laid vpon them not only by Catholickes but also by the most renowned Protestant writers that haue byn since that name and profession began And if we would alleadge much more out of the very Father of Protestancy it self Martin Luther we might haue store especially where he pronouÌ„ceth this iudiciall sentence of them all Haereticos seriò censemus alienos ab Ecclesia Dei Zuinglianos Sacramentarios omnes qui negant Christi corpus sanguinem ore carnali sumi in venerabili Sacramento We doe vnfeynedly hold for Heretickes and for aliens from the Church of God all Zuinglians and other Sacramentaries that doe deny Christes body and bloud to be receaued by our bodily mouth in the venerable Sacrament 16. Behold heere both Heresy and excommunication or separation from the Church of God auerred against both Zuinglians and Caluinists by him that was their chiefest parent and Patriarch and in other places of his workes the same Luther hath many more particulers to this purpose as namely that men must fly the bookes and doctrine of Zuinglius and his followers Non secus ac tartarei Daemonis venenum no otherwise then the poison of the diuell of hell And yet further that They are not to be held in the number of Christians for that they teach no one article of Christian doctrine without corruption and are seauen times worse then Papists c. Wherby is euident that this charge of Heresy and excommunication proceedeth not against Caluinists from vs only but much more eagerly froÌ„ their owne brethren consequently it is with very little discretion brought in by the Minister T. M. against vs as a singuler fault of ours wherof we are to treat more afterward in some occasions that will be offered 17. But now as for the penalties conteyned in the Canon law against excommunicate Heretickes as depriuation of dignities losse of goods infamy imprisonment debarment from Sacraments and from conuersation with the like the answere is soone made that those externall punishments are not incurred ordinarily but after personall denunciation and condemnation by name For albeit the inward punishmentes that follow Heresy which are sinne and depriuation of grace excommunication and separation from Gods true Church and other spirituall losses theron depending be incurred by the obstinate holding or defending of any coÌ„demned Heresy whatsoeuer if the defender know the same to be condemned by the Church as both Holy Canons doe expressly denounce and Bulla Caenae Domini euery yeare 〈◊〉 on Maundy-Thursday doth confirme yet commonly are they not held for subiect to the other externall punishmentes and in particuler to be auoided and their company fled vntill by a lawfull Iudge he or they be denounced conuicted and condemned by name which we ascribe not to the Protestantes of England and therfore this charge was maliciously deuised by this Minister against vs to make vs odious 18. Nay we goe yet further for pacifying milding matters betweene vs that we doe not easily coÌ„demne or hold all and euery sorte of Protestantes Puritanes or the like sortes different at this day in our countrey from the Catholicks for absolute Heretickes but excusing them rather wherin we may by any charitable interpretation doe willingly lay hands where probably we may on that wise learned and discreet moderation of the famous doctor S. Augustine affirming to his friend Honoratus infected with the Manichean Heresy that there is a great difference betweene an Hereticke and one that belieueth Hereticks and is deceaued by them yow shall heare his owne wordes to that purpose Si mihi Honorate vnum atque idem videretur esse Haereticus Haereticis credens homo tam lingua quà m stylo in haec causa conquiescendum esse arbitrarer nunc verò cùm inter duo plurimùm inâ—ersit c. 19. If it had seemed to me friend Honoratus that an Hereticke a man belieuing Hereticks had byn al one thing I should haue thought it better to hold my peace in this cause betweene vs rather then to speake or write any thing therin but now seeing there is such great difference betweene these two I thought it not good to be silent with yow for so much as an Hereticke in my opinion is he that for some temporall respect or commodity but especially for vaine glory and singularity doth inuent or follow false and new opinions but he which belieueth such people is a man only deluded by a false imagination of truth piety So S. Augustine And hereby openeth to vs a dore to thinke charitably of many Protestants whome though we hold for deceaued yet not properly in S. Augustines meaning for Hereticks 20. And this doctrine teacheth the same Doctor in other places against the Donatistes saying that if a man should beleeue the heresy of Photinus for example who denied the distinction of three persons in God and the diuinity of Christ and should thinke it were the true Catholicke faith Istum nondum 〈◊〉 dico saith S. Augustine nisi manifestata sibi doctrina Catholicae fidei resistere maluerit illud quod tenebat elegerit I doe not thinke this man as yet to be an Hereticke except when the doctrine of the Catholicke faith to wit that which is held generally by all or the most Churches ouer Christendome being made cleere and manifest vnto him he shall resolue to resist the same and shall make choice of that which before he held so as now this choice or election with obstinate resolution to hold and defend the same against the publicke authority of the Church maketh that to be properly heresy which before was but error which error though it might be in it self damnable yet nothing so much as when it passeth into the nature of heresy both which pointes are seene by that which the said Holy Father hath in another place to wit in his booke De haeresibus ad Quod-vult-Deum where hauing recounted eighty and eight Heresies that had passed before his time vnto the Pelagians that were the last he concludeth thus There may be yet other Heresies besides these that I haue in this our worke recounted or there may rise vp other herafter whereof whosoeuer shall holde any one he shall not be a Christian Catholicke He doth not say he shall be an Hereticke properly but no Christian Catholicke which though it be sufficient to damnation if ignorance excuse him not yet nothing so great as if he were an hereticke for that as before we haue shewed out of S. Thomas the damnation of Iewes and Gentiles is much more tolerable then that of Heretickes 21. And all these limitations and charitable moderations we doe willingly vse to calme and mitigate matters and to temper that intemperate breaking humour of this make-bate Minister T. M. and his companions that would put all in combustion and desperate conuulsion And so much of this first reason the rest we shall passe ouer with greater breuity To his
more hath S. Paul in that Epistle of the eminency of Christes Priesthood therby to set forth the most admirable excellency of his power and glory therby giuen him from his Father for our saluation but of the glory of his temporal Kingdome in this life he saith little or nothing And had not then the foresaid Fathers and holy Bishops S. Chrysostome S. Gregory Nazienzen S. Ambrose and others great cause by contemplation of this supereminent worthines of Christes Priesthood to inferre the great preheminēce in generall of the Christian Priesthood before Kingly dignity of earthly principality But let vs yet consider one reason more 17. The office of high Priesthood as partly hath appeared by that we haue said and is euident by the discourse of S. Paul appointing him for a meanes or mediator betweene God and man consisteth principally in two thinges or partes first in respect of that which he is to performe towardes God as to his Superiour secondly in the functions that he is to vse towardes the people as inferiours and subiectes The first consisteth in offering sacrifice oblations prayers and intercession for the sinnes of the people as already touching Christ our Sauiour out of the Apostle we haue declared The second consisteth in the spirituall power dignity authority and functions therof which our said high Priest Christ Iesus as head high Priest of his Church purchased with the sacrifice of his owne bloud hath and may exercise vpon the said Church for euer for vnto him as our high Priest it appertaineth not only to make intercession for his said Church but to gouerne the same also and to direct it by conuenient meanes vnto the end of their saluation which he hath designed and for this to make lawes prescribe orders appoint Sacramentes ordaine spirituall tribunals of iudgment giue sentence of separation of the good from the bad forgiue and retaine sinnes which spirituall gouernment of soules belonging to the office of high Priesthood is a different thing from the ciuill gouernment of temporall principality and yet is a Kingdome also in it self but a spirituall Kingdome ouer soules and not ouer bodies And this had Christ our Sauiour togeather with his high Priesthood according to the prediction and vision of Daniel Aspiciebam ecce quasi filius hominis c. I did looke and behold there appeared as it were the Sonne of man and God gaue vnto him power and honour and a Kingdome his power is an eternall power and his Kingdome shall neuer be corrupted And so in the second Psalme after he had said I am made King by him vpon his holy Hill of Sion he addeth presently to shew that it was a spirituall Kingdome Praedicans praeceptum eius my office is to preach his commandement and many other authorities may be alledged to proue that Christ in that he was high Priest had supreame spirituall Kingly authority in like manner for gouerning of soules 18. But now for the temporall Kingdome of Christ in this life to wit whether besides this spirituall and Royall gouernment of our soules he had Kingly Dominion also vpon our bodies and goodes and vpon all the Kingdomes of the earth so as he might iustly haue excercised all actions of that temporall iurisdiction as casting into prison appointing new officers Kings and Monarches yea whether their power and authority and interest to their States did cease when he came as the right of Priestly authority did in this I say and other pointes depending herof there are two disputable opinions betweene Catholicke Deuines the one holding the affirmatiue that Christ was Lord King temporall as heere is set downe which diuers learned men both of old and our time doe de fend the other affirming that albeit Christ togeather with his high Kingly dignity of spirituall power was Lord also cōsequently ouer our bodies shall raigne ouer the same most gloriously for all eternity in the life to come yet that he renounced the vse of all that Dominion in this life and that in this sense he fled when they would haue made him King and refused to deuide the inheritance betweene the two Brethrē when he was demaunded and finally said to Pilate My Kingdome is not of this world confessing himself to be a true temporal King also according to Pilates meaning but yet that the vse and exercise therof was not for this world but only for the next wherof also the good thiefe vnderstood when he said on the Crosse Be mindfull of me when thou shalt come into thy Kingdome And finally they alledge for proofe of this the wordes of Zachary the Prophet Ecce Rex 〈◊〉 venit tibi iustus Saluator ipse pauper Behold Sion thy King commeth vnto thee as a iust and sauing King but he is poore as though he had said he is thy true King but hath renounced the vse and priuiledge of the same and chosen pouerty in this world And with this second opinion which is the more generall doe concurre also the Protestantes of our age that Christ tooke vpon him no temporall Kingly power in this life least if they held the contrary it should be inferred therof that he left the same authority both of temporall and spirituall vnto S. Peter his Successour which yet the Catholickes that hold this opinion explicate otherwise saying that albeit Christ had no direct Dominion in this life vpon temporall thinges yet indirectly for preseruation of his spirituall Dominion he had and might haue vsed the same and in that sense he left it to his said Successor 19. Of all which is inferred first the preheminence of high Priesthood in Christ before his temporall Kingly principality for that as we haue said the actions and functions of Christes Priesthood haue not only more high eminent dignity both in that they treat with men for gouerning their soules then Christes temporall Kingdome for gouerning of bodies but moreouer that the dignity of Priesthood in Christ conteineth in it self a much more high spirituall Kingly power then is the temporall 20. Secondly is inferred that the reasons heere alledged by T. M. for his paradox in preferring Christs being a King before his Priesthood are vaine foolish The first wherof is this Christes Kingdome saith he had the preheminence of Priesthood because he is Priest only for vs but he is King ouer vs. But I would aske him Is not Christ Priest ouer vs aswel as for vs hath he not a spirituall and Priestly iurisdiction ouer our soules doth not he binde and loose our sinnes doth not he prescribe vs Sacramentes appoint vs lawes of liuing and the like or doe not these actions appertaine vnto him as high Priest ouer his Church And againe I would aske him about the second member as Christ in flesh was King was he not made King aswell for vs that is for our good as ouer vs
say though he dissemble it wherof we may read both Cunerus Carerius Salmeron Barkleius Reginaldus and Boucherus here by him cited out of whome he hath taken the most part of that he writeth in this affaire 27. Wheras then we must confesse with the Philosopher and with reason it self that Quidlibet ex quolibet non est consequens euery thing followeth not of whatsoeuer it seemeth that two pointes only of any moment concerning the controuersy in hand may truly and sincerly be deduced out of this number of examples now alledged the first that as temporall authority of Princes is from God and he will haue it respected and obeyed as from himself so one way or other he faileth not to punish them grieuously and to bring them oftentimes to great affliction and desolation when they gouerne not well and this either by ordinary or extraordinary meanes as himself liketh best To which end is that seuere admonitiō in the second Psalme Et nūc Reges intelligite erudimini qui iudicatis terram seruite Domino in timore exultate ei cum tremore Apprehendite disciplinam nequando irascatur Dominus pereatis c. And now yow Kinges vnderstand and yow that gouerne the earth be instructed serue almighty God in feare and reioice vnto him with trembling Admit discipline lest he fal into wrath against yow yow perish c. And this is the best most pious meditatiō which a Christian man can draw or lay before Princes out of those disasterous euentes as fell to diuers by Godes owne apointment or permission vnder the old Testament and not the comparison of Myters and Crownes which this Minister ridiculously bringeth in 28. Secondly may be noted that in the execution of Godes iustice designement in this behalfe he vsed also oftentimes the help concurrence of both Priestes and Prophetes other holy men who notwithstanding may be presumed out of their said holy disposition to haue abhorred such effusion of bloud war and other calamities which by fulfilling Godes ordinance made vnto them either by secret inspiration or open commandment were to ensue and follow and consequently that all Priestes were not debarred from dealing in such affairs when God required their cooperation therin 29. All the question then is how and when and where and by whome and for what causes and in what cases with what circumstances this restraint of Princes may be vsed wherin I haue shewed aboundantly before that the moderation prescribed by Catholickes is far greater without comparison then is that of the Protestantes whether we respect either their doctrine or practice of which both kindes we haue before produced sufficient examples and in this place the Authors most alledged by T. M. about this controuersy against violence towardes Princes are Catholicke as namely Cunerus a learned Bishop of the low Countreys in his booke De Officio Principis Christiani and Barkleius a Reader of Law in Loraine in six bookes written by him De Regno Regali potestate aduersus Monarchomacos Of Kingdome and Kingly power against impugners of Princes the first writing against the Rebellions and violent attemptes of the subiectes of Holland and Zeland and other Prouinces therunto annexed and by that occasion treating in generall how vnlawfull a thing it is for subiectes to take that course vpon any discontentment whatsoeuer handleth the matter very learnedly though briefly 30. But the other Doctour Barkley taking vpon him to treat the same matter much more largely directeth his pen principally against the bookes of certaine Protestantes of our time as Hottoman Brute Buchanan and others before mentioned for so he saith in his preface Non contentus Satanas tis qui parens ille malorum mendaciorum Lutherus c. Satan being not contēted with those wicked doctrines which Luther the Father of all wickednes and lies and other slanderous Railers that came out of his kytchin had with infamous mouthes and intolerable audacity vomited out against Princes he sent forth also into the world to fly before mens eyes other most seditious bookes Hottomani FrancoGalliam Bruti vindicias Tyrannorum Bucchanani Dialogum de iure Regni the booke of Hottoman dwelling in Geneua intituled Free-France or the Freedome of France to wit of the Protestantes against their Kinges and Princes that other also of Brutus a man of the same place and crew intituled The reuenge that subiectes ought to take of their Princes if they become Tyrantes the third of Buchanan schoole-maister in times past to our Kinges Maiesty intituled A Dialogue of the right of Kingly power subiecting the same to the people yea and to euery priuate person therof when it shall seeme vnto him necessary for the common-wealth or expedient for Godes glory as before yow haue heard Against all which this Doctour Barkley a Catholicke man writeth his six bookes so as in this point for Princes security we are far more forward then Protestantes 31. And albeit this said Doctour doth include in like manner Doctour Boucher a French Catholicke writer reprehending diuers thinges vttered by the said Boucher in his booke De iusta abdicatione against the late King Henry the third of France yet in the principall point whether priuate men either for priuate or publicke causes may vse violence against their lawful Prince not lawfully denounced for a publique enemy by the whole state and common-wealth in this point I say the said Boucher is absolutly against the same so protesteth and proueth it by diuers argumentes shewing himself therin to be quite contrary and to abhorre not only the doctrine of VVickcliffe and Husse condemned in the Councell of Constance about that matter but also of the forsaid Protestant writers Hottoman Brute Bucchanan Knox Goodman Gilby VVhittingham and the like among whome also I may include Iohn Fox who in his history of Iohn Husse alloweth that proposition of his Prelates and Princes leese their authority when they fall into mortall sinne as the Author of the VVarn-word proueth more largely out of Fox himself 32. And thus much for the first point about examples drawne from the times of the old Testament out of which little cā be vrged to the proofe or disproofe of this question besides the two generall pointes by vs noted before For to bring into disputation whether Priesthood or Kingly principality had the vpper hand in that law is to small purpose the matter being cleere that as the Kinges and so likewise their Captaines Iudges and Gouernours before they had Kinges had the preheminence in all temporall affaires so in spirituall and such as concerned God imediatly the were referred principally to Priestes and the temporall Magistrate commaunded to heare them to take the law of them consequently also the interpretation therof to repaire vnto them in consultation of doubtes and to stand to their iudgment and definition that Priestes and Prophetes should consult immediatly
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
Fathers and learned Doctors did afterward by the learning and light they had from the spirit and tradition of the Church which proposition if he were put to proue in the presence of learned men I doubt not but that he would quickly be in a poore and pittifull plight 68. The second thing which by this his answere he would haue vs vnderstand is that if these brethren or kinsmen of Christ did any way conceaue our Sauiours meaning then was there no reseruation at all for that as he saith our ioyned reseruation is alwayes supposed to be a clause concealed and not vnderstood But this is a greater foolery then the first for that there may be a reseruation in the speakers mynd though vnderstood to some of the heares As for example in our proposition being demaunded whether I be a priest and I say no reseruing to my selfe as often before hath byn declared that I am no such or such priest as I ought to vtter the same to you though some of the examiners should ghesse at my reseruation or know the same certaynly for that otherwise they know I am a priest this doth not make that this proposition in it selfe in my meaning is not a reserued or equiuocall proposition for that they vnderstand it And yet as though the poore man had played his prize well he concludeth 〈◊〉 in these wordes Therfore 〈◊〉 all these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there 〈◊〉 not the least haire of your fox 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 Scriptures forsake you or rather you them now will you haue recourse vnto Fathers 69. But whether Scriptures haue forsaken him or vs in this conflict or whether the Fathers expositions haue stood with his or our cause the reader I suppose hath sufficiently seene nor is it needfull for vs to make any further recourse vnto Fathers hauing shewed them to stand fully for vs in allowing reserued mixt propositions which of necessity do make ambiguity and equiuocation euen in Christes owne speaches as hath bene declared Which if Mortons vncircumcised mouth will call also fox-tayles we may well be contented to beare such a Ministeriall scoffe in so good a cause and company And finally what this man esteemeth of holy Fathers when they make against him is easely seene by that he saith in the next Chapter after where hauing cyted out of the former Catholicke Treatise the saying of S. Gregorie the Great that we ought not to respect so much the wordes of any speech as the will intent of the speaker 〈◊〉 non debet intentio verbis deseruire sed verba intentioni for that the intētion of the speaker ought not to serue to his wordes but his wordes to his intention after a soffe or two against the said Father that if an Author must be sought for a lye it was most likely he should be a Pope he maketh this cōclusion I dare boldly conclude saith he that though S. Gregorie or a thousand of Saincts yea 〈◊〉 celestiall Gabriel or any Angell from heauen should teach and authorize such a Doctrine as this we may from the word of God pronounce him Anathema So he 70. And he concludeth boldly in deed but who more bold then blynd Bayard as the prouerbe saith he may as well pronounce Anathema and curse not only vpon Saincts and Angels but vpon the Sonne of God himselfe as by this time his discreete Reader hath seene and considered And can there be any more blind boldnes then this Is he not ashamed of this so shamefull ouersight doth he not remember what he said before not one iota in all Scripture not one example in all antiquity not one shaddow of reason in all the wit of man can be brought for any colour of Equiuocation I wil not pretermitt his very last wordes immediatly following wherwith he concludeth his twelueth Chapter for that they conteyne a full vpshot of his folly Now saith he that we haue wrested your weapons out of your handes by answering Scriptures and Fathers as before he hath answered it wil be easie to pearce you euen with 〈◊〉 the bluntest kind of arguments that are And then he followeth on in the next Chapter to pearce vs with signes coynes Giges ringes and other like toyes but we as you haue seene haue pearced him in the meane pace wit h substantiall arguments of truth her selfe out of both Scriptures and Fathers and shall do yet more in the ensuing paragraph leauing him now to his similitudes signes coynes Giges ringes and other such like iugling wordes and instruments fitt for a man of his disposition THE FOVRTH AND LAST POINT OF THIS CHAPTER About Scriptures and Fathers That defended Equiuocation from the name and nature of Deceipt and fallacy VVITH Some other proofes out of common Reason c. §. 4. 71. I May be very breifin this for that I haue handled the same argument in the later end of the former Chapter and in this I haue byn longer then I had purposed therfore I will only adioyne in 〈◊〉 place some few examples more for iustifying of that which there we touched in few wordes For wheras according to S. Augustines defynition before set downe two thinges are to be required to a ly first to vtter that with is false and disagreeing from the vnderstanding of the speaker the other that there be intention to deceaue the first of falsitie hath byn largly proued not to be found in our reserued proposition I am no priest for that the speaker hath a true meaning in his sense Now must we handle the second about deceit of which we haue said 〈◊〉 that neither this clause of the definition of lying is found in the said proposition for that the Answerers first principall intent is not to deceaue the demaunder to his hurt but to deliuer himselfe by concealing a truth only which truth he is not bound to vtter this in effect is to permit the other to be deceaued and not properly to deceaue or to haue intention or cupidity of deceauing as S. Augustines wordes are 72. And for that I promised in the former paragraph to handle more largly in this place the dissimulation or fiction of our Sauiour related in the end of S. Lukes Ghospell when he went with his two disciples to the Castle of Emaus which by the Euangelist it set downe in these words Iesus autem finxit se longiùs ire Ie sus did feigne that he would goe further or as the Greek hath it Prosepoiêito he did make shew or pretend as though he would go further I shall heere relate somewhat largely the wordes of a learned Bishop of our time vpon that place to wit Iansenius oftentymes cyted by Thomas Morton himself 73. Est mendacium saith he secundum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nem c. Aly according to S. Augustines definition is a false signification with a will to deceaue wherfore as it is no lye or fallacy at all when a man speaketh that which
reason therof being not only that which heere Sepulueda doth touch but 〈◊〉 for that which before hath 〈◊〉 insynuated that thinges knowne in Almighty Gods Court and trybunall and as vttered vnto himself may truly be denyed to be knowne in a humaine tribunall and as the priest is a priuate man and not a publicke minister of God 5. One only Case there is wherin all the said Deuines agree that a Confessor may vtter any Cryme confessed vnto him Vnus est solus casus saith Tolet in quo Confessarius potest alteri manifestare peccatum Confessionis c. One only case there is in which the Confessor may manifest a syn heard in Confession vnto an other to wit by licence and Commission of the penitent himself which thing Doctor Nauarre doth proue at large by the common opinion of S. Thomas other Schoole Deuines with the concurrence and consent of the Canon law and lawyes cyted by him And then must he reueale it also but to him alone for whom he hath licence qui 〈◊〉 casu reuelat grauissimè peccat 〈◊〉 saith Tolet and whosoeuer in any other case doth reueale it he doth sinne a most grieuous mortall sinne and 〈◊〉 also the punishment assigned by the church in the Canon law for so heynous a cryme And if further saith he any wicked Iudge should compell him to reueale the same vnder an oath he may 〈◊〉 that he knoweth no such sinne though he know it indeed but yet knoweth it not so as he may reueale it And this is the common Doctryne of all disputed more at large by the Reuerend and learned man Dominicus Sotus the Emperour Charles his Confessor in a speciall Treatise called Relectio de tegendo 〈◊〉 A Relection about couering secrets wherin he sheweth how farre a man may disclose them and what obligation he hath of conscience to conceale them in euery sorte or kind And thus much breifly for this first case The second case about Secretes of the Common welth §. 2. 6. THE second Case that for obligation of secrecy commeth next to this first though in a different degree is when Magistrates and such as haue gouernement in the Common wealth as Senatours Councellours Gouernours Secretaries Notaries and 〈◊〉 like and con equently do know the secrets therof 〈◊〉 pressed to vtter them which they may not do in matters of moment and that may turne to the preiudice of the said 〈◊〉 wealth or of any particuler man if the businesse be of great weight and handled secretly by the Cōmon wealth for any cause or peril whatsoeuer yea though their liues should go therin for that they are more bound by reason of their offices to the reseruation of publicke secrets both by law of nature humane diuine then priuate men are though as Dominicus Sotus in his foresaid booke De tegendo Secreto doth shew that a priuate man also comming to know any secrets of the Common wealth is bound vnder mortall sinne to conceale them and rather to suffer death then to disclose the same especially to enemyes as the Ciuil law also declareth but much more those that are in publicke office wherof Sotus giueth this example among other If a Iudge which heareth a weighty cause should be assayled by one party vt merita causae prodat to vtter the merites or secrets of the cause debet potius gladio succumbere quam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He ought rather to suffer himselfe to be slayne by the sword then to breake his faith by vttering that secret but much greater more greiuous sinne it should be to vtter the same for money or bribery hatred malice or other like cause Et idem crediderim saith he de Scribis quorum fidei causae graues committuntur and the same I would thinke of Notaryes Scribes or Secretaries to whose faith weightie matters are committed 7. And finally the said Author hauing handled in the first part of his said learned booke the great obligation that man hath by law both of faith iustice equitie and charitie to conceale secrets he putteth these degrees therof In primo gradu saith he est secretum Confessionis in secundo secretum publicum c. In the first degree is the secret of Confession wherof we haue handled before in the second degree is the secret of the Common wealth out of Confession in the third degree is the secret of priuate persons and that in different sort all which we are bound to conceale ordinarily vnder the payne of mortall sinne except the smalnes of the cause do sometymes excuse the same and make it veniall So this learned man and it is the common opinion of other Schoole-Deuines in like manner 8. Wherfore seing the obligation not only of concealing secrets heard in Confession but of those also that be secular out of Confession is so great especially of those that be publicke and appertayne to the common wealth it followeth that when a man shall be vniustly pressed to vtter the same he may not only deny to vtter them which he must do vpon payne of damnation as yow haue heard but also dissemble to know them by any way of lawfull speach that may haue a true sense in his meaning though in his that presseth to know them it be otherwise wherof besides that which in the precedent Chapters hath byn said we shall haue occasion to treate more in the next case ensuing which is more generall For if it be lawfull for any priuate man that is called in question touching matters concerning himselfe and is wrongfully vrged to vtter his secrets to make euasion by any kind of lawfull amphibologie or Equiuocation as presently shall be proued then much more in defence of the publicke secret that concerneth the good of the Common wealth may the said Magistrate or publicke officers when they are iniustly demaunded or vrged contrary to the forme of law vse the benefit of like euasion so they speake no lye which alwayes is presupposed to be forbidden as vnlawfull for what cause soeuer and so much the more for that being publicke persons and as such knowing the said secrets of the common wealth they may as 〈◊〉 persons deny to know the same with this or like true reseruation of mynd so as they are bound or may vtter the same vnto him that vnlawfully demaundeth c. 9. And for that this case as hath byn said is for the most parte included handled againe in that which ensueth we shall heere treate the same no further nor cite more Authors about the determination therof for that those arguments and authorities that determine the one do decyde also the other The third case about any Party accused or called in Question §. 3. 10. THE third Case considerable in this place is de Reo of the partie accused or called in question in iudgement what or how he is bound to answere vnto crymes laid against him or to interrogatoryes proposed
About which point first all the foresaid Schoole-Deuine lawyers and others do agree with one consent that euery such partie is bound vnder paine of mortall sinne to answere directly truly and plainly according to the mind and intention of the demaunder and not to his owne and to confesse the truth without art euasion Equiuocation or other shift or declination when soeuer the demaunder is his lawfull Iudge in that matter and proceedeth lawfully that is to say according to forme of lawe and equitie therin And if the said accused or defendant either by wilfull holding his peace or by denying the truth or by deluding the Iudge do refuge to do this he sinneth greuously therin Neither may his ghostly Father absolue him in confession from this or any other sinnes vntill he yeeld to performe his dutie in this behalfe though it should be to the euident perill and losse of his life by confessing the Cryme And this do the foresaid Authors S. Thomas and others proue cleerly first out of the Scriptures as where it is said Eccles. 4. Pro anima tua ne confundaris dicere verum be not ashamed to speake the truth though thy life lye theron which is to be vnderstood when a lawfull Iudge or Superiour doth lawfully demaund it and Iosue also Cap. 7. when by Gods direction he 〈◊〉 Achan the sonne of Charmi about the thinges he had 〈◊〉 vsed this phrase Dagloriam Deo confitere giue the glory to God confesse the truth wherby is inferred that he taketh Gods glory from him and sinneth grieuously that refuseth to consesse the truth to a lawfull Magistrate proceeding lawfully against him for that the Magistrate is in the place of Almighty God and he that resisteth him in his lawfull of fice resisteth Gods power and ordination incurreth damnation therby as S. Paul Rom. 〈◊〉 auoucheth And for so much as the inquiring out and punishing of malefactors is one of the chiefe and principall partes of the Magistrates office for conseruation of the Common wealth both temporall and spirituall to resiste deceaue delude or contemne the Iudge or Magistrates authority in this so principall a point therof must needs be a great and grieuous mortall sinne except as some Doctors do note the smalnes or lightnes of the matter obiected should be such as might mitigate the greiuousnes of the same And this is the seuerity of Catholicke Doctrine for answering directly obediently and truly to lawfull Iudges proceeding lawfully 11. But now when the Iudge is not lawfull or not cōpetent at least in that cause or proceedeth not lawfully then all these foresaid obligations do cease in the defendant As for example if in France Spayne or Italy a great man that is no Iudge nor hath authority from the Prince Prelate or common wealth should take vpon him to examine any party of crymes without commission or other power or being a lay Iudge should examine priests of Ecclesiasticall matters who both by diuine and humane law according to Catholicke Doctrine are exempted from lay mens iurisdiction as largely hath byn proued of late in an Answere against Sir Edward Cookes fifth Part of Reportes which I would wish the Reader to pervse or if his iurisdiction were sufficient in that matter yet if that he proceeded not iuridicè lawfully or according to forme of law in that cause indiciis vel infamiâ vel semi-plenâ saltem probatione non praecedentibus that is to say that neither signes or tokens or common fame or some one substantiall witnesse at least be extant against him which circumstances of lawfull proceeding are handled by lawyers in that case when this I say or any of this falleth out then hold the former Doctors that all the forsaid obligations of true answering vnto him do no more bynde for that he is no more a Iudge in that cause but rather an enemy for that he proceedeth contrarie to iustice and forme of law by which he should iudge and consequently that in this case the defendant may either deny to answere or appeale from him if it may auaile him or except against the forme of proceeding or deny all that is proposed in the forme as it is proposed or vse any other lawfull declination saith S. Thomas but yet so as he do not lye or vtter any falsitie Potest vel per appellationem saith he vel aliter licitè subterfugere mendacium tamen dicere non licet He may either by appellation or otherwise lawfully seeke some euasion but yet so as he vtter no lye 12. And hitherto now in this point all the former Authors do agree without discrepancy that the defendant being thus vninstly pressed may vse all lawfull meanes to auoyd the iniury offered him and Dominicus Sotus that is the most scrupulous in this matter saith Possunt debent sic contra ius requisiti quacunque vti amphibologia quam vsitatus sermo citra mendacium ferre possit they that are so required to answere against lawe may and ought to vse whatsoeuer amphibologie or equiuocation the vsuall speach of men doth or may beare without a lye 13. And thus farre also doth concurre Genesius Sepulueda whome Thomas Morton hath chosen out for some helpe in this matter who though in some particuler pointes he dissent from the rest as presently shall be shewed yet in this he agreeth For thus he writeth 〈◊〉 Theologi ac Iurisperiti consentiunt neque reum in sua nec testem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 causa de occulto crimine rogatum teneri vt veritatem confiteatur aut testificetur 〈◊〉 si dederit quidem 〈◊〉 andum se vera responsurum Both Deuines and lawyers do generally agree in this point that neither the defendant in his owne cause nor a witnes in another mans being examined of a secret cryme is bound to confesse or testifye the truth no though they haue taken an oath first to vtter the truth So he of the Generall eōsent of all Deuines and lawyers adding his owne opinion more particuler in the same Chapter and telling vs first when the Iudge demaundeth vniustly to wit when he demaundeth of secrets or matters not belonging to his iurisdiction as before hath byn said In which Case he writeth thus Itaque vrgente Iudice iniustè vt neget aut confiteatur sine culpa 〈◊〉 potest 〈◊〉 Iudicem appellare 〈◊〉 alia quacunque ratione modò sit honesta defugere nulla adhibita fraude nullo dolo qui vim obtineat mendacij When a Iudge doth vniustly vrge the defendant to deny or confesse he may without any fault either appeale to a Superiour Iudge if it be permitted or by any other honest meanes declyne the force and violence that is offred vnto him so it be done without any such fraud or guyle as may include the nature of alye so as in this all do agree first that for no cause a lye may be admitted or committed secondly that any manner of euasion either
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