endeuour to deceiue Three things also I must confesse to haue bâ—ne the speciall causes of this griefe and indignation sâ—metimes conceiued The first to see a yong man as they say you are so lately come from the Schooles so lightly furnished and so little expâ—rienced in greater studies as scarsely you could haue life or leasure to looke at the varietie of Bookes Authors that haue written therof especially concerning the Catholick religion for a thousand yeares togeather which you grant to be ours to come forth as it were in his hose and dublet challeng the whole Church of God and the whole ranke of profound learned men therof whose bookes for deep learning iudgement and varietie of reading you can not but confesse in truth and modestie that you are not able to beare after them And fynallie they are thousands and you are but one thy were ould you are yong their beards were hoarie and gray yours is yet red they wore out their ages with studie you haue yet but lately begone they haue had the continuance of many ages the wit learning experience diligence of all Christian Nations that held the same Religion with them your prescription of tyme is small your association of fellowes Fathers Doctors or Councells lesse For if you goe out of the little Iland of Britany where all that professe themselues Protestants in all things are not wholy with you you shall fynd abroad all the rest in most things against you And yet do you so confidently tryumph and insult euery where as though you alone were able to ouercome and vanquish whatsoeuer was established before you in our ReligioÌ„ different from yours saying euery where with contempt when you speake of this ranke of learned men and when any thing displeaseth you in them your owne Bishops your owne Doctors your owne CouÌ„cells your owne Fathers your owne Popes say this or that yea though they were neuer so ancient and holie As of three Popes togeather Zozimus Bonifacius Celestinus that liued with S. Augustine and were highly commended by him aboue twelue hundred yeares agoe you speake so contemptuouslie as if they had byn some three petty Ministers of your owne ranke And this I confesse to haue byn one principall cause of my sharpe wryting against you which yet if you would once amend on your part you should quiâ—klie fynd correspondence on myne And so I suppose â—ou will perceaue that I haue begone in this Booke â—hough whiles you perseuâ—re in your old vayne of preâ—â—mption and insolencie you are like to drawe forth â—nsweres nothing pleasing your owne humor which â—ing of pryde as in all Sectaries as accustâ—med to be 〈◊〉 liketh humility and patience in all people but only 〈◊〉 themselues Another cause was the circuÌ„stance of tyme when 〈◊〉 wrote your first Discouerie against Catholikes 〈◊〉 not being contented to haue set abroad diuers â—â—â—tings of yours in Latin touching fâ—ygned absurdâ—â—â—es and contraries of dâ—ctrine fâ—und as you preâ—â—â—â— in their wrytings wherof you are like shortlie â—heare out of Germany to receiue the said abâ—â—â—dities and falshoods doubled vpon your self as â—â—u will perceiue by that piece of the latyn Epistle â—â—itten from thence which I haue imparted with â—â—u in the last Chapter of this my râ—â—koning not â—â—ntented I saie with this iniurie offered vs â—ou watching a tyme of pressure and tribulation fynding the same to fall out in full measure by the hatefull accident of the powder-treason you raÌ„ne as the Rauen to the fallen sheep to picke out her eyes that is to say to adde exasperation to exasperation affliction to affliction calumniation to sycophancy against all sortes of Catholicks And then came forth in hast your litle infamous bloudie Lybell without a name which out of your charitie would needs make all Catholiks Traytors in the very roote of Catholicisme it self that is to say in the fundamentall doctrine of their Religion So as euerie one of them must be forced to denie his faith in that ReligioÌ„ or else acknowledge himself trayterous in his duty of temporall allegiaÌ„ce and subiection Which paradox to make somewhat probable you were forced to accompanie with so manie fraudulent shiftes deceipts and falsities as haue byn conuinced against yow in my former Treatise coÌ„firmed now in this which though of it self it moued no small indignation to see so many manifest falshoods so bouldly auouched and ratified againe by you afterwards as in this fynall reckoning will apeare yet must I confesâ—e that the forsaid circumstance of time did principally mooue me to be more sharpe in my CoÌ„futation And it made me also to remember a certaine historie that I had read in old Lactantius Firmianus in his first booke intituled De Iustitia which I shall recite as I fynd it in hym yow may apply vnto your self so much therof as yow maie thinke to fit you The storie is of a certayne heathen Philosopher who in tyme of persecution tooke occasion to write against Christian religion Ego saith Lactantius cùm in Bithynia Oratorias litteras accitus docerem c. When as I being sent for taught Rhetoricke in Bithynia and the Churches of Christians by the Edicts of Diocletian Maximinian were commanded to be ouerthrowne a certaine chief Philosopher taking the occasion of that tyme nescio vtrum superbiùs an importuniùs iacenti atque abiectae veritati insultaret did insult ouer the truth of Christes Religion oppressed and trodden vnder foot I know not whether with greater pryde or importunity c. And then he describeth at large the manners of this Philosopher which were ouerlong to repeate heere I meane of his Lybertine life of his good fare of his ambiâ—ion with the Magistrate and Princes And fyâ—ally he saith of him Disputationes suas moribus destruebat mores disputationibus arguebat ipse aduersus se grauis censor acerâ—imus accusator He ouerthrew his disoutations â—ith his manners and condemned his owne manners by his disputations being a graue Censurer and most sharp accuser against himselfe And theÌ„ saith further Eodem ipso tempore quo iustus populus nefariè lacerabatur tres Libros euomuit contra Religionem nomenque Christianum In the very self same time that the innocent Christian people were impiously torne in pieces by the persecutor he cast forth three Bookes against the Religion and name of Christians And Lactantius addâ—th that albâ—it he was effusus in PrincipuÌ„ laudes and flattered the Emperors then liuing no lâ—sse thâ—n M. Morton hath done ours yet all sortes of men aswell Hâ—athen as others did mislyke and detest his cruell deuise to wryte against themâ— when as they lay vnder so heauie a yoke of present persecution Id omnes arguebant saith he quòd illo potissimùm tempore id opeâ—is esâ—et agressus quo furebat odiosa crudelitas All sortes of men did condemne this that he had taken in hand to put forth his bookes at that
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
Purgatory and the testimonies produced for the same I cannot but lay before you a certaine frendly considâ—ration tending to your eternall good You and I that are now so contrary in this point one against the other you in denâ—ing and I in belieuing the truth of that dredfull purging fire cannot but assure our selues though our age perhaps be vnequall yet that shortly wâ— shall both come to try the matter by experience and therof will depend our euerlasting good or euill You haue noted me of indiscretion â—or venturing as you call it all the credit of the Annotations of the Rhâ—mish Testament all the Volumes of Baronius his Annales all the monuments of Councels all the disputes of Bellarmine c. vpon only tre-trip or triple wilfull falsitie But you do aduenture a farre greater matter the eternity of your owne soule vpon a far worse chance then tre-trip for that you haue the whole dice of Christian antiquity against you 148. I haue shewed before how that Cardinall Bellarmine hath produced 15. seuerall places out of the old and new Testaments with expositions of ancieÌ„t Fathers vpon the same wherby the vse of Purgatory is proued from the beginning of Christian ReligioÌ„ the same he proueth out of diuers ancient Councels both of Afrike wherin S. Augustine was present as also of Spayne of France of Italy of Greece which giue their testimonies to the same effect I haue shewed also that he alleageth almost twenty different Fathers of the ancient Church testifying the same in their dayes And that Coccius produceth vpon the poynt of threescore within the compasse of the first 600. yeares that confirme the common faith of the Church in those dayes to haue held Purgatory and prayer for the dead for Catholike doctrine and for the practice also of praying for soules departed vsed in all ancient formes of Masse Christian Sacrifices Lyturges throughout all Nations of the Christian world the same Coccius alledgeth ten seuerall Lyturges as that of Hierusalem that of Rome that of Alexandria that of Aâ—thiopia that of Constantinople Syria Milan Arabia Gothia and Armenia all which or the most of them were in vse in the Churches of those Christian Countryes for aboue 1000. yeares gone and in ech one is there expresse order prescribed to pray for the soules departed which necessarily supposeth Purgatory He produceth also the large testimonyes of fiue or six twenty learned Doctors of the Hebrew Iewish Church some lyuing before Christ and some after all which do testify the conformity betweene Christian doctrine theirs in this behalfe 149. And fynally Iohn Caluin himself treating of this matter confesseth that the vse of prayer for the dead which supposeth Purgatorie was practized in the Primitiue Church aboue thirteene hundred yeares gone Ante mille trecentes annos saith he vsu receptum fuit vt precationes fierent pro defunctis It was receyued into vse aboue a thousand and three hundred yeares past that prayers should be made for the soules of them that were departed Wherunto I do adde that neuer any Father since that tyme will be found to haue reproued or written against the same or to haue accompted it for an errour or heresy but rather haue condeÌ„ned the opposite doctrine for impious and hereticall in Aërius and other heretikes 150. All which being so consider I beseech you euen for the loue of your owne eternall good vpon what tre-trip or hazard you do cast your soule in standing so resolutly vpon this deniall which heere you do For if all this Senate of Antiquity and consent of the Christian world for so many ages â—aue not byn deceaued you are gone euerlastingly If they be saued you must be damned If any of them went to the fire of Purgatory you must needs go to hell-fire And this is another manner of tre-trip then to aduenture the credit of Annotations Bookes Treatises and Authors which you name 151. For as if a man being prisoner for a greiuous criminall case of life and death in a strange Country should find all the ancient lawyers therof from time out of mind to haue byn of vniforme opinion that except such and such course â—e taken in his defence he must certainly be condemned and put to execution and that these should leaue diuers and sundry records for the same and that some yonger lawyer or two of a boulder spirit but of farre lâ—sse learning and authority should laugh and make light therat encouraging the said prisoner to contemne as threats and vaine feares all that which the ancients said or had left written in that behalfe as Iohn Caluin doth in the former place cited where after his confession of the receaued vse of prayer before 13. hundred yeares saith Sed omnes fatâ—or in errorem abrâ—pâ—i â—uerunt But all of them I confesse were carried away with errour If this case I say should fall out in a matter of temporall life or death I doubt nothing but the prisoner would stand in feare to follow the yonger lawyers venturous opinions with so great danger and doubtfullnes of his temporall death and vtter destruction to ensue therby And yet is M. Morton content in this matter concerning the euerlasting losse or perill of his soule to aduenture against all the said Antiquity yea glorieth therin to make an opposition to them all for that Caluin Beza some yonger-Deuines haue put him in that gogge And is not this to play his soule vpon lesse then tre-trip But now let vs passe to other matters that are to ensue for that he hauing made this vaine assault against Cardinall Bellarmine and other Catholick authors before meÌ„tioned he commeth now to set vpon his aduersary P. R. with all the forces he can gather togeather though with no better successe indeed then in the former skirmishes as by experience you will prooue wherunto I remit me THE FOVRTH CHAPTER CONTEYNING CERTAINE IMPVTATIONS OF FALSITIES and falshoods falsely obiected by M. Morton against his Aduersarie P. R. which are shewed not to be such but that the obiecter falsifieth also in obiecting them PREFACE BY little and little we draw towards the substance of our chief point of controuersie which is whether M. Morton can deliuer himself and his from those imputations of witting and willing â—alshoods which in the Treatise of Mitigation we produced against them and that in so perspâ—cuous and palpable a sort as seemed vnpossible to auoyd the same Vnto which preiudice M. Mort. endeauouring to lay some â—enitiue salue came forth with this his PreaÌ„ble wherin it seemed that he ought presently to haue gon to the questioÌ„ about his owne defence but he thought best to dâ—fâ—r that to the last place of his booke fiâ—st to molliâ—y somwhat the Readers acrimoniâ— of iudgmeÌ„t with some small skirmisâ—es cast out against his aduersary As first against his witt mâ—morie skill in â—ogike Greeâ—â— Hâ—brew modâ—stie truth
that he would allwayes so sett downe the clause of Reseruation in Latin that the simple Reader should not vnderstand it no more then simple men could vnderstand Aristotles Philosophy in which manner I found it put downe but once indeed throughout his whole booke to witt in the place before mentioned that is to say wholy in Latin for thus he writeth comming to the said clause of Reseruation Loquor enim Latine ne Idiotae ansam sibi accipiant nequiter mentiendi vt quis teneatur illud detegere which wordes he Englisheth not and consequently might be some veile to the ignorant not to vnderstand himâ— but in all other places though he put in often tymes I knew not this or that vt tibi dicam vt tibi reuelem c. yet doth he so vtter in English all the rest of the cases proposed as the simplest man way vnderstand the same and consequently I hold them for vttered in English not in Latin nor any way to be like therin to the EditioÌ„ of Aristotles Philosophy whervnto for this pretended obscurity depth he compareth these his wise Disputes So as in this his sense I said truly that I â—ound him to vtter the matter but once to my remembrance wholy in Latin in such sort us the English Reader could not vnderstand him aboue 40. tymes perhaps in English and this is more then needed in so trifling a cause Let vs come to the conclusion 21. The Reckoning of this accompt with M. MortoÌ„ must then be that he hauing contradicted himselfe manifestly in three seuerall pointes of this Paragraph as before you haue seene and I in none that he can proue my Memory hath not beene so bad therin â—s he would haue men belieue and if it had byn yet â—ere it but errour of Memory and not of VVill and coÌ„â—â—quently without any malice or fraud for that there â—as no interest And so though M. MortoÌ„ could proue his errour obiected against me as he cannot yet is â—e farre froÌ„ prouing any thing to his purpose of wilâ—â—ll and witting falshood wherof is our principall â—â—ntention as aâ—ter shall appeare And of this followâ—â—h agayne that it is but lost time and labour to conâ—â—nd about these trifles which M. Morton bringeth in 〈◊〉 entertaine his Reader as though he said somwhat â—heras in deed he doth but fly the chiefe matter to handled for the small confidence that he hath in 〈◊〉 cause Now then let vs passe to an other skirmish 〈◊〉 small importance as this AGAINST THE Learning of P. R. especially in Logicke §. III. â—HE title of this Paragraph is set downe by M. Morton in these wordes An argument of P. R. hi◠〈◊〉 of learning in Logicke wherin he hath prouoked all Vniuersiâ—â— in the world to laugh at him in the point of Syllogizing A â—â—rnefull accusation as you see and to frame this arâ—â—ment against my skill in Logicke he hath made a â—â—pe of aboue 240. leaues in my booke from the forâ—er place of his precedent cauill against my Memory and â—â—e very title of the Paragraph it selfe doth shew â—hat he was in choler when he wrote it wherby 〈◊〉 hath bene drawne to bring that into iudgment of â—ll Vniuersities of the world about a certayn false Silâ—ogisme of his which I remitted only to the iudgmeÌ„t of his owne Vniuersitie of Cambridge both for the matter and forme therof neyther of them being defensible with any colour of truth and yet hath he taken the matter in hand with such eagernâ—sse as he presumeth to make this generall appeale I daâ—e presume to make a generall Appeale saith he to Cambridge Oxford Rhemes Rome and to all Vniuersities whether of Protestantes or Romanists whether Christian or Pagan yea vnto his owne hiâ—ling boyes Sophisters who P. R. sayth are able to make syllogismes in one moneth though the text in the Treatise of Mitigation by himselfe heere alleadged saith not one but 4. moneths I do chalenge sayth he P. R. for his false syllogisme willing if he dare that heerupon we venture our degrees which we haue taken in the Schooles c. Do you see the mans eagernes choler But heere I do intreat him if euer els where that he stay himselfe that we make a quiet sober reckoning of this matter and then we shall see who is like to leeâ—e or gayne by the accompt and where the spirit of truth is fouÌ„d which is or ought to be the principall end of this Inquiry and not vaunting challenging 23. First then that the matter may be vnderstood wherupon the controuersie grew concerning M. Mortons false argument syllogisme which himselfe concealeth for the most part in latin much lesse of my speach then was necessarie foâ— explication therof the Reader must know that he taking vpon him to impugne all vse of Equiuocation both in speach oath setteth downe these two propositions as the foundatioÌ„s of his worke the first That euery equiuocation by a mentall reseruation is not a hidden truth but a grosse lye The second That euery Equiuocation whether mentall or verball if it be vsed in an oath to any person whatsoeuer though it be no lye in it selfe yet is it an abhominable profanation of that sacred institution of God Of which two propositions the first is refuted largely by me throughout eyght Paragraphes together in my Treatise of EquiuocatioÌ„ this as well by euident testimonies of Scriptures as also practice of Saintes and other manifeâ—t proofes reasons The second is discusâ—ed in the 9. other ensuâ—â—g Paragraphes by like authorityes examples and arguments After all which P. R. commeth to examine M. Mortons arguments which he vsed for confirmation of his said later proposition which was â—ound to coÌ„sist in this false principle That euery man to whome we sweare by God who is competent Iudge of all is made also therby competent Iudge ouer the swearer in such sort as the said swâ—arâ—r is bound in conscience to sweare according to the intention of him to whome the Oath is made he being otherwise neuer so incompetent a â—udge vioâ—ent or vnlawfull examiner which being proued to â—e an apparant false conclusion for that otherwise eâ—ery thiefe that forceth a true man to sweare by God where his money lyeth byndeth him also to sweare sincerely directly to the sayd thiefes intention P.R. taketh in hand to examine M. Mortons first principall argument touching the same His Wordes are these which I shall set downe as before by way of charge and after we shall see the discharge and so peaceably make vp the Reckoning in the most frendly manner wee may The Charge giuen by P. R. against M. Mortons Syllogisme 24. The absurdity and folly of this second proposition say I appearing so manifestly in itselfe as it doth by our precedent proofes what should we staÌ„d to examin the argumeÌ„ts reasoÌ„s that may be brought for it by so fond
now heare and contemplate if your pâ—ease how Tho. Morton himselfe will prooue his sayd maior proposition for it is like he will do it substantially it being the foundation of all his whole drift The maior saith he c. The Reckoning vpon the Premisses 32. This is now the charge that P. R. maketh vpon T. M. to proue his verie first and principall argument out of the coÌ„petencie of almighty God wheron all the rest is grounded to be faultie and ruinous both in forme and matter In forme for that it is no lawfull syllogisme in Logicall moode or figure In matter for that the first or maior proposition is manifestly false And how doth M. Morton now in this his Preambling Reply endeauour to satisfie these two charges Truly vnto the last about the vntruth of his maior proposition he saith neuer a word which yet it seemeth he ought to haâ—e done being the maine foundation of his impugning vse of all Amphibologie and Equiuocation but to the first he maketh an extraordinarie clamour as partly you haue heard appealing prouoking to all the Vniuersities and Schooles as well of Christendome as of Heathen countries and impawing therin not onelie his reputation and credit but degree of learning and schooles also and to be degraded yf he make not his partie good And yet he that shall examine what he bringeth shall find that in substance of truth he sayth nothing in effect for his owne defeâ—ce but rather lesse then nothing for that he intangleth himself further with affirming other such things as he cannot stand vnto they being euideÌ„tly falseâ— and meere shiftes As for example he being pressed about his foresayd syllogisme answereth thus 33. P. R. calleth that a Syllogisme sayth he which â— named only in a more generall tearme a Reason â—ot a syllogisme now there be many formes of reaâ—onings besides syllogismes neyther did I indeed â—â—tend to make an exact and formall syllogisme â—ut only such an argument which by due inference â—nd deduction might prooue my conclusion good â—o he And is not this a strange euasion in him that â—rofesseth such skill in Logike yea to haue bene a â—ublike reader of Logike For that the art of Logike 〈◊〉 my knowledge admitteth but foure kindes of â—easoning to witt Inductionsâ—nd â—nd Examples but this of M. Morton can be none of the â—ater three sortes as himself I suppose will conâ—esâ—e ergo it must be the first which is a syllogisme â—nd consequently it is a meere shift to say heere wheÌ„ 〈◊〉 is taken trippe that he called it not a syllogisme â—ut a reason â—4 Secondly let vs heare I pray you his owne â—ords in his booke of â—ull Satisfaction where he brinâ—eth forth this argument Our first argument sayth â—e is taken from the â—orme of an Oath which is defined to be â— religious inuocaâ—ion whether it be expressely or implicatiuely 〈◊〉 God as witnesse of our speach c. Hence may we reasoÌ„â—hus The competencie of God by whome we sweare maketh â—uerie one competent iudge to whome we sweare But by swearing by God whome we cannot deceyue we religiously protest that in swearing we intend not to deceyue ergo our deceiptfull Equiuocating is a prophanation of the religious worâ—hip of God The Maior is true for that our Sauiour auouching truth held Pilate as a competent iudge c. 35. Heere now is euidently prooued that which you M. Morton should haue bene ashamed to deny that you meant to make a syllogisme For first you â—intitle it An argument taken from the forme of an Oath theÌ„ you say hence may we reasoÌ„ thus which is as much as ratiocinari in latin that is to râ—ason and is a word pâ—oper to schoole disputes when they will argue in forme Thirdly you set downe three distinct propositions in forme of an argument with ergo in the last which is the forme of a syllogisme and fourthly you conâ—esse that the first of them waâ— the maior which inferreth allwayes a minor they both include a conclusion and so doe make vp the perfect nature of a syllogisme How then blâ—sh you not to deny this And thus being beaten from one defence you runne to another saying that P. R. conâ—esseth of your argument that by a doâ—ble inâ—erence the reaâ—oning is made good whâ—râ—ore say youâ— I cannot see what cause he had to be more oâ—â—ended with me 〈◊〉 deliuering that in grosse which being deuided into his paâ—â—â— was good reason noâ— more then a man may mislike two perâ—â— because it is not a couple of single penâ—e 36. And is not this a pâ—easaÌ„t iest to escape by But it will not serue for P. R. confâ—sseth not of this your argument in the forme you frame it that by â— double inference it might be made good but as he reâ—ormed the same For that this of yours being neither in Logicall moode or figure nor hauing coherence with 〈◊〉 selâ—e nor medium terminum but rather six terminos in place of three as hath bene said it cannot by any double triple or quadruple inference euer be made good except we change the forme and frame therof Neither did I euer say that it could be made good more then the other absurd syllogisme set downe for example of like absurdity to witt Euerie man is a liuing creature Euerie oxe is a â—ourefooted beast ergo Euerie asse hath two loÌ„g eares which in euerie poynt is like vnto the other and yf not why had not you Syr for your credit sake at least shewed some one reall difference or disparitie in the formes betweene yours and that which indeed you could not doe for that they are like and ech one had three distinct propositions and euery proposition a distinct subiâ—ctum and predicatum without medius terminus and consequently consisteth of six seuerall termini for which cause I neuer said nor could say that this your syllogisme could be made good without the whole forme thereof were changed and consequently this is now an absurd shiâ—t in you to runne to my confession which I neuer made 37. My speach of another infâ—rence was nothing to this purpose at all as the Reader will see yf he consider my wordes For I spake of an inference that might be further made vpon your argument reformed by me but not as it came from you and this I spake also of the consequence of matter and of the truth of the proposition in controuersie but not of the forme which being naught could neuer be made good by any inference and therefore it is verie absurd that you say that I am offended with you for deliuering the matter in grosse which deuided into his partes was good reasoning for that neither in grosse nor in partes can the argument be defended And the similitude of two pence and two single pence is not worth a half-penny for sauing of your credit in this behalfe as the Reader will easily perceaue 38. VVell then hauing thus cleered the
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
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
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
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
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
â—e câ—me â—rom a place inâ—â—câ—ed which altâ—râ—th the whole Case For if either the place or hâ—mseâ—fe be inâ—ected he cannot sweare without periury as hath byn sayd Secondly he sayth that Azor tâ—â— lesuite doth write against the spirituall iugglâ—ng oâ— his subtile-lying brâ—thrâ—n yet are neither the principall Authors of this answere and resolution Iesuites as by their names you haue heard nor writeth Azor against them but with them and for them in this Case conforming his iudgment as you see to theirs that a man comming â—rom such a place may iusâ—lie sweare in the â—orâ—e that hath byn sayd Nor is their answere subtile iuggling as the Mynister slaundereth but plaine and reall dealing yelding their resolution togeather with the reason therof as hath byn declared And all the iuggling is on M. Mortons syde who declaming against lying doth nothing but lye and yet fynally concludeth most rydiculously his speach thus Therefore be you exhorted â—or the loue of God who is truth to recant your doctrine of Equiuocating the Mâ—tropolis oâ— lies Wherunto my answere is that in my opinion T. Mort. is well worthy to be the Metropolitan of that Metropolis for if euer man honest or vnhonest lay or clergie lâ—arned or vnlearned to vse his manner of exaggeratioÌ„s did tell so many lyes togeather â—nd in print and within the compasse of so few lynes as Morton here hath done I am much deceiued c. Thus I wrote at that tyme can M. Morton say that this abuse is not much insisted vpon by me for wringing out some answere Let the Reader be iudge betweene vs. He sayth in the beginning of his precedent Chapter that he tooke vpon him to answer not such points as were easiest to answere but such as I most insisted vpoÌ„ which you see to be false in both points Let vs passe to others THE FOVRTH Pretermitted falshood by M. Morton §. IIII. THERE followeth another falshood vsed against the same Author Azor more notable perhaps theÌ„ any of the former thus by me expressed in my Treatise of Mitigation where hauing shewed how impertineÌ„tly M. MortoÌ„ had produced a place of Exodus to wit Thou shalt not beare false witnesse to proue that euery mentall Equiuocation was a lye I went forward with this speach 17. But harken further quoth I for that M. Morton will bring another prooâ—e more strange then this Your great Moralist Azor saith he doth condemne all Equiuocators herin to wit for mentall Equiuocation in an Oath as periured lyars or otherwise sayth he there is nothing in an Oath that may not be affirmed and denied without a lye Thus he And I would demaund M. MortoÌ„ about this matter whether he will sweare this to be true which he sayth of Azor For if Ministers Priests go in equall ranke in England a Mynisters word ought to be equall to an Oath as a Priests word laying his hand on his brest is with vs and then must I needs coÌ„clude Mortonâ—or â—or a periured lyar indeed who hath so perfidiously belyed Azor in this place and that in so many points For first Azor handling in the Booke and Chapter by him cyted De iureâ—urando cui videtur veritas aliquo modo deesse Of an Oath which may seeme in some sort to want truth he doth put downe diuers exampleâ— 8. or 9. at least wherin the swearer may sweare truly in his owne sâ—nse though false in the sense of him that exacteth the Oath All which are so many plaine approbations of swearing equiuocall propositions without periury and so many publicke contradictions and confutations of Tho. Mortons notorious slaunder auouchâ—d here against him that he condemneth all Equiuocators for lyars Of which Cases here determyned by Azor against M. Morton the first is Si Sacerdos rogetur c. If a priest be asked any thing which he hath heard in Confession he may answere Se â—ihil scire nihil audiuisse that he knoweth nothing he hath hâ—ard nothing And how theÌ„ doth this great Moraliâ—â— condemne all Equiuocators herin as periured lyars Is not this publicâ—e lying in Tho. Morton and that in print And were not this formall periury if he did sweare it in any Court whatsoeuer as namely in his Lords Court of the Arches And should he not be punished in that Court as a periured person if it were proued against him And how then dareth he to commit the same so publikely without blushing But let vs leaue him to his Lords correction in this behalfe and so passe on to another point 18. Secondly thâ—n not only the sense and drift but the words themselues set downe by T.M. out of Azor are most fraudulently and falsely alleaged Quidam putauit saith he â—as esse cuiquam vt vitam suam conseruet hosti iurare tantuÌ„modo â—o sensu quem mente inâ—us concipit possemus enim hac ratione quiduis negare nihil non absque mendaâ—io dicere Some haue thought it lawfull sayth he to euery man for the conseruation of his life to sweare to his enemy only in that sense which he conceiueth inwardly in his owne mynd which if it should be graunted then might we by this meanes deny anything speake what we will without a lye 19. These are alleaged for Azor his words and indeed the most of them are in Azor but not togeather as they lye heere but some in one place and some in another spoken to different purposes in different sense from that T. M. alleageth theÌ„ corruptly in this place And for proofe herof of the egregious consenage of this Minister it shal be sufficient to let yow know that this speciall example alleaged here as out of Azor as reiected by him of one that sware to his enemy for sauing his life in another sense theÌ„ his words did souÌ„d is not reiected but allowed approued by Azor. For that he hauing proposed the Case first vnder other learned mens names much after the sense as here is set down by M. MortoÌ„ he commeth at length to resolue and approue the same in his owne name saying quare libenter concedimus id quod paulò ante dicebatur de co qui vt se saluum tueatur promittit latroni Tyrano aut hosti daturum se illi pecuniae quantitateÌ„ c. Wherâ—orâ— we do willingly grant that which before was proposed of him that by Oath doth promise vnto a theefe a Tyrant or his enemy for sauing his life to giue him a certaine quaÌ„tity of money which yet notwithstanding in his mynd he hath no purpose to do he swearing with this reseruation of mind dabo si debeo I will giue yt if I owe yt 20. Now then consider good Reader the honestie and truth of T. Morton that bringeth in Azor to condemne that as lying periury which he doth not onlie allow as truth and no lye but proueth also the lawfulnes therof by many examples and especially by this
award they made him abiure the Land though this also was not due vnto him by rigour of law to pacify thereby the Kings wrath And it is not vnlike to that Case that fell out in England Anno Domini 1578. vnder Q. Elizabeth when in her anger she would haue had Peter Bourchet to haue byn put to death by Martiall law when he had wounded Syr Iohn Hawkins insteed of Syr Christopher HattoÌ„ but the Iudges would not yeald therunto as being against law therefore found out this temperament that he should be committed to the Tower and accused of matters of Religion as Puritanisme and the like Where afterwards he gaue them a iust cause of putting him to death by killing his keeper But as the Queenes will passion made this no law so neither did that other vnder K. Edward the first So as M. Attorney did much abuse his Reader in auerring it to be treason by the common law adiudged for such out of this Case 84. And if he will vrge that the punishment of haÌ„ging and drawing implieth treason it is answered no but that this rather maketh much for vs. For that the punishment of treason I meane high treason is not only hanging and drawing but quartâ—ring also excepting only the Case of counterfeyting of money Stat. de 25. Edâ— 3. de proditionibus as appeareth by Stanford in his Booke of the Pleas of the Crowne fol. 182. but petty treasons as of killing the maister or Mystresse by the seruant or of any Prelate by his subiect c. which in effect are but fellonies are punished by hanging drawiâ—g oâ—ly wheâ—eof is consequent that albeit K. Edwards will and commandment had byn according â—o law as â—t was not yet had it inâ—erred no treason at all 85. And further to satisfy this matter and make it more cleere that the Reader was abused in this assertion I will adde foure seuerall Reasons argumeÌ„ts more out of the law-books themselues The first is concerning the abiuring the Realme for pacifying the King awarded in iuâ—tice Thoâ—ps Case which proueth euidently that it was not an offence of treason in the delinquent for that abiuraâ—ce is no punishment for treason but only for fellony as appeareth by the said Iustice Standâ—ord in his said Booke fol. 116. where he setteth downe the beginning of abiurance how it was first ordeyned by S. Edwaâ—d before the Conquâ—st and was grounded vpon mercy when a maÌ„ had committed fellonie and fled to a Church or Churchyard for safety of his life and did choose rather perpetuall banishment then to stand to the law So as abiurance by the old lawes of England was at tâ—e election of the Offendours and not at â—he will of the Prince And afterward the said Stanford shewing for what offences in particuler a mâ—n might abiure the Realme saith that abiuration doth not lye â—or hâ—m that hath offended in high treason 86. The second Reason is that the said Stanford in his said booke of the Pleas of the Crowne fol. 182. inteÌ„ding to set down all offencâ—s of treason which were either by the Common-law or Statute-law doth not relaâ—e any such matter to be treason as the bringing into the Realme Bulles of excommunication by one Subiect against an other which he would neuer haue concealed if he had found it held for such in any law booke before him 87. The third Reason is to the same effect that the Statute of 25. Ed. 3. being made for declaration of treasons doth â—et downe what offences were treasons by the Common law In this Statute I say no mention at all is made that the bringing in of Bulls of excommunication was treason or any other offence which of likelyhood cannot be presumed that they would haue pretermitted to touch or mention if any such thing had bin 88. The fourth Reason and most concludent is that we read in many Bookes of law as 31. Ed. 3. â—xcommunicat 6. Fitzh tit Excom pl. 6.14 â—en 4. â—ol 14.8 Hen. 6. fol. 3 and ells where that diuers Excommunications were pleaded in the Kings Courts and no matter of treasoÌ„ or other offence made therof by the Iudges which no doubt they would neuer haue passed ouer so negligently carelesely if it had bin treason by the common-law Neither would any Counsel haue presumed to plead the same so often in the said Courts if there had byn such perill or offence therein at that tyme as M. Attorney now pretendeth Neither doth the authority of Brooke here cyted by M. Attorney patronize him in his voluntary mistaking misconstruyng of the law-books a foresaid For that Brooke doth not say that the bringing in of Bulls was iudged treason by law as M. Attorney doth but onâ—y maketh this note So see punishment of that before the Statute of Premunire which maketh nothing for M. Attorn purpose and if it did yet were it not to be equalled with so many graue authorities euideÌ„t coÌ„uincing reasons as before we haue alleaged to the contrary 89. Wherfore we must conclude that in this first Case M. Attorney hath sundry wayes dealt vnsincerly and gone about to deceiue his Reader making him belieue that the bringing in pleading of the Popes Bulles in ancient time was treason according to the Common-lawes which being now proued to be false yet doth he so often repeate the same vpon all occasions against Catholikes both in wryting speaking pleading and vbrayding as if it were a most certaine truth or principle and not to be controlled Let vs see somewhat of the other Cases TO THE OTHER FOVRE CASES obiected by M. Morton out of Syr Edward Cooke §. VI. IT were ouer long to answere so largely vnto all the other Cases as we haue done to this first especially for so much as the Deuine hath done it very sufficiently and fully before the second Case conteyning only a temporall matter about Advowsons and authority thereby to present Clearks to benefices which was an ancient custome of the Church of England where teÌ„porall men hauing founded Churches and benefices reserued to themselues the nominatioÌ„ and presentation of the persons that should enioy the same who if they were found fit and nothing to be proued against theÌ„ that might iustly be opposed for their exclusion then the Bishop of the diocesse was bound to admit them And if he did not the Aduowsoner might haue an Action against the said Bishop at the Commonlaw of Quare non admisit as in a temporall Case and if the Bishop could not excuse his not admitting of the Clerke of the Recouerer by some sufficient cause then the Plaintif should recouer domages against the Bishop or els he might haue vpon the not executing the first writ to the Bishop an Alias or a Pluries against him And if these were not serued or sufficient excuse made vpon the return thereof why they were not serued then the partie grieued might haue an Attachment against the Bishop
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
a litle in following his owne comparison of apples 32. Fourthly and lastly saith he If I shew not that the chiefest aduantage of Roman aduersaries doth consist in falsifications then c. VVherunto I must answere with this distinction for so much as M. Morton speaketh somewhat doubtfully that if falsifications be taken heere passiuely with relation to Protestants then I grant that one of the chiefest aduaÌ„tages which their Roman aduersaries hauâ— against them consisteth in falsifications discouered daily in their bookes and writings For that I confesse that no one thing doth more confirme a Catholicke mind in the truth of that Religion which he proâ—esseâ—h then to see the enemies and aduersaries thereof to be driuen to vtter such and so infinite apparent wilfull falsities in defending the contrary For that no man doubtles of any credit honesty or good nature would lye or falsity willingly if he could defend his cause with truth VVhich consideration doth greatly worke also with many Protestants that be iudicious and desyre indeed the truth it â—elâ— So as in this sense I confesse that one of the chiefest aduantages of RomaÌ„ Aduâ—rsaries doth consist in the falâ—ifications of Protestant writers 33. But if we take it as I thinke M. Morton meaneth it actiuely in regard of Catholicke writers as though our owne falâ—ifications were our chiefest aduantages against the Protestant Religionâ— it is meerly false For how poore should our Cause be if we had no better proofe for tho truth therof then our owne fictions and falâ—ifications deuâ—â—ed by our selues whereof M. Morton hath not byn able to proue any one against any sort of Catholicke writers in all this his Preambling Reply though wholy it was bent and intended by him to that end as may appeare by the third and fourth Chapters of this our Reâ—konâ—ng And on the other side there are so many proued conuinced against him as he neither is nor euer will be able to answere the half of them as you may behold in the fifth sixth and eight Chapters immediatly going before So as this contradiction being so manifest in it self I see not why I may not call for iudgement and iustice against M. Morton that his bookes be purged with fyre and himself challenged to recantation 34. But presently he leapeth away to the contrary syde and placeth himself in the â—eaâ—e of a Conquâ—â—our saying thus But these things being 〈◊〉 Gods grace dirâ—ctly by me perâ—ormed the fruite therof wiâ—â—be Chrâ—stian Reader to establish thee in the truth of speach and dutifull allegiance and to put my aduersary P R. I hope vnto silence I pray god to repentance So he and with this he endeth his Booke 35. And as for my silence what successe M. MortoÌ„s hope hath had you see by this my Answere which hath byn drawne out to somewhat more prolixity as I suppose then my â—ormer Treatise it self of Miâ—igation which notwithstanding was far from my intent and purpose at the beginning meaning only to haue made a brief conference of things vttered by me in my Treatise of Mitigation with the Answere of M. Morton in his Reply but I found such great store of aduantagious matter â—ast out by him vpon necesâ—ity of his bad cause as I could not possibly passe ouer the same without saying somewhat to ech point so as I haue byn inforced to write more then I had thought to haue done for that he hath giuen more aduantage then I imagined he would oâ— reasonably could in so short a worke And thus much for my silence 36. But as for my repentance for which he praieth I must professe that hitherto I find no least motion of mind therunto nor yet cause to moue that motion for the substance of the controuersy it selfe though for the asperity of speach I could haue wyshed that sometimes it had byn more mollified but the reasons inciting thereunto are sâ—t downe more largely in the Admonitory Epistle to M. Morton himself Here only I will adde that if I could perswade my selfe that he could proue or performe directly or indirectly the things which here he promiseth I should not only be sory that I had written against him in these matters but should endeauour alâ—o to do the works of true repeÌ„tance indeed which were to recall my said wrytings and confesse that M. Morton had reason and truth on his side and were not iâ— these points to be contradicted But hauing seene read and examined with attention so much of his workes as I haue and this also with so great equâ—nimity and indifferencie of iudgment as the loue of truth and regard of myne owne soule could worke in me I haue not found any one thing in the matters themselues affirmed by me that might cause the least scruple of mynd thâ—y being cleere and euideÌ„t truthes in the sight of him that hath the light of a Catholicke conscience And for the manner of M. Mortons dealing I must protest that I find it so vnsyncere which I ascribe to the necessity of his cause as I take great compassion of him and do beseech almightie God to giue him true light to see the dangerous way wherein he walketh whilest he seeketh by sleightes and indirect meanes to defend fancies of his owne of his sect against the truth grauity and authority of his Mother the Catholicke Church AN APPENDIX CONCERNING A CASE OF EQVIVOCATION LATELY written out of England wherin resolution is demaunded about the false Oath of two Ministers Whether it may be salued by the licence of Equiuocation or no TOGEATHER WITH A NOTE OVT OF DOCTOR King his Sermon preached at the Court 5. Nouembâ— 1608. so far forth as it toucheth Equiuocation TO THE READER I Receaued Gentle Reader not long since by a letter of the 8. of Nouember anno 1608. from a friâ—nd of mine dwelling in the North parts of Englandâ— a certaine Aduertisment about a case of Equiuocation fallen out in those parts wherin my sayd friend requested my iudgement whether the same where tollerable or excusable or not And for that it seemed he had some right to vrge me in this matter in respect of the Treatiâ—e written by me of that argument against Mâ— Morton I thought my self the more bound to yeld him some satisfaction to his demand The case then in effect was this 2. A certayne Minister in Yorkeshire named VVh for I thinke not good to set downe all the letters thereof dwelling at a towne called Thorneley if I misse not the name being married and loaden with many children and there vpon â—ot content with the ordinary tiâ—heâ— that weâ—e wont to be giuen and payd in that parish begâ—n to vrge one of his parishioners to pay him other tithes also out of a certayne closse or field that was pretended not to haue payed tithes before to other precedent Incumbents Wherupon this Minister deuising with himself how he might further his owne cause resolued vpon this meane among others to
he should haue yealded great assistance to M. Morton that durst vndertake the answere of no one yet doth he fall in iumpe with him in raging and rayling against the same though if a man might come to deale calmely with them hand to hand enter into a quiet and sober Reckoning about the matter as we haue donne before with M. Morton I doubt not but that they would be forced to reason euen by common sense and experience it self and therby see their owne egregious folly For I would demaund them in good earnest what they thinke of the better and wiser sort of men not only of our religion but of theirs also who make a conscience to lie for that they hold it for a damnable sinne yet would be loath to vtter matters of secrâ—cy or preiudice against theÌ„selues or others and that these men be of the best sort for example which we haue in Eâ—glaÌ„d as namely priuy CouÌ„sellours Iudges Magistrates and others to whome businesses of importance that require secrecy are committed if these men should be demaunded by persons of respect whome by a flat deniall they would not willingly offend what passed in this or that matter which were not conuenieÌ„t to be vttered or that theÌ„selues by way of speach or narration should fall into mentioÌ„ of such matter whereof they would disguise for the present the certayne truth what in this case would they do thinke you What would the say What cuasion would they find to free themselues from these inconueniences For if they vttered simple truthâ— they should breake secrecy if they denied the same â—latly without Equiuocation they should lie if they refused to answere they should both offend the person whome they would not oftentymes thereby confesse that which they would conceale For that to say I will not tell you besids the offence inferreth oftentimes a secret confession of that which he denieth to tell VVherefore who seeth not but that commonly the refuge must be to Equiuocation that is to say to vtter so much as in their sense is true though the hearer mistake it in another sense and thereby the secrecie of the thing it self is conserued 15. And is not this an ordinary practise euen amongst the best men of what religioÌ„ soeuer and such as most of all do detest lying And how then do our Ministers so raue against it Nay can the coÌ„mon coÌ„uersatioÌ„ of humane life be without it where lying is auoyded Let vs imagine that there were a man both learned prudent godly adorned with all gifts belonging to a wise and good man but yet were of our Ministers opinion neuer to conceale any thing by Equiuocation and further then this had also a resolution more then our Ministers haue to wit not to lie at all for any respect whatsoeuer out of which two determinations it must needs follow that he would simply deny or confesse whatsoeuer should be demaunded of him would any maÌ„ euer commit matters of couÌ„sell or secrecy vnto him Or were he a man tractable or conuersable in a common-wealth or fit to maÌ„nage any matter of importance though otherwise neuer so learned neuer so prudent neuer so good neuer so godly I think no. Heere then the absurdity or rather senselesse stupidity of our Ministers continuall clamours and outcries against vs for the moderate vse of this Equiuocation in lawfull occasions is euidently discouered reiected 16. Neither shall it be needefull for me to adiâ—yne in this place any further store of examples authorityes out of Scriptures for proofe of the exercise and continuall vse and practise of this kinde of Amphibology Equiuocation or doubtfull speach when occasions require it hauing shewed the same largely and aboundantly before euen in the best men that euer were as Patriarches Prophets Apostles and especially in our Sauiour Christ himself that was truth it self and the wisdome of his eternall Father it shal be sufficient to remit the Reader to the particuler place it self of my Booke which is the ninth Chapter of the Treatise intituled of Mitigation deuided into foure parts all haÌ„dling this only matter oâ— exaÌ„ples of Equiuocall speach vsed by the best meÌ„ yet must I needs say that hauing considered since that time made some more particuler reflection vpon diuers passages of the new Testament speaches of our Sauiour I find them so frequent euery where in this manner of concealing secrecyes or things not fit to be playnly vttered by this doubtfull and ambiguous kinde of speach as in one only Chapter of S. Iohns ghospell I finde Christ to haue vsed the same aboue 7. or 8. times at least setting downe certaine propositions that of themselues and as they lie are in the common hearers eare false though true in the speakers meaning by some mentall reseruation which reseruation though he vttered not in words yet is it necessarily vnderstood and this is properly Equiuocation in our sense doctrine And if our Kingly Minister in the heat of his exaggeration will call these also mungrill and heterogenious propositions or M. Morton out of his modesty will tearme them monstrous and impious illusions of the black-art they would in these countries be punished both of them for blasphemy though at home among their friends I know not how fauorably the censure might passe vpon theÌ„ but of lesse then fond impiety I thinke no man of iudgment and discretion will or can condemne theÌ„ 17. The place then which I meane is the 8. Chapter of S. Iohns Ghospel where Christ our Sauiour entring into a large speach with the Iewes vseth first these words which I haue examined before in my said Treatise of Equiuocation Ego non iudico quemquam I do not iudge any man which seeming to be contrary to that other saying of himself within a very few lines in the same Chapter I haue many things to speake and iudge of you and further in the same Ghospell three Chapters before For neither doth my Father iudge any man but hath giuen to me his Sonne all iudgment it doth not appeare how the proposition can be true but by some mentall reseruation in the mind of our Sauiour which being examined by the ancient Fathers what it might be S. Chrysost. with Leontius Theophilus and others do thinke the sayd secret meaning or reseruation of our Sauiour to haue bene this I do not iudge any maÌ„ in this my first coÌ„ming but do reserue it for my next at the day of iudgment Other Fathers gather another as though he had secretly meant I do not iudge any man as you the Scribes and Pharisies do according to the flesh and outward shew but in truth yet neither of these reseruatioÌ„s being vttered they do make the speach to be ambiguous and Equiuocall as cannot be denyed 18. In the same place he saith to the Iewes Yf you perseuere in my sayings you shall truly be my disciples and know the truth and the
I fouÌ„d him to take a farre other course allowing to himselfe a more large feild to walke and florish in And this was first to seeke out what likelihood or appearance of falsities he could fynd in any Roman writer whatsoeuer then of what Popes in particuler then of Councels their Interpreters after this againe against Cardinall Bellarmine and that in diuers kindes as namely for calumniating his aduersaries for false allegation of the Fathers for differing in his opinions froÌ„ sundry writers of his owne religion wherof notwithstanding no one can be proued as after you will see 10. Fynally then after all this he falleth vpon my selfe pretending to shew that in fourteen seuerall poynts at least he hath taken me tardy which if he could proue as in no one he can yet all this while as you see he walketh without the list of our controuersy coÌ„cerning the defence of his owne falshoods which he driueth of as long as may be according to the fashion of those that hauing many deepe woundes are loath to discouer them or haue them handled Wherfore this poynt of his owne defence or excuse which was first in his intention for this was the cause that made him so hastily to shape out this Preamble was the last in execution as least gustfull vnto him and so he dispatcheth it only in one Paragraph of ninteene that he hath in this Preamble to wit the eyghtenth only and by all liklyhood would haue pretermitted it wholy if handsomely he might 11. But perhaps you will imagin that he hath holpen somewhat his cause by seeking these diuerticles froÌ„ the purpose in that he hauing weakned first his aduersaries credit may find better passage to the defence of his owne But indeed this reckoning falleth not out so but rather the quite contrary for that not being able when it commeth to the tryall to fasâ—en any one vntruth vpon his aduersary I meane in that nature that it may be thought witting and willing which is our only question he commeth by coÌ„sequence to confirme and authorize extraordinarily the credit of their integrity in their writings who haue not giuen place to any least touch of iust reprehension in that behalfe and by this meanes contrary to his meaning he becoÌ„meth their Encomiast or Prayser who endeauored to be their calumniatour rectum ab errore as oftentimes by Gods prouidence it falleth out â—2 Wherfore I seeing M. Morton take this â—ourse after I had examined the first two Inâ—uiries in two seuerall Chapters of mine I was â—orced to bestow seauen or eight more vpon his â—hird Wherfore the first is to answere all the â—articuler obiections which he hath against other Catholick writers namely Card. Bâ—llarmine and others The second for answering the like obiections and calumniations made by him against my selfe in fourteene seuerall imputations layd against me The third how insufficiently M. Mort. defeÌ„deth himself in other foâ—rteen charges produced against him which he thought good to choose out as defensible amongst a farre greater nuÌ„ber The fourth how he pretermitteh more then other twice fourteene farre more vrgent and eminent then the rest without euer so much as once mentioning them The fifth contayneth sundry other important omissioÌ„s or pretermissioÌ„s of his aswell in slipping ouer matters belonging to himselfe as to the defence of sundry Clients of his whome he ought to haue defended especially Syr Edward Cooke now L. Chiefe iustice of the CoÌ„mon Pleas with whome there is made a peece of a â—euerall reckoning in like manner in a seuerall Chapter aswell about some things of his set forth before as also concerning two new Prefaces lately published and prefixed to the sixt and seaueÌ„th parts of his Reports The seauenth how in place of clearing himself from aboue fourty old imputatioÌ„s of falshood he is coÌ„uinced of more theÌ„ fifty new superadded to the former And fynally my eyght Chapter which is the tenth and last as they lye in order doth handle new strange vauntes and challenges of M. Morton after all this battery as though nothing had byn sayd against him wherin I can commend nothing but his courage remitting the rest to your better discretions when ye shall haue read both parts this being the summe of our whole Concertation 13. There remayneth to say a word or two coÌ„cerning the reason of the tytle of this my Answere which is A quiet sober Reckoning wherof I know that your Wisedomes will easily ghesse the cause but much more will haue seene it if ye haue perused ouer this PreaÌ„ble of M. Morton which is so bitter and sharpe and ouer eager in many places as doth easily shew that the man was in great choler when he wrote it And though I could alleage many exorbitaÌ„t speaches of his to this effect throughout the whole booke yet the beginning and ending shall only serue for proofe therof the begâ—nning for that he bestoweth seauen or eyght whole Paragraphs of his first Inquiry as already I haue sayd to examine my wit memory skill in Logicke ignoraÌ„ce in Greâ—ke and Hâ—brue modesâ—y charity and the like which hardly could pâ—oceed but from impatience The last Paragraph also of his new challenges declareth the same more aboundaÌ„tly where he auouching me first to be a man without all conscience lame in hands dumbe in â—peach dead in sense feeling of all coÌ„trition â—e passeth on to the most extrauagant and ridiâ—ulous termes of impatience that euer I read in â—y Author that valued his owne credit or you eyther perhaps For he saith that if he do â—ot manifest me to be so malignant as if the Capital letters P. R. did iustly betoken Princeps Rabularum and so vayne as if they signifyed Phormio Romanista so dissolute in my cause as if they might be interpreted Praeuaricator Rasus so impudently vniust as that they might import Persidiae Reus then is he content that his Treatises be purged with fyre and himselfe challeÌ„ged to a Recantation And will ye not take pitty of this mans passion Or can ye meruayle why I tooke this tytle of A quiet and sober Reckoning 14. Truly if I should haue suffered my selfe to be câ—rryed away with the same passion with the like impatience haue returned him an Answere in his owne veyne character of writing you do easily see wherunto this contention would haue growne but I haue thought best to endeauour the pacification of M. Mortons choler by a more moderate kynd of confereÌ„ce if it may be where heat of wordes layd asyde the truth of matters may peaceably and more calmely be coÌ„sidered Wherin as before I said though I may haue iust cause to suspect your affections yet can I not distrust your iudgements in a matter of such apparent euidency as this is now committed vnto you Wherin Christ Iesus direct you to the discouery of that truth in Religion which only can saue vs all And so to his protection I commit yow this 19. of December 1608. Your
louing Countreyman wishing you all good that is truly good P. R. THE EPISTLE ADMONITORY TO M. r THOMAS MORTON IF your self had not giuen me the example M. Morton by wryting to me a seuerall Epistle termyng it Preamblatorie it is likely I should not haue troubled you with this Admonitory of mine as hauing wrytten sufficiently in my precedent Dedicatorie to our two Vniuersyties concerning the subiect of this our whole CoÌ„trouersy But for so much as you doe fyrme subscribe your said letter thus Yours to warne and to be warned Thomas Morton and haue put in execution the first part therof by warning me I presume you wil be content the second part be put also in vre and that you be warned by me To which â—ffect I haue thought best to style this my Epistle an Admonitorie Now then to the matters that are to be handled therin The pointes whâ—rof you haue warned me be two which you call two Romish maladies The one the traÌ„scendent Iurisdiction of the Pope to vse your wordes troubling or subuerting all Princes people of contrarie Religion the othâ—r our professed art of mentall Equiuocation which by your Mynisteriall phrase you tâ—rme the â—aude to all Rebellion But hâ—w vayne and â—riuolous this aduertisâ—mâ—nt is and fyt only to fyll vp paper without sâ—nse euery mâ—ane capacity will â—asâ—ly conceiue and witnâ—ssâ—s are at hand For who doth not see that Protâ—stant Princes and people of diffâ—râ—nt Sâ—ctes haue byn now in the Christian world for almost an hundred years both in Germany DeÌ„marke Sweâ—land ScotlaÌ„d EnglaÌ„d France Flanders yet no subuâ—rsion â—â—mâ— vnto thâ—m by the Popes transcendent authoritie Who doth not know in like mannâ—r that the grâ—atâ—st Rebellions that haue falleÌ„â—ut in this age haue not byn procured by Equiuocation as the â—aude but by Heresy as the Harlot hâ—r sâ—lf that by craftie dâ—ceipts lying shifts which ys quite opposite to the nature of Equiuocation that allwaiâ—s spâ—akâ—th truth though allwaies not so vndâ—rstood by the â—earâ—r But for that of these two heades of Rebellion and Equiuocation I haue spoken aboundantly in my fâ—rmer Treatise sâ—mwâ—at also in this â—specially in my second Chapter to yâ—ur sâ—câ—nd Inquiry wâ—â—re you insert some fâ—w pages about the same I will leese no more tyme in repâ—ating thâ—rof but râ—mit thâ— Reader thither only aduâ—rtisâ—ng him by the way that whereas you make a florish in this your Epistle Preamblatorie with two authorities of S. Augustine noted in the margent the one against Petilian the other against RogatiaÌ„ both of them Donatists who feygned clemencie and practized crueltie where they durst against Catholikes let him but take the paynes to read the plaâ—es in the Author himself and compare their cause with the cause of M. Morton and his fellow Protestants in these daies aswell in making and following Schisme against the generall body of the Catholike Church as in particuler actions recounted by Optatus and others to wyt in breaking downe Altars casting the B SacrameÌ„t to dogges in coÌ„temnyng holy Chrisâ—â—e breaking the sacred vessells wherein yt was â—ept in prophaning Chalices in scraping Priests â—â—ownes for hatred of sacred vnction in persecuting â—onkes in letting out Nunnes of their Monasteâ—â—es and the like which proceeded from their partiâ—â—ler spirit of pretended perfection and he will see â—â—ether they agree more to ProtestaÌ„ts or Catholicks â—our daies consequently whether you M. Morâ—â—n did aduisedly in bringing in mention of these 〈◊〉 and of their contention with S. Augustine â—â—out the true Church and manners both of hereâ—â—ks Catholicks Wherin they are so like vnto Proâ—estants both in words actions S Augustine 〈◊〉 a Papist as that there needeth nothing but the â—hange of names to distinguish or agree them with â—ou or vs at this tyme. I would wish also the said Reader to coÌ„sider the last â—art of this your Epistle where you say that you do conuince me out of my owne Confession granting that there is an Equiuocation which no clause of mentall reseruation can saue from a lye and you set yt downe in a different letter as though they were my wordes But if the said Reader go to the place where I do handle this matter both in the second and seuenth Chapters of this my Answere he will fynd that I say no such thing either in word or sense but rather the quite contrarie to wyt that there is an externall speach as that of Saphyra in the Actes of the Apostles for therof was the question which no mentall reseruation can iustify from a lye and consequently nor make properlie an Equiuocation for that it is false in the mynd of the speaker and so cannot stand with the nature of Equiuocation that allvvayes must be true as hath byn largely demonstrated in our Treatise of that matter Which point being once well noted poÌ„dered by your Reader he will wonder at your strange vaunting illation made hereupon that is to say vpoÌ„ your owne fiction when you wryte That this one Confession of myne is sufficient to conuince all meÌ„tall Equiuocators to be apparaÌ„t lyars And yet further That by this you haue obtayned your whole cause in both quâ—stioÌ„s of RebellioÌ„ EquiuocatioÌ„ which is a short compendicus Conquest if it be well consâ—dâ—râ—d such as â—uâ—rie man may frame vnto himself by â—alse charging his Aduersary And this shall suffice for aduertisement to your Reader in this place vpoÌ„ this your epistle to me For albeit sundry other things might be obserued yet is the studie of breuitie to be preferred what remayneth to be aduertised to your self wil be common also to your Reader vntill I returne vnto him againe as a little after in this Epistle I meane to doe to the end not to weary you ouer much with so manie admonitions to your self Now then shall I passe to the principall pointes wherof I thinke you to be admonished Among which the first chief is that you seâ—me greatly to mistake my meaning or at leastwise my affection in writing against you as though it were malignaÌ„t contemptuous despitefull full of hatred auersioÌ„ of mind which Almighty God I hope knoweth to be far otherwise and that I do loue you in Christ Iesus with all my hart wishing you all good in him for him but especially the best good for the saluatioÌ„ of your soule for which I would be coÌ„tent to vndergo any paines or perill whatsoeuer esteeming also as they deserue your good parts talents if they were rightly imploied by you to the aduancemeÌ„t of Gods truth as hitherto they seeme to me to haue â—in to the coÌ„trarie And if in our contentioÌ„ about this matter I haue seâ—med soÌ„times to haue bin ouer sharp â—r earnest in my writing I do assure you that it proceedeth not from hatred or contempt of your person but rather from some griefe or indignation of mind to see you so greatly deceiued or