is to bring matters to his purpose and yet will he needs stile him self The Minister of simple truth 12. It followeth in the 16. page thus Your deuise saith he of exemption of Priestes from the iurisdiction of temporall Princes in certaine cases is to crude to be disgested by any reasonable Deuine for as your Victoria saith Priestes besides that they are Ministers of the Church they are likewise members of the Common-wealth and a King is aswell a King of the Clergy as of the laity therfore the Clergy is subiect vnto the ciuill authority in temporall thinges for such matter is not ruled by any power spirituall A plaine demonstration So he And I say the same that indeed it is a plaine demonstration of his egregious falshood and abusing his Reader First in making him belieue that the learned man Franciscus de Victoria doth fauour him or his in this matter of the exemption of Priestes wheras in this very place heere cited by T. M. his first proposition of all in this matter is this Ecclesiastici iure sunt exempti c. I doe affirme that Ecclesiasticall men are by Law exempted and freed from ciuill power so as they may not be conuented before a secular Iudge either in criminall or ciuill causes the contrary doctrine to this is condemned for Hereticall among the articles of Iohn VVickliffe in the Councell of Constance So he And now see whether Victoria make for him or no or whether he disgested well this crude doctrine of Priestes exemption as this Ministers phrase is 13. Secondly if we consider either the English translation heere set downe out of the wordes of Victoria or his Latin text for ostentation sake put in the margent wee shall find so many and monstrous foule corruptions intercisions geldinges and mutilations as is a shame to behold and I beseech the learned Reader to haue patience to conferre but this one place only with the Author and he will rest instructed in the mās spirit for the rest but he must find them as I hà ue cited them heere in the margent and not as T. M. erroneously quoteth them if not of purpose to escape the examine For that Victoria hauing set downe his precedent generall proposition for the exemption of Clergy men that they were exempted Iure by Law he passeth on to examine in his second proposition Quo iure by what Law diuine or humane they are exempted and in his third he holdeth that Aliqua exemptio Clericorum est de iure Diuino That some kinde of exemptions of Clergy men from ciuill power is by diuine Law and not humane only and fourthly he commeth to this which heere is set downe by T. M. but not as he setteth it downe Our fourth proposition saith Victoria is that the persons of Clergy men are not absolutly and in all thinges exempted from ciuill power either by diuine or humane lawe which is euident by that Clergy men are bound to obey the temporall lawes of the Citty or Cōmon-wealth wherin they liue in those thinges that doe appertaine to the temporall gouernment and administration therof and doe not let or hinder Ecclesiasticall gouernment 14. These are the wordes of Victoria as they ly togeather in him and then after some argumentes interposed for his said conclusion he addeth also this proofe That for so much as Clergy mē besides this that they are Ministers of the Church are Citizens also of the Common-wealth they are bound to obey the temporall lawes of that Common-wealth or Prince in temporall affaires and then ensueth the last reason heere set downe in English by T. M. in these wordes Moreouer saith Victoria for that a King is King not only of laymen but of Clergy-men also therfore aliquo modo subiiciuntur ei in some sort they are subiect vnto him Which wordes aliquo modo in some sorte the Minister leaueth out and then it followeth immediatly in Victoria And for that Clergy-men are not gouerned in temporall matters by Ecclesiasticall power therfore they haue their temporall Prince vnto whome they are bound to yeeld obedience in temporall affaires 15. And this is all that Victoria hath in this matter in these very wordes And let any man consider the patching which T. M. vseth both in English and Latin in this place to make some shew for his fained demonstration out of Victoria and he will see how poore and miserable a man he is and how miserable a cause he defendeth And in particular let the very last proposition be noted which he citeth and Englisheth as out of Victoria to wit the Clergy is subiect vnto the ciuill authority in temporall thinges for such matter is not ruled by any power spirituall wherby he would haue his Reader to imagine that no spirituall power may haue authority to gouerne temporall matters wheras the wordes of Victoria are Clerici quantum ad temporalia non administrantur potestate Ecclesiastica that Clergy men for so much as appertaineth to temporall affaires are not gouerned by Ecclesiasticall power but by the temporall which there beareth rule So as this fellow by a subtile sleight changing the nominatiue case from Clerici non administrantur to temporalia non administrantur frameth his plaine demonstration out of plaine cosenage and forgery And is this naked innocency 16. From the page 18. vnto 27. he handleth togeather many sentences and authorities of ancient Fathers alledged by Catholicke Authors Cunerus Tolosanus and especially Barkleius to shew that the Apostles and their successours and those Fathers amongest the rest did not take armes against their Princes either Infidels or Christians but did rather suffer iniuries then seeke by force to reuenge the same which being our conclusion in like manner and held and defended by our Catholicke writers as yow see and that for the most part by name against Protestant writers practisers both in Scotland France Flanders other places yow may perceaue how corruptly this is brought in against vs as though our common beliefe and exercise were the contrary this may be called falsification and sophistication of our meaning 17. But yet if we would examine the particular authorities that be alledged about this matter though nothing making against vs as hath byn said consider how many false shiftes are vsed by T. M. therin yow would say he were a Doctor in deed in that science for that a seuerall Treatise will scarce conteine them I will touch only two for examples sake He citeth Doctor Barkley bringing in the authority of S. Ambrose that he resisted not by force his Arrian Emperour when he would take a Church from him for the Arrians but he setteth not downe what answere of his Doctor Barkley doth alledge in the very self same place which is Allegatur Imperatori licere omnia c. It is alledged that it is lawfull for the Emperour to doe all thinges for that all thinges are his and
consequently that he may assigne a Church to the Arrians Wherto I answere saith S. Ambrose trouble not your selfe O Emperour nor thinke that yow haue Imperiall right ouer those thinges that are diuine doe not exalt your selfe but if yow wil raigne long be subiect to God for it is written that those thinges that belong to God must be giuen to God and to Cesar only those thinges that belōg to Cesar Pallaces appertaine to the Emperour but Churches to the Priest the right of defending publicke walles is committed to yow but not of sacred thinges Thus Doctor Barkley out of S. Ambrose in the very place cited by T. M. which he thought good wholy to pretermit and cut of as not making for his purpose and so had he done more wisely if he had left out also the other authority of Pope Leo which he reciteth in the eight place of authorities out of ancient Fathers in these wordes 18. The eighth Father saith he is Pope Leo writing to a true Catholicke Emperour saying Yow may not be ignorant that your Princely power is giuen vnto yow not only in worldly regiment but also spirituall for the preseruation of the Church as if he said not only in cases temporall but also in spirituall so far as it belongeth to the outward preseruation not to the personall administration of them and this is the substance of our English oath And surther neither doe our Kinges of England chalenge nor subiectes condescend vnto In which wordes yow see two thinges are conteined first what authority S. Leo the Pope aboue eleuen hundred yeares gone ascribed vnto Leo the Emperour in matters spirituall and Ecclesiasticall The second by this mans assertion that neither our Kinges of England chaleng nor doe the subiectes condescend vnto any more in the oath of the Supremacy that is proposed vnto them which if it be so I see no cause why all English Catholickes may not take the same in like manner so far forth as S. Leo alloweth spiritual authority to the Emperour of his time Wherfore it behooueth that the Reader stand attent to the deciding of this question for if this be true which heere he saith our controuersy about the Supremacy is at an end 19. First then about the former point let vs consider how many waies T. M. hath corrupted the foresaid authority of S. Leo partly by fraudulent allegation in Latin and partly by false translation into English For that in Latin it goeth thus as himself putteth it downe in the margent Debes incunctanter aduertere Regiam potestatem non solùm ad mundi regimen sed maximè ad Ecclesiae praesidium esse collatam Yow ought ô Emperour resolutly to consider that your Kingly power is not only giuen vnto yow for gouernment of the world or worldly affaires but especially for defence of the Church and then doe ensue immediatly these other wordes also in S. Leo suppressed fraudulently by the Minister for that they explicate the meaning of the Author Vt ausus nefarios comprimendo quae bene sunt statuta defendas veram pacem his quae sunt turbata restituas To the end that yow may by repressing audacious attemptes both defend those thinges that are well ordeined and decreed as namely in the late generall Councell of Calcedon and restore peace where matters are troubled as in the Citty and Sea of Alexandria where the Patriarch Proterius being slaine and murdered by the conspiracy of the Dioscorian Heretickes lately condemned in the said Councell all thinges are in most violent garboiles which require your imperiall power to remedy compose and compresse the same 20. This is the true meaning of S. Leo his speech to the good and Religious Emperour of the same name as appeareth throughout the whole Epistle heere cited and diuers others Nonne perspicuum est saith he quibus pietas vestra succurrere quibus obuiare ne Alexandrina Ecclesia c. Is it not euident whome your Imperiall piety ought to assist and succour and whome yow ought to resist and represse to the end the Church of Alexandria that hitherto hath byn the house of praier become not a den of theeues Surely it is most manifest that by this late barbarous and most furious cruelty in murdering that Patriarch all the light of heauenly Sacramentes is there extinguished Intercepta est Sacrificij oblatio defecit chrismatis sanctificatio c. The oblation of sacrifice is intermitted the hallowing of Chrisme is ceassed and all diuine misteries of our Religion haue withdrawne themselues from those parricidiall handes of those Heretickes that haue murdered their owne Father and Patriarch Proterius burned his body and cast the ashes into the ayer 21. This then was the cause and occasion wherin the holy Pope Leo did implore the helpe and secular arme of Leo the Emperour for chastising those turbulent Heretiks to which effect he saith that his Kingly power was not only giuen him for the gouernmēt of the world but also for the defence of the Church which our Minister doth absurdly translate not only in worldly regiment but also spirituall for the preseruation of the Church turning ad into in and praesidium into preseruation and then maketh the commentary which before we haue set downe As if he had said quoth he not only in causes temporall but also in spirituall so far as it belongeth to outward preseruation not to the personall administratiō of them 22. And heere now he sheweth himself intangled not only about the assertion of Imperiall power in spirituall matters by that S. Leo saith it is giuen ad praesidium Ecclesiae to the defence of the Church which proueth nothing at all for him but against him rather as yow see and much more in the explication therof to wit what is meant by this authority how farre it strecheth it self wherin truly I neuer found Protestant yet that could cleerly set downe the same so as he could make it a distinct doctrine from ours and giue it that limites which his fellowes would agree vnto or themselues make probable 23. About which matter M. Morton heere as yow see who seemeth no small man amongest them and his booke must be presumed to haue come forth with the approbation and allowance of his Lord and Maister the Archbishop at least saith as yow haue heard that it is no more but such as S. Leo allowed in the Emperour ad Ecclesiae praesidium to the defence of the Church and Church matters and men and for punishing Heretickes that troubled the same And further more T. M. expoundeth the matter saying That this Imperiall Kingly authority in spirituall causes reacheth no further but as it belongeth to outward preseruation not to the personall administration of them And doe not we graunt also the same Or doe not we teach that temporall Princes power ought principally as S. Leo saith to extend it self to the defence ad preseruation
of the Church In this then we agree and haue no difference 24. There followeth in T. M. his assertion heere But not in the personall administration of them to wit of spirituall causes this now is a shift dissembling the difficulty and true State of the question which is in whome consisteth the supreame power to treate iudge and determine in spirituall causes which this man flying as not able to resolue telleth vs only that he cannot personally administer the same which yet I would aske him why For as a Bishop may personally performe all the actions that he hath giuen authority to inferiour Priestes to doe in their functions and a temporall Prince may execute in his owne person if he list any inferiour authority that he hath giuen to others in temporall affaires so if he haue supreame authority spirituall also why may he not in like manner execute the same by himself if he please But of this is sufficiently writteÌ„ of late in the foresaid booke of Answere to Syr Edward Cooke where also is shewed that a farre greater authority spirituall was giuen to King Henry the eight by Parlament then this that T. M. alloweth his Maiesty now for outward preseruation of the Church to wit To be head therof in as ample manner as euer the Pope was or could be held before him ouer England and to King Edward though then but of ten yeares old was granted also by Parlament That he had originally in himself by his Crowne and Scepter all Episcopall authority so as the Bishops and Archbishops had no other power or spirituall authority then was deriued from him to Queene Elizabeth by like graunt of Parlament was also giuen as great authority spirituall and Ecclesiasticall ouer the Church and Clergy of England as euer any person had or could exercise before which was and is another thing then this outward preseruation which T. M. now assigneth hauing pared the same in minced wordes to his purpose to make it seeme little or nothing but dareth not stand to it if he be called to the triall 25. Wherfore this matter being of so great importance and consequence as yow see I doe heere take hold of this his publicke assertion and require that it may be made good to wit that this is the substance meaning only of the English oath and that neither our Kinges of England doe chalenge more nor subiectes required to condescend to more then to grant to their authority for outward preseruation or ad Ecclesiae praesidium as S. Leo his wordes and meaning are and I dare assure him that al Catholickes in England will presently take the oath and so for this point there will be an attonement Me thinkes that such publicke doctrine should not be so publickly printed and set forth without publicke allowance and intention to performe and make it good Yf this be really meant we may easely be accorded if not then will the Reader see what credit may be giuen to any thing they publish notwithstanding this booke commeth forth with this speciall commendation of Published by authority c. 26. And for conclusion of all it may be noted that there hath byn not only lacke of truth and fidelity in citing Pope Leo for Ecclesiasticall Supremacy in Emperours aboue Popes but want of modesty discretion also for so much as no one ancient Father doth more often and earnestly inculcate the contrary for the preheminence of the Sea of Rome then doth S. Leo in so much that Iohn Caluin not being able otherwise to answere him saith that he was tooto desirous of glory dominion and so shifteth him of that way and therfore he was no fit instance for T. M. to bring heere in proofe of spirituall supremacy in temporall Princes 27. But yet in the very next page after he vseth a far greater immodesty or rather perfidy in my opinioÌ„ in calumniation of Cardinall Bellarmine whome he abuseth notably both in allegation exposition translation application and vaine insultation for thus he citeth in his text out of him Ancient generall Councelles saith the Romish pretence were not gathered without the cost of good and Christian Emperours and were made by their consentes for in those dayes the Popes did make supplication to the Emperour that by his authority he would gather Synods but after those times all causes were changed because the Pope who is head in spirituall matters cannot be subiect in temporall Bellarm. lib. 1. de Concil cap. 13. § Habemus ergo 28. And hauing alledged this resolutioÌ„ of Bellarmine the Minister insulteth ouer him in these words Who would thinke this man could be a Papist much lesse a Iesuit how much lesse a Cardinal who thus disableth the title of the Pope granting to vs in these wordes after these times that is after six hundred yeares the truth of purer antiquities challenging Popes to be subiect vnto Christian Emperours And yet who but a Papist would as it were in despite of antiquity defend the degenerate state saying after those times Popes might not be subiect in temporall matters As if he should haue said Then gratious fauour of ancient Christian Emperours then sound iudgment of ancient reuerend Fathers then deuout subiection of ancient holy Popes in summe then ancient purity and pure antiquity adieu But we may not so bastardly reiect the depositum and doctrine of humble subiection which we haue receaued from our Fathers of the first six hundred yeares and not so only but which as your Barkley witnesseth the vniuersall Christian world imbraced with common consent for a full thousand yeares So he 29. And doe yow see how this Minister triumpheth Who would thinke that men of conscience or credit could make such ostentation vpon meere lies deuised by themselues as now wee shall shew all this bragge to be And as for D. Barkley alledged in the last lines let any man read him in the booke and Chapter cited and he will wonder at the impudency of this vaunter for he speaketh no one word of gathering Councells or comparison of spirituall authority betweene the Pope and Emperour concerning their gathering of Councelles or Synodes but of a quite different subiect of taking armes by subiectes against their lawfull temporall Princes And what will our Minister then answere to this manifest calumniation so apparently conuinced out of Doctor Barkley But let vs passe to the view of that which toucheth Cardinall Bellarmine against whome all this tempest is raised 30. First then we shall set downe his wordes in Latin according as T. M. citeth him in his margent Tunc Concilia generalia fiebant saith he non sine Imperatorum sumptibus eo tempore Pontifex subiiciebat se Imperatoribus in temporalibus ideo non poterant inuito Imperatore aliquid agere idâ—irco Pontifex supplicabat Imperatori vt iuberet conuocari Synodum At post illa tempora omnes causae
Morton not content after the pretended confirmation of his first discouery and reasons therof to haue added a second Treatise conteyning as he saith A Iustification of Protestantes against imputations of disobedience and Rebellion against temporall Princes either in doctrine or practice both which you haue heard now how substātially he hath performed he thought good also to ad a third Treatise though nothing needfull to the argument in hand which he intituleth A confutation of the principles of Romish doctrine in two pointes first concerning the Pope supreame head of Rebellion and secondly the impious conceipt of Equiuocation And forasmuch as of the second point which is Equiuocation we are to treat more largly in the ensuing Chapters and that the first seemed to me impertinent to be treated againe seuerally in this place the substance therof hauing byn touched sufficiently forasmuch as belongeth to this affaire in the former Chapters especially the second I had purposed once to passe it ouer without any answere at all as indeed not deseruing any it being only a certaine disorderly hudling togeather of peeces and parcelles of other mens collections about that matter better handled by themselues But yet considering afterward the speciall manner of this mans treating the same matters both in regard of fraude and simplicity though contrary the one to the other I iudged it not amisse to giue the Reader some tast therof in this one Chapter wherby he may be able to frame a iudgment of the rest and of the exorbitant veine of this mans writing 2. First then he beginneth the very first lines of his first Chapter with these wordes This pretended predominance saith he of the Pope in temporall causes whether directly or indirectly considered in which diuision of gouerning the Romish schoole is at this day extreamly deuided if it be from God it will sure plead Scriptum est c. By which sole entrance yow may take a scantling of the mās discretion for it cannot be denied I thinke except we deny the Ghospell but that Scriptum est was pleaded also by the diuell and not only by God as in like manner it hath byn by all Hereticks the diuels cheif Chaplains since that time and consequently it was no good exordium to build all vpon this foundation 3. Secondly it is not true that the Romish schole is so extreamly deuided in this diuision of gouerning directly or indirectly as the Minister would make it for the question is not at all of gouerning but how the right to gouerne in temporall causes was deliuered by Christ to S. Peter and his Successours whether directly togeather with the spiritual gouernment ouer soules or els indirectly and by a certaine consequence when the said spirituall gouernment is letted and impugned as before hath byn declared In which difference of opinions there is no such extremity of diuision among Catholickes as this man would haue men thinke for that all doe agree in the substance of the thing it self that the Pope hath this authority from God Iure diuino in certaine cases whether directly or indirectly that little importeth to this our controuersy with the Protestantes who deny both the one and the other And so much for that 4. The next sentence or obiection after the former preface which is the very first of his discourse is framed by him but yet in our name vnder the title of the Romane pretence in these wordes The high Priestes in the old Testament saith he were supreame in ciuill causes ergo they ought to be so also in the new for which he citeth one Carerius a Lawier that wrote of late in Padua De potestate Romani Pontificis defending the former opinion of Canonistes for direct dominion citeth his wordes in Latin thus Dico Pontificem in veteri Testamento fuisse Rege maiorem And Englisheth the same as before yow haue heard that the high Priest was supreame in ciuill causes which wordes of ciuill causes he putteth in of his owne and if yow marke them doe marre the whole market for that Carerius hath them not either in wordes or sense but teacheth the plaine cōtrary in all his discourse to wit that he meaneth in matters appertaining to Religion and Preisthood and not of temporall principality which this Author granteth to haue byn greater in the old Testament in dealing with Ecclesiasticall men matters then in the new to that effect is he cited presently after by the Minister himself contrary to that which heere he feigneth him to say But let vs heare the wordes of Carerius Tertiò dico saith he etiam in Testamento veteri fuisse Pontificem Rege maiorem quod quidem probatur c. Thirdly I say that the high Priest was greater also in the old Testament then the King which is proued first out of the 27. Chapter of Numbers where it is appointed by God that Iosue and all the people should be directed by the word of the high Priest Eleazar saying whē any thing is to be done let Eleazar the high Priest consult with God and at his word aswell Iosue as all the children of Israell and whole multitude shall goe forth and come in c. And secondly the same is proued out of the fourth of Leuiticus where foure kind of Sacrifices being ordained according to the dignity of the persons the first two are of a calfe for the high Priest commonwealth the third and fourth of a hee and shee-goat for the Prince and priuate persons Wherby Carerius inferreth a most certaine dignity and preheminence of the Priestes state aboue the temporall Prince though he say not in ciuill causes as this Minister doth bely him 5. And wheras Carerius had said in two former Answeres first that in the old Testament Ecclesiasticall and secular iurisdiction were not so distinct but that both might be in some cases in the King and secondly that in the new law the spirituall power was more eminent then in the old he commeth thirdly to say that in the old law the High Priest in some respectes was greater also then the King which cannot be vnderstood of ciuill power except the Author will be contrary to himself And therfore that clause was very falsly and perfidiously thrust in by the Minister and this with so much the lesse shame for that in the end of the same Chapter he citeth the same Author to the plaine contrary sense saying In veteri lege Regnum erat substantiuum sacerdotium adiectiuum c. That in the old law the Kingdome was the substantiue that stood of it self and Preisthood was the adiectiue that leaned theron but contrary-wise in the new law Preisthood and spirituall iurisdiction is the substantiue or principall in gouernment and temporall principality is the adiectiue depending therof for direction and assistance the one both by nature and Godes law being subordinate to the other to wit the temporall to the
mutatae sunt quia Pontifex qui est caput in spiritualibus non est subiectus in temporalibus Then in those dayes generall Councelles were made not without the charges of Emperours in that time the Pope did subiect himselfe vnto Emperours in temporall affaires and therfore they could doe nothing against the Emperours will for which cause the Pope did make supplication to the Emperour that he would commaund Synodes to be gathered but after those times all causes were changed for that the Pope who is head in spirituall matters is not subiect in temporall affaires So he 31. And heere let vs consider the variety of sleightes shifts of this our Minister not only in citing Bellarmins wordes falsly and against his meaning and drift in Latin wherof we shall speake presently but in peruerting this Latin that he hath so corruptly set downe in his former English translation For first hauing said according to the Latin that generall Councelles in those dayes were not gathered without the cost of Emperours he addeth presently of his owne and were made by their consentes which is not in the Latin and then he cutteth of the other wordes immediatly ensuing which conteine the cause to wit for that the Popes subiecting themselues in those dayes touching temporalities vnto the Emperours as hauing no temporall States or dominion yet of their owne could doe nothing without them and therfore did make supplication to the said Emperours that they would commaund Synodes to be gathered which T. M. translateth that they would gather Synodes as though Bellarmine did affirme that it lay in the Emperours by right to doe it but after those times omnes causae mutatae sunt all causes were changed but he should haue said are changed as Bellarmins true wordes are omnes istae causae al these causes are chāged to wit foure sortes of causes which he setteth downe why generall Councells could not be well gathered in those dayes without the Emperours help and authority which wordes are guilefully cut of by this deceauer as in like manner the last wordes put downe heere by himselfe Pontifex non est subiectus in temporalibus are falsly translated cannot be subiect in temporall and againe afterward Popes might not be subiect in temporall matters which is to make Bellarmine contrary to himselfe who saith a little before that the Popes did subiect themselues for many years wherby is proued that they could doe it but Bellarmins meaning is that in right by the preheminence of their spirituall dignity they were exempted not bound therunto 32. And thus much now for the corruptions vsed in the wordes heere set downe both in Latin English But if we would goe to Bellarmine himself and see his whole discourse and how brokenly and persidiously these lines are cut out of him and heere patched togeather as one entier context contrary to his drift and meaning we shall meruaile more at the insolency of Thomas Morton triumphing ouer his owne lye as before hath byn said for that Bellarmine hauing proued at larg and by many sortes of argumentes and demonstrations throughout diuers Chapters togeather that the right of gathering generall Councelles belongeth only to the Bishop of Rome and hauing answered all obiections that could be made against the same in the behalfe of Emperours or other temporall Princes grāting only that for certaine causes in those first ages the same could not be done in respect of temporall difficulties without the helpe assistance of the said Emperours that were Lords of the world he commeth to make this conclusion which heere is cited by T. M. but in far other wordes and meaning then heere he is cited Yow shall heare how he setteth it downe therupō consider of the truth of this Minister Habemus ergo saith he prima illa Concilia c. We haue then by all this disputation seene how those first Christian Councelles were commaunded by Emperours to be gathered but by the sentence and consent of Popes and why the Pope alone in those dayes did not call Councelles as afterward hath byn accustomed the reason was not for that Councelles gathered without the Emperours consent are not lawfull as our Aduersaries would haue it for against that is the expresse authority of S. Athanasius saying Quando vnquam iudicium Ecclesiae ab Imperatore authoritatem habuit When was it euer seene that the iudgment of the Church did take authority from the Emperour but for many other most iust causes was the Emperours consent required therin c. So Bellarmine 33. And heere now yow see that Bellarmins drift is wholy against M. Mortons assertion for that he denieth that euer the Emperours had any spirituall authority for calling of Councells but only that they could not well in those dayes be made without them and that for foure seuerall causes wherof the first was for that the old Imperiall lawes made by Gentils were yet in vse wherby all great meetinges of people were forbidden for feare of sedition except by the Emperours knowledge licence the second for that Emperours being temporall Lordes of the whole world the Councells could be made in no Citty of theirs without their leaue the third for that generall Councelles being made in those dayes by the publicke charges contributions of Citties and especially of Christian Emperours themselues as appeareth by Eusebius Theodoretus other writers it was necessary to haue their consent and approbation in so publicke an action as that was 34. The fourth and last cause was saith Bellarmine for that in those dayes albeit the Bishop of Rome where head in spirituall matters ouer the Emperours themselues yet in temporall affaires he did subiect himself vnto them as hauing no temporal State of his owne and therfore acknowledging them to be his temporall Lords he did make supplicatiō vnto them to commaund Synodes to be gathered by their authority and licence At post illa tempora istae omnes causae mutatae sunt but since those dayes all these foure causes are changed ipse in suis Prouinciis est Princeps Supremus temporalis sicut sunt Reges Principes alij and the Pope himself now in his temporall Prouinces is supreme temporall Lord also as other Kings Princes are which was brought to passe by Godes prouidence saith Bellarmine to the end that he might with more freedome liberty and reputation exercise his office of generall Pastorship 35. And this is all that Bellarmine hath of this matter And now may we cōsider the vanity of this Mortons triumph ouer him before and how falsly he dealeth with him alledging him against his owne drift and meaning leauing out also 〈◊〉 foure causes by me recited and then cutting of 〈◊〉 the particle istae these causes are now changed which includeth reference to these foure aid furthermore speaking indefinitely as though all causes and matters were now changed seeketh therby to deceaue his Reader and
him so vrging an occasion as by his friendes is thought that in the conueniency of reason and honour he coulde not well omit to accept therof as he did and performed the enterprise in such manner as might be expected at his L. handes to wit as himself writeth of his Maiesties speach in the Parlament Euery line declaring the vvorkeman 19. Only I may not let passe to note by the way that in two points of 〈◊〉 touched by him of the Popes authority concerning Princes and the lawfulnes of Equiuocation in certaine cases as they are matters not apperteining properly to his faculty and profession so must I thinke that his Deuine did somewhat mistake or misinforme him therin For of the first thus he writeth that he hath byn a long time sory that some cleere explication of the Papall authority hath not byn made by some publicke and definitiue sentence orthodoxall c. He addeth further this reason of his desire That not only those Princes vvhich acknovvledge this Superiority might be secured from feares and iealosies of continuall treasons and bloudy Assassinates against their persons but those Kings also vvhich doe not approue the same yet vvould faine reserue a charitable opinion of their subiectes might knovv hovv farre to repose themselues in their fidelity in ciuill obedience hovvsoeuer they see them deuided from them in point of conscience c. 20. To the former clause touching his L. desire to haue the matter defined and declared his Deuine might easely haue informed him that among Catholicke people the matter is cleare and sufficiently defined and declared in all pointes wherin there may be any doubt concerning this affaire As for example in three thinges question may be made first whether any authority were left by Christ in his Church and Christian common-wealth to restraine or represse censure or iudge any exorbitant and pernicious excesse of Great men States or Princes or that he had left them remediles wholy by any ordinary authority In which case as in other common-wealthes that are not Christian all Philosophers law-makers Senatours Counsellours Historiographers and other sortes of soundest wisedome prudence and experience either Iew or Gentile haue from the beginning of the world concurred in this that God and nature hath left some sufficient authority in euery common wealth for the lawfull and orderly redressing of those euilles euen in the highest persons Nor did euer Philosopher of name or law-maker hitherto deny this assertion as founded in the very law of nature nations and reason it selfe 21. So when Christ our Sauiour came to found his common-wealth of Christians in farre more perfection then other states had byn established before subiecting temporall thinges to spirituall according to the degree of their natures endes and eminencies and appointing a supreme vniuersall Gouernour in the one with a generall charge to looke to all his sheepe without exception of great or small people or potentates vpon these suppositions I say all Catholicke learned men do ground and 〈◊〉 euer grounded that in Christian common-wealthes not only the foresaid ordinary authority is left which euery other state and Kingdome had by God and nature to preserue and protect themselues in the cases before laid downe but further also for more sure and orderly proceeding therin that the supreme care iudgment direction and censure of this matter was left principally by Christ our Sauiour vnto the said supreme Gouernour and Pastour of his Church and common-wealth And in this there is no difference in opinion or beliefe betweene any sorte of Catholickes whatsoeuer so they be Catholickes though in particular cases diuersity of persons time place cause and other circumstances may moue some diuersity of opinions And thus much of the first question 22. The second may be about the manner how this authority or in what sorte it was giuen by Christ to his said supreme Pastour whether directly or indirectly immediatly or by a certaine consequence As for example whether Christ as he gaue the generall charge of his sheepe to S. Peter and his Successours directly and immediatly in spirituall matters by that commission three times repeated in S. Iohn Pasce oues meas which wordes include according to Catholicke exposition not only authority to feed but to gouerne also direct restraine cure represse and correct when need is as we see it doth appertaine to a temporall sheepheardes office so whether with this commission in spirituall affaires our Sauiour gaue also immediatly and directly the charge and ouersight of temporalities in like manner or rather indirectly and by a certaine consequence that is to say that when the gouernment of spirituall affaires to wit of soules to their eternall blisse and saluation is so letted or impugned by any temporall gouernours as the said spirituall commission cannot be executed without redresse or remedy in such cases and not otherwise the said supreme pastour to haue authority to proceed also against the said temporall Gouernours for defence and preseruation of his spirituall charge Of which question the Canonistes doe commonly defend the first part but Catholicke Deuines for the most part the second but both partes fully agree that there is such an Authority lefte by Christ in his Church for remedy of vrgent cases for that otherwise he should not haue sufficiently prouided for the necessity therof So as this difference of the manner maketh no difference at all in the thing it selfe 23. The third question may be about the causes for which this authority may be vsed as also the forme of proceeding to be obserued therin wherabout there are so many particularities to be considered as are ouerlong for this place only it is sufficient for Catholicke men to know that this may not be done without iust cause graue and vrgent motiues and due forme also of proceeding by admonition preuention intercession and other like preambles prescribed by Ecclesiasticall Canons to be obserued wherby my Lordships doubtes of feares and ielosies of continuall treasons and bloudy assassinates may iustly be remoued For that this authority doth not only not allow any such wicked or vnlawfull attemptes of priuate men but doth also expressely and publickly condemne the same and the doctrine therof as may appeare not only by the condemnation of VVicklifs wicked article in the Councell of Constance wherin he affirmed That it vvas lavvfull for euery priuate man to kill any Prince vvhome he held to be a Tyrant but also by like condemnation of Caluin Beza Ottoman Bucchanan Knox Goodman and others of that sect who hold and practice in effect the same doctrine of VVickliffe concerning Princes if not worse as shall more largely and particularly be declared afterward in the first and fourth Chapters of this Treatise And this I desire may satisfy his Lordship for the present vntill we come to the foresaid places where better occasion in this kind will be offered 24. As for the second point touched by his Lordship about the
two manners of spirit in Protestant Catholicke subiectes doe best content him and which of them he may thinke more sure or dangerous vnto him For if we looke ouer the ancient recordes of our countries for a thousand yeares before while English men were Catholicke we shall not find so much violent and barbarous dealing with their 〈◊〉 as I haue heere recounted in lesse then thirty within the compasse of one only Kingdome vnder the Protestantes 26. And if we compare the obiections made heere against vs by T. M. in this his calumnious pamphlet as in the sequēt Chapter more particulerly you shall see discussed with these and the like actions of their people they are very trifles and streyninges in respect of these other As for example Doleman is accused to write that The common-wealth hath authority to choose to themselues a King when they haue none and to limit him lawes wherby they would be gouerned And that of Doctor Stapleton That the people or multitude was not made for the Princes sake but the Prince for the people That Religion is is to be had in consideration in choice or admittance 〈◊〉 a King where choice and admittance is permitted That the Pope being head of the Catholicke Church may in some cases and for some causes dispense in oathes That he may censure Princes vpon iust causes though not in temporall matters but indirectly only and vpon such necessity as no other remedy can be found for 〈◊〉 of the spirituall good of his subiectes That euill 〈◊〉 declyning into Tyranny may be repressed but not by priuate men or popular mutiny 27. All these pointes I say and diuers others which this fellow doth so greatly exaggerate and odiously amplify against vs are so ouerrunne by them both in doctrine and practice if we compare them as they scarse admit any comparison at all especially if we cast our eyes vpon their present practice which representeth the liuely fruite of their doctrine as namely the most dangerous Rebellions of Caluinian and Trinitarian Sectaries euen now standing on foote in Hungary Austria and Transiluania against the Emperour and of like men in Polonia against that mild and most iust King and of Lutherans in Suetia of Puritanes Brownists Protestantes and the like in the Low-countries so many yeares now continued against their true and natural Prince as before hath byn declared which maketh another manner of impression and force of consequence if it be well pondered then doth the particuler temerarious fact of halfe a score of yong Centlemen put in despaire by apprehension of publique persecution without demerit of the persecuted or hope of remedy for the same though this also be inexcusable but the difference of euils is worthy of consideration especially with the more graue and prudent sort of people that are not carried away with passion or otherwise misled by sinister information 28. And thus hauing said sufficiently in generall about the first and chiefe ground of our Ministers calumniation concerning Rebellion and Conspiracies wherby he would make impossible the 〈◊〉 and mutuall vnion of Catholicke subiectes with Protestantes we shall passe on to his second pillar of impugnation named by him The doctrine of Equiuocation but yet first we thinke it expedient to examine in a seuerall Chapter the particuler reasons which he hath framed for some shew of proofe to this his seditious assertion TEN REASONS OR RATHER CALVMNIATIONS BROVGHT BY T. M. For maintenance of his former Proposition That Catholicke people are intolerable in a Protestant gouernment in respect of disloyalty conspiracies and Rebellion Confuted and returned vpon himself and his CHAP. II. ALbeit that which we haue laid forth before in the precedent Chapter for the ouerthrow of the slanderous iniurious imputations of our aduersary about Rebellion and conspiracies be sufficient I doubt not for satisfaction of any indifferent and dispassionate minde that is not ouerborne with preiudice yet haue I thought it expedient to passe somewhat further also and to enter the list with him for improuing his particuler reasons on which he would seene to found his calumniations wherin as nothing is so absurd or false according to the Oratours opinion but that by speech and smooth discourse it may be made in some eares probable at leastwise in the conceipt of him that speaketh and indeauoreth to deceaue another so this Minister T. M. for of that trade he is held now to be hauing designed to himself an argumēt wherby to make Catholickes odious and gathered togeather for that end diuers shewes or shadowes for the furniture of his forsaid found assertion that Catholickes are not tolerable in a Protestant State he intituleth them Pregnant obseruations directly prouing Remish schooles to be Seminaries of Rebellion in all Protestantes gouernment Wheras indeed they are not so much pregnant obseruations as malignant collections and inforced inferences vpon false groundes Neither do they at all either directly or indirectly proue that which he pretendeth as by examination shall presently appeare if it may please the Reader to hold an equall and indifferent eare in the meane space to the discussing of the controuersy 2. And first of all to make vp a competent number in forme of a decalogue he streineth himself much to bring out ten different reasons and in deed euery man may see that it is a streine for that all might haue byn vttered in two or three at the most if not in fewer for that all doe concerne in effect the Catholike doctrine about the Popes authority either in Princes or priuate mens affaires And herehence is deduced his first reason concerning the censures and punishments determined by Ecclesiasticall Canons against them that by the Church are denounced for Heretickes The second reason toucheth the said Popes authority spirituall 〈◊〉 secular Princes The third the hinderance of their succession by the same lawes The fourth the oath and obedience of their subiectes The fifth their excommunication and deposition The sixth the practice of their death by the Popes licence The 〈◊〉 the allowance and approbation therof The eight the Rebellion of Priestes whensoeuer they are able The ninth the dissoluing and euacuation of oathes by the Popes authority The last that Romish Priestes by the order of the Pope must professe seditious positions ex officio that is to say as he is a Romish Priest By which enumeration yow may see in deed that the poore man was more barren then pregnant and after his streine had partum difficilem a hard child-birth as may appeare by that which he hath brought forth to wit a mouse for a mountaine and therupon we may iustly say parturiunt montes c. We shall giue a short view ouer all his reasons The first Reason §. 1. THey who by their slanderous doctrine saith he doe make all Protestants by their common censure Heretickes so odious as vnworthy of any ciuill or naturall society must necessarily be iudged seditious intolerable amongst the
in his English translation which is that which most importeth his simple Reader that looketh not into the Latin and this is that he translateth the former sentence of the Canon thus as before yow haue heard Though he should carry many people with him to hell yet no mortall creature may presume to say why doe yow so But in the Latin neither heere nor in the Canon it selfe is there any such interrogation at all as why doe yow so And therfore I may aske T. M. why doe yow ly so Or why doe yow delude your Reader so Or why do yow corrupt your Author so Or why doe yow translate in English for the abusing of your Reader that which neither your selfe doe set downe in your Latin text nor the Canon it selfe by yow cited hath it at all Is not this wilfull and malicious fraude Wherin when yow shall answere me directly and sincerly it shall be a great discharge of your credit with those who in the meane space will iustly hold yow for a deceauer 59. His fourth answere to the former argument of Gods prouidence is the difference he saith of Kings and Popes in this point for that the Papall power saith he which will be thought spirituall if it be euill may be the bane of soules the power of Princes is but corporall therfore feare them not because they can goe no further then the body Thus he And did euer man heare so wise a reason And cannot euill Kinges and Princes be the cause of corrupting soules also if they should liue wickedly permit or induce others to doe the same And what if they should be of an euill Religion as yow will say Q. Mary and K. Henry were and all Kinges vpward for many hundred yeares togeather who by Statutes and lawes forced men to follow the Religiō of that time did all this touch nothing the soule who would say it but T. M But he goeth forward in his application for that bodily Tyranny saith he worketh in the Godly patience but the spirituall Tyranny doth captiuate the inward soule This now is as good as the former and is a difference without diuersity so farre as concerneth our affaire that a man may with patience if he will resist both the one and the other And euen now we haue seene that when any Pope shal decline from the common receaued faith of Christendome he cannot captiuate other men but is deposed himselfe Wherfore this mans conclusion is very simple saying Therfore heere is need according to Gods prouidence of power to depose so desperate a spirituall euill wherof it is written if the salte want his saltenesse it is good for nothing but to be cast vpon the donghill Marke then that concerning the spirituall that God hath ordeined eiiciatur foras let it be cast out but concerning the temporall resiste not the power 60. Lo heere and doe not these men find Scriptures for all purposes This fellow hath found a text that all spirituall power when it misliketh them must be cast to the donghill and no temporall must be resisted and yet he that shall read the first place by him alleadged out of S. Matthew shall find that the lacke of saltenesse is expresly meant of the want of good life and edification especially in Priestes and Preachers and yet is it no precept as this man would haue it to cast them al to the donghill but that salte leesing his taste is fit for nothing but to that vse S. Paul in like manner to the Romanes doth not more forbid resisting of temporall authority then of spirituall but commaundeth to obey both the one and the other which this man applieth only to temporall which he would haue exalted obeyed and respected and the other contemned and cast to the donghill Oh that he had byn worthy to haue byn the scholler of S. Chrysostome S. Gregory Nazianzen or S. Ambrose before cited who so highly preferred spirituall authority before temporall how would they haue rated him if he would not haue byn better instructed or more piously affected No doubt eiecissent foras they would haue cast him forth to the donghill in deed and there haue left him and so doe we in this matter not meaning to follow him any further except he reasoned more groundedly or dealt more sincerly 61. Yet in one word to answere his comparison we say that both temporall spirituall Magistrates may doe hurte both to body and soule for as the temporall may preiudice also the soule as now hath byn said so may the spirituall afflict in like manner the body as when the Pope or Bishoppes doe burne Heretikes so as in this respect this distinction of T. M. is to no purpose yet doe we also say that when spirituall authority is abused it is more pernicious preiudiciall then the other Quia corruptio optimi est pessima The best thinges become worst when they are peruerted and spirituall diseases especially belonging to faith be more pernicious then corporall for which cause God had so much care to prouide for the preuention therof in his Christian Church for the conseruation of true faith by the authority vnion visibility succession of the said Church and diligence of Doctores Teachers Synodes Councels and other meanes therin vsed and by his assistance of infallibility to the head therof which head though in respect of his eminent authority he haue no Superiours to Iudge or chastise him except in case of heresy as hath byn said yet hath he many and effectuall meanes wherby to be admonished informed stirred vp and moued so as he being but one in the world and furnished with these helpes bringeth farre lesse danger and inconuenience then if all temporall Princes who are many had the like priuiledge and immunity And this euery reasonable man out of reason it selfe will easily see consider 62. As also this other point of no small or meane importance to wit that English Protestantes pretending temporall Princes to be supreame and without Iudge or Superiour in matters of Religion as well as ciuill and secular they incurre a farre greater inconuenience therby then they would seeme to lay vpon vs. For that if any temporall Prince as Supreame in both causes would take vpon him the approbation or admission of any sect or heresy whatsoeuer they haue no remedy at all according to the principles of their doctrine wheras we say the Pope in this case may and must be deposed by force of his subiectes all Christian Princes ioined togeather against him so as in place of one generall Pope which in this case is vnder authority they make so many particuler Popes as are particuler Kings temporall Princes throughout all Christendome that are absolute and consequently without all remedy for offences temporall or spirituall in manners or faith 63. And now let vs imagine what variety of sectes and schismes would haue byn at this day in Christianity if for
to extort from Bellarmine that confession of 〈◊〉 on his side which he neuer meant and much lesse vttered in his writings What dealing what conscience what truth is this 36. In the very next page after he talking of the great and famous contention that passed betweene Pope Gregory the seauenth called Hildebrand and Henry the fourth Emperour of that name about the yeare 1070. he citeth the Historiographer Otto Frisingensis with this ordinary title of our Otto for that he writeth that he found not any Emperour actually excommunicated or depriued of his Kingdome by any Pope before that time except saith he that may be esteemed for an excommunication which was done to Philippe the Emperour by the Bishop of Rome almost 1400. years gone when for a short time he was Inter paenitentes collocatus placed by the said Pope among those that did pennance as that also of the Emperour Theodosius who was sequestred from entring into the Church by S. Ambrose for that he had commanded a certaine cruell slaughter to be committed in the Citty of 〈◊〉 both which exceptions this Minister of simple truth leaueth out of purpose which is no simplicity as yow see but yet no great matter with him in respect of the other that ensueth which is that he alledgeth this Frisingensis quite contrary to his owne meaning as though he had 〈◊〉 Pope Gregory the seauenth for it wheras he condemneth that cause of the Emperour and commendeth highly the Pope for his constancy in punishing the notorious intolerable faultes of the said Henry 〈◊〉 saith he semper in Ecclesiastico rigore constantissimus fuit Hildebrand was euer the most constant in 〈◊〉 the rigour of Ecclesiasticall discipline And 〈◊〉 in this very Chapter heere alledged by T. M. Inter onnes Sacerdotes Romanos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 zeli authoritatis fuit he was among all the Priestes and Pops that had byn of the Roman Sea of most principall zeale and authority How different is this iudgment of Frisingensis from the censure of T. M. who now after fiue hundred yeares past compareth the cause of Pope Gregory to that of Pyrates theeues and murtherers and so citeth our 〈◊〉 Frisingensis as though he had fauored him in this impious assertion Can any thing be more fraudently alledged Is this the assurance 〈◊〉 his vpright conscience wherof he braggeth to his Maiesty 37. But the next fraud or impudency or rather impudent impiety is that which ensueth within foure lines after in these words Pope Gregory the seauenth saith your Chronographer was excommunicate of the Bishops of Italy for that he had defamed the Apostolicke Sea by Symony and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 itall crimes then citeth for proofe her of Lambertus Schafnaburg anno 〈◊〉 As if this our Chronographer had related this as a thing of truth or that it were approued by him and not rather as a slanderous obiection cast out by his Aduersaries that followed the part of Henry the Emperour Let any man read the place and yeare heere cited and if he be a modest man he will blush at such shameles dealing For that no Author of that time doth more earnestly defend the cause vertuous life of Pope Hildebrand then this man whose wordes are Sed apud omnes sanum aliquid sapientes luce clarius constabat falsa esse quae dicebātur Nam Papa tam eximiè tamque 〈◊〉 vitam instituebat c. But with all men of sound wisedome it was more cleere then the sunne that the thinges which were spoken against Pope Hildebrand were false for that the Pope did lead such an excellent and Apostolicke life as the sublimity of his conuersation did admit no least spot of wicked rumour against him he liuing in that great Citty and open concourse of men it could not haue byn hidden if he had committed any vnlawfull thing in his life and moreouer the signes and miracles which by his prayers were often times done and his most feruent zeale for God in defence of Ecclesiasticall lawes did sufficiently defend him against the poisoned tongues of his detractours And againe Hildebrandi constantia inuictus aduersus auaritiam animus omnia excludebat argumenta humanae fallaciae the constancy of Pope Hildebrand and his inuincible minde against the corruption of auarice did exclude all argumentes of humane fallacy and deceipt So Lambertus 38. And now let the Reader consider with what conscience and fidelity T. M. hath cited him for condemnation of Pope Hildebrand He relateth indeed what certaine Noble men Captaines and others that came with the Emperour to the Castell of Canusium and would not haue had him made peace with the Pope in that place said in their rage afterwardes for that against their Counsell he had submitted himself vnto the said Pope when a certaine Bishop named Eppo was sent to their Campe by the Pope and Emperour to enforme them of the agreement and submission made Fremere omnes saith this Story saeuire verbis manibus caeperunt Apostolicae legationi irrisoriis exclamationibus obstrepere conuitia maledicta turpissima quaecunque furor suggessisset irrogare All of them began to fret and wax fierce both in wordes and casting their handes and with scornefull outcries to contradict this Apostolicall legation sent vnto them and to cast vpon the Pope al the most foule reproaches and maledictions that fury could suggest vnto them Thus saith Lambertus and then setteth downe the particuler slanderous reproaches heere cited by T. M. which he approueth not but condemneth as yow haue heard highly commendeth not only the vertue but sanctity also of the Pope And will euer any man credit T. M. any more in any thing that he alledgeth when this conscienceles falsification is once discouered in him yea though it were but once throughout his whole booke it were sufficient to proue that he dealeth not out of any faith or conscience at all 39. If an enemy would discredit both Christ and Christian Religion and say your owne Euangelistes doe recount foule thinges against him as heere this Minister saith our Historiographer doth of Pope Gregory and namely that he was accused by the Scribes and Pharisies for casting out diuells in the power of Belzebub for deceiuing the people for denying tribute of the paid to Cesar for mouing sedition and other like crimes which our Euangelistes doe recount indeed but doe condemne them also as false and calumnious were not this as good and faithfull a manner of reasoning as this other of Thomas Morton out of Lambertus and Frisingensis against Pope Hildebrand who is by them both most highly commēded as yow haue heard and his Aduersaries condemned Truly if any man can shew me out of all the Catholicke writers that be extant English or other that euer any one of them vsed this shamefull fraud in writing where no excuse can free them from malicious and witting falshood then will I graunt that it is not proper
shalt say vnto them c. And the said Princes came to Hieremy and examined him and he spake vnto them according to all the wordes which the King had commanded him and so they left him 33. Thus far the Scripture and no man can probably imagine but that in this recapitulation made by Hieremy vnto the Princes of so long a conference had with the King in secret but that for couering of those thinges which the King would not haue to be vttered and the Noble men were greedy to know in such a dangerous and suspicious time of seige as that was Hieremy himself being held for more then half a traitour to his countrey for that he perswaded men to yeeld themselues to the common enemy no doubt I say but that in so strait an examinatiō as they would make about that matter in whose power his life and death as the Scripture signifieth did ly diuers Equiuocations of speeches must necessaryly be vsed by him though alwaies with a true sense in his meaning which is the difference betweene Equiuocation and lying as after more particulerly shall be shewed if first we set downe one other consideration for better declaring the difference in these two thinges and how farre those are from approbation of lying who in some cases doe admit Equiuocation in our doctrine The fifth Consideration §. 5. 34. IN the fifth place it may be considered about this matter how farre the teachers or allowers of Equiuocation are from teaching or allowing of lies which is the ordinary calumniation of this malicious Minister throughout his whole seditious booke which if it be proued to be a false charge then falleth all his accusation to the ground or rather vpon his owne head Wherfore we must stād somewhat more long vpon this point then vpon the former to the end it may appeare how 〈◊〉 a Minister of Sathan this is whose principall exercise hath euer byn to calumniate from the beginning and we shall talke especially of the Catholicke writers of these last foure hundred years by him mentioned and of the Popes of the same time that haue approued the same doctrine for that of this principall accusation that they made no difference betweene lying and Equiuocating but expresly rather patronized the one as much as the other 35. First then for battery of this wicked slaunder we will beginne our confutation from the receaued authority of the famous learned doctor S. Thomas of Aquin that liued and died aboue three hundred yeares gone He proposeth this question in his most excellent Summe of Deuinity VVhether all kind of lying be alwayes a sinne and consequently vnlawfull for any cause And he holdeth affirmatiuely that it is so alleadging many proofes and reasons for the same And the very same seuerity of doctrine in that point doe hold all other Schoolemen aswell after him as before him and our Minister himselfe citeth Vasquez the Iesuite late Reader of Deuinity in Spaine in certaine disputations of his vpon S. Thomas affirming Mendacium esse malum tam intrinsecè vt bonum reddi nulla ratione posset That a lye is so intrinsecally euill of his owne nature as that by no meanes it may be made good or lawfull And the like rigour of doctrine teacheth the said S. Thomas in the next question after against dissimulation and Hypocrisy which he saith to be a kind of lye in fact deceauing a man by exteriour signes or actes as the other sort of lies doth by wordes against both which kindes or sortes of lies or vntruthes he holdeth this conclusion That neither of them in any case is dispensable from sinne though in some cases one may be a lesse sinne then another and if this be so how then can Equiuocation be permitted by him if he held it to be a lye as our Minister would haue it For if as Vasquez said no sort of ly can be made lawfull by any circumstāce then must M. Morton grant that it followeth by the same reason that either Equiuocation is no ly or els that Vasquez the Iesuite and his fellowes doe not allow Equiuocation in any case whatsoeuer consequently that Iesuites are falsely accused by this fellow for admitting Equiuocation But let vs goe forward and shew his folly out of other Authors of no lesse antiquity 36. Before S. Thomas the Maister of the Sentences Peter Lombard in his third booke and 38. and 39. distinctiō holdeth the same seuerity against all sorts of lies and falsities deuiding them into three sortes to wit perniciosum officiosum iocosum the first pernicious or malicious that intendeth hurt without good the second that intendeth the good of some without hurte to any the third in iest all which notwithstanding are condemned for sinfull and no wayes to be practised or tolerated for any cause whatsoeuer though the secōd two sortes may be oftentimes veniall sinnes only but yet of such nature and so intrinsecally euill of themselues as neither for sauing our owne liues or the life of another man they ought wittingly to be committed as out of S. Augustine also by him and other Schoolemen alleadged is confirmed yea they alleadge eight seuerall kinds sortes or degrees of lies out of the same S. Augustine some farre lesse then others but yet none allowable and so they conclude with this sentence of the said Doctor Quisquis verò aliquod genus esse mendacij quod peccatum non sit putauerit decipit seipsum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 se deceptorem aliorum arbitretur Whosoeuer shall thinke that there is any kind of lye which is not sinne he 〈◊〉 deceaueth himselfe by thinking that he may be an honest deceauer of other men 37. This is the doctrine of the Maister of Sentences for foure hundred yeares past and of other Schoole Doctors ensuing after him vnto our time wherin yow see how rigorous they are in condemning lying wheron this Minister Thomas Morton either by chaūce or his good happe stumbling found store of matter to wrangle with vs in this controuersy and to make a shew of some reading of different Authors wherin otherwise he must haue byn very briefe and dry For whatsoeuer he hath of ostentation in this behalfe against Equiuocation is stolne 〈◊〉 of the said Maister of Sentences and Fathers by him alleadged spoken and meant by them against lying and not Equiuocation And is not this a goodly manhood trow yow deserueth he not a laurell for this conquest Our Authors detest lying and admit in some cases Equiuocation he applieth their detestation to Equiuocation or their admittance to lies and saith that he deuideth our tongues turneth our owne Authors against vs what a ridiculous toy and foolery is this But let vs see yet somewhat further 38. The same Schoole Doctors stay not heere but doe passe on to many other particularities for shewing their detestation against the foresaid kind of lying for fauouring wherof they are brought into question by this Minister
Commentaries of many skilfull men in that science is called the 〈◊〉 as the other part appertaining to ciuill affaires deduced from the ancient Imperiall Romane Lawes is called the Ciuill-law and both of them concurring togeather in this our cause with the foresaid Schoole-Deuinity and florishing more within thes last foure hundred yeares then euer before as yow haue heard the exception made against them all by this our Minister must needes be iudged for light vaine and impertinent 10. For he that will cast his eyes vpon the face of Christendome for these last foure hundred yeares consider with himselfe that in all these ages the most eminent renowned men for learning conscience and vertue in all those three sciences or faculties now mentioned and vnto whome for all doubtes and difficulties appertayning vnto iustice equity and truth recourse was made as vnto Oracles of their dayes for the high esteeme they were held in among all men he I say that shall consider this and with what integrity they dealt in this affaire and must be presumed to haue dealt according to their skill for that they were not interessed therin for any temporall respect whatsoeuer he that shall but thinke of this weigh their vniforme and graue resolutions vpon this point that a man pressed vnlawfully to answere by vniust manner of proceeding may delude his demaunder not answere to his intention but to his owne will easely see what differēce there is to be made betweene these mens iudgmentes and the clamours of a few vnlearned Ministers in this behalfe that vnderstand not the grounds wheron the other or themselues doe speake 11. And to name some few examples who were accompted more learned Schoole Deuines in their daies in France Germany and Flanders then the forenamed Petrus Lombardus Bishop of Paris Maister of the sentences Iohn Gerson Chancellour of that Vniuersity Petrus Paludanus Patriarch afterward of Hierusalem Henricus de Gandauo Archdeacon of Tornay Gabriel Biel a very Religious learned man Adrianus that was Maister to the Emperour Charles the fift and after that Cardinal and Gouernour of Spaine for Philip the first finally Pope by the name of Adrian the sixt I might name also Iansenius Bishop of Gaunt in these dayes and others of our times but of these their learned works are extant and vpon diuers occasions they fauour defend the lawfulnes of Equiuocation in sundry cases as in the next Chapter shall be more particulerly declared 12. In Italy Sicily also many might be named both for Schoole Deuinity Canon and Ciuill law but I shall be contented with them only whose workes I haue had time to looke vpon for this point as Gratian with his Commentaries Pope Innocentius S. Thomas of Aquin Cardinal Caietan Astonsis in his Summe written almost three hundred yeares since Angelus de Clauatio famous Siluester Cosmus Filiarcus Chanon of Florence Abbot and Archbishop Panormitan Bartolus Baldus most famous Lawiers 13. But of the Spanish Nation many more as Didacus Couarruuias President or Chancellour of Spaine Martinus Nauarrus his Maister both excellent Lawiers Dominicus Sotus Confessour to the Emperour Charles the fifth Cardinal Tolet Emanuel Roderiquez Ludouicus Lopez Antonius de Corduba Petrus Nauarra Dominicus Bannes publicke Reader of Deuinity in Salamanca Michael Salon Doctor and Professour of the Deuinity-Chaire in Valentia Petrus de Arragon publicke Professour of the same science in the foresaid Vniuersity of Salamanca Gregorius de Valentia and Ioannes Azorius publicke Readers in Rome all renowned men for learning science conscience and through whose hands great matters haue passed for direction of iustice and equity both in foro fori and foro poli as Schoolemen speake both for diuine and humane proceedinges and yet doe none of all these condemne or deny absolutly the vse of Equiuocation in certaine cases but doe rather approue and confirme the same I meane both lawiers and deuines when they treat vpon these heades following de seruando secreto of concealing secretes both knowne in the Sacrament of Confession and otherwise de mendacio of lying de iureiurandis of swearing de fraterna correptione restituenda fama of brotherly admonition and restitution of another mans fame wrongfully taken away de Iudice de Reo de accusatore de testibus of a Iudge and his office of the defendant accuser witnesses and the like what they may doe or answere lawfully in cases that may occurre 14. Neither are these Authors to be accompted as single and separate from the rest of the learned men of their ages in this point which we handle but rather are conioined wholy with them both in iudgment and practice so as what these men did define to be lawful that did others in like manner both mainteine put in vre in iust occasions especially if they were of the self same order and ranke So as when for example wee cite Siluester Dominicus Sotus Caiëtan Paludanus Lopez and Bannes of the order of S. Dominick to haue taught this doctrine without reprehension of others of the same order we may inferre probably that all or most learned men of that Order throughout Christendome are of the same opinion And the like we may inferre of those of S. Francis order in respect of Angelus de Clauatio Astensis Antonius de Corduba here cited And the same of S. Augustines order by Petrus de Aragon and Michael Salon And of the most ancient and venerable Order of S. Benedict conteyning many thousandes of learned men by that which Abbot Panormitan and Gregorius Sayer our learned Countreyman haue written vpon this matter and the later more largely then many others And the like may be inferred of the order of Iesuits by that which is extant written by Cardinal Tolet Gregorius de Valentia Emanuel Sà Francisius Suarez Ioannes Azorius Ludouicus Molina and others So as by these few witnesses we may take a notice of the whole body and corpes of learned men throughout Christendome for that Lawiers also both Ciuill and Canon that haue written of the foresaid heades haue conformed themselues to the same doctrine as lawfull in equity and conscience And if any haue dissented it hath byn in particuler cases only as before in the seauenth Chapter and third Consideration hath byn noted 15. As for example Ioannes Genesius Sepulueda Historiographer of Charles the fifth Emperour whose authority Thomas Morton doth often times alledge against vs though in the principall he make fully with vs in his booke intituled Theophilus De ratione dicendi testimonium in causis occultorum criminum how a man may beare witnes in causes of secret crimes yet in some cases he dissenteth from the foresaid Authors holding singuler opinions by himselfe but yet vpon such groundes as doe indeed confirme the common sentence of the rest as afterward in due place shal be declared 16. Wherfore to end this Paragraph about the Cōsideration of Schoole Deuines and
disputeth Caluin though more cyuilly and cunningly about the same matter saying Non est cur vlla hominum authoritate vel annorum praescriptione c. There is no reason why we should suffer our selues to be drawne a side from the doctrine we teach by any authority of men or prescription of yeares Where yow see that he graunteth both antiquity of time and authority of the ancient Fathers to be against him in that controuersy of the Masse and Sacrifice And as we haue shewed the same in this article so might we in all the rest if time and place did permit but this is sufficient to proue in my opinion that the protestation of M. Iewell before mencyoned which so solemnly he made in the presence of almighty God was feigned and hypocriticall when he saith Not one father not one Doctor c. and then addeth for more asseueration when I say not one I speake not in vehemency of spirite or heate of talke but euen as before God by the way of simplicity and truth For if M. Iewell did know that this his maisters and elders Luther and Caluin were forced to reiect generally all the Fathers or the most parte of them for that they were against him for the sacrifice of the Masse then was it notable cosening Equiuocation to sweare protest before God in simplicity that no one did make for vs either in this or the rest of the articles 26. The fifth reason is for that we see by experience that all other English Protestant writers succeeding M. Iewell and being as it were his schollers and participating of his spirite sense and meaning began presently to reiect and cast of the Fathers vpon euery occasion wherin they were pressed by their authority as by the writings of Doctor Calshill Doctor Humfrey Fulke Charke VVhitakers and others is euident wherof I will alleadge only one example out of the last named in steed of all who being pressed with the consent of Fathers in a 〈◊〉 controuersy against him answered in this wise We repose no such confidence in the Fathers writinges that we take any certain proofe of Religion frō them because we place all our Faith and Religion not in humaine but in diuine Authority If therfore you bring vs what some one Father hath thought or what the Fathers vniuersally altogeather haue deliuered the same except it be approued by testimonyes of scriptures auayleth nothing it gayneth nothing it conuinceth nothing For the Fathers are such witnesses as they also haue need of the Scriptures to be their witnesses If deceyued by error they giue forth their testimony disagreeing from Scriptures albeit they may be pardoned erring for want of wisdome we cannot be pardoned if because they erred we also will erre with them So Doctor VVhitakers Where yow see what accompt he maketh of ancient Fathers and Doctors Patres etiam simul 〈◊〉 to vse his owne wordes yea all Fathers put togeather without proofe of Scripture to Authorize them it 〈◊〉 nothing saith he gayneth nothing it conuinceth nothing So as if M. Iewell had dealt plainly he might only haue called for Scripture at our hands and not so often for Fathers knowing by all probability aswell as his schollers that the Fathers were at least in many controuersyes against him and what Equiuocation then was this to call so often and earnestly for ancient Fathers yea some one place or sentence some two lines for wynning of the field was not this singuler and extraordinary yea hypocrisy and lying Equiuocation in the highest degree 27. The sixt reason is the consideration of his earnest exhorting of Catholickes to answere his Chalenge Now it standeth vpon yow saith he to proue but one affirmatiue against me and so to require my promise of subscribing And againe If yow of your parte would vouchsafe to bring but two lynes the whole matter were concluded And yet further Me thinketh both reason and humanity would that yow should answere somewhat especially being so often and so openly required c. VVhy be yow so loth being so earnestly required to shew forth but one Doctor of your side c. VVhat thinke you there is now iudged of you that being so long tyme required yet cannot be wonne to bring forth one sentence in your defence And yet againe more earnestly I protest before God bring me but one sufficient authority in the matters I haue required and afterward I will gently and quietly conferre with yow further at your pleasure And therfore for as much as it is Gods cause if yow meane simply deale simply betray not your right if yow may saue it with one word the people must needs muse at your silence for thinke not that any wise man will be so much your friend as in so weighty matters he will be satisfied with your said silence c. And not content with this he concludeth in these wordes of earnest exhortation Wherfore heere I leaue putting yow eft-somes gently in remembrance that being so often and so openly desired to shew forth one Doctor c. Yow haue brought nothing and that if yow stand so still it must needs be thought yow do it conscientia imbecillitatis for that there was nothing to be brought And heere once againe I conclude as before putting yow in remembrance that this long tyme I haue desired yow to bring forth some sufficient Authority for proofe of your party Thus farre M. Iewell 28. And would yow not thinke that this desire this intreaty this vrging and prouocation did proceed from a great confidence in his cause Truly if the confidence were not great the crafte and dissimulation was singuler but what ensued M. Doctor Harding and other learned men lying in Flanders being moued by zeale of Religion and prouokd by these insolent eggings began soone after to write bookes in answere of these challenges and to lay open the vntruthes and vanities therof which labours wrought so great effect with diuers of the discreeter sorte both Catholickes Protestants in England as M. Iewell thought it best to procure the publike prohibition of those bookes by the Magistrate for which he had so earnestly called before wherupō there were diligēt searches made to find out the same both in the vniuersities townes cittyes portes of the Realme as one that was then a searcher among others and a Protestant preacher in Oxford but conuerted afterward by these very reasons and by the vntruthes found in M. Iewell bookes doth testifie at large in an answere of his written to M. D. VVhitakers whose wordes I haue thought good to sett downe in this place For hauing refuted a speach of M. VVhitakers who pretended to be very glad that the Rhemes English Testament was abroad in many mens handes M. Reynolds writeth thus With like phrase saith he and character of shamelesse vaunting wrote M. Iewell to Doctor Harding saying VVe neuer suppressed any of your bookes M. Harding as