this Conclusion Haec igitur in Religione concordiae sola est ratio vt omnes pio ac simplici animo purè ac integrâ— sic sapâ—ant viuant loquantur ac praedicent quemadmodum Sancta Catholica Romana Ecclâ—sia quae Dei prouidentia magistra veritatis orbi praeposita â—st docet loquitur ac praedicat This therefore in Religion is the only way of concord that all men with a pious and simple mynd do wholy and purely conceiue liue speake and preach as the holy Catholicke Roman Church which God by his prouidence hath giuen for a teacher of truth vnto the whole world doth teach speake and preach 78. And now consider yow this dealing that whereas Bish. Cunerus sayth Haec est in religione concordiae sola ratio this is the only way or meanes of concord in Religion this man alleageth it in his margent Haec est Religionis sola ratio this is the only way of religion as though concord and Religion were all one then by another tricke of crafty translation in his English text that is only true religion as though true religion and the way or meanes to come to true Religion were not different And then for all the rest how it is mangled and how many words and senteÌ„ces are put in by this Minister which are none of Cunerus and how many of his altered and put out is easy for the Reader to see by comparing the two Latin texts before alleaged and thereby to consider how facile a matter it is for this fellow to deuide tongues A course sayth he which I professe in all disputes when he deuideth and separateth the words from their Authors and the sense from the words and the whole drift from them both a very fine course and fit for a man of his profession So much wrote I at that tyme which had as you see some acrimony to draw out some satifaction froÌ„ M. Morton if he had byn as full therof as the title of his former booke of Full satisfaction pretendeth THE SEAVENTEENTH Pretermitted falshood by T. M. §. XVII NOw we come to another abuse apperteyning to two men indiffereÌ„tly to wit Cassanderâ— German Schoolâ—maister and Bellarmine an ItaliaÌ„ Cardinallâ— but we shall ascribe it rather to the Germâ—n for this present for that we haue spoken often and haue had diuers examples about Cardinall Bellarmine before Thus then I did propose the matter in my former Treatise 80. Albeit I haue not yet passed ouer sayd I the halfe of the first part of this first Treatise of M. Mort. Ful satisfaction for it is deuided into sundry Treatises and that in thisâ— first halfe also I haue pretermitted willingly many other exaÌ„ples that might haue byn alleadged yet fynding my selfe weary to prosecute any further so large a Labyrinth of these intricate iuggling tricks vsed by this Mynister in his whole corps of citations which do consist principally therof I meane to draw to an end adding only one example more in this place about a matter more neerly concerning our argument which is of Reconciliation of Protestants with Catholicks in points of Religion which T.M. willing to accuse Iâ—suits as the only hinderers therof writeth thus Only by the insolency sayth he of Iesuits all such hope of reconciliation is debarred as is playne by Bellarmyne for whereas that most graue learned Cassander honoured oâ—â—â—o â—mperours â—or his singular learning and piety did teach That Emperours should endeauour a reconciliation betwixt Papists and Protestants because saith he Protestants hold the Articles of the Creed and are true members of the Church although they dissent from vs in some particuler opinions the grand Iesuit doth answere that this iudgment of Cassander is false for that Catholicks cannot be reconciled with hereticks heretically meaning Protestants So he 81. But here I would aske him why he had not vttered also that which immediatly followeth in Bellar. that Iohn Caluin had writteÌ„ a book against this â—rrour of Cassander and that among Catholicke writers Ioannes à Louanio had done the same and shewed that it was an old heresie of Appelles as Eusebius testifieth and of other hereticks aâ—terward vnder Zeno the Emperour named Pacifyers as Euagrius testifyeth who held that Catholicks heretiks might be coÌ„posed together why I say did T.M. coÌ„ceale this As also the many great stroÌ„g argumeÌ„ts that Bellarmyne alleageth to proue his assertion And why would he lay all the fault of not agreeing vpon the insolency oâ— Iesuits seeing Ioannes à Louanio was no Iesuite nor Caluin neither 82. But to leaue this and to come to the thing it selfe and to take some more particuler view of the false behauiour of Tho. Morton in citing this authority yt is strange that in so small a matter he would shew so great want of truth or true meaning as heere he doth For first to pretermit that he goeth about to deceiue his Reader by the opinioÌ„ of grauity learning in George Cassander of Bruges who was but a Grammarian in his dayes and that he was a Catholicke who is censured for an Hereticke prima classis in the index of prohibited Bookes and not only for heresies of this tyme but also quòd dicit Spiritum Sanctum minùs aduocanduÌ„ adoranduÌ„ esse for that he saith that the holy Ghost is lesse to be called vpon or adored c. as the Index expurgatorius testifyeth Besides all this I say M. Mort. corrupteth manifestly in the senteÌ„ce before alleaged the words and plaine meaning of his Author to wit Bellarmine from whom he citeth Cassanders iudgment for thus they lye in him Tertius error sayth he est Georgij Cassandri in libro de Officio pij Viri vbi docet debere Principes inuenire rationem pacis inter Catholicos Lutheranos c. Sed interim dum non inueniunt debere permittere vnicuique suam fidem modò omnes recipiant Scripturam Symbolum ApostolicuÌ„ Sic enim omnes sunt verae Ecclesiae membra licèt in particularibus dogmatibus dissentiantâ— 83. The third errour is of George Cassander in his booke Of the office of a pious man where he teacheth that Princes ought to seeke out some meanes of peace betwixt Catholicks LutheraÌ„s Caluinists other Sectes of our tyme but in the meane space whiles they fynd no such meanes the ought to permit euery one to follow his owne particuler faith so as all do receaue the Scripture and common Creed of the Apostles for so all are true members of the Church albeit they disagree among theÌ„selues in particuler doctrines These are Bellarmines wordes Now let vs see how they are mangled by M. Morton both in Latin English as by him that hath the notablest talent therin notwithstanding his solemne protestations to the contrary that euer I read in my life 84. He putteth downe first the latin wordes in his margent thus Debent Principes inuenire rationem pacis inter
Catholicos Lutheranos Caluinistas c. qui omnes dum Symbolum tenent Apostolicum vera sunt membra Ecclesiae licèt à nobis in particularibus dissentiant Which wordes M. Morton doth very dâ—ceiptfully English thus Emperours should endeuour a reconciliation betwixt Papists and Protestants because ProtestaÌ„ts hold the articles of the Creed and are true meÌ„bers of the Church although they dissent from vs in some particuler opinions So he 85. And here now you see first to be omitted cunningly and wilfully by this crafty Minister the wordes of much moment before mentioned to wit That whiles Princes do not find a fit meane of peace they ought to permit all to liue according to their particuler saith which sentence of his graue and learned Cassander not seeming to himselfe allowable in our English State or to his owne brethreÌ„ the English Caluinists that now hauing gotten the gouernment will suffer no other Religion but their owne he thought best to suppresse and cut them quite out Secondly insteed of the conditionall speach vsed by Cassander modò omnes acâ—ipiant Scripturam c. so that all do receiue the Scripture and Apostolicall Creed he putteth it downe in English with a causitiue clause as if it were quia omnes Symbolum tenent c. All Which Sects because they do hold the Articles of the Creed are true members of the Church leauing out the word Scripture and the English of dum that is whiles they receaue the Scripture and thereby doth as yow see peruert the other wholy in sense For who will not hold it absurd that Catholicks Lutherans Caluinists other Sectes of our tyme though in words they do admit both Scripture and Apostolicall Creed yet differing in sense and so many doctrines as they do are all to be held notwithstanding for true members of one and the self same Church Can any thing be more ridiculous then this 86. Thirdly he doth most notably cogge in thrusting in the words à nobis from vs which are not in the originall meaning therby to make Cassander seeme a Catholicke and to speake in the behalf of Catholicks which is plaine cosenage and to this end also he leaueth out dogmatibus And fynally you see that he shapeth euery thing to his owne purpose by making Câ—ssâ—nder as a Catholike seeme to wish and indeauour this vnion and Bellarmine to reiect it he would confirme his former calumniation that only by the insolency of Iesuites all such hope is debarred 87. And thus much for the corruption of the latin text But his English hath other corruptions also according to his ordinary custome For first he translateth Debent Principes that Emperours should endeauour a reconciliation to confirme therby his former vanity that Cassander was so great a man with Emperours as he talketh not but to Emperors wheras the word Principes vsed by Cassander doth coÌ„prehend all sortes of Princes Secondly he translateth Catholicos Lutheranos Caluinistasâ— c. which words of caetera comprehend all other Sects of our time as Anabaptists Arrians Trinitarians Hâ—ssites Picardians and the like he translateth them I say Papists and Protestants as though all those Sects of our tyme were to be comprehended vnder the name of Protestants of the English faith or as though Cassander yf he were a Catholike as here he is pretended would call vs Papists 88. Thirdly wheras in his owne Latin here set downe he saith Qui omnes dum Symbolum tenent c. All which to wit Catholiks Lutherans Caluinists other Sectaries whiles they hold the Apostolicall Creed are true members of the Church he doth English it thus because Protestants hold the Articles of the Creed and are true members of the Church excluding Catholicks from belieuing the said Articles or being true members which in his owne Latin and that of Bellarmines also are included And fourthly is the corruption before mentioned although they dissent from vs in some particuler opinions which in Bellarmine is although they dissent among themselues in particuler doctrines And finally the wordes by him cited of Bellarmines iudgment which he controlleth to wit falsa est haec sententia Cassandri non possunt enim Catholici reconciliari cum haereticis are not so in Bellarmine but these potest facilè reselli haec Cassandri sententia primum enim non possunt Catholici Lutherani Caluinistae eo modo conciliari c. This sentence of Cassander may easily be refelled first for that Catholicks Lutherans and Caluinists for example cannot so be reconciled as Cassander appointeth to wit by admitting only the wordes of the Creed for that we differ in the sense and somtimes in the Articles themselues as in that descendit ad inferos he descended into Hell in like manner we agree not about the sense of those other Articles I belieue the Catholicke Church and Communion of Saints Remission of sinnes c. So Bellarmine all which this fellow omitteth 89. And so you see there is no truth or sinceritie with him in any thing Neither can these escapes bâ— ascribed any way to ouersight errour mystaking or forgetfulnes but must needs be attributed to wilfull fraud malicious meaning purposely to deceaue as the things themselues do euidently declare For which cause I shall leaue him to be censured by his owne brethreÌ„ but specially by his Lord Maister for so notable discrediting their Cause by so manifest false manner of proceeding 90. These were my words in the other Treatise whereupon I insisted the more in regard of the multiplicitie of fraudes discouered And so M. Morton had not any iust pretence to say as he insinuateth that this with the rest of the Charges layd against him and pretermitted by him were either of lesse importance or lesse insisted vpon then those other fourteene which he chose out to answere THE EIGHTEENTH Falshood pretermitted by Thomas Morton §. XVIII AS the former example apperteyned vnto the abuse of two together so doth this that next weare to alleage which are indeed two distinct things but that drawing to an end I am forced to ioine diuers togeather Wherfore I accused him in my former writing to haue corrupted two Authors ioyntly Royard a Friar and Cunerus a Bishop which accusation I set downe in these words 92. And heere will I passe ouer said I many things that might be noted out of the sequent pages namely 30.31.34 where he doth so peruert and abuse both the wordes discourse and sense of diuers Authours alledged by him as is not credible to him that doth not compare theÌ„ with the bookes themselues from whence they are taken As for example Royardus the Franciscan Friar is brought in with commendation of an honest Friar for that he saith That a King when he is made by the people cannot be deposed by theÌ„ againe at their pleasure which is the same doctrine that all other Friars learned Catholiks do hold so long as he conteyneth himselfe within
And for better methode memory I haue thought good to reduce my notes at this time to three sortes of men that haue written against vs. First ProtestaÌ„t Bishops then Ministers and â—astly Lay-men but of good sort I meane Knightes and of ech one of these shall we make our seuerall paragraphs 41. Thus farre I wrote at that tyme and as for the first part of that which I did set downe that M. Morton had byn taken in many and inexcusable false Equiuocations which in effect are the same with lying if before it was euident by the particuler examples heere alleaged and many others I do presume that now it will be much more manifest after his Reply and this my reioynder made vnto the same For that not only his former faults coÌ„mitted in this kind in his former Treatises oâ— Discouery Full Satisfaction are more orderly layd forth as by the precedent part of this Chapter appeareth then they were in my Treatise of Mitigation but many â—ew escapes are detected in like manner as will â—ppeare in the sequeÌ„t Chapter dedicated only to this particulâ—r effect 42. And as for the second point to dâ—â—lare that this spirit of false dealing ioyned with necâ—ssity and mysery of their bad cause is commâ—â— not only vnto him but vnto many of his brethrâ—n must needs be vnto all of them whensoeuer they takâ— pen in hand to defend the same for that one lye cannot be defended without another as hath beene said therfore I do produce teÌ„ seuerall witnesses two of them called Bishops M. Iewell and M. Horne fiue inferiour Ministers M. Iohn Fox M. Calâ—ield M. Hanmer M. Charke M. Perkins and might haue named 5. tymes more three lay men also Knights that haue written against vs Syr FraÌ„cis Hastings Syr Philip Mornay Syr Edward Cooke alleadging not one but sundry examples out of ech oâ— their workes might enlarge my selfe to a voluÌ„e iâ— that argumeÌ„t if I would say what I haue fouÌ„d in their their brethrens workes in this kynd staÌ„ding only precisely vpoÌ„ this that they be such exaÌ„ples as there is not only materiall falshood fouÌ„d in the thing but so apparaÌ„t also as it must needs be presumed the partie knew it to be such when he wrote it consequeÌ„tly was formall lying false equiuocating indeed 43. As for example when M. Iewell in the beginning of Q. Elizabeths time to draw her the Realme to change Religion become ProtestaÌ„t did preach at Paules Crosse in the Court with a most confident semblance and sundry teares did cast foâ—th 28. seuerall articles against Catholike Religion saying that if eyther the English or any other learned Catholicks in the world could shew but one place of Scripture one Father one Doctor one allowed example of the Primitiue Church within the â—irst 6. hundred yeares after Christ for cleare proofe of any one of these 28. articles he would yield subscribe be no more a Protestant adding also these words I speake not this in vehemency of spirit or heat of talke but euen as before God by way of simplicity and truth least any of you should happily be deceiued and thinke there is more weight on the other side then in conclusion will be found c. Which protestation he repeated diuers times and in diuers sermons And then yet further he brake into this vehement Apostrophe O merciâ—ull God! who would thinke that there could be so much wilfulnes in the hart of man O Gregory O Austine O Hierome O Chrysostome O Leo O Dionyse O Anaclete O Sixtus O Paul O Christ if we be deceiued herein you are they that haue deceiued vs c. 44. In which words protestations I did shew by 5. or 6. conuincing reasons that there must needs be much hypocrisie dissimulation and Equiuocation against his owne conscience and that consequently euery member and branch of this deceiptâ—ull speach must needs conteyne a formall lye knowne for such to himselfe when he vttered them for that he could not be ignorant how many not only places and sentences the ancient Fathers for example had against diuers of these Protestant articles that he holdeth but whole Treatises also against some And as for that of the Reall Presence which was one of his most principall he had beene present himselfe not many yeares before and one of the Notaries also in the disputation of Cranmer Ridley and Latimer at Oxâ—ord vnder Q. Mary wherin there were so many and so pâ—rspicuous places and discourses of ancient Fathers brought against them for the said Reall Presence as they remayned wholy confouÌ„ded as may be seene by him that is diligent and will stand attent by the relation therof sâ—t forth by Iohn Fox himself in his Acts and Monuments and more pithily collected out of him in a seuerall printed Treatise set forth these yeares past by N.D. in the â—hird Part of the Three Conuersions of England 45. And finally when Doctor Harding many other learned Catholickes began to write against M. Iewell and this hypocrisie of his they came forth with so huge a number of authenticall authorities in al these kyndes which he nameth here Scriptures Fathers Doctours Councells examples of the primitiue Church within the first six hundred yeares as they forced him to procure a prohibition of their bookes by the State And theÌ„ was he vrged about these speaches of his Now it standeth vpon you to proue but one affirmation agaiâ—st me and so to require my promise of subscribing And againe If you of your part would vouchsafe to bring but tâ—o lynes the â—hole matter were coÌ„â—luded And yet further Shew forth but one Doctor oâ— your side yea one sentence in â—our deâ—â—nce c. All which I do proue to be notorious cogging and dissimulation for that many other Protestants more learned then him selfe do acknowledg the Fathers to haue many sentences against him and cannot be stood vnto by them without ouerthrow of their cause And among others I do alleadge these wordes of Doctor VVhitaker VVe repose no such confidâ—nce saith he in the Fathers writings that we take any certaine proofe of Religion â—rom thâ—m because we place all our faith and Religion not in humane but in diuine authority If therâ—ore you bring vs what some Father hath thought or what the Fathers vniuersally all togeatâ—er haue deliuered the same except it be approued by testimony of Scriptures it auaileth nothing it gayneth nothing it conuinceth nothing For the Fathers aâ—â— such witnesses as they also haue need of the Scriptures to be their witnesses Iâ— deceiued by errour they giue â—orth their tâ—stimony disagreing from Scriptures albeit they may be pardoned erâ—ing â—or want of wisedome we cannot be paâ—doned if because they â—rred we also â—ill erre with them So Doctor VVhitaker more learned perhaps in the Fathers then M. Iewell though not so confident For if he had found by his experience that
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
of the writers mynd to beguyle For first in the chapter by him named the intention was not only to improue the right of deposing Princes in the Pope but also of excommunicating them as appeareth by the tytle of the Chapter it selfe which is this That â—or more then 1000. yeares after Christ the Papall pretended iurisdictioÌ„ ouer Kings hath bene controlled Now then this Papall pretended Iurisdiction as all men know contayneth as well excommunication as â—eposition the one being the efficient cause of the â—ther so as for M. Morton to runne to onely deposiâ—ion of Princes is guylfully to slyde from his matâ—er and from his owne Authours for that both Friâ—â—ngensis and Tolosanus haue as well the words excomâ—unicated as depryued oâ— his Kingdome though Mortonâ—ath â—ath cunningly stricken them out in cyting their â—ords â—5 SecoÌ„dly his excuse of hauing alledged Otto Friâ—â—â—gensis against his owne meaning from the witnesse 〈◊〉 Tolosanus cannot stand or be cleared of deceiptfull â—â—eaning for in the English text which was writâ—en for deceiuing the English common Reader was â—othing said at all of Tolosanus but thus in disgrace â—f Pope Gregory the 7. I read and read againe sayth your Otto Frisingensis and I find that Pope Gregory the 7. â—â—lled Hildebrand in the yeare 1060. was the first Pope that â—â—er depriued any Emperour of his Regiment And to this â—estimony he adioyneth Claudius â—spâ—nseus a Parisianâ—octor â—octor and writer in our time oâ— very small acâ—oÌ„pt whome he calleth Bishop but I neuer heard â—et of his Bishopricke and to him he adioyneth â—ambertus Schasnalurgensis against his owne meaning â—s he did this of Frisingensis And with this only he â—ndeth all that Chapter instituted by him to improue all Papall authoritie of excoÌ„municating and deposing Princes Onely in the margent he setteth downe in latin the wordes of Frisingensis with citing â—he booke and Chapter and then addeth vt resert Tolosanus lib. 26. 96. Heere then I would aske whether ther were not fraud supposing FrisingeÌ„sis to be alleadged against â—his meaning to put downe his testimony in the English text without relation or mention of Tolosanus only in the margent and in latin to make reference vnto him Would the currant English reader euer reflect vpon that or mistrust that the wordes of Frisingensis were of doubtfull credit and related only by heare-say Why had not M. Morton put downe that refereÌ„ce in his English text which most imported But the truth is that it was a double cunning shift to let it runne in the text as he would haue it belieued by the Reader as though FrisingeÌ„sis had testified against Pope Gregory the 7. and yet in the margent to haue some refuge vnder-hand when he should be pressed with the falshood of the allegation as now he is 97. I let passe as of small moment the erroneous pareÌ„thesis which he putteth in of the yeare 1060. which caÌ„not be true for that all English men know that VVilliam Conquerour vpon the yeare 1066. entred into Engalnd with a hallowed banner sent him from Pope Alexander the second who was predecessour to Pope Gregory the 7. and coÌ„sequently Pope Gregory could not excommunicate the Emperoâ—r Henry vpoÌ„ this yeare assigned by M. Morton for that he was not yet Pope for diuers yeares after but this I impute to errour and so insist not vpon it but rather vpon other pointes of willing deceiptfulnes which now I am to go forward in noting 98. I cannot persuade my selfe but that M. Morton had read Frisingensis himselfe for it were absurd to write bookes out of other mens notes as afterwards vpon diuers occasions he doth confesse of himselfe when otherwise he cannot auoid the obiection of falshood vsed but howsoeuer this were that eyther M. Morton related the words of Frisingensis as he found them in himselfe or in Tolosanus he hath not faithfully related them as Tolosanus did for thus they lye Lego sayth he relego Romanorum Regum Imperatorum gesta nusquam inuenio quemquaÌ„ eorum ante hunc Henricum quartum à Romano Pontifice excoÌ„municatum vel Regâ—â— priuatum nisi sortè quis pro anathemate hahendum ducat â—â—òd Philippus ad breue tempus à Rom. Episcopo inter poenitenâ—â— collocatus Theodosius à B. Ambrosio propter cruentam â—â—deÌ„ à liminibus Ecclesia sequestratus sit I do read read â—gaine the acts of the Roman Kinges Emperors â—â—d I do neuer find any of them before this Henryâ—â—e â—â—e 4. to haue bene excoÌ„municated or depriued of â—â—s Kingdome except perhaps some man will hold 〈◊〉 an excommunication that the Emperour Philipâ—as â—as for a short time placed by the Bishop of Rome 〈◊〉 og such as did peÌ„nace Theodosius the Emperor â—as debarred the limits of the Church by S. Ambrose â—â—ishop of Millane in regard of a bloudy slaughter coÌ„â—itted by his order â—â— These are the wordes of Frisingensis related punâ—â—ually by Tolosanus as heere they lye but it pleased 〈◊〉 M. Morton to relate them eyther as they are â—â—und in the one or other And as for the first part â—â—erof the Reader will see the difference by that â—hich I haue already set downe and in one poynt â—â—e fraud is manifest that where Frisingensis saith â—â—squam inuenio quemquam eorum excommunicatum vel â—â—gno priuatum I neuer fynd any of the Emperours to â—aue byn excoÌ„municated or depriued by the Bishop of â—ome he leaueth out the word excommunicated both â—n latin and in English as though it made not to â—he purpose and secondly he cutteth of both in laâ—in and English all exception of the Emperours Phiâ—â—p and Theodosius though both his Authors haue it And could this be playne dealing â—00 But heere now yow shal heare how he answereth this omission I left them out of purpose I confesse saith he otherwise I should haue bene like to your selfe in this other such cauills who desire to say much though nothing to the purpose for to what purpose I pray you had this beene seeing our question was not to shew what Emperors had byn excommunicated but who being excommunicated had bene deposed from their regalityes Yea Sir and will you escape so why then doth your Authour Frisingensis say that he fyndeth none excommunicated or depryued of his kingdome before Henry the 4. by Gregoy the 7 you see that he includeth both the one the other and so doth Tolosanus relate him also and you haue strooke out the former from Tolosanus his latin text set downe in your margeÌ„t because it should not be seene and then also both the foresaid exceptions of the Emperours Philip and Theodosius he cutteth of suppresseth as nothing to the purpose and yet you know that depositioÌ„ of Princes is an effect of excoÌ„munication and can neuer happen by Ecclesiasticall authority but where excoÌ„munication hath gone before And I would aske M. Morton in good earnest out of his Deuinity when a Christian
and partly reserued in mynd but yet euer true and no lye for that the speach agreeth alwayes with the mynd of the speaker and is true in his sense c. he beginneth his confutation thus How now would my Reader heare this noble Equiuocatour conâ—uted By Fathers Or by his owne Doctors or by sensible reasons this will be no hard matter to performe as I hope God willing to auouch in due tyme. So he And this as you see is no otherwise then if a bare and broken debitour hauing byn loÌ„g called vpon to pay his debts should step forth at length in a vaunt before a multitude saying to his creditor Come Syr what sort of gold will you be paid in will you haue it in Spanish Pistolets Portugall Cruzadoes French Crownes Zechines of Venice Dallers of Germany or English Angels and his creditor should answere him Syr any kynd of coyne would content me although it were but halfe-faced groates or single-pence so I might haue it And that then the other should reply as M. Morton doth heere Well I hope God willing to pay you in tyme and so leaue him with lesse probability of payment then euer before And were this now substantiall dealing for satisfaction of his creditours And doth not M. Morton the very like that asking heere thâ— reader whether he will haue Fathers Doctours or reasons for proofe against me produceth neuer a one but faith that he hopeth to do it in tyme And was it not now fit time to alleadge some one or two at least if had had such store as he vaunteth and those of such force and euidency as no wit of man can controle them Surely it would haue delighted the Reader to haue read one such exaÌ„ple in this place for a tast though he had expected for the other the longer after But now he must needes suspect the art of Monte-banks in commending their wares so far beyond their worth and refusing to affoard any sight therof 22. But let vs come to see what supply M. Morton deuiseth to make in lieu of those former pretermitted proofs of Fathers Doctors reasons c. Heere saith he is offered vnto me a briefer course more fit for a PreaÌ„ble and for the triumph of truth more glorious which is to see as politicke Achitophell haÌ„ged in his owne halter so this doctor of the art of lying confounded by his owne assertion I desire euery child of truth to lend me attention So he And all this is by way of preface before he come to his triumphant and glorious victory And if he do nothing afterward but shame himselfe and shew his owne folly in mistaking the chiefe point of the question and not vnderstaÌ„ding wherin consisteth the principall force of the coÌ„trouersie will not all this vaunting prologue proue a halter of Achitophell to hang himselfe And the styrring vp of euery child of truth to attention make euery man witnesse of his owne disgrace Let vs then ioyne issue vpon the matter it selfe 23. The means that he taketh here to ouerthrow as he saith my whole Treatise of Equiuocation is the example of the woman Saphyra in the Acts of the Apostles whome he will needs defend to haue vsed Equiuocation with S. Peter when she being demanded by him VVether she sold her land for so much she answered yea which being an vnlawfull answere and punished by the holy Ghost with death he would infâ—rre fondly therof that all EquiuocatioÌ„ is vnlawâ—ull But I thinke beâ—t to set downe my whole charge in that behalfe as it standeth in my Treatise and then shall we see how therby M. MortoÌ„ will ouerthrow as he saith my whole defence Thus then I did write in my former booke The Charge giuen by P. R. 24. First to begin with his exaÌ„ples out of Scripture I say that he might better haue said example in the singular number for wheras we of our part haue alleged so many so great variety of examples in our former discourse to the contrary he poore man out of all the body of the whole Bible hath alleadged but one and that nothing to his purpose as presently shall appeare His example is out of the Acts of the Apoâ—tles where it is recounted how Ananias Saphyra his wife hauing sould a certaine feild of theirs and bringing a part of the price and laying it at the feete of the Apostle as though it had bene the whole price were miraculously punished by S. Peter for defrauding the Community of that which they had promised or would pretend to giue An act saith Thomas Morton proper to the infancy of the Church to bring their substance tender it to the Apostles for the common good oâ— Saints By which words if he allow that fact as a forme of perfection in that purity and integrity of the Christian Churches beginning why then now is the imitation therof in religious men of our dayes impugned by the Protestants And if by the word Infancy he meane weaknes or imperfect on in the sense of S. Paul saying Cùm essem paruulus c. when I was a child or infant I spake as a child I vnderstood as a child I thought as a child but when I came to the yeares of a man I cast of those things that belonged to a child If this I say be Thomas Mortons meaning to note the act of imperfection the ancient Fathers do stand wholy against him and do allow it rather for great perfection and that it was a vow of voluntary pouerty to liue in coÌ„mon which those first Christians had made by counsaile of the Apostles and consequently do interprete those words Nonne manens â—ibi manebat c. did it not remayne in your power to giue it or â—ot to giue it to haue byn meant by S. Peter before â—heir vow which if it be true and that S. Peter did â—iue so dredfull a sentence vpon the first vow-breaâ—ers of voluntary pouerty euen for detayning somâ—hat of their owne how much may Thomas Morton â—nd some friends of his feare the like sentence for â—eaching it to be lawfull to take away that from a Religious coÌ„munity which themselues neuer gaue â—5 But let vs come to the application of this exâ—mple against Equiuocation which he hath choâ—en to vse principally about the womans speach The â—oman is asked saith he sould you the land for so much Her â—nswere isâ— yea for so much meaning but one halfe conceaâ—ing the other in which dissimulation it is impossible saith M. Morton but that your reserued clause must haue come into her mynd to thinke but so much to giue in common or to â—â—gniâ—ie vnto you Thus he teacheth that poore womaÌ„â—o Equiuocate aâ—ter his maÌ„ner of EquiuocatioÌ„ that â—s to say to lye for now I suppose he hath learned â—y that which hath byn setdowne in our precedent Chapter that so speake an vntruth or to conceale a truth or
Suarez and last of all Baronius do yeald most euident probabilityes and others that admitting it for the speach of Epiphanius do very sufficiently answere the same otherwise yet that in deed it maketh nothing at all against the Catholicke vse of sacred Images is so euident by conferring their answeres togeather as nothing can be more 48. As namely first for that Baronius and others do proue abundantly out of Paulinus Venantius Fortunatus Euodius other ancient authors that the vse of images was ordinary frequent in the tyme of S. Epiphanius Suarez confirmeth the same out of old holy Fathers Doctors of the Greeke Church his equals to wit S. Chrysostome S. Basill S. Gregory NanianzeÌ„ Gregory Nissen others wherof is inferred that it is not probable that S. Epiphanius would set downe a thing so coÌ„trary to the coÌ„mon receaued doctrine practice of his tyme or yf he had it would haue byn noted contradicted by some 49 Secondly it is proued out of the second Nicene Councell that the disciples of S. Epiphanius did set vp his picture publiquely in his Church of Cyprus soone after his death which they would neuer haue done if S. Epiphanius in his life tyme had held it for an abuse contrary to the authority of Scriptures to haue the picture of any man set vp in the Church 50. Thirdly S. Iohn Damascenus that liued very neere 900. yeares gone testifyeth in his first Oration of Images that the said Church of S. Epiphanius in Cyprus had continued from that tyme to his imaginibus exornata adorned with images and therupon inferreth that whatsoeuer is found in him sounding against the pious vse of Images is counterfaite thrust into his workes by the Iconoclast Heretiks And in the foresaid Councell of Nice it selfe which was held in his tyme one Epiphanius a Deacon did shew two other like places to haue bene thurst into his bookes by the same Hereticks 51. Fourthly it appeareth by the sayd Councell by S. Iohn Damascen in his forsaid Oration that this place of S. Epiphanius in his Epistle to Iohn of Hierusalem was neuer obiected against Images eyther in the Councell it selfe or by Claudius Taurinensis or any other Iconoclast at that tyme which they would not haue omitted to do if in those dayes such a testimony had byn extant in so graue an author as was S. Epiphanius 52. Fifthly S. Gregory the Great obiecting to a certayne Bishop of Massiles called Serenus somewhat the like fact of breaking Images saith vnto him as is extant in his owne Epistle Dic Frater à quo factuÌ„ Sacerdote aliquando est quod fecisti Tell me brother of what Priest was it euer heard that he attempted a fact like vnto this of yours Which he would neuer haue said if the other might haue answered I haue heard and read the same done by the great and holy Archbishop S. Epiphanius 53. Lastly to omit diuers proofes which our men do alleage if S. Epiphanius had held for an errour and abuse against the Authority of Scriptures to haue Images in the Church as our moderne Protestants will needes force it vpon him then is it likly that he writing so large a worke against all the heresyes and erroneous doctryne perilous abuses that had sprong vp in the Church of God from Christ vntill his tyme he would not haue omitted to warne men also of this that was so dangerous preiudiciall to the honour and seruice of Almighty God but no word is to be found of this amongst all his heape of heresyes and consequently we may for certayne inferre that he did not thinke this doctryne or practice or setting vp Christian Images in ChristiaÌ„ Churches to be vnlawfull or against the authority of Scriptures 54. And this for the matter it selfâ— which is more then was necessary for me to say considering that whatsoeuer diuersity of Iudgements there was or is about the exposition answere defence or impugnation of this place of Epiphanius yet is there no one iote to be inferred therof that any of them did wittingly or willingly write false against their owne conscience which is the question in hand which we are ready to proue against our aduersaryes Nor yet do I meane to stand vpon the examen of the Interlude brought in by M. Morton of our Catholicke writers differences of opinions wherein againe he delighteth him selfe only I wish the Reader that wheras Cardinall Bellarmine is heere caluÌ„niated about Epiphanius Epistle translated by S. Hierome for denying the last clause therof to be his he repayre for the solution therof vnto Cardinall Baronius who more largly detecteth the fraud then is expedient for me at this present to relate especially for so much as I am to passe to other particuler caluÌ„niatioÌ„s against Cardinall Bellarmine in his very next example or instance THE SECOND PART OF THIS CHAPTER OF INSTANCES AGAINST CARDINALL Bellarmine in particuler touching imputation of old heresies §. VI. IF you haue seene how litle able M. Morton hath byn to performe his promise before for wilfull falsityes committed by any of our writers hitherto much more shall you see it now when leauing the multitude of other Authors he singleth out Cardinall Bellarmine alone to deale withall who as he hath written much so were it not great maruaile if in so many bookes he should haue left some things whereupon his aduersaryes might probably wrangle but as for wilfull vntruth it is so farre from his knowne and confessed integrity as M. Morton could neuer haue made choice of an vnfitter match for that poynt Nor can it be thought that he chose him vpon hope to find any such aduantage in him in deed but only to honour himselfe somwhat by contending with such an aduersary and to cast some cloudes at least in the mindes of the simpler sort vpon the shining beames of Cardinall Bellarmines estimation by obiecting the name of wilfull falsityes vnto him But as when the said cloudes are driuen away from the ayre the force of the sunne is more sensibly felt so Card. Bellarmines workes being cleared heere from M. MortoÌ„s calumniatioÌ„s will be more highly esteemed by euery iudicious Reader as not lending any least true aduaÌ„tage vnto any impugnatioÌ„ of the aduersarie this is al the hurt that he is like to receaue by this assault 56. And yet as if M Morton had some great matters in deed to lay against him and that the proofes were prompt certaine euideÌ„t he according to his former excessiue vaine of vaunting falleth into the sâ—me againe writing thus P. R. requireth an example of any one who hath byn found so grosly false that in the eie of man he may not be acquitted either by ignorance of translation c. which demand if it proceed froÌ„ vnfeynednesse it seemeth vnto me so intollerably reasonable that now I am driuen to a two fold trouble in yeelding satisfaction The one
and other places do hould the same now and it was the peculier doctrine of Berengarius and his adherents to deny the Reall Presence ergo the Protestants of England at this day cannot be charged with that doctrine And doth not euery body see the vanity of this inference Wherfore his conclusion is to be noted I let passe saith he a dozeâ— such criminations cast by him vpon Protestants which by the testimonies of his owne Doctors may be proued to haue byn lewd and intollerable slaunders Wherto I answere that hitherto he hath not beene able to shew any one we shall see what he will say afterward But in the meane space I leaue it to the modest Reader to iudge where the lewdnesse doth remayne if any be 66. And to this consideration I add another that wheras Cardinall Bellarmine did charge Caluin and Caluinists with two principall errors of the Pelagians the one that which now hath bene handled of denying Originall sinne in children and Infants of the faithâ—ull and the second of denying the difference of Veniall and Mortall sinnes and holding that by euery least sinne we leese our iustice and consequently that all sinne is mortall Bellarmine citing for the same the testimony of S. Hierome who ascribeth that for heresy vnto the Pelagians and wheras in like manner he proueth the same heresy not only to be held by Luther and Melancthon but also by Caluin in diuers parts of his workes as lib. 2. Instit. cap. 8. § 85. lib. 3. cap. 4. § 28. c. M. Morton taking vpoÌ„ him to cleare Caluin in the former charge â—â—out originall sinne though so vnluckely as you â—â—ue heard saith neuer a word against this second â—â—out the distinction of veniall and mortall sinnes â—herby is â—uident in all probability that he admitâ—â—ed that for true and consequently yealded secretly â—â—at Caluinists do agree with the Pelagians in this heâ—â—sy though he storme sharply as you haue heard aâ—â—inst Bellarmine for charging Caluin with any point 〈◊〉 Pelagianisme at all And this fraud or frailty he coÌ„â—itteth commonly in all the rest of the heresies â—â—iected denying the one weakly and by his silence â—â—anting the other as now by experience you shall 〈◊〉 THE SECOND INIVRIOVS â—â—iâ—ction against Cardinall Bellarmine for false imputation of the Nouatian-heresy §. VIII FROM the fourteenth heresy wherin Cardinall Bellarmine sheweth the Protestants to participate â—ith the Pelagians as you haue heard M. Morton starâ—â—th backe to the sixt of participation with the Noâ—â—tians in these words He that is Bellarmine maketh â—rotestaÌ„ts guilty saith he of the heresy of the Nouatiâ—â—s in taking froÌ„ the Church all power of reconciliating men vnâ—â— God when as his owne Authors do note that the â—eresy of the Nouatians was this videlicet to deny â—ny man that should sinne after Baptisme all hope of remission 〈◊〉 sinnes although he should repent Yea and also Bellarâ—ine himselfe in behalfe of Protestants confesseth â—lse where that they require repentance and faith in Chriâ—tians that they may be iustified and obtaine remission of sinnes Nor this only but there is no difference betweene vs saith he and Protestants about repentance as it is a conuersion vnto God wiâ—h detestation of sinne or as it consisteth in outward signes of sorrow weeping confâ—ssâ—on and outward chasticementsâ— yea and almost all oâ— them allow an outward rite of absolution But the only coÌ„trouersy betweene vs is whether Pennance be properly a Sacrament â—he contradiction is this to impute vnto Protestants an heresy which taketh away all maÌ„ner oâ— repentance hope of remissioÌ„ for sin past yet to acknowledge in theÌ„ a contrary orthodoxall truth which is to proâ—esâ—e a necessity of repentance reconciliation remisâ—ioÌ„ of â—â—nnes Thus far he 68. And if we stand attent in this place we shall see no lesse fraudulent dealing then in the former if not more to make apperance of contrariety difference betwene Cardinall Bellarmine other Catholick Authors about the heresy of the Nouatians which though it could be proued yet doth it not inferre as euery man may see the principall conclusion oâ— the question that there were willfull malice But all is full of fraud as you will perceaue and the reason is not so much I suppose for that he delighteth himselfe in lying wilfully as before hath byn touched as the necessity of his cause which driueth him to vse the helpe of these shifts or els to say nothing And this am I forced often to note to the Reader for that it is lightly a perpetuall obseruation in him 69. His driâ—t then is if you marke it well to argue Cardinall Bellamine of falsity in that he affirmeth the Protestants of our dayes to ioyne with the old heretickes the Nouatians in taking from the Church all power of reconciling men vnto God for those are Bellarmines words though curtally recâ—ted by M. Morton out of his latin text as presently you shall see and to conâ—radict the Cardinall in this he cyteth the wordes of Alphonsus de Castro that saith that the heresy of the â—â—uatiaÌ„s was to deny any man who should sinne aftâ—r Baptisme 〈◊〉 hope of remission of synnes although he should repent But â—ow these two are neyther contradictory nor conâ—â—ary if they be well considered For that the Nouaâ—â—â—ns are held to teach both these poynts first prinâ—â—pally that there was no power left in the Church â—â—to Priests to reconcile and remit sinnes to such as â—â—ll after Baptisme especially into grieuous sinnes 〈◊〉 testifieth S. Cyprian in a speciall Epistle against Noâ—â—tianus and S. Ambrose in his booke de Poenitentia and â—thers And this first part of their errour was contraâ—â—ues Ecclesiae against the keys of the Church or power â—â— Priests to remit sinnes and heerin all authors do â—â—ree But the second part of their errour went furâ—â—er as some do gather out of the ancient Fathers 〈◊〉 testifyeth Suarez though others be of differeÌ„t â—â—inions which was to deny furthermore besydes â—â—e SacrameÌ„t all vertue of PeÌ„nance whatsoeuer wheâ—â—er priuate or Sacramentall especially in great sinâ—es as by the words of Alphonsus de Castro heere recited â—ay seeme to appeare â—0 Of these two errors then the first and not â—â—e second is ascribed by Bellarmine to the ProtestaÌ„ts â—o witt that they deny the power of Pennance as 〈◊〉 is a Sacrament that is to say as it conteineth not â—nly a priuate detestation of sinne in the synner but â—â—so the absolution or remission therof by the Priest 〈◊〉 the publicke Minister of the Church The other â—â—rour of denying all vse of priuate repentance eyâ—â—er inwardly or outwardly by sorâ—ow sighes tears â—nd the like is not ascribed to Protâ—stâ—nts by Bellarâ—ine so as for M. MortoÌ„ to bring in the one as contraâ—ictory to the other that for as much as Alphonsus de Castro saith that the Nouatians did deny all power of â—eÌ„nance therfore Bellarmine saith
not truly that they denyed the Sacramentall vse therof Or for so much as Protestants do not concurre with the Nouaâ—ians in the one they do not in the other is a most absuâ—d kynd of reasoning called by Logitians à disparaâ—iâ— foâ— that both may be true and one excludeth not the other For it is most true which Bellarmin saith that NouatianoruÌ„ error praecipuus erat c. The principall errour of the Nouatians which word principall importing that they had other errors besids is craftily cut oâ— by M. Mort. was that there is not power in the Church to recoÌ„â—le men to God but only by Baptisme which last words also buâ— only by Baptisme were by M. Mort. and by the same art shifted ouâ— of the text for that they haue relation to the Priests of the Church to whom it appertayneth by publicke ordinary office to baptize and in this the Protestants are accused by Bellarmine to concurâ—â— with them in denyall of peÌ„nance as it is a SacrameÌ„t 71. And togeather with this it may be true that besides this praecipuus error the principall errour the Nouatians some or all denyed the fruit of all kynd of priuate and particuler pennance as sorrow teares punishment of the body and thâ— like wherin diuers Protestants do not agree with them nor yet are accused therof Wherby it appeareth that all this counterfait contradiction which M. Morton hath so much laboured to establish heere betweene Bellarmine on the one syde and Castro Vega Maldonaâ—e on the other commeth to be right nothing at all for that Bellarmine speaketh expresly of Pennance as it is a Sacrament and in that sense only saith that the Protestants deny it togeather with the Nouatians as they do also the vse of Chrisme in the Sacrament of Conâ—irmation which was an other errour of theirs obiected by Bellarmine to Protestants as much as the formâ—r but wholy dissembled by M. Morton The other three Authors as they do not exclude but rather include the Sacrament of Pennance yet do they mâ—ke â—ention of the other part of the Nouatian error â—â—at seemed to deny all pennance in generall wheâ—â—er Sacramentall or not Sacramentall and of this â—â—e not Protestants accused by Bellarmine but expreâ—â—y rather exempted by the words which heere M. â—orton setteth downe of his So as for him to play â—â—on his owne voluntary Equiuocation and mistaâ—â—ng of the word PeÌ„nance Nouatian heresy about the â—â—me is toto grosse an illusion Wherfore if you â—â—ease let vs briefly see how many false trickes he â—â—eth in this place â—2 The first of all may be that wheras Cardinall â—â—llarmine to proue that our moderne Protestants do â—â—mbolize and agree with the old Nouatian heresyes â—â—leageth two particuler instances the one in denyâ—â—g the power of the Church to remit synnes by â—â—e Sacrament of peÌ„nance the other in denying the 〈◊〉 of holy Chrisme in the Sacrament of ConfirmatioÌ„ â— Morton hauing nothing to say to the second replyâ—th only to the first by an Equiuocation as you haue â—â—ard and yet if the second only be true Bellarmine 〈◊〉 iustified in noting the ProtestaÌ„ts of Nouatianisme â—nd therfore to deny the one dissemble the other â—ust needs proceed of witting fraud granting that which is chiefly in controuersy to wit that Proâ—estants do hold in somewhat Nouatianisme â—3 The second fraud is for that in reciting Cardinall Bellarmines charge against Protestants he cutâ—eth from the latin sentence of Bellarmine being very small short in it selfe both the beginning end to wit Praecipuus error post baptismum as yow haue heard and that for the causes which now I haue declared 74. Thirdly he doth bring in guylfully the foresaid testimonyes of Castro Vega Maldonate as contrary to Bellarmine whereas they speake of an other thing to wit of peÌ„nance in another sense bâ—sydeâ— this do all expresâ—y set downe the two errouâ—s oâ— the Nouatians to witt that they did deny as welâ— the Sacrament of PennaÌ„ce as also the priuate vse therâ—f as it is a particuler vertue and that the Protesâ—anâ—â— of our dayes do concurre with them in the fiâ—stâ— though not in the second and that he could not buâ— euidently see and know this and so did write it against his conscience to deceyue the Reader 75. Fourthly when M. Morton doth alleadge Bâ—llarmine lib. 3. de Iustis cap. 6. to confesse that Protestants do require repentance in Christians that they may be iuâ—tified he well knew that this was not coÌ„trary to that which he had said before in his accusation lib. 4. de Notis Ecclesiae cap. 9. that Protâ—stants did ioyne with the NouatiaÌ„s in denying all power of the Church for râ—conciling men to God for he knew that in the former Bellarmine meant of priuate pennance as it is a vertue which euery man may vse of himselâ—e but in the second he meant of the Sacrament and keyes of the Church which require absolution of the Priest Heere then was wilâ—ull and malicious mistaking and so much the more for that in the very next wordes heere set downe by him both in English latin out of Bellarmines first booke de poâ—nitâ—ntia cap. 8. the Cardinall doth expresly declare that only Controuersy betweene Catholickes and Protestants in this matter is about the sacrament of peÌ„nance with absolutioÌ„ of the Church not the priuate peÌ„nance which euery particuler man may vse of himselfe So as vnder the cloud of priuate and sacramentall peÌ„nance he craftily endeauoreth to make some shew of a contradictioÌ„ which is none indeed 76. The fifth falshood is that M. Morton to make Cardinall Bellarmine contrary to himselfe or very forgetfull he alleadging heere his latin wordes maketh him to say first that Protestants require faith repentance to iustificaâ—ion and then presently in another place Luther reiecâ—eth pennance as though Luther were no Proteâ—â—ant wheras this is no contradiction in Cardinall Bellarmine but in Luther himselâ—e and anotoâ—ious fraud in M. Morton so paâ—pably to dâ—ceaue his Reader for that Cardinall Bellarmines wordes are these Lutherus lib. de Captiuitate Babylonica tria tanâ—um agnoscit Sacramenta Baptismâ—m Poenitentiam Panem tamen infra cap. de extrema Vnctione reijâ—it Poenâ—tentiam Luther in his booke of Babylonicall Captiuity in the Chapter oâ— the Eucharist acknowledgeth only three SacrameÌ„ts Baptisme Pennance and Bread and yet afterward in the same booke and in the Chapter of Extreme Vnction he reiecteth peÌ„nance These are the wordes of Bellarmine which M. Morton could not but haue seene and consideredâ— and yet to make some litle shew of ouersight in Bellarmine he was content against his coÌ„science to set downe Lutherus reijcit Poeniâ—entiam and to conceale and dissemble all the rest of the sentence alleadged When will he be able to produce one of our Authours with so manifest a wilfulnes 77. Let vs conclude then that M. Mort. is in a poore case when he is driuen to
for any thing â—â—omised against Cardinall Bellarmine whose estimaâ—â—on is like to be highly increased with all indiffeâ—â—nt men by this assault both for conscience sincere â—ealing and learning and M. Morton greatly blemiâ—â—ed in them all for that coÌ„monly no one instance â—ath he alleaged of fraud in his aduersarie but with â—ome fraud in himselfe none perhaps with more theÌ„ in this sixt last obiectioÌ„ in that kynd concerning the testimony of Tâ—eodoret for the Reall Presence â—or that heere be so many foule faults wilfull corâ—uptions as truly after so many admonishments if â— should vse the same it would make me ashamed to â—ooke any man in the face 96. He indeauoureth to frame a contradiction â—â—out of Bellarmine in that he chargeth Caluin with an ancient heresy recorded by Theodoret which heresy â— did affirme that there is only a figure of Christes body in the Sacrament and then will he proue out of Bellarmine himselfe for contradiction of this first that the said heresy is not ancient then that it is not to be found at this day in Theodoret thirdly that Caluin doth not deny the Reall Presence and so he concludeth as you haue heard heere is no more oddes then betweene anâ—â—â—â—â— and not ancient heresy not heresy But if in all and euery one of these three poyntes M. Morton be conuinced wittingly to haue falsifyed and that he could not but know that he did so what excuse then will he make or what will the discreete and honest Reader say or thinke of him Novv then to the particulers 97. The charge which Cardinall Bellarmine maketh vpon Zuinglius Caluin not Caluin only as M. Mortâ—â— text importeth is taken from the last of those 20. old heresies before signified to be obiected by the Cardinall to the Protestants of our time in his booke of the Notes of the Church and by him is set downe in these wordes The twentith old heresie saith Bellarmine wherin the Protestants of our time do participate with old heretickes is of them that denied the Eucharist to be truly the flesh of Christ would haue it to be the figure or image of the body of Christ. So it is related in the seauenth Generall CouÌ„cell and sixt Action Tom. 3. and long before that Theodoret in his Dialogue intituled Impatibilis doth relate the same out of S. Ignatius Scholler to the Apostles And this heresy is taught in these our daies by Zuinglius in his Booke De verbis Coenae Domini by Caluin lib. 4. Instit. cap. 17. § 12. And so we haue layd forth the heresies of 20. Archeretickes that were coÌ„demned by the Church within the first seauen hundred yeares after Christ which heresies being â—â—lden by vs for such and by our Aduersaries for 〈◊〉 articles of their faith it followeth that our doctrine doth agree with the doctrine of the ancient Church â—â—d the doctrine of our aduersaries with the anciâ—â—t heresies So he â—â— And this is Cardinall Bellarmines charge Let â—â—e Reader now marke how brokeÌ„ly it is set downe 〈◊〉 M. Morton For first he mentioneth only Caluin to 〈◊〉 challenged for this last heresy of the Sacramentaâ—es against the Reall Presence as now I haue said â—auing out Zuinglius who is equally charged by the â—â—rdinall for the same thing which is one tricke â—hen he omitteth wholy the mention of the 7. Geâ—â—rall CouÌ„cell which so long agoe related confuâ—â—d the said heresy this is another tricke Furtherâ—ore he coÌ„cealeth in like maÌ„ner the name authoâ—â—tie of old S. Ignatius who in his tyme which was â—â—mediatly after the Apostles held the denying of 〈◊〉 Reall Presence to be an heresy this is a third â—icke All which poyntes could not be pretermitted 〈◊〉 M. Morton nor any one of them indeed but by voâ—â—ntary deliberation and consequently he must be â—â—esumed to haue done it of set purpose to deceyue â—ut let vs come to his two heads of contradiction â—hich he will needs find in Bellâ—rmine â—9 The first is that Cardinall Bellarmine is affirmed â—y him to say that that hereticall opinion cited â—â—fore against the Reall Presence out of Theodoret is 〈◊〉 ancient nor yet now to be found in Theodoret and â—or this he citeth Bellarmines owne wordes as he saith â—â—b 1. de Euchar. cap. 1. initio and that in latin to wit â—uae sententia citaâ—ur à Theodoreto in Dialogo vbi tamen nunc â—on habetur VVhich sentence of S. Ignatius against old â—eretiks is cited by Theodoret in his dialogue where â—otwithstanding now it is not to be found So he telâ—eth vs out of Bellarmine both in Latin English â—ut corrupteth him egregiously in both lauguages First in allegation and then in translation as now shall be demonstrated For first the true vvordes of Cardinall Bellarmine in latin are these Quae sententia ciâ—atur à Theodoreto in 30. Dialogo ex epist. Ignatij ad Smyâ—â—â—ses vbi tamen nunc non habetur That is to say This sentence concerning old heretiks denying the Reall Presence is cyted by Theodoret in his third dialogue out of S. Ignatius his Epistle to the Christians of Smyrna where notwithstanding it is not now found meaning expresly that it is not found at this day in that Epiâ—tle of S. Ignatius but in Theodoret it is found and is extant both in Greeke and latyn as euery man may see that will read the place quotedâ— So as heere agayne M. Morton corrupteth Bellarmâ—â—â— both in Latin and English leauing out not only the mention of S. Ignatius his Epistle ad Smyrnenses and then making his Reader belieue that the testimony of Theodoret was not to be found at this day in him but also vpon this falsification of his owne will needs frame a contradiction in Bellarmine And can there be any more witting and wilfull falshood then this Can this dealing stand with the solemne and extraordinary protestations which he maketh of sincerity in the end of his booke euen against hiâ— owne infirmityes 100. But let vs see yet further how he proueth that Bellarmine hauing said before that this heresy of denying the Reall Presence was very ancient contradicteth himselfe and saith in the very same place that it is not ancient for which he alleadgeth these wordes of the Cardinall Ne autem glorientur Caluinistae c. And to the end that the Caluinists may not glory that their opinion against the Reall Presence is very ancient it is to be noted that those most ancient hereticks mentioned by S. Ignatius did not so much impugne the SacrameÌ„t of the Eucharist as the mistery of Christ his incarnation For so much as therfore they denied the Eucharist â—o be the flesh of Christ as S. Ignatius doth signifie in â—he same place for that they deny Christ to haue â—lesh c. â—01 Which testimony if you consider it well â—oth not proue at all that the denyall of the Reall â—resence was no
about to refute 〈◊〉 tradition VVhence is this tradition It is deriued from the Lords Authority or frâ—m the prâ—câ—pt of the Apostles For God willâ—th that we â—hoâ—d do those things which are written From whence ProtestaÌ„ts conclude that the Scriptures are of sufficiency for our direction in all questions of faith Bellarmine answereth that Cyprian spake this when he thought to defend an error and therfore iâ— is no meruaile iâ— he erred in so reasoning for the which cause S. Augustine saith he did worthily reâ—ute him The question is not what error Cyprian held but whether his manner of reasoning from the sufficiency of Scripture were erroneous or no. Bellarmine pretendeth that S. Augustine did worthily reproue him But whosoeuer shall consult with S. Augustine in the Chapter specified shall find that this poynt by him is excellently commended That Cyprian warneth vs saith S. Augustine to runne vnto tâ—e â—ountaine that is vnto the tradition oâ— the Aposâ—les from thence to deriue a conduct to our tymes it is chiâ—fly good and doubtlesse to be perâ—ormed 105. This is M. Mortons whole obiection wherin we must examine what wilfull deceipt to falsification he findeth here in Cardinall Bellarmines allegation of Cyprian For if he find not this then findeth he nothing to his purpose he hauing intituled this his Paragraph of Bâ—llaâ—mines falsiâ—ications but if he find no falshood nor falsity at all either wilfull or not wilfull then is he more in the briers but most of all if finding nothing in his aduersary himselfe be taken in manifest falshood both witting and wilful Let vs examine then this poynt more particulerly 106. And first I do note that he proposeth this obiection very obscurely that for the cause which will presently be seâ—ne for he doth not explicate vpon what occasion these words of S. Cyprian were vttered by him nor alleadged by Protestants as an obiection against vnwritten traditions Wherfore the Reader must know that the holy man S. Cypâ—ian hâ—uing conceaued an infinite auersion froÌ„ hereticks and herâ—sies of his time did vpon indiscreet zeale â—all into this errour that as their faith was not goodâ—â—o neither their baptisme and consequently that â—uch as left them and were conuerted to the Cathoâ—icke religion should be baptized againe after the Catholicke manner and hauing found some other Bishops also of Africk vpon the same groundes to ioyne with him in the same opinion for that it seemed to them to be most conforme to Scriptures that detested euery where hereticks and heresies he wrote therof vnto Stephen Bishop of Rome who standing vpon the coÌ„trary custome alwayes vsed in the Church not to rebaptize such as were conuerted from heresie misliked S. Cyprians opinion and wrote vnto him against the same wherwith the good man being somwhat exasperated wrote a letter vnto Pompeius Bishope of Sabrata in Africk cited heere by M. Morton wherin amongst other sharp speaches he hath this interrogation here set downe Vnde est ista traditio c From whence is this tradition of not rebaptizing heretickes Is it deriued from our Lords Authority c. vpon which forme of arguing in S. Cyprian M. Morton saith that Protestants do lawfully argue in like manner this or that tradition is not in the Scriptures ergo it is not to be admitted 107. But saith Cardinall Bellarmine this was no good forme of arguing in S. Cyprian nor euer vsed by him but in this necessitie for defending his errour as Protestantes also are driuen to vse the same for defence of theirs and this he proueth by two wayes First for that S. Augustine doth of purpose out of the sense of the vniuersall Church of his dayes refute that inference and forme of argument and secondly for that S. Cyprian himselfe in other places where he was not pressed with this necessity doth yeald and allow the authority of vnwritten traditions which later proofe as the most conuincent M Morton doâ—h suppresse with silence in reciting Bellarmines answere and saith only to the first that S. Augustine is so farre of from condemning S. Cyprians mannâ—r of reasoning from the sufficiency of Scriptures as he doth excellently commend the same this then is briefly to be examined out of S. Augustines ovvne wordes 108. And first I graunt as S. Augustine also doth that when any Tradition or doctryne can cleerly be shewed out of the Scriptures optimum est siâ—e dubitatione facieâ—dum it is the best way of all and questionles to be obserued And for that S. Cyprian in that his errour did certainly perswade himselfe to be able to prooue the same out of holy Scriptures as appeareth by the many places alleadged by him to thâ—t effect though wrongfully vnderstood especially in the sayd Epistle to Pompeius and else wherâ— which places of Scripture S. Augustine doth particulerly ponder and refute and shew not to be rightly applied by S. Cyprian who seeing the generall custome and tradition of the Church to be contrary vnto him in this cause prouoked to the Scriptures alone as the Protestants do in as bad a cause But now let vs see what S. Augustine teacheth in this behalfe and how he confuteth S. Cyprians prouocatioÌ„ to only Scriptures in this case of controuersy betweene them notwithstanding he allowed for the best way to haue recourse to the fountaynes when things from thence may as I sayd cleerly be proued 109. Let vs heare I say S. Augustine recounting the case betweene S. Cyprian on the one side himselfe with â—ll Catholike meÌ„ of his dayes on the other NoÌ„dâ—â—â—râ—tâ—â—aith â—â—aith he diligentâ—rilla Baptismi quâ—stio pertracta c. The question of Baptisme or rebâ—ptizing heretiks was not in S. Cyprians tyme diligently discussed albeit the Catholike Church held a most wholsome custome to correct that in Schismatiks Heretiks which was euill not to iterate that which was giuen them as good which custome I belieue to haue come downe from the Apostles tradition as many others which are not found in their writings nor yet in the later Councels of their successours neuerthelesse are obserued through the whole vniuersall Church and are belieued not to haue beene deliuered and commended vnto vs but from the sayd Apostles This most wholsome custome then S. Cyprian sayth that his predecessour Agrippinus did begin to correct but as the truth it selfe being more diligently after examined did teach he is thought more truly to haue corrupted theÌ„ corrected the same Thus S. Augustine of the state of the question and of the authority of Customes and Traditions vnwritten Now Let vs see what he saith to S. Cyprians maÌ„ner of reasoning from the sufficiency of Scripture as M. Morton tearmeth it 101. Ad Pompeium saith S. Augustine scribit Cyprianus de hac re c. S. Cyprian doth write to the Bishop Pompeius about this matter where he doth manifestly shew that Stephen whome wee vnderstand to haue beene Bishop of Rome at that tyme did not
true explanation of your meaning with a cleare confutation and reiection of the same and consequently these Rhetoricall shifts are idly brought in by you nothing nâ—edfull for me For P. R. tooke you in your true meaning wherin you desire to make Catholicke Doctours contemptible in generall for their blindnesse though to some yow will seeme to graunt the opinion of learning but yet with such restraint and limitation as you make it not better for instruction of Christian soules then the learning of the Diuell himselfe For this is your wise and graue conceipt Let them be as greatly learned say you as they are and would seeme to be yet must there be a con I meane an hart zealous of the truth to be ioyned with science to make vp a perfect conscience which is the true Doctour indeed otherwise we know that the serpent by being the most subtile of all the beasts in the field will deserue no better commendationâ— then to be accoÌ„pted the skillfullest seducer By which discourse of yours a man may easily see whether your meaning were generall in your former speach about ignorant Doctours or no and how impertinently you bring it in heere for an argument of wilfull falshood against me for that I vnderstood you in your owne sense I will not discusse your concept of your science with your con which was borrowed of Iohn Reynolds and of others before you and though I be loath to tell it you least it may seeme to sauour of reuenge yet I must say it for your better information that many men thinke very little of the one or other to be in your selfe as they should be either science or good conscience alleadging your writings for testimony of both HIS FOVRTH obiected falshood against P. R. §. IIII. NEXT vnto this he produceth for a falshood in me that I say in my booke of Mitigation that he taketh vpon him to iustifie the writings and doings of the Protestants of our dayes for their seditious doctrines and practizes against Princes who please them not and among others M. Goodman in particuler that wrote the most scandalous booke against the Regiment of women in Q. Maries dayes and assisted Knox Buchanan and others in troubling and turning vpside downe Scotland wheras M. Morton saith that he condemned him and consequeÌ„tly that I dealt iniuriously with him Thus he citeth my words in a different letter as though they stood so in my text He Thomas Morton doth particulerly iustifie Goodman 21. But first you must vnderstand that it is his common vse neuer lightly to alleadge truly and sincerely any text that he will vse to his profit either in Latin or English and let the Reader make prooâ—e of it if in twenty places alleadged by him he find foure without all alteration let him say that I do offer him iniury My words talking of the parts of M. Mortons Reply called the Full satisâ—action were these Secondly he taketh vpon him yet more fondly in the second part of this his Reply to make a publicke iustification of all Protestants for rebelling against their Princes in any countrey whatsoeuer but more particulerly and especially in England and therin doth so iustifie Cranmer Ridley Syr Thomas VVyatt and others that conspired against Q. Marie in England Knox Buchanan Goodman and like Ministers in Scotland turning vpside downe that State against their Soueraignes the rebellions raised in Suetia Polonia Germany Switzerland France and other countries as his iustification is a more condemnation of them and their spirits and doctrine in that behalfe then if he had said nothing at all as partly shall afterward appeare by some instances that we shall alleadge therof 22. By which words of mine you may see that I did not single out Goodman alone as particulerly iustified by M. Morton as he would make the Reader belieue by his crafty and corrupt manner of citing my words but that among many others he did go about also so farre as he durst to excuse and iustifie him saying as presently you shall heare that albeit he approued him not for this he durst not do my L. of Canterbury hauing written so terribly against him in his booke of Dangerous positions yet that the examples alleadged against him by the Moderate Answerer might excuse him which were of most intollerable speaches of his against Princes and heere againe in this his Preamble that in respect of Romish Priests he might be thought excusable wherby a man may see his inclination to iustifie him and his writings if with security he might haue donne it How then is it such a falsity in me to say that among so many others before named whom he cannot deny but that he seeketh to iustifie them he sought also to excuse and iustifie Goodman though not in so absolute a manner as the other Saints of his yet in some degree conuenient to his estate and merit Let vs see what I do write afterward more about this iustification of Goodman my wordes these 23. The moderate Answerer say I alleageth first the wordes of Goodman in his booke against Q. Mary wherin he writeth expresly that it is lawfull by Gods law mans to kill both Kings and Queenes wheÌ„ iust cause is offered her selfe in particuler for that she was an enemie to God and that all Magistrâ—ts and Princes transgressing Gods lawes might by the people be punished condemned depriued and put to death as well as priuate transgressours and much other such doctrine to this effect cited out of the said Goodman All which the Bishop of Canterbury his second booke of Dangerous positions hath much more largely both of this Goodman and many other English Protestants chiefe Doctours of their primitiue Church residing at that time in Geneua And what doth T. M. now reply to this You shall heare it in his owne wordes If I should iustify this Goodman saith he though your examples might excuse him yet my hart shall condemne my selfe But what do you professe to proue all Protestants teach positions rebellious prooue it heere is one Goodman who in his publike booke doth mantaine it I haue noe other meanes to auoid these straites which you obiect by the example of one to conclude all Protestants in England rebellious then by the example of all the rest to answere there is but one So he 24. And this is his Full satisfaction and faithfull reply as he calleth his booke but how poore satisfaction this giueth and how many points there be heere of no faith or credit at all is quickly seene by him that will examine them For first how do the examples alleaged against this Goodman by the moderate answerer excuse him as heere is said seeing the wordes he alleageth against him out of his owne booke are intollerable and my Lord of Canterbury alleageth farre worse as for example that it is most lawfull to kill wicked kings when they fall to tyraÌ„ny but namely Queenes
M. Stocke to helpe out somwhat his Client M. Morton telleth vs that the selfe same Glosâ—e that after disputing to and fro concluded before for vs as we haue seene that we are bound to pay debts to excommunicate persons granteth notwithstanding in the end that probabiliter dici potest c. probably notwithstanding it may be said that by excoÌ„munication of the person a man is excused from paying debts vnto him in respect of the sundry authorities and reasons that he had recited for that opinioÌ„ before but what of this We know his owne resolution before was Verius credo c. I do thinke the truer opinion to be that we are bouÌ„d to pay though this other be not improbable also for the reasons alleaged what maketh this for the excuse of M. Morton that alleaged this Glosse as holding the quite contrary 71. M Stocke goeth further to alleage another begining of a CanoÌ„ Absolutos se nouerint which was made by Pope Gregory the 9. almost two hundred yeares after the former wherin the very same thing is decreed as in the other to wit that he who falleth into manifest heresy and is by name denounced as both Medina and other expositours do obserue leeseth all seâ—uâ—ce and obeâ—â—ence due vnto him vntill he be absolued againe Wherin there is no one word of debts though by occasion of this decree a certayne Glosâ—eâ— which is of Bernardus de Buttono Parmensis doth probably hold that to such a man there is not obligation of payment of debt at leastwise of such debts as are only contracted by promises but are not reall debts so long as he remayneth in that case And to this effect also speaketh Tolet in the place heere cited by M. Morton and we haue heard before how the other Glosse of Bartholomaeus Brixiensis held it for probable though the contrary for more true vpon the Canon Nos Sanctorum 72. Wherfore to conclude we see that neyther M. Mort. nor his new Aduocate M. Stocke nor both of them together haue beene able to bring forth the ancient decree which was promised about not paying of debts due to Protestants for this he would inferre to make our doctrine more odious vnto theÌ„ for besides that Protestants are not nominatim excommunicati and coÌ„sequently not comprehended in the cases alleaged the two decrees mentioned do speake only of temporall seruice and obedience and secondly the Glosse alleaged and corrupted by M. Morton and M. Stocke both in wordes and sence is not heere iustified nor defeÌ„ded at all according to their former allegation therof but that the foure abuses obiected by me out of the same remaine still lyable vpoÌ„ them as if they had answered nothing at all so valiaÌ„t vndertakers haue they shewed themselues and stout Champions Let vs passe vnto another no better defended by them then this THE SIXT Imputation of falshood pretended to be answered by M. Morton with the help of the same M. Stocke §. VI. THE sixt charge giuen by me vpon M. Morton for wilfull and fraudulent dealing chosen out by him to be defended is set downe by me somwhat largely in my Treatise of MitigatioÌ„ for that it contayneth sundry branches and I beseech the Reader to haue patience to read it out to marke with attention the poynts therof Thus then I wrote before The Charge 74. In the sixt page quoth I of his Discouery he hath this grieuous accusation out of the Canon law against vs Haeretici filij vel consanguinei non dicuntur sed iuxta legem sit manus tua super eos vt fundas sanguinem ipsoruÌ„ And then he quoteth thus apud Grat. gloss in decret lib. 5. Ex decret Greg. 9. caus 23. q. 8. cap. Legi which distracted kind of quotation separating the first and last wordes that should haue gone togeather seeme to import that he scarce read the bookes theÌ„selues but cited the same out of some other mans notes But that fault were easely pardoned if he vsed no greater fraud in the thing it selfe For first he Englisheth the words thus Heretickes may not be termed eyther children or kindred but according to the old law thy hand must be against them to spill their bloud and then in the margent he setteth downe this speciall printed note The professed bloudy massacre against the Protestants without distinction of sex or kindred And what can be more odiously vrged then this Now theÌ„ let vs see how many false trickes and shiftes fit for a Protestant Minister do lye lurcking in this short citation 75. First of all is to be considered that this Glosse or commentary of the Canon law which heere is both vntâ—uely cited and maliciously applyed is vpon a Canon beginning Si quis which Canon is taken out of the third Councell of Carthage wherin the famous Doctor and holy Father S. Austin was present as a chiefe Bishop that had voyce in that Councell and the decree of the Canon is That if any Bishop should institute heretickes or pagans for his heirs whether they were consanguinei or extranei kinsmen or externes ei Anathema dicatur atque eius nomen inter Dei Sacerdotes nullo modo recitetur let him be accursed and let not his name be remeÌ„bred any way among the Priests oâ— God 76. This is the seuerity of that Canon for ground wherof another precedent Canon sâ—tteth downe out of the same S. Augustine quòd haereticus perseuerans aeternaliter damnatur c. that an hereticke perseuering in his heresy is daâ—ned eternally Neither can he receaue any profit by baptisme almes martyrdome nor any other good workes So hath the tytle of the Canon But the wordes of S. Augustine are these â—irmissimè tene nullatenus dubites c. Hold for most certaine and no wayes doubt but that euery hereticke or schismaticke shal be partaker of hell fyre euerlastingly togeather with the Diuel and his Angels except before the end of his life he be restored and incorporated againe into the Catholicke Church Neâ—ther shall baptisme nor almes nâ—uâ—r so aboundantly bestowed no nor death it selfe suffered for the name of Christ profit him any thing to saluation So S. Augustine 77. Vpon this ground then that hereticks out of â—he Church so censured as here you haue heard tâ—ough they be neuer â—o neere of kin may not be made heires especially by Church men the Glosse yealding a reaâ—on therof hath these wordes Quiâ— isti Haeretâ—â—s iam non dicuntur filij vel consanguinei Vnde dicitur in lege si frater tuus amicus tuus vxor tua depraâ—are volueâ—it veritate sâ— manus â—ua super illos For that these heretickes are not now called childreÌ„ or kinsfolkes therfore as such they cannot be made Inheritors by Ecclesiasticall men Wherupon it is said in the law of Deutronomy if thy brother friend or wiâ—e will go about to depraue the truth let thy hand be vpon them And presently he citeth
vocatioÌ„ though afterward in life they should be neuer so wicked euen as S. Paul writing to the CorinthiaÌ„s termeth theÌ„ vocatis Sanctis Saintes by vocatioÌ„ though afterwards he signifieth diuers of theÌ„ to be loaden with grieuous heinous sinnes and of these Saints there is store in the world 130. Thirdly Sanctity is takeÌ„ also of ScholmeÌ„ for a speciall vertue not differing in substaÌ„ce from the verue of ReligioÌ„ but only that it hath a certaine generality in it not only to apply our minds firmly to Gods seruice but also to liâ—t vp all the works of other morall vertues vnto the same seruice honor of God as for exaÌ„ple the act of abstineÌ„ce or temperance which in a morall man may be vsed to other morall ends as to the health of body opinion of sobriety the like this speciall vertue of Sanctity directeth the same to the glory of Almi God the like in the actions of all other moral vertues But for so much as concerneth our matter Sanctity was taken by me in the first sense wherin a man may be vertuous and yet no Saint according to the definition of S. Dionysius Areopagita Sanctitas quidem est vt secunduÌ„ nos loquamur omni scelere libera perfectaque penitus in coinquinata munditia Sanctitie to speake according to our vse is a certaine perfect and vnspotted puritie oâ— life free from all touch oâ— wickednes which is somewhat more if you marke it then common vertue as M. Morton would haue it And thus much for his acutenes in reprehending my speach in distinguishing vertue from sanctitie which it seemeth that either he vnderstood not or considered not well of his reprehensioÌ„ before he vttered it but to the matter it selfe for proof of my vnlucky imputing falshood vnto him in alleaging the authoritie of Lambertus he bringeth forth three witnesses to wit Benno Cardinalis Abbas Vrspergensis Sigebertus all German writers that reprehend the life of Pope Greg. the 7. called before Hildebranduâ— But what infelicitie is this vnto my imputation out of LaÌ„bertus It is felicitie inough for my attempt if M. Mort. will needs haue it so that he hath not byn able to cleere him selfe from opeÌ„ fraud in alleaging Lambertus against Pope Hildebrand as now you haue heard This other is a new matter and from the purpose whether there be other Authors that speake and write euill of Pope Gregory or no it is sufficient for me to haue shewed that Lambertus did not but in his behalfe and prayse consequently that he was falsely brought in for his discredit 132. But yet to say somewhat of these three other Authors also alleaged here by M. Morton to proue my infelicitie that in taking froÌ„ him one Lambertus I haue gotten three others to come out against me to wit a Monke an Abbot a Cardinall I will answere first vnto the Cardinall to wit Benno who being not made by the true Pope Gregory the 7. but by the Antipope calling himselfe Clement the 3. at the procurement of the Emperour that was his professed enemy he caÌ„not be accompted either a true Cardinall or a lawfull witnes therefore no maruaile though in the booke ascribed vnto him by the ProtestaÌ„ts of our days he be found to raile most inteÌ„peratly against the true Pope Greg. about which booke of BeÌ„no notwithstanding I referre me to the Iudgment of another Cardinall whose name beginneth with the same letters I meane Card. Bellarmine who hauing diligeÌ„tly pervsed the said rayling booke testifieth that he found it excessiue railing so extreme full of lies coÌ„trary to the writings of all other Authors that had written of the same Pope either whiles he liued or after his death vntill Luthers time wherof he nameth 32. Anthors in particuler ten of theÌ„ that wrot whiles he was liuing as he protesteth that he was forced to doubt least some Lâ—theran had writteÌ„ the same vnder the name of the foresaid false Card. Benno Wherfore of this man being such as he was conuinced for an open liar by so many witnesses we say no more but leaue him to M. Morton as a fit Knight of the Post for his purpose 133. As for the other two monkes Vrsperg Sigebertus the same Card. Bellarmines iudgmeÌ„t is that albeit they being fauorers of the Emperour in that factioÌ„ durst not write ouer plainly in the praise of Pope Greg. dispraise of his enemy the Emperor their patrone yet doth he shew out of their workes that setting aside a manifest error of Sigebert that imagined Pope Gregory to be of opinioÌ„ that the Masle of a Concubinary Priest was not good which he neuer said but for a punishmeÌ„t only coÌ„manded men not to heare such a naughty Priest in the rest Card. Bellarmine as I said doth proue that in sundry other occasions both of theÌ„ did rather coÌ„mend Pope Greg. theÌ„ discommend him as is euident out of sundry places in their owne workes which Bellarmine citeth 134. But nothing doth discredit more the bringing in of these two witnesses by M. Mort. then the ioyning theÌ„ to Benno as though they had byn of his opinion or had written against Pope Gregory as he did Let vs examine but only this one place alleaged heere out of Vrsperg then let any man say what is to be thought of M. Mort. fidelity thus he alleageth him The Abbot Vrsperg saith he writeth thus P. Gregory was an vsurper of the Sea of Rome not appointed by God but intruded by fraud money a disturber oâ— the Empire a subuerter oâ— the Church So he But now let any man read the place yeare by him quoted and he shal find the wordes indeed and worsâ— related by Vrspergensis as vttered against Pope Gregory by certaine enemies of his gathered togeather iussu Regis Henrici by the coÌ„mandment of K. Henry in forme of a Councell or Synod at Brixia they being in number 30. Bishops but that VrspergeÌ„sis did affirme any thing of himselfe or approue the same is not to be found but rather the quite contrary For in the very same place and page he sheweth how these things were coÌ„tradicted refuted by the famous Anselmus Bishop of Luca then liuingâ— A man saith he most excellent well learned sharpe in wit c. and that which exceedeth all a man knowne to â—eare God and oâ— all holy conuersation in so much as both in his liâ—e and after his death he was famous in doing miracles So VrspergeÌ„sis of him that did defend Pope Gregory against these slaunders which M. Morton alleageth as auerred by Vrsperg wil not he yet blush at this new fraud of his discouered wil he still coÌ„tinue of forge new lyes against the Authors expresse wordes and meaning 135. But yet me thinks that the other which ensuâ—th is more shamefull to wit the ioyning of Seuerinus Biniê° for a fourth witnes to the former three wherof he writeth thus Iâ— three
that it be against the doctrine of the Church without which knowledge obstinacy there can be no heresie 4. This is our Catholicke doctrine about the nature of heresy to wit that it cannot be without obstinacy which is so common and triuiall as it is now come into an ordinary Prouerb to say well I may be in errour but hereticke wiâ—â— I neuer be for that I hold nothing obstinately And as for the words of Vasquâ—z That the malice of heresy is consummated in the vnderstanding and not in the will If our Mynister had read the other words immediatly going before he might perhaps haue vnderstood Vasquez meaning for they are these Vt aliquis sit vâ—â—è reus hâ—resis c. To make a man be truly guilty of heresie it is not necessary that he be carried directly in his affection or will against the authority of the Church that is to say it is not needfull that he haue an expresse will â—nd purpose to disobay or contradict the Church but it is inough that he do contradict the same re ipsa indeed knowing that opinion which he defendeth to be against the authority of the sayd vniuersall Church albeit he be not induced to this belief with a direct will to impugne the Church but either by desyre of glorie or other inducement so as indeed the malice of this sinne is consummated in the vnderstanding and not in the will 5. This is the disâ—ourse and doctrine of Vasquez in this place about the nature and essence of Heresie wherin he doth not exclude either the vnderstanding or will but includeth them both expresly for that as there must be knowledg which apperteyneth to the mynd or vnderstanding so must there be choice with obstinacie which belongeth to the will and affection but his scholasticall consideration is in which of these two powers of our soule this synne of heresy receaueth her consummation For better explication wherof let vs vse this example 6. If a man should hold or belieue an erroneous proposition contrary to the doctrine of the Catholicke Church as for example that there were but one nature in Christ not knowing yt to be against the Catholicke Church yt were false in yt selfe and an errour in his vnderstanding but not Heresy except also by act of his will he should choose to hold it with resolution and obstinacy euen after that he knoweth the same to be against the doctrine of the said Church for then this knowledg saith Vasques that it is against the Church maketh it perfect and consummate Heresy albeit the matter passe not to a further act of will to wit that he chooseth expresly to contradict the authority of the Church therin which should be a greater synne but yet is not necessary for that the perfect nature of heresy is consummated by knowing that it is against the Church And for that this notice or knowledg belongeth to the vnderstanding therfore Vasquez holdetâ— that the last perfection or consummation of this synne is in the vnderstanding and not in the will not meaning to exclude therby obstinacie of the will as ignorantly T.M. doth when he sayth VVeâ— may not be ignorant but to shew in what power of the mind the last perfection and consummation of this heynous synne consisteth to wit that a man may be a perfect and consummate hereticke by holding obâ—tinately any opinion against the Doctrine of the Church after we once know it to be against the said Churches doctrine though wee haue not that further malice also of expresse will purpose to contradict therby the sayd Church but only we hold the same for that the opinion pleaseth vs or is profitable or honorable vnto vs or thereby to contradict an other or some such like inducement according to those words of S. Augustine to Honoratus Haereticus est qui alicuius temporalis coÌ„modi maxime gloriae principatusque sui gratia falsas ac nouas opiniones vel gignit vel sequitur An hereticke is he who in respect of some temporall commodity but especially for his owne glory and preheminence doth beget or follow false and new opinions 7. The same S. Augustine also against the Donatists proposeth this example Constiâ—uamus sayth he aliquem sentire de Christo quod Photinus c. Let vs imagine one to thinke of Christ as Photinus the heretike did perswading himselfe that it is the Catholicke faith c. IstuÌ„ nondum haereticum dico â—ayth he nisi maniâ—estata sibi doctrina Catholicae fidei resistere maluerit illud quod tenebat elegerit I do not yet say this man is an herâ—tick vntill aâ—ter that the doctrine of the Catholicke fayth being opened vnto him he shall choose notwithstanding to resist to hold by choice that whiâ—h before he held by errour In which words S. Augustine doth euidently declare how necessary both knowledge and will are vnto heresie and consequentlie how absurd and ridiculous the asâ—ertion of M. Morton is that heresie being a vice proper to the vnderstanding may denominate the subiâ—ct whatsoeuer an herâ—tiâ—ke without obstinacie of will For aâ—beit we grant withall Deuines that heresie is in the vnderstaÌ„ding as in her subiect so is faith also that is her opposite further that her last persection consummation is from the forsaid knowledge in the vnderstanding as Vasquez doth explane yt yet doth not Vasquez or any Deuine els exclude the necessity of pertinacity also and election in the will and consequently both his words and meaning haue byn euidently falsifyed and calumniated by T. M. And so much of this first charge wherby you may see what bookes might be made against him if wee would follow his â—â—â—pps in all his fraudulent traces 8. This was my charge to M. Morton at that tyme and yt was a great Charge as yow see and more earnestly pressed then diuers of these other smaller matters which in the former Chapter he singled out to answere though as you haue heard he professeth the contrary But why said he nothing to this seing it hath more difficulty in it then many other layd togeather Surely no other so probable cause can be alleaged as the difficulty made him to flie the endeauour of answering it But let vs see some others of not much vnlike quality to this THE SECOND Pretermitted falshood by Thomas Morton §. II. THIS is a like abuse practized by M. Morton against the learned Azor thus by me set downe in my former Treatise In the very same page said I he going about to make vs odious by our seuere censuring of hereticks putteth downe first these words of Alphonsus de Castro He that vnderstanding any opinion to be expressely condemned by the Church shall hold the same is to be accompted an obstinate hereticke Wherupoâ— M. Morton plaieth his pageant thus What obstinate It may be some do but doubtingly defend it what will yow iudge of these Wherunto he answereth out of
to haue their consent and approbation in so publike an action as that was 33. The fourth and last cause was sayth Bellarmine for that in those dayes albeit the B. of Rome were Head in spirituall matters ouer the Emperours themselues yet in temporall aâ—fairs he did subiect himselfe vnto them as hauing no temporall State of his owne and therefore acknowleging them to be his temporall Lords he did make supplication vnto them to commaund Synods to be gathered by their authority and licence At post illa tempora istae omnes causâ— mutatae sunt But since those dayes all these foure causes are changed ipse in suis Prouincijs est Princeps supremus temporalis sicut sunt Reges Principes alij And the Pope himselfe now in his temporall Prouinces is supreme temporall Lord also as other Kings and Princes are which was brought to pasâ—e by Gods prouidence sayth Bellarmyne to the end that he might with more freedome liberty reputatioÌ„ exercise his office of generall Pastourship 34. And this is all that Bellarmyne hath of this matter And now may we consider the vanity of M. Mortons triumph ouer him beâ—ore and how falsely he dealeth with him alleaging him against his owne drift and meaning leauing out also those foure causes by merâ— cited then cutting of frauduiently the particle istae these causes are now changed which includeth reference to these foure and furthermore speaking indefinitely as though â—ll causes and matters were now changed seeketh therby to deceaue his Reader and to extort from Bellarmyne that confession of antiquity on his syde which he neuer meant and much lesse vttered in his writings What dealing what conscience what truth is this c. 35. Thus I insisted then and was not this sufficient to draw some answere from M Morton if he had resolued to answere the points of most moment and most insisted vpon as he professeth But it shameth me to see him thus taken at euery turne Let vs go forward THE SEAVENTH Pretermitted falshood by Thomas Morton §. VII AFTâ—R Bellarmine yt shall not be amysse to bring in Salmeron another Iesuit whome M. Morton will needs shake also by the sleeue and shew him a tricke or two of his art in sundry places of his Booke wherof one is somewhat largely handled by me in this manner 37. In the second page quoth I of his pretended Confutation M. Morton hath these words In the old Testament the Iesuits are forced to allow that the King was supreme ouer tâ—e Priâ—sts in spâ—riâ—uall aâ—faires and ordering Priests For proofe wherof he citâ—th in the margent Salmeron a Iesuite a very learned man that hath left written in our dayes many volumes vpon the Gospells Epistles of S. Paul and othâ—r partes of Scripture and was one of the first ten that ioyned themselues with the famous holy Man Ignatius de Loyola for the beginnyng of that Religious Order in which citation diuers notable corruptions are to be seene First for that Salmeron proueth the quite contrary in the place by this man quoted to wit that neuer Kings were Head of the Church or aboue Priests by their ordinary Kingly authority in Ecclesiasticall matters in the new or old Testament and hauing proued the same largely he commeth at length to set downe obiections to the contrary and to â—olue and answere them saying Sed contra hanc solidam veritatem c. But now against this sound truth by me hitherto coÌ„firmed I know that many things may be obiected which we are diligeÌ„tly to confute First theÌ„ may be obiected that Kings in the old Testament did sometymes prescribe vnto Priests what they were to do in sacred things as also did put some negligeÌ„t Priests froÌ„ the executioÌ„ of their office To which is answered Vbi id euenisset mirum esse non debere If it had so fallen out yt had byn no meruaile for that the Synagogue of the Iewes albeit it conteyned some iust men yet was it called rather an earthly then â—n heauenly Kingdome in so much as S. Augustine doth doubt whether in the old Testament the Kingdome of heauen was euer so much as named and much lesse promised for reward and therfore those things that were then done among them foreshewed only or prefigured diuine things that were to succeed vnder the new Testament the other being not diuine but humane and earthly So Salmeron 38. Here then are sundrie important corruptions and frauds vttered by T. M. the one that the Iesuits and namely Salmeron are inâ—orced to allow the temporall King to haue byn supreme ouer the high Priest in spirituall matters vnder the old law whereas he doth expressely affirme and proue the contrary both out of the Scripture it selfe by the sacrifice appointed more worthy for the Priest theÌ„ the Prince and many other Testimonies as that he must take the law and interpretation therof at the Priests hands that he must ingredi egredi ad verbum Sacerdotis go in and out and proceed in his affaires by the word direction of the Priest and the like as also by the testimonie of Philo and Iosephus two learned Iewes and other reasons handled at large in this very disputation and in the selfe same place from whence this obiection is taken And this is the first falsyfication concerning the Authors meaning and principall drift 39. The secoÌ„d corruptioÌ„ is in the words as they ly in the latin copy as by me before mentioned Vbi id euenisset miruÌ„ esse non debere If any such thing had falleÌ„ out as was obiected to wyt that Kings sometimes had prescribed to the Priests what they should do in Ecclesiasticall things deposed some c. yt had byn no maruaile for so much as their Ecclesiasticall Kingdome or Synagogue was an earthly imperfect thing but yet this proueth not that it was so but only it is spoken vpoÌ„ a suppositioÌ„ which suppositioÌ„ this Minister that he might the more cuÌ„ningly shift of and auoid left out of purpose the most essentiall words therof vbi id euenisset if that had happened c. as also for the same cause to make things more obscure after those words of Salmeron that stand in his text Synagoga Iudâ—orum dicebatur terrenuÌ„ potiùs quà m caeleste regnum The Synagogue or Ecclesiasticall gouerment of the Iewes was called rather an earthly then an heauenly Kingdome where as contrarywise the Ecclesiaâ—ticall power in the Christian Church is euery where called Celestiall after those words I say this man cutteth of againe many lynes that followedâ— togeather with S. Augustines iudgment before touched which serued to make the Authors meaning more plaine and yet left no signe of c. wherby his Reader might vnderstand that somewhat was omitted but ioyneth againe presently as though it had immediatly followed Itaque cum populus Dei constet corpore animo carnalis pars in veteri populo primas tenebat Wheras Gods people
here recounteth them Et hoc regnum terrenum vmbra tamen suit spiritualis regiminis in Ecclesia Christiana and yet this earthly Kingdome of the Iewes was a shaddow of the spirituall gouerment that was to be in the Christian Church meaning therby the most excellent spirituall power and gouerment ouer soules which Christ was to institute in his Church at his comming in flesh to wit the power of absoluing from synnes vpon earth the assistance giuen by the Sacraments and the like were shadowed in a certaine manner by the earthly Ecclesiasticall Kingdome among the Iewes And how doth T. M. now translate these wordes and frame our obiection out of them The old Testament sayth he was a figure of the new in Christ therfore in the new the Popedome is the substantiue c. Here are two short propositions you see the Antecedent Consequent and both framed with falshood for that the Antecedent set downe as out of Salmeron is not that which he affirmeth in his Latin words as already we haue shewed though otherwise in it selfe the proposition be true to wit that the old Testament was a figure of the new in Christ nor will I thinke T. M. denie it There followeth then the Consequent or second proposition that therefore in the new the Popedome is the substantiue which is no lesse corruptly inferred in our name then was the Antecedent affirmed for that we do not inferre nor yet the Author Carerius in the said second propositioÌ„ or CoÌ„sequence by him alleaged that for so much as the old Testament is a figure of the new therefore in the new the Popes spirituall authority is the substantiue c. for that this were a weake inference as euery man seeth Nay Carerius maketh no infereÌ„ce at all in the place by him alleaged but only vseth that similitude which before you haue heard of the substantiue and adiectiue So as this inference is only a fiction of the Minister to make himselfe other men merry and to giue occasion to play vpon his aduersarie with reproach of Childhood and babish grammer as now he hath done but indeed the true Consequence that may be made vpon the Catholicke Authors words which hitherto he hath alleaged is only this that for so much as the Kingdome and gouerment among the Iewes euen in Ecclesiasticall things was but earthly and a figure or shadow in respect of that which was to be ouer soules in the Christian Church it followeth that this in respect of spirituality was to be much more emynent then the other as the thing figured then the figure or shadow it selfe And what inconuenience hath this doctrine that it should be called Childhood and babish grammer So much I set downe in my former reprehension of M. Morton for this abuse of Salmeron all which he now in his last Reply thought best to passe ouer with sylence for that belike he esteemed it not sufficiently insisted vpon by me therby to presse him to answere it But this may be amended at another tyme and so I passe on now to recount others of like sort THE NINTH Pretermitted falshood by Thomas Morton §. IX THERE followeth now against Dolman a like sleight thus recorded by me in my booke M. Mortons second reason why his Maiesties Catholicke Protestant subiects may not liue togeather in England is For that all Popish Priests sayth he dâ— attribute a double prerogatiue ouer Kings that is to say a Democraticall and Monarchicall soueraigne Ciuill power the first to the people the second to the Pope And for proofe of the first concerning the people he alleageth foure seueral authorities of Catholick wryters but so corruptly perfidiously as if nothing els did shew his talent of cogging treacherous dealing this were sufficient to discouer the same though afterwards greater store will occure we shall runne ouer briefly all those foure 45. First he saith that Dolman in his Conâ—erence about Succession hath these words The common wealth hath authority to choose a King and to lymit him lawes at their pleasure which if it were truly alleadged as it lieth in the Author yet here is no mention oâ— the people or of Democraticall state but only of the Common wealth which includeth both nobility and people and all other States Secondly Dolmans words are not of choosing a King but of choosing a forme of gouerment be it Democraticall Aristocraticall or Monarchicall Let vs heare the Author himselfe speake In lyke maÌ„â—â—r saith he it is euideÌ„t that as the CoÌ„mon wealth hath this authority to choose chaÌ„ge her gouerment as hath byn proued so hath it also to lymit the same with what lawes and condiâ—ions shee pleaseth wherof ensueth great diuersâ—â—y of authority aâ—d power which ech one of the â—ormer gouerments hath in it selfe So he Where we see that Doleman speaketh of the power which a Common wealth that is deuoid of any certaine gouerment to chuse vnto themselues that forme that best liketh theÌ„ with the limitatioÌ„s they thinke most expedient so we see in Englaâ—d France Polonia Germany Venice Genua and in the Empire it selfe different formes and manners of gouerment with different lawes and lymitations according to the choice and liking of ech Nation This place then of Dolman is corrupted by T. M. both in words and sense For he neither speaketh nor meaneth as the false Minister auoucheth him of gyuing Democraticall power to the people ouer Princes established 46. So wrote I in my former booke And albeit I do not insist and dwell vpon the matter so long as vpon some other sleights yet doth it conteine notable falshood yf yow consider it well first to alleage the words of an Author that are not his and theÌ„ to inferre therof that which neither the words theÌ„selues do beare nor the Author euer dreamed of 47. And here I might alleage diuers other Wryters but especially Iesuits wrongfully abused by him both in cyting of their works and words and falsifying their meaning as namely those three whome he bringeth in for witnes in the end of the fourth Chapter against Equiuocation euen in those places where they do most resolutely affirme Equiuocation to be lawfull namely Azor Emanuel Sà Maldonatus but these will haue their place afterward And so from Iesuits I passe to other Authors who haue receiued the like sort of dealing from him THE TENTH Pretermitted falshood by Thomas Morton §. X. AS you haue heard how M. Morton hath dealt fraudulently with the Iesuits so shall you see him vse the same measure also towards others as namely toward the Paduan Doctor Carerius out of whome he hath made great styrre before if you remember in answering three seuerall tymes at leaâ—t a certaine reprehension of myne for that he cyted the words Celsus verè for Celsus verò though I obiected the same but sleightly by the way said expresly that I held yt for a triâ—le But now you shal
men that they were exempted Iure by law he passâ—th on to examine in his second proposition Quo iure by what law Diuine or humane they are exempted And in his third he holdeth that aliqua exemptio Clericorum â—st de iure diuino that some kind of exemptions of Clergy men from Ciuill power is by diuine law and not humane only and fourthly he commeth to this which here is set downe by T.M. but not as he setteth it downe Our â—ourth proposition saith Victoria is that the persons of Clergy men are not absolutely and in all things exempted from Ciuill power â—ither by Diuine or humane law which is euident by that cleargy men are bound to obey the temporall lawes of the Citty or Common wealth wherin they liue in those things that do appertaine to the temporall gouerment and administration therof and do not let or hindâ—r Ecclesiasticall gouerment 55. These are the words of Victoria as they lye togeather in him and then after some arguments interposed for his sayd conclusion he addeth also this proofe That â—or so much as Clergy men besides this that they are Mynisters of the Church are Cittizens also of the common wealth they are bound to obey the temporall lawes of that Common wealth or Prince in temporall affaires and then ensueth the last reason here set downe in English by T. M. in thâ—se words Moreouer sayth Victoria for that a King is King not only of Laymen but of Clergy men also therefore aliquo modo subiâ—ciuntur ei in some sort they are subiect vnto him Which words aliquo modo in some sort the Mynister leaueth out And is this plaine dealing And theÌ„ it followeth imediatly in Victoria And â—or that Clâ—rgie men are not gouerned in temporall matters by Ecclesiasticall power thereâ—ore they haue their temporall Prince vnto whom they are bound to yield obedience in teÌ„porall affaires And this is all that Victoria hath in this matter and in â—hese very words And let any man consider the patching which T. M. vseth both in English and Latin in this place to make some shew for his feygned demonstration out of Victoria and he will see how poore and miserable a man he is and how miserable a cause he defendeth And in particuler let the very last proposition be noted which he cyteth and Englisheth as out of victoria to wit the Clergy is subiect to thâ— Ciuill authority inteÌ„porall things â—or such matter is not ruled by any power spirituall wherby he would haue his Reader to imagine that no spirituall power may haue authority to gouerne temporall matters whereas the words of Victoria are Clerici quantum ad temporalia non administrantur potestate Ecclesiastica that Clergy men â—or so much as apperteineth to temporall affaires are not gouerned by Ecclesiasticall power but by the temporall which there beareth rule So as this fellow by a subtile sleight changing the nominatiue Case from Clerici non administrantur to temporalia non administrantur frameth his plaine Demonstration out of plaine cosenage and forgerie And is this naked innocency c Thus farre I had in my former Treatise And heere you see I was earnest inough in vrging pressing for an answere if it might haue byn had but none came at all but other trifling toyes in steed therof and that in great store as our former discourses haue declared and yet we must go forward to recount moreâ— THE TWELFE falshood pretermitted by Thomas Morton §. XII VVE shall passe from priuate Doctors to an Archbishop and Martyr of our owne Countrey S. Boniface whome M. Morton seemeth to make a Pope also for that his speach is alleadged in one of the Popes Constitutions My former charge against M. Morton about that matter was this that ensueth 57. Now sayd I to the second wherin he sayth that one of our Popes placed also in the Calends of our Martyrs doth affirme that though a Pope should carrie many people with himselfe to hell no mortall man may presume to say why do you so I do greatly maruaile with what conscience or if not conscience with what forehead at least these men can write and print and reiterate so often in their bookes things that they know or may know to be meerly faâ—se and forge Is not this a signe of obstinate wilfulnes and that neither God nor truth is sought for by them but only to mainteine a part or faction with what sleight or falshood so euer I fynd this very obiection set forth in print not many yeares agone by Syr Francis Hastings in his Watchword and Defence therof and the same auouched stoutly after him for a tyme by Matthew Sutclisse the Mynister Aduocate and Proctour of that Deâ—ence but afterward I find the same so confuted at large by the VVarn-word and so many lies falshoods and euident frauds discouered therin as the said M. Sutclisse in his Replie intituled A full round answâ—re though good roundly to let it passe without any answere at all which I can find in his said booke though I haue vsed some diligence in search therof which I do adde for that he changeth the whole order of answering from the method of his Aduersary to the end not to be found and so answereth nothing in order or place as it is set downed by him whom he preteÌ„deth to answere but rather taking a new vast and wild discourse to himself snatcheth here a word and there a word to carp at not as they lye in his Aduersaries booke but as it pleaseth him to admit them now from the end of the booke then from the beginning then from the myddle And with this substantiall method he taketh vpon him to answere all books that come in his way for so he hath answered of late the booke also of Three Conuersions of England and may do easely all that is written by Catholicks if carping only and scolding be answering 58. Wherfore to this instance here resumed by T. M. though I must remit him or rather the Reader for larger satisfactioÌ„ to the said Catholick Treatise intituled The VVarnwoord yet here briefly I am to tell him first that he erreth grossely in affirming in this place the Author of this Canon cited by him Si Papa to haue byn a Pope for that the said Canon was gathered by Gratian out of the sayings of S. Boniface Martyr as in the title of the sayd Canon is expressed which Boniface was neuer Pope but a vertuous learned English-man that liued aboue 850. yeares agone and was the first Archbishop of Mentz or Moguntia in Germany of which people Countrey he is called by all ancient writers the Apostle for that he first publikely conuerted that NatioÌ„ erected that primate Sea and suffred glorious Martyrdome by the Gentills for the faith of Christ. Wherfore the scoffe of T.M. calling him our Pope placed in the Calends of our Martyrs besides the ignoraÌ„ce tasteth also of much profane malice and
impiety 59. Secondly I say that these words of his are corruptly set downe as ouer commonly els where and that both in latin and English In latin for that he leaueth out the beginning of the Canon which sheweth the drift therof whose title is Damnatur Apostolicus qui suae â—raternae salutis est negligens The Pope is damned which is negligent in the affaire of his owne saluation and oâ— his brethren and then beginneth the Canon Si Papa suae fraternae salutis negligens c. shewing that albeit the Pope haue no Superiour-iudge in this world which may by authority check him vnles he fall into heresie yet shall his damnation be greater then of other synners for that by reason of his high dignity he draweth more after him to perdition then any other Wherby we may perceiue that this Canon was not writteÌ„ to flatter the Pope as Protestants would haue it seeme but to warne him rather of his perill togeather with his high authority 60. After this the better to couer this pious meaning of S. Boniface T.M. alleaging two lines of the same in Latin he cutteth of presently a third line that immediatly ensueth to wit Cum ipso plagis multis in aeternum vapulaturus that such a Pope is to suffer eternall punishmeÌ„ts and to be scourged with many stripes togeather with the Diuell himselfe if by his euill or negligent life he be the cause of others perdition which threat this man hauing cut of he ioyneth presently againe with the antecedent words these as following immediatly in the Canon Huius culpas redarguere praesumet nemo mortalium This mans faultes to wit the Pope no mortall man shall or may presume to reprehend and there endeth In which short phrase are many â—raudes For first he leaueth out iâ—tiâ— here in this life and then for praesumit in the present tense that no man doth presume to checke him in respect of the greatnes of his dignity this man saith praesumet in the future tense that is no man shall presume or as himselfe translateth it may presume to cotroll him which is a malicious falshood And lastly he leaueth out all that immediatly followeth conteining a reason of all that is sayd Quia cunctos ipse iudicaturus à nemine est iudicandus nisi depreâ—endatur à fide deuius c. for that whereas he is Iudge of all other men he cannot himselâ—e be iudged by any except he be found to swarue from the true faith Here then is nothing but fraudulent cyting abusing of Authors 61. But now thirdly remayneth the greatest corruption and abuse of all in his English translation which is that which most importeth his simple Reader that looketh not into the Latin and this is that he translateth the former sentence of the Canon thus as before you haue heard Though he should carry many peoâ—le with him to hell yet no mortall creature may presume to say why do you so But in the Latyn neither here nor in the Canon it selfe is there any such interrogation at all as why do you so And therefore I may aske T. M. why do you lye so Or why do you delude your Reader so Or why do yow corrupt your Author so Or why do yow translate in English for the abuâ—ing of your Reader that which neither your selfe do set downe in your Latin text nor the Canon yt selfe by yow cited hath yt at all Is not this wilfull and malicious fraud Wherin when you shall answere me directly and sincerely it shal be a great discharge of your credit with those who in the meane space will iustly hold you for a Deceiuer 62. Thus I pleaded with M. Morton at that tyme and was earnest inough as you see if not ouer earnest but all will not get an answere Now we shall expect that in his promised Reioinder he will answer all togeather and that he may the better remember to do it I thought conuenient to giue him this new record for remembring the samâ— THE THIRTEENTH falshood wittingly pretermitted by Thomas Morton §. XIII FROM S. Boniâ—ace an Archbishop and the Popeâ— Legate we shall passe to a Pope indeed namely S. Leo the first a man of high esteeme in the Churcâ— of God as all Christians know and therefore the abuse offred to him by M. Morton is the more reprehensible wherof I wrote thus in my last Treatise 63. The eight Father sayth M. Morton is Pope Leo writing to a true Catholike Emperour saying You may not be ignorant that â—our Princely power is giuen vnto you not only in worldly regiment but also spirituall for the preseruation of the Church As if he said not only in Causes teÌ„porall but also in spirituall so far as iâ— belongeth to the outward preseruation not to the personall administration of them and this is the substance of our English Oath And further neither do our Kings of England challeng nor Subiects condescend vnto In which words you see two things are conteined first what authority S. Leo the Pope aboue eleuen hundred yeares agone ascribed vnto Leo the Emperour in matters spirituall and Ecclesiasticall â— The second by this mans assertion that neither our Kings of England challeng nor do the Subiects condescend vnto any more in the Oath of the Supremacy that is proposed vnto them which if it be so I see no cause why all English Catholickes may not take the same in like manner so farre forth as S. Leo alloweth spirituall authority to the Emperour of his tyme. Wherfore iâ— behoueth that the Reader stand attent to the deciding of this question for if this be true which here M. Morton auoucheth our controuersie about the Supremaâ—y is at an end 64. First then about the former point let vs coÌ„sider how many wayes T. M. hath corrupted the foresaid authority of S. Leo partly by fraudulent allegation in Latin and partly by false translation into English For that in Latin it goeth thus as himselfe putteth it downe in the margent Debes incunctanter aduertere Regiam potestatem non solùm ad mundi regimen sed maximè ad Ecclesiae praesidium esse collatam You ought o Emperour resolutly to consider that your Kingly power is not only giuen vnto you for gouerment of the world or wordly aâ—â—aires but especially for defence of the Church and then do ensue immediatly these other words also in S. Leo suppressed fraudulently by the Mynister for that they explicate the meaning of the Author Vt ausus nefarios comprimendo quae bene sunt statuta defendas veram pacem hijs quae sunt turbata restituas To the end that yow may by repressing audacious atteÌ„pts â—oth defend those things that are well ordeined and decreed as namely in the late generall Councell of Calcedon and restore peace where matters are troubled as in the Citty and Sea of Alexandria where the Patriarch Proterius being slayne and murdered by the conspiracy of the
Morton but it would not come It must be our patience to expect the same at his more commodity hereafter THE FIFTEENTH Falshood pretermitted by Thomas Morton §. XV. FROM Sepulueda we passe to another Spanish Doctor his equall or rather much better learned named Sotus whom M. Morton erroneously taketh for Scotus vnder the title of subtil Doctor and abuseth him egregiously as I do shew in my former booke of Mitigation in these words 72. Behold sayth M. Morton one Doctor amoÌ„g you so subtile that for that faculty he hath by figure of excellencie byn called The subtile Doctor who doth conclude all your Equiuocators for Lyars saying To say that I did not that which I know I haue done although I speake it with this lymitation or reseruatioÌ„ of mind vt tibi significem it is not Equiuocation but a lye And then he quoteth Sotus in his books De iure iusâ—itia setting downe also in margent the Latin words conforme to this But all is treachery falshood and lying in this impertinent impugner of Equiuocation For first by the subtile Doctor according to the phrase of Catholike Schooles euery child knoweth to be meaÌ„t Ioan. Scotus not Dominicus Sotus who liued more then 200â— yeares after the other was of the order of S. Dominicke the other being of S. Francis so as this is folish ridiculous errour if it be errour but the other is cleerly false and malicious that these words as here they are cited are in Sotuâ— which M. Morton will neuer be albe to shew for â—auing his honestie in this point and much lesse will he be able to proue that Sotus doth conclude all Equiâ—â—cators for lyars which is an other incredible impudency in him to affirme For that Sotus in this very booke question and article by him cited doth teâ—ch and proue largely the plaine contrary â—o wit tâ—at to equiuocate is lawfull in diuers Cases to which eâ—â—ect wee haue citâ—d him before when he saith in generall Possâ—nt debent sic contra ius requisiti quacâ—â—que vti amphibologia They which are vnlawfully required to speake or sweare as we haue declared may and ought to vse any kind of Amphibologie or Equiuocation 73. This is his generall assertion but aâ—terward in particuler he putteth many examples to proue the same And first he setteth downe this proposition Dum testis de alieno actu interrogatur potest riâ—â— respondere Se nescire When a witnes is vnlawfully demanded of another mans actioÌ„ which he knoweth he may iustly answere he knoweth nothing the reason wherof he sayth is this Quia oratio illa nescio recipere hunc sensum citra mendacium potest nescio vt tibi modò dicam For that the answere I know nothing therof may without falsyty admit this sense I know it not â—o tell it yow at this tyme. Sicut silius hominis nescit diem iudicij vt dicat as Christ knew not the day of iudgment to tell or vtter yt to his disciples And doth it seeme to you that Sotus in this place doth go about to conclude all Equiuocators for lyars as M. Morton affirmeth If he did he concludeth one Sauiour Christ also in his sense What extreme impudencie is this in a Myniâ—ter But let vs heare Sotus yet further in this matter 74. In his booke De tegendo Secreto the third member and third question he repeateth againe the very same Conclusion heere mentioned That a witnes being iniustly demaunded whether he knoweth such such a thing of another may answere he knoweth nothing though he secretly know it and then going further he demaundeth Whether I hauing seene Peter kill Iohn and being after examined vpon the same iniustly whether I may say I know nothing therof To which he giueth this answere Respondetur quod iure possum respondere nescio quia iure intelligitur nescio vt dicam aut nescio eo modo quo iure debeam diâ—ere I affirme saith he that I may rightly ansâ—ere I know nothing therof â—or that by law it is vnderstood that I know it not to tell it or I know it not in such manner as by law I ought to vtter the same And prâ—sently he reâ—utâ—th T. Moâ—tons Doâ—tor Genesius Sepulueda that calleth this pulchrum commeÌ„tum a faire gloze and putting him in number of Iuniores quidam certaine yonger fellowes that would reprehend that which they vnderstood not sayth Hij aut non capiunt aut dissimulant vim argumenti These yonglings either do not vnderstand or do dissemble the force of the argument for this our doctrine c. 75. Thus wrote I in my former booke and hauing conuinced so euident falsificatioÌ„s as â—ere haue byn layed downe quite contrary to the meaning sense of the Author alleaged I meruaile that some litle place had not byn allowed for some piece of answere to this also among the rest But belike M. Morton was not ready THE SIXTEENTH Falshood pretermited by Thomas Morton §. XVI FROM the Spanish Doctor Sotus we come to the Flemish Doctor Cunerus for that from all sortes of men and from all Countries M. Morton draweth tâ—stimonies either gathered of himself or by others but allwayes bestoweth some sleight of his owne bugget to peruert them from their owne meaning Now then heare good Reader what I alleaged in my late Treatise as practized against a place of Cuâ—erus noe lesse iniuriously then against the former 77. Within few lynes after this M. Morton beginneth his third Chapter with these words That is only true Râ—ligion say your Romish Doctors which is tauâ—ht in the Romish Church and therfore whosoeuer mainteynâ—th any doctrine condemned in that Church must be accompâ—ed â—n obstinate hereticke And in the margent he citeth Cunerus alleaging his Latin words thus Haec est Religionis sola ratio vt omnes intelligant sic simpliciter esse credendum atque loquendum quemadmodum Romana Ecclesia credendum esse docet ac praedicat which words if they were truly alleaged out of the Author yet were they not truly translated For if only true Religion a corrupt translation of Religionis solaratio be applied to particuler positions and articles of Religion then we grant that such true Religion may be also among hereticks not only taught in the RomaÌ„ Church for that as S. Austine well noteth Hereticks also hold many articles of true Catholiâ—ke Religion But here the corruption and falsifycation goeth yet further and it is worthy the noting for that Cunerus hauing treated largly against the insurrections and rebellions of those of Holland and Zâ—land for cause of Religion and other pretences against their lawfull King taketh vpon him in his thirteenth Chapter to lay downe some meanes how in his opinion those dissentions may be compounded giuing this title to the sayd Chapter Quae sit vera componendi dâ—ssiâ—ij ratio what is the true way of composing this dissention And then after some discourse setteth downe
affirmeth that there is neither periury nor fraud therein And the same Philosopher alloweth the very same example of swearing with a reserued intention to a publick theef without either meaning or obligation to performe it which M. Morton obiecteth to Azor in the precedent Chapter though craftily leauing out the words Latroni and Tyranno for auoiding the force of this place as before is noted saying that Azor did condemne for lying all such Equiuocation against his subtile brethren whereas he both affirmeth and proueth the same no lesse then Cicero doth here in this place as before hath byn shewed Who then shall ryse in iudgement against T. Morton for all this wilfull lying No doubt but SathaÌ„ himself that is the Father of lyers in this life shal be their tormentor in the next 105. Thus farre at that tyme I wrote against M. Morton And truly when I read it ouer agayne togeather with many other points before mentioned and do consider how weighty matter of accusatioÌ„ they do conteyne and how much I do insist vpon them to make the deformity therof appeare in the Readers eyâ—s and in those also of M. Morton if it were possible and therby to draw from him either some sound answere or a simple confession of his errours so farre as such they may be called or rather of his witting fraud to beguile his Reader which were the best and truest forme of answere if almighty God would giue him light to see the same though I will presume that he synned not wholy against his conscience therein but framed rather â—is conscience so as he might think it lawâ—ull perhaps to streyne truth for helping such a cause as his is yet I can not but meruaile that he would passe ouer with sylence all these grauer matters and betake himself to sleighter things in this his last Answere telling notwithstanding his Reader that he chose out 14. principall points to answere such as I insisted most vpon which by experience hath bin euinced to be most false by these 20. which I haue alledged as wittingly pretermitted by him might sundry more wherof the most are more weighty much more insisted vpon then any of the former THE ONE and twentith and two and twentith falshoods pretermitted by M. Morton §. XXI ALBEIT my intention was to note only these precedent 20. heads of falshood wittingly pretermitted by M. Morton wherof each one or most of them do conteyne sundry branches vnder them yet that you may know that this number of 20. is not precise but that many others may be added also if a man will but runne ouer my said Treatise I haue thought good to note 2. more here togeather concerning one and the self same man to wit Doctor Barkley a Scottishman The first in that he relateth a certaine cholerick speach of the said Doctor Barkley vsed against an argument of Doctor Boucher as though it had bene spoken against Bellarmine whom it concerned notâ— My words were these 107. Here then you see quoth I how many wilfull corruptions there be first to bring in D. Barkley rating of Cardinall Bellarmine which magna sanè impudentia est c. whereas he talketh not against Bellarmine at all nor indeed is Bellarmines manner of speach coÌ„trary to that which Barkley will haue to be the meaning of the History for that Barkley doth not so much stand vpon the thing in coÌ„trouersy for Priests authority but vpon the manner of proofe by the examples alleaged by D. Boucher of Ieroboam Ozias Athalia and some other Princes in whose punishmeÌ„t God vsed Priests for means and instruments Non ignoro saith he ius esse Ecclesiae in Reges Principes Christianos nec quale ius sit ignoro sed id tam alien is argumentis ostendi prorsus ignoro imo non ostendi planè scio I am not ignorant saith Doctor Barkley that the Church hath right ouer Christian Kings and Princes nor am I ignoraÌ„t what manner of right it is yet do I not see how the same may be proued by such impertinent arguments nay I know rather that it can not be so proued which words going but very few lines before those that T. M. alleageth he could not but see and yet left them out and then beginneth against vs his English text thus Your owne Doctor calleth this your assertioÌ„ most false contrary to the direct History of the Bible to wit that Ozias was deposed of his Kingdome by Azarias the high Priest 108. And this is the first abuse as to me it seemeth inexcusable The second is about an authority of S. Ambrose craftily cut of from the speach of the said D. Barkley by M. Morton wherof my accusation in my former Treatise was this 109. But yet if we would exaÌ„ine quoth I the particuler authorityes that be alleaged about this matter though nothing making against vs as hath byn said and consider how many false shifts are vsed by T. M. therin you would say he were a Doctor indeed in that science for that a seuerall Treatise will scarse conteine theÌ„ I will touch one for example sake He citeth D. Barkley bringing in the authority of S. Ambrose that â—e resisted not by force his Arrian Emperour when he would take a Church froÌ„ him for the Arrians but he setteth not downe what aÌ„swere of his Dâ— Barkley doth alleadg in the very selfe same place which is Allegatur Imperatori licere omnia c. It is alleadged that it is lawfull for the Emperor to do all things for that all things are his and coÌ„sequently that he may assigne a Church vnto the Arrians wherto I answere saith S. Ambrose Trouble not your selfe ô Emperour nor think that you haue Imperiall right ouer those things that are diuine Do not exalt your selfe but if you will raigne long be subiect to God for it is written that those things that belong to God must be giuen to God and to Cesar only those things that belong to Cesar. Pallaces apperteyne to the Emperour but Churches to the Priest The right of defending publike walles is coÌ„mitted to you but not of sacred things Thus D. Barkley out of S. Ambrose in the very place cited by T. M. which he thought good wholy to pretermit and cut of and yet to make a florish as though D. Barkley had cited S. Ambrose to prooue that the temporall Prince and Emperour was in noe case nor in any cause spirituall or temporall to be withstood or resisted And what will yee say of this manner of dealing Out of what conscience may it proceed But let vs see another Charge that conteineth ten falshoods togeather and so with that we will make an end OF TEN OTHER Falshoodes set downe togeather and dissembled by Thomas Morton §. XXIII AS the former Charge had two examples togeather so this last hath ten at a clap to make vp 32. which I set downe in my former Treatise in these wordes
111. There followeth said I within 2. leaues after a heape not only of falshoods but also of impudencies For wheras his Aduersary the moderate Answerer had said That not only Kings but Popes also for heresie by the CanoÌ„ lawes were to be deposed he answereth thus The Authours of the doctrine of deposing Kinges in Case of heresy do professe concerning Popes That they cannot possibly be hereticks as Popes and consequently cannot be deposed not saith Bellarmine by any power Ecclesiasticall or Temporall no not by all Bishops assembled in a Councell not saith Carerius though he should do anything preiudiâ—iâ—ll to the vniuersall state of the Church not saith Azorius though he should neglect the Canons Ecclesiasticall or peruert the lawes of Kings not saith Gratians glosse though he should carâ—y infinite multitudes of soules with him to hell And these fâ—renamed Authours do auouch for confirmation of this doctrine the vniuersall consent of Romish Deuines Canonists for the space of an hundred yeares 112. So he Wherto I replyed that in these wordes are as many notorious and shameles lyes as there be assertioÌ„s Authors named by him for the same For first quoth I the foure writers which he mentioneth there in the tâ—xt to wit Bellarmine Carerius Azor GratiaÌ„ do expressely clearly and resolutely hold the contrary to that he affirmeth out of them for that they teach and proue by many argumentsâ— that Popes both may fall into heresies and for the same be deposed by the Church or rather are ipsâ— facto deposed and may be so declared by the Church And their wordes here guilfully alleaged by Tho. Mort. as sounding to the contrary are manifestly spoken and meant of manners only and not of faith that is to say if they should be of naughty life yet haue they no Superiour to depose them for that cause they being immediatly vnder Câ—â—ist though for heresy they may be deposed which insteed of all the rest you may read largely handled in Bellarmine in his second booke de Pontif. where among other proofes he citeth this very Canon of Gratian here mentioned by T. Mâ— saying â—aereticum Papam posse iudicari expresse habetur Can. Si Papa dist 40. It is expressely determined in the Canon Si Papa that a Pope falling into heresie maybe iudged and dâ—posed by the Church And more That in the 8. generall Councell and 7. Session Pope Honorius was deposed â—or heresie So Bellarmine And the same doctrine hold the other two cited by our Minister to wit Carerius Azor. So as here be foure notorious lyes togeather that by no shift or tergiuersation can be auoided for that T. M. could not but manifestly see that he alleaged these foure Authors quite contrarie to their expresse wordes drift and meaning What then will you say of this â—ellow and his manner of writing Shall he be credited hereafter 113. But yet not content with this he citeth other foure or fiue Authors besids in the margent to wit Gregorius de Valentia Salmeron Canus Stapleton Costerus all which in the very places by him cited are expressely against him And is not this strange dealing Let Canus that goeth in the myddest speake for all fiue who hauing proued first at large the opposit proposition to T. M. to wit that Popes may fall into heresy and be deposed for the same concludeth thus his discourse negandumâ—saith â—saith he quin Summus Pontisex haereticus esse possit It cannot therâ—ore be denied but that the Pope may be an hereticke adding presently wherof one or two examples may be giuen but none at all that euer Pope though he fell into heresy did decree the same for the whole Church By which last words of Canus is discouered the ridiculous fallacy of T.M. alleaging here out of our foreâ—aid writer That Popes cannot possibly be hereticks as Popes consequently cannot be deposed wherof they say the flat contrary as you haue heard That Popes may be hereticks as Popes and consequently may be deposed But yet that God as Popes will neuer permit them to decree any hereticall doctrine to be held by the Church 114. Consider then I pray you said I what a fellow this Minister is in abusing thus so many Authors so manifestly but especially do you note the impudency of his Conclusion And these â—orenamed Authors saith he do auouch for confirmation of this doctrine the vniuersall consent of Romish Deuines and Canonistes for the space of an huÌ„dred yeares So he But I would aske him of what doctrine That Popes cannot be hereticks or be deposed for the same You haue heard them now protest the contrary and you may read them in the places here cited out of all the nyne seuerall writers before mentioned who by their expresse contrary doctrine do proue T. M. to haue made nyne seuerall lyes against them in this his assertion and now the tenth and most notorious of all is this his Conclusion That they do auouch â—or confirmation oâ— that which he obiecteth the vniuersall consent of Romish Deuines and Canonists for the space of an hundred yeares which besids the â—anifest falsity therof seene in their owne words and works here by me cited it coÌ„teineth also great folly simplicity to say that they auouch the consent of Romish Deuines and Canonists for an hundred yeares for that their proofes are much elder Bellarmine among the rest for deposition of Popes doth cite the 8. Generall Councell vnder Pope Adrian the second for aboue six hundred yeares agone and the Canon Si Papa out of our Countrey man S. Boniface Archbishop of Ments Martyr aboue seauen hundred yeares agon and collected by Gratian and confirmed by Popes as part of the Canon law aboue foure hundred years agone So as to say that now they auouch Authors oâ— an hundred yeares old against that which for so many hundred yeares before was held and established is meere folly or rather foolish malice 115. Thus I wrote in my former Treatise of Mitigation wherby as by all the rest that here hath bin set downe the Reader will see what store of graue matter M. MortoÌ„ had to answere for his owne defeÌ„ce if indeed he had meant to defend himself really and substantially and not to haue slipt out vnder the shaddow of a Preamble for answering his aduersary but indeed laying hands only vpon a few the lightest imputations that he could picke out And yet by the way the Reader must note that euery one or the most of these examples of falshood here obiected do coÌ„teine diuers sundry points which being laid togeather do make I dare auouch a double number to that which heere we haue sett downe if they were seuered singled out after the manner of M. Mortons mincing his imputations before produced about Goodman Knox Buchanan Syr Thomas VViat the like seuerally set forth to the shew So as according to this reckoning
partes the first wherin he sheweth how Iohn Caluin most wickedly maliciously vnder pretence of interpreting the Scripture in differeÌ„t sense from the ancient Fathers did go about couertly to weaken infringe or take from the Christiâ—ns all the strongâ—st arguments which they had or haue out of the Scriptures for the Godhead of Christ and his equality and consubstantiality with the Father c. And in the second part of his booke Doctor Hunnius sheweth that the said Caluin vseth the same fraud and malice by ouerthrowing all the predictions fortellings of Prophets about Christ is he was man 11. Thus far I wrote at that time and then produced somewhat largely and particulerly 18. examples partly out of the old and partly out of the new Testament maliciously peruerted by him in fauour of Iewes and Arrians against the truth and certainty of Christian Religion leauing out 20. more which Doctor Hunnius doth handle and in the end concludeth thus Quapropter vt receptui canam detectuÌ„ satis superque iudico Angelum illum tenebrarum Ioannem Caluinum qui ex abyssi puteo emergens c. VVherfore that I may now saith he retire my selfe I do iudge that Angell of darknes Iohn Caluin to be sufficiently and more then sufficiently discouered who being raysed from the pit of hell to the peruerting of mankind hath partly by his detestable desire of wresting Scriptures ouerthrowing the bulwarkes of ChristiaÌ„ Religion which it hath against Iewes and Arians partly also by his impious pen against the holy and sacred Maiestie of Iesus Nazarenus now exalted in heauen partly also by his peruerse doctrine of the Sacraments and horrible monstrous paradoxes of his absolute predestination hath obscured in these our later dayes no small part of the light and sunne of Gods truth and drawne with him a great number of starres as the Apocalyps saith headlong into hell from whom God euerlasting by his mercy signe protect his seruants least they may be inâ—ected with this most pestilent plague oâ— Caluinian errour conuert those that are infected vnto Iesus Christ the Pastour of their soules to the end they perish not in their error but be saued euerlasting with those that faithfully do loue God And this I had to warne the Church of Christ of the most wicked deceipts of Iohn Caluin 12. Hitherto are the wordes of Doctour Egidius Hunnius which you see with what vehemency of spirit and protestation he vttereth them against the heresies of Caluin and Caluinists so as they may easely be seene to come from his hart full determination of his setled iudgemeÌ„t who being so principall a Protestant and learned Doctour and Professour of Deuinity held for a brother of the selfe same Church by which M. Morton meaneth to be saued if he haue any such meaning I meruaile what impression it maketh in him or whether it maketh any thing at all which I should haue beene glad to haue vnderstood by a word or two of his answere but nothing commeth from him and so this debt must be laid vp with the rest vntill the day of payment come which when it may be or how much or what he will be able to pay yea though he deâ—erre it vntill doomesday is a matter easily to be coniectured by such as caÌ„ cast vp accompts looke into debtors abilityes or possibilityes for their discharge But yet one thing is cleare without any answere of his I would haue it noted by the reader that all his inuectiues to his Maiesty against vs for calling and holding them as heretiks out of the foâ—said definition of S. Augustâ—n other Fathers do fall to the ground as vayne friuolous for so much as so principall men of their own brotherhood do affirme the same as now you haue heard And thus much about the first head or questioÌ„ whether the Protestant Religion of Englaâ—d so fâ—r forth at leastwise as it followeth the doctrine of Caluin be truly accompted heresy or no And consequeÌ„tly damnable to the holders thereof 13. Two other great heads of coÌ„trouersy there were betweene vs in this first part of my forsaid Treatise about Rebellion the first whether the doctrine of Catholicks or of Protestants did more fauour obedience vnto their temporall princes secondly which part did most practize the same And about the first for Catholicke doctrine it is largely proued by me throughout the whole first part of my Treatise that it is exact in all respects for obliging men to do all due obedieÌ„ce both vnto temporall spirituall superiours not only when they are good and vertuous but also disâ—â—lis that is bad fastidious as the Apostles word is that we must obey theÌ„ out of conscience as Ministers of God froÌ„ whom they haue their authority power And when the exorbitaÌ„t defects of any Prince or gouernor shall impose necessity of redresse or restraint it may not be by priuate Authority or popular mutiny but by order iudgmeÌ„t publike authority Wheras on the other side the ProtestaÌ„t doctrine is shewed out of their owne words writers authors to teach the quite coÌ„trary which authors I do cite as namely Caluin Beza HottomaÌ„ others in France by the testimonyes of Launay Belforest other French writers in England Scotland Goodman Gilby VVhittingham Knox Buchanan others by the testimonies of their owne writings stories of the Archbishâ— of Canterbury out of his first Booke Of dangerous positions of D. Sutcliffe in his Suruey oâ— preteÌ„ded discipline against the PuritaÌ„s that is the most zealous sort oâ— Caluinists all which haue set downe their resolute opinioÌ„s that it is lawfull when the Prince offereth iniuries or becometh as they call it a Tyrant especially in matters of ReligioÌ„ they hold it lawfull I say by their Deuinity for the Nobility or people or priuate men as they haue or may haâ—e coÌ„modity to do it to make reuenge either vpoÌ„ his person or otherwise yea by death it selfe 14. And as for the second point which is the practise of this doctrine I do shew such a notorious difference betwene Catholicke Protestant people out of the experieÌ„ce of this our preseÌ„t age as nothing can be more conuincing out of publike histories mens memory yeâ— aliue that there hath byn more violence offered by the Protestant people subiects to their lawfull true Princes by armes actions coÌ„spiracies rebellions other forcible means within the compasse of almost one halfe age in the Northern pâ—rts of the world to wit Germanie France Flanders England Scotland Denmarke Sweueland Polonia and other partes then was pracâ—ised or heard of in a thousâ—nd yeares before throughout all the Christian worâ—d Wherin for that his Maiestie of England that now is vnto whom my Aduersary presumed to dedicate his booke can be the best and most honorable aâ—d authenticall testimony of any Prince perhaps lâ—â—â—â—g in regard
Amphibology doubtfull speach or Equiuocation iâ— law oâ— nature diuâ—ne and humane do in certayne cases permit it vnto men as afterward shall be shewed eyther for concealing of things secret or for necessary defence of innocency we may not without iniustice take that right from them which by so many titles they may duely challenge 21. It were greatly to be wished by all good peaceable men that the most excellent â—orme of Christian speach prescribed bâ— our Sauiour Yea yea No no were vsed by all in common conuersation and no other as also Nolite iurare omnino sâ—eare not at all but yet for that the infirmity of man is such saith S. Augustine as one will hardly belieue another without an oath the Church of God hath allwaies so interpreted those words of Christ so as they take not all liberty of swering from Christians in necessary cases albeit perfect men would passe with the same And this is S. Augustines reason in sundry partes of his workes and is translated into the Canon law by GratiaÌ„ and consequently also allowed by Popes and the sea Apostolicke c. 22. Thus I wrote at that time alleadging many other authorityes examples of Scripture for proofe of the same shewing that many things are coÌ„mended for perfection but yet are not coÌ„manded by ordinary obligation as bonum est homini mulierem non tangere 1. Cor. 7. It is good â—or a man not to marry at all And then If a man do marry not to make any diuorce at all Matth. 19. And so likewise it were good not to striue or go to law at all 2. Cor. 6. And it were perfectioÌ„ for a preacher not to take any wages or temporall rewardes at all but maintayne himsef by the labors of his owne hands as S. Paul did which he called his glory 1. Cor. 15. 23. All these things I say were good higly to be coÌ„meÌ„ded but yet the coÌ„trary therof is not to be coÌ„deÌ„ned for sinne but permissible the liâ—e in Equiuocation Vnto which consideration I adioyned 4. others First that the allowaÌ„ce vse of this Amphibologie or Equiuocation was knowne practized in Catholick ChristiaÌ„ Schooles ouer the world for aboue 400. yeares past by M. Mortons owne confession The second that the men that both taught and vsed the same were holy learned graue and great louers otherwise of truth consequently would neuer haue approued or exercised the same if it had byn so great an iniquity offensiue to God as M. Mort. his fellowes do preteÌ„d 24. The third consideration or rather fourth in order is that there be many cases which do fall out in mans life as afterward more at large in particuleâ— is declared wherin a man is bound in conscieÌ„ce to vse the refuge help of this kind of doubtfull speach or EquiuocatioÌ„ for defence of innoceÌ„cy and auoyding other greater inconueniences And lastly the fifth consideration is of the great seuerity in detesting all sorts of lying both great and small mortall and veniall which those men had that permitted notwithstanding the vse of Equiuocation as S. Augustine others in such a rigour as for sauing a mans life either our owne or our neighbours we ought not to commit the least sort of lying that can be imagined which is an euideÌ„t argumeÌ„t that they did distinguish between lying and Equiuocation which M. Morton euery where holdeth to be the same and would haue vs to be of that mind too And for approuing the one condemneth vs of the other against all right and reason as you see 25. And these were my first fiue Considerations for stopping M. Mortons clamours exaggerations and exclamations and reducing him to a more moderate temper in treating this controuersie And it had byn good that in this his Reply he had bestowed some â—ew wordes vpon the answering of these reasons â—â—uth it is that he maketh mention of the one of them which is the 2. by way of an obiection as though I had presumed him to coÌ„â—esâ—e more theÌ„ he doth about the 400. yeares wherin the doctrine of â—quiuocation had byn receiued but this is ansâ—ered beâ—ore in the fourth Chapter shewed to be a meere cauill and consequently we may truely say as we do that M. MortoÌ„ hath not answered any thing at all to these fiue considerations at least foure of theÌ„ nor yet so much as mentioned them in this his last Reply nor giuen notice to the Reader that any such thing was â—et downe in my behalfe 26. Next vnto this entring into the substance of the matter it selfe I do discusse the principall points belonging to this controuersy as namely what Eqâ—iuocation truly is what is the definitioÌ„ of truth what of falsitâ—e what of lying what differeÌ„ces they haue and wherin they do agree shewing the same by many reasons authorities not only of Philosophers where the matters do appertaine vnto them but out of ancient holy Fathers also and variety of examples taken out of holy Scriptures and of the wordes and factes of Christ our Sauiour and his Apostles themselues and this very largely and copiously throughout diuers Paragraphes wherby it is made most euident that the holiest men that euer were vpon earth did equiuocate sometimes in their speaches and vsed clauses of reseruatioÌ„ in a far different sense from that which the hearer did apprehend And yet for that they had a true meaning in their owne mind it cannot be reprehended without impiety both in respect of their excellent persons for sanctitie and the receiued sentence of S. Augustine Non facit linguam ream nisi mens rea Nothing maketh the tongue guilty of lying but a guilty mind when one thing is meant and another spoken 27. As for example when S. Iohn Baptist was demâ—nded Propheta es tu Are you a Prophet and he answered No. And yet doth Christ call him a Prophet expresly Luc. 7. And so did Zacharie his Father before he was borne Luc. 1. yea more then a Prophet Matth. 11. which is shewed to import as much as wheÌ„ a Priest is vnlawâ—ully demaunded Are you a Priest And he answereth No for as S. Iohn Baptist had a meÌ„tall reseruation in his wordes and therby an Equiuocation as is shewed out of the exposition of Origen S. Chrysostome S. Cyril S. Augustiue Theophilact Euthymius Rupertus and others so saith the Priest in his answere and consequently Equiuocation is a different thing from lying and not so hellish heathenish heynous monstrous as inteÌ„peratly M. Mort. calleth it 28. After this do follow many other examples as that of our Sauiour in S. Iohns gospel Ego non iudico queÌ„quam I do not iudge any one And yet himselfe saith in the same gospell Pater omne iudiciuÌ„ dedit â—ilio my Father hath giuen all iudgmeÌ„t vnto me his SoÌ„ne And againe in the Actes of the Apostles S. Peter auoucheth that Christ is
of any honourable family dieth all his kinred do gather themselues togeather to make inquiry of his death if there be any suspicion that he was made away then they do vse torments vpon the wiues as if they were slaues and if it be found that they were guilty of the sayd death then after they haue bene tormented by fire and all other torments they put them to death 72. In which narration first you see no mention of Britans but only of Frenchmen as hath bene noted the nobility wherof are deuided by Caesar into two sortes the one Druides that had care of their sacrifices and matters of Religion the other Equites Knights that made as it were the lay nobility and of whome he recounteth this that we haue here related You will aske then perchance with what truth or syncerity Syr Edward can recite this as the Law of the Britans which is related by Caesar as the Law of the Frenchmen He hath no other shift for excuse of this but to make this note in his margent See in the Preface to the third part of my Reportes out of Caesars Comment Disciplina Druidum in Britannia reperta atque inde in Galliam translata esse existimatur It is tâ—ought that the discipline oâ— the Druides was first found in Britanny and â—rom thence translated into France And is not this a good reason that whatsoeuer is recounted by Caesar of Frenchmen should be ascribed to Brittans â—or that in tymes past the discipline of the Druides is thought by some to haue come from Britanny What coherence hath this togeather May not all lawes of the Frenchmen be ascribed by this meanes vnto the Brittans Is not this a strange direct and demonstratiue proofe to proue one thing by another This indeed is an argumeÌ„t à disparatis as Logitians do call it But let vs see more tricks besids this 73. Why had not he alleaged the whole place out of Caesar as I haue done and why doth he cyte the words so cuttedly si compertum est igne c. interficiunt yet in the English leaueth out c. saying And if she be found guilty of the death of her husband which is petty treason the wife is burnt to death as she is in that case at this day Why had not he set downe c. also in the English therby to let his Reader vnderstand that there were some words left out to wit atque omnibus tormentis excruciatas interficiunt they do kill such wiues as are found culpable after they haue byn tormented with fyre and all other torments What needed the word c. for excluding so few syllables but that yt stood not well with Syr Edwards purpose to haue them seene read for that they shew plainly that neyther Brittans nor Frenchmen had any such Law or custome to put such wiues to death by burning though they vsed the same for a torment before their death No more then it may be truly sayd that Englishmen at this day haue a law or Custome to put Priests or other men to death by the Racke though diuers of them haue byn racked and aftâ—rward put to death And this could not my Lord but see in reading Caesar wherby is euident that his Lordship also commeth into the Classes of them that auouch wilfull and formall vntruthes against their owne conscience and knowledge when they make for their purpose and yet is this far from the office manner of proceeding of a Iudge that ought to be exact and punctuall in his truth 74. But now further to his inference suppose that he had related his Author truly and that Caesar had sayd as he sayth That the ancient Brittans had this law and custome to burne wiues that should be â—ound guilty of their husbands deathes which Syr Edward saith hath continued to our tyme why if it were so to answere coniecture with coniecture should not the other part of the same law haue remayned also that husbands should haue power of life and death ouer their wiues as the Brittans according to Syr Edward had or how where or when can he proue that that part of the Law was abrogâ—ted and the other of burning them left to remaine or if he cannot or that he will say that the other part in like manner doth in rigour remaine then would it go hard no dout with many wiues at this day that are scarse patient of farre lesse power and dominion in their husbands ouer them then is that of life and death which Case as it apperteineth not to me to discusse nor to Syr Edward I thinke to determine so is it sufficient for our purpose to haue demonstrated that his answere to this third question hath neither byn Direct nor Demonstratiue nor sincerly handled nor grounded vpon true relatioÌ„ Now then to the fourth and last 75. If in all the former three questions the Iudges answere haue byn found to haue byn defectuous much more in this then in all the rest For whereas before yow haue heard them say that the Students desire was to see some proofes that the Common law in these foure particuler Cases was before the Conquâ—st as now it is and that Syr Edward had no sooner seene them but that instantly he found direâ—t and demonstratiue answere to the same now comming to answere indeed he alleageth an act of Parliament holden in the 10. yeare of King Henry the second which was Anno Do. 1164. wherin it was enacted That iâ— any Appeale came â—rom any Archdeacon or Bishop vnto the Archbishop and he should fayle to do iustice it must lastly come to the King nor proceed any further without the assent of the King which is a straÌ„ge falling from the purpose if yow marke it well For that the question was whether this Common law of England that is now in vse was in vse also before the Conquest and that as now it is vsed which the iudge affirmeth and for proofe therof alleageth a Statute made an hundred yeares after the Conquest What will yow say to this Why had he not alleaged some one example or proofe before the Conquest as the Case and question required Or why had he not gone about to satisfy some of those examples to the contrary alleaged by me in the 6. Chapter of my former Answere to his Reportes and fiâ—th demonstration to wit of Appeales to Rome of the two Archbishops of Canterbury Lambert and Athelard vnder the two Mercian Kinges Offa and Kenulphus as also the two other famous Appeales of S. VVilfrid Archbishop of Yorke against the two Kinges successiuely of the Northumbers Egfrid Alfrid All which are recounted by S. Bede others long before the Conquest which in my sayd Booke are set downe and Syr Edward could not but haue read them and are full to the purpose to proue the lawfulnes of Appeales in our primitiue Church of EnglaÌ„d yet now he saith no one word
truthes as if the credit of his whole worke consisted vpon the certainty of euery particuler period which if it be true then must it needs inferre a great preiudice to the credit first of the said 6. Part of Syr Edwards Reportes for so much as so many periods haue beene now found false in this very Preface And secondly it cannot but import the like discredit vnto his said fifth part for which he framed his former protestation for that vpon better view of the bookes Statutes lawes by him cyted it is found that he doth not only misalledge many both wordes and texts resolutions and iudgments but peruerteth many other by wrong inferences arguments detorsions and amplifications of his owne quite contrary to his former protestation which now breifly shall be declared more in particuler 82. First then not to iterate againe the number of those many and manifold falshoods vsed by Syr Edward in the cyting of the Charter of King Kenulphus before the Conquest for giuing priuiledge of Sanctuary to the Church of Culâ—am belonging to the Abbey of Abindon both by concealing the wordes that most imported That all was done by the consent and authority of Pope Leo as also the like vnsincere dealing in Iustice Thorps case concerning the question whether it were treason in the â—aigne of K. Edward the first for one subiect to bâ—ing in a Bull of excommunication against another subiect wherof we haue treated in two seuerall precedent Paragraphes of this Chapter and conuinced that there was much false and fraudulent dealing in them both this I say pretermitted we shall note some more examples out of his other instances vnder English kings since the Conquest 83. First he alleageth this instance vnder the Conquerour himselfe not out of any law of his but out of a fact K. VVilliam saith he the first did of himselfe as K. oâ— England make appropriation of Churches with Cure to Ecclesiasticall persons wherof he inferreth that he had Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction and cyteth for the proofe of his assertion 7. Ed. 3. tit Quare impedit 19. which obiection though it be fully and substantially answered by the Deuine shewing sundry and diuers waies and namely foure wherby a lay man may come to haue the collation or appropriation of beneâ—ices yet the booke by him cyted being since that tyme examined it is found that Syr Edward dealt very vnsincerly in alleaging this case to his purpose which maketh wholy against him For this is the case set downe briefly by Brooke in his Abridgement but much more larger by the law-booke it selfe of 7. Ed. 3. fol. 4. 84. In the 7. yeare of King Edward the third by reason of an action of Quare impedit brought against the Deane Chapter two Prebends of the Church of S. Peter of Yorke by the Abbot of Newenham for that they had refused to admit his Clerke presented by him to the Church of T. wherunto he pretended to haue right to present the case was handled in the Kings Bench and the defendants pleading Plenarty for their defence that is to say that the place was full and not voyd for that there was an appropriation or vnion made of the said Church of T. with soke sake that is with the appurtenances vnto the foresaid Church of S. Peter of Yorke and vnto two Prebends of the same by a Charter of King VVilliam the Conquerour and afterward by another of K. Ed. 1. The chiefe Iustice at that tyme named Herle did foure or fiue tymes at least during the discussion of that case giue his iudgement that by law the Conquerour nor K. Edward could not make any such appropriation And of the like opinion were the rest of the Iudges or at least contradicted not the same to wit Syr Iohn Stoner Syr Ioâ—n Cantabridge Syr Iohn Iugge Syr Iohn Shardelow and the rest though two of them spake in the case as may be seene and gathered by reading the booke it selfe and Stouffe and Trew that were of CouÌ„cell of the Plaintife affirmed flatly that no such appropriation could be made by the CoÌ„querour All which the Attorney craftily concealed in his narration of the case to the end that it might be deemed that the iudgemeÌ„t of the Court had beene in K. Edward the thirds tyme vnder whome this case was handled that the Conquerour might according to the coÌ„mon-law make an appropriation by his letters patent And is this good dealing euen in the very first case which he proposeth aâ—ter the Conquest 85. After this he passeth ouer all the Conquerours lyfe and six other kings ensuing as VVilliam Rufus Henry the first K. Stephen Henry the second Richard the first and K. Iohn fynding no one example among all those Kings actions lawes or orders that might seeme to haue any shew of spirituall IurisdictioÌ„ but only that in the lyfe of K. H. 1. he alleageth a Charter of the said King wherin he as founder of the Abbey of Reading doth appoynt out certayne orders and lawes about the temporalityes of that Abbey a thing very iust and lawfull for all founders to doe by their owne right and consequently maketh nothing to the purpose of our questioÌ„ of Ecclesiastical power and moreouer the Deuine proueth by diuers examples that sundry Popes were wont to giue faculty to Princes and other founders to prescribe spirituall priuiledges for diuers pious workes erected by them which the Popes themselues would afterward confirme and ratify so as this also was a fraud in M. Attorney to alleage so impertinent an example but it sheweth his pouerty and barennesse in examples of those yeares which being aboue 150. vnder 7. kings as hath beene said he could fynd but these two poore examples nothing prouing the purpose to bring forth in all this tyme wheras if he would looke ouer the tyme since K. Henry the 8. tooke vpon him indeed Ecclesiasticall authority by vertue of his temporall Crowne and the other three Princes who in that haue followed him whole volumes might be written of examples and presidents giuen therin of practising spirituall power wherby it is euident that those former Princes from the CoÌ„quest downward were not of the opinion and iudgement of these later Princes and that Syr Edward doth but squeese and strayne them to make them say or signify somewhat which they neuer meant indeed and this iniquity is not the least in the Attorneys proceeding in this matter and yet doth M. Morton say of him as you haue heard exhorting euery man to resort vnto Syr Edwards storehouse for aboundance of good proofes saying habet ille quod det dat nemo largius he hath store to giue and no man giueth more liberally Now then we shall peruse some of his store 86. Vnder K. Edward 1. he alleageth this instance for proofe of his supposed Ecclesiasticall IurisdictioÌ„ that when Pope Gregory the tenth had determined in a Councell at Lyons Bigamos omni priuilegio