rome vnder Pope Innocentius 3. in the dayes of K. Iohn of England vpon the yeare 1216 which was aboue a hundred yeare before this other case fell out in 22. E. 3. in which Councell it was ordayned That euâ—ry man should pay his Tythes to his proper Church and parish To which Ordination of the Pope and Councell the kingdome of England submitted it self and the temporall lawes therof and so the matter endured vntill the breach of K. H. 8. So as in all this tyme the Popes supreme Authority and spirituall iurisdiction was acknowledged and obeyed about this matter of Tithes in England as is euident also â—y these books ensuing to wit 7. E. 3. fol. 5.44 Ed. 3. f. 5.10 H. 7. fol. 16. but yet for that the said Canon of Lateran did not comprehend expresly all such landes as were then wast and should after be asserted K. Edward 3â— in the case proposed might according to the former ancient law that was vsed before the said Canon giue and appoynt the tythes of these newly asserted lands of Rockingham to whom he would as he did though not vnder the title of his supreme spirituall iurisdiction as the Attorney very falsely doth pretend but as temporall patron of that land for the causes before specified And so much of this Case 99. Another he cyted out of 38. E. 3. lib. Ass. pl. 22. in these wordes The king dâ—d by his Charter translate Chaâ—ons secularâ— into Regular and religious persons which he did by his Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction and could not do it vnlesse he had had iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall So he And heere is false dealing againe for all that is said in that booke is this that it was pleaded for the king that by his Charter he did graunt that the Prior CoueÌ„t of Plymouth might transferre Secular into Regular ChanoÌ„s which was but a grant or licence as you see Nor did the king translate Chanons Secular into Regular which belonged vnto the Pope but graunted only and gaue licence that they might be so transferred nor hath the law-booke any one word of the kings Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction but all this is feigned by M. Attorney himselfe 100. Agayne he cyteth out of 49. Ed. 3. lib. Ass. pl. 8. where the Abbot of VVestminster saith he had a Prior Couent who were Regular and mort in law yet the king by his Charter did deuide that corporation and made the Prior and Couent a distinct and capable body to sue and to be sued by theÌ„selues whereof M. Attorney would inferre the kings supreme spirituall authority and iurisdiction But his booke fauoureth him not at all heerin for albeit Candish said that the possessions of the Abbot Prior of VVestminster were seuered the one from the other and that this began with the Charter of the king yet is it playne by the law 11. H. 4.
fol. 10. that the Abbot and Prior of VVestminster had their possessioÌ„s in seueralty from tyme to tyme out of mynd c. Nor is there any thing spokeÌ„ there of the kings grauÌ„t at all and if there were yet must it be vnderstood according to that which is declared by the Catholicke Deuine of the concession and confirmation of priuiledges granted by Pope Leo the 9. and Nicolas the 2. to K. Edward the Confessor concerning the said Monastery of VVestminster to wit that they gaue him authority to graunt priuiledges which they themselues did ratify after they were granted and so in this case the separation and seueraltie of the said Abbot and Prior of VVestminster hauing bene time out of mind must necessarily be presumed to haue proceeded originally from the Pope as the booke 11. H. 4. saith and that the Grant of the K. was but his allowance and good leaue to the same 101. I might produce heere many other particulers both vnder this K. Edward the 3. and much more if I would desceÌ„d any lower to the raignes of other ensuing kings but I thinke best to stay my selfe heere leauing the rest to some other more fit oportunity which before I haue insinuatedâ— and this which already hath bene spoken may be sufficient to declare and make manifest that Syr Edward is neither so exact and punctuall in his truth as he would seeme when he saith That the credit of euery writers whole worke must depend of the verity of euery period therof nor yet so sincere in the simplicitie of his allegations as that he vseth not either inference argument or exaggeration as of him self you haue heard him protest before for so much as now more or lesse you haue seen beheld both these two asâ—euerations of his contradicted by himselfe in deeds the first by many vntruthes vttered in his behalfe the second by a perpetuall course of crafty dealing to inferre and inforce such things to his Readers apprehension as his Authors neuer meant nor the books by him cyted do affoard or beare wherof I do vnderstaÌ„d that he is like to heare more ere it be long froÌ„ a Catholick lawyer that meaneth to ioyne with the Catholick Deuine in defence of their coÌ„mon Catholicke saith about these poynts and to deale with Syr Edward in proprijs vpon his owne grounds as I doubt not but that he may with great aduantage in respect of the notorious difference of their cause the one hauing with him the authority prescription of almost a thousand yeares in our Country wherin all Lawyers Iudges and Learned men of that professioÌ„ were truly Catholick and of one faith iudgment and Religion and the other hath not yet full the prescription of one age to stand with him in his nouelties and consequently no meruaile though he meane to stand to his owne wit only OF ANOTHER Preface insâ—antly come vnto my hands prefixed before the L. Cookes seauenth Part of Reports conteyning new iniuries offered to Catholikes by him §. VI. BEING come to this place of my answere I receyued a new halfe sheet of paper printed in latin without the English conteyning another Preface of the Iustice before his 7. Part of Reports and albeit I expect the rest of the booke both in English Latin yet perusing ouer this in the meane space which already is come I perceyue Syr Edward Cookâ— to persist still in his old animosity of pursuing Catholiks vpon euery occasion offered or sought for by him so as nothing can come from him eyther in speach or writing but some part must concerne theÌ„ and their imputation And as for his speaches especially his Charges giuen vpon the Bench I haue said somewhat before and how bitter false and iniurious they are alleaging in particuler some passages of his Charge giuen at the Assises of Norwich vpon the 4. of August 1606. published in print by R. P. dedicated to the Right honorable Earle of Excester which two leters of R. P. I knew not at that tyme whom they meant vntill now in this Latin Preface Syr Edward calleth him inuidum maledicum Pricket an enuious and slaunderous Pricket for that belike he had pricked somwhat his Lordshipps patience by the edition of his said Charge without his licence he adding moreouer That the said Pricket had not set downe any one least sentence of his speach truly and sincerely in that sense and signification wherin himselfe had vttered the same which no doubt was a great fault in Pricket if it were true 103. But on the other syde is first the protestation of Pricket himselfe who saith to the foresaid Earle shewing both his sincerity and affection towards the Iustice. If therfore in this following worke saith he my memory hath giuen a true instruction to my pen I hope my labours shall be accompted profitable when it administreth a publike benefyt And agayne I humbly craue your Honour will vouchsafe to patronize this litle booke by me collected not out of myne owne but froÌ„ the words of that Reuerend and learned Iudge the L. Cooke who at his comming vnto Norwich did vpon the Bench deliuer a Charge so excellent as that it worthily deserueth to be continued in perpetuall memory These are Prickets words which seeme to free him much from the passion of enuy and malediction obiected by Syr Edward whom he pretendeth greatly to honour by this edition of his speach And that no affection towards Catholiks did biaz him in this relation may appeare by his other words that presently did ensue after the former saying I hope that this speach being produced to a publike view shall remayne vnto our publike weale a worthy president wherin Romes Champions may with shame discerne their long continued shamefull practises Puritans and Schismatiks learne to know with what iniustice they disturbe the happines of our most happy Peere So Pricket who sheweth himselfe as you see a perfect Protestant in profession and therby it is made very probable that the enuie obiected vnto him by Syr Edward did not arise vpon any diâ—parity or partiality of religion notwithstanding it may be that the difference of their two particuler states in purse and wealth considered Pricket being a poore souldiour might enuy somewhat the rich lawiers great wealth and aboundant flowing fortunes For thus he beginneth his Epistle to the said Earle lamenting his owne penurie 104. May it please your Honour the obseruation which this world begets may teach experience truly to report that loue and charity are for the most part growne so cold euen in the hoatest sun-shine of our profession as that despised pouerty though addicted to the religious exercise of endeauours coÌ„mendable is in the best imployment which seemeth with greatest fauour to smile vpoÌ„ our hope so coldly recompenced as that poore vnpittied deiected and miserable pouerty knoweth neyther meanes nor place how or where to warme herselfe Vnhappy I in this best tyme of greatest
not seene the Author himself calling this my curtesy a dramâ— of sugar Was this diligence Was this iealousy of his owne infirmity Nay he saith more that he hath perâ—ormed greater exacâ—nes in this point then any one Author to his knowledg for many ages Is not this excâ—ssiue ouerlashing against others and ouerweening in himselfe What one Author can he bring â—orth among Catholicke writers who in a booke of this small bulke and bignes may be found to haue vttered the least part of such manifest vntruthes as heere haue bin proued and conuinced against him 7. He hath taken in hand before as you haue seene Cardinall Bellarmine to search pick some matter out of him that might seeme to beare some shew of vntruth but hath bin able to find no one as we in the third Chapter of this our Answere haue made it plaine and yet is there great difference betwene the case of Cardinall Bellarmine and M. Morton if you coÌ„sider it For wheras he writeth for some excuse of himself in this place that it is almost impossible for any man citing â—oure or fyue hundred testimonies as factors in their accompts but that by chance he will erre in some particulers without note of â—raude or Cosenage then much more may this be yelded to the Cardinalls works and authorities cited therin which no doubt are fifty for one at least in regard of this Preamble and then ensueth this comparison that M. Morton hauing vttered so many grosse and witting vntruthes in so little a booke the Cardinall so few or rather none at all that M. Mort. can find and prooue in so many thousand authorities as in his volumes are cyted it maketh more notable the vanity of this first challeng or brag that he hath done more in strict examination and censuring of his owne bookes then any other author for many ages togeather 8. Thirdly the reckoning is now made so cleere and perspicuous subductis ex vtraque parte rationibus by casting the accompts most exactly on both sides especially by our last three precedent Chapters to wit of the fourtene falshoods obiected against him which he chose out to answere but could not and then by the twice fourteene which he wittingly pretermitted as vnanswerable and lastly the number of new lyes and falshoods vttered in discharge of the former the reckoning I say is made so euident and palpable as it must needs cause great laughter to see M. Morton come forth and say after all this That if he haue not in the iealousie of his infirmity so reuiewed and examined his booke not as an Author but as a Censurer discouering his owne escapes c. he will confesse himselfe worthie of all the criminations fraudes tricks and deceipts layd against him by his aduersarie wherin I see no other way can be taken by iustice but as in suites of obligation when the conditions are not fulfilled the penalties must be vndergone by the obliged wherunto by band and obligation he is lyable that is to say M. Morton must be coÌ„demned of all the imputations before recyted 9. Fourthly to the end it may appeare that not only I who am his Country-man haue obserued this manner of dealing in his treatises written in English but strangers also in such pieces as he hath set forth in the Latin tongue though I confesse in all truth sincerity that I neuer read or saw any thing of his in that tongue I shall heere set downe the words of a learned stranger that some daies past wrote a letter out of Germany to a friend of his about two books of M. Mortons confuted by hym and almost ready to go to the prynt I know not the very title of the said bookes but I haue the originall Letter of the writer imparted vnto me by my learned friend to whome it was written I haue shewed the same to sundry others who will testifie that it is not feigned by me By which letter is euident what stuffe is conteyned in the said two Bookes and what opinion he hath of the Author And if I shall vnderstand that any fraud or falshood is suspected on my part in this relation I shall procure the Answerer to cause this Epistle of his to be printed with the said Answere his words therefore are these treating with his frieÌ„d of the edition of his said Answere The Censure of a stranger concerning two books of M. Mortons set forth in Latin against the Iesuits Quid Mortoni editionem retardârit in proximis iam perscripsi Liber quin magnus sit nullo breuiâ—atis studio effici potest Nam Mortoni liber crassus est ex nostrorum potissimùm scriptis mendaciter citatis totus ille cento consutus est Vnde vt hominis mendacissimi impudentia prodatur necessarium est singulorum verba sic primò poni vt abillo relata sunt eadem deinde cum fide ex ipsis Authoribus recensenda cum tempestiua aliqua Mortonianae artis commendatione Primum librum habet ille ad 100. circiter Capita varias materias imo omnes pene iam controuersas continet prout ab illo emissiâ— est totum confutaui tot in illo adeoque crassa mendacia demonstraui vt frustra sit ad alterum progredi in quo homo insulsissimus plerumque ex primo repetit familiarissimis sibi figuris hoc est mendacijs alijs aliterilla exornat itaque ex hoc paucula taÌ„tùm delibabo Si Scribam inuenero legendi gnaruÌ„ dabo operam vt exscribatur c. Nam in hoc labore suscipieÌ„do non aliud spectaui quà m vt errantibus asieno sub nomine viam veritatem ostenderem Vnde in singulis Capitibus Catholicum primo sensum quem Mortonus peruertit exposui aliqua Scripturae vel Paâ—rum authoritate stabilini Mortoni deinde mendacia calumnias detexi Quòd factu non admodum suit difficile nisi quod laboriosum fuit Authores quos citat conquirere singulos excutere vt de Mortoni perfidia euidenter constaret Librum Passauij reliqui quò simul atque rediero spero autem nosilluc ante Pentecosten redituros me operi acâ—ingam c. Grecij 20. Aprilis 1608. G. I. 11. Thus that learned stranger who I assure my selfe must needs laugh hartily if he shall vnderstand that M. Morton maketh such speciall protestations and challenges of the integrity of his conscience and iealosy oâ— his infirmity and of the seuere examining and censuring his owne bookes before they come abroad and yet that they come forth with so many grosse falsities as both he and we and all other his Readers that be not passionate do find I haue not thought good to translate this Epistle into English for that there be some wordes more sharp therin then I would willingly vse against an Aduersary whome I seeke rather to pacifie and satisfie with reason if it be possible then to exulcerate by sharpnes of speach
Tim. 2. Epist. Dedic nu 23. M. Mort. contemptible opinion of our Catholicke Priests M. Mort. conceipt of Con science About iustifying of GoodmaÌ„ Pag. 73. Mitig. p. 100. Mitig. pag. 99. n. 14. A fraudulent citation Mitig. â— 114. Moder Ans. c. 4. Goodman p. 94.119.203 c. cap. 1. Full satisf part 2â— pag. 103. Dang Posit l. 2. c. 1. See Full satisf part 2. Mitig. pag. 100. About Knox and BuchanaÌ„ Preamb. pag. 71. â—â—ll sâ—tiâ—f part 2. p. 103. Cautelous answering Mitig. p. 119. Full Satis part 2. p. 97.98 deinceps About Caluins Autotheisme misplaâ—ing of Card. Bellarmins name in the margent Full Satisf paâ— 1. p. 20. A very impertinent cauill Bellar. l. 2. de Christo cap. 19. Caluins manner of speach condemned by Beâ—larmine Mitig. p. 231. A nimble sleight of M. Mort. Preamb. pag. 75. See aâ—teâ— cap. 5. The iustifâ—ing of ProtestaÌ„ts from Rebellion Preamb. p. 75. 76. 2. Cor. 3. Mitig. p. 113. Nothing can in truth be answered for excusing Protestans in matters of Rebellion About dissembling the wicked practises of Caluin Beza and others Preamb. p. 77. Preamb. p. 49. M. Mort. falleth into great imapatieÌ„ce Ibid. Mitig. p. 132. Vbi supra About Sir Tho. Wiats rebellion the Duke of Suffolke and others Pream p. 79. 80. Mitig. c. 4â— p. 127. nu 36. Foure vntruthes conuinced against M. Morton Full Satisf paâ— 2. p. 102. Fox Acts and Monum an 1554. p. 1289. nu 30. Whether Ministers had any part in Wyats commotion * In the in Stories anâ—o 1553. 1554. See their lines in the tâ—â—rd part of the 3. Conuerâ—ioÌ„s of N. D. Sander l. 2. de Schis p. 322. Fox ibid. Holinshed anno 1553. p. 1096. Full Satisf par 2. p. 120. Notorious lying Preamb p. 80. A mad defence Preamb. p. 81. M. Mort. conuinced of intolerable falsities Holinsh. an 1553. p. 1593. column 2. num 10 Stow an 1554. pag. 1046. M. Mort. taken in a notorious open falshood About the text of Esay 29. of Caâ—erius Fâ—ising others See Pream §. 5. nu 15. 16. About the 29. of Esay vers 9. vid. Suprâ— c. 1. §. 2. See Pream §. 6. n. 17. 18. Pream 82. Supra cap. ◠§. 6. Preamb. §. 7. n. 21. Preamb. §. 8. n. 21. About Protesâ—aÌ„t Princes succession About FrisingeÌ„sis corrupted by T. M. See supra c. 1. §. 8. Of the doctrine of Equiuocation graunted for 400. yeares Mitig. p. 279. Preamb. p. 83. Full Satisf par 3. p. 54 My inference of the generality of Equiuocation vpon M. Mortons graunt for 400. yeares Preamb. p. 84. M. Mort. obscene compâ—rison Sepul Dialogo Theophilus c. 19. Tritemius lib. de Scriptor Eccles. in Gabr. Biel. Iniury offered to Doct. Gabriel Biel. Preamb. p. 84. Three learned Iesuits wrested against Equiuocation Iesuits restraine the vse of equiuocation but do not coÌ„demne it generally Azor falsely alleaged against all Equiuocation Preamb. p. 84. Mit. c. 11. nu 18.19 pag. 450. 451. Azor the Iesuit notably abused by M. Mort. Azor. Inst. moral part 1. l. 11. c. 4. §. Meotamen Fiue rules of Azor about Equiuocation Diuers cases resolued by Azor for Equiuocation An adultresse how she may equiuocate How Equiuocation may be vsed to a theef The Couentry case about comming from an infected place Insolent fond insulting Preamb. pag. 86. Azor proued to defend Equiuocation Fiue different fraudes lyes at one time Emanuel Sà vntruly alleaged against all Equiuocation Sà in Aphoris verbo mendacium 3. 4. Satisf part 1. cap. 26. Moderat Answ c. 10 Pream 86. The Reader required to staÌ„d attent Eman. Sà in Aphor. verbo MeÌ„dac 3. 4. Wilfull fraud inexcusable Equiuocation in case of restitution Aphor. 25â— de Confes. SuÌ„dry cases resolued for Equiuocation by Emanuel Sà Ibid. Aphor. 8. de Testib Aphor. 7. de Reo M. Mort. is posed Moderate Answerer c. 11. initio The manner of falsities conuinced against M. Mort. in this allegation of Eâ—anuel Sâ— Ioannes Maldonatus falsly alleadged for a witnesse against all Eâ—uiuocation Preamb. pâ— 87. Meldonat Com. in vlt. Luc. ver 28. Satisfact par 3. c. 4. pag. 59. False and absurd shifting Full satis par 3. c. 4. pag. 59. Mitigat pag. 431. Desperate dealing Preamb. p. 87. Two absurdityes coÌ„uinced against M Morton Lib. dâ— meÌ„da c. 4. lib. con â—enda cap. 12. Miâ—ig c. 8. pag. 336.337 Stratagems lawfuâ—l though they be equiuocations Aug. q. 10. in Iosue Graâ—tian in causa 23. q. 2. §. Donâ—mus Iosue 1. 4. Reg. 6. Iudith 11. Mit. c. 7. num 23.24 See of tâ—is iâ— gely c. 8. nu 56.57 c. 9. n. 71.72.73 deinceps See the former places quoted and more cap. 9. nâ— 77.78.79 Mâ—ld coÌ„mâ—nt in Luc. c. 24. ver 28. Tolâ—t lib. de 7. Sacram c. 46. Auâ— ser. de vâ—â— Do mint 44. Matt. 9. Mâ—â—c 5 Luâ— 8. Mar. vlt. v. 15. Maldonat teacheth plainlâ— Equiuocation A most fâ—d inâ—ulting conclusion of M. Mort. A briefe answer to the follies before promised The conclusion of all these 15. Paragraphes Preamb. pag. 71. Exceeding vaunting Pream p. 71. sup §. 1. Pag. 72. Pag. 72. Pag. 81. Pag. 82. Chap. 5. Chap. 6. Cap. 7. VoluÌ„tary wandring from the purpose Preamb. pag. 88. A manifest falsity A fond vaunt Preamb. pag. 88. About Popes names chaÌ„ged out of Polidore Preamb. ibid. Preamb. 8â— â—â— Pream pag. 90. Lib. expurgat ex Hispanico Belgico verbo Polidorus p. 457. A great probability that Polidore is abused Preamb. pag. 80. 90. The tale out of Polidore coÌ„futed Platina in vita Sergij secundi Onuphrius Panuinus in vita Sergii 2. Anastasius Bibliothecarius ibidem Consider of this reason What Pope first changed his name A detectioÌ„ of M. Mortons lyes about this matter A wilfull vntruth vttered to the â—ing and to the L. of Salisbury The secoÌ„d falshood in abusing of Polidore What M. Morton answereth to these two notorious lyeâ— Preamb. pag. 91. Two impertinent answers of M. Morton * Warn-word against Syr Franc. Hastings enc 2. cap. 9. nu 22.23 c. How iust a thing it is that Catholike bookes should be ouerseene and corrected when need requireth How bookes of Hereticall authours are permitted A demaÌ„d made to M. Mort. about ceÌ„suring of bookes About the death of Pope Adrian by â— fly Preamb. pag. 91. Mitig. p. 79. c. 2. num 46. Nauâ—l p. 1. gener 39. Our English Pope Adr. egregiously abused by T. M. An absurd Confession The first reason The second reason A comparison shewing vnconscionable dealing without regard of credit The third reason Many probabilâ—ties of false dealing The second part of his answere Preamb. pag. 92. The third part The 4. part of his answere Many bad shifts of T. M. against Nauclerê° Foure other Poâ—es obiected impertinently to haue had il ends Preamb. pag. 94. About Pope Anastasius the secoÌ„d his death Anno Domini 499. Turrecre lib. 2. de sum Eccles cap. 112. Sap. 4. v.