of that lying Equiuocation which is knoâ—ne â—o the speaker As if he shouâ—â— sâ—ie Some her knoweth what â—e speaketh whâ—n â—e knoweth not what he speaketh And could any say thus â—ut a lyâ—r Heere inded is Logicke wherat the boyes of our Vniuersity may hisse and the boyes of his Colledge may blush yea any â—uâ—all boy if of any meane capacity may laugh â—y sight of the like So he And doe you se how he â—nsulteth ouer me as though hee had gotten a great â—duantage and how hee taketh heere his reuenge vpon me for the shipwracke hee suffered before â—n the matter of his syllogysme But let vs examine the thing somewhat more particulerly and you shall find him to haue no better successe heere then there though his animosity in both places bee great and confident as you see The Râ—ckoning about the subdiuision of false Equiuoâ—ation 55. First then where I doe say as you haue heard that this second kind of vnlawfuâ—l Equiuocation vsed by Protestants being alwaies a lye may bee diuided like a lye it selfe into a materiall lying Equiuocation and a formall M. Morton omitting craftely the word Equiâ—ocation in the members diuident diuideth the same into a materiall and formal lye as though there were no difference at all betweene theÌ„ therof frameth this inference that for so much as a materiall lye is when the lyer knoweth not that hee lyeth as the formal lyer doth it followeth that a materiall Equiuocator knoweth not when hee doth equiuocate yet sayth hee haue I defined this second kind of Equiuocation common to both membres that it is then when the speaker knoweth that he doth falsly equiuocate which definition must agree to both 56. This then is a deceipt in M. Morton that should haue diuided false Equiuocation into formall and materiall Equiuocation and not into formall and materiall lying for that albeit betwene materiall lying and materiall equiuocating for example sake there be some pointes wherin they agree as namely and principally that in the substance of the matter vttered the speaker thinketh that hee sayth a truth yet are there some other points also wherin they differ as namely in that a materiall lye or vntruth may be vttered sometymes without sinne or offence as by the examples before alledged hath beene made euident But a false equiuocation cannot for that albeit the chief point which this faâ—se Equiuocator vttered be thought by him to be truth as the Arrian before mentioned thinketh his heresy to be Catholiâ—ke and true doctrine yet doth he equiuocate in concealing some circumstance as not telling his hearer that it is against the doctrine of that Church which is commonly called Catholicke or the like 57. Another example may be if a stranger not knowing our differences of Religion in England should demand a Protestant which he meteth in the street where he may go to the Catholicke seruice he should send him to S. Paules in London for that he persuadeth himself that to be the true Catholicke seruice here the Protestant if he do erre in his iudgment and if that be not the true Catholick seruice indeed speaketh a falsity but yet is it but a material falsity for that he thinketh that he saith truth but yet further doth he falsly also equiuocate in one thing which is in not answering to the others true intention for that he knew that the other meant the Roman Catholicke seruice And so you see that materiall false equiuocation hath somewhat more â—n it of malice then a materialâ— lye for that it doth wittingly alwayes conceale some circumstance which ought to haue bene vttered and wherby it may be said to haue some knowledge or guilt of deâ—eipt which a meere materiall lye hath not â—8 Now then I would aske M. Morton whether he â—ad considered this or no when he doth so reuell â—gainsâ— me with his rurall boy For if he had not he â—ay consider it now with some reprehension of â—is owne inconsideration but if he had done it why did he equiâ—ocate so frauduleÌ„tly with me as to â—ake me to diuide false EquiuocatioÌ„ into formall and â—atâ—riall lying Wheras he should haue said into forâ—all and materiall Equiuocation and so out of this fraud â—f his owne to go about to inferre some shew of abâ—urdity against me Is this good dealing or is not â—his equiuocating in the worst sense â—9 But it may be he will obiect my wordes against me where I say that this kind of Equiuocation 〈◊〉 which really is a lye must haue also the same subdiuision which 〈◊〉 lye hath wherto I answere that it must haue the â—ame subdiuision into the tearmes oâ— materiall and â—ormall for that it is really and in substance a lye but yet not that the partes or members diuident must of necessity be altogether the same in the one and the other in such sort as a materiall false Equiuocation may containe nothing more then a materiall lye for which cause my wordes immediatly following are these so as the one sort therof may be called materiall lying Equiuocation and the other formall I do not say a materiall and formall lye for that as hath bene shewed a mateâ—iall equiuocation contayneth somewhat more malice then a barâ— materiall lye for that it contayneth the knowledge and concealing of some circumstance that ought to be vttered which the other doth not 60. But heere againe may be perhaps obiected that this material equiuocatioÌ„ if it hath any knowledge or malitious concealement as heere seemâ—th to be graunted then is it the same with that which we call formaâ—l equiuocation and so consequently both members should be coincident coÌ„founded and if it haue knowledge onely and no malice then is it no lye but lawfull Equiuocationâ— as he that saith to an incompeteÌ„t iudge I am no Preâ—st meaning as obliged to reueale it to you knoweth that the iudge is deceaued but yet without malice or sinne of his part for that hee doth not any wroÌ„ge to the said iudge as not holding himself bound to vtter the same to him 61. To these two obiections is answered first that materiall equiuocatioÌ„ is when the speaker thinketh that which hee saith to be true as the fornamed Arian doth though he conceale some circumstance that he ought to vtter which maketh it vnlawfull though nothing so grieuous as the formall equiuocatioÌ„ is where the Equiuocator knoweth that the whole matter is false which is sufficieÌ„t distinctioÌ„ to make two seuerall members or degrees of false equiuocation in generall herby is my diuisioÌ„ iustifiedâ— 62. To the second I say that a materiall false Equiuocation can neuer be lawfull for that in charity the speaker is bound not to conceale the circuÌ„staÌ„ce wherby his hearer is wrongfully iniuriously deceaued as when the stranger demaunding whither he may go to heare Catholicke seruice and a Protestant directing him to S. Paules Church though the Equiuocation be but materiall in him in that he thinketh
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
of the speach yet some may when the hearer hath authority to oblige in conscience the speaker to answer directly to his meaning and to vtter truth as hath â—yn declared And with this wee might end but that we may not let passe a contradiction or two which offer themselues in this his speach For in the â—eginning of this argument as you haue heard he writeth thus As we heere find a woman making a lye to S. â—eter a competent Iudge so we read that S. Peter made a lye â—o a woman an examiner incompetent And for this he ciâ—eth Matth. 26. and yet in his former booke of Full saâ—isfaction he wrote thus if you remeÌ„ber that the maid â—o whom S. Peter swore was coÌ„petent inough to heare a true oath â—f he had bin as ready to sweare truly So as there he made â—er competent and heere incompetent which of â—hem he will stand vnto now I know not although â—t seemeth that he is more bound to stand to the first â—hat she was S. Peters coÌ„petent Iudg or examiner for â—hat he bringeth it for a proofe of his maior propoâ—itioÌ„ in that famous syllogisme of six termini which â—hen he made and now cannot nor so much as atâ—empteth to defend as before you haue seene in which the maior was this The competency of God by whoÌ„ we sweare maketh euery one competent Iudges and hearers to â—home we sweare Whereunto if we would adioine â—his minor but S. Peter sware by God vnto this maide the conclusion will follow in good forme ergo she was a competent Iudge and consequently also a competent examiner for that euery competent Iudge hath likewise lawfull authority to examine So that you see that M. Morton there did not only affirme it but proue it also by syllogisme that she was S. Peters lawfull Iudg nay he held it for so certaine that he did set it downe for a proofe of his said maior propositioÌ„ thus The maior saith he is true for that our Sauiour in auouching truth held Pilate for a competent Iudg although he did not iâ—ridicè but falsely proceed S. Paul in his cause appealed to Cesars Tribunall seat who was a Pagan Iacob did couenant â—ith Laban an idolater And the mayd to whome S. Peter swore was coÌ„petent inough to heare a true oath if he had bene as readie to sweare truly In which words you see that he affirmeth the maid to haue bene competent by that S. Peter did sweare by God vnto her and therby pretendeth to proue his maior proposition that the competency of God by whome we sweare maketh euery one coÌ„petent Iudge to whome we sweare And yet within two lines after he saith againe but she was no lawfull examiner and Pilate was a partiall Iudge so that denying her to be lawfull examiner and yet to be competent Iudge is a plaine contradiction in it selfe For that as hath beene said whosoeuer is competent Iudge hath power also thereby to examine for that otherwise he could not iudge of the truth wherof he hath noâ— authority to examine so as the maides case seemeth very troublesome to M. Morton no lesse then she was importune to S. Peter But let vs see the residue of the examples how they make to M. Mortons purpose for proofe of his maior 37 The point which they should prooue is this that whosoeuer sweareth to another by God doth therby make him or her to whome he sweareth his lawfull and competent Iudge The fondnesse of which assertion though we haue sufficiently layd open before in our Treatise of Mitigation by sundrie reasons and examples yet shall we heere againe take the paines to examine seuerally in a word or two his other three examples as we haue done now that of the maid His first is of Pilate Our Sauiour saith he in auouching truth held Pilate for a competent Iudge But now what of this Did our Sauiour make Pilate his competent Iudge by swearing to him by God How can he proue it Or who would suppose or inferre this but M. Morton His second example is S. Paul in his cause appealed to Cesars Tribunall seat But this is lesse to the purpose then the former for that heere was no oath at all of the Apostle wherby Cesar might be constituted his competent Iudge His third example is of Iacobs couenaÌ„t with Laban which was an idolater and is most of all from the purpose and little lesse indeed then ridiculous for that neither Iacobs couenant with Laban nor Labans with Iacob for the couenant was reciprocall did make either Laban to be competent Iudge to Iacob nor Iacob to Laban but both of them remained â—as before though bound in faith and promise the one to the other for perfourmance of that mutuall frendship which they had promised but yet without any superiority of being Iudges the one to the other as euerie man in common sense doth see and consequently M. Mortons maior propositioÌ„ that euery man is made our Iudgeâ— to whome we sweare is not proued to be true by any of these foure instances nor by theÌ„ alltogeather Let vs passe then to his third His third Argument confuted 38. Thirdly saith he in mentall EquiuocatioÌ„ P. R. saith that the clause of reseruaton mixed with the outward speach maketh but one proposition which is as true in the mind of the speaker as if it were wholy deliuered in the outward speach As for exaÌ„ple I am no Priest mixed with this clause coÌ„ceyued in mind to tell it you is as true in the Iudgment of P. R. as if it had bene without reseruation fully expressed with the mouth saying I am noe Priest to tell it you Now then say P. R. for I meane to fetter you in your owne shackles the woman when she sayd to S. Peter I haue sold it but for so much if she had reserued in her mind this clause to giue it to you either had it bene by vertue of reseruation â— truth or els notwithstanding that reseruation it had bene a lye If the clause of reseruation might haue made it a truth then hath not P. R. said truth in concluding that no clause of reseruation could saue it from a lie If contrariewise the tricke of reseruation could not saue it from a lye then doth not the reserued clause to tell it you being mixed with the outward speach I am no Priest make vp one true proposition and consequeÌ„tly it must be concluded of the Preistly Equiuocation as is heere by P. R. confessed of the womans vz. that noe clause of reseruation can saue their speach from a lye For if she had said vnto S. Peter in plaine words I â—aue sould it but for so much â—â— giue it in common or such like this euery one knoweth had beene a true speach yet she saying I sould it for sâ— much with mentall reseruation reseruing in her mind to giue it in coÌ„mon or to tel it vnto you was
taske for me to find one falshood in many then many in one So he And â—aue you heard this craking We may say with Horace Quid dignum tanto feret hic promissor hiatu What strang effect will so great words bring forth But heere I must agayne and in euery place aduertise the Reader what this Boaster should and ought to proue if indeed he can proue any thing at all to wit that he lay forth cleerly and perspicuously some two or three plaine instaÌ„ces out of any one Catholicke writer of our time as I haue done many against him and his wherby he and they are conuinced of witting and wilfull falshood and this so manifest and apparent as the Author himselfe must needes know that it was false when he wrote it Well then what can M. Morton bring forth in this kynd against our writers out of this his second example or instance about the Councell of Eliberis in Spaine 32. In the controuersy about Images saith he the Protestants appeale vnto antiquity both of Councells and Fathers The first Councell is that of Eliberis about the yeare of Grace 305. which Protestants vrge as forbidding that there should be any Images in the Church Now let vs try the spirits of the answerers Well Syr. And what triall will you make of their spirits heere The state of your question in controuersy requireth that you should try them for willfull lying spirits and that they lyed voluntarily as hath byn proued against you and yours What haue you to say against them in this kind out of this place You do accuse them that they haue diuers different expositions vpon the said Canon of the Councell of Eliberis some thinking it to be vnderstood one way and others another and for this you alleadg the differeÌ„t expositions of Card. Bellarmine D. Payua Alanus Copus Sanders Turrian Vasquez Sixâ—us Senensis and others and you play merily vpon â—heir diuâ—rsityes of expositions about the decree of â—he Councell but how proueth this your principall â—roposition that they did erre wilfully yea witâ—ingly also themselues knowing that they did erre â—or this is the only true question And if you proue â—ot this you proue nothing And now I would aske â—ou When diuers ancient Fathers in their CoÌ„menâ—aryes vpon the holy Sciptures do set downe diffeâ—ent expositions of hard places euery one thinking â—hat he goeth neerest to the truth may you by this â—ondemne them of wilfull falshood and make tryâ—ll of their spirits as of lying spirits for this respect â—s not this absurd and impious Are you not ashaâ—ed to come forth with these ridiculous proofes â—fter so great ostentation of words that it is as easie â—r you to find out many wilâ—ull falshoods in one as one in many â—hy had you not alleadged one at least But let vs â—xamine in a word or two the reason of diuersity of â—xpositions of our Doctours about the Canon and â—ith this you will be wholy downe-dagger â—3 The Councell it selfe of Eliberis in Spayne was a â—rouinciall Councell of 19. Bishops held somwhat â—efore or about the time of the first generall Counâ—ell of Nice and some Controuersy there is among â—iuers Authors of what authority this Eliberian CouÌ„â—ell is or may be held and whether euer it were reâ—â—yued by the Church or not in respect of some Canons therin found that are obscure hard to be â—ightly vnderstood as namly those which seeme to deny reconciliation to some persons euen at the houre of death But howsoeuer this be certaine it is that there be sundry CanoÌ„s in that CouÌ„cell which Protestants may not admit as namly the 13. which saith Virgines quae se Deo dedicauerunt si pactum perdiderint virginitatis c. Virgins that haue dedicated theÌ„selues to God if they breake their promise of virginity if they repent and that they fell by infirmity of body and do pennance all the time of their lyfe c. they ought to be admitted to communion in the end A hard case for Protestant-Nunnes 34. Those other two also viz. 23. and 26. which are about set fastings vpon Saturday and other dayes may not be admitted by Protestants much lesse the 33. which forbiddeth all Priests Bishops Deacons and Subdeacons to haue the vse of wiues or generare filios to beget children vnder paine vt ab honore Clericatus extermineÌ„tur that they be cast out from the Clergy And yet further Can. 38. that Bigamuâ— or he that hath bene twice married may not baptize any no not in time of necessity which inferreth à fortiore that such a one could not be Priest in those ancient dayes And heere then how can M. Morton say so confidently as he doth of this Councell of Eliberis VVe Protestants appeale to the antiquity of Councells and first to that of Eliberis c And do you thinke that he will stand to these Canons now alleadged If he do it must needs be very preiudiciall vnto him and marre his marriage at least if he haue any inteÌ„tion to marry and yet to lead the life of a Clergy-man according to the prescript of the Councell of Eliberis as also to be some other punishment vnto his body to be bound to so much fasting as those Canons of the Councell of Eliberis doe ordaine and prescribe 35. But to returne to the reason why he alleadgeth this Councell VVe Protestants saith he do vrge this Councell as forbidding that there should be any images in the Church Wherunto he bringeth in D. Payua to answere one way Bellarmine another Sanders Alanus Copus a third others a fourth fifth or sixth a thing very vsuall among learned men to haue diuers expositioÌ„s euen vpon the Scriptures theÌ„selues then by way â—f scoffing though very insulse to make sport vnto â—imselfe and his Reader he frameth as it were a Comedie or enterlude one saying one thing anâ—ther another though all against him and in this â—onsisteth a great part of his manner of answering â—s by frequent examples you will see if you consider â—t â—6 But let vs examine what the Canon it selfe â—ath The words are these Placuit in Ecclesia picturas â—sse non debere ne quòd colitur aut adoratur in parietibus deâ—ingatur It is decreed by vs that pictures ought not â—o be in the Church least that which is worshipped or adored be paynted vpon the walles Which Canon for that it conteineth not onelie a decree as you â—ee but also a reason of the decree and seemeth conâ—rarie both to the vse of the generall Church at that time and afterwards as is prooued out of other ancient Fathers Councells and Historiographers seemeth to be opposite to the determination and publike decree of a famous Generall Councell that ensued some yeares afterward to wit the second of Nice diuers authors doe alleadge diuers reasons for the right vnderstanding verifying of this CanoÌ„ so as it may agree with the truth of
the Councells meaning and with the reason it selfe alledged by the Canon which variety of answers or expositions in a coniecturall matter as hath bene sayd are no wilfull contradictioÌ„s as M. Morton fondlie supposeth but multiplicity of expositions The most generall is that the true meaning of the Councell was that for more reuerence of holie images and to the end the thing which was proposed to be worshipped adored in them should not suffer indecency they should not be painted vpon walles of the Church where by the corruption and moysture therof they might come to be corrupted and defaced but rather that they should be made vpon tables veiles such other moueable matter wherby they might both the better be preserued and remoued also more conueniently from the iniury of Infidells in tyme of persecutioÌ„ which in effect was the verie same reasoÌ„ that mooued the ancient and Christian Emperour Theodosius to prohibite that the image of Christs Crosse which he carryed in his banner should not be engrauen vpon the ground or pauement and so trodden vpon by mens feete 37. And heere also the consideration of learned Vasquez is worth the obseruing who being a Spanyard writeth that this decre of his Country-CouÌ„cell of Eliberis maketh so litle against the Catholick moderne vse of Images as that the greatest enemy that euer they had one of them in the world Claudius Taurinensis a Spanyard in like manner and a chief head of the Iconoclasts or Image-breakers almost 800. yeares agone seeking all the arguments that he could any way scrape togeather against theÌ„ and the pious vse therof yet did he neuer alleage this CanoÌ„ of his owne Countrey-Councell which now Caluin and Caluinists doe so much vrge well foreseeing that it made nothing at all to his purpose or against the Catholicke vse of Images For yf it had bene otherwise either he or some other of that sect after him would haue cyted the same before the Protestants of our tyme. 38. I doe willingly pretermitt the pageants and childish playes which M. Morton doth make to him self in comparing and opposing the variety of our writers answers and interpretations togeather and the one against the other as before hath bene said proposing them as poppetts to make himselfe pastime which he may do also vpon the grauest CoÌ„mentaries that euer were written vpon Aristotle or â—ther author yea vpon the Scriptures themselues â—ut I can not lett passe the last assertion of all sett â—owne by M. Morton in a different letter that whatsoâ—uer the occasion of forbidding might haue bene in the Canon this is a confessed conclusion of Senensis that the Counâ—ell of Eliberis did absolutely forbidd the worshipp of Images And so he maketh the Latin text of Senenâ—is to speake in like manner Omnino vetuit Synodus Eliâ—ertina imaginum cultum But in Senensis you shall not find the word omnino or absolutely wherin standeth all the force of the matter And the fraud cannot seeme but willfull nor can it any way stand with the intention of Senensis who saith and affirmeth only according to the interpretation which he best alloweth of among manie other that the meaning of the Councell was this to forbid the vse of images for a time least the new conuerted Spanyardes not being well instructed seing images vpon the walls should thinke there were no difference betweene them and the heathen Idols For auoyding wherof it seemed good to the Councell for a while to remoue the vse of images which of it selfe they held for lawfull and pious This is the opinion of Senensis And now let the discreet reader iudge whether this were his confessed Conclusion that the Councell of Eliberis did absolutely or not rather secundum quid forbid the worship of images Surely I am ashamed of such shifting in M. Morton euen then when he preteÌ„deth to charge his aduersarie with that crime and cannot proue it Let vs passe to another instance of his noe better then this HIS THIRD EXAMPLE OF like deceipt obiected against the same Catholicke Authors about the Councell of Frankford in Germany §. IIII. AFTER the former variety of expositioÌ„s about the Canon of the Councell of Eliberis M. Morton passeth to another difference in iudgement among our Catholicke writers concerning the Prouinciall Councell of Franckeford which being held about 800. yeares past presently after the second generall Councell of Nice wherin the Catholicke vse of images was defended and established against the foresaid heresy of Iconoclasts sundry Authors alleaged by the Magdeburgians do write that the said Synode of Frankeford did condemne as well the said doctryne of images as also the Authority of the Councell of Nice that had allowed the same which if it were true yet were not the matter of any great doubt whether a Prouinciall Councell such as was that of Frankeford were rather to be obeyed then a generall as was the other of Nice But for that there is great obscurity and many contradictions in the history it selfe therfore diuers Catholicke writers do answere and expound the matter diuersly alleadging sundry excellent coniecturall reasons proofes and probabilityes ech one for themselues as may be seene in the places of their workes heere quoted but yet all agreeing in the principall poynt against the Protestants that the Councell of Frankeford indeed did not coÌ„demne eyther the Councel of Nice or the doctryne of Images in the sense at least and meaning that the said Nicene Councell had approued the same And what is this to the purpose then to proue that thâ—se Authors did erre wittingly against their conscience Do you not see that still the poore man runneth quite from the purpose and hath nothing to say to the effect he should say 40. But let vs stay our selues a little vpon the matter it selfe and giue some briefe notice to the Reader of the diuersity of opinions in our Cathoâ—icke Authors about this matter that is so obscure â—y relation of others for that no Canon or Decree â—f that Councell was euer extant about the same to my knowledge The whole controuersy is reduced â—o three opinions the first is of Surius Alanus Coâ—us Sanders and others who thinke probably â—hat albeit diuers Historiographers vpon the credit of certain bookes called falsely Carolini or of Charles the great refuted by Pope Adrian the first then â—yuing haue left recorded that the Councell of Frankeford did reproue the seauenth Generall Counâ—ell about images which is knowne to be the 2. of Nice yet was it not so indeed but another false Councell of Constantinople was condemned by them of Frankeford as held by the hereticall Image-breakers a litle before and was called the 2. of Constantinople â—nd by themselues that held it the 7. Generall Councell So as according to this opinioÌ„ the error was in mistaking the second Councell of Nice to haue bene condemned by the Councell of Frankâ—ord insteed of the second Councell of
in Prouerb August ad Fratres in Eremo the Liturgies of Iames and others all which as they are vrged for profe of Purgatory so are they reiected by their owne men I desire to be challenged for proofe heerof as forged or corrupted or Apochrypha and indeed no better witnesses for truth then the Knights oâ— the Post be fit men for a Iury. If further he shall marke how true Fathers and Scriptures are instanced in for proofe of the same article wherof when I speake of Fathers most of them wheÌ„ I speake of Canonicall Scriptures all of them are found by the iudgment of their owne doctours to be tortured wrested and forced as it were to say that which they neuer meant if hee lastly consider how almost euerie one of theÌ„ indeauoring the defence of the same doctrine is in his owne assertions contradicted by himself which may be in this one controuersie concerning Purgatorie a late article of their faith most plainly discerned So â—ar hee 136. And this his conclusion or repetitioÌ„ in the end of this last obiection about Purgatorie seemeth to me a recapitulation and briefe represâ—ntation of all his former vnsyncere dealings concerning the same and that he cannot be trusted in any thing he saith though he struggle still to say somwhat For first of this number of witnâ—sses which heere he saith to haue bene brought in as Knights of the Post for confirmation of this new article of Purgatory to wit Clâ—mens his Constitutions and Epistles and the other six or seauen authorities heere cited they and the rest vnder the names of ancient Fathers are not so much as named by Bellarmine except only the two first in a word or two and much lesse are they brought in for principall authors in the Catalogue of ancient Fathers whose testimonies and authorities he setteth downe for proofe of Purgatory so as this is one deceiptfull vntruth to make his Reader beliâ—ue that these are our chiefe Authors wheras Bellarmine besides these doth alleadge twenty viz. ten of the Greeke Church and as many of the Latin as namely S. Gregory Nazianzen S. Basil S. Ephraim S. Epiphanius S. Cyrill S Chrysostome â—usebius Theodoretus Theophilactus and Damascenus all Fathers of the Greeke Church and Tertullian S. Cyprian S. Ambrose S. Hiâ—rome S. Paulinus S. Augustine S. Gregory S. Isidorus Victor Vticensis and S. Bernard of the latin Church All which twenty Fathers are without the number of those other against which he excepteth heere and consequently are so many good and lawfull witnesses and not Knightes of the Post for a complete Iury against M. Morâ—on 137. Secondly it is another manifest vntruth that he saith his aduersaries to wit Catholicke writers do confesse these seauen or eight Authors and autâ—orities by him mentioned to be meerely counterfaite For albeit some of them be excepted against or called in question by some writers whether they be the true workes of the Authors whose names they beare or not and therof all reputed Apocryphall that is hydden and obscure yet it followeth not that they are merely counterfaite for that they may be ancient workes and not to be contemned though not of those Authors As for example that worke intituled Opus imperâ—ectuÌ„ in Matthaeum ascribed to S. Chrysostome and the Sermons ad Fratres in Eremo ascribed to S. Augustine the Homilies also attributed to Eusebius Emissenus proued by Baronius to haue bene written by S. Eucherius Bishop of Lyons that liued aboue eleuen hundred yeares gone all these workes cannot be denied to be ancient and learned though Apocryphall hidden and doubtfull for so much as concerneth their true Authors which yet our writers do not call meerely counterâ—aite as heere M. Morton doth falsely affirme 138. His third manifest vntruth is where he saith that of Fathers the most of them and of Canonicall Scriptures all of them are found by the iudgment of our owne Doctors to be tortured wrested and forced to say for Purgatory that which they neuer meant This now whether it be not such a wilfull and witting lye as before I described for a formall malicious lye such as the writer did know to be a lye when he wrote it I am content to remit my selfe to any iudicious and ciuill Protestant in the world For if our owne Catholike doctors that make profession to belieue Purgatory do fynd in their owne iudgement as heere is said that of Fathers alleaged â—or the prooâ—e therof the most of them and of Scriptures all of them are tortured â—orceâ— to say that which they neuer meant how then do these doctors belieue the doctryne of Purgatory to be true Why do they not change their opinions and become Protestants Is it credible that they will belieue that for truth for an article of faith which all Scriptures most Fathers in their owne iudgments do impugne Can M. Morton answere any thing to this so lewd wilfull absurdity And did not he know that he lyed when he wrote this And that it was impossible to be true 139. Morâ—euer I haue now shewed that Cardinall Bellarmine in setting downe the Fathers opinions about Purgatory besydes those excepted against by M. Morton hath twenty others and Coccius in his Thesaurus hath neere threescore within the compasse of the first 600. yeares after Christ and will any Catholike doctour or writer thinke yow say that the most of these Fathers are found in their iudgements to be â—orced to speake against their owne meaning And yet saith M. Morton I desyre to be challenged for proofe herof And to the end that he may haue somewhat to do I do earnestly challenge him herein requiring at his hands that of those first threescore mentioned by Coccius within the first six hundred yeares he doe really sincâ—rely proue thirty one at least which is the maior part to be so tortured and so graunted to be by the Iudgement oâ— our owne writers or els he falleth wholy in his cause 140. And againe let him proue that all Canonicall Scriptures alleaged by Bellarmine and others for Purgatory are found also by the iudgments of our owne doctors to be so tortured wrested forced he shall proue himseâ—f an admirable man indeed But in the meane space let vs examine a litle the probability of this fond vauÌ„t to wit what he will be able to do when he commeth to the proofe Bellarmine doth alleage ten sâ—uâ—rall places out of the old â—estament for proofe of Purgatory with the expositions of the ancient Fathers vpon them and all aâ—e confessed by Protestants theÌ„selues to be taken out of Canonicall Scripture except the first two out of the bookes of Machabees and â—oby which â—ere notwithstanding accompted for Canonicall in S. Augustines tyme as appeareth by the third Councell of Carthage in which himselfe was present and out of the new TestameÌ„t he alleageth other fiue places with the expositions in like manner of the ancient Fathers vpon the same
true explanation of your meaning with a cleare confutation and reiection of the same and consequently these Rhetoricall shifts are idly brought in by you nothing nâ—edfull for me For P. R. tooke you in your true meaning wherin you desire to make Catholicke Doctours contemptible in generall for their blindnesse though to some yow will seeme to graunt the opinion of learning but yet with such restraint and limitation as you make it not better for instruction of Christian soules then the learning of the Diuell himselfe For this is your wise and graue conceipt Let them be as greatly learned say you as they are and would seeme to be yet must there be a con I meane an hart zealous of the truth to be ioyned with science to make vp a perfect conscience which is the true Doctour indeed otherwise we know that the serpent by being the most subtile of all the beasts in the field will deserue no better commendationâ— then to be accoÌ„pted the skillfullest seducer By which discourse of yours a man may easily see whether your meaning were generall in your former speach about ignorant Doctours or no and how impertinently you bring it in heere for an argument of wilfull falshood against me for that I vnderstood you in your owne sense I will not discusse your concept of your science with your con which was borrowed of Iohn Reynolds and of others before you and though I be loath to tell it you least it may seeme to sauour of reuenge yet I must say it for your better information that many men thinke very little of the one or other to be in your selfe as they should be either science or good conscience alleadging your writings for testimony of both HIS FOVRTH obiected falshood against P. R. §. IIII. NEXT vnto this he produceth for a falshood in me that I say in my booke of Mitigation that he taketh vpon him to iustifie the writings and doings of the Protestants of our dayes for their seditious doctrines and practizes against Princes who please them not and among others M. Goodman in particuler that wrote the most scandalous booke against the Regiment of women in Q. Maries dayes and assisted Knox Buchanan and others in troubling and turning vpside downe Scotland wheras M. Morton saith that he condemned him and consequeÌ„tly that I dealt iniuriously with him Thus he citeth my words in a different letter as though they stood so in my text He Thomas Morton doth particulerly iustifie Goodman 21. But first you must vnderstand that it is his common vse neuer lightly to alleadge truly and sincerely any text that he will vse to his profit either in Latin or English and let the Reader make prooâ—e of it if in twenty places alleadged by him he find foure without all alteration let him say that I do offer him iniury My words talking of the parts of M. Mortons Reply called the Full satisâ—action were these Secondly he taketh vpon him yet more fondly in the second part of this his Reply to make a publicke iustification of all Protestants for rebelling against their Princes in any countrey whatsoeuer but more particulerly and especially in England and therin doth so iustifie Cranmer Ridley Syr Thomas VVyatt and others that conspired against Q. Marie in England Knox Buchanan Goodman and like Ministers in Scotland turning vpside downe that State against their Soueraignes the rebellions raised in Suetia Polonia Germany Switzerland France and other countries as his iustification is a more condemnation of them and their spirits and doctrine in that behalfe then if he had said nothing at all as partly shall afterward appeare by some instances that we shall alleadge therof 22. By which words of mine you may see that I did not single out Goodman alone as particulerly iustified by M. Morton as he would make the Reader belieue by his crafty and corrupt manner of citing my words but that among many others he did go about also so farre as he durst to excuse and iustifie him saying as presently you shall heare that albeit he approued him not for this he durst not do my L. of Canterbury hauing written so terribly against him in his booke of Dangerous positions yet that the examples alleadged against him by the Moderate Answerer might excuse him which were of most intollerable speaches of his against Princes and heere againe in this his Preamble that in respect of Romish Priests he might be thought excusable wherby a man may see his inclination to iustifie him and his writings if with security he might haue donne it How then is it such a falsity in me to say that among so many others before named whom he cannot deny but that he seeketh to iustifie them he sought also to excuse and iustifie Goodman though not in so absolute a manner as the other Saints of his yet in some degree conuenient to his estate and merit Let vs see what I do write afterward more about this iustification of Goodman my wordes these 23. The moderate Answerer say I alleageth first the wordes of Goodman in his booke against Q. Mary wherin he writeth expresly that it is lawfull by Gods law mans to kill both Kings and Queenes wheÌ„ iust cause is offered her selfe in particuler for that she was an enemie to God and that all Magistrâ—ts and Princes transgressing Gods lawes might by the people be punished condemned depriued and put to death as well as priuate transgressours and much other such doctrine to this effect cited out of the said Goodman All which the Bishop of Canterbury his second booke of Dangerous positions hath much more largely both of this Goodman and many other English Protestants chiefe Doctours of their primitiue Church residing at that time in Geneua And what doth T. M. now reply to this You shall heare it in his owne wordes If I should iustify this Goodman saith he though your examples might excuse him yet my hart shall condemne my selfe But what do you professe to proue all Protestants teach positions rebellious prooue it heere is one Goodman who in his publike booke doth mantaine it I haue noe other meanes to auoid these straites which you obiect by the example of one to conclude all Protestants in England rebellious then by the example of all the rest to answere there is but one So he 24. And this is his Full satisfaction and faithfull reply as he calleth his booke but how poore satisfaction this giueth and how many points there be heere of no faith or credit at all is quickly seene by him that will examine them For first how do the examples alleaged against this Goodman by the moderate answerer excuse him as heere is said seeing the wordes he alleageth against him out of his owne booke are intollerable and my Lord of Canterbury alleageth farre worse as for example that it is most lawfull to kill wicked kings when they fall to tyraÌ„ny but namely Queenes
reason which God powred into man and which is a litle beame of diuine light drawne from that infinite brightnes of Almighty God therfore doth the Apostle S. Paul pronounce that there is no power but from God and that he which resisteth this povver resisteth God himselâ—e So M. Reynolds 49. In which wordes we see that M. Renoyldes is so farre of from debasing Kings in this his discourse or subiecting them vnto the people as he doth both extoll magnifie their dignity as proceeding froÌ„ God himselfe and reconcileth togeather the speach of P. Peter calling a King a humane creature with the wordes of S. Paul pronouncing it to be of God and vnder payne of damnation to be obeyed And can there be any more vntrue dealing then this Let vs see then how M. Morton will heere discharge himselfe you shall see him somwhat more humiliated then before would God to his conuersion and not to his greater obduration and confusion and yet will he in any case defend not ameÌ„d his error for thus he procedeth The pretended discharge 50 This Allegation is saith he of all which yet I haue fouÌ„d most obnoxious and alliable vnto taxation which God knoweth that I lye not I receiued froÌ„ suggestion as the Author therof R. C. can witnesse For at that time I had not that Rosaeus aliâs Reynolds neither by that present importunity of occasions could seeke after him which I confesse is greatly exorbitant for I receiued it as a testimony debasing the authority of Kings So he And truly when first I read the beginning of this answere and heard him so earnestly and solemnly to protest before God that he receyued this fraud against M. Reynolds by suggestion I imagined he would haue said of the Diuell for that he coÌ„monly is the proper suggestour of all such vniust and wicked calumniations but when I saw the letters of R. C. follow insteed of the Diuell I began to muse and thinke with my selfe whether there were any Diuell of that name or no or if it were no Diuell himself what instrument or chosen seruant of Sathan it might be that had made this false suggestion which M. Morton himselfe confesseth heere to be greatly exorbitant from the truth and insteed of one thing to haue suggested the quite contrary that wittingly against his conscience yea with a double malice as may seeme The first to calumniatâ— M. Reynolds and Catholike doctrine by him and the other to disgrace M. Morton by making him put in print so notorious a lye and corruption 51. But when afterwards I was aduertised by some that would seeme to know the mistery that R. C. did signify Ri. Can. I was driuen into a farre greater meâ—uaile how M. Morton could be permitted to publish such a matter in print the thing hauing to pasâ—e the view of R.C. his officers and how he could presume to haue more care of his owne credit then of the others that is his head and Chiefteyne For as a scarre the more higher it standeth in the forhead the more deformity it worketh to the whole body so such a notorious cryme of wilfull falsification being proued to be in the Head it self euen by the asseueration and testimony of so principall a member of the same Head cannot be but very disgracefull to the whole body though it may be that M. Morton being the party most interessed might pretend in this not only his owne personall defence in this particuler escape but a protection also more generall heerby for all Ministers to vse this art with lesse reprehension when the Head of Ministers should be conuinced to vse the same with such liberty and lacke of conscience especially in a matter so odious preiudicious and calumnious to all the ranke of Catholiks I do confesse saith M. Morton that it is greatly exorbitant for I receyued it as a testimony debasing the authority of Kings And from whome From R. C. But did he gather it himselfe thinke you or did he take it also by tradition of others vpon credit as you professe your selfe to haue donne The later were disgracefull the first hatefull For if he looked vpon the Authour himselfe he must needs see that M. Reynolds drift was to aduance Kingly authority and not to debase it and therfore for R. C to sett downe the quite coÌ„trary and make another to print it also with his allowance and approbation was a double or triple iniquity And surely if the like may be proued in any Prelate of ours let him haue for pennance neuer to be trusted after which is the greatest satisfaction that I would wish to be exacted of R. C if he acknowledge this accusation of M. Morton for true 52. But now though this charging of R. C. be some disburdening to T. M. that he inuented not the slaunder of himselfe yet doth it not wholy free him froÌ„ all falshood in the matter For he should not haue yealded to the false suggestion norâ— eâ— admitted so vniust a temptation for supposing that R. C. would needes play the part of the tempting and lying serpent yet ought T. M. not to haue followed the frailty of the credulous infirme womaÌ„ although R. C. had deliuered vnto him the note so baâ—ely as he puteth it downe out of M. Reynolds to wit Rex humana creatura est quia ab hominilus coÌ„stituta yet could not M. Morton but remember that the effect therof was in the Epistle of S. Peter and that in no sense it could be truly Englished as he doth A King is but a creature of mans creation both for that the word but which is a particle aduersatiue or exclusiue is not to be found in the latin wordes of M. Reynolds nor could it stand in any reasonable good meaning that a Kings authority is nothing els but a humayne creature as though it had no dependance or causation from God Wherfore as there was great malice in the suggestor of this false imputation so was there no lesse want of truth in him that so willingly yealded to so bad and false a suggestion But what saith he heere for his defence This which now ensueth 53. Vpon this presumption saith he if true to wit that M. Reynolds had spoken to the debasemeÌ„t of Kings authority as he did not but to the contrary it could be no falshood in me to insert the particle but especially being acquainted with the doctrine of Cardinall Bellarmine who that he may disable the authority of a King in comparisoÌ„ of the dignity of a Pope doth defend â—hat Kings being chosen by men are not immediatly created by God and yet the Pope elected by Cardinalls hath his authority immediatly from God 54. Wherto I answere that well he might say so for that Christ both God and man did institute in particuler and immediatly the Supreme Authority of S. Peter and his successors when he gaue to him and by him to them the keyes of
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
graÌ„t the said immunityes and priuiledges And also those words of King Edwyn which of his Catholike predecessors S. Leo King Kenulphus were granted And againe By â—orce of the Letters and Bulles aâ—oresaid the said village of Culnam was a Sanctuary and place priuiledged 63. And hereby also is euident that the King did not by his Charter in Parlament for it appeareth to be made by the Counsaile and consent of his Bishops and Senators not by Parlamâ—nt as M. Attorney doth misreport it neither was there any Parlament held at that time in the land or many hundreth yeares after for as it appeareth by Holinsheads Chronicle pag. 34. the first vse of Parlaments in England was in the tyme of King Henry the first it is cleare I say that the King did not discharge and exempt the said Abbot from Iurisdiction of the Bishop nor did grant vnto the said Abbot Ecclesiasticall IurisdictioÌ„ within the said Abbey neyther had that abbot any Ecclesiasticall IurisdictioÌ„ deriued froÌ„ the Crowne But as it appeareth by the autheÌ„tike report of the Case the Pope the King did ioyne both in making the said Sanctuary according to their seuerall powers authorityes So that the exemptioÌ„ from Episcopall IurisdictioÌ„ proceeded duly from the grant of Pope Leo as likewise the exeÌ„ption froÌ„ all Regall temporall Iurisdiction proceeded froÌ„ the Charter of King Kenulphus Note also that King Edwins Grant was only that the said Monastery should be free from all earthly seruitude toucheth not any spirituall immunities or Iurisdiction at all 64. Thus far my friend out of England and by this now you may see how well M. Attorney hath obserued his foresaid protestation that he had cyted the very wordes textes of the Lawes without any inference argument or amplification at all And this being my friends aduertisment from England with like obseruation of manie other places cyted by M. Attorney with like fydelity I thought good to produce this one amongst manie being the first in order for a tast in this place reseruing the rest to a fitter or at leastwise to a second edition of the foresaid answere of the Catholike Deuine where euery thing may be referred to his due place and with this will I end this Chapter Thus far wrote I at that tyme in charg of Syr Edward THE DISCHARGE AND Reckoning about the former Charge made to Syr Edward Cooke §. V. YOV haue heard now this Charge how important substantiall yt is and who would not haue thought but that either Mâ— Morton or Syr Edward himself would haue answered somwhat to the same in their Replyes made since the publishing hereof or at leastwise would haue asmuch as mentioned yt especially M. Morton who in a certaine manner and law of vrbanitie was more obliged to take the patronage of Syr Edwards wrytings then himself for so much as the Charge was giuen in a Booke against M Morton and he had so highlie commeÌ„ded the sayd worke of his Reports as he calleth them The allwaies reportable and memorable Reports taking out of them sundrie heads of examples as his words are that improue the Popes Supremacie in causes Ecclesiasticall ascribe it to the king which that yow maie see how substantiall they are I shall take the paynes to set them downe here as they stand in his Book 66. I will point at some â—ew heads oâ— examples saith he oâ— our ancient ChristiaÌ„ kings which Syr Edward Cooke his Maiesties Attorney generall in his allwaies reportable memorable Reports hath lately published In the Raigne oâ— king Edward the fyrst saith he a Subiect brought in a Bull of excommunication against another Subiect oâ— this Realme published it But yt was answered that this was thâ—n according to the ancient lawes oâ— England Treason against the King and the Offendor had byn drawen and hanged but that by the mercie of the Prince he was only abiured the Realme c. 67. At the same tyme the Pope by his Bull had by way of prouision bestowed a benefice vpon one within the Prouince of â—orke the King presented another the Archbishop reâ—useth the Kings presentation and yelded to the Popes prouision This Archbishop then by the common law oâ— the land was depriued oâ— the lands oâ— his whole Bishopricke during lyâ—e And in the Raigne of king Edwâ—rd â—he third the king presented to a Benâ—â—ice his Presentee was disturbed by one who had obtayned a Bull from Rome for the which cause he was condemned to perpetuall imprisonment c. 68. In the Raigne oâ— Richard the second yt was declared in the Parliament R. 2. c. 2. that England had allwayes byn â—ree and in subiection to no Realme but imediatly subiect to God to none other and that the same ought not in any thâ—ng touching the Regaltie of the Crowne to be submitted to the Bishop of Rome nor the lawes of their Realme by him frustrated at his pleasure c. 69. In the Raigne of King Henry the fourth it was confirmed that Excommunication made by the Pope is oâ— no force in England c. In the Raigne of King Edward the fourth the opinion of the Kings Bench was that whatsoeuer spirituall man should sue another spirituall maÌ„ in the Court of Rome for a matter spirituall where he might haue remedy beâ—ore his Ordinary within the Realme did incur the danger of â—remunire being an heynons offence against the honour of the King his Crowne and dignity 70. Thus far M. Morton out of Syr Edward Cooke then he addeth Many other examples of like nature I pretermit and remit the Reader desirous to be further satisfied vnto the booke oâ— Reportes habet enim ille quod det dat nemo largiùs For he hath to giue and no man giueth more aboundantly This is his Encomium But what doth he giue truth or falshood sincere or wrested allegatioÌ„s matter to the purpose or impertinent That we shall here now discusse shew that neither the exaÌ„ples themselues are altogeather true as here they are set downe nor if they were yet doe they not prooue the purpose for which they are alleaged And first we shall proue the second which most importeth and it is easily proued 71. For first Syr Edwards purpose obligation was to proue that Q. Elizabeth by force of her temporall Crowne had all manner of Supreme authority in spirituall affaires no lesse then any person euer had did or could exercise in England as the words of the Statute haue alleaged by him and the purpose of M. Morton was as appeareth by the title of his Treatise to improue the Popes supreme authority in Causes Ecclesiasticall So as both their ends and purposes were by different meanes to proue that the Pope had no supreme authority in Ecclesiasticall matters for time past in England the one by ascribing all to the King the other by denying it to the Pope But this purpose of theirs
the barre are straÌ„g yet not so much to be woÌ„dred at as lamented for that there is no hope of redresse And whether Syr Edward himselfe haue beene one of these lawyers and had his share among them proportionable to the â—est or aboue the rest let his neighbours speake and his aboundant wealth lands and lyuings beare witnesse I do not meane to be his accuser but his answerer 59. Only I must say one thing more which I would not haue spoken at this tyme if Syr Edwards last contumelious speach at his departure from Norâ—ich in his publike Charge had not moued me therunto it is this That wheras in that speach to make his auditours merry he brought in an example framed by himselfe as may be supposed of a Prior or Monke that craftily induced a Gentleman to giue part of his lands from his sonne and heire to a Monastery for which act his sayd sonne comming into his sicke Fathers chamber whiles the matter was in doing did by his Fathers leaue beat the monke out of the ChaÌ„ber with good â—udgells which he caryed away with him insted of inheriting the laÌ„ds wherat the Auditory did laugh merrily But I must needs teâ—l Syr Edward not in iest but in very good earnest that â—f either Monke or Priest that is learned in Deuinity of a good coÌ„science should come to him on his death bed to helpe to make his testament according to the old custome for better discharge of his soule in the world to come and should heare but the coÌ„mon speach of people that runneth concerning his greaâ— wealth and hasty getting therof should be bound according to Catholicke religion to seeke further into matters and to tell him another manner of tale in his eare then euer yet he heard about restitutions and satisfactions necessarily vnder payne of euerlasting damnation to be made before his departure out of this life which doctrine if Syr Edward did belieue as all his ancestours did and aduentured their souls therin it may be that amoÌ„g other good works he would resolue himselfe perhaps to giue some laÌ„ds also to Monasteries Hospitals Churches other places of piety â—or satisfactioÌ„ of thinges not so well gotten though he left the lesse to his Sonne and heyre 60. I haue recyted I thinke in some other place occasion a true story that fell out not many yeares agone in the Indies where a great rich man being very sicke and hauing had great trafficke of affayres in his life sent for a Deuine to direct his conscience at his last vpshot who examining his estate found him obnoxious to great restitutions as of some hundreth thousand crownes perhaps which he had gayned vniustly and bestowed in rents and lyuings for his sonne and heire Wherfore the learned man telling him that eyther he must make restitution or be damned quia non dimittitur peccatum nisi restituatur ablatum he answered him that it was vnpossible for that his sonne and whole house would be vtterly decayed therby WheruÌ„to the other answered that theÌ„ it was vnpossible for him to be saued that heerof he did assure him vpon his conscience and skill in Deuinity that there was no other remedy to be taken or help to be had in that case for that no absolution can saue betweene the Priest and his Penitent where is included the interest or hurt of a third Wherat the sicke Father being somwhat astonishedâ— and terrified desired him to deale with his sonne but his sonne would not so much as heare any mention therof but rather was as ready to haue beaten out the sayd Deuine as Syr Edwards yong Gentleman was to beate out the Monke Wherupon the Deuine tooke this resolution to bring him before his Father and told him that vpon his conscience and soule his Father was to go to eternall flames of hell if due restitutioÌ„ were not made but yet that he had thought vpon a certaine meane how some satisfaction might be made wherby God perhaps might be moued to pardon his Father so great extremity of punishment which was that his said sonne should hold his finger but one halfe quarter of an houre in the fire or ouer a Candle therby to deliuer his Father from eternall fyre But he answered that he would not do it for ten tymes so much land as his Father was to leaue him Wherupon the Deuine inferred saying And will yow haue your Father to lye body and soule in eternall fire for these landes and yet will not your selfe suffer halfe a quarter of an houres burning of your finger for ten tymes as much WherupoÌ„ his Father resolued absolutly to make restitutioÌ„ though with no smal abatement of his sonnes estate 61. And now of this example I shall not need to make any application for it is cleere inough of it selfe I do not wish â—uill vnto the temporall state of Syr Edwards sonne and heire whom I know not but rather do heare him commended yet do I wish better vnto the Fathers eternall state of his soule no lesse theÌ„ to myne own And so much of this matter by his own prouocatioÌ„ coÌ„cerning the beating of the MoÌ„ke by the sonne heire for giuing that couÌ„sell to his Father which the prophet Daniel did to one that was heauily loadeÌ„ with sinnes peccata tua cleemosynis redime iniquitates tuas misericordijs pauperuÌ„ sorsitan ignoscet deliâ—tis tuis Deus Redeeme by almes thy synnes and by mercy towards the poore thy iniquities perchaÌ„ce God will pardon therby thy offences But this seemeth but a matter of iest to Syr Edward and so we shall leaue to treate any further therof and passe to peruse the second part of his present Preface wherin he pretendeth by foure cases or questions propounded by the student and answered by himselfe to confirme and establish his precedent assertion of the supereminent antiquity and excellency of our English Municipall lawes aboue all others but especially their antiquity which he doth performe in as strange a maÌ„ner as euer commonly I haue heard man dispute ABOVT FOVRE seuerall questions said 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 §. IIII. SYR Edward hauing set downe before the demaund of his student about the supereminent antiquity of the English Lawes maketh him to say thus That some of another profession are not perswaded that the common lawes of England are of so great antiquity as there in my Preface superlatiuely is spoken In which words no doubt but he meaneth the Catholicke Deuine and then as glad to see some doubt or coÌ„tradiction made therof for him to shew his skill and readines in answering he writeth thus I was right glad to heare of any exception sayth he to the end that such as were not perswaded might eyther be rightly instructed and the truth confirmed or that I might vpon true grounds be
truthes as if the credit of his whole worke consisted vpon the certainty of euery particuler period which if it be true then must it needs inferre a great preiudice to the credit first of the said 6. Part of Syr Edwards Reportes for so much as so many periods haue beene now found false in this very Preface And secondly it cannot but import the like discredit vnto his said fifth part for which he framed his former protestation for that vpon better view of the bookes Statutes lawes by him cyted it is found that he doth not only misalledge many both wordes and texts resolutions and iudgments but peruerteth many other by wrong inferences arguments detorsions and amplifications of his owne quite contrary to his former protestation which now breifly shall be declared more in particuler 82. First then not to iterate againe the number of those many and manifold falshoods vsed by Syr Edward in the cyting of the Charter of King Kenulphus before the Conquest for giuing priuiledge of Sanctuary to the Church of Culâ—am belonging to the Abbey of Abindon both by concealing the wordes that most imported That all was done by the consent and authority of Pope Leo as also the like vnsincere dealing in Iustice Thorps case concerning the question whether it were treason in the â—aigne of K. Edward the first for one subiect to bâ—ing in a Bull of excommunication against another subiect wherof we haue treated in two seuerall precedent Paragraphes of this Chapter and conuinced that there was much false and fraudulent dealing in them both this I say pretermitted we shall note some more examples out of his other instances vnder English kings since the Conquest 83. First he alleageth this instance vnder the Conquerour himselfe not out of any law of his but out of a fact K. VVilliam saith he the first did of himselfe as K. oâ— England make appropriation of Churches with Cure to Ecclesiasticall persons wherof he inferreth that he had Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction and cyteth for the proofe of his assertion 7. Ed. 3. tit Quare impedit 19. which obiection though it be fully and substantially answered by the Deuine shewing sundry and diuers waies and namely foure wherby a lay man may come to haue the collation or appropriation of beneâ—ices yet the booke by him cyted being since that tyme examined it is found that Syr Edward dealt very vnsincerly in alleaging this case to his purpose which maketh wholy against him For this is the case set downe briefly by Brooke in his Abridgement but much more larger by the law-booke it selfe of 7. Ed. 3. fol. 4. 84. In the 7. yeare of King Edward the third by reason of an action of Quare impedit brought against the Deane Chapter two Prebends of the Church of S. Peter of Yorke by the Abbot of Newenham for that they had refused to admit his Clerke presented by him to the Church of T. wherunto he pretended to haue right to present the case was handled in the Kings Bench and the defendants pleading Plenarty for their defence that is to say that the place was full and not voyd for that there was an appropriation or vnion made of the said Church of T. with soke sake that is with the appurtenances vnto the foresaid Church of S. Peter of Yorke and vnto two Prebends of the same by a Charter of King VVilliam the Conquerour and afterward by another of K. Ed. 1. The chiefe Iustice at that tyme named Herle did foure or fiue tymes at least during the discussion of that case giue his iudgement that by law the Conquerour nor K. Edward could not make any such appropriation And of the like opinion were the rest of the Iudges or at least contradicted not the same to wit Syr Iohn Stoner Syr Ioâ—n Cantabridge Syr Iohn Iugge Syr Iohn Shardelow and the rest though two of them spake in the case as may be seene and gathered by reading the booke it selfe and Stouffe and Trew that were of CouÌ„cell of the Plaintife affirmed flatly that no such appropriation could be made by the CoÌ„querour All which the Attorney craftily concealed in his narration of the case to the end that it might be deemed that the iudgemeÌ„t of the Court had beene in K. Edward the thirds tyme vnder whome this case was handled that the Conquerour might according to the coÌ„mon-law make an appropriation by his letters patent And is this good dealing euen in the very first case which he proposeth aâ—ter the Conquest 85. After this he passeth ouer all the Conquerours lyfe and six other kings ensuing as VVilliam Rufus Henry the first K. Stephen Henry the second Richard the first and K. Iohn fynding no one example among all those Kings actions lawes or orders that might seeme to haue any shew of spirituall IurisdictioÌ„ but only that in the lyfe of K. H. 1. he alleageth a Charter of the said King wherin he as founder of the Abbey of Reading doth appoynt out certayne orders and lawes about the temporalityes of that Abbey a thing very iust and lawfull for all founders to doe by their owne right and consequently maketh nothing to the purpose of our questioÌ„ of Ecclesiastical power and moreouer the Deuine proueth by diuers examples that sundry Popes were wont to giue faculty to Princes and other founders to prescribe spirituall priuiledges for diuers pious workes erected by them which the Popes themselues would afterward confirme and ratify so as this also was a fraud in M. Attorney to alleage so impertinent an example but it sheweth his pouerty and barennesse in examples of those yeares which being aboue 150. vnder 7. kings as hath beene said he could fynd but these two poore examples nothing prouing the purpose to bring forth in all this tyme wheras if he would looke ouer the tyme since K. Henry the 8. tooke vpon him indeed Ecclesiasticall authority by vertue of his temporall Crowne and the other three Princes who in that haue followed him whole volumes might be written of examples and presidents giuen therin of practising spirituall power wherby it is euident that those former Princes from the CoÌ„quest downward were not of the opinion and iudgement of these later Princes and that Syr Edward doth but squeese and strayne them to make them say or signify somewhat which they neuer meant indeed and this iniquity is not the least in the Attorneys proceeding in this matter and yet doth M. Morton say of him as you haue heard exhorting euery man to resort vnto Syr Edwards storehouse for aboundance of good proofes saying habet ille quod det dat nemo largius he hath store to giue and no man giueth more liberally Now then we shall peruse some of his store 86. Vnder K. Edward 1. he alleageth this instance for proofe of his supposed Ecclesiasticall IurisdictioÌ„ that when Pope Gregory the tenth had determined in a Councell at Lyons Bigamos omni priuilegio
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