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
in this place vnderstandeth only the order of the three persons among themselues but not a different degree in perfection For that TertulliaÌ„ in another place hath these words Diuinitas gradus non habet vtpote vnica the Godhead of the three persons hath no degrees as being only one 89. Thus then did Cardinall Bellarmine seeke to expound in good sense the first two wordes of the seÌ„tence by another place of Tertullian himselfe but the whole sentence he neuer defended nor admitted but held it rather for erroneous in Tertullian hereticall in Bullinger And now yow see what notable aduantage M. Morton hath gotten out of this his so notable obiection which is nothing els but the discouery of two or three notable shiftes and fraudulent trickes of his owne And yet do you consider how he insulteth as if he had proued somwhat against Bellarmine indeed For thus he continueth his speach for his fifth instance THE FIFTH OBIECTION against Cardinall Bellarmine for false imputation of heresies vnto sundry Protestants §. XI THOVGH P. R. require saith he but three examples oâ— fâ—â— shood yet may I not enuie hâ—m a further choice because I know not the curiosity of his palate Therfore let him againe consult with Cardinall Bellaâ—mine in another taxation of Proteâ—â—â—tâ— saying in one place that they teach that the soule of â—aithful men departing this liâ—e doe not goe directly vnto heauen In another place he himsâ—lfâ— togeatâ—er with his fellow Iesuite haue publiquely recordedâ— that it is a common obiection of Protestants prouing from Scrâ—pturâ— against the doctryâ—e of purgatory that the soules of the â—aith all preâ—eâ—â—ly after death goe diâ—ectly vnto heauâ—n So he 91. And truly it seemeth strange to me that M. Morton in this his peculiar â—tryfe for sinceritv cannot set downe any one thing sincerely withâ—ut some admixture of fraud Let him consult saith he with Bellarmine in another taxation of Protestants that they teach that the soules oâ— the faithfull departed do not go directly to heauen I haue consulted with him at leastwise with his booke and he answereth that the word Protestants twice heere reâ—eated is not to be found â—n him in the place by you cited For that he ascribeth not this heresâ— vnto all ProtestaÌ„ts in geneâ—all but only vnto three in particuler of our time to with Luther Cornelius Agrippa and Iohn Caluin aâ—ter diuers oâ—d heresies named by him as of Armeniansâ— and the like that held the same his words aâ—â— Eundem errorem habet Caluinus c. Caluin hath the sâ—me error that soules of the faithfull do not enter into heauen nor enioy the vision of Almighty God before the day of Iudgement but Christ only is admitted therunto reliquos omnes residere in atrio ib. que expectare vsque ad mundi consummationem that all the rest besides Christ do not enter the Sanctuary of heauen but do expect without in a certayne porch or entry vntill the consummation of the world And this opinion of Caluin Bellarmine proueth out of his owne cleare words in sundry places of his workes as namely lib. 4. Instit. cap. 20. § 24. 25. § 6. So as in setting downe this assertion of Cardinall Bellarmine M. Morton hath made him to tax all Protestantes and to say they do teach c. wheras he taxeth only three particuler men Neyther haue I yet read any other that defendeth the same Let vs see now how he maketh Bellarmine to contradict himselfe for herin stands the principall drift of M. Morton in this place to seeme thereby to say somewhat against him 92. First then he bringeth in these words as of Bellarmine It is a coÌ„mon obiection of Protestantes prouing from Scriptures against the doctrine of Purgatory that the soules of the faithfull presently after death go directly vnto heauen Out of which words M. Morton inferreth it cannot be that Protestants should hold the foresaid contrary doctrine of expecting in the porch Wherto I answere that for this to frame this litle shew of contradictioÌ„ M. Morton hath concealed craftily the name of Caluin in all this obiection and turned it into Protestants wheras the assertion is ascribed by Bellarmine namely and chiefly vnto Caluin and not to other ProtestaÌ„ts and therfore we graunt that Caluin supposing his former assertion to be true cannot vse this obiectioÌ„ against Purgatorie that soules go directly to heauen except he would say that his foresaid atrium or porch and outward place of stay is also heauen or a peece of heauen different from that Sanctuarium Caeli into which he saith that only Christ is admitted vntill the day of Iudgment 93. But other Protestants that hold not this fond opinion as few or none perhaps do may vse their former argument still if it were true that soules go directly to hell or to heauen And it is to be noted how cuÌ„ningly M. Morton hath borne himselfe in this matter not once vttering the name of Caluin but Protestantes in common wheras Caluin chiefly is meant yea only perhaps for the Porch for that it seemeth to haue beene his owne particuler deuise wherby the sly dealing of M. Morton is discouered in euery thing and yet forsooth will he be still A Minister of simple truth and conuince Cardinall Bellarmine of wilfull falshood But let vs go forward and search further into his simplicitie HIS SIXT AND last obiection against Cardinall Bellarmine for false imputation of the SarcameÌ„tary heresie to Protestants §. XII BELLARMINE resteth not heere saith he but once againe challengeth Caluin for as he caâ—leth it an ancient heresie alledged by Theodoret affirming that there is only a figure of Christs body in the Eucharist And yet in another place affirming both that that opinion is not ancient nor yet now to be found in Theodoret and also that the forsaid doctrine of Caluin doth teach that in the Eucharist there is to be exhibited vnto the faithfull not only a signe of Christs body but also the body and bloud it selfe by which mens soules are nourished vnto eternall 〈◊〉 Or as another Iesuite testifieth for Caluin that our soles communicate with the body of Christ substantially Heer 〈◊〉 no more oddes in this accusation then ancient â—â—d not ancieÌ„t heresy and not heresy All these conâ—â—â—dictions do certainly euince that Bellarmine hath 〈◊〉 publike imputations slandered those whome in 〈◊〉 conscience he did acquit And shall we thinke at this conscience could be sincere in alleadging her mens testimonies witnesses who is found â—â—us perfidiously vniust in exhibiting his owne I 〈◊〉 are to produce multitudes of this kind which I â—â—ue in store and will be a debtour to P.R. for maâ—â— of this sort ready to pay my debt as soone 〈◊〉 this my promise shall be exacted Thus farre M. â—â—rton â—â— And heere now I answere that it is sufficiâ—â—tly seene by the payment he hath already made â—â—w ready or able he is to pay his debt
in the life of the Popes Zepheâ—inus Innocentius writeth that the decree that was made by Zepherinus for receauing the communion at least once a yeare about Easter was extended also to Confession by Pope Innocentius which only is found written by Platina saith Bellarmine and not by any other Ecclesiasticall historiographer adding further these wordes Sed neque Platina c. But neither Platina did write those liues of Popes by publike authority nor out oâ— publike records in such sort as they may be called our Annales and oftentimes is he reprehended by our Historiographers for that he fell into diuers errours in his history by following of Martinus Polonus and yet doth not Platina say that which Caluin saith that there was no law extant about the necessity of Confâ—ssion before the time of Zepherinus and Innocentius but only that the certaine time when and how often a man should confesse and communâ—cate was then prescribed more in particuler 122. So as heere you see Platina doth make nothing for M. Caluin and lesse for M. Morton who dealt fraudulently according to his fashion and neuer commonly doth otherwise when reciting in his margent the latin text of Bellarmine he cut out the words immediatly following Vt annales nostri dici possint Platina did not write the liues of Popes as they may be called our Annales And albeit Plaâ—ina saith in the Preface of his history vnto the Pope Sixtus 4. who liued somwhat aboue 100. yeares past that he had coÌ„manded him to wriâ—e the Popes liues yet this proueth not that his collection is an Authenticall history of our Church or so well performed by him as all things therin contained must be held for exact truth and we bound to accept of the same which is all in effect that Cardinall Bellarmine auoucheth And who would haue brought in this for an example of wilfull falshood but only M. Morton Nay who would haue made oftentation therofâ— saying that he findeth greater difficulty to subtract then to multiply such examples but himself that seemeth not to discâ—rne betweene saying somewhat in words and nothing in effect But yet we must passe a little further to see an impertinency or two more THE FOVRTH Obiection against Cardinall Bellarmine touching false allegations about Purgatorie §. XVI AFTER long prying vpon Cardinall Bellarmines bookes being aboue 60. in number and the notes therout gathered which before you haue heard M. Morton commeth at length to seeke some quarrels at that which the Cardinall hath written in defence and demonstration of the doctryne of Purgatorie and saith that he will end with that matter His wordes are these I will now saith he confine my selfe within the precincts of but one onely controuersye concerning Purgatorie where Bellarmine distinguishing of the diuers acceptions of the word Fire in the writings of ancient Fathers concludeth that when the Fathers speake of the Fyre of the day of doome when all the world shall be of a flame they meane not Purgatory-fire which soules suffer immediatly after death After this he alledgeth most playne places as he calleth them out of the Fathers for proofe of Purgatorie Amongst others in his first booke de Purgatorio S. Ambrose serm 20. in Psalm 118. for proof oâ— Purgatory-fyre which he himselfe confesseth in his next booke not to be meant of Purgatorie So he dealeth also with S. Hillary vrging his sentence vpon the Psalm 118. as an euident place for Purgatory which by his owne iudgement seemeth not to signify Purgatory And yet againe among Fathersâ—or â—or Purgatorieâ— he alledgeth the testimonyes of Origen Basil Lactantius Hierome Ambrose all which are acknowledged expresly by Sixtus Senensis from the euidence of the contexts to haue spoken only of the fyre of the day of iudgement and consequently as Bellarmine hath taught vs not of the fire of Purgatorie Lastly he proâ—esseth to confirme the doctryne of Purgatorie out of most of the Greeke and Latin Fathers And another Iesuitâ—â—ith â—â—ith more largely of all the Greek Fathers which is an assertion as false as peremptory euen by the confession of their owne Bishop saying That there is very rare mention of Purgatory in the Greeke Fathers and that the latin Fathers did not all at first apprehend the doctryne therof Thus far he 124. And now let the Reader note how many impertinent poyntes to say nothing of their falsity that ioyntly also will be discouered are heere couched togeather that iâ—â—o say all that are heere handled for that all conioyned together do not conuince any one wilfull or witting vntruth in Bellarmine though there should be found any ouersight as there will not be but rather yow will discouer the most cunning dealing in M. Morton if iugling be cunning therby to make Bellarmine seeme to haue some contradiction in him that euer perhaps yow read For first where the said Cardinall writeth that when the Fathers speake of the â—yre of the day of doome when all the world shall be in a flame they meane not Purgatory â—yre though the thing it selfe in some sense may be grauÌ„ted yet in the places by him cyted Bellarmine hath no such thing but only treating of that fire mencioned by the Apostle 1. Cor. 3. Vniuscuiusque opus quale sit ignis probabit Fire shall proue what euery mans worke is he saith Aliqui Patrum per ignem non intelligunt ignem Purgatorium sed ignem diuini Iudicij per quem satendum est omnes etiam Sanctos Christo excepto transire Some Fathers do not vnderstand by this fire that must try euery mans workes the fire of Purgatory but the fire of Gods iudgment through which we must confesse that all Saints also must passe except Christ himselfe 125. And for this opinion he cyteth S. Hilary and S. Ambrose vpon the Psalme 118. as also S. Hierome who seeme to vnderstand by this prouing-fire mentioned by S. Paul not the purging-â—yre of Purgatorie which is meÌ„tioned presently after in the same place of the Apostle when he saith ipse tamen saluus erit sic tamen quasi per ignem which later fyre to be vnderstood of Purgatory after death Bellarmine proueth by the playne exposition of S. Cyprian S. Ambrose S. Hierome S. Augustine S. Gregorie and others 126. Now then M. Morton seeing this discourse of Bellarmine would needs pick a quarrel therat and frame vnto himself some shew of coÌ„trariety in him by voluntarie mistaking of the fire of Gods iudgement and triall due to euery soule immediatly after death for the fyre of doomes day when the world shall be in a flame wherof Bellarmine neyther speaketh nor had occasioÌ„ to speake nay he doth expresly deny and shew that the prouing-â—yre of Gods iudgmeÌ„ts mentioned by S. Paul is not the fyre of the conflagration of the world and then doth M. Morton frame to himselfe a contradiction in Bellarmine as though he had said
award they made him abiure the Land though this also was not due vnto him by rigour of law to pacify thereby the Kings wrath And it is not vnlike to that Case that fell out in England Anno Domini 1578. vnder Q. Elizabeth when in her anger she would haue had Peter Bourchet to haue byn put to death by Martiall law when he had wounded Syr Iohn Hawkins insteed of Syr Christopher HattoÌ„ but the Iudges would not yeald therunto as being against law therefore found out this temperament that he should be committed to the Tower and accused of matters of Religion as Puritanisme and the like Where afterwards he gaue them a iust cause of putting him to death by killing his keeper But as the Queenes will passion made this no law so neither did that other vnder K. Edward the first So as M. Attorney did much abuse his Reader in auerring it to be treason by the common law adiudged for such out of this Case 84. And if he will vrge that the punishment of haÌ„ging and drawing implieth treason it is answered no but that this rather maketh much for vs. For that the punishment of treason I meane high treason is not only hanging and drawing but quartâ—ring also excepting only the Case of counterfeyting of money Stat. de 25. Edâ— 3. de proditionibus as appeareth by Stanford in his Booke of the Pleas of the Crowne fol. 182. but petty treasons as of killing the maister or Mystresse by the seruant or of any Prelate by his subiect c. which in effect are but fellonies are punished by hanging drawiâ—g oâ—ly wheâ—eof is consequent that albeit K. Edwards will and commandment had byn according â—o law as â—t was not yet had it inâ—erred no treason at all 85. And further to satisfy this matter and make it more cleere that the Reader was abused in this assertion I will adde foure seuerall Reasons argumeÌ„ts more out of the law-books themselues The first is concerning the abiuring the Realme for pacifying the King awarded in iuâ—tice Thoâ—ps Case which proueth euidently that it was not an offence of treason in the delinquent for that abiuraâ—ce is no punishment for treason but only for fellony as appeareth by the said Iustice Standâ—ord in his said Booke fol. 116. where he setteth downe the beginning of abiurance how it was first ordeyned by S. Edwaâ—d before the Conquâ—st and was grounded vpon mercy when a maÌ„ had committed fellonie and fled to a Church or Churchyard for safety of his life and did choose rather perpetuall banishment then to stand to the law So as abiurance by the old lawes of England was at tâ—e election of the Offendours and not at â—he will of the Prince And afterward the said Stanford shewing for what offences in particuler a mâ—n might abiure the Realme saith that abiuration doth not lye â—or hâ—m that hath offended in high treason 86. The second Reason is that the said Stanford in his said booke of the Pleas of the Crowne fol. 182. inteÌ„ding to set down all offencâ—s of treason which were either by the Common-law or Statute-law doth not relaâ—e any such matter to be treason as the bringing into the Realme Bulles of excommunication by one Subiect against an other which he would neuer haue concealed if he had found it held for such in any law booke before him 87. The third Reason is to the same effect that the Statute of 25. Ed. 3. being made for declaration of treasons doth â—et downe what offences were treasons by the Common law In this Statute I say no mention at all is made that the bringing in of Bulls of excommunication was treason or any other offence which of likelyhood cannot be presumed that they would haue pretermitted to touch or mention if any such thing had bin 88. The fourth Reason and most concludent is that we read in many Bookes of law as 31. Ed. 3. â—xcommunicat 6. Fitzh tit Excom pl. 6.14 â—en 4. â—ol 14.8 Hen. 6. fol. 3 and ells where that diuers Excommunications were pleaded in the Kings Courts and no matter of treasoÌ„ or other offence made therof by the Iudges which no doubt they would neuer haue passed ouer so negligently carelesely if it had bin treason by the common-law Neither would any Counsel haue presumed to plead the same so often in the said Courts if there had byn such perill or offence therein at that tyme as M. Attorney now pretendeth Neither doth the authority of Brooke here cyted by M. Attorney patronize him in his voluntary mistaking misconstruyng of the law-books a foresaid For that Brooke doth not say that the bringing in of Bulls was iudged treason by law as M. Attorney doth but onâ—y maketh this note So see punishment of that before the Statute of Premunire which maketh nothing for M. Attorn purpose and if it did yet were it not to be equalled with so many graue authorities euideÌ„t coÌ„uincing reasons as before we haue alleaged to the contrary 89. Wherfore we must conclude that in this first Case M. Attorney hath sundry wayes dealt vnsincerly and gone about to deceiue his Reader making him belieue that the bringing in pleading of the Popes Bulles in ancient time was treason according to the Common-lawes which being now proued to be false yet doth he so often repeate the same vpon all occasions against Catholikes both in wryting speaking pleading and vbrayding as if it were a most certaine truth or principle and not to be controlled Let vs see somewhat of the other Cases TO THE OTHER FOVRE CASES obiected by M. Morton out of Syr Edward Cooke §. VI. IT were ouer long to answere so largely vnto all the other Cases as we haue done to this first especially for so much as the Deuine hath done it very sufficiently and fully before the second Case conteyning only a temporall matter about Advowsons and authority thereby to present Clearks to benefices which was an ancient custome of the Church of England where teÌ„porall men hauing founded Churches and benefices reserued to themselues the nominatioÌ„ and presentation of the persons that should enioy the same who if they were found fit and nothing to be proued against theÌ„ that might iustly be opposed for their exclusion then the Bishop of the diocesse was bound to admit them And if he did not the Aduowsoner might haue an Action against the said Bishop at the Commonlaw of Quare non admisit as in a temporall Case and if the Bishop could not excuse his not admitting of the Clerke of the Recouerer by some sufficient cause then the Plaintif should recouer domages against the Bishop or els he might haue vpon the not executing the first writ to the Bishop an Alias or a Pluries against him And if these were not serued or sufficient excuse made vpon the return thereof why they were not serued then the partie grieued might haue an Attachment against the Bishop
of any honourable family dieth all his kinred do gather themselues togeather to make inquiry of his death if there be any suspicion that he was made away then they do vse torments vpon the wiues as if they were slaues and if it be found that they were guilty of the sayd death then after they haue bene tormented by fire and all other torments they put them to death 72. In which narration first you see no mention of Britans but only of Frenchmen as hath bene noted the nobility wherof are deuided by Caesar into two sortes the one Druides that had care of their sacrifices and matters of Religion the other Equites Knights that made as it were the lay nobility and of whome he recounteth this that we haue here related You will aske then perchance with what truth or syncerity Syr Edward can recite this as the Law of the Britans which is related by Caesar as the Law of the Frenchmen He hath no other shift for excuse of this but to make this note in his margent See in the Preface to the third part of my Reportes out of Caesars Comment Disciplina Druidum in Britannia reperta atque inde in Galliam translata esse existimatur It is tâ—ought that the discipline oâ— the Druides was first found in Britanny and â—rom thence translated into France And is not this a good reason that whatsoeuer is recounted by Caesar of Frenchmen should be ascribed to Brittans â—or that in tymes past the discipline of the Druides is thought by some to haue come from Britanny What coherence hath this togeather May not all lawes of the Frenchmen be ascribed by this meanes vnto the Brittans Is not this a strange direct and demonstratiue proofe to proue one thing by another This indeed is an argumeÌ„t à disparatis as Logitians do call it But let vs see more tricks besids this 73. Why had not he alleaged the whole place out of Caesar as I haue done and why doth he cyte the words so cuttedly si compertum est igne c. interficiunt yet in the English leaueth out c. saying And if she be found guilty of the death of her husband which is petty treason the wife is burnt to death as she is in that case at this day Why had not he set downe c. also in the English therby to let his Reader vnderstand that there were some words left out to wit atque omnibus tormentis excruciatas interficiunt they do kill such wiues as are found culpable after they haue byn tormented with fyre and all other torments What needed the word c. for excluding so few syllables but that yt stood not well with Syr Edwards purpose to haue them seene read for that they shew plainly that neyther Brittans nor Frenchmen had any such Law or custome to put such wiues to death by burning though they vsed the same for a torment before their death No more then it may be truly sayd that Englishmen at this day haue a law or Custome to put Priests or other men to death by the Racke though diuers of them haue byn racked and aftâ—rward put to death And this could not my Lord but see in reading Caesar wherby is euident that his Lordship also commeth into the Classes of them that auouch wilfull and formall vntruthes against their owne conscience and knowledge when they make for their purpose and yet is this far from the office manner of proceeding of a Iudge that ought to be exact and punctuall in his truth 74. But now further to his inference suppose that he had related his Author truly and that Caesar had sayd as he sayth That the ancient Brittans had this law and custome to burne wiues that should be â—ound guilty of their husbands deathes which Syr Edward saith hath continued to our tyme why if it were so to answere coniecture with coniecture should not the other part of the same law haue remayned also that husbands should haue power of life and death ouer their wiues as the Brittans according to Syr Edward had or how where or when can he proue that that part of the Law was abrogâ—ted and the other of burning them left to remaine or if he cannot or that he will say that the other part in like manner doth in rigour remaine then would it go hard no dout with many wiues at this day that are scarse patient of farre lesse power and dominion in their husbands ouer them then is that of life and death which Case as it apperteineth not to me to discusse nor to Syr Edward I thinke to determine so is it sufficient for our purpose to haue demonstrated that his answere to this third question hath neither byn Direct nor Demonstratiue nor sincerly handled nor grounded vpon true relatioÌ„ Now then to the fourth and last 75. If in all the former three questions the Iudges answere haue byn found to haue byn defectuous much more in this then in all the rest For whereas before yow haue heard them say that the Students desire was to see some proofes that the Common law in these foure particuler Cases was before the Conquâ—st as now it is and that Syr Edward had no sooner seene them but that instantly he found direâ—t and demonstratiue answere to the same now comming to answere indeed he alleageth an act of Parliament holden in the 10. yeare of King Henry the second which was Anno Do. 1164. wherin it was enacted That iâ— any Appeale came â—rom any Archdeacon or Bishop vnto the Archbishop and he should fayle to do iustice it must lastly come to the King nor proceed any further without the assent of the King which is a straÌ„ge falling from the purpose if yow marke it well For that the question was whether this Common law of England that is now in vse was in vse also before the Conquest and that as now it is vsed which the iudge affirmeth and for proofe therof alleageth a Statute made an hundred yeares after the Conquest What will yow say to this Why had he not alleaged some one example or proofe before the Conquest as the Case and question required Or why had he not gone about to satisfy some of those examples to the contrary alleaged by me in the 6. Chapter of my former Answere to his Reportes and fiâ—th demonstration to wit of Appeales to Rome of the two Archbishops of Canterbury Lambert and Athelard vnder the two Mercian Kinges Offa and Kenulphus as also the two other famous Appeales of S. VVilfrid Archbishop of Yorke against the two Kinges successiuely of the Northumbers Egfrid Alfrid All which are recounted by S. Bede others long before the Conquest which in my sayd Booke are set downe and Syr Edward could not but haue read them and are full to the purpose to proue the lawfulnes of Appeales in our primitiue Church of EnglaÌ„d yet now he saith no one word
truth shall free you which freedome or deliuerance the Iewes vnderstood from teÌ„porall bondageâ— and therefore answered him that they were the seed of Abraham and had neuer bene in bondage to any which errour of the Iewes proceeded from the ambiguous speach of our Sauiour reseruing in his mind and not expressing in his proposition what bondage he meant for that his reserued meaning indeed was of the bondage of sinne 19. The like may be obserued in those words Ego non quaero gloriam meam I do not seeke my glory yet doth Christ most iustly seeke his owne glory that is due vnto him and punisheth them that giue it not vnto him and so in the verse immediatly before he obiecteth this vnto them Vos inhonorastis me you haue dishonored me and in another place to his disciples he saith Vos vocatis me Magister Domine bene dicitis sum etenim You call me Maister and Lord and do well therein for that I am your Maister Lord indeed And in another place Creditis in Deum in me credite You do belieue in God belieue also in me which is the highest honour that he could exact and consequently there must needs be some mentall reseruation in this other speach when he saith that he seeketh not his owne glory which the Fathres do indeauour to seeke out in their Commentaries 20. It followeth in the â—ame place Amen Amen I say vnto you if any obserue my words he shall neuer see death Which the Scribes and Pharisies though otherwise learned in their law vnderstood of corporall death and in that sense gaue an instance of Abraham and the Prophets that were dead notwithstanding they had obserued the words and commaundements of God and consequently in their sense Christs sentence could not be true but our Sauiour had another intention and meaning reserued in his mind by which reseruation the truth of the sentence was iustified to wit that they should not die in soule 21. It followeth yet further in the same place If I do glorify my self saith Christ my glory is nothing which yet I think no man will grant to be true according to the letter and as it lieth For albeit Christ should â—et forth his owne glory yet may it not be said that this glory so published by himself is nothing or vaine VVherefore some reserued sense must heere also be sought out which according to the opinion of sundry expositours is that he meant this according to the opinion of the Iewes who esteemed that for nothing which came from Christ himself As also a little before in the fifth Chapter he vsed the like speach saying If I beare witnesse of my self my witnesse is not true VVhich sentence I thinke our Ministers theÌ„selues will not hold to be true in the sense which here it beareth for then should they condemne our Sauiour of falfity as often as he affirmeth any thing of himself and then must we of necessity runne to â—ome reserued sense in Christs meaning which is the thing that we call Equiuocation so reuiled by our Ministers 22. Furthermore in the very next verse talking of almighty God he sayd to the Iewes Non cognouistis eum you do not know him which semeth vntrue in it self for that the Iewes did professe to know him and serue him aboue all people in the world And in the old TestameÌ„t it is often said of them that they of all other people did best know God and therefore some other reserued meaning must Christ our Sauiour needs haue had then these externall words do insinuate which reseruation S. Chrysostome S. Augustine S. Bede and Theophilact vpon this place do thinke to haue bene this in Christ his sâ—cret meaning that they did not know God as they ought to know him by seruing him as he would and ought to be serued according to the speach of S. Paul to Titus Confitentur se nosse Deum factis autem negant They confesse to know God in words but do deny him in deedes So as here also an Equiuocation of speach was vsed by our Sauiour 23. Againe in the ensuing verse which is the 56. Christ said to the Iewes Your father Abraham did reioyce to see my day he saw it and tooke ioy therby Which wordes in the common sense do seeme to import that Abraham had liued with Christ and had seene the day of his birth and life and taken great ioy therby and so did the Iewes vnderstand his meaning to be not only the common people but the Scribes Pharisies also when they sayd vnto him thou hast not yet fifty yeares of age and hast thou seene Abraham wherin notwithstanding they were greatly deceiued for that Christ our Sauiour had another reserued meaning in his mind which the holy Fathers do labour greatly to expound vnto vs what it was and in what true sense our Sauiour sayd that Abraham had seene his day whose different opinioÌ„s reasons and coniectures I will not staÌ„d to relate here It is sufficieÌ„t for me to haue shewed that this was an Equiuocall speach of our Sauiour whereby the hearers being deceaued the truth of the speach may only be defended by a reseruation in mind of the speaker 24. And finally in the next verse after this againe Christ vseth a greater Equiuocation then any before saying vnto them Amen Amen dico vobis antequam Abraham fieret ego sum Amen Amen I say vnto you that before Abraham was made I am which being an earnest speach and as it were an oath as elsewhere we haue noted the Iewes vnderstood it as it lieth that Christ our Sauiour was borne in flesh before Abraham and so it seemeth that he should haue meant according to his former speach when he said that Abraham desired to see his day and saw it and reioyced thereat which was vnderstood of his incarnation or day in flesh which Abraham in faith spirit did see and reioyce But yet heere when he saith that he is before Abraham was made he must needs meane of his Diuinity and in that he was God which S. Augustine vpon this place doth excellently note to be so by the differeÌ„ce of the two words AbrahaÌ„ fieret ego sum the one belonging to the creature saith he the other to the creatour So as more then one Equiuocation is vsed by our Sauiour in this one sentence and if we lay all these Equiuocall speaches togeather which are 8. or 9. at least conteyned within a piece of one only Chapter of our Sauiours talke with the Iewes Scribes and Pharisies we shal be able to make some ghesse how many might be found throughout the whole new Testament and Bible if we would examin the same particulerly as we haue donne this and thereby see how true M. Mortons bold assertion was in his booke of full Satisfaction that no one iota in all Scripture no one example in all Catholike antiquity could be
and concealed by him pag. 490. § 4. Of M. Mortons omissions concerning the deâ—ence of Syr Edward Cooke wholy pretermitted by him pag. 500. § 5. The discharge and reckoning about the former charge made to Syr Edward Cooke pag. 510. § 6. To the other â—oure Cases obiected by M. Morton out of Syr Edward Cooke pag. 523. THE EIGHT CHAPTER VVHich by occasion of two new Prefaces lately set forth by Syr Edward Cooke doth handle diuers controuersies with him aswell about a Nihil dicit obiected by him to his Aduersary as also about the antiquity and excellency of the Municipall Common-lawes of England and some other points It hath 6. Paragraphes pag. 529. § 1. Of a new Preface set â—orth lately by Syr Edward Cooke now Iudge wherin he condemneth his Aduersary the Catholicke Deuine of a Nihil dicit and with what iustice or iniustice he doth the same pag. 531. § 2. That the imputation of Nihil dicit doth fall more rightly vpon M. Attorney as doth also the Nimium dicit which is to vtter more then is true pag. 542. § 3. VVhether the common Municipall lawes of England be more ancient and excellent then any other humane lawes of the world pag. 551. § 4. About foure seuerall questions sayd to be propounded by the student in law and solued by the Iudge for confirmation of the antiquity and eminency of our moderne English lawes pag. 573. § 5. How that the foresayd Nimium dicit as it importeth Falsum dicit is notoriously incurred by Syr Edward Cooke in sundry other assertions also appertayning to his owne faculty of the law which were pretermitted by the Catholicke Deuine in his Answere to the fifth part of Reports pag. 587. § 6. Of another Preface instantly come vnto my hands prefixed before the L. Cookes seauenth part of Reportes conteyning new iniuries offered to Catholickes by him pag. 604. THE NINTH CHAPTER VVHich layeth togeather another choice number of new lyes made willfully by M. Morton ouer and aboue the old in this his Preamble whilst he pretendeth to excuse or defend the said old It hath 20. severall heads pag. 625. 1. About the equiuocatioÌ„ of Saphyra he affirmeth me to say that there is an Equiuocation which no reseruation can saue from a lie p. 262. 2. About Theodoret egregiously corrupted by him pag. 629. 3. Claudius Espencaeus falsified and made to say that which he doth not pag. 629. 4. Of Doctor Franciscus Costerus notably abused made to write that which he neuer thought pag. 630. 5. About Gratian falsely accused for â—alsification pag. 631. 6. About symbolyzing of Protestants with Pelagians three witting vntruthes pag. 632. 7. Concerning the Councell of Eliberis and Sixtus Senensis misvnderstood pag. 634. 8. Of Bullingers blasphemous doctrine about the Trinity falsely ascribed to Gregory de Valentia pag. 635 9. The contention betweene S. Augustine and S. Cyprian about rebaptizing misrelated pag. 636. 10. VVhether Catholike authors do speake contrary to their owne iudgments in the article of Purgatory pag. 637. 11. VVhen the letters of T. M. came to be vnderstood what they signified pag. 638. 12. About Holinshead and Iohn Fox guilfully alleadged and stood vpon pag. 638. 13. Fraudulent dealing in relating the death of Pope Anastasius pag. 639. 14. About Pope Gregory the thirteenth his licence for printing the Câ—nnon-law egregiously calumniated pag. 640. 15. How the Manichean heresie is imputed to Caluin and T. Mortons deceiptfull dealing therin pag. 641. 16. About the Nouatian heresy obiected to Protestants and false trickes therin pag. 642. 17. D. Azorius his fiue rules about Equiuocation fraudulently and falsely applyed pag. 643. 18. VVhether the Iesuit Emanuel Sà doth coÌ„tradict all EquiuocatioÌ„ or no and how egregiously he is abused therein pag. 644. 19. VVhether Iohn Maldonate were against all Equiuocation and whether P. R. did fly to answer him pag. 645. 20. About Polydore Virgil falsified in two very materiall points pag. 646. Out of which twenty heads aboue fifty particuler falsities are deduced and plainely demonstrated besides the former THE 10. AND LAST CHAP. COnteyning new Challenges Protestations vaunts and other vehemeÌ„t assertions of M. Mort. that wrappe him in baÌ„ds of further absurdâ—â—ies then any of his â—ormer errours and ouersights before layd downe It hath 3. Paragraphes conteyning 12. new Challenges of M. Morton pag. 649. § 1. First concerning his owne person and what new protestations and Challenges he maketh thereabout pag. 651. § 2. Then concerning the person of his aduersary P. R. and foure new Challenges against him pag. 659. § 3. Thirdly about his book cause it self foure other Challenges wherwith he concludeth his whole worke offering to haue it burned if he performe not what he promiseâ—â—â— pag. 664. AN APPENDIXâ— COncerning a case of Equiuocation lately written out of England wherin resolution is demaunded about the false oath of two Ministers VVhether iâ— may be salued by the licence of Equiuocation or no Togeather with a note out of Doctour King his Sermon preached at the Court 5. Nouemb. 1608. so â—ar â—orth as it toucheth Equiuocation p. 671. AN ALPHABETICAL TABLE OR INDEX OF THE CHIEF MATTERS HANDLED IN THIS BOOKE A ABsurdities of M. MortoÌ„ cap. 2. num 34. AdriaÌ„ the Pope whether choked with a fly c. 5. n. 20.22 Ananias and Saphyra their fact discussed cap. 2. num 23. c. The ridiculous Antiquity of the Venetian lawes cap. 8. n. 40. Appeales to Rome cap. 3. num 18. cap. 8. num 75. seq Azor alleaged to condemne EquiuocatioÌ„ in that place wher he expresly auoucheth it c. 4. n. 69. c. cap. 6. n. 16.17 c. See ibidem num 9.10.11 c. B BEllarmine charged to impute falsely Pelagianisme to the Protestants cap. 3. num 58. His true assertion touching the same ibid. num 61. He truly chargeth Protestants with the heresy of Nouatus ibid. n. 67. Most falsely accused of contradiction by M. Morton touching a place out of Theodoret. ibid. n. 94. c. Item for cyting S. Cyprian and S. Augustine for traditions Ibid. n. 104.105 c. Item for alleaging S. Ambrose S. Hilary S. Augustine for Purgatory num 123. Bellarmines words cuÌ„ningly clipped and changed by M. Morton concerning an errour of Caluin and Beza cap. 5. num 96. Binius abused about the death of Pope Vrban cap. 5. num 34. Broughtons censure of the English Bible cap. 1. num 67. Britans their manners conuersaâ—â—on and lawes in Cesars time c. 8. n. 35.36.37 deinceps British lawes See Lawes Q. Brundeâ—ica her speach cap. 6. num 38. C CAluin intangled about Purgatory and concerning his atrium or porch c. 3. n. 92. Caluinisme is heresy by the iudgment of other Protestants cap. 7. num 6.7 9. L. of CaÌ„terbury charged to haue corrupted a passage in M. Reynolds cap. 5. num 88. The place in Carerius about Verè Verò examined c. 1. n. 70.71 Cassander abused cap. 6. n. 79. The Catholicke Deuine defeÌ„ded against Syr