speciall time when odious cruelty raged against all Christians And then immediatly addeth ô Philosophum adulatorem ac tempori seruientem O flattering Philosopher and tymeseruer A fit encomium for such an enterprise And with the same will I leaue you M. Morton and â—nd the relation of this history permitting vnto your self or to your Reader to apply so much thereof vnto you as the likenes of your cases and factes doth deserue Only I must say that the malice in taking hold of the circumstance of tyme sâ—â—meth so very lyke and coÌ„forme as I cannot douâ—t but that as many Hâ—athen men then otherwise modest and morally honest tooke compasâ—ioÌ„ of the afflicted Christians and detested the afflictâ—r so many Protestants in our case would do the same wherof my selfe can be witnesse of some And thus much for this second point The third thing that excited me to be more sharpe sometimes with you was your manner of writing so exorbitaÌ„t in diuers respects as I neuer lightly read the like but especially in professing sinceritie with great vehemencie when you could not but probably know that you had or did and would deceiue wherof there are so many examples as there are witting falsities couinâ—ed against you in this subsequent Worke. Your â—auntes in like manner are wonderfull extrauaâ—ant and prouocatory as we haue now heard out â—f your new Challenges repeated in part in the recedent Epistle I will pretermit diuers other excesses and â—erlashings in your booke which cannot but â—timulate your Answerer to some sharpnes in â—â—iting As for example where pag 29. yow â—ite of me thus I do professe vnfeignedly â—t I neuer found any writer of any profesâ—â—n whatsoeuer who hath vsed such shameâ—â—l frauâ— in answering and â—et except you haue 〈◊〉 your selfe you haue found one of your owne pâ—â—fession I mâ—ane your selfe that hath vsed nâ— tymes more you being most euidently conâ—â—cted thereof in this my reâ—ly and no one fraud 〈◊〉 faâ—â—hood in all the worke being able to be veriâ—â—ed against mâ— as experience will teach him â—â—at will take the paynes to peruse these our Recâ—onings Againe pag 43. you begynning to speake â—f the lye of Saphyra which she made to S. Peter in the Actes of the Apostles and supposing yt to be an Equiuocation which I deny you say in the title of the Paragraph that I my selfe do flatly ouerthrow therby my whole defence of mentall Equiuocation which say you is made so euident as no wit of man can possibly excuse it And yet when the matter commeth to be tried euery meane wit may easely perceaue that you vnderstood not or mistooke of purpose the question as afterward in this Answere is declared And yet do you insult strangly saying Where is now P.R. c. where is this Man the new select Aduocate for this cause May he not say hereafter I was ashamed and therfore hid my selfe so naked doth his deformity appeare And yet further you say He being pressed with this example out of Scripture to wit of Saphyra her speach to S. Peter is driuen into such a vertigo and giddines that euen when he would defend his art of Equiuocating from a lye he is by consequence from Gods word forced to confesse that there is an outward speach which noe clause of Reseruation can saue from a lye wherby his owne Magi I doubt not wil be brought to acknowledge that Digitus Dei est hic this is the power of Gods truth This is the adoe you make M. Morton about this example of Saphyra adding also presently that by this you haue obtained your whole cause But in truth you haue obtained to make your selfe ridiculous therby as you handle it For what is there in this matter that should cause me to runne away and hyde my selfe as you do feigne and not dare to appeare when you call so earnestly vpon me What haue you proued What haue you conuinced against me You say that her words to S. Peter I haue sould it for no more was no lesse an Equiuocation then to say I am no Priest But I deny it and do say it was a lye and no Equiuocation For that she had obligation to vtter the truth to S. Peter that was her lawfull Iudge and so hath not the Priest that is demanded by him who is not his lawfull Iudge You say that I being pressed with this example out of Scripture froÌ„ Gods Wordâ— am forced to confesse an outward speach which no clause of reseruation can saue from a lye Wherto I answere that no force of example froÌ„ Gods Word is needfull for this For euer it was graunted and so must be that there be infinite outward speaches which no mentall reseruation caÌ„ saue from lyes if there be obligation to tell the truth as in the case of Saphyra there was And therefore for you to bring in the Magi wondering here at the power of God inforcing me to such a vertigo is both Comicall and ridiculous indeed And yet by the way I must further put you in mindâ— that you do deliuer me heere from a contradiction and inuolue your selfe in a falshood vnanswerable in reciting of these words of mine For that before in your Epistle to my selfe you recite my Confession thus That there is a meÌ„tall Equiuocation which no clause of reseruation can saue from a lye And here you say I am forced to confesse an outward speach which no clause of reseruation can saue from a lye Betweene which two recitalls there is great difference as before we haue shewed no lesse then betweene truth and falshood So as if you write truly heere you spake falsely before and if truly before then falsely now And thus much haue I byn inforced to admonish you of at this time by the peruersity of your owne words and manner of writing Many other things I should haue to warne M. Morton of in this point concerning his maÌ„ner of stile in writing sed nescio an possit portare modò I would be loath to be imâ—ortune he is to heare them afterwards in the coÌ„bat and concertatioÌ„ it selfe Only I cannot omit to say a word or two about his Epistle Dedicatorie to the Earle of Salisbury and therewith make an end of this admonition He beginneth his narration thus I therfore esteemed it my dutie in presence of your Honour by this Preamble to sponge out such vile imputations wherewith my Aduersary indeauoured through me alas one of the least of the Prophets to distaine both my Mother and her Sister the famous Vniuersities and those Honorable Persons vnto whose care and prouidence they â—re committed So he Wherby you see this litâ—le Prophet will needes interpret the imputations â—f false dealing laid against himselfe by through â—im to fall vpon the two Vniuersities his Motâ—er â—nd Aunt and other Honourable Persons that â—aue the care and gouernment of them which is â—ot needfull at all For that as the
Scripture â—ith The Sonne shall not beare the iniquitie of â—â—e Father nor the Father of the Sonne but eâ—â—ry one must answere for himselfe let vs seâ—â—â—en how M. Morton doth performe this point â—â—en then saith he when I was in greatest â—â—â—lousie of mine owne myscarriage I conceiâ—â—d a double matter of comfort First from â—â— selfe that knowing I durst present my â—â—plications vnto the Iudge of the secret â—â—ughts of all hartes I doubted not but that â—ng able with true confidence to appeare â—ore God I should not greatly feare the â—â—sure of man This is one defence more Rhetoricall then reall 〈◊〉 how could he dare with such confidence appeare before God with the burthen of so many â—ntruthes as afterward you will see conuinced â—â—ainst him especially in the three last Chapters â—f this our Answere And if he be not able to â—efend them before man how will he iustifie theÌ„â—efore God Let vs see his second defence for this first standeth only vpon his owne confidence SecoÌ„dly saith he from my aduersary tooke I matter of comfort presuming that he that would write in defence of mentall Equiuocation would be found to equiuocate in writing also This you see is but a presumption and that a very poore one For as a man may write of warre and yet not fight and of Agriculture or husbandry and yet neither plow nor sow So may he write of Equiuocation and yet not Equiuocate and Equiuocate also and yet not lye So as this could be but a silly comfort for M. Morton to presuppose and hope that I would Equiuocate in writing of Equiuocation which was not needfull And if I had yet might I do it without lying and so nothing therby haue relieued his case that was so deeply charged with that fault And finally if I had bene able to be conuinced of any point in that kind as afterward you will see that I was not yet S. Augustines rule is Quod societas peccantium auget potiùs quà m excusat peccatum Fellowship in sinne increaseth rather then excuseth the fault Though truly it may seâ—me that M. Morton would highly esteeme this fellowship with me if he could bring it about and thinke himselfe well defended if he could attaine it Which I am lead to belieue not only by his labour diligence solicitude therin but by the last Conclusion of his forâ—named Epistle to my self which he endeth thus for an vpshoot I may thinke saith he the Scripture verified vpon you where it is thus written Therfore art thou inexcusable O man whosoeuer thou be that iudgest for doing the same thinges by iudging an other thou condemnest thy selfe Out of which text of the Apostle M. Morton would proue that I doing the same things with him in this point of fraud and false dealing I cannot condemne him without condemning also my selfe which consequence I grant but deny the antecedent Which I assure my self M. Morton will neuer be able to proue in any one point of moment throughout this whole concertation of ours himselfe being taken faultie almost at euery turne as you will see And yet doth he vaunt as though his integritie were extraordinary in this behalfe telling vs that as the Greeke CoÌ„maunder being in appaâ—aÌ„ce mortally wounded demanded of his souldiers whether the Citie were safe whether his â—uckler or shield were sound and being saâ—isfied in them receiued health and after beâ—ame victorious So he vnder so ghastly wouÌ„ds â—f my penne hauing generally inquired â—prightly answered himself that his cause was â—afe and his conscience sound began more resolutely to confront me Thus you see that he hath cleared himselfe is become victorious vpon a suddayne by force of a similitude only And in truth the tale is pretily told by him in wordes but let vs come to the substance of the things If M. Mortons cause be so safe and his conscience so sound how do there stand togeather afterward in the sixt Chapter of this my Answere aboue thirty vntruths pretended to haue bin wittingly pretermitted by him in his last Preamblatorie Reply as vnanswerable now aboue fiftie more newly added out of the said Reply which are set downe in my seauenth Chapter If these can be really defended by him he doth somewhat And for diuers of them he ought to haue done it before But if they cannot as I assure my selfe without making of more new they cannot then is neither M. Mortons cause safe nor his conscience sound in this behalfe Nay his sheild and buckler is vtterly broken and his Cittie of refuge quite ouerthrowne But he promiseth vs a more forcible EncouÌ„ter to ensue after he hath discharged his part in another taske of more importaÌ„ce in the Answere of the Catholicke Apologie which saith he by this calumnious Treatise of P. R. his Mitigation as by an aduerse tempest hath receiued some interruption And by this you see that M. Morton is still doing whether well or euill God knoweth I maruaile he feareth not the scratch due to his ytch wherof he speaketh in his Preamble For if out of Germanie there come that multitude of scratches that is threatned by him whose letter I haue mentioned in the latter end of this Answere do ioyne themselues with these scratches of myne both old and new that do march togeather in this my answere against him they are like to make a great squadron And M. Morton will haue his hands full in defending himselfe from them and in procuring that of scratches and scarres they do not beâ—ome deeper wounds vnto his credit But indeed I do not expâ—ct any such new Encounter as he promisâ—th For if he had reallie meant it and had seene himselfe able to performe it he would haue answered substantially in this Preamble some of the chiefest difficulties that were laid against him to the end to make his Reader belieue that he would be able to satisfie the rest in the said promised EncouÌ„ter But not doing this but shewing rather his extrâ—me weaknes in clearing any one point obiected against him it seemeth but a iest to talke of a new Encounter to come And as for answering the Catholicke Apoâ—ogie which he saith he is in hand withall as 〈◊〉 taske of more importance I do easely graunt 〈◊〉 if he can performe his taske well But M. Morton well knoweth the Topicall place à maâ—ori ad minus è conuerso If he haue not â—yn able to performe lesser matters nor defend the things by himselfe written either in Latin or English but by so many vntruthes as haue bin exhibited against him what will he be able to do in another mans worke especially of such moment difficulty as the said Apologie is where he must answere to other mens sayings especially ProtestaÌ„ts out of whose testimonies the Author of that Apologie doth so clerely conâ—ute their Religion and conâ—irme the Catholicke if I mistake not the worke as neuer any booke
ascribe vnto me all those odious characters which M. Morton before hath layd to my charge 89. And for more cleare conceauing the matter you must know that M. Morton who in this his preamble would make some shew of probable defeÌ„ce in some few accusations of many great and heinous layd against him for falsity hath thought good to choose out this example of Otho Frisingensis from the midst of two other much more greiuous then this the one of falsifying and abusing Cardinall Bellarmine immediatly going before and the other of Lamberâ—us SchasnaburgeÌ„sis immediatly following after wherof the â—ormer he attempteth not at all to answere the oâ—her he seeketh to shake of afterwards but in vaine â—s you will see when we come to the place of exaâ—inatioÌ„ And heere this being a speciall place choâ—en by him for defending his truth and impugning â—yne he shoud haue touched them togeather as â—hey lye togeather in my booke but that as one acâ—used and brought before a Iustice for theft or falâ—â—ood will be loath to haue many matters disclosed â—â—geather but rather to answere one in one place â—nd another in another for that many ioyntly â—â—geather would giue suspition and credit the one 〈◊〉 the other so dealeth heere M. Morton not so much 〈◊〉 mentioning the first and the third which are the â—ore greiuous but singling out that which lay in â—â—e midst which notwithstanding he can no way 〈◊〉 truth of plaine dealing defend as now you shall 〈◊〉 Thus then lyeth my Charge against him in â—y former booke The charge by P. R. â—0 In the very next page say I after the abuses â—ffered to Cardinall Bellarmines alleadged testimony M. Morton talking of the great and famous contention â—hat passed betweene Pope Gregorie the 7. called Hildeâ—rand and Henry the 4. Emperour of that name â—bout the yeare 1070. he cyteth the Historiograâ—her Otto Frisingensis with this ordinary title Of our Otto for that he writeth that he found not any Emperour actually excommunicated or depriued of â—is kingdome by any Pope before that tyme except saith he that may be esteemed for an excommunication which was done to Philip the Emperour by the Bishop of Rome almost 1400. yeares agone when for a short tyme he was inter poenitentes collocatus placed by the said Pope among those that did pennance as that also of the Emperour Theodosius who was sequestred froÌ„ entring into the Church by S. Ambrose for that he had commanded a certayne cruell slaughter to be committed in the Citty of Thessalonica both which exceptions though set downe by the authour Frisingensis this Minister of simple truth leaueth out of purpose which is no simplicity as yow see but yet no great matter with him in respect of the other that ensueth which is that he alleageth this Frisingensis quite contrary to his owne meaning as though he had condemned Pope Gregorie the 7. for it wheras he condemneth that cause of the Emperour and commendeth highly the Pope for his constancy in punishing the notorious intolerable faultes of the said Henry Hildebrandus saith he semper in Ecclesiastico vigore constantissimus suit Hildebrand was euer the most constant in defending the rigour of Ecclesiasticall discipline And agayne in this very Chapter heere alledged by T. M. Inter omnes Sacerdotes Romanos Pontifices praecipui zeli et auctoritatis fuit He was among all the Priestes and Popes that had byn of the Roman Sea of most principall zeale and authority How different is this iudgment of Frisingensiâ— from the censure of T. M. who now after fiue hundred yeares past coÌ„pareth the cause of Pope Gregory to that of pyrates theeues and murtherers and so cyteth our Otto Frisingensis as though he had fauoured him in this impious assertioÌ„ Can any thing be more frauduleÌ„tly alleadged Is this the assurance of his vpright conscience wherof he braggeth to his Maiestie 91. But the next fraud or impudeÌ„cie or rather impudeÌ„t impiety is that which ensueth within foure lynes after in these wordes Pope Gregorie the seauenth saith your Chronographer was excoÌ„municate of the Bishops of Italy for that he had defamed the Apostolicke Sea by Simony and other capitall â—rimes and then citeth for proofe heerof Lambertus Schafnaburg anno 1077. As if this our Chronographer had related this as a thing of truth or that it were approued by him not rather as a slanderous obâ—ection cast out by his aduersaries that followed the part of Henry the Emperour â—2 Hitherto I haue thought good to recite my wordes which are some few lynes more then M. Morton cyteth in his booke for that you should see the connectioÌ„ of things togeather to wit how these obiected falsities about alledging af Frisingensisâ—re â—re craftily culled out froÌ„ between the examples before cited of Bellarmine and Lambertus but yet in this place we shall handle onely that which M. Morton hath made choice of to be treated and discussed to wit whether my former Charge against him for abusing the Authoritie of Otto Frisingensis be rightfull and well founded or not for that he that shall read this reply of M. Morton will thinke that he hath iniurie offered him for that I had guylfully vrged matters against him further then truth and reason would require and therfore he noteth against me in his argument these wordes Foure excellent trickes of falshood in one page which after we shall discusse and shew them to be rather fraudes and shiftes of his then trickes of myne Now then let vs come to the examination of this Charge which of vs is to be found in falsity and still I must aduise the reader that to the end he may receaue some vtility by this coÌ„fereÌ„ce he haue an eye to the spirit of false dealing and not so much to errours of ouersight and this he shall easily descry if he stand attent to the discussion THE EXAMINATION OF this controuersie more at large § IX FIRST vnto my whole Charge before layd downe M. Morton answereth thus In my full Satisfaction saith he parte 3. cap. 11. pag. 28. that which was intended to be proued was this that not till 1000. yeares after Christ did euer any Prelatâ— or Pope atteÌ„pt the deposing of Emperours and depriuing them of their Crownes For proofe heerof I brought in the testimony of Otto Frisingensis from the witnes of Tolosanus lib. 26. de Repub. cap. 5. in these wordes I read and read againe fynd that Pope Hildebrand in the yeare 1060. was the first Pope that euer depriued an Emperour of his Regiment wherin now haue I wronged my conscience Is it because Otto Frisingensis is cyted coÌ„trary to his meaning yet could it not preiudice my conscience because I cyted not the authour himselfe but only Tolosanus a Romish Doctour who reported that sentence of Frisingensis 94. This is the first part of his answere which is so full of wyles sleightes shiftes as doth easily shew the disposition
to vse any Equiuocation when we are iustly demauÌ„ded by our lawfull Superiour and when no iniury or violence is vsed vnto vs is a greiuous mortall synne in our Catholicke doctrine and consequently she being lawfully dâ—maunded by S. Peter in a lawfull cause touching her owne vow promise no clause of reseruation could saue her speach from lying as our Minister doth foolishly imagine 26 Wherfore S. Peter as most lawfull Iudge and gouernour of the Vniuersall Church vnder Christ and the holy ghost in him did worthily punish that dissimulation and lying boâ—h in her and her huâ—baÌ„d for example of others in that beginning and for manifesting the great and speciall assistance of the holy ghost that assisted him should be in his successors to the worlds end in that their gouernment to the terrour of wicked men that should impugne it or otherwise deserue by their demerits to be punished by the same And thus much of his examples out of Scriptures which is but one as you see that much against himselfe his owne cause if I be not deceaued for that it proueth all Equiuocation is not lawâ—ull as he will needs suppose vs to hold 27. This was my discourse then Now let vs sâ—e how M. Morton doth ouerthrow my whole Treatise of Equiuocation out of this speach of myne and that with such euidency as no wit of man can possibly excuse me He beginneth his impugnation thus The supposed Equiuocation of the woman Saphyra saith he was this I haue sold it but for so much reseruing in her mynd for ought that you shall know which is agreable to their owne example of Equiuocation I am no Priest meaning to tell it you This later P. R. hath defended throughout his whole booke and now of the other he is inforced by the word of truth to say that it is a lye and that no clause of reseruation could saue it from a lye from whence it shall inuincibly follow that Priestes Equiuocation is a Satanicall lye these two speaches being so semblable in themselues as if he should say they differ then must the difference be eyther in respect of the speaâ—ers or in respect of the hearers This is his discourse â—alking much of the word of truth and the child of truth â—nd continuing still to promise what he will do what he will proue but as yet he proueth nothing He saith it will follow inuincibly that to answere I â—m no Priest to an incompetent Iudge if I be a Priest â—s a Satanicall lye for that such was the answere of â—aphyra vnto S. Peter I haue sold my possession for so much â—ith this reseruation of mind to tell you or to conferre â—n common But first how doth he proue that she had â—his meaning of reseruation in her mind It is but â— Mortons imagination to ascribe it vnto her for it â—ay more probably be thought that she had neuer â—ny such cogitation to make her speach lawfull by â—eseruation but absolutly to lye Which is most conâ—orme to the text it selfe of holy Scripture where it â—s said by S. Peter to Ananias Cur tentauit Satanas cor tuâ—m mentiri Spiritui Sancto Wherefore hath Sathan tempted thy hart to ly vnto the Holy ghost And againe Thou hast not lyed to men but to God Wherby it is euident that his and his wiues intention was to lye and to defraud the coÌ„munity of a part of their lands and that they had no cogitation at all of speaking a truth auoyding of lying by Equiuocation as the Priest hath and so haue all those that meane lawfully and with a good consciencâ— to couer a truth which they are not bound to vtter which properly we call equiuocation so as whosoeuer hath not this intentioÌ„ as it is to be supposed that Ananias Saphyra had not he doth not equiuocate but lye Which being so it is very great simplicity to abstaine froÌ„ a worse word for M. Morton to found his whole discourse vpon this matter and especially so vaine and vaunting a discourse as this is only vpon his owne supposall that the woman Saphyra had intention to equiuocate which if I deny as iustly I may all this glorious building falleth to the grouÌ„d But yet not to cut him of so short and put him to a non plus vpon the suddaine I am content to doe him this pleasure as to suppose with him that the poore woman might haue some such reseruation in her mind as M. Morton imagineth to wit that as the Priest saith truly I am no Priest with obligation to tell it you so shee might meane that I haue sold it for no more to acquaint you withall and then I say albeit we should admit this supposall it is denied by vs flatly that these two examples are alike as now I haue declared the one being vnlawfull the other not And what inuincible argumeÌ„t hath M. Morton thinke you now to proue that they are all one And that of the Priest to be as vnlawfull as the other of the woman You shall heare 28. If you say quoth he that they differ then must the difference be eyther in respect of the speakers or of the hearers We answere that of both for in the behalfe of the speaker there was obligation in Saphyra to answere the truth and in the hearer lawfull authority to demaund it for that he was lawfull Iudge but neither of these two things are in the Priest that is vnlawfully examined by the incoÌ„petent Iudge For that as the said Iudge is no Iudge consequently hath no authority to demaund matters preiudiciall to the party examined so hath the other no obligation to answere directly to his intention or interrogatory And what hath now M. Morton to reply to these so euident and important differences that make the one answere lawfull the other a lye 29. Surely it is a pittifull thing to see how he is puzled in this matter and would faine say somewhat and can find nothing wheron he may subsist or rest himselfe For first he beginneth with the person of the woman that is the speaker that did vnlawfully equiuocate vnto S. Peter comparing her to the person of the Priest that lawfully saith vnto â—n incompetent Iudge I am no Priest and findeth no â—reater difference betweene them but first that she 〈◊〉 a woman and he is a man and then that it is as possible â—r a Priest to lye as for a woman to tell truth But he dissemâ—leth the maine differeÌ„ce now mentioned that she â—ad obligatioÌ„ to tell the truth without equiuocatioÌ„ â— he not which is the substantiall differeÌ„ce indeed Heere theÌ„ is no plaine dealing to falter so manifestly â—n the very principall point that most imported â—0 Secondly he passeth to the person of the heaâ—er or Iudge and sayth there can be no difference â—etweene the two cases in that respect whether â—hey be competent or incompetent and this he pretendeth â—o proue out
Constantinople 41 The second opinioÌ„ is of Cardinall Bellarmine Geneâ—â—ard some others who thinke that the errour was not so much in mistaking Councell for Councell as fact for fact for that some Iconoclastes and especialy those that wrote the forsaid forged bookes named Carolini in Franckeford during the tyme of the said Councell had falsely informed the Councell in two poynts of fact against the Councell of Nice The â—irst that it was not gathered nor confirmed by the Bishop of Rome the second that it had decreed Images to be worshipped with diâ—ine honor and the same that was due vnto the blessed Trinity vpon which two false suppositions the Councell of Nice being farre of and the Treatises and Decrees therof written only as yet in Greeke and not much published to the world and latin Church the Councell of Franckeford condemned the doctrine as also the Authority of the Councell vpon the foresayd two misinformations which was errour of fact as hath byn said and not of faith And M. Morton doth fondly insult when he biddeth his aduersary P. R. to tell him in good earnest if the Fathers of the Councell of Frankeford iudging that the second Councell of Nice confirmed by the Pope did erre in defending the vse of Images did they erre in faith or no Wherunto I answere that they erred in fact not in faith as hath beene said being informed that the Councell of Nice had determined that which it had not indeed to wit diuine honour to be giuen to imageâ— For if they of Frankeford had knowne the truth as also bene certaine that the other of Nice had decreed and established only due and reuerent worship such as had bene vsed in the Church the Councell of FraÌ„kford would not haue contradicted it as neither if they had knowne that the Pope had confirmed that Councell would they euer haue doubted of the Authority therof as is euident by the Caroline bookes theÌ„selues And it is witting errour heere in M. Mort. to say that they of Frankeford knew that the Councell of Nice was confirmed by the Pope for that the Caroline Bookes themselues euen as they are set out by the Centurians do vse that for a principall argumeÌ„t â—n the behalfe of the Councell of Frankeford to imâ—ugne the Nicene Councell for that they supposed â—hat said Nicene CouÌ„cell was not coÌ„firmed by Adrianâ—he â—he Pope wherin they were deceaued by false inforâ—ation I meane those of Franckeford but Mortonâ—ould â—ould deceaue vs by craft and subtility â—2 The third opinion is of Vasquez and other â—earned men that this determination against the â—se of Images was not at all made by the Councell â—f Franckeford but by some other Conciliabulum of Icoâ—clastes that at the same time were at Franckeford or â—eâ—re about especially the Authors of the foresaid â—ookes Carolini which being craftily dispersed came 〈◊〉 the hands of Pope Adrian who sent them backe â—gaine confuted to Charles that was not yet Empeâ—ur but made within few yeares after by Pope Leâ—â—â—e â—â—e third who would neuer haue yealded saith â—asquez to that aduancement of his if he had â—hought him any way spotted with the heresie of Iâ—â—oclastes condemned by his predecessour and the â—ouncell of Nice so lately before â—3 These three coniecturall opinions then being â—eld by sundry Catholicke writers vpon different â—rounds how doth M. Morton out of such variety of â—udgments inferre that they speake wilfull vntruth 〈◊〉 their owne consciences or are guilty of witting â—â—d voluntary falshood as he is bound to inferre â—r els he saith nothing to the purpose Can there be â—ny greater absurdity then this to promise wilfull falshood and then to alleadge only diuersity of opinions Surely if his Reader blush not for him I do and so will passe to an other example HIS FOVRTH example of like falshoodes vainely obiected against the same Authors about the Epistle of S. Epiphanius touching Images §. V. FROM these two shaddowes of some scrappes out of two Prouinciall Councels he leapeth to a place of S. Epiphanius in a certayne Epistle of his where he writeth of himself That entring into a Church at a place called Anablath to pray and perceyuing a curtaine wherin was a picture as if it had byn the Image of Christ or some Saint he tooke the Curtaine and rent it as being a thing contrary to the authority of the Scriptures This is the story as M. Morton setteth it downe and then presently for answering therof he putteth all our writers into a great warre among themselues bringing them in forth and backe this way and that way the one opposing the other answering the third moderating the fourth crossing and himselfe stickling betwene them by interlacing some wordes heere and there will needs make himselfe the head of the fray 45. And this is so fond a thing as euery GraÌ„merscholler might do it for he needeth but to go to Bellarmines works especially to Vasquez who wrote after him of the controuersy of Images and there shall he fynd all variety of opinions set downe with their Authours and places quoted And from these hath M. Morton furnished himselfe to make the muster that heere he doth without any further studdy or labour then to go to our foresaid Authors of their obiections make affirmatiue assertions and of their assertions for vs make objections against vs. 46. But heere againe is to be noted as before that whatsoeuer difference of opinions there be or may be among Catholicke writers of controuersy about the true meaning of S. Epiphanius in this place yet is it nothing at all to M. Mortons purpose who is bound to proue that they wrote against their owne knowledge and conscience which I suppose were hard to do for that euery man must be presumed to haue written according as his iudgement gaue him and consequently that all this which M. Morton hath so studiously gathered togeather is nihil ad rhombum nothing to the purposeâ— and therfore I could not but laugh when I read his conclusioÌ„ of this instance saying That if P. R. shall desyre â—yue hundreth instances of this kind I bynd my selfe saith he vnto him by a faithfull protestation in a moneths warning to satisfy him Which I beleeue yea if it were fiue thousand in a weekes warning for he needeth no more but to go to the foresaid bookes of our Catholicke authors opening them laying them before his aduersarie and they will furnish him at large when the state of the question is such as it admitteth variety of opinions or diuersity of iudgements about any poynt or circuÌ„stance therof 47. As for the controuersy in hand about S. Epiphanius fact and meaning related in the end of his Epistle to Iohn of Hierusalem that seemeth to make against Images though diuers learned men do expound the matter diuersly some thinking that it was a clause added by some heretikes amongst the Iconoclastes wherof both Bellarmine Valentia
Who would thinke then that a man of coÌ„mon sense or of any meane modesty care of his credit would haue alleaged Azor so coÌ„fidently against his aduersary as M. Morton doth that which is most ridiculous so to insult against him as he doth against me here saying P. R. maÌ„teineth that his mentall reseruation is a truth but Azorius concludeth that it is a lye And can there be any greater coÌ„tradiction theâ— this Hath he any shadow of excuse by ignorance of the Author and place No for he hath alledged this Author vpon this question of Equiuocation foure tymes Is he helped by difâ—erence of translations or editions Noe he will not pretend this Therfore no euasion can saue him and therby any man may discerne what credit such wretched Equiuocators may deserue So M. Morton 74. Wherto I answere that not only foure times but perhapps twice foure times haue I alleaged the authority of Azor for the lawfull vse of Equiuocation against M. Morton and in diuers of them he hath byn so manifestly conuinced of witting willing falshood as there is no deâ—ence or excuse to be had Nay he doth not so much as pretend any defence therof hitherto nor I thinke shall I find any of theÌ„ defended by him in the ensuing Chapter though it be expressely deputed to this argument to answering diuers manifest and wilfull vntruthes layd to his chrage Wherfore to say as he doth heer that I haue no shadow of excuse by ignorance of the Author and place c. is only to intertaine talke and to seeme to â—ay somwhat for I am not charged with any thing that requireth excuse but he is conuinced of voluntary concealing of fiue or six different Cases resolued against him by Azor as you haue heard and passed ouer by M. Morton as if he had not seene them so as euery one of them includeth a witting fraud in him that admitteth no excuse Let vs come to his second learned Iesuite whome he bringeth in for deniyng of Equiuocation which you shall see to be no lesse contrary vnto him then the former and especially to teach Equiuocation to be lawfull in the very places alleadged by M. Morton M. MORTON His second witnesse falsely pretended against Equiuocation is the Doctor Iesuite Emanuel Sà §. XIII A SECOND witnesse saith M. Morton conuincing P. R. of falshood is the authority of Emanuel Sà a famous learned Iesuit among Casuists as heere he is called whose wordes are set downe thus out of his Aphorismes Quidam dicunt c. Some there be who say that he who is not bound to answere to the intention of the examiner may answere by reseruation of some thing in his owne mynd to witt that it is not so that is to say so as he is bound to vtter it vnto him or that he hath not such or such a thing to wit to giue it vnto him Albeit others do not admit this manner of answering and peraduenture vpon better reason then the former Thus far Emanuel Sà alleaged also as M. Morton saith by his former aduersary the moderate Answerer But how truly and sincerly M. Morton here dealeth with him in this behalf we shall see presently after Now is to be considered what he doth inferre out of this authority against Equiuocation in generall for thus he maketh his inference vpon the recited text Thus far Emanuel Sà saith he confessing hereby that diuers Catholike Authors haue contradicted this equiuocating sorgerie which P. R. hath auouched that no Catholike writer did euer contradict Is it possible that my aduersary can free himself from a falsity corroding the conscience 76. Wherto I answere that euen now it shal be tried who hath a corroded Conscience in this matter he or I and let the Reader stand attent for that M. Morton maie not escape vntill he haue satisfied somwhat First then my assertion was that no Catholike writer within the time by him ascribed of the last foure hundred yeares hath byn â—ound to deny absolutely all Equiuocation without exception albeit in particuler Cases as this is here proposed by Emanuel Sà some School-doctors were of one opinion and some of another some more strait and some more large The Case proposed heere by Emanuel Sà is of a man that hath no obligation to answere to the intention of him that demaundeth whether he may answere with Equiuocation or noe and say that it is not so vnderstanding with obligation to tell it you or I haue it not to giue vnto you In which particuler Case he saith that some men do not admit that kind of answere but for so much as he hath no obligatioÌ„ to answere any thing at all he is bound either to hold his peace or tell the truth And perhaps saith he this later opinion is the better fortè potiori ratione non admittunt So as heere he speaketh but by perhaps that a man may not equiuocate in this Case which word perhaps M. Morton craftily omitted and indeed in the last edition of his booke at Rome 1607. this whole last sentence was left out as though he had chaâ—ged his opinion But howsoeuer this be this is but one particuler Case of Equiuocation as hath byn said and M. Morton could not but know it and consequently doth vse notable fraud when vpon the different opinions of some Schoole doctors in this speciall Case when a man is not bound to answere he would inferre as here he doth that diuers Catholick authors do contradict and deny Equiuocation in generall that is to say all kind of Equiuocation in what case soeuer 77. And that M Morton could not choose but know this to be a fraud consequeÌ„tly the fraud to be wilfull is euident for that in the very next foure lynes going imediately before the former alleaged words Emanuel Sà doth resolue two other Cases wherin a man might equiuocate saying Petenti quae ei reddidisti potâ—s negare te accepisse c. if a man that had left some pledge with you and you had restored the same to him againe he should afterwards demand the same the second tyme and presse you with an oath about the same you might lawfully deny that you had receiued any such pledg vnderstaÌ„ding in your mynd that you receiued it not in such sort as you are bouÌ„d now to restore it And againe if a man saith he should demand the whole sâ—me of money wherof he had receiued backe a part you might deny the said petition saying that you owe it not vnderstanding of the whole or of so much as he wroÌ„gfully demaÌ„deth So as in both these Cases Emanuel Sà confesseth that Equiuocation may be vsed as you see And how then is he brought in heere by M. Morton as a witnesse denying all Equiuocation or at leastwise as saying that there are diuers opinions about the same which is in part also false for that Emanuel
Azor If he doubt therof willingly he is certainly an hereticke But by our Ministers leaue Azor addeth more Quoties quis voluntariè perâ—inaciter de fide dubitat eo ipso est Haereticus As often as a man doth doubt willingly and obstinatly of his faith he is thereby an hereticke For that faith is a sure and certaine assent of mind vnto those things that are to be belieued and he that willingly and obstinatly doubteth of the truth therof â—an not haue this firme and perfect assent and consequently hath no fayth during the tyme of this wilfull and obstinate doubting 10. And that yow may vnderstaud of what importance this word Pertinaciter is that this maâ— cuÌ„ningly so cutteth out of Azor his words yow must know that he in the very same Chapter holdeth that if a man doubt without pertinacity being ready to submit his iudgment when he shal be instructed in the truth incurreth not heresie at all So as heere the most substantiall word is left out and craftily conueyed away by our deuider of tongues wherby the Author is made to say the quite opposyte to that he sayth and protesteth 11. These were my words at that tyme. And now let the iudicious Reader iudge what cause I had to complaine as I did and yet got no satisfaction of M. Morton at all though the title of his former booke was a full Satisfaction and this later Preamble was cast out for a supply or complement to the said Satisfaction Did not this obiection deserue to be satisfyed before diuers other trifles wherwith you haue heard him now to fill vp paper and intertaine his Reader Let vs go forward THE THIRD Pretermitted falshood by Thomas Morton §. III. AND for that we haue begone to talke of Azor whome M. Morton some tymes will seeme highly to esteeme wee shall cyte an example or two of his abuse towards him which is sâ—t downe in my Treatise about a Case of comming from a Citty infected or belieued to be infâ—cted in these wordes 13. The first Case shal be quoth I that which our Mynister so often proposeth and odiously doth exaggerate about Couentry saying That our English Equiuocators do teach that if a man come from Couentry for exaÌ„ple which towne is held to be infected with the plague himselfe dwelling in a part of that Citty which is free froÌ„ infecâ—ion and being asked at London gates whether he came from Couentry thâ—y intending to aske him concerning a place infected he may answere no. For that herin he deceiueth not the mynd of the questioner but answereth directly to his intention So propoundeth he the Case as he pretendeth out of the Catholicke Treatise of Equiuocation which hitherto I haue not seene and consequently cannot affirme how truly or falsely the same is related but he hauing so vttered the said Case doth in opposition therof cyte the foresaid Iesuite Azor his sentence against this as though he said that if we admit this Case Nihil tam falsum esse posse quod non queat ab omni mendacio liberari nothing is so false but that it may be freed from a ly which words are indeed in Azor but not applied by him to this Case but to another saying That is it were lawfull â—or vs to feigne what words wee would in an Oath without regard to the circumstances of tyme place and persons before mentioned tâ—en nothing were so false indeed that might not be freed from all lying But this Case of ours goeth not coÌ„ioyned with these words of Azor as M. Morton hath perfidiously heere tyed them togeather but Azor speaking twice of this our Case in one page first in the name of others by way of obiection and againe in his owne name by way of resolution he saith Libenter concedimus de eo qui ad portas Vrbis rogatur c. VVe do willingly grant the example of him who comming to the gates of a Citty being asked whether he came from a certaiâ—e place which by errour is thought to be infected with the plague and is not tutò citra mendacium iurare potâ—stâ— se ex eo loco non venire he may securâ—ly sweare without lying that he commeth not â—â—om that place so as he vnderstand that he commeth not â—rom any place infected with the plague nor that himselfe â—s infected This is Azor his iudgment resolution And before him this Case was resolued by Doctor Syluester Nauar Tolet Roderiquez Cosmus Philiarchus and diuers other learned men as after him also by our often named Countrey man Gregorius Sayer and the reason of the lawfulnes of this answere is for that the answere being sure that either the place is not infected from whence he came or that himselfe hath brought no infection about him for otherwise he should be periured it were great iniurie vnto him to be staied at the gate witâ—out cause And therefore for declyning this iniurie and iniustice it is lawfull for him to answere to the finall end and intention of the keeper and of the Citty or Common wealth whose intention only is to exclude infected people and not to their immediate words about the particuler place 14. And now all this being so coÌ„sider I praie yow said I the shamelesse forehead of this deceauing Minister in citing Azor quite against himselfe and his owne sense and meaning and tying his wordes togeather that were spoken separately to another end and yet as though he had played no such iugling tricke but had gotten some victory ouer vs heare his insolent speach about this answere set downe by so many learned men as yow haue heard named An answere saith he so grossely false that a Iesuit of high esteme in your Church â—to wit Azor writing against this spirituall iuggling of his subtile lying brethren doth confesse that if this kind of answere concerning a place infected with the plague c. be not false then there is no speach so false but it may be freed from falshood By whome your Equiuocators sayth he may learne that if the man yow fancied came not from a place infected with bodily pestilence yet this your Equiuoting procedeth from mynds spiritually infected wâ—th the contagion of pestilent lying So he 15. And I do willingly remit my selfe to the indifferent Reader where this contagion of pestilent lying raigneth either in these graue learned mâ—n that haue decided this quâ—stion without lying and against lying or in M. Morton that hath multipliâ—d so many lies togeather in this place as is a shame to number them For bâ—sides all that I haue noted alreadie he corâ—upteth also hâ—re the vâ—ry text of Azor which himselfe alleadgâ—th in his margâ—nt by translating it falsely into English where as Azor saith in the Case proposed Si venit ex loco aliquo pâ—ste minimè insecto qui â—alsò habetâ—r pro insâ—cto he â—nglâ—shâ—th the same by leâ—uing out the words minime â—alsò saying If
written in our language hath more â—ffâ—ctually done And consâ—quently the confutation of this booke would râ—quire an impugnâ—r of more substance and strongâ—r sâ—nâ—wes then those of M. Morton though othâ—rwise I vndâ—rstand that God be thanked his bodily consâ—itution be neither weake nor feeble But to come to an end let vs see how he conâ—ludâ—th his Epistle to the Earle of Salisbury If by this brief Preamble it be not manifest saith he that P. R. hath in this Treatise preuaricated in his whole cause both in the question of Rebellion and Equiuocation betraied his Countreys State disgraced the Romish Schooles and strangled his owne conscience I refuse not that to the crimes obiected against me by him this may be added that I durst affiâ—me so much before your Lordship To which Rhâ—toricall and florishing conclusiâ—n I know nâ—e better answere thâ—n to accâ—pt of the ofâ—er And for triall thâ—rof to referre me to the Booke hâ—re in hand which treateth euery thing punctually and â—xâ—ctly inuiting by this occasion the Honourable Personage hâ—re namâ—d to tâ—e râ—ading and pâ—rusâ—ng thâ—rof For though the difâ—â—râ—nâ—e of our cause be disfauourable vnto me with his Lordshippe yâ—t dare I câ—nfide in the equanimitie of his Iudgâ—mâ—nt in a case of such quality as hâ—re is sâ—t downe about preuaricating in my cause betraying my Countrey disgracing our Schooles and strangling my owne Conscience All which depending vpon our maÌ„ner of proceeding in the ensuing pointes of this Booke his Lordâ—hippe will easily discouer with the quicke â—ye of â—is Iudgment the truth of things though it were â—gainst himselfe And therefore I do willingly â—ay hands vpon the last clause of this Challenge of â— Morton to wit that if he proue not all â—hese things here obiected against me and cleere â—imselfe from all imputations of wilfull vntruthes â—yd against him in my Treatise of Mitigation 〈◊〉 is content to haue this added also as the greaâ—â—st sinne of all the rest that he durst affirme â—â—e same vnto his Lordshippe Wherin I could conuince him presâ—ntly if I â—ould without further dispute For that he taâ—â—ng vpon him in this his Prâ—amble to answere â—â—ly 14. vntruthes of more then 40. obiected â—â—ainst him it is euident that he â—learâ—th himâ—â—â—fe not frâ—m the rest tâ—at hee pretermitted â—nd then laâ—ing vnto this that in the said 14. he 〈◊〉 found not to haue cleared himsâ—lfe substantially â—â—om any one of moment but to haue adioyned â—boue 40. or 50. more as is declared in the â—ubsâ—quent Treatise how can he defend himsâ—lfe bâ—fore my L. of Salisburies Honour from open preuaricating in this his Challenge But I will not prâ—sse him any further heere let the ensuing Combate discâ—rne try betweene vs. And so returning to talke with M. Morton againe whome for a time I haue left and spokeâ— in the third person to the end I might not seeme to obiect to his face so many important defaultes together I do saie Syr that now you see that I haue bin bould to vse the libâ—rty that you gaue me in the subscription of your Letter when you saie that you are myne to warne and to bâ— warned I haue râ—ceiued your warning and returned mine I beseech allmightie God it mayâ—be to his greater glorie and both our goods or at leastwise of other men that shall read or heare the same Yours Wishing you all good in the author of all goodnes P. R. Faultes escaped in the Printing â—pist Dedic pag. 6 lin 4 for he read wee â—pist Admon pag. 4â— lin 13 for nor read not â—agâ— Line Fault Correction 〈◊〉 24 in latin in relating 〈◊〉 27 heares hearers 〈◊〉 18 vse the vse 〈◊〉 23 impawing impawning 〈◊〉 vlâ— competèt competent 〈◊〉 28 stuly study 〈◊〉 â— some all 〈◊〉 Ibid. Equiuocation be Equiuocation or lying be 〈◊〉 28 said say 〈◊〉 31 indeed though indeed my father is not dead though ◠〈◊〉 18 euident euidently 〈◊〉 26 is in 〈◊〉 14 one owne 〈◊〉 2 had had he had had 〈◊〉 34 begin being 〈◊〉 35 pertracta pertractata â—â—2 10 Clemens AlexaÌ„der Clemens Alexandrinus â—â—7 â— these are these â—01 29 Chapters Charges 314 28 quod quid â—â—1 28 verue vertue â—01 5 answere Answerer â—11 27 these those 427 25 the law the new spi the new law the spirituall c. 434 5 ouer euer 462 11 which with 477 3 is as 540 7 to do 640 16 obiection others obiection of otherâ— 642 14 Chap. 5. Chap. 3. 648 4 fourth Chap. fifth Chapâ— THE FIRST CHAPTER ANSVVERING TO THE FIRST OF â— THOMAS MORTONS three vaine Inquiryes concerning the Witt Memorie Learning Charitie Modestie and Truth of his Aduersarie P. R. THE PREFACE THE very title of this M. Mortonâ— first Inquiry about the insufficiency of his aduersary doth plainly shew that he was in choler passion when he wrote it for that otherwise in so graue and weighty controuersies as are betweene vs he would ueuer haue rifled so manifestly as by leauing the matter to ruÌ„ne â—o the person and fall a scolding and scratching acâ—ording to his former threat For what are these perâ—onall impugnations but scratches whereof you shall haue heere store to witt some seauen or eight whole Paragraphes which yet are such as draw noe bloud nor doe scarre any man but the scratcher himselfe as by further examination it will appeare For first what doth he gaine to his cause if he could prooue indeed that his Aduersarie had scarcitie both of witt memorie learning Greeke Hebrew Logike and other abilities heere mentioned Were not his victorie the lesse in ouercoÌ„ming so weake an aduersarie And were not his shame the greater yf he should be ouercome by him Yes truly 1. Moreouer M. Mortons intention being or ought to be principally to satisfy the charges and imputations of falshood and vntrue dealing layd vnto him in the Treatise of Mitigation for hastening whereunto for that they raysed great scarres in the readers eye he omitted to handle any thing at all of the chief argument of that Treatiâ—e it seemeth veriâ— impertinent that he should leese so much time and spend so much paper in premising so manie skirmishes as are these Paragraphes about the sufficiency or insufficiency of his aduersarie before the maine battaile it self but the reason is conceaued to be the small comfort he had to come to the said battaile and therefore as schollers that are truants doe seeke occasions to loyter and linger and â—ntertayne themselues in euerie corner of the streete thereby to prolong their iourney so M. Morton in this affayre For albeit he pretend and professe his purpose to beâ— to cleare himselfe from the sayd imputatios yet knowing how little able he is to doe it and how small coÌ„fort he is to receyue therein wheÌ„ he cometh to the point he differreth the matter as loÌ„g as he can which is to the verie last end of his booke speÌ„ding first in this first Inquiry eight or nine Paragraphes as hath bene said to inquyre of my sufficiency
lacke of Charity for the same yea making this questioÌ„ in the last lynes therof How in so manifest impudency any argument of modestie can appeare wherby we see the power of anger when it taketh possession of our tongue what it can doe 76. But this tempest of passion being past you haue seene I sâ—ppose that we two haue quietly and soberly made vp this reckoning betweene vs the total summe wherof commeth to be this in effect that as I had reason to charge M. Morton as I did finding him so different from the Originall booke so he though he had lighted vpon an other edition had no reason out of iudgmeÌ„t discretion to vrge so manifest an escape of the print for so it must be taken to the exprobration of two worthy learned authours as Carerius and Mancinus are and coÌ„sequently that M. Morton notwithstanding all his dâ—fence must needes be thought to haue dealt craftely and to haue equiuocated eyther materially or formally in vrging so much verè for verò bringing the same in againe two or three times aftâ—rward as you will see Let vs passe then to some other poynt if you please of more importance THE OBIECTION OF M. Morton against the Modâ—stie of P. R. §. VII TThe proper tytle of this Paragraph as it standeth in M. Morâ—oÌ„s booke is this An argument oâ— P. R. his kind oâ— modestie accompanied with a presumptuous falshood and in the Catalogue of his Chapters P. R. his presumptuous falshood in charging T. M. with falsiâ—ie in the allegation of the testimonie of Doleman Where you see that besides falshood he chargeth me with prâ—sumption and theÌ„ce belike with lacke of modestie for presuming to charge so vpright a man as he with falsitie Wherfore let vs make the accompt friendlâ— and see where the measure eyther of modestie or truth or want of both will be found The charge given by P. R. 78. First I do shew in the former part of my Treatise of Mitigation about Rebellion that M. Moâ—ton leauing the questions of Diuinitie attending principally to sedition exacerbation matters of meere sycophaÌ„cie against Catholicks in generall in respâ—ct of their receiued doctrine to make them therbâ— diffident and odious to his Matie of England sâ—tteth downe this Minor proposition out of a calumnious syllogisme framed by him But all Popish Priests vpon this pretended Supremacie and prerogatiue of Pope and people do vtterly abolish the title of succession in all Protestant Princes Ergo And his ergo is to a good purpose as you may asâ—ure your selfe In which heynous slaunder you may note first that albeit he name heere only Priests yet doth he meane it also of all lay-meÌ„ that hold the same doctrine with Priests therby strikâ—th at all their throats at once so raÌ„ke is his malice 79. After this I shewed sundrie sortes of malignaÌ„t falsities to be contayned in this minor proposition of his That all Priests without exception vpon this pretended Supremacie and prerogatiue of Pope and people do vtterly abolish all title of succession in all ProtestaÌ„t Princes For first I shew that Catholicke doctrine giueth not Supremacie or prerogatiue ouer Princes to the people but that this is rather the doctrine of the chiefest Protestants of our time so taught and so practised by them in all countryes where they haue dealt against their Superiours and especially in England and Scotland 80. Secondly I do shew that for so much as no such prerogatiue of people is pretended by our doctrine it cannot truly be said that vpon this pretended prerogatiue all Popish Priestes do abolish c. No nor vpon the suprâ—macie or prerogatiue which we ascribe to the Pope himselfe for that the right or not right of Protestant Princes succession to Kingdomes dependeth not of the Popes prerogatiue but of the Canons of the Church and temporall Statutes of particuler Realmes and Kingdomes Thirdly that it is an exaggeration to say as he doth that all Priestes do vtterly abolish c. in all Protestant Princes c. And now you know that exaggerations in capitall accusations are heynous crymes and shew great lack of conscience and charity in the accusers 81. And to proue this to be an exaggeration that all Priestes did vtterly aâ—olish the tytle of succession in all Protestant Princes I alleadged contrary examples in all the protestant Princes that euer succeeded in England since the beginning of the world who are knowne to be but three in number King Edward Queene Eliâ—abeth and King Iames who were admitted both by Priestes and lay-men ergo all Priestes do not vtterly abolish all succession in all protestant Princes c. and consequently some moderation must be granted on our side against this odious exaggeration 82 Next after this M. Morton bringeth in no lesse enuious and hatefull a proposition out of Doleman saying that Doleman doth pronounce sentence that whosoeuer shall consent to the succession of a Protestant Prince is a most grieuous and damnable sinner but the booke is examined Dolemans wordes are found to be these only that for any man tâ— giue his helpe consent or assistance towardes the making of a King whom he iudgeth or belieueth to be faultie in Religion c. is a most grieuous and damnable sinne in him that doth it oâ— what side soeuer the truth be or how good or bad soeuer the partie be that is preferred which last wordes do shew M. Morton to be a calumniator in suppressing them and affirming that to be spoken only against the succession of protestant Princes which is spoken as well against Catholicks as Protestants and meant more principally of election then successioÌ„ as may appeare by these words If any man shall giue his helpe to the making of a King c. 83. Here now M. Morton runneth aside from the purpose and to auoid the necessitie of defending himselfe directly alleadgeth out of M. Reynolds D. Stapleton and Simancas diuers sentences wherby they signifie that in preferring of a Prince religion ought to haue the first place in consideration which he applying to vs that do condemne Protestant religion will needes inferre therof that wee do vtterly abolish all tyâ—le oâ— succession in Protestant Princes 84. But doth not the malicious man see that the same inference may be made of all Professours of other Religions in like manner As for example If Protestants were to admit a King in France and it lay in their handes to preferre eyther a Protestant or a Catholicke would any man doubt whome they would prefer or whome they ought to preferre according to the rules of their owne conscience or will any learned or honest Protestant deny eyther that Religion in generall is chiefely to be respected or that his one religion is not to be preferred before others if it lay in his power Let vs put the case that a King of England or France hauing diuers Princely Children and one of them being taken by the Turkes or
other infidells as he trauailed vpoÌ„ the sea brought to CoÌ„staÌ„tinople should there be peruerted made a Turke or Infidell and that afterwards his parents and brethren dying the right of succession should iustly fall vpon him what learned couÌ„sell would M. Morton giue in this case to the common wealth of England or France Will he thinke it lawfull to admitt him notwithstanding the diuersity of his religion It may endaunger the whole state of Christianitie round about Will he say it is lawfull to exclude him Then will it follow that succession may be resisted for Religion I expect M. Mortons answere to this Dilemma 85. Moreouer it is shewed by me in the booke of Mitigaâ—ion that the Protestants are not onely the first and chiefe in this doctrine that Princes may be resisted for Religion which I shew by manifold testimonies but are the first also in practice therof â—s all histories do beare witnes as of the warres of â—he Hussites in Bohemia and Albigenses in France of more â—ncienter tymes and of the Lutherans in Germanie â—he Zuinglians in Switzerland the Trinitarians in Tranâ—â—luania the Hugonots in France the Caluinists almost in euery place where they put foote to wit in Holland Zealand Scotland Hungarie and els where And as for princes debarred by them from their due succession â—pon difference of Religion the examples of his Ma ties Mother notorious to all men and the King â—f Polonia held from the succession of Sueâ—ia at this â—ay being his naturall birth-right do beare witnes â—o the world The Reckoning of this accompt â—6 Wherfore to come to knit vp this reckoning briefly with M. Morton we see first that he hath not beene able exactly to verify any one of his two former propositions out of his owne syllogisme concerning Dolemans assertion but that he hath vsed exaggeration and calumniation in them both and that whatsoeuer he hath vrged neuer so bloudily to incyte his Maiestie against vs may with much more reason force of argument be retorted against himselfe and his as well in England if the Puritans be his as in other Countryes against all sortes of Protestants And when for ending of this Paragraph he frameth a syllogisme inuincible as he pretendeth to conclude against vs saying One syllogisme will assoyle the whole doubt he setteth downe such a one as may wholy be turned vpon himself changing only the person of whome it is made The syllogisme is this Maior Euerie man is a daÌ„nable sinner who admitteth any to the Crown whom he thinketh faultie in Religon Minor But euery Romish Catholicke thinketh all Protestant Princes faulty in Religion Ergo Euery Romish Catholicke who admitteth a Protestant to succeed in the Crowne is a damnable sinner 87. All this syllogisme I say is as well veryfied of Protestants as Catholicks and consequently the force of his argument concludeth nothing at all against vs more then against himselfe and his For as for the maior proposition no Protestant of sense I thinke will but grant that it is a damnable synne to admit any Prince if it lye in his hand to preferre or hinder whome he thinketh to be faulty in Religion for that otherwise we must say that Protestants haue no conscience concerning Religion if they will aduance wittingly any one that will in their opinion destroy the same And then I make the minor But euery true Protestant thinketh Roman Catholikes to be faulty in Religion Ergo euery true Protestant that admitteth a Catholicke Prince to succeed in the Crowne is a damnable synner And what then shall wee say of the Dolphin of France when he commeth to yeares to succâ—ed in that Crowne after the death of the King his father will the Protestants receaue him or no And if there were some such busy seditious spirites among Catholike preachers there as this of M. Mort. and some others sheweth it selfe to be in England that would in all their sermons and bookes raise quarrels and contentions before hand about this matter and procure his Christian Maiestie to enter into new doubtes and iealosyes to propose new Oathes to his Protestant subiectes and not to belieue them when they haue sworne but to giue care to such clamorous makebates as these are should he euer haue quiet Or his subiectes contentment â—his then may suffice that these wicked and maligâ—ant calumniations against Catholickes to set them 〈◊〉 perpetuall iealosy and diffidence with the tempoâ—all Prince and state in regard of their Religion â—octryne are both extreme malitious and foolish â—alitious in grating coÌ„tinually vpon this seditious â—â—ference of treason from Religion foolish sottish â—â—cause the same infâ—rence may be made against â—â—mselfe or any Sectaryes whatsoâ—uer as hath bene â—â—â—wed and the factes of those of his side are so noâ—â—â—ious to the world and continually in mens eyes 〈◊〉 the very naming of this argument so often conâ—â—mneth him manifestly of both the vices before â—entioned of malignity and imprudencie Let vs 〈◊〉 passe to another Paragraph of this his first Inâ—â—irie wherein he seeketh most to make some oâ—tenâ—â—â—ion of reason for himselfe though he haue lesse 〈◊〉 in the former AN ANSWERE OF M. Mortons calumniation about the Truth of P. R. impugned §. VIII THE wordes contayning the tytle of this last Paragraph in M. Morton are these An argument of â—â—R his kind of Truth full of triumphaÌ„t treacherie but in â—â—e seuerall Catalogue of his said Paragraphes 〈◊〉 putteth it downe thus P. R. his 4. malitious trickes of â—â—lshood in obiecting a falsity concerning the testimonie of Frisinâ—â—nsis And then he beginneth his Paragraph with â—hese words Though all the former arguments sayth he of P. R. his wit memory learning and â—odesty conteyne in them the liuely characters and demonstrations of a lyer yet haue I reserued to this last place of truth such an accusation from wheÌ„ce one would thinke he had gayned a triumph So he And then he setteth downe my wordes of Charge against him for abusing the testimony of Frisingensis which presently we shall recite But first we must admonish the Reader that he which in wordes obiecteth heere vnto me so many characters and demonstrations of a lyer hath not hitherto in fact shewed any one least signe at all of such proceeding but hath beene conuinced of many himseâ—fe which if it had not bene made euident inough by thâ—sâ— few Paragraphes hitherto handled hauing matâ—â—rsâ— of lesse moment yet will it appeare more substantially and aboundantly afterward when we come to examyne punctually the difference of vntruthâ—s obiected on both sides especially such as be wittiâ—g and willfull and some tast therof will be giuen in the tryal of this very Paragraph wherin he chargeth me with so many characters of lying For if I do not make it heere manifest that M. Morton hath dealt shiftingly and with no sincere and vpright conscience in the matter obiected vnto him I am content that the Reader do condemne me and
Prince is lawfully excommunicated and shut out from all society of Christian communion and he persist impenitent how can he be head of a Christian coÌ„mon wealth for so much as he is no member nor hath any place or part at all in the whole body the headship being the chiefe part of all others 101. Much then it importeth to know the authority and antiquity aswell of excommunication as of deposition from which cause the examples alledged by Frisingensis ought not to haue bene suppressed or imbezeled and Tolosanus here alleadged by M. Morton produceth an other example both of excommunication and deposition aboue an hundred yeares before this of Frisingensis saying Antea quidem Gregorius tertius c. Before this Gregory the third being made Pope vpoÌ„ the yeare 759. did depriue Leo the third Emperor of Constantinople both of his Empire and the â—ommunion of Christians for that he had cast holy â—mages out of the Church and defaced them and â—eld a wicked opinion against the B. Trinity thus â—e And that Tolosanus in this sayth truth is testified â—â—so by Zonoras a greeke historiographer in the life â—f the sayd Emperour Leo Isauricus And before that â—gaine Pope Innocentius the first that liued with S. â—ugustine is read to haue excommunicated the Empeâ—our Arcadius and the Empresse Eudoxia for their 〈◊〉 iust persecution of S. Chrysostome though no deâ—riuation followed therof but amendment rather â—f the fault as is to be seene in Nicephorus Heere â—en the â—uasion of M. Morton by saying that the â—atter of excommunication pertayned not to his â—urpose is wholy impertinent for so much as that 〈◊〉 the only immediate cause of deposition by Eccleâ—â—asticall power But now let vs passe to the other â—hiefe point to consider whether Frisingensis was alâ—edged wholy against his owne purpose or not â—02 M. Morton being pressed with my former anâ—weare wherin I do shew that Frisingensis being alleaged by him to disgrace Pope Gregory aliâs Hildebrand â—s much wronged for that he coÌ„meÌ„deth him highâ—y and his doings seeketh this shift now by saying â—hat he alleadged him only in the questioÌ„ of antiquity concerning â—he tyme when first any Pope did take vpon him to depose Emperors But this is manifestly false for he alleadgeth him to both endes to wit for antiquitie and for disgrace but principally to disgrace him For hauing shewed as he perswaded himselfe that Pope HildebraÌ„d was the first that vsed such proceeding against Emperours he addeth preseÌ„tly that it was a new act that it is naught also will appeare saith he by the Actor for Pope Gregorie the 7. as your Chronographer saith was excoÌ„municated of the Bishops of Italy for that he had defamed the Apostolikâ— Sea by Symony and other capital crymes So he And to this calumniation he ioyneth the saying of Claudius Espencaeus in these wordes Hildebrand â—as the first Pope saith your Bishop â—spencaeus who by making a new rent beâ—â—ene Kingdome and Popedome did rayse â—orce against the Imperiall diademe arming himselfe by his example exciâ—ed oâ—her Popes against Princes excommunicate 103. These two testimonies then of Espencaeus and Schasnaburgensis being ioyned with the tâ—ird of Fâ—isingensis which are all that M. Morton alleadgeth let the prudent Reader consider whether they be not brought to disgrace Pope Hildebrand in his action against the Emperor Henry or not and yet do the first and last which are the more ancient Authors very earnestly commend the said Pope and defend his action of deposing the Emperor and consequeÌ„tly are brought in by meere preuarication of M. Morton to disgrace him 104. And as for the third which is Espencaeus though he were neyther Bishop to my knowledg nor otherwise of any great estimation among vs yet is he handled heere no lesse iniuriously fraudulently by M. Morton then the other two which I note now more especially then in my first answere both for that his authority is named and vrged againe in this place and for that I could not then get any sight of this his second booke of disgressioÌ„s vpon the first Epistle of S. Paul to Timothy though I had other bookes of his but now hauing found the same I haue discouered withall such fraud as was fit for such a spirit as M. Mortons seemeth to be that rarely vseth exact truth in citing of any thing for that these words alleadged against the Pope are not the wordes of Claudius â—spencaeus himselfe as in vntruly affirmed by M. Morton but related by him out of a certaine angry and impatient Epistle written 〈◊〉 certaine schismaticall Priests of Liege that were â—â—mmanded by Pope Paschalis the second to be chaâ—â—sed by Robert Earle of Flanders and his souldiers â—â—wly come from Hierusalem about the yeare 1102. â—â—r their rebellious behauiour which Priests with â—enry their schismaticall Bishop wrote a very passioâ—â—te inuectiue complaynt against this act and comâ—â—ssion of Pope Paschalis inueghing also against the â—â—ing of Pope Hildebrand not long before decâ—ased for 〈◊〉 like cause all which M. Morton concealeth and â—â—eth the words of â—spencaeus himselfe Your Bishop â—â—â—encaeus saith he writeth of Hildebrand c. which he â—â—ould not but know to be false if he read the â—â—oke and place by himselfe ciâ—ed for that Espencaeusâ—oth â—oth not only in the beginning of his citation vse â—â—is entrance extat in 2. â—omo ConcilioruÌ„ edit Coloniensis â—â—leri Leodiensis ad Paschalem secundum querimonia There 〈◊〉 extant in the second tome of Councells a complaint â—f the Clergie of Liege to Pope Pascaliâ— the second but 〈◊〉 the end also of all his speach which conteyneth a â—ong discourse he concludeth thus Hactenus Leodiâ—â—sium verba sensa Hitherto haue I related both â—he wordes sense of those Priests of Liege preâ—ently for himselfe saith that he will not meddle with the controuersie of fighting betweene Popes and Emperâ—rs though he proue by sundry examples both out of the Scrpture Fathers and Councels that in some cases it is lawfull for Priestes to vse teÌ„porall armes also so as for M. Morton to come and â—uouch as he did in his former booke of full Satisfaction that our Bishop Espencaeus affirmed this of himselfe against Pope Hildebrand wheras he must needs know that he saith it not but relateth it only out of others without approuing the same is to ad preuarication to preuarication and neuer to make an end of wilâ—ull lying especially seeing that iâ— this his last Preamblatory reply he is so farre of froÌ„ amending the matter as that he turneth vpon the same agayne saying I produced Claudius Espencaeus their owne Romish Bishop that doth playnly auerre that Hildebrand was the first Pope who without any example of antiquitie made a schisme beâ—wene Emperors and Popes c. Good Syr will you stand to this that Claudius Espencaeus doth playnely auerre it Is this true Is this sincere And how doth he playnely auerre it if he do
of my words which point for that he will needs haue the whole substance of this controâ—ersy to depend therof saying further that I cannot â—biect any difference in this behalfe without grosse stupide conâ—radiction to my selfe throughout my whole Treatise we shall seuerally examine his arguments heerin M. Mortons first argument discussed about a competent and incompetent Iudge 31. His first argument is taken from my wordes where in my treatise of Mitigation I do say thus That in mentall reseruation the speach agreeth to the mynd and meaning of the speaker for that when I do say to an incompetent Iudge that I am no Priest I do truly really meane that I am no Priest in the sense that I speake it which may be any that pleaseth me or that I list to frame to my self So I. And hitherto M. Morton cyteth my owne wordes though somewhat brokenly but yet cutteth of wholy the other that immediatly do ensue and make all playne to wit seeing I haue no obligation to respect any thing what the demander speaketh or asketh for so much as he demandeth me against law and equity Well this is no playne dealing as you see But what argument will M. Morton frame out of these my words Marke saith he The truth of Equiuocation is not suspended vpon the vnderstanding of the hearer who may conceaue or misconceaue the speach so he But what is this to the purpose I grant that the truth of any answere made vnto a Iudge dependeth not vpon the vnderstanding conceipt or capacity of the said Iudge but vpon the meaning of the speaker which meaning notwithstaÌ„ding is to be measured by the competeÌ„cy or incompetency of the Iudge For if the Iudge be competent then is the answerer bound to answere to his intention and to haue that meaning in his answere which the Iudge hath in his demand but if he be not competent then all this obligation ceaseth and the speaker is free to haue what meaning hâ— list in his answere so that in his own sense it be true and this for the reason now touched So as heere no inference at all can be made by M. Morton that the difference of competency of Iudges in the cases of the woman and Priest doth make no diuersity in the truth of their answers and yet will he needes conclude with this consequence hauing said no more then I haue touched that for so much as I said in the Treatise of Mitigation as before you haue heard that no clause of reseruation could saue the speach of Saphyra from a lye for that it was to her lawfull Iudge to whome she was bound to answere directly to his intention ergo I do condemnâ— my selfe and all other Equiuocatours for phantasticall lyers 32. But I would aske him why or by what consequence of reason this commeth about He saith for that there is no difference in effect between this speach of Saphyra I haue sold it for no more to tell it you of the Priest I am no Priest to tell it you I say that suppose Saphyra had that reseruation which yet dependeth only of M. Mortons fiction yet that there is â— great maine difference betweene them in that the one party was bound to tell what she was demaÌ„ded the other was not bound he replieth that I confesse â—hat the truth of the answere dependeth not of the vnderstanding 〈◊〉 the hearer but of the meaning and intention of the speaker which I also grant but yet that this meaning and intention of the Speaker must be gouerned and diâ—ected by the lawfulnes and competencie of the â—earer or Iudge to whome we speake or by whome we are demanded For if he be lawfull and compeâ—ent then doth he thereby impose an obligation vpon the speaker to answere to his meaning and â—ntention otherwise not which maketh a great â—aine difference and the cases farre vnlike if M. Morton had will to see it for to want of vnderstanding I wil not ascribe it and sincerity to vtter it So as this his first argument proueth nothing but against himselfe Let vs see his second His second argument examined 33. Secondly sayth he as we here fynd a woman maâ—ing a lye to S. Peter a competent Iudge so do we read that S. Peter made a lye vnto a woman an examiner incoÌ„petent so that the diâ—ference of the hearers doth not alter the nature of â—he speach So he and his meaning is by the diffeâ—ence of hearers that it importeth not whether the â—udge be competent or incompetent for so he wriâ—eth within few lines after Truth is truth saith he though it be vttered to man or woman whether to Prince or people to Symon Peter or to Symon Magus yea whether to Archangell or to Sathan Iudge competent or incompetent it cannot free a lying speach from the nature of a lye And the reasoÌ„ hereof confessed by P. R. is that the essence and formality of a lye requireth that the speach disagree from the mind and vnderstanding of the speaker Thus M. Morton 34. And all this prooueth nothing at all to his purpose For albeit we graunt that the essence of a lye consisteth principally immediately in this that it doth disagree from the mind and vnderstanding of the speaker yet doth the respect of competency in a Iudge that demandeth put obligation as now hath byn sayd vpon the speaker to haue this or that mind meaning correspondent to his that demandeth which is not in a Iudge incompetent And albeit these respects of competencie or incompetency may seeme but circumstances yet as in morall matters it often falleth out circumstances do alter the nature and species of the vertue or vice it selfe quiâ— transeunt in conditiones obiecti as Scholemen do vse to speake 35. So heere the selfe same answere made to a competent or incompetent Iudge is made lawfull or vnlawâ—ul true or false by that circumstaÌ„ce of his competency or incompetency that layeth or not layeth the said obligatioÌ„ vpon the speaker to speake directly to the Iudges meaning So as when M. Mort. shufleth vp so many things togeather saying that truth iâ— truth whether it be vttered to man or woman Prince or people SymoÌ„ Peter or Symon Magus Archangel or Satan Iudg competeÌ„t or incompetent he either vnderstaÌ„deth not the differences that be in these exaÌ„ples handled togeather or would not haue his Reader to marke the same For albeit the simple difference of persons themselues to whome we speake altereth not the truth or falsity of our speach yet some respect or relation in those persons but especially of being a lawfull or vnlawfull Iudge may and doth alter the same wholy making the one speach truth and the other falsity 36. And thus much for answering the force of M. Mortons secoÌ„d argumeÌ„t which in effect is nothing at all For that albeit all diuersity of persons to whom we speake doth not alter the truth or falsity
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
call it a Mitâ—gation was very ominous and vnluckie to them whome specially it laboureth to deâ—end wheroâ— yet he alleageth no one proofe in the world but only the May be before mentioned to wit that I said that albeit dangers may fall out as in alâ— other Common-wealthes so yet may Protestants and Catholickes liue togeather in cyuill vnioÌ„ and dutifull obedience if they will and be permitted And then from this assertion he leapeth presently to another saying that my foresaid Treatise of Mitigation hath betrayed my whole cause both in the one and the other question of Rebellion and Equiuocation for proofe whereof he hath no other argument as now you haue heard but only for the former of Rebellion certayne fond deuised impossibilityes against the said may be And for the other question of Equiuocation he hath only the case of the poore lying-woman Saphyra which yet he esteemeth so highly to make for him as he dareth pronounce that it ouerthroweth my whole defence of mentall Equiuocation and that so euidently as no wit of man can possibly excuse the same Which vehemeÌ„t hyperbolicall asseueratioÌ„ of his I assure my selfe will seeme to the iudicious Reader that hath takeÌ„ a view of the triall past to proceed of so litle wit of man as it may scarce possibly be defended from plainfolly 50. Well then this being all that is answered to the substance of my booke we must passe to certaine accidents therof which are sundry grieuous imputations of false dealing laied to M. Mortons charge which I did obiter and as it were by the way lay opeÌ„ in my Treatise thereby to shew the weakenes and misery of his cause which forced him a maÌ„ otherwise much louing truth as himselfe euery where protesteth to fall into such inexplicable labyrinths of grosse absurdities as few men before him haue done And for that these accidents did seeme perhaps to touch him more neerly then the substance of the controuersy it selfe for that they are more sensible in the Readers eye and eare therfore he hath principally adressed himselfe in this his Preamblatory-reply to euacuate or infringe some of these imputations but with what successe the euent it selfe will shew in the ensuiâ—g Chapters THE THIRD CHAPTER ANSVVERING TO M. MORTONS THIRD INQVIRY CONCERNING falsities obiected by him though falsely against Catholicke writers but especially against Card. Bellarmine wherof no one can be proued PREFACE IN the former two Chapters the â—eader hath now taken a view of their seuerall subiects and arguments and in the first what light skirmishes M. MortoÌ„ thought best to make for some triall of his valour in answering vpon sundry small quarrels picked â—ut heere and there from different places of my whoâ—e Treatise and with what successe the same hath bene by him performed In the second he hath seene two short assaults about the two mayne matters in controuersy oâ— Rebellion Equiuocation which being conteyned but in two small Paragraphes and treating only two single obiections do easily shew how little store of substantiall reply M. Morton hath to so large a Treatise as mine was But we must expect the residue of full complement in his promised larger Reioynder 2. Now in the meane space wee are to examine three or foure other poyntes which he handleth in this his last Preamble-Reply especially about his owne defence for that he being deeply charged in my booke for manifold vntrue dealing in his writings which oftentimes was such as could not proceed so much of error or mistaking but sauoured of willfull and witting deceiptfullnes that commonly is called malice which poynt for that I noted and vrged often both against himselfe and against many other of his profession and this by great number and variety of examples aâ—d iâ—â—tances he feeling himself touched not a little in credit with this matter as it may seeme thought good after due deliberation to take this course of remedying the matter First to obiect by way of recrimination diuers falsityes though farre vnlike against sundry Catholicke wryters and namely against Caâ—d Bellarmine And then againe the same against me And in the third place to shape an answere to some of the foresayd vntruthes wherwith I had charged him such as you may imagine he thought himselfe best able somwhat to shaddow or disguise leaping ouer the rest of most importance as after you shall perceaue So as these three points are now to be handled in this and the next two ensuing Chapters 3. And first for an entrance to this matter he indeauoureth at the beginning to excuse himselfe froÌ„ malice against Catholicks in these words From the imputation of malice against the persons of men saith he if I should need the testimony of man my aduersaries may acquit me who haue acknowledged in me better measures by their owne experience D. VVri M. Const. M. Ga. I haue halfe iniured theÌ„ with halfe naming them but I hope they will pardon me this wrong knowing that it is not spoken in exprobration to them but for iustificatioÌ„ of my selfe c. So he But I see not why he needeth to excuse â—imselfe from exprobration which euer supposeth â—rue merits and benefits truly obiected which how â—arre M. Morton may obiect to these Catholicke men â—y him heere named I know not But howsoener 〈◊〉 be it litle maketh to the purpose for that the â—â—putation of malice was not in respect of his hatred â—gainst this or that particuler man as to their perâ—â—ns but against their cause that in such a bloudy â—â—rt of sycophancy as included all the persons of that â—eligion and therfore his fawning vpon two or â—â—ree in externall words and countenance either in â—erson or els where whiles in his chaÌ„ber he sought 〈◊〉 writing his spitefull infamous and virulent lyâ—â—g bookes to oppresse them all cut their throats â—â—â—is measure was not good but may iustly be called a â—alicious measure and yet was this M. Mortons measure â—r so much as no man did euer write so maliciously 〈◊〉 my knowledg as he nor in so odious an argumeÌ„t â—â—d iealous a tyme. â—â— Moreouer malice doth not only consist in haâ—ed to particuler persons as heere M. Morton would â—eme to insinuate by his answere but in crafty and â—eceiptfull dealing against charity conscience and â—eason especially in cyting false witnesse of Authors â—gainst Catholicks and their Religion as he is conâ—inced often to haue done And therfore wheras in â—he end of this his defence from malice he saith â—hat he must expostulate with Catholicks according to the Apostles example saying Am I your enemâ— because I tell you truth which sentence liked him so well as he would needs put the same also for his poesy in the first front of his booke the Catholicks will answere no Syr Yow are not our enemy â—or telling truth which yow do very seldome in any matter of controuersy betweâ—ne vs and you but for making many a false and pernicious lye And so the note
had wares of any importance it is likly that wee should haue seene some part therof now in this beginning of his onset 18. Especially for that vpon want of better matter as may be presumed he was content to haue a snatch at Gratian the compiler or gatherer together of the Canons of old Councels who cyting the 22. Canon of the Councell of Meliuet in Africa in which S. Augustine was present and where it was decreed in these wordes Placuit vt Presbyteri Diaconi vel inferiores Clerici c. It is decreed that Priests Deacons and other inferiour Clergy men if they will appeale from their Bishops they shall not appeale but vnto the Councells of Africa c. Gratian after the whole Canon set downe doth by way of commentary adioyne this exception in a differeÌ„t distinct letter saying except they do appeale to the Sea of Rome which exception Cardinall Bellarmine in that matter alloweth not for that the Councel of Meliuet did principally inteÌ„d to restrayne the Appeales of inferiour Cleargy men froÌ„ going to Rome against their owne Bishops though not the appeales of Bishops themselues aâ— presently shall be shewed 19. But now what hath M. Morton eyther against vs or for himselfe out of this case You shal heare him speake What can be said saith he for the defence of Gratian their publicke Compiler of the Decrees of Popes who as Cardinall Bellarmine witnesseth citing a Canon of a Councell of Meliuet wherin it was decreed that none should appeale beyond the sea did adde of himselfe this exception Except it be â—nto the Apostolike Sea of Rome when as that Councell in forbidding appeales beyond the sea did especiâ—lly intend to forbid appeales to Rome Many such â—ike falshoods might be alleadged So saith he 20. Wherto I answere that if they be no better then this they are not worth the alleaging but only to intertaine time to shew your fraud in deaâ—ing For first Gratian did liue dyuers hundred yeares gone but we talke of writers of our tyme and of â—uch only is our question coÌ„trouersy wherin you â—inding your selfe barren would now extend your â—oÌ„mission to all Catholicke wryters of all ages past which is a miserable shift SecoÌ„dly there be so many other shifts trickes in cyting these few words â—s do make demonstration that you can cyte noâ—hing in simplicity of truth without some wilâ—ull corruption as heere where you say it was decreed in the Councel of Meliuet that none should appeale beyond the sea you cut of craftily the first words before cyted of the said Canon inferiores Clerici the inferiour Cleargy men as though the prohibition had byn for all as well Bishops as inferiour Clergie men which presently we shall shew to be false 21. Thirdly where you say that Gratian did adde oâ— himselfe this exception to the Canon you would make â—our Reader thinke that he had added these words â—s the words of the CanoÌ„ it selfe which he did not but as a commentary or explication of the Canon in a separate place and so is now extant in a distinct letter and consequently your note in the margent that Gratian is a falsificator falls vpon your selfe which do falsifie his meaning For that the most that can be obiected to Gratian in this place is that which Cardinall Bellarmine saith he mistooke the true meaning and intent of that Canon of Meliuet as though it had beene meant of Bishops as well as of inâ—eriouâ— Clergy-men which is farre â—roÌ„ the proofe of willfull â—aâ—se meaning which may very probably be obiected to M. Morton in this and many other places For that it cannot be well thought but that he must know that he dealt inâ—uriously caâ—uÌ„niously with Gratian in this place 22. But now to the former old idle and worne-out obiection against the foresaid three Popes for counterfaiting not one only as M. Morton accuseth but three Canons of the said Councell of Nice not only the Madgeburgians but Caluin also in his Institutions and aâ—ter them bothâ— Iewell at large in his fourth article and after him euery Protestant haue imployed their pennes and tongues to exaggerate the same vpon no other ground so much as it seemeth as vpon stomake and exacerbation of hatred against the Roman Sea seeking to slaunder and defame three so notable ancient Bishops of Rome that sate within the coÌ„passe of 7. or 8. yeares vpon the point of a thousand and two hundred yeares past which is farre without the compasse of moderne Catholickâ— writers as you see and consequently from the state of our question And albeit the matter hath byn answered both largely and clearly by diuers learned men as well of our nation as others and shewed to be a meere cauillation yet nothing will serue these men but still is it brought againe as though it had neuer beene answered before Which false dissimulation is here also vsed by M. Morton who saith not a word of any answere that euer he saw thereunto and yet could he not but haue seene fiue or six at least and foure very famous of our owne nation if he be but meanly conuersant in the writers of our time As that first of D. Harding in his detection against M. Iewell shewing among other arguments that no â—riter of all antiquity from that time wherin these â—oly Popes liued vnto this age these Protestants exâ—epted was so shameles as euer to call them falsaryes â—r that they had corrupted or forged any Canon of â—he Councell of Nice though the Canons by them â—yted were not found in some Copies as they were in theirs of Rome by the reason that presently shall be shewed â—3 The Second is of D. Sanders in his Visible Moâ—archy of the Church who much more largely discusâ—eth the point and finally concludeth the whole matter by fiue seuerall arguments that no such thing was euer meant by the African Fathers to forbid all â—ppeales of the Bishops to Rome as Illyricus Caluin M. Iewell other Protestant writers haue deuised published 24. The third answerer is Doctor Stapleton who refuteth the whole tale and calumniation of the Protestants in this affayre in his Retuâ—ne oâ— Vnâ—ruthes and fourth article throughout twenty whole leaues together against M. Iewell and conuinceth him of 38. seuerall vntruthes vttered in that one matter which in reason M. Morton should eyther haue acknowledged or confuted but the one he would not and the other he could not The fourth answerer is Alanus Copus otherwise Doctor Harpsfield very large exact leâ—rned in his Dialogues who handleth euery member therof with like obseruance of multitude of lyes vsed by the Protestants in that matter 25. The fifth is Cardinall Bellarmine who in his bookes of the Bishop of Rome hath largely learnedly discussed the same and answered all obiections brought to the coÌ„trary with great diligeÌ„ce conuincing both Illyrcius and the rest of his fellow Centuriators
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
all these shifts to seeke out contradictions amongst vs and to fynd none and yet let vs heare and marke his Conclusion and see what maÌ„ner of contradictioÌ„ he frameth against Bellarmine for it will be substantiall I warrant you out of these premisses The contradiction is this saith he to impute vnto Protestants an heresy which taketh away all manner of repentance and hope oâ— remission of sinne past yet to acknowledg in them a contrary orthodoxall truth which is to professe necessity of repentance reconciliation and remission oâ— sinnes Wherto I answere that heere is no contradiction at all as Bellarmine setteth it downe both these propositions being false in themselues Foâ— first Bellarmine doth not impute vnto Protestants that they do take away all maÌ„ner of repentance hope of remission for sinnes in their sense but only that they take away and deny the Sacrament oâ— reconciliation by pennance and absolution of the Churchâ— and secondly Catholicks are so â—ar oâ— from acknowledging an orthodoxall truth in Protestants about repentance reconciliatioÌ„ remission of sinns that albeit they graunt that ProtestaÌ„ts do in words confesse and prescribe vnto their followers repentance faith newnesse of life and such other points vttered and practized after their fashion yet are they little auaylable and much lesse orthodoxall but a priuate manner and forme of their owne reiected and condemned by the Catholick Church for that it excludeth the Sacrament and absolution of the Priest without which after baptisme either in voto or in re as Deuines do distinguish in Christian Religion no pardon or hope of remission of synnes can orthodoxally be conceaued And thus much for this second obiected falsity to Bellarmine THE THIRD OBIECTION against Cardinall Bellarmine for false imputation of the Manichean heresy vnto Protestants §. IX HIs third obiection against Cardinall Bellarmine of vnlawfull dealing coÌ„cerning the imputatioÌ„ oâ— some points of the Manichean heresy vnto Caluinists he setteth downe in these words Belarmine attriâ—â—â—eth saith he vnto Caluin the heresie oâ— the Manicheesâ— who â—â—d condemne the naâ—ure of men depriuing them oâ— freewill 〈◊〉 ascribing the originall and beginning oâ— sin vnto the nature 〈◊〉 man and not vnto his freewill seeing he hath himselfe â—â—serued that Caluin teacheth that man in his first creaâ—â—â—n had freewill wherby in his integrity he might iâ— he would â—â—â—e attained vnto eternall lyfe This contradiction in this point 〈◊〉 â—o more then this to charge Caluin with that which he did not â—â—â—eâ—ue Is not this singular falshood and yet behould a more noble then this Wherunto I answere that if it be more â—â—table in folly theÌ„ this or els in fraud it is notable â—â—deed Let vs heere the folly pointâ—aith â—aith M. Mort. is no more theÌ„ this to charge Caluin with that â—hich he beleeued not So he Wherof I inferre that it â—as no contradictioÌ„ at all For to accuse a man to â—ould that which he holdeth not hath no contradiâ—tion in it but a false accusation nor is it alwaies â—â—lshood for it may be vpon errour and this for â—â—e folly Let vs passe to consider the fraud â—9 I do suppose that M Morton would haue said â—r should haue said that Cardinall Bellarmine was therâ—ore noted by him of a contradiction not so much â—or chaâ—ging Caluin with that which he did not beâ—eeue for this is no contradiction as hath beene â—aid as for that Bellarmine accusing Caluin of concurâ—ing with the Manichees in denyall of Free-will vnto â—an doth notwithstaÌ„ding in another place coÌ„fesse â—hat Caluin graunted Free-will to haue byn in man in his first creation but neither in this is any contradicton at all For that Caluin granting Free-will to haue byn in man at his first creation and lost aâ—terward by the fall and synne of Adam may concurre with the Manichees in this that after the fall of Adam and as now we liue we haue no Free-will so doth Cardinal Bellarmine take him proue it out of his owne words in sundry Chapters oâ— his booke that he doth hold indeed and concurreth fully with the very sense of the Manichees therin which authorityes of Caluin M. Morton ought to haue answered in some sort if in earnest he had meant to haue defended him 80. This then is one egregious fraud and the chiefe in this place to delude his Reader with the ambiguity and Equiuocation of different tymes The Manichees taught that man after Adams fall had no free will as both S. Hierome and S. Augustine do testifie in the sentence of M. Morton heere set downe though craftily he couered their names and Bellarmine proueth Caluin to hold the same out of his owne wordes and workes What answereth M. Morton Caluin saith he is conâ—essed by Bellarmine to grant free-will in man before the fall of Adam in his first crâ—â—â—ioâ— Yea but the question is aâ—ter that fall How then doth M. Morton answere to the purpose And how doth he alleage Bellarmine as contradicting himselfe in that in one place he saith that Caluin confessâ—th Freewill and in another saith that he denyeth it for so much as it is in respect of diuers times For I would aske M. Morton in his Logicke is it a contradiction to say that Caluin confesseth Freewill in man before his first faâ—l denieth it afterward seing they are distinct times and import distinct estates and if this be not any contradiction as any child will confesse that it is not why doth he seeke to abuse his Reader with such a fallacy 81. Another fraud though somwhat lessâ— perhapâ— then the former is that in setting downe the charge of Bellarmâ—ne against Caluin he recounteth the same as in Bellaâ—mâ—â—es owne wordes thus He attribueth vnto Câ—luâ—n the heresy of the Manichees who saith he dâ—d coâ—â—â—mne the nature of men depriuing them oâ— free-will and â—sâ—â—iâ—ing the originall and beginning oâ— sinne â—nto the nature of man not vnto Free-will This sentence 〈◊〉 say though M. Morton put downe in a different â—etter as Bellarmines words and affirmeth him to â—peake theÌ„ yet indeed they are not his nor set downe â—y him as his owne but are the words of S. Hierome â—nd S. Augustine with some inserted by M. Morton himâ—elfe for thus are they related by â—anichaeoruÌ„â—inquit â—inquit Hiâ—ronymus est hominuÌ„damnare naâ—â—ram liberuÌ„ auferre arbitrium Et Augustinus Hieromeâ—aith â—aith it is the heresy of the Manichees to coÌ„demne the â—ature of men and to take away Free-will And S. â—ugustine saith that the Manichees do ascribe the oriâ—en of sinne not to Free-will And why thinke you â—id M. Morton conceale these two Fathers names The â—auses are euident First for that he was loath to â—ublish that the deniall of free-will in man 〈◊〉 â—o generally taught and defended by the Proteâ—tants of our dayes should be pronounced for an â—eresy and a Manichean heresie by two such graue Fathers as S. Hierome and S. Augustine are
poynt also that Christ ordayned some certayne nuÌ„ber he refuteth for that it appeareth by the Euangelicall History that all the Apostles were equall saue only S. Peter in whom he proueth 25. seuerall priuiledges to haue beene giuen by Christ aboue the rest wherof this of his being ordayned Bishop alonâ— immediatly from Christ is the 22. and the second reason alleadged by Turrecremata of the Appellation of the Mother Church giuen aboue all other Churches to Rome by testimony as he proueth of all antiquity seemeth to confirme greatly the said priuiledge though notwithstanding it be a matter not so determined by the Church but that there may be diuersity of opinions as in effect there are amongst learned men about the same in which number is Franciscus de victoria heere cyted who albeit he confesse this opinion to be grauissimoâ—uÌ„ Virorum of most graue Authority yet thinking the contrary assertion more probable that Christ himselfe did ordayne immediatly all his Apostles Bishops doth answere the argumeÌ„ts of Turrecremata saying that the Fathers cyted for the same reuerà non significant id quod Auctores huius sententiae volunt that in truth they do not signify so much as the Authority of this sentence or opinion would haue them And to like effect doth Cardinall Cusanus here cyted being of a different opinion endeauour to answere the said arguments but yet not saying absolutly that the Epistles of Anacletus are couÌ„terfaite as heere is alleadged by M. Morton sed â—ortassiâ— quaedam scripta Sancto Anacleto attributa apocrypha sunt but perhaps certayne writings attributed to S. Anaclete are Apocryphall which two moderatioÌ„s of fortassiâ— and quaedam M. Morton craftily left out both in English and Latin as he doth in like manner diuers other things that make against himselfe and namely these wordes of the same Cusanus In quibus volentes Romanam Sedem omni laude dignam plusquam Ecclesiae Sanctae expedit decet exaltare se penitus aut quasi fundant that some men intending to exalt the Roman Sea worthy of all commendation more then is expedient or decent for the holy Church it selfe do found themâ—elues eyther wholy or for the most part vpon these â—pocryphall and vncertayne writings And then agayne Non opus foret diuinam ipsam omni laude super excellentissimam Romanam primam Sedem c. it shall not be needfull that the diuine Roman Primate Sea most eminently excelling in all praise to helpe herselfe with doubtfull arguments taken out of those Epistles wheras the truth may be proued sufficiently and more cleerly by vndoubted records c. All this and much more is in Cusanus in the place cited by M. Morton which he partly imbezeling partly corrupting and playnly falsifying hath brought forth the broken sentence which heere you may see both in English and latin far different from the Originalls 1â—â— And this is his common tricke neuer lightly to alleadge any one sentence eyther in English or latin as it lyeth in the text but still with some helping of the dye as his owne phrase is some crafty cogging must alwayes enter which I desire the learned Reader to take the paynes but alitle to examine if he fynd not this fraud very ordinary I am contented to leese my credit with him 118. And fynally let him note for coÌ„clusion of this obiection that all this which M. Morton alleadgeth heere if it were graunted as it lyeth conteyneth nothing but two different opinions betweene learned men in a disputable question Whether Christ did immediatly and by himselfe consecrate all or some of his Apostles Bishops or one only with authority to consecrate the rest Turrecremata and Bellarmine do hold the one for more probable but Victoria Cusanus and some others do allow rather the other What wilfull falshood is there in this Or is it not singular folly to call it by that name But let vs see an other obiection no wiser then the rest THE THIRD OBIECTION against Bellarmineâ—or â—or false allegations about Platina §. XV. HIS third obiecton against Cardinall Bellarminâ— beginneth in these wordes Againe saith he where Bellarmine citeth the testimony of Plaâ—ina for the commendation of Pope Hildâ—brand And in another place finding Platina obiected in the question of Confession answereth for the disabling of the Author saying that Platina had no publike authority to pen the liues of the Popes from publike Recordes Which is notably false Platina himselfe in his Epistle dedicatory vnto the then Pope writing thus Thou ô Prince of Deuines and chiefe of Bishops hast commanded me to write the liues of the Popes Whose history is therfore greatly commended by Ballus as being true and takâ—n out of publike Monuments I could furnish P. R. with infinite such like delusions and will also whensoeuer my Aduersary shall renew his demauÌ„d for such a multitude of examples I could bring that I find it a greater difficulty for me to subtract then to multiply So he 120. And I answere that the more he multiplyeth in this kind the greater store of testimonies and suffrages he produceth of his owne folly and impertinent dealing for that Cardinall Bellaâ—mine his denying of Platina to be of absolute credit publick authority in all matters touched by him in his history doth not proue wilfull malice in the Cardinall but rather a true prudent censure concurring with the iudgment of diuers learned men of our time especially of Onupâ—rius Panuinus who writing obseruatioÌ„s vpon the history of Platina concerning Popes liues doth oftentimes note the said story of diuers defects both in the Chronologie of times and truth of matters set downe by him and I doubt not but whosoeuer shall haue read the works of Onuphâ—ius of Balbus heere cited in commendation of Platina will greatly preferre the iudgmâ—nt of the first before the later in matters of history But let vs see what Cardinall Bellarmine saith of Plaâ—ina and vpon what ground and to what effect and so shall you see also how weake a calumniation M. Morton hath taken in hand in this obiection 121. The occasion of censuring Platina was in the confutation of a certaine manifest lie auouched as the Cardinall saith by Caluin who affirmed that there was neuer any certaine Ecclesiasticall law extant binding men to Sacramentall Confession before the Councell of Lateran vnder Pope Innocenâ—ius the third some 300. yeares past and for proofe of this Caluin citeth the story of Platina as affirming the same with this preface of his owne to authorize more the writer Eorum Annales narrant their Annales or publike histories of the Catholickes do declare And againe Ipsis testibus nondâ—m clâ—psi sunt anni trecenti themselues being witnesses to witt the Catholickes and their publike histories there are not 300. yeares yet past since the law of Confâ—ssion began Which manifest vntruth Bellarmine coÌ„futing by great store of antiquityes commeth at length to Platina who
demand performance and that the Reader giue his iudgmeÌ„t And as for these fourteene obiections now brought against me they might be aswell foure hundred of that kind which they are as foureteene that is to say of no force in the world to the question heere handled of witting and wilâ—ull falshood For as for the most part of them he cannot so much as pretend any such malice to be in them For what malice could there be in interpreting the letters T. M. for Thomas Morton in my Dedicatory Epistle written after the Treatise ended which is his first charge against me and yet saying before that vntill that time I had not knowne that Name to haue bene meant by these letters What profit might my cause gaine therby As also by wilfull erring if it had bene an errour in counting how many times M. Morton had set downe the Clause of reseruation in latin What gayne might I pretend by applying that to all Catholicke Priests teachers in their degrees which M. MortoÌ„ scornfully obiected to his Aduersary as to a Priest in contempt of all Priests 96. And with these he beginneth his charge and endeth with no better For what do make to the purpose those other last obiections as that I reprehended him for placing as his poesy in the first page of his booke against Catholicks Stay your selues for they are blind and make others blind where as neither the originall Hebrew nor Syriack Greek or Latin ancient translations haue it so That I noted him to haue vsed and vrged Verè for Verò out of Carerius contrarie to the edition which I had of that booke And like to these are the other three that ensue in him which are but verie light vaine toyes And if they should be all granted as they ly they would proue nothing of moment concerning the question in hand And yet doth he repeat them againe and againe and some of them three times as though they were great matters against me Can there be any more poore and miserable dealing then this 97. But besides this I presume not only to haue cleared my self in all these trifles obiected by him but further also to haue conuinced my aduersarie commonly in euery one of his obiections to haue coÌ„mitted some new manifest falsities himselâ—e And as for his last three witnesses learned and famous Iesuits I doubt not but so to haue turned them against himself as he hath receiued much conâ—usion by bringing them in There remaineth nothing then for the ending of this accompt but that the Reader as chieâ—e Auditour laying before his eyes what he hath seene brought in in charge and answered in discharge do giue his sentence where the debt remayneth or rather who is banquerupt either I or my Aduersary Which yet he shal be better able to do after he hath heard in likewise what new Charges are to be laied vpon him in the ensuing Chaptâ—rs For that hitherto hath bene handled only what he hath pretended to be able to say against Catholicke writers and me his aduersary which hath bene so weake poore and pittifull as now you haue seene euery battery of his recoyling commonly vpon his owne head But the next three Chapters are to conteine the fight made vpon himselfe for three sorts of falsities First such as he goeth about to defend and cannot the second such as he disâ—embleth and pretermitteth to mention for that he could not cleare himselfe therin and the third such as he hath committed a new in going about to defend and cleare the old and then after that you are to see and behould his multitude of new braggs and Challenges as though notwithstanding all this he had had the victory in the former so confident the man is in his owne concepts THE FIFTH CHAPTER CONCERNING THE CHEIFE POINT INTENDED BY M. MORTON In this his last Reply which is the clearing of himselfe from many notorious vntruthes obiectâ—d as willfull witting by his Aduersary P. R. And how insufficiently he performeth the same PREFACE I FIND the saying of the Philosophers That the thing which is last in execution is first in our intention to be verified in this PreaÌ„ble of M. Morton for that his principall intentioÌ„ being to quit himselfe so farre as he might of the odious imputation of so many wilfull vntruthes obiected vnto him by P. R. in his Treatise of Mitigation and that the importance of the matter oâ— satisfying somwhat or staying at leastwise the iudgment of the Reader with some speedy Apologie in that behalfe required that presently in the first place he should excuse himselfe from those maniâ—est imputations laid against him Yet hath he delaid the matter as you see vnto this last place intertaining himselfe first in certaine idle and impertinent skirmishes with his Aduersary As whether he be a man oâ— sufficiency wit memory skill in Logiâ—ke Greeke and Hebrew and the like and then taking in hand to touch two or three litle points about the argument and subiect of his Aduersaryes Booke and thirdly obiecting falsities to others that he alone might not seeme to be culpable and so finally he commeth by litle and litle though vnwillingly as it appeareth like a beare to the stake to the point first intended which is to deliuer himselfe from some small number of a greater multitude of manifest vntruthes obiected against him out of which multitude he saith That he hath singled out fourteene not such as might seeme vnto him most easily answered but those which P. R. hath most vehemently pressed and vrged 2. In both which assertions he swarueth againe from the truth as presently will appeare for that the Reader by taking the view aswell of those that he hath pretended to answere as of the rest that he hath willingly pretermitted will see and so shall we also demonstrate in the next Chapter that those which he hath ouerpassed are much more both in number and force then these which he hath produced and consequently hath singled out such as might seeme vnto him most easily answered the other part also of his assâ—rtion is false that P. R. hath most veâ—emently pressed vrged against him these which he hath answered for that he presseth and vrgeth most the corruptions against Bellarmine Azor Sayer Sotus Cicero Victoria and others which shall be set downe more particulerly in the next Chapter and therby conuince M. Morton of ouerlashing in this behalfe 3. Of all which M. Morton hath made heere no mention and besides this hath laid togeather in these fourteene diuers of small weight and momeÌ„t and some handled before vpon other occasions As for example about the place of Esay the 29. which was but lightly obiected vnto him for an ouersight And the like in vrging verè for verò out of Carerius brought in heere by him the third tyme to make vp a number And the like about a citation of Dolman that was handled before His 12.
obiection also in this Chapter about the succession of ProtestaÌ„t Princes and the 13. about an allegation out of Frisingensis haue byn all handled before and brought in by him againe and agayne therby to make a shew that he answereth to many things wheras in truth he answereth to nothing truly and substantially no not indeed to the easiest of these which heere he hath picked out to shew his manhood in defending them And yet he saith in the Preface of this Chapter That he hopeth to giue such satisfaction to all as that not only the wound of slaunder may be cured but euen also the suspicious scarre of imputation may be wyped away THE FIRST obiected falsity pretended to be answered by Thomas Morton §. I. IN the first front of his squadroÌ„ of 14. obiected falsities chosen by him heere to be defended he placeth a reprehension of mine made vnto him in my Epistle dedicatory to the Vniuersities for that in his Epistâ—e to the K. Maiestie of his Treatise intituled A full Satisfaction he vseth these calumnious words Polidore obserueth saith he that the Popes a long time in their election had their names changed by Antiphrase viz. the elected if he were by naturall disposition fearfull was named Leo if cruell Clemens if vnciuill Vrbanus if wicked Pius if couetous Bonifacius if in all behauiour intollerable Innocentius c. This speach as malicious and contumelious fraught with deceiptfulnes I iustly reprehended noting by the way that he had cited no place in Polidore wheras he hath written sundry books besides his histories I noted also that diuers Kinges and Princes might haue names whose significations might be farre different from their qualities and actions and that Popes since the beginning of that custome of changing their names after their election did not take names by antiphrase or contrariety of sense as this man seditiously did insinuate but for reuerence commonly of other holy Popes who pasâ—ed beâ—ore thâ—m whose names they tooke as I exemplified in many and yet not hauing Polidore then by me I meane that worke of his de Inuentoribus Rerum I passed ouer diuers other pointes of deceiptfull sleightes in him which I might haue vrged and now must needes in part touch for that to this accusation of myne he hath nothing to answere in this his Reply but this which ensueth 5. First that albeit he cited not any certayne booke or place out of Polidores workes yet that the sentence reported by him vpon his memory is found in Polidore his fourth booke de inuentoribus Rerum c. 10. which is intituled De origine honorum qui Romano Pontifici habâ—ntur de eius authoritate in omnes Ecclesias of the beginning of the honors that are giuen to the Bishop of Rome of his authority ouer all Chuâ—ches And albeit this obseruation of Polidore mentioned by M. Morton be not found in any of our Bookes now commonly extant yet he saith that they are in his booke of the edition of Basilea of the yeare 1570. and that two yeares after that by order of Pope Pius Quintus the Index expurgatorius did put out these wordes but he telleth not what Index it was for I haue one containing both the Spanish Flemish Index wherin it is written about Polidore Virgil thus Ex Indice Louaniensi quae in Polidoro Virgilio de rerum inuentoribus Basileae impresso anno 1544. in octauo corrigenda sunt atque delenda The things that are to be corrected or blotted out in Polidore Virgil in his eight bookes of the first inuentors of things which worke of his was printed at Basilea in octauo vpon the yeare of Christ 1544. 6. Out of which wordes it may be presumed as to me it seemeth that vpon the said yeare of Christ 1544. whiles Polydore Virgil lyued yet in England his worke de inuentoribus Rerum though it were printed at Basile where Protestant Religion was entred yet this place of Polidor about changing of Popes names was not found for that being both scandalous and vntrue as presently shall be shewed it is very like or rather certaine that this our Index expurgatorius would haue noted it at least as it doth diuers other thinges not only out of the same worke but euen out of the same 4. booke and 2.3.4.5.6.7 and 8. Chapters and yet saith nothing at all of any thing of the tenth where M. Morton saith this his obseruation is now found in his booke printed at Basile 1570. which was 26. yeares aâ—ter the former edition wherof must needes be inferred that either M. Morton dealeth not sincerely with vs which yet in this matter I will not bee so vnfriendly as to suspect or that his edition of 1570â— which hitherto I cannot see hath receaued this addition about the Popes changing their names after the foresaid edition of 1544. which could not be from Polidore himselfe who was dead before but from some new merry brother of Basile then hereticall who to make sport put it in for a merriment indeed for so in the text it selfe he professeth that he wrote it in iest though it pleaseth M. Morton to take it vp in earnest 7. But let vs heare the wordes themselues which M. Morton setteth downe as found in his Polidore Primus honos saith he Romano Pontifici habetur vt si minùs pulchro honestetur nomine ei statim creato liceat illud mutare verbi gratia quòd non extra iocum dictum sit si homo maleficus antea fuerit vt Bonifacius appelletur si timidus Leo si rusticus Vrbanus c. This is the first honour giuen to the Bishop of Rome after his creation saith he that if his name be not fayre he may chaÌ„ge the same as for example which yet be not spoken but in iest if before he had byn perhaps an euill doer he may be called Bonifacius that is a good doer if he had byn fearfull then may he be called Leo a lyon if â—usticall then Vrbanus or ciuill c. And the first Author or beginner of this custome is said to haue bin Pope Sergius the 2. whose name hauing bin before Os Porci which signyfiâ—th the mouth of a hogge it was permitted vnto him saith the supposâ—d Polidore for auoyding the obscenity of his former name to change the same 8. Thus much out of M. Mortons Polidore wherof he vaunteth according to his fashion in these words Although they haue made Polidore by their Index expurgatorius almost in euery page dumbe not suffering him to beare witnesse against the pryde of Popes c. yet our ancient Polidore now dwelling among Protestants printed anno 1570. Basileae hath a tongue that will tell tales So he Speaking more truly then perhaps he imagineth that his Polidore in this poynt telleth meere tales indeed and consequently is no great iewell of antiquity to be bragged of as dwelling now among Protestants For now I haue shewed that in
himselfe many waies to get out He saith that though Nauclerus doth not affirme it yet Abbas Vrspergensis related by Nauclerus doth But why had not M. Morton mentioned Vrspergensis at the firsâ— and sincerly haue told his Reader that he did only relate the matter with this clause vt fertur as it is said Why if he would haue dealt plainly had he not confessed that Nauclerus did mislike and improue the said report that by the testimony of all Italian writers that he could read Nay why doth he now againe being taken in flagrante delicto misalleage Nauclerus words after that he had seene and read him saying Verùm cùm multi Itali nullam de hoc mentionem faciunt c. but wheras many Italians do make no mention of this wheras Nauclerus true words are Verùm cùm Itali quos legere potui nullam de hoc faciant mentionem Ioannes Flasboriensis alijque multam de Adriano reserant honestatem c. But wheras the Italian writers which I could come to see do make no mention of this matter Iohn of Salisbury and other Authors do relate much good of Adrian c. Haeâ— et alia ambiguum me reddunt quid potiùs eligendum quidùe credendum sit Scribimus enim res gestas affectu nonnunquam plusquam veritatis amore ducti Verùm vnum hoc adijcimus AdrianuÌ„ Virum â—uisse integrum c. These and other such things do make me doubtfull what were to be chosen or what were to be beleiued For that we do write other mens acts more oftentimes by affection then led therunto by the loue of truth VVhich wordes are euidently meant by Nauclerus of Vrspergensis taxing him that he wrote much of passion against Pope Adrian in behalfe of the Emperour Fredericke with whome he held against the Pope and that do the next ensuing wordes of Nauclerus shew which are cut of by M. Morton in relating them here in his Preamble Verâ—m hoc adijcimus Adrianum Virum â—uisse integrum c. but we adde notwithstanding to this that Pope Adrian was an irreprehensible man So as in this small speach oâ— Nauclerus by vs now related M. Morton insteed of Itali quos legâ—re potui reciteth his wordes to be Câ—m multi Itali he striketh out also Ioannes Flasboriensis alijque multam de Adriano reâ—erant honestatem he addeth of his owne that he was maledictus à Deo and finally he cutteth of the last of Nauclerus which containe his owne iudgment Adrianum Virum â—uisse integrum So as if now after he confesseth to haue seene Nauclerus he doth relate him so corruptly what great credit can be giuen to his former protesâ—ation that he had not seene nor read him Or what importeth whether he saw him or no for so much as he was resolute to corrupt him and to make him speake no more nor lesse then he would haue him to do as now you haue seene 28. So as to conclude this accompt wee see that M. Morton in going about to cleere himselfe fâ—om this charge of treacherie doth intangle himselfe with two or three other treacheries more And last of all not hauing what to say runneth to a coÌ„mon place that foure other Popes are reported to haue had disastrous ends to wit Anastasius 2. Ioannes 10. IoaÌ„nes 12. Vrbanusâ— as if wee defended that all Popes had good liues or prosperous deaths or that among our Kings of â—ngland Scotland who haue been peraduenture fewer then Popes many lamentable endingâ— were not to be found and yet may we not argue therof against the lawfullnesse of Kingly power or due respect to be borne to their persons and places or that it might be taken for an argument that God did abandon them and their digâ—ity for suffering them to dye disastrously as this man would inferre of Popes And finally how many Popes soeuer did dye vnfortunatly this doth not excuse M. Morton in belying Adrian and his Author Nauclerus from which it seemeth that he cannot be excused 29. And this in case all were true which he writeth of these other foure Popes whom impertinently he bringeth in to accompany Adrian but as in the one we haue found him manifestly false so in these also you shall not find him exactly true in any one thing lightly that he saith of them but still there must be some mixture of sleightfull tricks to disguise matters And to help out the dye to vse his owne phrase he beginneth thus But why should it be thought a matter incredible that suth a dismall end should befall a Pope Whervnto I answere that the question is not whether it be incredible that a dismall end may befall a Pope but whether such an end as yow describe did befall Pope Adrian or no And whether you haue vsed true dealing in the manner of recounting the same 30. It followeth in your narration out of one of our Doctors as you say Bene legitur Anastasium diuino nutu percussum interijsse It is read that Pope Anastasius was stroken with the hand of God and perished you cite for it Ioannes de Turrecremata lib. de summa Eccles de Anastasio VVhich citation is so set downe as I perswade my selfe that at the next reply he will haue the like euasion as before in citing of Nauclerus to witt that he saw not the worke it selfe For that Turrecremata doth not write only one booke de summa Eccles. as heere is insinuated but foure ech one of them hauing many chapters and one only hath more then a hundred which is this wherout this sentence is preâ—ended to be taken And yet doth M. Mortons citation specify neyther booke nor Chapter wâ—ich allwayes you must imagin hath some mystery in it He quoteth also de Anastasio as though the Author had some such Chapter wheras he only speaketh of this Pope Anastasius by way of answering certayne obiections about the cause of infallibility of not erring in the Bishop of Rome when he is to decree any thing for the Church wherabout some said that albeit a Pope might fall into heresy yet God would not permitt him to decree any thing hereticall wherof an example was brought of this Pope Anastasius 2. that being inclined as some thought by instance of the hereticall Emperour of his owne name Anastasius then lyuing to admitt vnto his communion the heretike Acatius and expecting only for that purpose as was thought the returning of his legate Festus from Constantinople God tooke him away before his returne Turrecremata his wordes are these Tertium etiam hic inducunt eâ—emplum de Anastasio qui licèt voluerit reuocare Acatium non tamen potuit quia Diuino nutu percussus est They bring in also heere a third example of Pope Anastasius who albeit he had a will to recall the heretike Acatius yet he could not do it for that he was stroken by the hand of God and dyed 31. This
person to Venice there by his presence to draw togeather more aboundantly and with greater speed a Christian army VVherfore being arriued vnto Ferrara and aduertised first by common rumour of an vnfortunate fight had with the Infidels and then afterward vnderstanding more certainly the truth therof he fell into such sorrow as caused an Ague and soone after death it selfe through the force of griefe 37. Thus wrote Blondus And with him agree the rest of the Authors cited many others by me pretermitted And now consider M. Mortons words VVhat is now wanting saith he but an example to be produced of one Pope vpon whom the vengeance of God seized because of his rebellious opposition against tâ—mporall Lordes Was it a vengeance of God to dye peaceably in his bed through the feruour of holy desires to see the holy Land recouered But I will pose M. Morton no further in thâ—se matters for that euery man seeth what necessity driueth him to speake and write so absurdly as he doth THE THIRD Charge of falshood against M. Morton which he pretendeth to answere §. III. IN the third place it pleaseth M. Morton to choose out another imputation of mine against him in tâ—e same 2. Chapter 4. Paragraph of my booke which is about the egregious abusing of a place of D. Bâ—ucher the French-man De iusta abdicatione c. thâ—rby to make all English Catholicks odious as allowing his doctrine The controuersy is clearly set downe in my reprehensioÌ„ of his fraud expressed in these wordes The Charge 29. An other like tricke he plaieth vs some few pages before this againe citing out of D. Bouchers booke De iusta abdicatione these wordes Tyrannum occidere honestum est quod cuiuis impunè facere permittitur quod ex communi consensu dico And then he Englishâ—th the same thus Any man may lawfully murder a Tyrant which I defend saith he by common consent But he that shall read the place in the Author himselfe shall find that he houldeth the very contrary to wit that a priuate man may not kill a Tyrant that is not first iudged and declared to be a publicke enemy by the common wealth And he proueth the same at large first out of Scriptures by the decree of the generall Councell of Constance his wordes be these Neque verò eo iure quod ad regnum habet nisi per publicum Iudicium spoliari potest c. Neither can a tyrant be depriued of that right which he hath to a Kingdome but only by publicke iudgmeÌ„t yea further also so long as that right of kingdome remayneth his person must be held for sacred wherof ensueth that no right remaineth to any priuate man against his life And albeit any priuate man should bring forth neuer so many priuate iniuries done by the said Tyrant against him as that he had whipped him with iron rodds oppressed him afflicted him yet in this case must he haue patience according to the admonition of S. Peter That we must be obedient not only vnto good and modest Lordes but also vnto those that be disorderly and that this is grace when a man for Gods cause doth sustayne and beare with patience iniuries vniustly done vnto him c. 40. And in this sense saith he is the decree of the Councell of Constance to be vnderstood when they say Errorem in fide esse c. It is errour in faith to hold as Iohn VVickliffe did that euery Tyrant may be slayne meritoriously by any vassall or subiect of his by free or secret treasons c. Thus writeth that Author holding as you see that no Tyrant whatsoeuer though he be neuer so great a tyrant may be touched by any priuate man for any priuate iniuryes though neuer so great nor yet for publicke though neuer so manifest except he be first publickly condeÌ„ned by the Commonwealth which is an other manner of moderation and security for Princes then the Protestant doctrine before rehearsed and namely that of Knox vttered in the name of the whole Protestant congregation both of Scotland and Geneua If Princes be tyrants against God and his truth his subiects are freed from their Oathes of Obedience So he 41. And who shall be iudge of this The people for that the people saith he are bound by oath to God to reuenge the iniâ—ry done against his Mâ—iesty Let Princes thinke well of this and let the Reader consider the malicious falshood of this Minister T. M. who in alleagâ—ng that litle sentence before meÌ„tioned about killing of a Tyrant strooke out the wordes of most importance quem hostem Resp. iudicauerit whome the common-wealth adiudged for a publick enemy adding that other clause which I say by common consent which is not there to be found and with such people we are forced to deale that haue no conscience at all in cosenage and yet they cry out of Equiuocation against vs where it is lawfull to be vsed making no scruple at all theÌ„selues to lie which in our doctrine is alwaies vnlawfull for any cause whatsoeuer Thus farre were my wordes of charge reprehension to him in my former Treatise of Mitigation The pretended discharge 42. And now you hauing heard this large Inditement it is reason you heare also what the prisoner at the barre can bring forth for informing the Iury to his discharge You must stand attent for he would gladly slyde away vnder a veile of wordes Wherfore first he layeth forth at larg the drift of D. Bouchers discourse saying that he maketh a double consideration of a Tyrant one as he doth any iniury to any priuate man and that for this he may not be slaine of a priuate man the other as he doth commit publicke iniurie and violence either in case of religion or the ciuill state and this Tyrant may be slaine by the common wealth yea also and by any priuate man when the common wealth hath declared him for a publicke enemy And then he inferreth thus for himselfe VVe see now that Boucher hath defâ—nded both that no priuate man may kill a Tyrant for priuate iniuries done against priuate men and also that any priuate man may kill a Tyrant for common iniuries I haue alleaged the later and P. R. hath opposed the former both of vs haue affirmed a truth where then is the falshood Thus seeketh M. Morton to escape and goeth about by two similitudes to confirme this manner of answering The first that if an Esquire haue a sonne that is a knight he shall sit aboue him in publike meetings but not in priuate that is that he shall fit aboue him and not sit aboue him and so Christ commaunding â—aith he that we should do as the Pharisies did ordaine but not as they did in their lifâ— manners he willed vs to do not to do as the Pharisies do in different respects and senses c. And thus thinketh to haue quitted himselfe
the Glosse determining that though a man hath sworne to pay money to one that is excoÌ„municated yet is he not bound to pay the same he alleageth the latin text thus Si iuraui me soluturum alicui pecuniaÌ„ qui excoÌ„municatur non â—eneor ei soluere If I haue sworne to pay money to any maÌ„ that is excommunicated I am not bound to pay it adding this reason quia qualiter cumque possumus debemus vexare malos vt cessent à malo We ought to vexe euill men by what meanes soeuer we may to the end they may cease from doing euill In the allegation of which little text a man would hardly belieue how many false tricks there be to make Catholicke doctrine to seeme odious and absurd For first these wordes not being found in any text of law or decision of any Pope or CouÌ„cell but only in the Glosse or commeÌ„tary they maâ—e not any ancieÌ„t or moderne decree as the Minister falsely auouchâ—th but rather shew the opinion of him who writeth the Commentary if his wordes were as heere they are alleaged 60. But the truth is that the wordes of the Glosse coÌ„teyne only a certaine obiection vpon a clause of a Canon coÌ„cerning promise to be obserued to one that is exoÌ„municated after the promise was made and the obiection or doubt is made in these wordes by the Author of the Glosse or Commentary Sed quid dices si iuraui c. But what will you say if I haue sworne to pay money to any persoÌ„ or haue promised the same vnder some forfeiture and in the meane space he to whom I made the promise is excommunicated am I bound to pay the same or not This is the question and then he argueth on both sides and first for the negatiue Viâ—etur quòd non It seemâ—th I am not for the Canon law saith causa 23. q. 6. That we ought to afflict wiâ—kedmen by all meanes possible to the â—nd they may cease from their wickednesse So heâ— alledging diuers other arguments for the same opinioÌ„ but yet afterwards comming to glue his owne resolution he saith thus Verius credo quòd licèt illâ— non habeat ius petendi tamen debet et solui I do belieue the truer opinion to be that albeit he that is so excommunicated do leese his right to demaund his money yet is the other bound to pay him And for this he citeth diuers lawes and reasons therin mentioned as namely Extrau de iure debitoris Extra de senten Excom Si verè 11. q. 3. Cum excommunicato 61. So as heere our Minister not of ignorance but of falshood taketh the obiection for the resolution as Plâ—ssis Moâ—nay did in his booke against the Masâ—e where he would proue that Sâ—otus Durand and other Schoole diuines did doubt of the Reall presence and transubstantiation for that hauing proposed the question they began to argue for the negatiue part saying Videtur quòd non though afterwards they resolued the contrary and solued the argument And the very like doth our Minister heere calling this obiection of Videtur quòd non not only a resolution but an ancient Decree Secondly there is willfull deceipt in leauing out the first wordes of the Author Sed quòd dices si iuraui But what will you say if I haue sworne which doe plainly shew that it is but an obiectioÌ„ Thirdly that he alledgeth the reason of the obiection Quia qualiâ—ercumque possumus c. for the reason of the solution which is false for that the resolution is made against that reason Fourthly the true resolution of the Commentor is vtterly concealed and a contrary determination by him impugned set downe and this not as a priuate opinion but as an ancient decree of the law and Canon it selfe Consider I pray you how many fraudes and falshoodes there be in one litle quotation and what a volume I should be inâ—orced to make if I would examine exactly such a multitude of citations as he quoteth against vs. Thus farre wrote I at that tyme in my Treatise of Mitigation now let vs see how M. Morton will quit himselfe heerof He beginneth his discharge in these wordes 62. My aduersary P. R. saith he may satisfy himselfe for me who a litle afteâ— concerning this same allegation of this Authority hath said that It may seeme to import that he T. M. scarce read the bookes themsâ—lues but cited the same out of some other mans notes Heere we see in his vehement criminaâ—ion of malitious falshood he hath inserted a charitable and true diuination of my integrity I am glad to see in the mingling of a pouÌ„d of worme-wood and ten ounces of gall he had the grace to let fall this drame of sugar and that so seasonably For the truth is that I tooke vp these allegations of Gratian vpon credit therfore returne these peeces vnto him of whome I receiuâ—d them who is to proue them currant and to satisfy for himselfe So M. Morton 63. Wherby we may see first how doughty a man M. Morton is to be a publike writer when so often he is forced either to coÌ„fesse that he neuer saw the Authors which he citeth or that he tooke them vp by credit or borrowing of others we may see also how poore men in substance our Ministers are who for some shew of defence of their bad cause and for some osteÌ„tation or rather calumniation against Catholicks they ioine their labours togeather like emmitts the one to carry straw the other earth the other some more contemptible matter to make a coÌ„mon treasure out of which euery man may take for furnishing himselfe but yet when it coÌ„meth to be handled and weighed it proueth nothing but drosse euery one of them following rather his preiudicate passion appetite in making his collections then the truth or substance of the things he gathereth together and wheras he taketh so kindly the dram of sugar that I lâ—t fall in saying that it seemed that he scarce read the books which he citeth against vs I cannot but be delighted with his gratitude yet if he had set downe my whole words they had some worme-wood â—lso in them for I say that this fauâ—t weâ—e more pardonable if he did not vse fraud in like manner in the things themselues deduced by him fâ—om those mâ—salleadged authorities as you shal heare in the next imputation 64. Now then finding himselfe pressed in such soâ—t as he cannot tell which way to turne for defending his credit he is forced to make recourse to stockes aud stones blockes and bones as their phrase is of our recourse to intercession of Saints and honouring of their reliques that is to say he is constrained to referre vs ouer to one M. Richard Stocke a brother-Minister of his and digniâ—ied by him in the margent with the title of a learned Preacher of London This Stocke then being a bad storehouse of such as write
against vs to furnish them with false wares lent M. Morton the places or rather deceaued abused him with them as Ri. Can. did before which Stocke acknowledgeth the matters beginneth his recognisance thus I Richard Stocke brought this allegation with some others to the Author of the Discouery c. And can there be any thing more ridiculous then this when one Minister is brought in to help out another in matter of false dealing If I would bring in a Colloquium here betweene M. Morton and M. Stock about the defence of this place for sauing mutually their honesties should I not haue other manner of matter for an interlude the M. Morton framed to himselfe before out of his fingers ends betweene the Moderate Answerer and the Mitigator 65. But I meane not to spend time in such trifles only I would haue the iudicious Reader in earnest to consider that if M. Morton either of himselfe or with the help of his creditor M. Stocke that lent him the falsified authorities before alleadged against Catholickes could any way in the world with any probable shift haue answered the said falsities himselfe though neuer so slenderly it may be presumed that for his credits sake he would haue done it rather in his owne name then haue confessed his pouerty or rather patchery in borrowing it of another and much lesse would he haue sent vs to M. Stocke for answere therof but rather would he haue taken Stockes direction haue deliuered the same as froÌ„ himselfe if any way he had fouÌ„d it to be sufficieÌ„t for some probability of truth But indeed they coÌ„ferring matters togeather and examining the places and finding that they were both of them taken in a false measure the one for lending the false authority the other for borrowing and abusing they concluded like good fellowes frends to deuide the shame betweene them M. Morton for his beggarly borrowing and deceiptfull vsage of that which he had borrowed and M. Stocke for his fraudulent lending of that which was not true nor verifiable 66. Let vs come then to the tryall how both ioyning togeather do indeauour ech one for his part to satisfie my former charge There be foure or fiue points of falsity obiected to them as you haue heard The first that M. Morton in his Discouery auerred repeated the same afterward againe in his full Satisfaction that it is an ancient decree of the Canon law that Catholickes are not bound to pay debts vnto hereticall creditors notwithstanding they haue sworne to do it And for this he citeth thus Apud Gratianâ— causa 15. q. 6. cap. 4. yet cited he no particuler Canon but only certaine wordes in latin found in a Glosse vpon the 4. CanoÌ„ that beginneth Nos SanctoruÌ„ c. but so fraudulently patched togeather by M. Morton or by his Creditor M. Stocke as where the said wordes lye not togeather nor are spoken by the Glosse to one purpose but to quite contrary and opposite senses M. Morton alleadged them as appertaining to one the same effect the wordes are before set downe Si iuraui me soluturum c. and the different fraudes and falsities therin vsed haue byn before displayed Now only we must see how M. Stocke the Champion or vndertaker can defend himselfe about the first point whether there be an ancient decree or no for not paying debts to excommunicate persons which both he and his borrower M. Morton are bound to bring forth vnder paine of discredit for that the wordes of any Glosse do not proue a Canonicall decree nor do these heere alleadged Si iuraui me soluturuÌ„ make to that purpose but expresly to the coÌ„trary that a man is bound to pay as hath bene declared How then are these two first pointes answered of falsifying a decree and peruerting the Glosâ—e Let vs heare the new aduocate M. Stocke speake for himselfe 67. This allegation saith he with some others I Richard Stocke brought vnto the Author of the Discouery which P. R. challengeth to be maliciously cited partly for that the wordes of the Glosse were only set downe when the decree is mentioned wherin I conceiue P. R. complayneth no otherwise then one who being smitten with the scabbard should complayne that he was not strucke with the sword So he because T. M. talked of the decree and vrged only the Glosse For the decree is farre more playne against them then the Glosse Nos sanctorum praedecessorum statuta tenentes eos qui excommunicatis â—idelitate aut Sacramento constricti sunt Apostolica Authoritate à iuramento absoluimus ne sibi fidelitatem obseruent omnibus modis prohibemus quousque ipsi ad satisfactionem veniant This is the Decree which in the generall carrieth as much or more as is set downe by him and so cleareth him from any malice in this point So M. Stocke 68. But as for malice we shall treat afterwards Now wee are to see how he hath beaten vs with both the sword scabbard that is both with the Canon or Decree it selfe of Gregory the 7. Nos Sanctorum as also with the scabbard which is the Glosse vpon that Canon and for this later we haue proued before that being peruerted manifestly corrupted by M. Morton quite contrary to the sense wordes and meaning of the writer who saith and proueth the quite opposite to that which he was made say by M. Morton though it be but a scabbard yet hath it wounded and broken M. Mortons head and M. Stockes also if he had part in the corrupting therof 69. As for the sword it selfe which is the Canon Nos Sanctorum heere alleaged M. Stocke himselfe confesseth that it striketh not vs in particuler in determining any thing about or against paying of debts to excommunicate people and therfore he maketh his inference thus This is the Decree which in the generall carrieth as much or more as is set downe Marke that he saith that it carrieth as much in generall but generalities are not sufficient to auouch particulers This Canon doth prohibite obedience to be exhibited to excommunicate persons vntill they do conforme theÌ„selues it speaketh nothing of debts how shall we try it First by the wordes themselues wherin there is no mention at all of debts and for that cause it is probable that M. Stocke was ashamed to English them as M. Morton before to recite them Secondly by the CoÌ„mentary or Glosse whose wordes are plaine Licèt excommunicatio tollat obligationem quoad â—â—â—â—liâ—atâ—m non tamen quoad alios contractus albeit Excommunication do take away obligation of fidelitie or subiection towards the person excommunicated yet not in other contracts So as if I do owe to an Excommunicate person money I am bound to pay him Thus doth the Glosâ—e expound the Canon and the scabbard doth agree with the sword and both of them do hurt M. MortoÌ„ M. Stocke though neuer so good fencers in a bad cause 70. After this
to the same effect thâ— Authority of S. Hierome out of another Canon in another place of the law as presenly we shall see 78. So as first heere we may behold that T. M. hath not put downe this his quoted Glosse as it is fouÌ„d in the true Glosse it selfe but left out both the beginning Quia isti haeretici c. which imported soÌ„what to the vnderstanding of his meaning as also he leâ—t out the reason alleaged by the Glosse out of Gods owne wordes in Deutronomy to wit the wilâ—ull corrupting oâ— his truth And thirdly he added these words vt â—undas sanguinem ipsorum which heere as you see the Glosse hath not but they are cited out of S. Hierome in another Canon volume of the law where the holy Father excusing to his friend Ripariuâ— a Priest his earnest zeale desire to haue Vigilâ—ntiuâ— the hereticke against whome he had writteÌ„ punished by his Bishop alleadgeth diuers examples of seuerity in like cases out of the Scriptures as of Phinâ—es Elias Symon Canâ—naeus S. Peter S. Paul lastly citeth also the foresaid words of Gods Ordinance in Deutronomy Iâ— thy brother thy wife thy friend c. shall go about to peruert thee from Gods true worship c. heare him not nor conceale him but bring him forth to Iudgement and let thy hand be vpâ— him â—iâ—st then after the haÌ„d oâ— all the people c. which is to be vnderstod according to the forme of law appointed afterward in the 17. Chapter that he be orderly brought â—orth to Iudgement and then when sentence is passed against him he which heard or saw him commit the sinne and is a witnesse against him must cast the first stone at him and the rest must â—ollow And this also doth the ordinary commentary or Glosse of Lyranus and others vpon those texts of Scripture declare 79. And now let the iudicious Reader consider how many corruptioÌ„s this crafty Minister hath vsed to bring forth to his purpose this one litle distracted text for profe of professed bloudy massacres inteÌ„ded by vs against Protestants For first he corrupteth the words of the Glosse apparantly and that in diuers poynts leauing out that which the Glosse saith and adding that which the Glosse hath not then he corrupteth the meaning both of Glosse and Canon deprauing that to a wicked sense of bloudy massacring without distinction of sex or kindred which the Canon and Councell of Carthage with S. Augustine meant only of ciuill punishmeÌ„t against heretickes to wit that they could not be made heires to Ecclesiasticall men Thirdly he peruerteth in like manner S. Hieromes intent which was that albeit he wished that heretiks should be punished also bodily yet by order and forme of law and not that any one should kill another and much lesse by â—loudy massacres as this fellow setteth it downe in his marginall note And lastly he presumeth to peruert the very wordes of God himselfe in the law by translating fundas sanguinem ipsorum spill their bloud in steed oâ— shed their bloud as though God were a bloud-spiller or commaunded the same to be done vniustly by others But all is â—trayned by the Minister to make vs odious wheras himselâ—e indeed is therby made ridiculous And thus farre endured my former Charge The pretended Discharge 80. To this impoâ—tant Charge let vs see now how Mortonâ—â—ameth â—â—ameth his discharge for it â—ay be presumed that if he had not byn abâ—e to do the same sufficiently in his owne conceipt he would not haue made choice of defending this before so many others as he hath let passe without answere First then you must know that heere agayne he referreth vs to his frend M. Stocke to help him out which he doth so miserably as it is pittifull to see in what plight they both are For that M. Stocke though â—e confesse that he lent him this place also out of the Glosâ—e yet he will not take vpon him to iustiâ—y any thing theâ—in but only the citation to be true which notwithstanding he cannot performe as presently shall be shewed but as for the corruptions and falsiâ—ications vsâ—d about the same he leaueth them all to M. Morton to shift with them as he can And in truth it is a very Comedy to see how they deale togeather For first you must imagine M. Morton to enter on the scafâ—old and there being charged with this imputation of so many falsityes as now you haue heard first looketh round about him who will come forth to help him therin and then seing no body appeare sayth thus To the allegatioÌ„ oâ— thiâ— place of Gratian Ric. Stocke doth owe you an answere And so goeth of the scaffold agayne leauing the other to play his part who coÌ„ming vp prosecuteth the matter thus 81. This second place also I brought saith R. Stocke vnto T. Morton the whole being no otherwise distractedly quoted then the Glosse whence I had it warranted by me so that if P. R. reproue me he must checke his Glossary for when the Glosse had set downe the first part he quoted for the later Causa 23. q. 8. cap. Legi c. And this being said he presently recoyleth and leaueth the stage for M. Morton againe to make the Epilogue and end the Comedie But we must call him back againe for the glosâ—e cited by him doth not warrant this citation to wit apud Gratianum Glossae in decret lib. 5. ex Decret Gregoâ—ij 9. caus 23. q. 8. cap. Legi for it had bin ridiculous that this Glosse heere cited vpon the 5. of the Decretals of Pope Gregory should haue beene found cited in Gratian as the Collectour of these Decretals of Gregory the ninth for so much as the said Gratian was dead many yeares before this Pope Gregory the 9. was made Pope which was vpon the yeare 1227. as in the beginning of the said Decretals is set downe and Gratian collected his Decrees seauenty six yeares before to wit 1151. So as M. Morton in his first two bookes the Discouery and full Satisfaction citing the sentence Haeretici filij vel conâ—anguinei non dicuntur quoteth the place thus apud Gratian. Glossa in Decret lib. 5. ex decreto Gregorij noni did miste â—irst in saving apud Gratianum Glossa for that the Glosse cyted is not vpon Grâ—tiâ—n but vpon the Decâ—etals of Gregory and the Author therof is Beâ—nardus de Bottono Secondly it is not in Decretis gathered by Gratian but vpon the Decretals of Pope Gregory gathered by Saint Raimondus Barâ—inonâ—â—sis almost a hundred yeares after Gratian as hath beene sayd 82. VVherfore though before I said to M Morton that this â—ault of distracted quotation were easely pardonable if he vsed no greater fraud in the thing it selfe for that it was likely he read not the bookes which he cyted he thanketh me hartely for it as now you haue heard as for a dram of sugar â—alling seasonably vpon him
meaning and of desyre to deceaue And so much for this to prooue in M. Morton mentem reaÌ„ a guilty mind that according to S. Augustins iudgement maketh him mendacij reum guilty of willfull lying though it be but in smaller things where malyce is more theÌ„ the matter it self 102. Hytherto M. Morton hath gone vp and downe seeking and picking out the weakest sort of imputatioÌ„s layd against himâ— wherunto he thought himself best able to make some shew of probable answere wherin notwithstanding you haue seene how litle he hath beene able to performe in any substance of truth and how in three or foure of these eyght aready proposed he hath beene forced eyther to confesse that he saw not the Authour which he cited or to remit vs to other men for answering the falshoodes therin obiected And now he betaketh himselfe to another shift for making vp a number of imputations as satisfyed by him for it seemed somewhat to touch his credit to answere fourteene imputations which was the nuÌ„ber he obiected against me though he leaue more then twice fourteene vnanswered and this new shift is to repeate and bring in agayne in this place fiue seuerall imputations treated both by him and vs before and some of them twice at least and yet would he nedes fetch them in the third tyme not for want of other layd against him of much more force difficulty to be answered but for that these being things of small moment and lightly obiected for such by me they do serue him to make a bulke of worke as though he had dispatched much matter and solued great difficultyes wheras indeed they are nothing but wordes on his behalfe and ostentatioÌ„ without substance Let vs see then what they are THE NINTH Imputation twice handled before and now againâ— brought in by M. Morton §. IX THIS is about a place of Isay the Prophet in the 29. Chapter and 9. verse where it is said in the common Latin traÌ„slation of S. Hierome Obstupescite admiramini fluctuate vacillate inebriamini non à vino mouemini non ab ebrietate Be ye astonished and wonder wauer yee and reele yee are drunke but not with wine ye are moued but not with drunkennesse and coÌ„forme to this are the other texts also both in Hebrue Greeke VVhich sentence M. Morton translateth into English setteth it forth for his poesie in the first page of his booke in these wordes But stay your selues and wonder they are blind and make you blind applying it to our Catholicke Doctors and doctrine for which I noted him only in the end of my second Chapter for falsly alleaging corrupting and mangling this place the Reader will se my reason by looking vpon the text And how little he hath bene able to say for himselfe in iustification of this his fancy may be seene in the two Chapters before mentioned And so we passe to another as trifling as this THE TENTH Imputation twyce also handled before and now againe brought in by M. Morton §. X. THIS also is a Colewort twice already sodden and now brought in agayne the third tyme for lacke of better victualls to witt about the text of Carerius the Paduan Doctor whether it should be Nuperrimè verè Celsus or nuperrimè verò Celsus wherof I spake but a word or two in my Treatise of Mitigation censuring it for a trifle and now M. Morton hath so stretched out the matter for that he may seeme to haue some litle patronage for his errour by the later errour of another prynt as hauing brought it in twice already in two seuerall Chapters for an ostentation of his manhood he coÌ„meth now againe the third tyme with the same thing as you see wheras my booke might haue lent him a great many of other more reall Charges wherin his said manhood might better haue beene tryed But he desired only to make a florish THE ELEVENTH Imputation pretended to be answered which is handled also before §. XI THIS Imputation was for that M. Morton had affirmed that Doleman doth pronounce seÌ„tence That whosoeuer shall consent to the succession of a Protestant Prince is a most grieuous and damnable synner VVhich sentence I do affirme in my Treatise of Mitigation that it is neyther in wordes nor in sense to be found in Doleman which I do proue by producing his whole text that hath no such wordes though M. Moâ—ton hath sett them downe in a different letter as Dolemans propeâ— wordes Nor are they there in true sense as more preiudiciall to Protestants then to men of other religion for that the discourse is generall for all sortes of men of what ReligioÌ„ or sect soeuer that they do sinne grieuously if willingly they doe concurre to the making of a King whome they thinke in their conscience to be contrary to Gods true religion Where M. MortoÌ„ saying nothing to the substance of the matter it selfe indeuoureth to shew that as a man may sometymes alleage the sense of Scriptures only and not the very wordes citing for the same diuers examples as Ephes. 5.14 Heb. 1. 1. Heb. 3.5 Act. 10.43 and so might he alleage the sense of Doleman though he varied from his wordes But I deny that eyther the true wordes or true sense of Doleman was related by him and consequently it cannot be excused from a witting falshood See this matter handled before Cap. 1. § 7. THE TWELVTH Imputation handled before Chap. 1. and pretended now againe to be answered §. XII THIS Imputation was about false dealing on M. Mortons behalfe in setting downe a generall asâ—ertion that all Popish Priests vpon the pretended supremacy and prerogatiuâ— of Pope and People ouer Princes do vtterly abolish the title of succession in all Protestant Prinâ—es Wherin he is conuinced of diuers falshoods handled before by vs in the first Chapter of this Treatise where we haue shewed euidently that he cannot defend his position but with multiplying more falâ—ityes one vpon another for view wherof I remitt the Reader to the place quoted for so much as M. Morton in this last Reply writeth only fiue lines therof in this place remitting vs in like maÌ„ner to that which before hath bene handled THE THIRTEENTH Imputation handled also before and now brought in againe by M. Morton §. XIII IT is a great argument of M. Mortons penury that he is forced to repeat things so often thereby to make some shew of answering to somwhat though in truth it be nothing in effect for that he dissembling aboue 30. weighty and maine Charges giuen him by his Aduersary as will appeare in the next Chapter he seeketh to intertaine his Reader heere with smaller matters twice or thrice repeated And now this thirteenth Imputation if yow remeÌ„ber was about alleaging the authority of the Historiographer Otto Frisingensis against the cause of Pope Gregory the seauenth in fauour of the Emperour
to haue their consent and approbation in so publike an action as that was 33. The fourth and last cause was sayth Bellarmine for that in those dayes albeit the B. of Rome were Head in spirituall matters ouer the Emperours themselues yet in temporall aâ—fairs he did subiect himselfe vnto them as hauing no temporall State of his owne and therefore acknowleging them to be his temporall Lords he did make supplication vnto them to commaund Synods to be gathered by their authority and licence At post illa tempora istae omnes causâ— mutatae sunt But since those dayes all these foure causes are changed ipse in suis Prouincijs est Princeps supremus temporalis sicut sunt Reges Principes alij And the Pope himselfe now in his temporall Prouinces is supreme temporall Lord also as other Kings and Princes are which was brought to pasâ—e by Gods prouidence sayth Bellarmyne to the end that he might with more freedome liberty reputatioÌ„ exercise his office of generall Pastourship 34. And this is all that Bellarmyne hath of this matter And now may we consider the vanity of M. Mortons triumph ouer him beâ—ore and how falsely he dealeth with him alleaging him against his owne drift and meaning leauing out also those foure causes by merâ— cited then cutting of frauduiently the particle istae these causes are now changed which includeth reference to these foure and furthermore speaking indefinitely as though â—ll causes and matters were now changed seeketh therby to deceaue his Reader and to extort from Bellarmyne that confession of antiquity on his syde which he neuer meant and much lesse vttered in his writings What dealing what conscience what truth is this c. 35. Thus I insisted then and was not this sufficient to draw some answere from M Morton if he had resolued to answere the points of most moment and most insisted vpon as he professeth But it shameth me to see him thus taken at euery turne Let vs go forward THE SEAVENTH Pretermitted falshood by Thomas Morton §. VII AFTâ—R Bellarmine yt shall not be amysse to bring in Salmeron another Iesuit whome M. Morton will needs shake also by the sleeue and shew him a tricke or two of his art in sundry places of his Booke wherof one is somewhat largely handled by me in this manner 37. In the second page quoth I of his pretended Confutation M. Morton hath these words In the old Testament the Iesuits are forced to allow that the King was supreme ouer tâ—e Priâ—sts in spâ—riâ—uall aâ—faires and ordering Priests For proofe wherof he citâ—th in the margent Salmeron a Iesuite a very learned man that hath left written in our dayes many volumes vpon the Gospells Epistles of S. Paul and othâ—r partes of Scripture and was one of the first ten that ioyned themselues with the famous holy Man Ignatius de Loyola for the beginnyng of that Religious Order in which citation diuers notable corruptions are to be seene First for that Salmeron proueth the quite contrary in the place by this man quoted to wit that neuer Kings were Head of the Church or aboue Priests by their ordinary Kingly authority in Ecclesiasticall matters in the new or old Testament and hauing proued the same largely he commeth at length to set downe obiections to the contrary and to â—olue and answere them saying Sed contra hanc solidam veritatem c. But now against this sound truth by me hitherto coÌ„firmed I know that many things may be obiected which we are diligeÌ„tly to confute First theÌ„ may be obiected that Kings in the old Testament did sometymes prescribe vnto Priests what they were to do in sacred things as also did put some negligeÌ„t Priests froÌ„ the executioÌ„ of their office To which is answered Vbi id euenisset mirum esse non debere If it had so fallen out yt had byn no meruaile for that the Synagogue of the Iewes albeit it conteyned some iust men yet was it called rather an earthly then â—n heauenly Kingdome in so much as S. Augustine doth doubt whether in the old Testament the Kingdome of heauen was euer so much as named and much lesse promised for reward and therfore those things that were then done among them foreshewed only or prefigured diuine things that were to succeed vnder the new Testament the other being not diuine but humane and earthly So Salmeron 38. Here then are sundrie important corruptions and frauds vttered by T. M. the one that the Iesuits and namely Salmeron are inâ—orced to allow the temporall King to haue byn supreme ouer the high Priest in spirituall matters vnder the old law whereas he doth expressely affirme and proue the contrary both out of the Scripture it selfe by the sacrifice appointed more worthy for the Priest theÌ„ the Prince and many other Testimonies as that he must take the law and interpretation therof at the Priests hands that he must ingredi egredi ad verbum Sacerdotis go in and out and proceed in his affaires by the word direction of the Priest and the like as also by the testimonie of Philo and Iosephus two learned Iewes and other reasons handled at large in this very disputation and in the selfe same place from whence this obiection is taken And this is the first falsyfication concerning the Authors meaning and principall drift 39. The secoÌ„d corruptioÌ„ is in the words as they ly in the latin copy as by me before mentioned Vbi id euenisset miruÌ„ esse non debere If any such thing had falleÌ„ out as was obiected to wyt that Kings sometimes had prescribed to the Priests what they should do in Ecclesiasticall things deposed some c. yt had byn no maruaile for so much as their Ecclesiasticall Kingdome or Synagogue was an earthly imperfect thing but yet this proueth not that it was so but only it is spoken vpoÌ„ a suppositioÌ„ which suppositioÌ„ this Minister that he might the more cuÌ„ningly shift of and auoid left out of purpose the most essentiall words therof vbi id euenisset if that had happened c. as also for the same cause to make things more obscure after those words of Salmeron that stand in his text Synagoga Iudâ—orum dicebatur terrenuÌ„ potiùs quà m caeleste regnum The Synagogue or Ecclesiasticall gouerment of the Iewes was called rather an earthly then an heauenly Kingdome where as contrarywise the Ecclesiaâ—ticall power in the Christian Church is euery where called Celestiall after those words I say this man cutteth of againe many lynes that followedâ— togeather with S. Augustines iudgment before touched which serued to make the Authors meaning more plaine and yet left no signe of c. wherby his Reader might vnderstand that somewhat was omitted but ioyneth againe presently as though it had immediatly followed Itaque cum populus Dei constet corpore animo carnalis pars in veteri populo primas tenebat Wheras Gods people
we may boldly say that he hath left out heere aboue threescore witting voluntary vntruthes which he knew could hardly or neuer handsomly be answered And besides these â—e hath purposely also left out the mention of other matters no lesse weighty then the former though not in the same kind of falshood and lying yet no lesse cuÌ„ningly pretermitted subtracted or concealed to the aduantage of his cause in this last Reply of his theÌ„ any lightly of the former which we are to lay forth in the Chapter that ensueth THE SEAVENTH CHAPTER WHERIN ARE SET DOVVNE DIVERS SORTS OF M. MORTONS OMISSIONS besides the former and namely in not defending certaine Clients of his whose credit was coÌ„mended to his protectioÌ„ in the Trâ—atise of Mitigation And among others SYR EDWARD COOKE now L. Chiefe Iustice of the Common Pleas. THE PREFACE HITHERTO haue we beheld the omissions or rather pretermissioÌ„s to wit omissions voluÌ„tary vsed by M. Morton in answering the chiefe accusations layd against him in matter of falsity and vntrue dealing now you are to see others of another kind which though in my opinion they do proceed out of the same motiue which was by delaying the answere to auoid the necessity of answering at all yet are they in a different subiect or matter not so much concerning corruptioÌ„s falsifications immediatly as the other but about suÌ„dry principall partes of my Treatise yea all in effect no lesse craftily concealed then the rest though with a certaine pretence and faint promise to answere them afterward But for that I haue iust cause to suspect this promise as a dilatory shiâ—t and subtile â—uaâ—ion wherby to deteine from the Readers knowledg what I wrote in may said Treatise making him to thinke by the perusall of this his Preamble of Reply that I had handled nothing therin worthy the relation or confutation besides those trifles which himself pleased before to lay forth for this cause I say I am forced heere to detaine my selfe a litle longer in repeating againe some chiefe points of my said Booke which M. Morton hath passed ouer with silence leauing only a hope as hath bene said that in time he will satisfie them 2. But in this case I meane to proceed as Creditors do with old doubtfull debtors which is to examine the accoÌ„pts make vp the Reckoning while the debts ar yet soÌ„what fresh in memory For better declaration wherof I will vse this example or comparison If a marchant in London or els where hauing many charges of debts laid vpoÌ„ him should promise that at such a time when accompts are wont to be clered made streight he would answere al theÌ„ the prefixed time approaching he should suddainly withwraw himselfe leauing some small scattered suÌ„mes those also of very bad coines to satisfie for great many obligations promising further that in time he would yeeld abouÌ„dant satisfactioÌ„ for all the rest 3. In this case I would demauÌ„d what the prudent Creditors would do think or suspect especially finding the suÌ„mes of money left to be so small of so bad coine as now hath byn said Two things do occur vnto me that they would do for their better assurance First to informe theÌ„selues well what store of debts the said party was to be charged withall Secondly quid habeat in bonis what substaÌ„ce he might be presumed to haue for satisfying therof And this I take to be the very Case also betwene me M. Mort. who being charged with very many debts and obligatioÌ„s of answering matters obiected against him in my foresaid Treatise he tooke a respite vntill the ordinary time of payment which was the time of his Reply which time comming he gaue vs insteed of a booke a Preamble only though a large one answering not to the tenth part of that he was indebted this so weakely frauduleÌ„tly handling matters impertinent as no way it can passe for currant coine as now in part you haue seene and shall do more in that which ensueth 4. Wherfore I am coÌ„strained to performe the parts of the forsaid Creditors making first a suruey of the chiefe debts lyable against him and which he is to answere then to examine what liklihood of paiment or satisfaction he may be thought to haue for effectuating the same both which points you haue in part seene already put in execution by me in my former discourse For you haue heard the many charges laid against him for falsity vntrue dealing you will hâ—rdly I thinke conceiue where he will haue the substance to answere them Now we are to make the search in another sort of debts wherin I perswade me that the like in many points though not altogâ—ather the same will fall out to wit that the debts will be found cleare the satisfactioÌ„ not easy wherin I referre my selfe to that which is to ensue OF THE PRETERMISSION of the chiefest points concerning the argument and subiect of Rebellion in my Treatise of Mitigation §. I. VVELL then according to this designement let vs looke into the principall heads of matters treated by me coÌ„cerning the first part of our argument about Rebellion to wit whether Catholick people aboue others be fouÌ„d obnoxious to that heinous crime this also by force of their Catholicke doctriâ—e beliefe for that this was the chiefe but wherat M. Mortons first seditious libell of Discouery did leuell bringing in ten pretended reasons but indeed caluÌ„niations for some shew of proofe therof which being confuted largely by me for almost twenty pages togeather couinced not only not to be reasons of any substance or force against vs but plaine caluÌ„niations arguments rather against himselfe his people did impose as you see a great obligation vpoÌ„ him for answering the same in this his Reply but he thought good volutarily to pretermit theÌ„ inâ—â—eed therof to institute almost ten other different Paragraphes about the wit learning memory skill in Logicke Greeke Latin charity modesty truth of his Aduersary P. R. as before you haue seene handled So as this first maine debt remaineth in effâ—ct vndischarged what probability there is or may be how well it will be paid heerafter is not hard to ghesse at least I as his Creditor haue cause to suspect the matter that this putting of or delay vpon expectation of a â—urther Reioynder to come forth was but a deuise to euacuate the payment 6. And for so much as the first of these ten reasons againâ—t vs is â—ounded by him vpon the pretended opinioÌ„ that he saith we haue of English Protestants that they are Heretiks that ProtestaÌ„cy is damned heresy consequeÌ„tly are lyable obnoxious to all the Canonicall penaltyes which are set downe against men conuicted of that crime by the Canon law albeit I shewed vnto him that this coÌ„sequence in rigour was not necessary for that all Protestants were not nominatim excoÌ„municati denunciati
appointed Iudg by God his Father both of the quick the dead which S. Paul coÌ„firmeth in diuers places as Rom. 13. 1. Cor. 3. So as that first â—peach of Christ that he iudged no man cannot be verified but by a mentall reseruation which what it was the holy Fathers and expositors do labour to explicate And the like to this is that speach of Christ of the daughter of the Archisinagogue The maid is not dead but asleep and yet she was truly dead and the hearers were deceiued in Christs meaning which could not be true nor was held for true in the literall externall meaning but by some mentall reseruation which S. Augustine and other holy Fathers do labour to seeke out what it was and in â—hat sense it was to be vnderstood And many other exaÌ„ples to like effect are produced and discussed both out of the old and new Testament wherby it is made more cleare then the sunne that this kind of speach in answering by Equiuocation and doubtfull speach when need requireth that is to say when one sense soundeth in the wordes conceaued by the hearer and another is reserued in the mind of the speaker vpon iust causes is no lye but a truth and most lawfull that it were impiety and blasphemy to hold or say the contrary in sundry persons and speaches which holy Scriptures do recount 29. Now then why hath not M. Morton in this his last Reply giuen some satisfaction about this great debt I know his answere will be to say that he will do it in his promised Reioynder which shall be his last day of payment but there remayneth to be considered what liklyhood there is that he will be able to pay at that day especially for so much as he hauing in his last full Satisfaction attempted to answere some like places alleaged before in a litle â—reatise of this matter writteÌ„ as he saith by Garnetâ— was not able to satisfy any one substantially and to the contentment of any meane iudgement as I do shew at larg throughout the third part of my ninth Chapter adding further in the fourth part therof many more authorityes both of Scriptures and holy Fathers to conuince M. Morton that Equiuocation is to be freed both from the name and nature of lying falsity or falshood All which in like manner is concealed by him in this his friuolous Preamble 30. Wherfore hauing cleared all this matter by Scripâ—ures holy Fathers euident arguments and reasons â—rom the imputations and calumniations of M. Morâ—oÌ„ â— do further set downe the assertions groundes and determinatioÌ„s of School-Doctours Deuines Canon Ciuill lawyers with their reasons foundations practise as also I do proue the same by the practise of our very aduersaries theÌ„selues And moreouer I do set downe sundry particuler cases occasioÌ„s wherin Equiâ—ocatioÌ„ may must needs be graunted lawfully to be vsed And â—inally I do aÌ„swere solue all M. Morâ—oÌ„s pretended argumeÌ„ts obiectioÌ„s made against vs this common doctrine with such perspicuous euidency as to me it seemeth that no man can doubt therof hereafter And last of all I do conclude with a large exhortatioÌ„ to Catholike people that notwithstanding the lawfulnes of EquiuocatioÌ„ in sundry cases yet for the seeming iniustice that it may appeare to haue and therby also giue disedification to them that vnderstand not the true ground reason of the lawfulnes for this cause I say and for that in confession of our faith wherof the necessity is frequent in these our dayes of persecution it is no wayes to be admitted or tollerated therefore I do counsell them to be very sparing in vsing the liberty of this Equiuocation when they are not pressed therunto for auoiding some greater euill 31. All which limitations restrictions and explications of our Christian sincere meaning and hatred of lying M. Morton doth conceale from his Reader still cryeth out that we are Patrons of lying noâ— will he vnderstand the difference nor heare our defence And though he do heare and vndersâ—â—nd vs yâ—â— will he conceale it from the Reader and go on with his clamour as before nay which is more strange he will make proclamation as he doth in this his preamble that he hath gayned the victory in both causes as well of Rebellion as of Equiuocation and yet hath he in effect said no more about the former but what you haue heard touched before which is plain nothing And coÌ„cerning the second he hath chosen out the Example only of the poore woman Saphyra that according to his imagination answered to S. Peter in the Acts of the Apostles with an Equiuocation concerning the selling of her landes but as we hold and proue with a lye and not with Equiuocation And what is this to so long and large a discourse as mine was Wherfore M. Mortons voluntary omissions in this matter are notorious in my iudgement are â—uident signes of great weaknes in his cause Now we are to see others also of an other â—ort which we shall handle in this next Paragraph OTHER OMISSIONS OF M. Morton coÌ„cerning the defence of ten other ProtestaÌ„t writers charged with false dealing which defence being remitted ouer vnto him was wholy pretermitted concealed by him §. III. IN the the 12. and last Chapter of my Treatise of MitigatioÌ„ for that M. Mort. had coÌ„tinually in his former paÌ„phlets Treatises both oâ— Discouery Full satisfactioÌ„ inueighed bitterly against all kind of EquiuocatioÌ„ as falshood lying and against Catholicks as louers fautors therof I thought best to descend vnto some particulers with him for the remouing this vniust reproach and for laying it where it was due to wit vpon Protestant-writers themselues granting that as in a large sense and vnproperly Equiuâ—cation might be called lying and deceyuing when the due conditions and circumstances of true Equiuocation are not obserued which are to haue a iust cause and true meaning so I said that this kynd of vnlawfull Equiuocatiâ— doth alwayes lightly fall vpon the Protestant side and not vpon Catholiks Which as I had shewed before in multiplicity of occasions against M. Morton himselfe as now you haue seeme and heard in the â—ormer eleuen Chapters of that booke of Mitigation so in this last I thought it not amisse to assigne him some parteners in his coÌ„demnation shewing that others also of his brethren were of like spirit in lying with him though perhaps himself had out-gone most of them now in that damnable liberty 33. And then for more easy vnderstanding herof I deuided Equiuocation into two sortes the one lawfull the other vnlawfull as hath byn said and this vnlawfull I subdeuided againe as also lying into materiall and formall vnlawfull Equiuocationâ— the later being much more heynous then the former for that the speaker knoweth that he doth vniustly deceaue by Equiuocation And albeit I do exemplify there in many particulers against M. Morton
had Catholicks therin But yet I must needs say that the fiction is one of the most vnlikely things and the most impossible in morall reason that any man can deuise For that Pope Pius Quintus albeit some man would imagine him to be so good a fellow as to care for no ReligioÌ„ who is knowne to haue byn most zealous yet had he aduentured his Popedome by making such an offer For he should haue allowed of diuers points in the CoÌ„munion booke which are held by the Catholicke Church for heresy and so condemned by the Councell of Trent and other Councells And now you know it is a ground among vs that a Pope that should be an Hereticke or approue of heresy thereby ceaseth to be Pope how improbable then is this of Pius Quintus his offer And why had not this Letter in so many yeares byn published to the world for the credit of the English Seruice and discredit of the Popes And yet the voice is that the Lord Cooke did so earnestly auouch this matter as he pawned therein not only his credit and honesty by expresse termes of protestation but euen his â—aith also to God and man a great adueÌ„ture no doubt And for that I assure my self that the greater part of the Auditory being discreet men did imagine it to be quite false as I and others in effect do know it to be it muâ—t needs be a great blemish to my Lords credit at the beginning of his â—udgship that in other things also he be not belieued 52. But I vnderstaÌ„d that the Booke of this speach or charge now printed is expected shortly togeather with some other appertayning to the same man and then it may be that some body will examine matters more particulerly especially those that appertaine to the iniuring of Catholicks and afterward returne with the agrieuances to the Iudge him selfe seing he is now a Iudge to giue sentence of his owne ouersightes Albeit I must confesse that as well my selfe as diuers other men haue lost great hope of his Lordship by this accideÌ„t for before we did thinke that his ouerlashing in speaches when he was Attorney did proceed in great part of the liberty of that office and that when he came to be Iudge he would reforme his ConscieÌ„ce ratione Status in regard of his state of life but now it seemeth that he is far worse though this I say shal be left by me to others to be discussed vpon the sight of the foresaid printed Bookes 53. My speach at this time shall be only about that which passed in his Booke of Reportes while he was Attorney and which hath byn disputed these monethes past betweene him and a Catholicke Deuine of our party in his answere to the said Reports which Answere is in England And albeit thereby may easily be seene the taleÌ„t which M. Attorney had while he was Attorney in this kind of worst Equiuocation notwithstanding his often declamations against the other sort that with due circumstances we haue proued to be lawfull yet will I heere adioyne one example more but such a one as is worth the noting and bearing away And it is this 54. That whereas in answering of diuers lawes statutes and ordinances which the Attorney alleaged out of the Raignes of sundry aÌ„cient Kinges to proue that they did exercise spirituall authority and iurisdiction the Deuine sometymes not hauing the law bookes by him out of which the said lawes or authorities were cyted supposing the allegations to be ordinarily true â—or who would suspect lawiers to be false in their citations that were wont to be accompted most exact in that point did answere the same with that sincerity of truth and reason as to a man of his profession apperteyned though sometymes also he was forced to suspect some fraude and therepon requested such as had commodity in England to see the Bookes that they would peruse the places and take them out Verbatim which some haue done and haue found such store of Equiuocations and false dealing in the alleaging therof as neuer could be imagined in a man of his calling I shal only set down one example and it shal be the first that is cited by him in the whole Booke to wit of the Charter of King Kenidphus of the VVest Saxons vnto the Abbey of Abindon in Barkshire which Charter M. Attorney set downe with this Preface To confirme saith he those that hold the truth and to satisfy such as being not instructed know not the ancient and moderne lawes c. these few demonstratiue prooses shall serue 55. And then beginneth he with the said Charter of king Kenulphus before the coÌ„quest meaning to proue therby that the said king did giue vnto the said Abbey of AbindoÌ„ spirituall iurisdiction by vertue of his temporall Crowne exempting the same from all authority of the Bishop which indeed was done by the Pope and so the Charter it self doth plainly expresse if it had byn truly related by M. Attorney And for that the Case is not long I shall set it downe Verbatim as the Attorney hath it in his Booke pag. 9. only putting into English that which is recited by him in Latin and left without any translation to make the matter more obscure then shall we lay forth also the true Case whereby wil be seene how true a dealer M. Attorney is in those his writyngs and protestations which after we shall more largely consider of Thus then beginneth the Charter 56. Kenulphus Rex c. per literas suas Patentes coÌ„silio consensu Episcoporum SenatoruÌ„ Gentis suae largitus fuit Monasterio de Abindon in Comitatu Bark cuidam Ruchino tunc Abbati Monasterij c. quandam ruris sui portionem id est quindecim mansias in loco qui à Ruricolis tunc nuncupabatur Culnam cum omnibus vâ—iâ—itatibus ad eandem pertinentibus tam in magnis quà m in modâ—cis rebus in aeternam haereditatem Et quòd praedictus Ruchinus c. ab omni Episcopali iure in sempiternum esset quietus vt inhabitatores eius nullius Episcopi aut suorum Officialium iugo inde deprimantur Sed in cunctis rerum euentibus discussionibus causarum Abbatis Monasterij predicti decreto subiiciantur ita quòd c. Thus goeth the Charter as M. Attorney alleageth it which in English is as followeth 57. King Kenulphus c. by his letters Patents with the Counsayle consent of the Bishops and Counsaylours of his Nation did giue to the Monastery of Abindon in Barkeshire and to one Ruchinus Abbot of that Monastery a certaine portion of his land to wit â—ifteene Mansions in a place called by the Country men Culnam with all proâ—its and coâ—modities grâ—â—t â—nd small appertayning thereunto for â—ueâ—lasâ—ing inâ—eritance And that the â—oresaid Râ—â—â—inus c. should be quiet from all right of the Bishop for euer so as the inhabitaÌ„ts of that place shall not be depressed
there are conteyned in one First then page 163. The Deuinâ— doth cite the seuerall lawes of William Conquerour out of Roger Houeden parte 2. Annalium in vita Henrici 2. â—ol 381. and by them doth proue that the Conquerour acknowledged the Popes supreme Authority in causes Ecclesiasticall And is not this a legall record And in the next two leaues following he doth cyte aboue twenty diâ—ferent places out of the Canon law and Canonists which though perhaps M. Attorney will not cal legall in respect of his Municipall lawes yet iudiciall records they cannot be dâ—nyed to be Moreouer pag. 245. 246. he doth alleage the testimony of Magna Charta cap. 1. made by king Henry the third as also Charta de â—oresta made vpon the ninth yeare of his raigne Charta de MertoÌ„ made in the 18. of the same Kings raigne as other lawes also of his made vpon the 51. yeare oâ— his Gouernement all in proofe of the Popes iurisdiction and are all legall authorityes And furthermore he doth cyte pag. 248. statut anno 9. Henrici 6. cap. 11. and pag. 262. he citeth againe the said Great Charter and Charter of the Forest made by K. Henry the 3. and confirmed by his sonne King Edward the first diuers tymes And pag. 271. he citeth two lawes anno 1. Edward 3. stat 2. cap. 2. 14. eiusdem statut 3. pro Clero and doth argue out of them for profe of his principall purpose against Syr Edward And how then or with what face doth or can the Knight auouch heere that the said Deuine alleageth no one Act or law of Parlament or other iudiciall record throughout his whole booke doth he remeÌ„ber his owne saying in this his Preface That euery man that writeth ought to be so carefull of setting downe truth as if the credit of his whole worke coÌ„sisted vpoÌ„ the certainty of euery particuler period Doth he obserue this How many periods be there heere false of his But let vs see further Pag. 277. in the life of king Edward the first the said Deuine doth cite an expreâ—se law of King Edward 3. Anno regni 25. as also pag. 283. he doth alleage statut de consult editum anno 24. Edwardi 1. and another Anno 16. Edwardi 3. cap. 5. and all these things are cited by the Deuine before he commeth to treat peculierly of the lyfe of King Edward the third but vnder him after him he doth not alleage as few as 20. legall authorities and statutes of Acts of Parlaments so as for M. Attorney to auouch here so boldly peremptorily as he doth that the Deuine in all his booke did not alleage so much as any one authority eyther out of the coÌ„mon lawes or Acts of Parlament or other legall or iudiciall record is a strange boldeneâ—se indeed And yet he sayth that he found the Author vtterly ignorant and exceeding bold But if he could conuince him of such boldnes as I haue now conuinced himselfe for affirming a thing so manifestly false I should thinke him bold indeed or rather shameles for that heere are as many vntruthes as there are negatiue assertions which is a Nimium dicit with store of witnesses 23. It is another Nimium dicit also yf yow consider it well that which he writeth in the same place that when he looked into the booke euer expecting some answere to the matter he found none at all Wheras he found all that is touched in the former Paragraph and much more which was so much in effect as he saw not what reply he could make therunto which himselfe confesseth a litle before in these wordes saying Expect not from me good Reader any reply at all for I will not answer vnto his Inuectiues and I cannot make any reply at all vnto any part of his discourse yet doth he endeauour to mitigate this also saying That the Deuine answereth nothing out of the lawes of the Realme the only subiect sayth he of the matter in hand And a litle afâ—er againe I will not sayth he depart from the State of the question whose only subiect is the Municipall lawes of this Realme But this reâ—uge will not serue both for that I haue now shewed that the Deuine hath alleagâ—d many testimonies out of the Municipall lawes as also for that this is not true that the question is only about these lawes for that as before hath beene shewed the true state of the question betweene vs is VVhether supreme Ecclesiasticall authority in spirituall afâ—aâ—res did remayne in Queene Elizabeth and her Ancestours by right of their temporall Crownes or in the Bishop of Rome by reason of his primacy in the Chaire of S. Peter which great matter is not to be tryed only as in reason yow will see by the Municipall lawes of England or by some few particuler cases deduced from them but by the whole latitude of diuine and humane proofes as Scriptures Fathers Doctors histories practises of the primitiue Church lawes both Canon and Ciuill and the like as the Deuine doth teach in differeÌ„t occasions of his booke adding further That albeit it should be graunted to Syr Edward that this matter should be discussed by the common Municipall and Statute lawes of England only yet would he remayne wholy vanquished as largely doth appeare by the deduction of the said Deuine throughout all the succession of English Kings from Ethelbert the first Christened to King Henry the 8. that first fell into schisme against the Church of Rome This then was a notorious Nimium dicit 24. Another is when he sayth in reproofe of the Deuines answer to his Reports that the booke is exceeding all bounds of truth and charity full of maledictions and calumniations nothing pertinent to the state of the question and that it becommeth not Deuines to be of a fiery and Salamandrine spirit soming out of a hoat mouth c. which indeed will seeme to any indifferent man a stange passionate exaggeration of Syr Edward exceeding all tearmes of simple truth for that there is nothing found in that booke but temperatly spoken and with respect as it seemeth both to his Office and Person but yet when he saw the exobitant intemperance of the Attorneyes hatred against Catholicks to draw him to such acerbity of bloudy calumniations that he would needes inuolue them all in the heynons cryme of treason by meere sycophancy malicious collections vpoÌ„ false supposed groundes and fictions of Pius quintus his Bull and such like impertinent imputations no meruaile though he were more earnest in the repulsion of such open wronges but yet with that moderation as I perswade my selfe no iniurious or contumelious speach can be alleaged to haue passed from him in all that booke much lesse such inuâ—ctiues as heere M. Attorney chargeth him withall as also with that fierie Salamandrine spirit foming out of a hoat mouth wherein besydes the contumely which he will easily pardon Syr Edward speaketh more
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
himselfe heere See more of this before Cap. 4. num 69.70.71 c. 27. In the next place after this M. Morton introduceth for a second witnes to vse his wordes for conuincing P. R. of falshood one Emanuel Sa another learned Iesuit in his Aphorismes alledged by his former Aduersary the Moderate Answerer which Emanuel saith that some Catholicke Authors there be who do not allow that in all Cases where the party demanded is not bound to answere he may lawfully Equiuocate and perhaps sayth he these later speake with better reason then others that hold the contrary wherupon M. Morton doth triumph exceedingly as though he had euicted that Emanuel Sà the Iesuite had contradicted all Equiuocation and therupon entreth into this vayne and childish insultation Is it possible sayth he that my Aduersary can free himselfe from a falsity hâ—ere corroding the consciâ—ce the Edition is but one the translation is the same the place is well knowne c. So he And yet when the matter is examined he himselfe is found to haue both the corroding and corroded conscience for the many wilfull falsityes vsed in this point 28. As first for that this is brought in and vrged as though Emanuel Sà did affirme that diuers Catholick Authors did contradict all EquiuocatioÌ„ in generall wheras he expresly speaketh of some particuler cases that may fallout wherin the party demauÌ„ded though he be not bound to answere yet hath he not liberty at his own pleasure to equiuocate without necessity but ought rather to hold his peace especially when no violence or iniury is offred by the demaunder which yet not withstaÌ„ding was auouched to be but a particuler opinion of some and left afterward by Emanuel himselfe 29. Secondly he cutteth of the beginning and ending of his Aduersaries wordes which do cleerly expound his meaning and thirdly he doth conceale wittingly fiue particuler cases resolued by Emanuel Sà in fauour of Equiuocation against M. Morton so as these be seauen witting wilfull falsityes which by no art of tergiuersation can be auoyded And by this yow may see how the number of his falshoods would multiplie vpon him if I should preâ—â—e him with euery one seuerally and spend tyme therin but this would corrode too much and therfore I remit the reader to that which hath beene said heerof before Cap. 4. num 77.78.79 c. 30. And now we shall draw towards an end though many more of this kynd do yet remayne which might be produced in this briefe collection as namely that which is handled by me before in the fourth Chapter of this booke where M. Morton accusing me boldly and moâ—t eagerly that I going about to satisfy in my Treatise of Mitigation two different Authors Sotus Maldonate that do impugne the vile art of Equiuocating to vse his contumelious wordes I do pretermit wittingly Maldonate the third witnes as the weaker aduersary will do his ouermatch though he were cited by him in the selfe same place to the selfe same effect But all this I do proue to be as full of falshood and forgery as the former conteyning at least foureâ— or fiue wilfull vntruthes For that in the place of my booke by him cyted neyther do I treate of Genesius Soâ—us togeather but of Genesius alone nor do I there endeauour to satisfy any of their testimonyes for that there are none brought forth against me And thirdly I do vrge M. Morton with an vnâ—nswerable testimony of Genes in that place affirming the lawfulnes of some Equiuocation which he doth neyther answere nor go about to answere in this his Preambling Reply Fourthly I do not ioyne Genesius and Sotus togeather in any one place throughout my whole Book Fifthly and lastly for I will touch no more points it is proued that the authority of Maldonate brought in by M. Morton maketh nothing at all against Equiuocaâ—ioÌ„ but rather for the confirmation therof wherin I remit me to that which is more largely treated before of this matter num 83.84.85 c. 31. And now though I grow weary in recapitulating so large loathsome a list of wilfull vntruthes as yow haue heard pretermitting many for auoiding prolixity yet cannot I altogeather let passe in this last place one which is very solemne For wheras M. Morton in the Epistle Dedicatory of this Preamble to to the Earle of Salisbury had made a solemne protestation that it should be to him the greatest cryme of all others if it could be proued that he durst to make a lye before his Lordship before this againe had affirmed the same in effect to the Kings Grace himselfe in his Epistle dedicatory of his Full satisfaction assuring his Maiesty of the vprightnes of his conscience and that he was a Minister of simple truth c. now notwitstanding both to his Maiesty as also to the Earle he blusheth not to vtter many lyes togeather to wit so many as yow haue heard by me conuinced but two especially in this very place concerning an obseruation out of Polidore Virgil. For wheras in the sayd dedicaâ—ory vnto his Maiesâ—yâ—e â—e hath these wordes Polidore obserueth that the Popes a long tyme in their election had their names changed by Antiphrase viz. the elected of he were by naturall disposition fearfull was named Leo if cruell Clement is vnciuill Vrban if wicked â—ius c. Now in this Preamble dedicated to my L. of Salisbury he being prest to bring forth his authority and wordes of the Authour he is constrained to conuince himselfe of two notable falshoodes and deceipts first for that Polidore in his latin text by himselâ—e alleaged doth not say that the Popes for a long tyme in their election had their names changed by antiphrase as M. Morton falsely auouched but vt ei statim creato liceat nomen mutare that it was lawfull for him that was made Pope presently after his election to change his name iâ— he would and this is onely and that a good one to affirme that Polidore obserueth that Popes for a long tyme did change their names by Antiphrase wheras he said only that they might do it if they liâ—t but he doâ—h not nor cannot giue any true example that euer any one did it for this cause 32. But the second delusion is much more singular for wheras Polidore sayd that he bringeth in this contemplation of his but in iest and not in earnest non exâ—raiocum dictâ—m sit be it spoken but in pastime M. Morton in his first allegation therof in his dedicatory to his Maiesty as a Minister of sâ—mple truth quite leaueth out these words therby to make his Highnes thinke that Polidore vttereth this deuise in good â—arnest without any excuse or interpretation therof but now heere in this other worke to my L. of Salisbury being forced to lay them forth he deuiseth a new interpretation saying that non extra iocum dictum sit
not seene the Author himself calling this my curtesy a dramâ— of sugar Was this diligence Was this iealousy of his owne infirmity Nay he saith more that he hath perâ—ormed greater exacâ—nes in this point then any one Author to his knowledg for many ages Is not this excâ—ssiue ouerlashing against others and ouerweening in himselfe What one Author can he bring â—orth among Catholicke writers who in a booke of this small bulke and bignes may be found to haue vttered the least part of such manifest vntruthes as heere haue bin proued and conuinced against him 7. He hath taken in hand before as you haue seene Cardinall Bellarmine to search pick some matter out of him that might seeme to beare some shew of vntruth but hath bin able to find no one as we in the third Chapter of this our Answere haue made it plaine and yet is there great difference betwene the case of Cardinall Bellarmine and M. Morton if you coÌ„sider it For wheras he writeth for some excuse of himself in this place that it is almost impossible for any man citing â—oure or fyue hundred testimonies as factors in their accompts but that by chance he will erre in some particulers without note of â—raude or Cosenage then much more may this be yelded to the Cardinalls works and authorities cited therin which no doubt are fifty for one at least in regard of this Preamble and then ensueth this comparison that M. Morton hauing vttered so many grosse and witting vntruthes in so little a booke the Cardinall so few or rather none at all that M. Mort. can find and prooue in so many thousand authorities as in his volumes are cyted it maketh more notable the vanity of this first challeng or brag that he hath done more in strict examination and censuring of his owne bookes then any other author for many ages togeather 8. Thirdly the reckoning is now made so cleere and perspicuous subductis ex vtraque parte rationibus by casting the accompts most exactly on both sides especially by our last three precedent Chapters to wit of the fourtene falshoods obiected against him which he chose out to answere but could not and then by the twice fourteene which he wittingly pretermitted as vnanswerable and lastly the number of new lyes and falshoods vttered in discharge of the former the reckoning I say is made so euident and palpable as it must needs cause great laughter to see M. Morton come forth and say after all this That if he haue not in the iealousie of his infirmity so reuiewed and examined his booke not as an Author but as a Censurer discouering his owne escapes c. he will confesse himselfe worthie of all the criminations fraudes tricks and deceipts layd against him by his aduersarie wherin I see no other way can be taken by iustice but as in suites of obligation when the conditions are not fulfilled the penalties must be vndergone by the obliged wherunto by band and obligation he is lyable that is to say M. Morton must be coÌ„demned of all the imputations before recyted 9. Fourthly to the end it may appeare that not only I who am his Country-man haue obserued this manner of dealing in his treatises written in English but strangers also in such pieces as he hath set forth in the Latin tongue though I confesse in all truth sincerity that I neuer read or saw any thing of his in that tongue I shall heere set downe the words of a learned stranger that some daies past wrote a letter out of Germany to a friend of his about two books of M. Mortons confuted by hym and almost ready to go to the prynt I know not the very title of the said bookes but I haue the originall Letter of the writer imparted vnto me by my learned friend to whome it was written I haue shewed the same to sundry others who will testifie that it is not feigned by me By which letter is euident what stuffe is conteyned in the said two Bookes and what opinion he hath of the Author And if I shall vnderstand that any fraud or falshood is suspected on my part in this relation I shall procure the Answerer to cause this Epistle of his to be printed with the said Answere his words therefore are these treating with his frieÌ„d of the edition of his said Answere The Censure of a stranger concerning two books of M. Mortons set forth in Latin against the Iesuits Quid Mortoni editionem retardârit in proximis iam perscripsi Liber quin magnus sit nullo breuiâ—atis studio effici potest Nam Mortoni liber crassus est ex nostrorum potissimùm scriptis mendaciter citatis totus ille cento consutus est Vnde vt hominis mendacissimi impudentia prodatur necessarium est singulorum verba sic primò poni vt abillo relata sunt eadem deinde cum fide ex ipsis Authoribus recensenda cum tempestiua aliqua Mortonianae artis commendatione Primum librum habet ille ad 100. circiter Capita varias materias imo omnes pene iam controuersas continet prout ab illo emissiâ— est totum confutaui tot in illo adeoque crassa mendacia demonstraui vt frustra sit ad alterum progredi in quo homo insulsissimus plerumque ex primo repetit familiarissimis sibi figuris hoc est mendacijs alijs aliterilla exornat itaque ex hoc paucula taÌ„tùm delibabo Si Scribam inuenero legendi gnaruÌ„ dabo operam vt exscribatur c. Nam in hoc labore suscipieÌ„do non aliud spectaui quà m vt errantibus asieno sub nomine viam veritatem ostenderem Vnde in singulis Capitibus Catholicum primo sensum quem Mortonus peruertit exposui aliqua Scripturae vel Paâ—rum authoritate stabilini Mortoni deinde mendacia calumnias detexi Quòd factu non admodum suit difficile nisi quod laboriosum fuit Authores quos citat conquirere singulos excutere vt de Mortoni perfidia euidenter constaret Librum Passauij reliqui quò simul atque rediero spero autem nosilluc ante Pentecosten redituros me operi acâ—ingam c. Grecij 20. Aprilis 1608. G. I. 11. Thus that learned stranger who I assure my selfe must needs laugh hartily if he shall vnderstand that M. Morton maketh such speciall protestations and challenges of the integrity of his conscience and iealosy oâ— his infirmity and of the seuere examining and censuring his owne bookes before they come abroad and yet that they come forth with so many grosse falsities as both he and we and all other his Readers that be not passionate do find I haue not thought good to translate this Epistle into English for that there be some wordes more sharp therin then I would willingly vse against an Aduersary whome I seeke rather to pacifie and satisfie with reason if it be possible then to exulcerate by sharpnes of speach
â—ound for the same His tearmes also of heathenish hellish heynous and impious Equiuocation with other infamations of his brother-Minister King may appeare what substantiall ground they haue 25. For heere except they will condemne our Sauiour himselfe of all these obiected impieties they cannot condemne the manner of speach vsed by him especially in so graue and weighty matters and if they permit the same in him then can they not coÌ„demne it in vs who haue so good a warrant president for the same especially seing we do restrayne our vse thereof with many limitations as in our larger Treatise of that matter is set downe to wit that it may not be vsed in matters of religion where coÌ„fession of our faith is required nor yet in common trafficke and conuersation of humane life where any may be preiudiced or damnified therby neither to any Iudge or lawfull Magistrate that proceedeth lawfully and hath iust authority to demaund vs and we obligation to answer him to his meaning And finally except some iniury or preiudice be offered vs for auoiding wherof it is conuenient to vse the refuge of this manner of speach and except our speach be all waies true in our owne lawfull meaning we are not permitted by Catholicke doctrine to vse the same and much lesse with open lying as the two Ministers before alleaged and many of their fellowes are shewed to haue donne And this I thinke is so much as needeth to be treated of this matter at the present by occasion of this Appendix FINIS A TABLE OF THE CHAPTERS AND PARAGRAPHES THE FIRST CHAPTER ANswering to the first of M. Mortons three vaine Inquiries concerning the wit memory learning charity modesty and truth oâ— his aduersary P. R. It hath 10. Paragraphes pag. 1. § 1. M. Mortons imputation of P. R. his with examined about the sleeping souldiers of Hierusalem pag. 3. § 2. M. Mortons obiection against P. R. his memory about the clause of reseruation vtterred in Latin pag. 10. § 3. Against the learning of P. R. especially in Logicke about a Logicall argument of the competency of God p. 15. § 4. The â—xameÌ„ of that which M. Mort. obiecteth against P. R. in the same â—aculâ—y about a diuision and subdiuision p. 32. § 5. The confutation of what M. Morton obiecteth against the skill of P. R. in Greeke and Hebrew touching the verse of the Prophet Isay cap. 29. vers 9. pag. 41. § 6. VVhat M. Morton alleageth against the Charity of P. R. about verè and verò in Carerius pag. 46. § 7. The obiection of M. Morton against the modesty of P. R. touching a false allegation of Doleman pag. 49. § 8. An answer to M. Mortons calumniation of the truth oâ— P. R. about the authority of Otho Frisingensis pag. 55. § 9. The examination of this controuersy of Fâ—isingensis more at large pag. 60. § 10. The Conclusion generall Reckoning of all this Chapter or Inquiry pag. 70. THE SECOND CHAPTER ANswering to M. Mortonâ— second Inquiry whether P. R. may be iudged a competent Aduocate in this cause which he haâ—h assumed and oâ— some other poinâ—s bâ—longing thereunto especially touching the title or argument oâ— the Booke of Mitigation It hath 2. Paragraphes pag. 76. § 1. VVhat M. Morton answereth to the former part oâ— my Treatise about Rebellion and against the title therof which in effect is nothing but a Cauill pag. 79. § 2. VVhat he answereth about the later Treatise concerning Equiuocation pag. 91. THE THIRD CHAPTER ANswering to M. Mortons thiâ—d Inquiry concerning falsities obiected by him though falsely against Catholiâ—ke writers but especially against Card. Bellarmine whereof no one can be prooued It hath 18. Paragraphes pag. 115. § 1. Of wilfull falshoods obiected by M. Morton to sundry Catholicke writers and namely his abuse offered to Franciscus Costerus pag. 118. § 2. His first example of voluntary falshood falsely obiected against three ancient Popes pag. 125. § 3. His second example of wilfull fraud falsely oâ—iected against moderne Catholicke writers about the Councell of Eliberis in Spayne pag. 133. § 4. His third example oâ— like deceipt obiected against the same Catholick authours about the Councell of Frankford in Germany pag. 140. § 5. His fourth example of like falshoods oâ—iected against the same authors about the Epistle of S. Epiphanius touching images pag. 144. § 6. The second part of this Chapter of instaÌ„ces against Card. Bellarmine in particuler touching imputatioÌ„ of old heresies p. 149. § 7. The first obiection against Card. Bellarmine of false imputation of the Pelagian heresy to Protestants pag. 152. § 8. The second iniurious obiection against Card. Bellarmine of false imputation of the Nouatian heresy pag. 15◠§ 9. The third obiection against Card. Bellarmine for false imputation oâ— the Manichean heresy vnto Protestants pag. 166. § 10. The fourth obiection against Card. Bellarmine about pretended false imputatioÌ„ oâ— Arianisme vnto Protestants p. 170. § 11. The fifth obiection against Card. Bellarmine for faâ—se imputation of heresies vnto sundry Protestants pag. 174. § 12. His sixth and last obiection against Card. Bellarm. â—or false imputation of the Sacramentary heresy vnto ProtestaÌ„ts p. 176 § 13. The third part of this Chapter conteyning other obiections against Bellarmineâ—or â—or falsifications in alleaging other mens authorities pag. 185. § 14. His second obiection against Card. Bellarmine touching false allegations pag. 192. § 15. The third obiection against Card. Bellarmine touching false allegations pag. 196. § 16. The fourth obiection against Card. Bellarmine touching false allegations pag. 199. § 17. M. Mortons Conclusion and obseruation about the article of Purgatory examined pag. 209. § 18. The summe Reckoning of all this whole Chapter pa. 216. THE FOVRTH CHAPTER COnteyning certaine imputations of falsities and falshoods falsely obiected by M. Morton against his aduersary P. R. which are shewed not to be such but that the obiectour falsifieth also in obiecting them It hath 15. Paragraphes pag. 221. § 1. His first obiected falshood against P. R. about Tho. Mortons name pag. 225. § 2. His second falshood against P. R. about the clause of reseruation in Latin pag. 230. § 3. His third obiected falshood against P. R. about presumptuous Doctors mentioned by S. Paul 1. Tim. 2. p. 232. § 4. His fourth obiected â—alshood against P. R. about iustifying of Goodman pag. 235. § 5. His fifth obiected â—alshood against P. R. about Knox Buchanan pag. 239. § 6. His sixth obiected falshood against P. R. about Caluins Autotheisme and misplacing of Card. Bellarmines name in the margent pag. 242. § 7. His seauenth obiected falshood against P. R. about the iustifying of Protestants from rebellion pag 246. § 8. His eight obiected falshood against P. R. about dissembling the wicked practises of Caluin Beza and others pag. 248. § 9. His ninth obiected falshood against P. R. about Syr Thomas Wiats Rebellion and the Duke of Suffolke and others pag. 251. § 10. Foure other obiections of
of malice and malitious dealing remayneth still with you vnpurged vntill you blot it out by contrary deedes and not only wordes and this may serue by way of Preface to this Chapter OF WILFVLL falshoods obiected by M. Morton in sundry Catholiâ—kâ— writers and namely his abuse offered to Franciscus Costerus §. I. NOW then to come to the matter it selfe the occasion oâ— this labour of M. Morton to seeke out some errours or shewes of falsities in Catholickâ— Authors was for that I hauing pressed him very sore in the last Chapter of my booke of Mitigation with great multiplicity of vntruthes vttered by him and his consortes which seemed to me both witting and willfull I said that it might well be assigned for a signe distinctiue betweene vs and theÌ„ to haue the spirit of vttering wilâ—ull vntruthes and therby also might be determined the differeÌ„ce of our causes which is good and which is bad For as in a good cause there is no need of lying and a bad cause cannot be defended but by lying so no man willingly of any good nature will choose to lye but vpon some necessity The wordes of my former discourse in the book of Mitigation are these 6. And for that say I this matter is of great importance for the reader well to conceyue in these dayes of controuersies betweene vs I meane to stay my selfe somwhat in this Chapter vpon this point â—nd to shew that indeed it is a substantiall signe diâ—tinctiue betweene all sectaryes and vs at this tyme â—nd that in matters of controuersy our writers shall â—euer be found guylty in these kindes of false lying â—nd malitious equiuocations where not only vnâ—â—uth is vttered but it is wittingly also vttered the â—riter knowing that he writeth vntruth as often â—ow hath beene said which manner of dealing inâ—â—rreth two pointes the one that such a writer or â—â—eaker hath no conscience that vttereth thinges â—gainst his owne knowledge and which God seeth 〈◊〉 be false and falsely meant in his heart and the â—her that his cause hath no ground of substantiall â—uth which cannot be defended without such â—ilfull lyes â—â— In this then if you please let vs insist a while 〈◊〉 Tho. Morton bring forth any Catholicke Authors â—hatsoeuer that wrote against Protestants since â—ese heresyes began that hath bene taken in this â—piety I meane that hath set downe in print any â—â—â—h falsity as cannot be excused eyther by ignoâ—â—nce ouersight negligence error of print translaâ—â—â—n diuersity of editions or the like but that it â—ust needs be presumed that he knew the vntruth â—â—d yet would set it forth of this kynd I say let â—im shew me but one example among all Cathoâ—â—cke writers of our tyme and I will in my consciâ—â—ce greatly mistrust and discredit the Author â—hether it be an other or my selfe But if he shew â—e two or three in any writer of this kynd I shall hardly be able euer afterward to belieue him more And wheras the number and variety of Catholicke writers is so great as the world seeth it were no great â—abour to shew it in some if that spirit did raigne among them as it doth in Protestant writers 8. To this speach of mine doth M. Morton now in this his last Preamble frame a rhetoricall answere in these wordes Doth the man who maketh mention of his interruption by sicknesse know what he hath now said Whetâ—er he spake this being in his feauer-fit or in temper Whether in a dreame or a wake Whether in his right mynd or in distraction For sure I am that this ostentation will prooue in the issue as vnfortunate vnto P. R as euer was boast either by Thraso on the stage or by Goliah in the Campe or by Gorgias in the schooles by the which he must be driuen vnto so miserable and shamefull a palinody as euer herafter vtterly to discredit his owne frends and worke a perpetuall discontent within himselfe as presently will appeare So he 9. And to this appearaÌ„ce I am conteÌ„t to remit meâ— only I desire the reader to stand attent to the conditioÌ„ heâ—re put downe that the faâ—shood obiected must be willfull and not excusable either by error ignoraÌ„ce ouersight or the like as many of those were not nor could possibly be defended which in my booke I brought against M. Morton and his and more shall I do in this his Reply And surely it is worth the noting that he being to begin a list of falsities against Roman writers as he pretendeth should in the very first lynes sâ—t downe a notorious wilâ—ull vntruth of his owne against that graue and learned man Franciscus Costerus as prâ—sently will appeare For wheras I had said in mâ— former alleadged discourse Let Thomas Morton bring forth any Catholicke Autâ—ours whatsoeuer that wrote against Protestants since these heresies began that hath bene taken in this impiety he maketh this anâ—were I mâ—y not deny euen this my Aduersary his due comâ—endation of modesty who being ashamed we may thinke of the Romish fraudes and falsifications of former times will insist only vpon such mens examples as haue professedly written of late against Protestants It were to be wished that his fâ—llow Iesuite Costerus had kept himselfe within the same precincts but he maketh a more generall challeng thus Nemo hactenuâ— vel Princeps vel Praesul vel Scriptor fuit qui mendacij vel malae fidei Romanos arguerit that is Neuer yet saith he did any Prince or Prelate or writer accuse the Romanists of falshood So he 10. And heere now I must demand of the Reader what he vnderstandeth M. Morton his purpose to be in this place Is it not to shew that Costerus was lesse modest then I for so much as I said if in any one Catholicke writer of controuersies of our age there might be found but two or three examples of wilfull lying I would neuer trust him more but that Costerus went further saying that no Prince Prelate â—r writer had euer hitherto accused any Romanists oâ— falshood Is not this M. Mortons plaine meaning thinke you as both his words and drift do shew Yes truly Which being so I would aske him first why he did clippe the latin words of Costerus being so few as â—hey are for that he saith Atqui verò nemo hactâ—nus fuit Catholicus vel Princeps vel Praesul vel Scriptor c. but neuerthelesse there was no Catholicke man hitherto to wit vnto the time assigned wheÌ„ Bishops of Rome were Saints and Martyrs eyther Prince Bishop or writer c. why did he cut of the words but â—euerthelesse Catholicke man and those both in latin and English wheras they be in Costerus 11. Why was this paring think you but that they being sâ—t down truly as they staÌ„d in the Author they would haue bâ—wrayed his falshood for that the words but neuerthelesse do shew a refereÌ„ce to somwhat going before and the words no Catholicke Prince