Catholicos Lutheranos Caluinistas c. qui omnes dum Symbolum tenent Apostolicum vera sunt membra Ecclesiae licèt à nobis in particularibus dissentiant Which wordes M. Morton doth very dâ—ceiptfully English thus Emperours should endeuour a reconciliation betwixt Papists and Protestants because ProtestaÌ„ts hold the articles of the Creed and are true meÌ„bers of the Church although they dissent from vs in some particuler opinions So he 85. And here now you see first to be omitted cunningly and wilfully by this crafty Minister the wordes of much moment before mentioned to wit That whiles Princes do not find a fit meane of peace they ought to permit all to liue according to their particuler saith which sentence of his graue and learned Cassander not seeming to himselfe allowable in our English State or to his owne brethreÌ„ the English Caluinists that now hauing gotten the gouernment will suffer no other Religion but their owne he thought best to suppresse and cut them quite out Secondly insteed of the conditionall speach vsed by Cassander modò omnes acâ—ipiant Scripturam c. so that all do receiue the Scripture and Apostolicall Creed he putteth it downe in English with a causitiue clause as if it were quia omnes Symbolum tenent c. All Which Sects because they do hold the Articles of the Creed are true members of the Church leauing out the word Scripture and the English of dum that is whiles they receaue the Scripture and thereby doth as yow see peruert the other wholy in sense For who will not hold it absurd that Catholicks Lutherans Caluinists other Sectes of our tyme though in words they do admit both Scripture and Apostolicall Creed yet differing in sense and so many doctrines as they do are all to be held notwithstanding for true members of one and the self same Church Can any thing be more ridiculous then this 86. Thirdly he doth most notably cogge in thrusting in the words à nobis from vs which are not in the originall meaning therby to make Cassander seeme a Catholicke and to speake in the behalf of Catholicks which is plaine cosenage and to this end also he leaueth out dogmatibus And fynally you see that he shapeth euery thing to his owne purpose by making Câ—ssâ—nder as a Catholike seeme to wish and indeauour this vnion and Bellarmine to reiect it he would confirme his former calumniation that only by the insolency of Iesuites all such hope is debarred 87. And thus much for the corruption of the latin text But his English hath other corruptions also according to his ordinary custome For first he translateth Debent Principes that Emperours should endeauour a reconciliation to confirme therby his former vanity that Cassander was so great a man with Emperours as he talketh not but to Emperors wheras the word Principes vsed by Cassander doth coÌ„prehend all sortes of Princes Secondly he translateth Catholicos Lutheranos Caluinistasâ— c. which words of caetera comprehend all other Sects of our time as Anabaptists Arrians Trinitarians Hâ—ssites Picardians and the like he translateth them I say Papists and Protestants as though all those Sects of our tyme were to be comprehended vnder the name of Protestants of the English faith or as though Cassander yf he were a Catholike as here he is pretended would call vs Papists 88. Thirdly wheras in his owne Latin here set downe he saith Qui omnes dum Symbolum tenent c. All which to wit Catholiks Lutherans Caluinists other Sectaries whiles they hold the Apostolicall Creed are true members of the Church he doth English it thus because Protestants hold the Articles of the Creed and are true members of the Church excluding Catholicks from belieuing the said Articles or being true members which in his owne Latin and that of Bellarmines also are included And fourthly is the corruption before mentioned although they dissent from vs in some particuler opinions which in Bellarmine is although they dissent among themselues in particuler doctrines And finally the wordes by him cited of Bellarmines iudgment which he controlleth to wit falsa est haec sententia Cassandri non possunt enim Catholici reconciliari cum haereticis are not so in Bellarmine but these potest facilè reselli haec Cassandri sententia primum enim non possunt Catholici Lutherani Caluinistae eo modo conciliari c. This sentence of Cassander may easily be refelled first for that Catholicks Lutherans and Caluinists for example cannot so be reconciled as Cassander appointeth to wit by admitting only the wordes of the Creed for that we differ in the sense and somtimes in the Articles themselues as in that descendit ad inferos he descended into Hell in like manner we agree not about the sense of those other Articles I belieue the Catholicke Church and Communion of Saints Remission of sinnes c. So Bellarmine all which this fellow omitteth 89. And so you see there is no truth or sinceritie with him in any thing Neither can these escapes bâ— ascribed any way to ouersight errour mystaking or forgetfulnes but must needs be attributed to wilfull fraud malicious meaning purposely to deceaue as the things themselues do euidently declare For which cause I shall leaue him to be censured by his owne brethreÌ„ but specially by his Lord Maister for so notable discrediting their Cause by so manifest false manner of proceeding 90. These were my words in the other Treatise whereupon I insisted the more in regard of the multiplicitie of fraudes discouered And so M. Morton had not any iust pretence to say as he insinuateth that this with the rest of the Charges layd against him and pretermitted by him were either of lesse importance or lesse insisted vpon then those other fourteene which he chose out to answere THE EIGHTEENTH Falshood pretermitted by Thomas Morton §. XVIII AS the former example apperteyned vnto the abuse of two together so doth this that next weare to alleage which are indeed two distinct things but that drawing to an end I am forced to ioine diuers togeather Wherfore I accused him in my former writing to haue corrupted two Authors ioyntly Royard a Friar and Cunerus a Bishop which accusation I set downe in these words 92. And heere will I passe ouer said I many things that might be noted out of the sequent pages namely 30.31.34 where he doth so peruert and abuse both the wordes discourse and sense of diuers Authours alledged by him as is not credible to him that doth not compare theÌ„ with the bookes themselues from whence they are taken As for example Royardus the Franciscan Friar is brought in with commendation of an honest Friar for that he saith That a King when he is made by the people cannot be deposed by theÌ„ againe at their pleasure which is the same doctrine that all other Friars learned Catholiks do hold so long as he conteyneth himselfe within
And for better methode memory I haue thought good to reduce my notes at this time to three sortes of men that haue written against vs. First ProtestaÌ„t Bishops then Ministers and â—astly Lay-men but of good sort I meane Knightes and of ech one of these shall we make our seuerall paragraphs 41. Thus farre I wrote at that tyme and as for the first part of that which I did set downe that M. Morton had byn taken in many and inexcusable false Equiuocations which in effect are the same with lying if before it was euident by the particuler examples heere alleaged and many others I do presume that now it will be much more manifest after his Reply and this my reioynder made vnto the same For that not only his former faults coÌ„mitted in this kind in his former Treatises oâ— Discouery Full Satisfaction are more orderly layd forth as by the precedent part of this Chapter appeareth then they were in my Treatise of Mitigation but many â—ew escapes are detected in like manner as will â—ppeare in the sequeÌ„t Chapter dedicated only to this particulâ—r effect 42. And as for the second point to dâ—â—lare that this spirit of false dealing ioyned with necâ—ssity and mysery of their bad cause is commâ—â— not only vnto him but vnto many of his brethrâ—n must needs be vnto all of them whensoeuer they takâ— pen in hand to defend the same for that one lye cannot be defended without another as hath beene said therfore I do produce teÌ„ seuerall witnesses two of them called Bishops M. Iewell and M. Horne fiue inferiour Ministers M. Iohn Fox M. Calâ—ield M. Hanmer M. Charke M. Perkins and might haue named 5. tymes more three lay men also Knights that haue written against vs Syr FraÌ„cis Hastings Syr Philip Mornay Syr Edward Cooke alleadging not one but sundry examples out of ech oâ— their workes might enlarge my selfe to a voluÌ„e iâ— that argumeÌ„t if I would say what I haue fouÌ„d in their their brethrens workes in this kynd staÌ„ding only precisely vpoÌ„ this that they be such exaÌ„ples as there is not only materiall falshood fouÌ„d in the thing but so apparaÌ„t also as it must needs be presumed the partie knew it to be such when he wrote it consequeÌ„tly was formall lying false equiuocating indeed 43. As for example when M. Iewell in the beginning of Q. Elizabeths time to draw her the Realme to change Religion become ProtestaÌ„t did preach at Paules Crosse in the Court with a most confident semblance and sundry teares did cast foâ—th 28. seuerall articles against Catholike Religion saying that if eyther the English or any other learned Catholicks in the world could shew but one place of Scripture one Father one Doctor one allowed example of the Primitiue Church within the â—irst 6. hundred yeares after Christ for cleare proofe of any one of these 28. articles he would yield subscribe be no more a Protestant adding also these words I speake not this in vehemency of spirit or heat of talke but euen as before God by way of simplicity and truth least any of you should happily be deceiued and thinke there is more weight on the other side then in conclusion will be found c. Which protestation he repeated diuers times and in diuers sermons And then yet further he brake into this vehement Apostrophe O merciâ—ull God! who would thinke that there could be so much wilfulnes in the hart of man O Gregory O Austine O Hierome O Chrysostome O Leo O Dionyse O Anaclete O Sixtus O Paul O Christ if we be deceiued herein you are they that haue deceiued vs c. 44. In which words protestations I did shew by 5. or 6. conuincing reasons that there must needs be much hypocrisie dissimulation and Equiuocation against his owne conscience and that consequently euery member and branch of this deceiptâ—ull speach must needs conteyne a formall lye knowne for such to himselfe when he vttered them for that he could not be ignorant how many not only places and sentences the ancient Fathers for example had against diuers of these Protestant articles that he holdeth but whole Treatises also against some And as for that of the Reall Presence which was one of his most principall he had beene present himselfe not many yeares before and one of the Notaries also in the disputation of Cranmer Ridley and Latimer at Oxâ—ord vnder Q. Mary wherin there were so many and so pâ—rspicuous places and discourses of ancient Fathers brought against them for the said Reall Presence as they remayned wholy confouÌ„ded as may be seene by him that is diligent and will stand attent by the relation therof sâ—t forth by Iohn Fox himself in his Acts and Monuments and more pithily collected out of him in a seuerall printed Treatise set forth these yeares past by N.D. in the â—hird Part of the Three Conuersions of England 45. And finally when Doctor Harding many other learned Catholickes began to write against M. Iewell and this hypocrisie of his they came forth with so huge a number of authenticall authorities in al these kyndes which he nameth here Scriptures Fathers Doctours Councells examples of the primitiue Church within the first six hundred yeares as they forced him to procure a prohibition of their bookes by the State And theÌ„ was he vrged about these speaches of his Now it standeth vpon you to proue but one affirmation agaiâ—st me and so to require my promise of subscribing And againe If you of your part would vouchsafe to bring but tâ—o lynes the â—hole matter were coÌ„â—luded And yet further Shew forth but one Doctor oâ— your side yea one sentence in â—our deâ—â—nce c. All which I do proue to be notorious cogging and dissimulation for that many other Protestants more learned then him selfe do acknowledg the Fathers to haue many sentences against him and cannot be stood vnto by them without ouerthrow of their cause And among others I do alleadge these wordes of Doctor VVhitaker VVe repose no such confidâ—nce saith he in the Fathers writings that we take any certaine proofe of Religion â—rom thâ—m because we place all our faith and Religion not in humane but in diuine authority If therâ—ore you bring vs what some Father hath thought or what the Fathers vniuersally all togeatâ—er haue deliuered the same except it be approued by testimony of Scriptures it auaileth nothing it gayneth nothing it conuinceth nothing For the Fathers aâ—â— such witnesses as they also haue need of the Scriptures to be their witnesses Iâ— deceiued by errour they giue â—orth their tâ—stimony disagreing from Scriptures albeit they may be pardoned erâ—ing â—or want of wisedome we cannot be paâ—doned if because they â—rred we also â—ill erre with them So Doctor VVhitaker more learned perhaps in the Fathers then M. Iewell though not so confident For if he had found by his experience that
for any thing â—â—omised against Cardinall Bellarmine whose estimaâ—â—on is like to be highly increased with all indiffeâ—â—nt men by this assault both for conscience sincere â—ealing and learning and M. Morton greatly blemiâ—â—ed in them all for that coÌ„monly no one instance â—ath he alleaged of fraud in his aduersarie but with â—ome fraud in himselfe none perhaps with more theÌ„ in this sixt last obiectioÌ„ in that kynd concerning the testimony of Tâ—eodoret for the Reall Presence â—or that heere be so many foule faults wilfull corâ—uptions as truly after so many admonishments if â— should vse the same it would make me ashamed to â—ooke any man in the face 96. He indeauoureth to frame a contradiction â—â—out of Bellarmine in that he chargeth Caluin with an ancient heresy recorded by Theodoret which heresy â— did affirme that there is only a figure of Christes body in the Sacrament and then will he proue out of Bellarmine himselfe for contradiction of this first that the said heresy is not ancient then that it is not to be found at this day in Theodoret thirdly that Caluin doth not deny the Reall Presence and so he concludeth as you haue heard heere is no more oddes then betweene anâ—â—â—â—â— and not ancient heresy not heresy But if in all and euery one of these three poyntes M. Morton be conuinced wittingly to haue falsifyed and that he could not but know that he did so what excuse then will he make or what will the discreete and honest Reader say or thinke of him Novv then to the particulers 97. The charge which Cardinall Bellarmine maketh vpon Zuinglius Caluin not Caluin only as M. Mortâ—â— text importeth is taken from the last of those 20. old heresies before signified to be obiected by the Cardinall to the Protestants of our time in his booke of the Notes of the Church and by him is set downe in these wordes The twentith old heresie saith Bellarmine wherin the Protestants of our time do participate with old heretickes is of them that denied the Eucharist to be truly the flesh of Christ would haue it to be the figure or image of the body of Christ. So it is related in the seauenth Generall CouÌ„cell and sixt Action Tom. 3. and long before that Theodoret in his Dialogue intituled Impatibilis doth relate the same out of S. Ignatius Scholler to the Apostles And this heresy is taught in these our daies by Zuinglius in his Booke De verbis Coenae Domini by Caluin lib. 4. Instit. cap. 17. § 12. And so we haue layd forth the heresies of 20. Archeretickes that were coÌ„demned by the Church within the first seauen hundred yeares after Christ which heresies being â—â—lden by vs for such and by our Aduersaries for 〈◊〉 articles of their faith it followeth that our doctrine doth agree with the doctrine of the ancient Church â—â—d the doctrine of our aduersaries with the anciâ—â—t heresies So he â—â— And this is Cardinall Bellarmines charge Let â—â—e Reader now marke how brokeÌ„ly it is set downe 〈◊〉 M. Morton For first he mentioneth only Caluin to 〈◊〉 challenged for this last heresy of the Sacramentaâ—es against the Reall Presence as now I haue said â—auing out Zuinglius who is equally charged by the â—â—rdinall for the same thing which is one tricke â—hen he omitteth wholy the mention of the 7. Geâ—â—rall CouÌ„cell which so long agoe related confuâ—â—d the said heresy this is another tricke Furtherâ—ore he coÌ„cealeth in like maÌ„ner the name authoâ—â—tie of old S. Ignatius who in his tyme which was â—â—mediatly after the Apostles held the denying of 〈◊〉 Reall Presence to be an heresy this is a third â—icke All which poyntes could not be pretermitted 〈◊〉 M. Morton nor any one of them indeed but by voâ—â—ntary deliberation and consequently he must be â—â—esumed to haue done it of set purpose to deceyue â—ut let vs come to his two heads of contradiction â—hich he will needs find in Bellâ—rmine â—9 The first is that Cardinall Bellarmine is affirmed â—y him to say that that hereticall opinion cited â—â—fore against the Reall Presence out of Theodoret is 〈◊〉 ancient nor yet now to be found in Theodoret and â—or this he citeth Bellarmines owne wordes as he saith â—â—b 1. de Euchar. cap. 1. initio and that in latin to wit â—uae sententia citaâ—ur à Theodoreto in Dialogo vbi tamen nunc â—on habetur VVhich sentence of S. Ignatius against old â—eretiks is cited by Theodoret in his dialogue where â—otwithstanding now it is not to be found So he telâ—eth vs out of Bellarmine both in Latin English â—ut corrupteth him egregiously in both lauguages First in allegation and then in translation as now shall be demonstrated For first the true vvordes of Cardinall Bellarmine in latin are these Quae sententia ciâ—atur à Theodoreto in 30. Dialogo ex epist. Ignatij ad Smyâ—â—â—ses vbi tamen nunc non habetur That is to say This sentence concerning old heretiks denying the Reall Presence is cyted by Theodoret in his third dialogue out of S. Ignatius his Epistle to the Christians of Smyrna where notwithstanding it is not now found meaning expresly that it is not found at this day in that Epiâ—tle of S. Ignatius but in Theodoret it is found and is extant both in Greeke and latyn as euery man may see that will read the place quotedâ— So as heere agayne M. Morton corrupteth Bellarmâ—â—â— both in Latin and English leauing out not only the mention of S. Ignatius his Epistle ad Smyrnenses and then making his Reader belieue that the testimony of Theodoret was not to be found at this day in him but also vpon this falsification of his owne will needs frame a contradiction in Bellarmine And can there be any more witting and wilfull falshood then this Can this dealing stand with the solemne and extraordinary protestations which he maketh of sincerity in the end of his booke euen against hiâ— owne infirmityes 100. But let vs see yet further how he proueth that Bellarmine hauing said before that this heresy of denying the Reall Presence was very ancient contradicteth himselfe and saith in the very same place that it is not ancient for which he alleadgeth these wordes of the Cardinall Ne autem glorientur Caluinistae c. And to the end that the Caluinists may not glory that their opinion against the Reall Presence is very ancient it is to be noted that those most ancient hereticks mentioned by S. Ignatius did not so much impugne the SacrameÌ„t of the Eucharist as the mistery of Christ his incarnation For so much as therfore they denied the Eucharist â—o be the flesh of Christ as S. Ignatius doth signifie in â—he same place for that they deny Christ to haue â—lesh c. â—01 Which testimony if you consider it well â—oth not proue at all that the denyall of the Reall â—resence was no
only not consent vnto him verùm etiam contra scripsisse atque praeâ—â—pisse but also did write and gaue commandement to the contrary c. S. Cypryan did obiect Apostoli nihil quidâ—m exinde praeceperunt the Apostles did command nothing in the Scriptures about this matter It is true saith S. Augustine Sed consuetudo illa quae opponebatur Cypriano ab eorâ—m traditione exordium sumpsisse credenda est sâ—â—uâ— sunt multa quae Vniuersa tenet Ecclesia ob hoc ab Apostâ—â—â—s prâ—câ—pta bene creduntur quamquam scripta non reperiantur But that custome which was opposed to S. Cyprian by the Church is to be belieued to haue taken beginning from the tradition of the Apostles as there are many things which the Vniuersall Church doth hold and they are therfore rightly belieued to haue beene ordayned by the Apostles though they be not found written Thus S. Augustine 111. Wherby we vnderstand first his full meaning about the Authority of traditions in the Church though they be not found written in the holy Scripture and secondly that albeit in some cases it is good and lawâ—ull to runne to Scriptures when the matter may be clearly by them decided yet is it no good argument alwaies to say It is not in the Scripture and therfore we are not bound to belieue it which was the argument of S. Cyprian when he was in errour and for maintenance of the same as M. Morton cannot deny nor dareth reproue S. Augustine and the Church of his time that condemned this manner of reasoning in S. Cyprian And what now doth there result against Bellarmine in all this obiection Is he found false in any one thing which heere is said Nay is not M. Morton coÌ„uinced of euident fraud in setting downe this accusation First for concealing the true state of the questionâ— then for that S. Augustine doth not reproue but excellently commend the manner of reasoning in S. Cyprian pretermitting all that I haue alledged out of S. Augustines expresse words to the coÌ„trary which he could not but know and haue read Thirdly by cutting of the words immediatly following in Bellarmine conteyning his second reason which was that S. Cyprian in other traditions besides this of not rebaptizing heretickes which erroneously he thought to be repugnant to Scripture he allowed vrged also the force of Traditions in the Church of God though they were not writtenâ— wherof Caâ—dinall Bellarmine himselfe alleadgeth two euident exaÌ„ples the one about the necessity of holy Chrisme or Vnction vrged by S. Cypriâ—n out of only Tradition lib. 1. Epist. 12. and the offering wine togeather with water in the Sacrifice which he vrgeth as Dominicam Traditionem a Tradition of our Lord lib. 2. Epist. 3. whereas notwithstanding nothing is found written in the Scriptures of either of these traditions And if I would alleage other traditions allowed by him though not written in the Scriptures I might be large heerin as for example that of renunciation accustomed to be made in the Church before baptisme wherof he treateth in his 7. and 54. Epistles and in his booke de disciplina habitu Virginum as also of the demaundes answeres accustomed to be made in the Church about the articles of the Creed Epist. 70. of Exorcismes to be made before baptisme Epist. 2. 72. lib. conâ—ra Demetrianum 112. The tradition of baptizing Infants Epist. 59. which S. Augustine holdeth to stand only vpon vnwritten tradition and the like This second argument then of Bellarmine being craftily left out and his former from S. Augustines authority wittingly peruerted M. Morton insteed of an obiectioÌ„ against the Cardinall hath brought in a flat condemnation of two notable fraudes against himselfe Let vs see another of like sort and suite if he can haue patience to heare it HIS SECOND OBIECTION against Cardinall Bellarmine touching false allegations about Anacletus §◠XIIII SECONDLY saith he Bellarmine to establish the authority of the Pope doth giue this prerogatiue to S. Peter to wit That S. Peter was the only Bishop and that other Apostles tooke their Orders from him which he laboureth to euince from the testimonies of Anacleâ—us Clemens Alexander Eusebius Cyprian where he is refelled by his owne doctors One saying that indeed those Fathers meane no such thing Another that the Epistles of Anacletus are counterfaite which many vrge more then is meete to the end they may aduance the authority of the Sea of Rome 114. Thus farre the obiection in his owne wordes Wherin I meruaile what wilfull falshood may be found such as the writer himselfe must needes know it to be so except it be on the behalfe of M. Morâ—oÌ„ who entreth presently with a shift at the first beginning saying as you haue hard that Bellarmine giueth this prerogatiue to S. Peter that he was the only Bishop and that other Apostles tooke their orders from him wheras Bellarmines saying is some authors to be of opinion quòd solus Petrus à Christo Episcopus ordinatus fuerit caeteri autem à Petro Episcopalem consecrationâ—m acceperint that only S. Peter was ordeined Bishop immediatly by Christ and the other receaued their Episcopall consecration from S. Peter So as in so litle a sentence he leaueth out first that S. Peter was ordeined Bishop alone by Christ and then changeth Episcopall consecration into holy Orders as though they had not bene made so much as Priests by our Sauiour himselfe but only by S. Peter wheras all authors agree that Christ in making them Apostles made theÌ„ all Priests though some do doubt whether immediatly by himselfe he made them all Bishops So as no one thing is sincerely handled heere by M. Morton without some nippe or other as you see 115 Secondly wheras he saith that Bellarmine laboureth to euince froÌ„ the testimonies of Anacletus Clemens AlexaÌ„drinus c. the proofe of this prerogatiue he abuseth him egregiously for that Bellarmine doth alleadg this opinion that Christ hauing made all his Apostles Priests did make only S. Peter Bishop with authority to coÌ„secrate the rest as the opinion of Turrecremata alleadging diuers manifest reasons and proofes for the same as namely one that either Christ did ordaine none of his Apostles Bishops or all or some certaine number or one only The first cannot stand for that if Christ had ordained none then should we haue at this day no Episcopall authority among vs. Nor can it be said that he ordained all immediatly for that S. Paul was ordained by imposition of handes by the Ministers of the Church as appeareth Act. 13. and by S. Leo Epist. 81. ad Dioscorum as also by S. Chrysost. in hunc locum S. Iames in like manner is recorded not only by Anacletus Epist. 2. but by Clemens Alexandrinus Eusebius lib. 2. hist. cap. 1. and by S. Hierome de Viris Illustribus in Iacobo to haue beene made Bishop by S. Peter 116. The third
Morton why we should ascribe more vnto the iudgement of Senensis in censuring these places of the Fathers then vnto other learnâ—d that thinke the contrary They are all acknowledged saith M. Morton expresly by Syxtus Senensis â—â—om the euidence of their contextes to haue spoken only of the â—ire of the day of Iudgemâ—nt and consequently not of Purgatory This now is properly to help a dye in deed for that Senensis doth not talke of any such euidence of the contextes but speaketh rather doubtfully and by coniâ—ctuâ—e saying of Origen that his opinion that both good and bad should be purged by fâ—re is confuted by S. Augâ—stine in his bookes de Ciâ—itate Dâ—i but yet for excusing the same from errour he saith Tu vide an Origenis verba interpretari queant de igne vlâ—imae coâ—flagrationis Do thou Reader consider whether the wordes of Origen may be interpreted of the fire of the last coÌ„flagration or â—ot So as he did not exprâ—sly acknowledge from the euidencâ— of contexts as M. Mort. shifting lying wordes are that these authorityes must needes be vnderstood of the last combustion of the world but rather leaueth it as vncertayne to be considered by the Reader and there are diuers of them that cannot be so vnderstood as that of Origen vpon the Epistle to the Romans haecipsa purgatio quae per poenam ignis adhibetur c. This purgation of synnes which is applyed by the punishment of fyre how many yeares and how many ages it shall afflict sinners only he can tell to whome his Father gaue power of iudgement which wordes cannot well be vnderstood of the last conflagratioÌ„ of the world which no man can affirme to be likely to indure many ages together 132. And many like sentences may be obserued in the other Fathers speaches which he expresly alleadgeth to the sense of this of Origen whom he saith they do imitate and follow in holding that both S. Peter S. Paul and other Saints shall passe also through this fire though without hurt Expurgabit Hierusalem saith S. Basil Dominus in spiriâ—u iudicij spiritu ardoris quod ad â—am probationem siue examâ—Ì„ refertur quod per ignem fiet in suturo saeculo God shall purge Hierusalem in the spirit of Iudgment and the spirit of burning which is referred to that probation and examination which shall be made by fire in the world to come And this I thinke Sixtus Senensis or M. Morton for him will hardly apply from the euidence of the context it selfe vnto the last coÌ„flagration of this world which indeed is but a meere coniecture of his and for such he willeth the Reader to consider of it as now you haue heard But M. Morton doth magnifie the same as somwhat helping him in his opinion to diuert the authorities of these Fathers from inferring the true fire of Purgatory but the truth is that they may include both as before we haue noted to wit the fire of Gods iudgment in examining sinnes after their deathes and the fire of Gods iustice in purging and punishing theÌ„ temporally that were not purged before Of which later execution of Iustice and purging sinnes the last conflagration of the world may be a member or part for those that shall liue vntill the last day of iudgment Wherunto S. Ambrose in the very place heere alledged seemeth to allude when he sayth Cùm vnusquisque nostrûm venerit adiudicium Dei ad illos ignes quos transituri sumus c. When euery one of vs shall come to the Iudgment of God to those fires through which we must passe then let euery man say as the Prophet did respect my humility and deliuer me Where it is euident that S. Ambrose speaketh of more fires then one And so this third contradiction of Bellarmine is found to be nothing at all 133. His fourth and last contradiction framed out of B. Fisher against Bellarmine to wit that there is very rare mention of Purgatory in the Greeke Fathers is vnderstood by him as well of the name of Purgatory not then so much in vse as that the most ancient writers next after the Apostles tyme when many thinges were not discussed so exactly as in processe of time they were did not so clearely handle that matter Nemo iam dubitat orthodoxus saith he an Purgatorium sit de quo tamen apud priscos illos nulla vel quà m rarissima fiebat mentio No rightly belieuing Christian doth now doubt whether there be Purgatory or no of which notwithstanding there was none or very rare mention made among those most ancienâ— Fathers Wherof he giueth diuers reasons and indeed the same may be said of sundry important other articles of Catholike Religion for so much as in the first primitiue Church when the said Fathers were vnder persecution and occupied in other weighty affaires against heretickes and persecutors they had not time nor occasion to discusse many things which the holy Ghost afterward did make more cleare vnto the Church by successe of time and yet doth not Bishop Fisher say that there was no knowledg of this article of Purgatory in the very first Fathers but only his meaning was that the name nature circumstance therof was not so well discussed consequently the thing more seldome mentioned by them then afterward by the subsequent writers 134. Wherfore comming afterward in his 37. article to answere Luther that sayd that Purgatory could not be proued by any substantiall argument he vseth this demonstration against him Cùm à tot Patribus saith he tam à Graecis quà m Latinis Purgatorium affirmetur non est verisimile quin eius veritas per idoneas probationes illis claruisset Wheras Purgatory is affirmed by so many Fathers as well Grecians as Latinists it is not likly but that the truth therof was made cleare vnto them by some sufficient proofes And then after the citing a multitude of Fathers of the one and the other Church he commeth to proue Purgatory first by Scripture out of both testaments and then by great variety of testimonies and authories of the said Fathers And if this will not suffice M. Morton let him see the threescore before mentioned by me out of Coccius wherof 30. or therabout were of ancient Greeke Fathers within the first 600. yeares after Christ. MAISTER MORTONS conclusion and obseruation about the article of Purgatory examined §. XVII MAISTER MORTON hauing plaied his prize as now you haue heard in charging Cardinall Bellarmine with contradictions and absurdities about the doctrine of Purgatory he maketh this conclusion If any saith he shall but obserue in this one controuersy the number of witnesses brought in for the confirmation of this their new article in the name of ancient Fathers which are by confessioÌ„ of our aduersaries meerely counterfaite as Clemens his Constitutions Clemens Epistles Athanas in quaest Eusebius Emissenus Iosephus Ben-Gorion Hieron
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
this Conclusion Haec igitur in Religione concordiae sola est ratio vt omnes pio ac simplici animo purè ac integrâ— sic sapâ—ant viuant loquantur ac praedicent quemadmodum Sancta Catholica Romana Ecclâ—sia quae Dei prouidentia magistra veritatis orbi praeposita â—st docet loquitur ac praedicat This therefore in Religion is the only way of concord that all men with a pious and simple mynd do wholy and purely conceiue liue speake and preach as the holy Catholicke Roman Church which God by his prouidence hath giuen for a teacher of truth vnto the whole world doth teach speake and preach 78. And now consider yow this dealing that whereas Bish. Cunerus sayth Haec est in religione concordiae sola ratio this is the only way or meanes of concord in Religion this man alleageth it in his margent Haec est Religionis sola ratio this is the only way of religion as though concord and Religion were all one then by another tricke of crafty translation in his English text that is only true religion as though true religion and the way or meanes to come to true Religion were not different And then for all the rest how it is mangled and how many words and senteÌ„ces are put in by this Minister which are none of Cunerus and how many of his altered and put out is easy for the Reader to see by comparing the two Latin texts before alleaged and thereby to consider how facile a matter it is for this fellow to deuide tongues A course sayth he which I professe in all disputes when he deuideth and separateth the words from their Authors and the sense from the words and the whole drift from them both a very fine course and fit for a man of his profession So much wrote I at that tyme which had as you see some acrimony to draw out some satifaction froÌ„ M. Morton if he had byn as full therof as the title of his former booke of Full satisfaction pretendeth THE SEAVENTEENTH Pretermitted falshood by T. M. §. XVII NOw we come to another abuse apperteyning to two men indiffereÌ„tly to wit Cassanderâ— German Schoolâ—maister and Bellarmine an ItaliaÌ„ Cardinallâ— but we shall ascribe it rather to the Germâ—n for this present for that we haue spoken often and haue had diuers examples about Cardinall Bellarmine before Thus then I did propose the matter in my former Treatise 80. Albeit I haue not yet passed ouer sayd I the halfe of the first part of this first Treatise of M. Mort. Ful satisfaction for it is deuided into sundry Treatises and that in thisâ— first halfe also I haue pretermitted willingly many other exaÌ„ples that might haue byn alleadged yet fynding my selfe weary to prosecute any further so large a Labyrinth of these intricate iuggling tricks vsed by this Mynister in his whole corps of citations which do consist principally therof I meane to draw to an end adding only one example more in this place about a matter more neerly concerning our argument which is of Reconciliation of Protestants with Catholicks in points of Religion which T.M. willing to accuse Iâ—suits as the only hinderers therof writeth thus Only by the insolency sayth he of Iesuits all such hope of reconciliation is debarred as is playne by Bellarmyne for whereas that most graue learned Cassander honoured oâ—â—â—o â—mperours â—or his singular learning and piety did teach That Emperours should endeauour a reconciliation betwixt Papists and Protestants because saith he Protestants hold the Articles of the Creed and are true members of the Church although they dissent from vs in some particuler opinions the grand Iesuit doth answere that this iudgment of Cassander is false for that Catholicks cannot be reconciled with hereticks heretically meaning Protestants So he 81. But here I would aske him why he had not vttered also that which immediatly followeth in Bellar. that Iohn Caluin had writteÌ„ a book against this â—rrour of Cassander and that among Catholicke writers Ioannes à Louanio had done the same and shewed that it was an old heresie of Appelles as Eusebius testifieth and of other hereticks aâ—terward vnder Zeno the Emperour named Pacifyers as Euagrius testifyeth who held that Catholicks heretiks might be coÌ„posed together why I say did T.M. coÌ„ceale this As also the many great stroÌ„g argumeÌ„ts that Bellarmyne alleageth to proue his assertion And why would he lay all the fault of not agreeing vpon the insolency oâ— Iesuits seeing Ioannes à Louanio was no Iesuite nor Caluin neither 82. But to leaue this and to come to the thing it selfe and to take some more particuler view of the false behauiour of Tho. Morton in citing this authority yt is strange that in so small a matter he would shew so great want of truth or true meaning as heere he doth For first to pretermit that he goeth about to deceiue his Reader by the opinioÌ„ of grauity learning in George Cassander of Bruges who was but a Grammarian in his dayes and that he was a Catholicke who is censured for an Hereticke prima classis in the index of prohibited Bookes and not only for heresies of this tyme but also quòd dicit Spiritum Sanctum minùs aduocanduÌ„ adoranduÌ„ esse for that he saith that the holy Ghost is lesse to be called vpon or adored c. as the Index expurgatorius testifyeth Besides all this I say M. Mort. corrupteth manifestly in the senteÌ„ce before alleaged the words and plaine meaning of his Author to wit Bellarmine from whom he citeth Cassanders iudgment for thus they lye in him Tertius error sayth he est Georgij Cassandri in libro de Officio pij Viri vbi docet debere Principes inuenire rationem pacis inter Catholicos Lutheranos c. Sed interim dum non inueniunt debere permittere vnicuique suam fidem modò omnes recipiant Scripturam Symbolum ApostolicuÌ„ Sic enim omnes sunt verae Ecclesiae membra licèt in particularibus dogmatibus dissentiantâ— 83. The third errour is of George Cassander in his booke Of the office of a pious man where he teacheth that Princes ought to seeke out some meanes of peace betwixt Catholicks LutheraÌ„s Caluinists other Sectes of our tyme but in the meane space whiles they fynd no such meanes the ought to permit euery one to follow his owne particuler faith so as all do receaue the Scripture and common Creed of the Apostles for so all are true members of the Church albeit they disagree among theÌ„selues in particuler doctrines These are Bellarmines wordes Now let vs see how they are mangled by M. Morton both in Latin English as by him that hath the notablest talent therin notwithstanding his solemne protestations to the contrary that euer I read in my life 84. He putteth downe first the latin wordes in his margent thus Debent Principes inuenire rationem pacis inter
by name excommunicated and denounced for such yet for so much as concerned the guilt of heresy as it is a choice of a particuler sect and difference of ReligioÌ„ from that which the knowne Catholicke Church doth hold and professe I alleaged sundry autheÌ„ticall proofes as well out of the definition of heresy and an hereticke set downe by S. Augustine vnto Honoratus infected with the heresy of the Manicheans out of the same Father against the Donatists defining who is properly an heretike to wit Qui manifestata sibi doctrina Catholicae â—idei resistere maluerit illud quod tenebat elegâ—rit he that after the doctrine of the Catholicke faith generally held is made knowne vnto him shall determine notwithstanding rather to resist and make choice of that which before he held As also I shewed and demonstrated the explication of this definition vnto English Protestants and professors of the English Religion of our dayes out of great variety of other ProÌ„testant Authors of other Countreys who all affirme aâ—d determine that the Religion doctrine of Iohn Caluin which is now most followed in England is formâ—lly and truely heresy consequently the Proâ—essors and manteyners therof must needs be hereticks for which I alleaged not only the Censure oâ— Franciâ—â—us Stancarus a chiefe Protestant Superinâ—endâ—nt in Polonia who saith that they are deploraâ—issimi haereticâ— most desperate hereticks but also the Censure of a whole Lutheran Vniuersitie in Germany named Tubinga whose cheefe Reader of Deuinity Philippus Nicolaus in the name of the whole Vniuersity decreâ—th that Caluinists are daÌ„nable heretikes intituling his booke thus FuÌ„damentorum Caluinianae sectae cum Arianis Nestorianis communium detectio A discouery of the â—ouÌ„dations of the Caluinian sect which are common to them with the Arians and Nestorians In which booke this Doctor proueth throughout many Chapters togeather that Caluinists are no lesse Hereticks then the said Arians Nestorians that they agree with them at least in 17. or 18. articles alleaging also Luthers Authority to the same effect who saith that they are alieni ab Ecclesia Dei Sathanae membra cut of from the Church of God and members of Sathan 7. And after this I added further to this effect I will passe ouer quoth I the testimony of many other learned protestant Ministers Doctors teachers as namely Conradus Sclusselburgius who affirmeth Caluinists To belieue and teach rightly no one article of the Creed as also I will do that of Heshusiê° affirming That their associatioÌ„ is a most blasphemous sacrilegious sect that of Hunnius That it is most damnable the right way to hell that of Ioannes Schutzius That it is the sinke of all wicked heresyes that of Ioannes Modestus that affirmeth Caluinists To be as bad as Iewes Mahomets that of Ioannes Matthias and of Albertus Grauerus and others that affirme all those that follow the doctrine of Caluin to be professed enemyes of Christ. All which I do cyte in my last book against M. Mort. quoting their names works and Chapters years when they wrote more largely particulerly in the pages heere set downe in the margent All which men being chiefe Doctors Readers Preachers or Pastours of our Protestant people such as our ProtestaÌ„t Ministers of EnglaÌ„d hold for their brethreÌ„ against vs that are Catholicks do easely wype away with these their asâ—euerations the childish clamour of M. Morton against Catholiks for holding his CaluiniaÌ„ doctrine to be heresy seing that so many learned graue Protestants inlightened with the spirit of God as they must needs graunt do hold auerre the same 8. And why then had not he answered somwhat to this Charge being so weighty substantiall as it is Why had he not giuen some satisfaction Or at leastwise meÌ„tioned the same in this his last Reply Was not this as necessary a subiect to be handled as to put himself to discusse the wit memory skill and other qualities of his Aduersary Or when do you thinke will he be able to answere this matter Or what substance hath he or may be presumed to haue for making this payment 9. Nay that his substance is small or rather none at all for discharging these debts may well appeare for that he being further pressed by me afterward about the like argument of Iohn Caluins being an hereticke and that most heinous damnable by the publike testimony of his said Protestant brethren the Lutheran Doctors and this not only in the common known controuersies betweene theÌ„ about the Reall presence other Sacraments for which by Luther they were called Sacramentaries but euen about the highest articles of the blessed Trinity Diuinity of Christ equality with his Father Godhead of the Holyghost the like he hath shifted of the same in this his Reply by no lesse silence then the former not so much as naming the matter but in generall termes telling vs that he will pay all his debts in time yet did I vrge him as much as might be to draw froÌ„ him some answere For thus I said vnto him when he had accused al our writers of extreme malignity in ceÌ„suring Caluin Caluinists for heretiks insinuatiâ—g also in his booke of Full satisfaction that the former Lutheran Doctors wherof some had bene obiected before by the moderate answerer had bene corrupted depraued by vs a poore shift you see when their owne bookes are extant in print the places knowne of their printing I told him I say that I would bring against him a new booke of a famous late Lutheran Doctor Reader of Deuinity called Aegidius Hunnius printed at VVittemberg vpon the yeare 1593. which should confirme this and much more My words were these 10. VVe shall heere quoth I with as much breuity as may be bring â—orth the Iudgment of another renowned Protestant Doctor coÌ„curring with the forsaid he being a publike Reader of Deuinity in another famous Vniuersity of Germany namely Wittemberg where Martin Luther himselfe once held the chaire as Caluin did in Geneua this Doctour whose name is Agidius Hunnius in a seuerall Treatise set forth about a dozen yeares gone intituled by him Caluâ—us Iudaizans dedicated vnto one Dauid Pareus a principall Caluinian Doctor setteth downe the argument of his booke thus in the first front therof This booke is to shew saith he that Iohn Caluin hath most detestably presumed to corrupt in â—auour of Iewes Arians the most cleare places testimonies of Scripture concerning the glorious Trinity Deity of Christ of the Holy-ghost aboue all the predictions of Prophets â—or the comming of the Messias his Natiuity passion ascension and sitting at the right haÌ„d of God c. with a cleare confutation of his false corruptioÌ„s therin c. This is the title argument of the booke which he doth prosecute for almost two hundred pages togeather diuiding the same into two