Morton but it would not come It must be our patience to expect the same at his more commodity hereafter THE FIFTEENTH Falshood pretermitted by Thomas Morton §. XV. FROM Sepulueda we passe to another Spanish Doctor his equall or rather much better learned named Sotus whom M. Morton erroneously taketh for Scotus vnder the title of subtil Doctor and abuseth him egregiously as I do shew in my former booke of Mitigation in these words 72. Behold sayth M. Morton one Doctor amoÌ„g you so subtile that for that faculty he hath by figure of excellencie byn called The subtile Doctor who doth conclude all your Equiuocators for Lyars saying To say that I did not that which I know I haue done although I speake it with this lymitation or reseruatioÌ„ of mind vt tibi significem it is not Equiuocation but a lye And then he quoteth Sotus in his books De iure iusâ—itia setting downe also in margent the Latin words conforme to this But all is treachery falshood and lying in this impertinent impugner of Equiuocation For first by the subtile Doctor according to the phrase of Catholike Schooles euery child knoweth to be meaÌ„t Ioan. Scotus not Dominicus Sotus who liued more then 200â— yeares after the other was of the order of S. Dominicke the other being of S. Francis so as this is folish ridiculous errour if it be errour but the other is cleerly false and malicious that these words as here they are cited are in Sotuâ— which M. Morton will neuer be albe to shew for â—auing his honestie in this point and much lesse will he be able to proue that Sotus doth conclude all Equiâ—â—cators for lyars which is an other incredible impudency in him to affirme For that Sotus in this very booke question and article by him cited doth teâ—ch and proue largely the plaine contrary â—o wit tâ—at to equiuocate is lawfull in diuers Cases to which eâ—â—ect wee haue citâ—d him before when he saith in generall Possâ—nt debent sic contra ius requisiti quacâ—â—que vti amphibologia They which are vnlawfully required to speake or sweare as we haue declared may and ought to vse any kind of Amphibologie or Equiuocation 73. This is his generall assertion but aâ—terward in particuler he putteth many examples to proue the same And first he setteth downe this proposition Dum testis de alieno actu interrogatur potest riâ—â— respondere Se nescire When a witnes is vnlawfully demanded of another mans actioÌ„ which he knoweth he may iustly answere he knoweth nothing the reason wherof he sayth is this Quia oratio illa nescio recipere hunc sensum citra mendacium potest nescio vt tibi modò dicam For that the answere I know nothing therof may without falsyty admit this sense I know it not â—o tell it yow at this tyme. Sicut silius hominis nescit diem iudicij vt dicat as Christ knew not the day of iudgment to tell or vtter yt to his disciples And doth it seeme to you that Sotus in this place doth go about to conclude all Equiuocators for lyars as M. Morton affirmeth If he did he concludeth one Sauiour Christ also in his sense What extreme impudencie is this in a Myniâ—ter But let vs heare Sotus yet further in this matter 74. In his booke De tegendo Secreto the third member and third question he repeateth againe the very same Conclusion heere mentioned That a witnes being iniustly demaunded whether he knoweth such such a thing of another may answere he knoweth nothing though he secretly know it and then going further he demaundeth Whether I hauing seene Peter kill Iohn and being after examined vpon the same iniustly whether I may say I know nothing therof To which he giueth this answere Respondetur quod iure possum respondere nescio quia iure intelligitur nescio vt dicam aut nescio eo modo quo iure debeam diâ—ere I affirme saith he that I may rightly ansâ—ere I know nothing therof â—or that by law it is vnderstood that I know it not to tell it or I know it not in such manner as by law I ought to vtter the same And prâ—sently he reâ—utâ—th T. Moâ—tons Doâ—tor Genesius Sepulueda that calleth this pulchrum commeÌ„tum a faire gloze and putting him in number of Iuniores quidam certaine yonger fellowes that would reprehend that which they vnderstood not sayth Hij aut non capiunt aut dissimulant vim argumenti These yonglings either do not vnderstand or do dissemble the force of the argument for this our doctrine c. 75. Thus wrote I in my former booke and hauing conuinced so euident falsificatioÌ„s as â—ere haue byn layed downe quite contrary to the meaning sense of the Author alleaged I meruaile that some litle place had not byn allowed for some piece of answere to this also among the rest But belike M. Morton was not ready THE SIXTEENTH Falshood pretermited by Thomas Morton §. XVI FROM the Spanish Doctor Sotus we come to the Flemish Doctor Cunerus for that from all sortes of men and from all Countries M. Morton draweth tâ—stimonies either gathered of himself or by others but allwayes bestoweth some sleight of his owne bugget to peruert them from their owne meaning Now then heare good Reader what I alleaged in my late Treatise as practized against a place of Cuâ—erus noe lesse iniuriously then against the former 77. Within few lynes after this M. Morton beginneth his third Chapter with these words That is only true Râ—ligion say your Romish Doctors which is tauâ—ht in the Romish Church and therfore whosoeuer mainteynâ—th any doctrine condemned in that Church must be accompâ—ed â—n obstinate hereticke And in the margent he citeth Cunerus alleaging his Latin words thus Haec est Religionis sola ratio vt omnes intelligant sic simpliciter esse credendum atque loquendum quemadmodum Romana Ecclesia credendum esse docet ac praedicat which words if they were truly alleaged out of the Author yet were they not truly translated For if only true Religion a corrupt translation of Religionis solaratio be applied to particuler positions and articles of Religion then we grant that such true Religion may be also among hereticks not only taught in the RomaÌ„ Church for that as S. Austine well noteth Hereticks also hold many articles of true Catholiâ—ke Religion But here the corruption and falsifycation goeth yet further and it is worthy the noting for that Cunerus hauing treated largly against the insurrections and rebellions of those of Holland and Zâ—land for cause of Religion and other pretences against their lawfull King taketh vpon him in his thirteenth Chapter to lay downe some meanes how in his opinion those dissentions may be compounded giuing this title to the sayd Chapter Quae sit vera componendi dâ—ssiâ—ij ratio what is the true way of composing this dissention And then after some discourse setteth downe
6. His first reason of Impossibility and that confessed as he saith by me is for that Catholicke subiectes do belieue that in some cases there is power left by God in the Church and head therof the Bishop of Rome ouer Princes to vse not only spirituall Censures for restraint of exorbitant excesses but temporall remedies also eyther directly or indirectly when vrgent necessity of the Common-wealth should require and no other sweeter meanes could preuaile Wherof M. Morton will needs inferre that our combynation in ciuill concord and obedience to our temporall Prince can not stand no more sayth he then Iewes and Iebuzites in one kingdome Isaac and Ismael in one house Iacob Esau in one â—ombe and then a litle after that our concord staâ—deth of no more possibility then Pope no Pope Kings Supremacy and not Supremacy which opposites saith he can neuer be reconciled togeather Wherto I answere that in beliefe and doctryne they cannot be reconciled but in cyuill life and conuersation and practice of due temporall obedience they may be no lesse for any thing touching this point then if they were â—ll of one ReligioÌ„ iâ— such make-bates as these would â—ease to set sedition for that all Catholicke subiects also of other Countryes do hold and acknowledge this doctryne without any preiudice at all of their fidelity affection or dutifull Allegiance towardes their Soueraigne Princes liege Lordes though ther be sundry cases wherin their said Princes may be obâ—oxious to the execution of this doctryne besydes difference of Religion which one poynt of different Religion this Stickler doth only vrge in this our caâ—e as most odious 7. But iâ— all those Christian Princes that haue bin censured by the Church froÌ„ Christes tyme downeward were layd togeather whether Emperours Kings or others the far greater part of them would be found to haue byn chastised and pursued not so much for any difference of Religion as for other causes and crymes And if we looke vpon our tymes since Protestant Religion hath byn named in the world we shal fynd only two to haue beene proceded against by the Church and many other neuer touched as the King of Denmarke the Intruder of Suetia the Duke of Saxony the Count Palatine of Rhene the Marques of Brandeburge and diuers other Princes and States as also those of Holland and Zeland and lastly his Maiestie that raigned aboue 30. yeares in Scotland professing Protestant Religion and now some good number of yeares in England without that any Pope hath gone about to vse that authority against them which is heere made by M. Morton so perilous and pernicious as though it were impossibâ—e for his Kingdome and Crowne to be in safety while this doctrine is beleiued or extant in bookes which being throughout all Christendome receiued by the whole Catholicke world will be hard for the Minister to remoue or extinguish coÌ„sequeÌ„tly he laboureth but in vaine or rather far worse then in vaine endeauoring to intangle his Princes mind with a perpetuall restles remediles iealosy suspitioÌ„ solicitude impossible euer to be cured as himselfe striueth to proue by those his impossibilityes though they proue not indeed the point it selfe which he would perswade that there is no meane of ciuill quiet vnion in life whilest this doctrine of the Popes authoritie is belieued of his subiects 8. His other two next reasons of impossibilitie for he hath foure in all are so obscurely and intricately set downe as if he vnderstand them himself it is much in my opinon for as for me I confesse I see not what inference can be made out of them though I haue perused them ouer with much attention more then twice and the same I suppose the common Reader will say when he hath in like manner considered of them For they concerne onely the excoÌ„munication of Q. Elizabeth and of King HeÌ„ry the fourth of France which Censure was promulgated by two seuerall Popes of this our age and consequently the doctrine is dangerous saith he But I haue shewed now that more then three times so many Protestant Princes were tolerated by other Popes how theÌ„ do these two examples inferre so generall a necessitie of disobedience in all Catholicke subiects yea and an impossibilitie of the contrarie that they can be obedient â— His fourth and last reason of impossibility â— wherin saith he may be obserued a sportâ—ull or rather exâ—crable impostureshipp of P. R. consisteth in this that wheras I do write in my Treatise of Mitigation that â—ut of Catholicke doctrine concerning Papall auâ—hority in some cases to wit when we talke what â—opes may absolutly do M. Morton argueth and will â—eedes inferre that such such great dangers may â—â—sue to Princes thereby I do answere him thus â—hat all this arriueth but to a may so as the questiâ—n being but de fuâ—uris contingentibus of things continent and to come wherof the Philosopher sayth â—â—ere is noâ— sâ—ieÌ„ce all remaineth in doubtfull vncerâ—â—inty but only the suspitioÌ„ enuy hatred which â—â—e Minister would rayse against vs. But on the conâ—â—ary what the ProtestaÌ„ts doctrine hath donne and â—oth at this day against lawfull Princes in their â—â—almes their armies do shew c. This in effect I â—id then and vpon this M. Morton entreth now into â—reat choler saying not only that this my answere 〈◊〉 an execrable impostureshipp as before you haue heard â—ut also he further breaketh into these patheticall â—ordes of ridiculous exaggeration I cannot laugh saith â—e for wonder horrour to see any English man conceyt so basely 〈◊〉 the wits worth of his Countrymen as to imagine they could 〈◊〉 delâ—ded with so senslesse so shamelesse so pernicious so impiâ—â— a mitigation as this is to be perswâ—ded therefore not to â—â—bour â—or preuenâ—ing ensuing dangers because they be continâ—ent that is such as may happen what can be more senseles Do you see this mans heat and do you marke how â—ocond and prachant he is when he getteth a little matter wherat he may make a shew to speake somewhat probably 10. Heere then he inueigeth and insulteth against me as though I did hold that there were no prouideÌ„ce or care to be had of future perills that are contingent saying Doth not nature in beasts reasoÌ„ in man precept of God teach vs the law of prouidence euen thâ—rfore to â—eeke to preuent ensuing dangers because they are contingent and may be heraâ—ter But M. Morton doth either willfully misâ—ake me or els I cannot conceyue so well of his wit and worth as he would haue me if he vnderstand me not For I doe not dispute against prouidence in generall in things that are contingent and may fall out for I know conâ—esse that prouidence is a principall part of the high vertue of prudeÌ„ce surnamed Cardinall wherby man is likned to God surpasseth all other terrene creâ—tures yet say I therwithall that it
of humble subiection which we haue receiued 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 28. And do yow see how this Mynister tryumpheth Who would thinke that men of conscienâ—e or credit could make such ostentation vpon meere lyes deuised by themselues as now we shall shew all this brag to be And as for D. Barkley alleadged â—n the last lynes let any man read him in the bookâ— Chapter cyted 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 Councells or Synods but of a quite different subiect of taking armes by subiects against their lawfull temporall Princes And what will our Minister then answere to this manifest calumniation so apparently conuinced out of D. Barkley But let vs passe to the view of that which toucheth Cardinall Bellarmine against whom all this tempest is raised 29. First then we shall set downe his words in Latyn according as T. M. cyteth him in his margent Tunc Concilia generalia sievant sayth he non sinâ— Imperatorum sumptibus eâ— tempore Pontifex subijcieâ—at se Imperatoribus in temporalibus ideo non poterant inuito Imperatore aliquid agere idcirco Pontiâ—ex supplicaâ—at Imperatori vt iuberet conuocari Synodum At post illa tempora omnes causae mutatae sunt quia Pontifex qui est Caput in spiritualibus non est subiectus in temporalibus Then in those daies generall Councells were made not without the charges of Emperours and in that tyme the Pope did subiect himselfe vnto Emperours in temporall affaires and therefore they could do nothing against the Emperours will for which cause the Pope did make supplication to the Emperour that he would commaund Synods to be gathered but after those tymes alâ— causes were changed for that the Pope who is head in spirituall matters is not subiect in temporall affaires So he 30. And here let vs coÌ„sider the varietie of â—leights and shifts of this our Mynister not only in cyting Bellarmynes wordes falsely 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 translatioÌ„ For first hauing said according to the latin that generall Councells in these daies were not gathered without the cost of Emperours he addeth presently of his owne were made by their consents which is not in the Latin then he cutteth of the other words 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 do nothing without them and therefore did make supplication to the said Emperours that they would coÌ„maund Synods to be gathered which T.M. translateth that they would gather Synods as though Bellarmine did affirme that it lay in the Emperours by right to do it but after those tymes omnes causae mutatae sunt all causes were changed but he should haue said are changed as Bellarmyns true words are omnes istae causae all these causes are changed 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 with causes are guilfully cut of by this deceiuer as in like manner the last words put downe here by himselfe Pontifex non est subiectus in temporalibus are falsely 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 litle bâ—fore that the Popes did subiect themselues for many yeares wherby is proued that they could do it But Bellarmyns meaning is that in right by the prehemynence of their spirituall dignity they were exempted and not bound therunto 31. And thus much now for the corruptions vsed in the words heere set downe both in Latin and English But if we would go to Bellarmyne himselfe and see his whole discourse and how brokenly perfidiously these lynes are cut out of him and heere patched togeather as one entire context contrary to his drift and meaningâ— we shall maruaile more at the insolencie of Tho. Morton tryumphing ouer his owne lye as before hath byn sayd For that Bellarmyne hauing proued at large and by many sortes of arguments and demonstrations throughout diuers Chapters togeather that the right of gathering generall Councells belongeth only to the B. of Rome and hauing answered all obiections that could be made against the same in the behalfe of Emperours or other temporall Princes granting only that for certaine causes in those first ages the same could not be done in respect of temporall difficulties without the help and assistance of the said Emperours that were Lords of the world he commeth to make this conclusioÌ„ which heere is cyted by T. M. but in farre other words and meaning then here he is cyted Yow shall heare how he setteth it downe and therupon consider of the truth of this Mynister Habemus ergo sayth he prima illa Concilia c. Wee haue then by all this disputation seene how those first Christian Councells were commanded by Emperours to be gathered but by the sentence and consent of Popes and why the Pope alone in those dayes did not call Councells as afterward hath byn accustomed the reason wasâ— not for that Councells gathered without the Emperours coÌ„seÌ„t are not lawful as our aduersaries would haue it for against that is the expresse authority of S. Athanasius saying QuaÌ„do vnquaÌ„ 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 Bellarmyne 32. And heere now 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 daies be made without them and that for foure seuerall causes wherof the first was for that the old Imperiall lawes made by Gentills were yet in vse wherby all great meetings of people were forbidden for feare of sedition except by the Emperours knowledge and license The second for that Emperours being temporall Lords of the whole world the Councellâ— could be made in no Citty of theirâ— without their leaue The third for that generall Councells being made in those daies by the publike charges and contributions of Cytties and especially of Christian Emperours themselues as appeareth by Eusebius Theodoretus and other writers it was necessary
impiety 59. Secondly I say that these words of his are corruptly set downe as ouer commonly els where and that both in latin and English In latin for that he leaueth out the beginning of the Canon which sheweth the drift therof whose title is Damnatur Apostolicus qui suae â—raternae salutis est negligens The Pope is damned which is negligent in the affaire of his owne saluation and oâ— his brethren and then beginneth the Canon Si Papa suae fraternae salutis negligens c. shewing that albeit the Pope haue no Superiour-iudge in this world which may by authority check him vnles he fall into heresie yet shall his damnation be greater then of other synners for that by reason of his high dignity he draweth more after him to perdition then any other Wherby we may perceiue that this Canon was not writteÌ„ to flatter the Pope as Protestants would haue it seeme but to warne him rather of his perill togeather with his high authority 60. After this the better to couer this pious meaning of S. Boniface T.M. alleaging two lines of the same in Latin he cutteth of presently a third line that immediatly ensueth to wit Cum ipso plagis multis in aeternum vapulaturus that such a Pope is to suffer eternall punishmeÌ„ts and to be scourged with many stripes togeather with the Diuell himselfe if by his euill or negligent life he be the cause of others perdition which threat this man hauing cut of he ioyneth presently againe with the antecedent words these as following immediatly in the Canon Huius culpas redarguere praesumet nemo mortalium This mans faultes to wit the Pope no mortall man shall or may presume to reprehend and there endeth In which short phrase are many â—raudes For first he leaueth out iâ—tiâ— here in this life and then for praesumit in the present tense that no man doth presume to checke him in respect of the greatnes of his dignity this man saith praesumet in the future tense that is no man shall presume or as himselfe translateth it may presume to cotroll him which is a malicious falshood And lastly he leaueth out all that immediatly followeth conteining a reason of all that is sayd Quia cunctos ipse iudicaturus à nemine est iudicandus nisi depreâ—endatur à fide deuius c. for that whereas he is Iudge of all other men he cannot himselâ—e be iudged by any except he be found to swarue from the true faith Here then is nothing but fraudulent cyting abusing of Authors 61. But now thirdly remayneth the greatest corruption and abuse of all 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 you haue heard Though he should carry many peoâ—le with him to hell yet no mortall creature may presume to say why do you so But in the Latyn neither here nor in the Canon it selfe is there any such interrogation at all as why do you so And therefore I may aske T. M. why do you lye so Or why do you delude your Reader so Or why do yow corrupt your Author so Or why do yow translate in English for the abuâ—ing of your Reader that which neither your selfe do set downe in your Latin text nor the Canon yt selfe by yow cited hath yt at all Is not this wilfull and malicious fraud Wherin when you shall answere me directly and sincerely it shal be a great discharge of your credit with those who in the meane space will iustly hold you for a Deceiuer 62. Thus I pleaded with M. Morton at that tyme and was earnest inough as you see if not ouer earnest but all will not get an answere Now we shall expect that in his promised Reioinder he will answer all togeather and that he may the better remember to do it I thought conuenient to giue him this new record for remembring the samâ— THE THIRTEENTH falshood wittingly pretermitted by Thomas Morton §. XIII FROM S. Boniâ—ace an Archbishop and the Popeâ— Legate we shall passe to a Pope indeed namely S. Leo the first a man of high esteeme in the Churcâ— of God as all Christians know and therefore the abuse offred to him by M. Morton is the more reprehensible wherof I wrote thus in my last Treatise 63. The eight Father sayth M. Morton is Pope Leo writing to a true Catholike Emperour saying You may not be ignorant that â—our Princely power is giuen vnto you not only in worldly regiment but also spirituall for the preseruation of the Church As if he said not only in Causes teÌ„porall but also in spirituall so far as iâ— belongeth to the outward preseruation not to the personall administration of them and this is the substance of our English Oath And further neither do our Kings of England challeng nor Subiects condescend vnto In which words you see two things are conteined first what authority S. Leo the Pope aboue eleuen hundred yeares agone ascribed vnto Leo the Emperour in matters spirituall and Ecclesiasticall â— The second by this mans assertion that neither our Kings of England challeng nor do the Subiects 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 farre forth as S. Leo alloweth spirituall authority to the Emperour of his tyme. Wherfore iâ— behoueth that the Reader stand attent to the deciding of this question for if this be true which here M. Morton auoucheth our controuersie about the Supremaâ—y is at an end 64. First then about the former point let vs coÌ„sider how many wayes 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 himselfe putteth it downe in the margent Debes incunctanter aduertere Regiam potestatem non solùm ad mundi regimen sed maximè ad Ecclesiae praesidium esse collatam You ought o Emperour resolutly to consider that your Kingly power is not only giuen vnto you for gouerment of the world or wordly aâ—â—aires but especially for defence of the Church and then do ensue immediatly these other words also in S. Leo suppressed fraudulently by the Mynister for that they explicate the meaning of the Author Vt ausus nefarios comprimendo quae bene sunt statuta defendas veram pacem hijs quae sunt turbata restituas To the end that yow may by repressing audacious atteÌ„pts â—oth defend those things 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 slayne and murdered by the conspiracy of the
a notorious vntruth in that he saith she did it by the coÌ„sent oâ— her Lordes Spirituall and Temporall for that all her Lords Spirituall which make the chieâ—e part of the Parlament resisted the matter as appeareth by their depriuations depositions restraints or imprisonments that theron ensued So as this is as true as that other which followeth in the very next page and hath beene handled by me in other places to wit that as well these that were restrayned or imprisoned as generally all the Papists of this Kingdome did come to the Protestants Church nor any of them did resuse during the first ten yeares of the said Queenes gouernment which I haue coÌ„uinced before by hundreds of witnesses to be most shamefully false as also the other deuised fable that Pius Quimê° did offer to approue the Communion Booke of English seruice by his owne letters to Q. Elizabeth if she would do him the honour as to accept it from him 109. I do pretermit willingly as vnworthy of my pen those scoffes and contemptible derisions which it hath pleased his L. to vse against that holy man and high priest of our soules Pope Pius Quintus calling him Pope Impius V. his hellishnesse his horriblenesse and the like which seemeth much to sâ—uour of the spirit of those that in Iudge Pilates house did scoffe at our Sauiour bowing their knees and crying Aue Rex Iudaeorum but yet there the maister Iudge did not descend to such scurrility But surely I am sory to see a Lord Iudge vse the same in publike auditory which were fitter for one of his Kitchin amongst his Companions and when such things as these are related vnto strangers they seeme incredible to men of eâ—timation and honour 110. But Syr Edward passing on in this manner throughout his whole speach bringeth in all the accidents fallen out froÌ„ the beginning of that Raigne vnto the end of the Irish warres Doctor Sanders his being there Steukley his going to Rome and afterward to Portugall the Duke of Guise his actions and of MeÌ„doza called by him Iesuite though he were a Noble man and Ambassadour of the K. of Spaine in EnglaÌ„d Campian Persons Heywood Shirwyn and other Priests comming into England vpon the yeare 1580. and many other such like things little appertayning to them of Norwich but that my L. would needs speake like a great Counsellour that day and be Propheta in Patria and fill mens eares with tales and terrours and yet in the end after all sayd and much therof knowne to be false to the greatest part of discret men in his auditory he commeth at length to be somewhat morâ— mild and placable saying by this then our English Papists eyther Iesuits or Seminaries may learne to know that it is not Religion that they striue for but only to mayntaine the Antichristian head of Romes vsurped Supremacy And if there be in this presence any Roman Catholiks or so many oâ— them as shall heare of that which now hath beene spoken I intreat theÌ„ as my deare and louing Country-men that they will not any longer be seduced by any lying spirit sent from Rome seing that the Pope whome they belieue hath himsâ—lfe allowed as before we have shewed that in our Church we haue a doctrine of faith and religion suâ—ficiently necessary to saluation Deare Country-men we haue then inough need not the help of any Pope sithence all the Papists generally came vnto our Churches beâ—ore our late Q. Elizabeth was excoÌ„municated c. Thus he 111. And do you see this Conclusion all grouÌ„ded vpon suppositions that are manifestly false or rather ridiculous in theÌ„selues for that first he would haue vs suppose as a thing by him proued before that it is not religion for which we striue but to maintayne the Popes supreme Authority in spirituall Causes as though the article of supremacy were no poynt of Religion at all among vs which is a great absurdity to imagine For doth not the Catholicke Deuine in the Preface of his Answere vnto him and we before haue also repeated the same shew demonstrate that this point of supreme spirituall authority is so principall an article of Religion as all other controuersies may be determined therby How then doth the Iustice trifle so in this matter Is he not ashamed to say in the face and ears of such an Auditory that Catholiâ—kes striue not for religion wheÌ„ they striue for their supreme Pastours spirituall Authority It is as good an argument as if a man should say that Syr Edward when he was a Counsellour pleaded not for money but for gold as if gold were no money 112. His second supposition is that we belieue Pope Pius Quintus to haue allowed the Protestant CoÌ„munion Booke for that Syr Edward saith and sweareth it vpon his credit saying and this vpon my credit and as I am an honest man is most true which I haue els where shewed to be most vntrue and that no Catholicke of crâ—dit doth or will giue credit vnto it Thirdly he supposeth that we belieue his former assertion that all Catholickes generally did come to the Protestants Câ—urch for the first ten yeares of Q. Elizabeths raigne which they do not only thinke but know to be most false 113. Fourthly he supposeth it to be a good consequence that if Catholicks did come to their Churches for the first ten yeares they haue inough for their saluation and need not the help of any Popes authority for absolution of their sinnes or other spirituall power For such is his inference when he sâ—ith Deare Country-men we haue then inough and need not any help of any Pope sithence all the Papists generally came to our â—hurches beâ—ore the late Queene was excommunicated which inference and consequence is both false and absurd For albeit some Catholicks came to the Church for feare or otherwise yet therby haue not Syr Edward and his partners inough for their saluation for that the other came to their Churches for they might come with a repugnant mynd condemning and detesting inwardly their Religion no lesse or perhaps more then they that were Recusants and openly refused to come as no doubt but at this day also many do who are forced to Church against their consciences 114. And it is to be noted that Syr Edward saith VVe haue a doctrine of â—aith and Religion sâ—fficiently necessary to saluation So as he ascribeth no perfection to his Religion nor any aboundant sanctitie latitude or degrees of holines one aboue the other but if it be sufficiently necessary it is inough for him And yet doth our Sauiour say that there be many mansions in the house oâ— my Father and exhorteth men to perfection Perfecti estote which importeth somewhat more then sufficiently necessarie But if seemeth that Syr Edward would be content with a litle and go no further then necessarily he must God grant he go so farre and keepe him in charitie
of the speach yet some may when the hearer hath authority to oblige in conscience the speaker to answer directly to his meaning and to vtter truth as hath â—yn declared And with this wee might end but that we may not let passe a contradiction or two which offer themselues in this his speach For in the â—eginning of this argument as you haue heard he writeth thus As we heere find a woman making a lye to S. â—eter a competent Iudge so we read that S. Peter made a lye â—o a woman an examiner incompetent And for this he ciâ—eth Matth. 26. and yet in his former booke of Full saâ—isfaction he wrote thus if you remeÌ„ber that the maid â—o whom S. Peter swore was coÌ„petent inough to heare a true oath â—f he had bin as ready to sweare truly So as there he made â—er competent and heere incompetent which of â—hem he will stand vnto now I know not although â—t seemeth that he is more bound to stand to the first â—hat she was S. Peters coÌ„petent Iudg or examiner for â—hat he bringeth it for a proofe of his maior propoâ—itioÌ„ in that famous syllogisme of six termini which â—hen he made and now cannot nor so much as atâ—empteth to defend as before you haue seene in which the maior was this The competency of God by whoÌ„ we sweare maketh euery one competent Iudges and hearers to â—home we sweare Whereunto if we would adioine â—his minor but S. Peter sware by God vnto this maide the conclusion will follow in good forme ergo she was a competent Iudge and consequently also a competent examiner for that euery competent Iudge hath likewise lawfull authority to examine So that you see that M. Morton there did not only affirme it but proue it also by syllogisme that she was S. Peters lawfull Iudg nay he held it for so certaine that he did set it downe for a proofe of his said maior propositioÌ„ thus The maior saith he is true for that our Sauiour in auouching truth held Pilate for a competent Iudg although he did not iâ—ridicè but falsely proceed S. Paul in his cause appealed to Cesars Tribunall seat who was a Pagan Iacob did couenant â—ith Laban an idolater And the mayd to whome S. Peter swore was coÌ„petent inough to heare a true oath if he had bene as readie to sweare truly In which words you see that he affirmeth the maid to haue bene competent by that S. Peter did sweare by God vnto her and therby pretendeth to proue his maior proposition that the competency of God by whome we sweare maketh euery one coÌ„petent Iudge to whome we sweare And yet within two lines after he saith againe but she was no lawfull examiner and Pilate was a partiall Iudge so that denying her to be lawfull examiner and yet to be competent Iudge is a plaine contradiction in it selfe For that as hath beene said whosoeuer is competent Iudge hath power also thereby to examine for that otherwise he could not iudge of the truth wherof he hath noâ— authority to examine so as the maides case seemeth very troublesome to M. Morton no lesse then she was importune to S. Peter But let vs see the residue of the examples how they make to M. Mortons purpose for proofe of his maior 37 The point which they should prooue is this that whosoeuer sweareth to another by God doth therby make him or her to whome he sweareth his lawfull and competent Iudge The fondnesse of which assertion though we haue sufficiently layd open before in our Treatise of Mitigation by sundrie reasons and examples yet shall we heere againe take the paines to examine seuerally in a word or two his other three examples as we haue done now that of the maid His first is of Pilate Our Sauiour saith he in auouching truth held Pilate for a competent Iudge But now what of this Did our Sauiour make Pilate his competent Iudge by swearing to him by God How can he proue it Or who would suppose or inferre this but M. Morton His second example is S. Paul in his cause appealed to Cesars Tribunall seat But this is lesse to the purpose then the former for that heere was no oath at all of the Apostle wherby Cesar might be constituted his competent Iudge His third example is of Iacobs couenaÌ„t with Laban which was an idolater and is most of all from the purpose and little lesse indeed then ridiculous for that neither Iacobs couenant with Laban nor Labans with Iacob for the couenant was reciprocall did make either Laban to be competent Iudge to Iacob nor Iacob to Laban but both of them remained â—as before though bound in faith and promise the one to the other for perfourmance of that mutuall frendship which they had promised but yet without any superiority of being Iudges the one to the other as euerie man in common sense doth see and consequently M. Mortons maior propositioÌ„ that euery man is made our Iudgeâ— to whome we sweare is not proued to be true by any of these foure instances nor by theÌ„ alltogeather Let vs passe then to his third His third Argument confuted 38. Thirdly saith he in mentall EquiuocatioÌ„ P. R. saith that the clause of reseruaton mixed with the outward speach maketh but one proposition which is as true in the mind of the speaker as if it were wholy deliuered in the outward speach As for exaÌ„ple I am no Priest mixed with this clause coÌ„ceyued in mind to tell it you is as true in the Iudgment of P. R. as if it had bene without reseruation fully expressed with the mouth saying I am noe Priest to tell it you Now then say P. R. for I meane to fetter you in your owne shackles the woman when she sayd to S. Peter I haue sold it but for so much if she had reserued in her mind this clause to giue it to you either had it bene by vertue of reseruation â— truth or els notwithstanding that reseruation it had bene a lye If the clause of reseruation might haue made it a truth then hath not P. R. said truth in concluding that no clause of reseruation could saue it from a lie If contrariewise the tricke of reseruation could not saue it from a lye then doth not the reserued clause to tell it you being mixed with the outward speach I am no Priest make vp one true proposition and consequeÌ„tly it must be concluded of the Preistly Equiuocation as is heere by P. R. confessed of the womans vz. that noe clause of reseruation can saue their speach from a lye For if she had said vnto S. Peter in plaine words I â—aue sould it but for so much â—â— giue it in common or such like this euery one knoweth had beene a true speach yet she saying I sould it for sâ— much with mentall reseruation reseruing in her mind to giue it in coÌ„mon or to tel it vnto you was
ancient heresy but only that it was not altogeather the same with that of the Proâ—estants at this day and had an other foundation or â—otiue to wit for so much as those hereticks did â—ot belieue that Christ had taken any flesh at all â—hey consequeÌ„tly belieued not that he gaue it in the â—acrament But the Protestants though they beleeue â—hat he tooke true flesh yet do they not belieue that â—t is really giuen in the Sacrament for that they beâ—ieue not these wordes Hoc est Corpus meum in the â—ense that the Church doth so as these do formally â—mpugne the Reall Presence and the other but by a â—onsequence drawne from another heresy which â—s the cause that they caÌ„not properly be called Sacraâ—entaries as ours are but most ancient they are â—o in this he contradicteth not himselfe about their â—ntiquity 102. The last point of obiected contradiction in â—his place is that Bellarmine confesseth Caluin to hold that togeather with the Sacrament of the Eucharist God doth exhibit vnto the faithful not only a signe of Christs body but also the body and bloud it selfe yea and as Valenâ—ia addeth further that Caluin confesseth that our soules do coÌ„municate with the body of Christ substantially Wherto I answere true it is that in words Caluin doth affirme as much in some partes of his workes but denyeth it againe in others and therupon do both Bellarmine and Valentia conuince him of most euident and palpable contradictions in this matter he seeking to say something different not only from Luther but also from VVickliâ—â—e Zuinglius therby to make a sect of himselfe but yet not finding indeed wherin to subsist or be premanent in any deuise that he could find out for proofe wherof Cardinall Bellarmine dâ—th set downe seauen sâ—uâ—râ—ll propositions of his about this matter and proueth thâ— same substantially out of his owne wordes and discourses ech one of them different from the other and some of them so contradictory as by no possible meanes they may be reconciled or stand togeather As first that the flesh oâ— Christ is only in hâ—auâ—n and that in so certaine and determinate a place as it is as â—istant from the bread as the highest heauen is from the earth then this noâ—withstanding he saith as heere is cyted by M. Morton that in the supper the true body of â—hâ—ist is exhibitâ—d vnto the faithfull not only a signe yea that the very substance oâ— Christes body is giuen Next to that againe he saith that notwithstanding the distance bâ—tweene th◠〈◊〉 of Christ the Sacramentall signes yet are they ioyned â—oâ—â—ather by so miraculous and inexplicable meanes as neyther â—â—â—guâ— nor pen can vtter the same And then further tha◠〈◊〉 must not belieue that this coniunction is by any reall comâ—â—g downe of Chrâ—stes body vnto vs but by a certaine substaâ—â—ial force deriued from his flesh by his spirit Where he seemâ—â—â— to sâ—y that the coniunction is made not in the substance but in some essentiall quality And so in the fifth place more cleerly he saith that it is made by apprehensiâ—n of faith only wherby he contradicteth all that he sayd before of reall and substantiall coniunction And in the sixt place he confirmeth more the same by saying that wiâ—ked men receaue not the body at all quia corpus Christi solo ore fidei accipitur for that the body oâ— Christ is only receaued by the mouth of fayth And in theâ— and last place he concludeth that this Sacrament doth not giue the body oâ— Christ or faith vnto any that hath it not already but only doth testify and confirme that now it is there and so it is but as a signe or seale to vse his wordes of that which is thâ—re already And this being the variety of Caluins opinion it proueth no contradiction in Belâ—armine but in Caluin himselfe And so many corruptions hauing heere beene proued against M. Morton do conuince that in him which he would proue in Cardinall Bellarmine but cannot as how see and yet â—e concludeth so confidently as before yow haue heard saying All these contradictions do certainly euince â—hat he the Cardinall hath by publicke imputations slaunâ—ered those whome in his consâ—ience he did acquit and shall we â—hinke that his conscience could be sincere in alleadging other â—â—ns testimonyes and witnâ—sses who is sound thus persidiously â—â—iust in exâ—ibiting his owne Thus he And I remit me to â—he Reader whether he hath seene hitherto any one point of perfidious dealing proued against the Cardinall among so many as haue appeared on the part of M. Morton But yet now he will go forward as he saith to another subiect to wit to shew some exaÌ„ples oâ— falsifications out of Cardinall Bellarmine in allegation of other mens testimonyes Let vs see whether he performe any thing more then in the rest he hath done 103. But first before we enter into this other examen there occurreth vnto me a consideration worthy to be pondered by the Reader which is that all these six obiectioâ—s made against Cardinall Bellarmine for imputing old heresyes to Protâ—stants are taken out oâ— on only chapter of his which is the 9. of his 4. Booke Of the noâ—â—s of the true Church in which 9. Chapter as before yow haue heard he chargeth the Protestants of our time with different heresyes of twâ—nty seuerall condemned old Heresiarches or chiefe Heretiks and therof inâ—erreth that as the vnion and agreâ—ment in doctrine with the ancient Catholike Fathers is a note of the true Church and of true Catholiks so to participate with ancient heretiks in any one condemned heresy is a damnable note of the contrary which Chapter M. Morton perusing thought good to set vpon six only for clearing Protestants of them to wit the Pelagians the Nouatians the Manichees the Arrians and other two particuler heresyes wheras in reason he should haue eyther cleered all or none for so much as according to S. Augustines sentence and other ancient Fathers the holding of any one condemned heresy is sufficient to euerlasting damnation So as M. Morton picking out only a few leaueth all the rest as not excusable and vnder hand by his silence granteth thâ—t they are held by the Protestants which how markable a poynt it is I leaue it to the Reader to iudge and so shall passe to examine the other head of obiections that he hath against Cardinall Bellarmine THE â—HIRD PART â—F THIS CHAPTER CONTEYNING â—THER OBIECTIONS against Cardinall Bellarmine for falsifications in alleadging of othâ—r mens authoritiâ—s and first about S. Cyprian §. XIII MAISTER MORTON passing from Cardinall Bellarmines accusations imputations against Protestants for heresies vnto his allegations of their testimonies corruptly as he pretendeth â—andled by him he beginneth his accusation with a â—entence of S. Cyprian about traditioÌ„s in these words S. Cyprian saith he hath this quâ—stion he going
about to refute 〈◊〉 tradition VVhence is this tradition It is deriued from the Lords Authority or frâ—m the prâ—câ—pt of the Apostles For God willâ—th that we â—hoâ—d do those things which are written From whence ProtestaÌ„ts conclude that the Scriptures are of sufficiency for our direction in all questions of faith Bellarmine answereth that Cyprian spake this when he thought to defend an error and therfore iâ— is no meruaile iâ— he erred in so reasoning for the which cause S. Augustine saith he did worthily reâ—ute him The question is not what error Cyprian held but whether his manner of reasoning from the sufficiency of Scripture were erroneous or no. Bellarmine pretendeth that S. Augustine did worthily reproue him But whosoeuer shall consult with S. Augustine in the Chapter specified shall find that this poynt by him is excellently commended That Cyprian warneth vs saith S. Augustine to runne vnto tâ—e â—ountaine that is vnto the tradition oâ— the Aposâ—les from thence to deriue a conduct to our tymes it is chiâ—fly good and doubtlesse to be perâ—ormed 105. This is M. Mortons whole obiection wherin we must examine what wilfull deceipt to falsification he findeth here in Cardinall Bellarmines allegation of Cyprian For if he find not this then findeth he nothing to his purpose he hauing intituled this his Paragraph of Bâ—llaâ—mines falsiâ—ications but if he find no falshood nor falsity at all either wilfull or not wilfull then is he more in the briers but most of all if finding nothing in his aduersary himselfe be taken in manifest falshood both witting and wilful Let vs examine then this poynt more particulerly 106. And first I do note that he proposeth this obiection very obscurely that for the cause which will presently be seâ—ne for he doth not explicate vpon what occasion these words of S. Cyprian were vttered by him nor alleadged by Protestants as an obiection against vnwritten traditions Wherfore the Reader must know that the holy man S. Cypâ—ian hâ—uing conceaued an infinite auersion froÌ„ hereticks and herâ—sies of his time did vpon indiscreet zeale â—all into this errour that as their faith was not goodâ—â—o neither their baptisme and consequently that â—uch as left them and were conuerted to the Cathoâ—icke religion should be baptized againe after the Catholicke manner and hauing found some other Bishops also of Africk vpon the same groundes to ioyne with him in the same opinion for that it seemed to them to be most conforme to Scriptures that detested euery where hereticks and heresies he wrote therof vnto Stephen Bishop of Rome who standing vpon the coÌ„trary custome alwayes vsed in the Church not to rebaptize such as were conuerted from heresie misliked S. Cyprians opinion and wrote vnto him against the same wherwith the good man being somwhat exasperated wrote a letter vnto Pompeius Bishope of Sabrata in Africk cited heere by M. Morton wherin amongst other sharp speaches he hath this interrogation here set downe Vnde est ista traditio c From whence is this tradition of not rebaptizing heretickes Is it deriued from our Lords Authority c. vpon which forme of arguing in S. Cyprian M. Morton saith that Protestants do lawfully argue in like manner this or that tradition is not in the Scriptures ergo it is not to be admitted 107. But saith Cardinall Bellarmine this was no good forme of arguing in S. Cyprian nor euer vsed by him but in this necessitie for defending his errour as Protestantes also are driuen to vse the same for defence of theirs and this he proueth by two wayes First for that S. Augustine doth of purpose out of the sense of the vniuersall Church of his dayes refute that inference and forme of argument and secondly for that S. Cyprian himselfe in other places where he was not pressed with this necessity doth yeald and allow the authority of vnwritten traditions which later proofe as the most conuincent M Morton doâ—h suppresse with silence in reciting Bellarmines answere and saith only to the first that S. Augustine is so farre of from condemning S. Cyprians mannâ—r of reasoning from the sufficiency of Scriptures as he doth excellently commend the same this then is briefly to be examined out of S. Augustines ovvne wordes 108. And first I graunt as S. Augustine also doth that when any Tradition or doctryne can cleerly be shewed out of the Scriptures optimum est siâ—e dubitatione facieâ—dum it is the best way of all and questionles to be obserued And for that S. Cyprian in that his errour did certainly perswade himselfe to be able to prooue the same out of holy Scriptures as appeareth by the many places alleadged by him to thâ—t effect though wrongfully vnderstood especially in the sayd Epistle to Pompeius and else wherâ— which places of Scripture S. Augustine doth particulerly ponder and refute and shew not to be rightly applied by S. Cyprian who seeing the generall custome and tradition of the Church to be contrary vnto him in this cause prouoked to the Scriptures alone as the Protestants do in as bad a cause But now let vs see what S. Augustine teacheth in this behalfe and how he confuteth S. Cyprians prouocatioÌ„ to only Scriptures in this case of controuersy betweene them notwithstanding he allowed for the best way to haue recourse to the fountaynes when things from thence may as I sayd cleerly be proued 109. Let vs heare I say S. Augustine recounting the case betweene S. Cyprian on the one side himselfe with â—ll Catholike meÌ„ of his dayes on the other NoÌ„dâ—â—â—râ—tâ—â—aith â—â—aith he diligentâ—rilla Baptismi quâ—stio pertracta c. The question of Baptisme or rebâ—ptizing heretiks was not in S. Cyprians tyme diligently discussed albeit the Catholike Church held a most wholsome custome to correct that in Schismatiks Heretiks which was euill not to iterate that which was giuen them as good which custome I belieue to haue come downe from the Apostles tradition as many others which are not found in their writings nor yet in the later Councels of their successours neuerthelesse are obserued through the whole vniuersall Church and are belieued not to haue beene deliuered and commended vnto vs but from the sayd Apostles This most wholsome custome then S. Cyprian sayth that his predecessour Agrippinus did begin to correct but as the truth it selfe being more diligently after examined did teach he is thought more truly to haue corrupted theÌ„ corrected the same Thus S. Augustine of the state of the question and of the authority of Customes and Traditions vnwritten Now Let vs see what he saith to S. Cyprians maÌ„ner of reasoning from the sufficiency of Scripture as M. Morton tearmeth it 101. Ad Pompeium saith S. Augustine scribit Cyprianus de hac re c. S. Cyprian doth write to the Bishop Pompeius about this matter where he doth manifestly shew that Stephen whome wee vnderstand to haue beene Bishop of Rome at that tyme did not
this be like to my cause P. R. saith he a litle after discusseth some of my answers to this obiection oâ— practise yet now will not acknowledge the beginning So he And let the iudicious Reader iudge how aptly this is applied yet to the thing it selfe I say that true it is that he indeauoureth both before and after to answere to diuers proofes of seditious practises obiected by his aduersary against Caluin and Beza but weakly God-wot as may be seene by my Reply and yet out of his owne confidence or that courage rather which before I mentioned of a Cocke of the game he would make that crowing vaunt Thus is Caluin iustified saith he concerning his doctrine and in him also Beza you haue heard their opinions haue you any thing to except against their practises Would not you thinke that he meant that we had none at all to obiect no more against their practises then their doctrine And that as he held the one for iustified so did he hould the other for iustifiable and that herin there was no exception to be made Wherin then standeth this wilfull malice of mine Yea this intollerable impudency or impotency of malice to vse his owne words But for that they were spoken in impatience I will not greatly vrge the same nor yet seeke to recompence them least I should go against the title of this Treatise which is A quiet and sober Reckoning the moderate iudicious Reader shall be the iudge of all where passion and where modesty is found HIS NINTH obiected falshood against P. R. §. IX HIS ninth obiection is a strange one and signifieth that the poore man is exhausted and cannot well tell what to obiect with any shew or probability in matter of wilfull falshood so as he falleth to lay hands of things quite against himselfe For wheras I had proued in my Treatise Of Mitigation two or three manifest vntruthes vttered voluÌ„tarily by him in going about to defend the Rebellion of Syr Thomas VViat and the Duke of Suffolke in Queene Maries time and so conuinced the same as there was no place left of probable defence M. Morton vpon meere necessity commeth here now to haÌ„dle these points againe and in part to excuse himself by the feeble meanes which presently you shall heare concluding nothing more against me but this which are the last words of all his discourse VVherefore saith he these two lies which P. R. would haue bestowed vpon me he by vertue of his place and Patent may keep to himself And is not this a great inference when he should conuince me of wilfull falsity But you shall heare vpon what grounds he obiecteth these two vntruthes to me for that I conuinced him of foure 43 First then my speach vpon his weake defence of the foresaid Rebellion was this in my Treatise of Mitigation To that of Syr â—homas VViat the Duke of Suffolke and others quoth I he answereth diuersly First he saith that the Historie relateth the pretence of VViat thus A Proclamation against the Q. marriage desiring all English-men to ioyne for defence of the Realme c. Then that in Q. Maries Oration against Wiat there is not to be found any scruple concerning the cause of religion Thirdly that no Minister of the ghospell was brought in question as a coÌ„motioner in that cause Lastly that ys inteÌ„â— might 〈◊〉 for ProtestaÌ„ts accused in that name thâ— is it plain saith M. Morton that it was not Religion ys for Wiat and his folloâ—ers it is playne it was not against the Queene or State but for both So he that is to say M. Morton in his Full SatisfactioÌ„ 44. But in all these foure different clauses I then sayd and now doe repeat agayne that there is not so much as one that in rigour may be defended for true For as for the first though the historie of Holinshed doth relate the pretence of VViat to haue bene against the Q. marriage conâ—â—aling and dissembling the poynt of ReligioÌ„ in that place which els where he confesseth as aâ—ter shal be seene yet Iohn â—ox a more ancieÌ„t and authenticall Historiographer then he doth plainely set downe that together with the pretence of the marriage the cause of Religion was also pretended in these words The mention of marriage with Spaine quoth he was very ill taken of the people and of many of the Nobility who for this and for Religion conspiring among theÌ„selues made a Rebellion wherof Syr Thomas VViat knight was one of the cheifest And againe They sayd that the Q. the CouÌ„sell would by forraine marriage bring vpoÌ„ this Relme miserable seruitude and establish Popish Religion So Fox And it cannot be presumed but that M. Morton had seene and read this yet durst affirme that there was no mention of Religion at all in VViats pretence which is the first lye 45. The second also that in the Oration of Q. Mary against VViat there was not found any scruple concerning the cause of Religion is proued likewise false by the same authority of M. Fox in his Acts and Monuments who writeth that Q. Marie in hâ—r Oration in the Guildhall sayd publickely that she had sent diuers of her Counsell to learne the pretences of that Rebellion and it appeared to our said Counsell said she that the matter of the marriage seâ—â—â—ed to be but a Spanish cloake to couer their pretensed purpose against our Râ—ligion And this testimonie also of Fox must needes haue bene knowne to M. Morton and consequently here is a second witting lye affirming that there is not so much as any scruple to be found concerning the cause of Religion in that her Oration 46. The third point likewise that there was no Minister of the Ghospell brought in question as a CoÌ„motioner in that cause is both false in it selfe and cautelously set downe for that the commotion of VViat and the Duke of Suffâ—lke ensuing within the coÌ„passe of fiue moneths aâ—ter the death of the Duke of Northumberland that did conspire the depriuation of Q. Mary the first being put to death vpon the 22. of August 1553. the other beginning his rebellion vpoÌ„ the 25. of â—anuary 1554â— it being well knowne the coÌ„fessed both by Fox Holinsâ—ed Stow and others that the motiue of Protestant Religion was common to them both and pretended for chiese in them both and it being notorious that in the first both Cranmer Ridley Hooper Rogers Iewell all the chief Protestant Minisâ—ers of England did concurre who can doubt but that in the second aâ—lso being but an appendix of the former they â—ad their harts therin though not â—o â—ully their hands as actuall Commotioners for that the Râ—bellion was suppressed in the very beginning by taking away the two heads VViat and Suffolke 47. Wherby you may see the craftie speach of M. Morton who saith that Ministers were not the Commoâ—ioners nor brought into quâ—stion for such that is to say
is all that â—urrecremata saith of the matter which maketh much more for the preheminence of the Bishop of Rome if you marke it then any way against the same for it sheweth that God hath such spâ—ciall and particuler care of that Sea and Pastor therof as he will rather take him away then permit him to do any thing preiudiciall to the Church which is the blessing as we know of the elect and dearly beloued of God according to the saying of the Scripture Placens Deo â—actus dilectus rapâ—us est ne malitia mutaret intellectum eius albeit I muâ—t aduertise the Reader that the whole current of other writers do deny this matter about the inclination of Pope Anastasius to recall Acatius affirming that the said Acaâ—â—us was dead diuers yeares before Anastasius was Pope as do testify Nicepâ—orus Callixâ—us Euagâ—ius Anastasius Billiothecarius Liberatus Gelasius and others all which or the most are namâ—d in the first part of the Decree or Gratian which is cyted also by M. Morton and so if he looked vpon it he abuseth vs greatly in disâ—embling the matter and if he did not why doth he cite it And thus much of Anastasius whome all writers commonly do hold for a very good man And if any will see him further defended both for sanctity of lyfe integrity of faith and the remouing of this slaunder touching his death let him see the learned discourse of Albertus Pighius Cardinall Hosius Doctor Sanders Cardinall Baronius Cardinall Bellarmine and others in the places heere cyted All which M. Morton in his manner of playne dealing dissembleth and passeth ouer and alleageth only 4. or 5. words out of Turrecremata which that Author proposeth only in the way of obiection and not of asâ—ertion 32. And as for the fable raysed about his suddayne death it seemeth to haue beene taken by errour and similitude of the name of Anastasius of which name the hereticall Emperor being that lyued with him as before hath byn sayd and being stroken suddaynly by death with a thunderbolt as both Paulus Diaconus Beda Cedrâ—nus and Zonaras do testifie it fell out that the one was mistaken â—or the other as diuers learned men are of opinion 33. As for the other two Popes Iohn the 10. and Iohn the 12. as they were both violently intruded by fauour and force of friends into that Sea and gaue no great edification in their liues so no meruayle if â—hey had no very good ends Albeit for so much as belongeth to Iohn the 12. otherwyse the 13. diuers Authors do defend him and namely in our age Franciscus Ioannettus citing both Otho Frisingensis and Abbot Vrspergensis for the same 34. The last of the foure Vrbanustertius whome M. Morton bringeth in as noted by Doctor Seuerinus Binâ—us out of the testimony of Vrspergensis that for sedition against the Emperour he was called Turbanus and died as stroken by the hand of God true it is that Binius relateth such a thing recorded by Vrspergensis a Schismaticall Author standing with the Emperor against the said Pope but refuteth the same as false and malicious out of Platina and other Authours shewing how he died peacebly in his bed at Ferrara for the sorrow he conceaued of the ouerthrow of the Christian army in the Holy Land for preuenting wherof he had taken a iourney to Venice Anno Domini 1187. adding these words Ita Platina de obitu optimi Pontificis veriùs et melius sentiens quà m Schismaticorum fautor Vrspergensis So writeth Platina of thâ— death of this excellent Pope wherin his iudgment was truer and better then the iudgment of Vrspergensis the fauourer of Schismaticks which conclusion M. Morton according to his ordinary art of simplicity thought best to pretermit and conceale from his Reader and yet to furnish his margent with sundry citations of Doctor Binius as though he made for him 35. And besides this testimony of Platina guylefully concealed he dissembleth also two other Authors of greater antiquity of our owne Nation to witt Roger Houeden and Neubrigensis who both lyued in the same tyme when Pope Vrbanus did and do write very honorably of his death saying that when he heaâ—d the griâ—uous calamityes happâ—â—ed at Hierusalem doluâ—t vehementâ—r incidit in aegriâ—udinâ—m mortâ—uâ—est apud Ferrariam He â—eceyued â—xceeding griefe theâ—by fell into sâ—cknesse and so dyed at â—errara which signifyeth both his piety in Gods cause and the honourable cause of his dâ—ath 36. Thus thâ—se two ancieâ—t Englâ—sh writers to omit many other that do ensue And now consider good Râ—ader the vayne vaunting of M. Mortonâ— speach vpon this fiction VVhat is now wanting saith he but an example of one Pope to be produced vpon whome the vengeance of God seizâ—d because of his reâ—elâ—ious opposition against temporall Lords This was Vrban the third saith Abbas Vrspergensis commonly called Turban c. so little cause could I haue to wound my aduâ—rsaryes with forged inuentions being thus sufficiently furnished and prepared to conâ—ound them with true and playne confâ—ssed tâ—stimâ—nyes So he And do you heare him how he croweth Hath he cyted any one Author but Vâ—spâ—rgeâ—sis and Binius wherof the later is expressly against him as you haue heard and fully ouerthroweth the former And haue not we alleaged three for his one to the contrary and may do thrice as many more of those that ensued the other if we would stand vpon it How then is M. Morton so sufficiently furnished to conâ—ound vs with true and playne confessed testimonyes VVhere are they â—Vhat are their names When lyued they VVhere dwell they VVhy did he not bring them forth with the rest Is it not playne that Mortonâ—elleth â—elleth wynd and wordes and vaunts for workes but let vs furnish him with testimonies to the contrary of Authors who write right honourably of this Popes death Let him read and consider what Sabellicus hath left written Aenead 9. lib. 5. What Cranzius lib. 6. histor Saxon. cap. 52. What Naâ—ulâ—â—us paâ—te 2 generatione 43. What VVeâ—neâ—us in fasâ—â—â—â—lo temporum aâ—tate 6. anno 1184. What Onuphrius Paâ—â—inus in vita Vrbani teâ—tij What Ioanneâ—iuâ— in Chron. cap. 151. What Philiâ—pus in supplâ—mento â—istoriarum anno 1186. What Carolus Sigonius lib. 15. de â—egno Italiae anno 1187. What Genebrardus in Chronico anno 1185. And finally what Blondus doth testifie lib. 6. deâ—ad 2. anno 1181. whose wordes be these and may stand for all the rest that agree in the same Orbâ—m Christianorum saith he speaking of the life and death of this Pope Vrban the third de mittendis in Asiam copiis monuerat c. Pope Vrbanus 3. aduertised the Christian world by an vniuersall decree to send forces into Asia for recouering the holy Land the succesâ—e wherof when he saw to proceed more slowly and negligently then the feruour of his hart desyred he deteâ—mined to go in
Dioscorian hereticks lately condemned in the sayd Councell all things are in most violent garboyles which require your Imperiall power to remedy compose and compresse the same 65. This is the true meaning of S. Leo his speach to the good and religious Emperour of the same name as appeareth throughout the whole Epistle here cited and diuers others Nonne perspicuum est sayth he quiâ—us Pâ—eâ—as Vestra succurrere qâ—â—buâ— obuiare â—e Alexandrina Ecclesia c. â—s it not euident whome your â—mperiall piety ought to assâ—st and succour and whom yow ought to resist and represse to the end the Church of Alexandria that hitherto hath byn the â—ouse of prayer become not a denne of theeues Surely it is most maniâ—est that by this late barbarous and most furious cruelty in murdering that Patriarch all the light of heauenly Sacraments is there extinguished Intercepta est Sacrificiij oblatio defecit Chrismatis sanctificatio c. The oblation of Sacrifice is intermitted the hallowing of Chrisme is ceasedâ— and all diuine mysteries of our religion haue withdrawne themselues â—rom the parricidiall hands of those hereticks that haue murdered their owne Father and Patriarch Proterius burned his body and cast the ashes into the ayre 66. This theÌ„ was the cause occasioÌ„ wherin the holy Pope Leo did implore the help secular arme of Leo the Emperour for chastising those turbulent hereticks to which effect he saith that his Kingly power was not only giuen him for the gouerment of the world but also for the defence of the Church which our Mynister 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 administration of them 67. Thus far I wrote hereof before and proceded also further shewing not only that he had corrupted both the text sense and meaning of S. Leo but also that fondly he had affirmed that the Oath of Supremacie exacted by King Henry and some of his followers in England was nor is any thing els but the acknowledging of so much authority spirituall as S. Leo granted to the Emperour of his dayes Wherupon I do ioyne isâ—ue with him and promise that if he can proue it to be no other then that all Catholicks in my opinion will accept the same and so come to vnion and concord in that point And therupon I did vrge very earnestly that this assertion might be mainteyned saying among other things Me thinks such publike doctrine should not be so publikely printed and set forth without publike allowance and intention to performe and make it good If this be really meant we may easily be accorded yf 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. Which words in my iudgmeÌ„t should haue moued M. Morton to haue sayd somwhat to the matter in this his answere and not to haue passed it ouer so slyly as though neuer mention had byn made therof But euery man will ghesse at the cause and so we shall expect it at some other time THE FOVRTEENTH Pretermitted falshood by T. M. §. XIIII LET vs come backe from Pope Leo vnto another priuate Doctor named Genesius Sepulueda whom M. Morton in words calleth ours but yet would make him his if he could in the question of Equiuocation and for that he will not come of himselfe so farre as he would haue him he giueth him a wrinch or two to force him to draw neerer wherof my former accusation was this that ensueth 69. And lastly quoth I where M. Morton concludeth the whole matter by the testimony of our Doctor Genesius as he calleth him I haue told before how he is ours and how in some sort he may in this controuersie be called his though he detested his Religion as by his works appeareth Ours he is as in all other points of Religion so in the subsâ—antiall and principall point of this question for that he defendeth the vse of Equiuocation in concealing some secrets but denieth it in others wherein he fauoreth somewhat the aduerse party with small ground as in the next Chapter shal be declared But what saith this Doctor Genesius He will tell yow sayth M. Morton that this sense of this text of Scripture which yow conceale is not only contrary to the sentence oâ— all Fathers but also against all common sense And is this possible Will Sepulueda deny all those Fathers alleadged by me before for our interpretatioÌ„ to be Fathers Will he say that their exposition is coÌ„trary to all common sense doth not Genesius himselfe in the very Chapter here cited alleage both S. Hierome and S. Augustine for this interpretation and alloweth the same What shameles dealing then is this of our Mynister to charge Genesius with such folly or impiety which he neuer thought of For Genesius denieth not either the sense or interpretation of the place and much lesse sayth that it is coÌ„trary to the sentence of the Fathers and least of all to coÌ„mon sense but denieth only the application therof for vse and practise to certaine Cases wherin he admitteth not Equiuocation and saith that vpon this interpretation to bring in such a new law were greatly inconuenient wherin afterwards notwithstanding we shall shew him to haue byn greatly deceiued his Latin words are Contrà non modò veterum grauissimorum Doctorum sed communem hominum sensum quasi legem inducere to bring in as it were a law not only against the iudgment of ancient most graue schole Doctors for of theÌ„ only he speaketh in that place but also against the common sense or opinion of men 70. This is Genesius his speach wherin though his iudgment be reiected by other Scholmen as singular and paradoxicall in this point as after shal be declared yet is he egregiously abused by M. Morton who first maketh him to say of the interpretatioÌ„ sense of this place of scripture that which he speaketh only of the applicatioÌ„ therof to vse practice in tribunalls And secondly he maketh him to discredit the Fathers which himselfe alleageth then he englisheth ancient Fathers for ancieÌ„t Schoole doctors last of all addeth consensum of his own leauing out hominum to make it sound common sense and other such abuses which any man may see by conferring the place And these are other manner of synnes then symple Equiuocation yf the art of falsifying or forgery be any synne with him at all And so much for this place of Scripture Thus wrote I in my said Treatise being earnest as you see to draw some answere from M.
111. There followeth said I within 2. leaues after a heape not only of falshoods but also of impudencies For wheras his Aduersary the moderate Answerer had said That not only Kings but Popes also for heresie by the CanoÌ„ lawes were to be deposed he answereth thus The Authours of the doctrine of deposing Kinges in Case of heresy do professe concerning Popes That they cannot possibly be hereticks as Popes and consequently cannot be deposed not saith Bellarmine by any power Ecclesiasticall or Temporall no not by all Bishops assembled in a Councell not saith Carerius though he should do anything preiudiâ—iâ—ll to the vniuersall state of the Church not saith Azorius though he should neglect the Canons Ecclesiasticall or peruert the lawes of Kings not saith Gratians glosse though he should carâ—y infinite multitudes of soules with him to hell And these fâ—renamed Authours do auouch for confirmation of this doctrine the vniuersall consent of Romish Deuines Canonists for the space of an hundred yeares 112. So he Wherto I replyed that in these wordes are as many notorious and shameles lyes as there be assertioÌ„s Authors named by him for the same For first quoth I the foure writers which he mentioneth there in the tâ—xt to wit Bellarmine Carerius Azor GratiaÌ„ do expressely clearly and resolutely hold the contrary to that he affirmeth out of them for that they teach and proue by many argumentsâ— that Popes both may fall into heresies and for the same be deposed by the Church or rather are ipsâ— facto deposed and may be so declared by the Church And their wordes here guilfully alleaged by Tho. Mort. as sounding to the contrary are manifestly spoken and meant of manners only and not of faith that is to say if they should be of naughty life yet haue they no Superiour to depose them for that cause they being immediatly vnder Câ—â—ist though for heresy they may be deposed which insteed of all the rest you may read largely handled in Bellarmine in his second booke de Pontif. where among other proofes he citeth this very Canon of Gratian here mentioned by T. Mâ— saying â—aereticum Papam posse iudicari expresse habetur Can. Si Papa dist 40. It is expressely determined in the Canon Si Papa that a Pope falling into heresie maybe iudged and dâ—posed by the Church And more That in the 8. generall Councell and 7. Session Pope Honorius was deposed â—or heresie So Bellarmine And the same doctrine hold the other two cited by our Minister to wit Carerius Azor. So as here be foure notorious lyes togeather that by no shift or tergiuersation can be auoided for that T. M. could not but manifestly see that he alleaged these foure Authors quite contrarie to their expresse wordes drift and meaning What then will you say of this â—ellow and his manner of writing Shall he be credited hereafter 113. But yet not content with this he citeth other foure or fiue Authors besids in the margent to wit Gregorius de Valentia Salmeron Canus Stapleton Costerus all which in the very places by him cited are expressely against him And is not this strange dealing Let Canus that goeth in the myddest speake for all fiue who hauing proued first at large the opposit proposition to T. M. to wit that Popes may fall into heresy and be deposed for the same concludeth thus his discourse negandumâ—saith â—saith he quin Summus Pontisex haereticus esse possit It cannot therâ—ore be denied but that the Pope may be an hereticke adding presently wherof one or two examples may be giuen but none at all that euer Pope though he fell into heresy did decree the same for the whole Church By which last words of Canus is discouered the ridiculous fallacy of T.M. alleaging here out of our foreâ—aid writer That Popes cannot possibly be hereticks as Popes consequently cannot be deposed wherof they say the flat contrary as you haue heard That Popes may be hereticks as Popes and consequently may be deposed But yet that God as Popes will neuer permit them to decree any hereticall doctrine to be held by the Church 114. Consider then I pray you said I what a fellow this Minister is in abusing thus so many Authors so manifestly but especially do you note the impudency of his Conclusion And these â—orenamed Authors saith he do auouch for confirmation of this doctrine the vniuersall consent of Romish Deuines and Canonistes for the space of an huÌ„dred yeares So he But I would aske him of what doctrine That Popes cannot be hereticks or be deposed for the same You haue heard them now protest the contrary and you may read them in the places here cited out of all the nyne seuerall writers before mentioned who by their expresse contrary doctrine do proue T. M. to haue made nyne seuerall lyes against them in this his assertion and now the tenth and most notorious of all is this his Conclusion That they do auouch â—or confirmation oâ— that which he obiecteth the vniuersall consent of Romish Deuines and Canonists for the space of an hundred yeares which besids the â—anifest falsity therof seene in their owne words and works here by me cited it coÌ„teineth also great folly simplicity to say that they auouch the consent of Romish Deuines and Canonists for an hundred yeares for that their proofes are much elder Bellarmine among the rest for deposition of Popes doth cite the 8. Generall Councell vnder Pope Adrian the second for aboue six hundred yeares agone and the Canon Si Papa out of our Countrey man S. Boniface Archbishop of Ments Martyr aboue seauen hundred yeares agon and collected by Gratian and confirmed by Popes as part of the Canon law aboue foure hundred years agone So as to say that now they auouch Authors oâ— an hundred yeares old against that which for so many hundred yeares before was held and established is meere folly or rather foolish malice 115. Thus I wrote in my former Treatise of Mitigation wherby as by all the rest that here hath bin set downe the Reader will see what store of graue matter M. MortoÌ„ had to answere for his owne defeÌ„ce if indeed he had meant to defend himself really and substantially and not to haue slipt out vnder the shaddow of a Preamble for answering his aduersary but indeed laying hands only vpon a few the lightest imputations that he could picke out And yet by the way the Reader must note that euery one or the most of these examples of falshood here obiected do coÌ„teine diuers sundry points which being laid togeather do make I dare auouch a double number to that which heere we haue sett downe if they were seuered singled out after the manner of M. Mortons mincing his imputations before produced about Goodman Knox Buchanan Syr Thomas VViat the like seuerally set forth to the shew So as according to this reckoning
appointed Iudg by God his Father both of the quick the dead which S. Paul coÌ„firmeth in diuers places as Rom. 13. 1. Cor. 3. So as that first â—peach of Christ that he iudged no man cannot be verified but by a mentall reseruation which what it was the holy Fathers and expositors do labour to explicate And the like to this is that speach of Christ of the daughter of the Archisinagogue The maid is not dead but asleep and yet she was truly dead and the hearers were deceiued in Christs meaning which could not be true nor was held for true in the literall externall meaning but by some mentall reseruation which S. Augustine and other holy Fathers do labour to seeke out what it was and in â—hat sense it was to be vnderstood And many other exaÌ„ples to like effect are produced and discussed both out of the old and new Testament wherby it is made more cleare then the sunne that this kind of speach in answering by Equiuocation and doubtfull speach when need requireth that is to say when one sense soundeth in the wordes conceaued by the hearer and another is reserued in the mind of the speaker vpon iust causes is no lye but a truth and most lawfull that it were impiety and blasphemy to hold or say the contrary in sundry persons and speaches which holy Scriptures do recount 29. Now then why hath not M. Morton in this his last Reply giuen some satisfaction about this great debt I know his answere will be to say that he will do it in his promised Reioynder which shall be his last day of payment but there remayneth to be considered what liklyhood there is that he will be able to pay at that day especially for so much as he hauing in his last full Satisfaction attempted to answere some like places alleaged before in a litle â—reatise of this matter writteÌ„ as he saith by Garnetâ— was not able to satisfy any one substantially and to the contentment of any meane iudgement as I do shew at larg throughout the third part of my ninth Chapter adding further in the fourth part therof many more authorityes both of Scriptures and holy Fathers to conuince M. Morton that Equiuocation is to be freed both from the name and nature of lying falsity or falshood All which in like manner is concealed by him in this his friuolous Preamble 30. Wherfore hauing cleared all this matter by Scripâ—ures holy Fathers euident arguments and reasons â—rom the imputations and calumniations of M. Morâ—oÌ„ â— do further set downe the assertions groundes and determinatioÌ„s of School-Doctours Deuines Canon Ciuill lawyers with their reasons foundations practise as also I do proue the same by the practise of our very aduersaries theÌ„selues And moreouer I do set downe sundry particuler cases occasioÌ„s wherin Equiâ—ocatioÌ„ may must needs be graunted lawfully to be vsed And â—inally I do aÌ„swere solue all M. Morâ—oÌ„s pretended argumeÌ„ts obiectioÌ„s made against vs this common doctrine with such perspicuous euidency as to me it seemeth that no man can doubt therof hereafter And last of all I do conclude with a large exhortatioÌ„ to Catholike people that notwithstanding the lawfulnes of EquiuocatioÌ„ in sundry cases yet for the seeming iniustice that it may appeare to haue and therby also giue disedification to them that vnderstand not the true ground reason of the lawfulnes for this cause I say and for that in confession of our faith wherof the necessity is frequent in these our dayes of persecution it is no wayes to be admitted or tollerated therefore I do counsell them to be very sparing in vsing the liberty of this Equiuocation when they are not pressed therunto for auoiding some greater euill 31. All which limitations restrictions and explications of our Christian sincere meaning and hatred of lying M. Morton doth conceale from his Reader still cryeth out that we are Patrons of lying noâ— will he vnderstand the difference nor heare our defence And though he do heare and vndersâ—â—nd vs yâ—â— will he conceale it from the Reader and go on with his clamour as before nay which is more strange he will make proclamation as he doth in this his preamble that he hath gayned the victory in both causes as well of Rebellion as of Equiuocation and yet hath he in effect said no more about the former but what you haue heard touched before which is plain nothing And coÌ„cerning the second he hath chosen out the Example only of the poore woman Saphyra that according to his imagination answered to S. Peter in the Acts of the Apostles with an Equiuocation concerning the selling of her landes but as we hold and proue with a lye and not with Equiuocation And what is this to so long and large a discourse as mine was Wherfore M. Mortons voluntary omissions in this matter are notorious in my iudgement are â—uident signes of great weaknes in his cause Now we are to see others also of an other â—ort which we shall handle in this next Paragraph OTHER OMISSIONS OF M. Morton coÌ„cerning the defence of ten other ProtestaÌ„t writers charged with false dealing which defence being remitted ouer vnto him was wholy pretermitted concealed by him §. III. IN the the 12. and last Chapter of my Treatise of MitigatioÌ„ for that M. Mort. had coÌ„tinually in his former paÌ„phlets Treatises both oâ— Discouery Full satisfactioÌ„ inueighed bitterly against all kind of EquiuocatioÌ„ as falshood lying and against Catholicks as louers fautors therof I thought best to descend vnto some particulers with him for the remouing this vniust reproach and for laying it where it was due to wit vpon Protestant-writers themselues granting that as in a large sense and vnproperly Equiuâ—cation might be called lying and deceyuing when the due conditions and circumstances of true Equiuocation are not obserued which are to haue a iust cause and true meaning so I said that this kynd of vnlawfull Equiuocatiâ— doth alwayes lightly fall vpon the Protestant side and not vpon Catholiks Which as I had shewed before in multiplicity of occasions against M. Morton himselfe as now you haue seeme and heard in the â—ormer eleuen Chapters of that booke of Mitigation so in this last I thought it not amisse to assigne him some parteners in his coÌ„demnation shewing that others also of his brethren were of like spirit in lying with him though perhaps himself had out-gone most of them now in that damnable liberty 33. And then for more easy vnderstanding herof I deuided Equiuocation into two sortes the one lawfull the other vnlawfull as hath byn said and this vnlawfull I subdeuided againe as also lying into materiall and formall vnlawfull Equiuocationâ— the later being much more heynous then the former for that the speaker knoweth that he doth vniustly deceaue by Equiuocation And albeit I do exemplify there in many particulers against M. Morton
no Father had any one place or sentence against Protestant religion he would neuer so much haue discredited them all as heere he doth Wherfore the false EquiuocatioÌ„ of M. Iewell is notable in this place 46. But besides this I do lay forth six seuerall examples of egregious wilâ—ull corruptions taken out of M. Iewells bookes and wordes which are ouâ—r long to be repeated heere two or three also of M. Hornes practise in that behalfe who possessed the bishopricke of VVinchester for some yeares sundry out of M. Calfield diuers out of M. Charke and M. Hanmer and no lesse notorious and wilfull out of M. Perkins some very markable out of Syr Francis Hastings a great nuÌ„ber intolerable out of Syr Philip Mornay who was chalenged by the Bishop of Eureux for 800. and affroÌ„ted with threescore at one offer and conuinced of nine in one dayes conference before the present King of France and his Counsell 47. And finally I adioyne to the former for my last witnesse of false dealing Syr Edward Cooke late Attorney Generall to his Maiesty and not long since manifesting himselfe to the world for a writer against Catholiks whose spirit I do shew by sundry examples to be like the rest in that behalfe leauing the defence both of him and the others to M. Mortons patronage who hath had so litle care of their credit as it seemeth that he hath not so much as once meÌ„tioned them or any one of theÌ„ in this his Reply but leaueth euery one to shift for himselfe which omission cannot but seeme somewhat preiudiciall vnto them for that euery man will therof inferre that their causes were so bad as he durst not take their defence in hand but especially will this seeme to be true in the cause of Syr Edward Cooke whome M. Morton had more obligation to deâ—end in that in his booke of full Satisfaction against me he serued himselfe of diuers examples authorityes taken out of the said Knightes booke allwayes repoâ—table Reportes as there he calleth them VVhich he hauing seene answered since that tyme in my Treatise of Mitigation and shewed to be impertinent and nothing to the purpose had obligation therby to haue defeÌ„ded somewhat in this his Reply eyther the things themselues or the Author or both but neyther of them hath he donne and therfore do I meane to handle this omission seuerally in the sequent Paragraph OF M. MORTONS OMISSIONS Concerning the defence of Syr Edward Cooke wholy pretermitted by him §. IIII. ALBEIT perhaps M. Morton may say that his meaning was to take in hand the dâ—fence of his Client Syr Edward Cooke in his other promised Reioynder and therfore said nothing of him now in this his Preambling Reply yet hauing now seene him very hardly charged in two seuerall Bookes the one of the Catholick Deuine in aÌ„swering to the fiâ—th part of his Reportes the other the Treatise of Mitigation with the like imputations of vntrue dealing as are laid against M. Morton himselfe it seemed that it had byn a point of frendship if not of duty to haue said somewhat for preuenting and staying at least the Readers preiudice as in his Preface he said he did for himselfe especially for so much as he had seene now and read all those places which he borrowed out of M. Cooke to furnish one whole Chapter of his full Satisfaction fully answered and confuted by the Catholicke Deuine in his foresaid Booke which M. Morâ—â—â— might haue at leastwise mentioned among so many other poyntes of lesse importance which he handleth if his hart had not serued him to take vpon him the whole defence 49. But all these indeed are signes of feeblene in both parties I meane as well in the Patron 〈◊〉 the Client for that it is no lesse strange that Syr 〈◊〉 Cooke himselfe hauing set forth a certaine Preface for some excuse of himselfe and this after my Treatise of Mitigation wherin he was so deeply charged with sundrâ— grosse and willfull falshoods had byn seene and read by him and yet to say neuer a word of this charge nor how he could discharge it this silence I say is no lesse straÌ„ge vnto me then the other of M. Morton but rather more for that Syr Edward was to defend himself M. Morton another propria magis premunt our owne affayres do more presse vs then other mens Wherfore to the end that I may somewhat oblige both M. Morton in his promised Reioynder to be more myndfull of this matter and Syr Edward himself if he meane to write any more Bookes against vs to cleare somewhat this Charge that was layd against him I shall repeate the same againe here as it was there set downe in my other Treatise Thus theÌ„ I wrote at that tyme. 50. Our last example said I shall be of Syr Edward Cooke lately the Kings Attorney who hauing taken vpon him these yeares past to be both a sharpe writer and earnest Actor against Catholicks semeth therwith also to haue drunke of this spirit in such abouÌ„dant measure as he is like in time to ouerrunne all the rest if he go foreward as he hath begunne For that being admonished not long a goe by one that answered his last Booke of Reportes of diuers notorious his excesses committed in this kind he is men say so far of from correcting or amending the same as he hath not only in a late large declamatioÌ„ against Catholiks in a Charge giuen by him at Norâ—ich repeated and auouched againe the same excesses but hath added others also therunto of much more apparant â—alsity As for example he was admonished among other points that it was a notorious vâ—truth which he had wrytten and printed that for the first tenne yeares of Q. Elizabethes Raigne no one person of what religion or Sect soeuer did refuse to go to the Protestants Church Seruice which the Answerer confuteth so clearly by so many witnesses as a man would haue thought that the matter would neuer haue byn mentioned more for very shame and yet now they say that the Attorney being made a Iudge hath not only repeated the same but auouched it also againe with such asseueration in his foresaid Charge as if it had neuer byn controlled or proued false 51. Nay further they wryte that he adioyned with like asseueration diuers other things no lesse apparantly false then this As for example that Pope Pius Quintus before he proceded to any Ecclesiasticall Censure against Q. Elizabeth wrote vnto her a Letter offering to allow ratiâ—y the English Seruice Bible and Communion booke as now it is in vse in that kingdome if she would accept it as from him which she refusing to doe he did excoÌ„municate her By which tale he acquiteth notwithstanding Catholiks if you marke it from procuring that Excommunication for rebellion which elswhere he ofteÌ„ obiecteth most odiously against them For if vpon this cause she were excommunicated what part
for his contempt And if he were attached and would obstinateâ—y reâ—use to obey the Kings commandment in admitting the saiâ— Clerk then might the King for his contempt seyse vpon his tempoâ—alities which were oâ— tâ—e Kings endowment And this was the vttermosâ— that the King could by law do against him for that he could neither imprison nor depose or degrade him there being no presideÌ„t to be found as I suppose of the first And for the second the law it selâ— semeth cleare against it as may appeare by Bracton fol. 401. Stanford â—ol 130. c. But howsoeuer it be this proueth nothing against the Popes spirituall Iurisdicâ—ion in England this matter of Aduowsons being meere tempoâ—all things and of the kings temporall inheritance wherein as in all other temporall affaires Bishops were bound to obserue the temporall lawes 91. The other point also that happened out vnder K. Edward the 3. when one was condeÌ„ned to perpetuall prison for hauing disturbed the Kings Presentee by Bulls from Rome is nothing to the purpose at all for that it apperteined not to the Pope but to the Kings temporall inheritance as hath byn said to present Clerkes to such benefices as were of his peculiar patronage and therfore it was ordeined in the Statute of Carliâ—le in the 25. of Edw. the first that such as went about to disâ—urbe the same vniustly by false informations and negotiations at Rome should be punished at the discretion of the Prince so it were not with losse of lyfe meÌ„ber or of his liuood And what inferreth this Are not the like lawes at this day in Spaine and Sicily and els where against them that traÌ„sgresâ—e ordinations of those Realmes about like affaires Or doth this proue that those Catholike Realmes do not acknowledge the Popes Ecclesiasticall Supremacy Euery child may see the weaknes of these inferences and yet vpon these and the like doth all M. Aâ—torneys Treatise layne and consist 92. As for the other Case vnder K. Richard 2. where it was propounded by the Commons in a certaine narration that the Crowne of England hath byn at all tymes â—ree and in subiection to no Realme nor to the B. of Rome touching the Regality of the Crowne c. it is so fully answered by the Deuine in his Reply to the Reports as no more needeth to be said For that they speake but of temporall regalities and haue some reference also as may be supposed vnto the time when the Sea Apostolicke after the concession of K. Iohn preteÌ„ded teÌ„porall right also in that Crown And the answere oâ— the Bishops in that Parliament with distinctioÌ„ that they would â—eld to that Statute so far forth as they did not preiudicâ— the ancient iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall of the said Sea Apostolicke in spirituall affaires doth euidently shew that this obiection maketh nothing to the purpose to denie thereby any part of the Popes supreme Ecclesiasticall authority and consequently as it was impertinently alleaged by M. Attorney to that effect in his Reports so much more fondly was it chosen out by M. Morton as a matter of moment to furnish his Booke withall 93. And as for the last Case vnder K. Edward the fourth where he saith That it was the opinion of the Kings Bench that whatsoeuer spirituall man should sue another spirituall man in the Court of Rome for a maâ—ter spirituall where he might haue remedy before his Ordinary that is the Bishop of the diocesse within the Realme he incurreth the danger of Premunire being an heynous ofâ—ence against the honor of the King his Crown dignity though the former answeâ—e of the Deuine be very sufficient in this case yet must I needes adde â—n this place that it is rather an heinous offence in such a man as M. Attorney is or should be to misreport and misconster his law-bookes therby to make someâ— shew oâ— probability against the ancieâ—t power Ecclesiasticall of the Sea Apostolicke in England whereas the said Books being rightly alleaged vnderstood do make wholy for it As for example heere in this case alleaged out of 9. Ed. the 4. â—ol 3. the saying is only of Yeluerton of the kings Bench and his Report is meant when a spirituall man shall sue an other that is a temporall man in the Court of Rome for a thing meere temporaâ—l he shall incurre the said punishment For that for one spirituall man to sue another spirituall man in the Court of Rome in spirituall Causes was a thing all waies lawfull and vsuall both before the tyme of K. Ed. 4. and after vntill it was forbid by King Henry the eight And that this is true that it was lawfull by the CoÌ„mon-law in K. Henry 4. tyme appeareth expressely by the Booke of 14. H. 4. fol. 14. Neither can I thinke M. Attorney alleage any example where the same is prohibited either by CommoÌ„ or Statute law during the tyme aforesaid 94. And whereas for strengthning this his false assertion he citeth in his Margent vide Fitzh in Nat. Breu. fol. 45. lit â— agreeing herewith And further adâ—eth a Notandum for the same as a matter notorious he doth notoriously abuse his Reader For that Fitzh speaketh not at all of a Premunire but only That if one sueth another out of the Realme for debt or other cause wherof the kings Court may haue conusance he shall haue a prohibition against him And so if one Clearke sue an other vpon title of Collation oâ— any Prebendary out of the Realme c. he shall haue also this prohibiâ—ion And if a man purchaseth out of the Court oâ— Rom against any Clerk or others any Citation directed vnto the Archbishop of Canterbury or any others to cite such a person to appeare beâ—ore the Pope c. to answere for the Collation or Presentation vnto any benefice or Prebendary a prohibition shall lye in this Case Hitherto Fitzher in his writt of prohibition And this is all that he hath in that place of this matter So you see that all that Fitzherbert saith is but that a prohibitioÌ„ shall lye for suyng in the Court of Rome for debt or title of Patronage or such other temporall Causes wherof the Kings Court may haue conusance and he maketh no mention of any Premunire And yet euery puny StudeÌ„t in the Law can tell how much difference there is betwixt a Premunire and a Prohibition that Syr Edward delt not sincerely wheÌ„ he brought in the one for the other 95. So then we soe what striuing wresting worse vsage M. Attorney offereth to his law-bookes to make them seeme to say somwhat against vs and for Protestant religion against which most of them were written as all of them before our times without exception in fauour of the Catholicks We see also the pittifull choice that M. Morton hath made of these fiue Cases out of all M. Attorneys Reportable Reports against the Popes supreme Ecclesiasticall authority
This is his demaund and for ground heerof he citeth these latin words of Bellarmine out of the forenamed place Pelagiani docebant non esse in hominibus peccatum originale praecipuè in filijs fidelium Idem docent Caluinus Bucerus The Pelagians did teach that there was not Originall synne in men especially in the children of the faithfull And the same do teach Caluin Bucer which words if you conferre them with the words themselues of Bellarmine before cited who accuseth not Caluin Bucer of all the Pelagian doctrine in this poynt but only Zuinglius and as for the other two to wit Bucer Caluin he accuseth them for a part only Zuinglius denying originall synne in all and these later only in Christian Infantes two trickes at least of wilfull falsity are discouered the first that in his charge he wiâ—leth Bellarmine to be examined in confession about Caluin wheras he â—pake of three togeather to wit Zuinglius Bucer and Caluin the second that he accuseth Bellarmiâ—e as though he had charged Caluin with all the Pelagian heresie in this matter wheras he expresly profâ—ssâ—th to charge him only with one point therof coÌ„cerâ—ing the infantes of the faithfull Wherfore these words â—deÌ„ docent Caluinus Bucerus and this may be the third false tricke are not to be found in Bellarmine but are thrust in by M. Morâ—on nor cannot agree with the distinction of Cardinall Bellarmine before set downe these things then I leaue to the Readers discretion For though the points themselues for their substance be not of great weight yet is the mynd of the writer as much discouered in false tricks of small moment as of great see more of this matter before Cap. 3. num 62.63.64 c. 13. It followeth pag. 55. of this his preamble that treating of the prohibition made by the ancient Councell of Eliberis in Spayne consisting of 19. Bishops not to set vp Images in the Churches the diuers expositions of Catholicke doctours about the same what the causes and motiues might be of this prohibition for that tyme of the fresh and new conuersioÌ„ of that nation from Idolatrie to Christian Religion among other expositors he citeth the opinion of Sixtus Senensis for the last vpshot of the whole matter â—aying thus So that whatsoeuer the occasion of forbidding might haue beene this is a confessed conclusion of Senensis that the Councell of Eliberis did absolutly forbid the worship of Images And then â—etteth down the same in latin in his margent as out of Senensis alâ—o in these wordes Idcirco omnino veâ—uit Synodus Elibertina imaginum calâ—um But he that shall looke vpon the text of the Authour himself shall not fynd any such confessed conclusion or any such words of absolutly forbidding and consequently this is conuinced to be an absolute vntruth for it appeareth cleerly in Senensis that the prohibition was only for a time vntill the new conuerted Spaniards should be better instructed in Christian Religion and made to vnderstand better the difference betweene Pagan Idols and sacred Images so as heere are two grosse falsityes first in obtruding as the latin sentence of Senensis that which Senensis hath not in words or sense and then in translating the same so punctually into English setting it down in a different letter as though it were exactly so in good earnest and can there be any excuse for these sortes of procedings Let the Reader see more before c. 3. nu 38. 14. Gregorius de Valentia is brought in by M. Morton against Bellarmine as allowing of a sentence of Tertullian vsed by Bullinger the Caluinist as orthodoxall and iustifiable to wit Tres sunt in Diuinitate personae non statu sed gradu non substantia sed forma non potestate sed specie differentes and M. Morton stoutly cyteth in his margent for approuing therof Gregorius de Valentia Iesuita de vnitate Trinitate c. 9. § item Bullingerus meaning therby to oppose the one of theÌ„ against the other in this matterâ— but when the thing is examined the wordes of Gregorius de Valentia are found to be these Bullingerus Sacramentarius c. Bullinger the Sacramentary affirmeth that there are three persons in Deity which differ not in state but degree not in substance but forme not in power but kind by which wordes sayth Valentia he doth not only ouerthrow the Godhead of the sonne but euen the whole Mystery of the most holy Trinity 15. So sayth ValeÌ„tia against Bullinger for whose defeÌ„ce against Cardinall Bellarmins accusation of Arianisme he is produced And let the reader iudge whether this be an allowancâ— of that sentence for orthodoxall which Valentia sayth as yow see to be so blasphemous as it doth ouerthrow the whole mystery of the Blessed Trinity And the lyke lye yow may behold vttered by M. Morton against Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe in this very matter affirming him to expound as orthodoxall and iustifiable the forsayd hereticall paradox of Tertullian wheras he expoundeth only in good senâ—e the former part therof So as heere are two conuinced falsiâ—yes wherof yow may read more largely cap. 3. num 88.89 c. 16. There falleth out a question betweene M. Morton and Cardinall Bellarmine whether the forme of arguing vsed by S. Cyprian were good and sufficient or no whâ—Ì„ he defended the errour of rebaptizing hereticks à sufficientia scripturarum exclusiuè to wit this or that is not in the Scripture ergo it is not to be defended it being the common forme of arguing in the Protestants of our dayes and Bellarmine sayth no alleaging S. Augustine for his Authority who defending the negatiue against S. Cyprians error to wit that men returning froÌ„ heresy were not to be rebaptized which was the opinion of the whole Church in his time grounded vpon vnwritten tradition of the sayd Church reprehended that forme of arguing in S. Cyprian as not goodâ— and sufficient shewing both that many thinges bâ—sydes this are taught and belieued in the Church by tradition which are not in Scripture that S. Cyprian himselfe wheÌ„ he was out of necessity of defending this article made recourse vnto vnwritten traditions wherunto M. Mortoâ— answereth thus But whosoeuer shall consult with S. Augustine in the Chapter specifyed shall fynd that this point by himselfe is excellently commended saying that wheras Cyprian warneth vs to runne vnto the fountayne that is vnto the traditions of the Apostles from thence to deriue a coÌ„duct vnto our times is chiefly good and doubtles to be performed So he 17. But when S. Augustines discourse is examined it is found wholy against M. Morton for though he do allow and prayse recourse vnto Scriptures when things may euidently be proued from thence yeâ— doth he not hold that only such things are to be belieued as are expresly therin conteyned but rather both in this controuersie of râ—baptization wherin S. Cyprian doth pretend to hold
albeit I cannot let passe to set downe the iudgement of another learned stranger extant in a printed booke of his in defence of Cardinall Bellarmin whome M. Morton chiefely pretendeth to impugne but so weakely and absurdly as the said learned man giueth a very contemptible censure of the whole worke saying Hoc opus merito suo inter stulcissima quae ex Nouatorum officina prodierunt sedem sibi deposcit adeò fatuè stolidè insulse non dissertat sed delirat Which words also for the forsaid cause I leaue vntranslated And this may suffice for his first chalenge there followeth the second 12. If I haue not earnestly desired saith he and by the law of loue challenged of my frends strict iustice in noting such deprauations as might any way occur and least they should suspect their reprehension to become lesse acceptable vnto me if I haue not proâ—essed it to be my greatest offence not to be in that maÌ„ner offended If I haue bin euer so peruersly obstinate as not willing to be reformed by any aduersary then I will confesse my selfe worthie of all criminations fraudes trickes deceipts cosenages c. 13. To which challeng I answere that if M. Morton haue had this earnest desire indeed which he speaketh of and haue requested his friends by the law of loue to note in strict iustice his dâ—prauatioÌ„s as he protesteth we must needs conclude that either he hath had few faithfull friends to performe that friendly office vnto him or that they were very carelesse in their annotations or he not very prompt to follow their aduertismeÌ„ts supposing the multitude of faults that are found wherof neither he nor they did take any notice or seeke to correct them And as for his willingnes to be reformed by any aduersary and that his greatest offence was and is not to be in that manner offended I do not see how it can be true or held for probable for so much as my selfe being his aduersary in the cause and controuersy betwene vs hauing sought friendly in my booke of Mitigation to admonish and reforme him in many errours and falsities vttered by him he hath byn so farre of from taking it in good part or not being offended therewith as he hath vtterly lost himselfe through impacience in diuers passages in this his answer as before you haue heard vpon diuers occasions no where will it more appeare then by the second part of this his challenge concerning his aduersary presently to ensue wherein he passeth the scolding of any bad woman lightly that euer I haue heard of if inuectiue scurrility be scolding Wherfore in this he protesting one thing and doing the contrary within so few lines it may easely be seene what credit may be giuen to his wordes Let vs passe to his third chalenge 14. Although I can not saith he but choose to be strooke rather of a friend who woundeth that he may heale tâ—en of an enemy who intendeth only to hurt a friendly animaduersion being as an Antidote which is a reprehending of me least I might be reprehensible and the taxation of an enemy beiâ—g as toxicum calummously poysoning whatsoeuer deserueth good yet if I haue euer byn so wickedly peruerse as not whensoeuer iustly to be willingly reproued by my aduersary turning his venome inâ—o treacle his deformation into reformation then I say I will confesse my self worthy of all the criminations as before 15. This Challeng if we consider it well is only a multiplication of words without new sense or substance for that in the later part of the former Challeng he protested the same that he doth heere that he was willing to be reâ—ormed by any Aduersary which here he repeateth againe with some more Rhetoricke of phrases but no more truth For that I being his Aduersary and reprouing him of so many vntruthes and offering to stand to the triall as now I haue done he hath not only not taken it patiently nor turned venome into treacle but quite contrariwise treacle into venome for that my admonitions were treacle indeed to resist the venome of a lying spirit infused by heresy if he would haue taken the benefit thereof And as for the Antidote which here he speaketh of to be reprehended friendly least he might be reprehensible if it be so much to be estemed as he saith so it is indeed then much more obligation is there to be patient in receauing reprehension where a man is actually reprehensible indeed and that in so high a degree as I do pretend and proue that M. Morton is by his false dealing before laid downe which yet he holding for toxicum I haue very litle hope though much desyre that it may do him good but to others I trust it will that are not so partially and passionatly interessed in the matter 16. His fourth Challeng is vttered in these words If in my ordinary course of life saith he any man can charge me with a bent to this vice of â—alsity though it were for hope of whatsoeuer aduaÌ„tage c. then I will confesse my selfe worthy c. Vnto which Challenge if so he will needs call it for I neuer saw Challenges runne in this forme I haue this only to answere that the falsifications obiected are extant à parte rei and auouched out of his Bookes published in his name and whether he wrote the same either of a bent to this vice or of a back that is to say of a necessity or kind of compulsion for manteyning of a bad cause I will not stand to dispute or determine Neither will I alleage any thing iniuriously against M. Mortons person which I do loue from my hart in the true loue of Christ our Sauiour wishing his best spirituall good as myne owne and do esteme him also for the good partes that God hath bestowed vpon him though I do pitty the euill imployment thereof in the cause he defendeth And this shal be sufficient concerning his chalenges protestatioÌ„s about his owne persoÌ„ Now to the person of P. R. his Aduersary CONCERNING the person of his Aduersary P. R. and absurd Challenges made against him §. II. IF in any other place of his whole Booke which yet are many as you haue seene by the perusall therof and of my answere M. Morton forgot himself or rather lost himself by vehemency of passion grief and choller he seemeth principally to haue done it in this place where he ceÌ„sureth his aduersary in foure seueral challeÌ„ges which I haue thought best to set downe together not to answere theÌ„ seuerally as I did in the foâ—mer Paragraph For that indeed there is nothing in these but excesse of intemperate heat in coÌ„tumelious speach Thus then he writeth 18. Concerning the disposition of my Aduersary saith he if he be not manifâ—sted to haue so behaued himself in tearmes so dispitefully malâ—gnâ—nt as if the Capitall letters oâ— his name P. R. did iustly
a litle in following his owne comparison of apples 32. Fourthly and lastly saith he If I shew not that the chiefest aduantage of Roman aduersaries doth consist in falsifications then c. VVherunto I must answere with this distinction for so much as M. Morton speaketh somewhat doubtfully that if falsifications be taken heere passiuely with relation to Protestants then I grant that one of the chiefest aduaÌ„tages which their Roman aduersaries hauâ— against them consisteth in falsifications discouered daily in their bookes and writings For that I confesse that no one thing doth more confirme a Catholicke mind in the truth of that Religion which he proâ—esseâ—h then to see the enemies and aduersaries thereof to be driuen to vtter such and so infinite apparent wilfull falsities in defending the contrary For that no man doubtles of any credit honesty or good nature would lye or falsity willingly if he could defend his cause with truth VVhich consideration doth greatly worke also with many Protestants that be iudicious and desyre indeed the truth it â—elâ— So as in this sense I confesse that one of the chiefest aduantages of RomaÌ„ Aduâ—rsaries doth consist in the falâ—ifications of Protestant writers 33. But if we take it as I thinke M. Morton meaneth it actiuely in regard of Catholicke writers as though our owne falâ—ifications were our chiefest aduantages against the Protestant Religionâ— it is meerly false For how poore should our Cause be if we had no better proofe for tho truth therof then our owne fictions and falâ—ifications deuâ—â—ed by our selues whereof M. Morton hath not byn able to proue any one against any sort of Catholicke writers in all this his Preambling Reply though wholy it was bent and intended by him to that end as may appeare by the third and fourth Chapters of this our Reâ—konâ—ng And on the other side there are so many proued conuinced against him as he neither is nor euer will be able to answere the half of them as you may behold in the fifth sixth and eight Chapters immediatly going before So as this contradiction being so manifest in it self I see not why I may not call for iudgement and iustice against M. Morton that his bookes be purged with fyre and himself challenged to recantation 34. But presently he leapeth away to the contrary syde and placeth himself in the â—eaâ—e of a Conquâ—â—our saying thus But these things being 〈◊〉 Gods grace dirâ—ctly by me perâ—ormed the fruite therof wiâ—â—be Chrâ—stian Reader to establish thee in the truth of speach and dutifull allegiance and to put my aduersary P R. I hope vnto silence I pray god to repentance So he and with this he endeth his Booke 35. And as for my silence what successe M. MortoÌ„s hope hath had you see by this my Answere which hath byn drawne out to somewhat more prolixity as I suppose then my â—ormer Treatise it self of Miâ—igation which notwithstanding was far from my intent and purpose at the beginning meaning only to haue made a brief conference of things vttered by me in my Treatise of Mitigation with the Answere of M. Morton in his Reply but I found such great store of aduantagious matter â—ast out by him vpon necesâ—ity of his bad cause as I could not possibly passe ouer the same without saying somewhat to ech point so as I haue byn inforced to write more then I had thought to haue done for that he hath giuen more aduantage then I imagined he would oâ— reasonably could in so short a worke And thus much for my silence 36. But as for my repentance for which he praieth I must professe that hitherto I find no least motion of mind therunto nor yet cause to moue that motion for the substance of the controuersy it selfe though for the asperity of speach I could haue wyshed that sometimes it had byn more mollified but the reasons inciting thereunto are sâ—t downe more largely in the Admonitory Epistle to M. Morton himself Here only I will adde that if I could perswade my selfe that he could proue or performe directly or indirectly the things which here he promiseth I should not only be sory that I had written against him in these matters but should endeauour alâ—o to do the works of true repeÌ„tance indeed which were to recall my said wrytings and confesse that M. Morton had reason and truth on his side and were not iâ— these points to be contradicted But hauing seene read and examined with attention so much of his workes as I haue and this also with so great equâ—nimity and indifferencie of iudgment as the loue of truth and regard of myne owne soule could worke in me I haue not found any one thing in the matters themselues affirmed by me that might cause the least scruple of mynd thâ—y being cleere and euideÌ„t truthes in the sight of him that hath the light of a Catholicke conscience And for the manner of M. Mortons dealing I must protest that I find it so vnsyncere which I ascribe to the necessity of his cause as I take great compassion of him and do beseech almightie God to giue him true light to see the dangerous way wherein he walketh whilest he seeketh by sleightes and indirect meanes to defend fancies of his owne of his sect against the truth grauity and authority of his Mother the Catholicke Church AN APPENDIX CONCERNING A CASE OF EQVIVOCATION LATELY written out of England wherin resolution is demaunded about the false Oath of two Ministers Whether it may be salued by the licence of Equiuocation or no TOGEATHER WITH A NOTE OVT OF DOCTOR King his Sermon preached at the Court 5. Nouembâ— 1608. so far forth as it toucheth Equiuocation TO THE READER I Receaued Gentle Reader not long since by a letter of the 8. of Nouember anno 1608. from a friâ—nd of mine dwelling in the North parts of Englandâ— a certaine Aduertisment about a case of Equiuocation fallen out in those parts wherin my sayd friend requested my iudgement whether the same where tollerable or excusable or not And for that it seemed he had some right to vrge me in this matter in respect of the Treatiâ—e written by me of that argument against Mâ— Morton I thought my self the more bound to yeld him some satisfaction to his demand The case then in effect was this 2. A certayne Minister in Yorkeshire named VVh for I thinke not good to set downe all the letters thereof dwelling at a towne called Thorneley if I misse not the name being married and loaden with many children and there vpon â—ot content with the ordinary tiâ—heâ— that weâ—e wont to be giuen and payd in that parish begâ—n to vrge one of his parishioners to pay him other tithes also out of a certayne closse or field that was pretended not to haue payed tithes before to other precedent Incumbents Wherupon this Minister deuising with himself how he might further his owne cause resolued vpon this meane among others to