performed by these places alleadged yow haue seene 28. Finally to stand no longer vpon this whether we or they Catholicks or Protestantes doe attribute more to popular licence against Princes when they giue not contentment may aboundantly be seene in that we haue set downe before and will ensue afterward both of their doctrine and practises in like occasions And so much of this first charge now will we passe to the second 29. The second is that we ascribe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 power and souer aignty ouer Kings vnto the Pope wherin first what he saith of ciuill souer aignty is a meere fiction and calumniation of his owne if it be out of the Popes owne temporall Dominions For we ascribe no such vnto him ouer other Princes or their subiects but that authority or soueraignty only which Catholicke doctrine ascribeth to the Bishop of Rome as Successor to S. Peter Prince of the Apostles spirituall head of the vniuersall visible Church of Christ which is only spirituall for spirituall ends to wit for the direction and saluation of soules And if at any time he be forced to passe further then this and by a certeine consequence to deale in some temporall affaires also it must be only indirectly in defence or conseruation of the said spirituall that is to say when the said spirituall power apperteining to soules cannot other wise be defended or conserued as more largely hath byn treated before 30. This then is the summe and substance of Catholicke doctrine about this point of the Popes authority which from the beginning of Christianity hath byn acknowledged in Gods Church and in no place more then in England where it hath byn both held practised from the very first Christened King of our nation Ethelbert vnto K. Henry the 8. for the space of almost a thousand yeares without interruption as largely and aboundantly hath byn shewed and laied forth to the view of all men in a late booke written in answere to S. Edward Cookes fifth part of Reportes and this with great honor prosperity of the Princes therof and vnion of their people vnder their gouernment and without such odious or turbulent inferences as now are made therevpon by vnquiet spirittes that would set at warre euen mens imaginations in the ayer therby to mainteine disunion discorde and diffidence betweene Princes and namely betweene our present noble Soueraigne and his Catholicke subiects 31. And first of all let vs heare this turbulent T. M. how vpon the enuy of this authority he frameth and foundeth all his ensuing reasons VVe demaunde saith he how farre these pretended powers of people Pope may extende and heervpon we argue To which I answere that in imagination they may extend so farre as any fantasticall braine shall list to draw them but in the true meaning of Catholicke reall doctrine they can extend no further then hath byn declared And as for the popular power of people ouer Princes we haue now refuted the calumniation shewed that it is a mere fiction of his owne and no position of ours and that his Protestant doctrine doth ascribe much more licence to popular tumult then the Catholicke without comparison and for that of the Pope I haue declared how it is to be vnderstood to be of his owne nature in spirituall affaires only without preiudice of ciuill Princely gouernement at all and so the practice of the worlde and experience of so many Princes great States and Monarches liuing quietly securely vnder the same authority both in former times and ours most euidently doth proue and confirme 32. But yet let vs see and consider how falsely and calumniously this Make-bate doth herevpon argue in his third reason inferring for his assumption or minor proposition thus But all Popish Priestes vpon this pretended Supremacy and prerogatiue of Pope and people doe vtterly abolish the title of succession in all Protestant Princes Ergo. Wherin to shew him a notable liar it shall be sufficient to name all the Protestant Princes that haue had title of successiō in our coūtrey for therof he speaketh principally since the name of Protestant hath byn heard of in the world being three in number to wit K. Edward the sixt Q. Elizabeth and K. Iames that now raigneth all which were admitted peaceably to their Crownes as well by Priestes as Catholicke people who notwithstanding in some of their admissions wanted not meanes to haue wrought disturbances as the world knoweth so as if one instance only doth truly ouerthrow any general proposition how much more doth this triple instance not able to be denied ouerthrow and cast to the ground this vniuersal false assertion of T. M. which auerreth That all Popish Priests 〈◊〉 vtterly abolish the Succession of all Protestant Princes Will he not be ashamed to see himself cōuinced ofso great and shameles ouerlashing 33. And on the other side one only Catholicke Princesse being to succeed in this time to wit Q. Mary we know what resistance the Protestants made both by bookes sermons Treatises and open armes and how many Rebellions conspiracies robberies priuy slaughters and other impediments were designed and practised afterward during the few yeares she raigned we know also what was executed against the gouernment and liues of the two noble Catholicke Queenes her neerest neighbours one of them most straitly conioyned in bloud that raigned at that time in Scotland to omit others before mētioned that were debarred from their lawfull succession or excluded from their rightfull possession for their Religion in Sweueland Flanders other places as cannot be denied 34. Wherfore it is more then extraordinary impudency in T. M. to charge vs with that which is either peculier or more eminent in themselues and false in vs and what or how farre this fellow may be trusted in these his assertions may be gathered by the last sentence of all his discourse in this matter where he hath these wordes F. Persons in his Doleman doth pronounce sentence that whosoeuer shall consent to the succession of a Protestant Prince is a most grieuous and damnable 〈◊〉 And is it so in deed Syr 〈◊〉 and will yow stand to it and leese your credit if this be falsely or calumniously alleadged then if yow please let vs heare the Authors owne wordes 35. And now saith he to apply all this to our purpose for England and for the matter we haue in hand I affirme and hold that for any man to giue his helpe consent or assistance towardes the making of a King whome he iudgeth or belieueth to be faulty in Religion and consequently would aduance no Religion or the wrong if he were in authority is a most grieuous damnable sinne to him that doth it of what side soeuer the truth be or how good or bad soeuer the party be that is preferred So he And his reason is for that he should sinne against his owne conscience in furthering such aKing And is
Catholicke and consequently A reformed Catholicke in matters of faith must needs be A deformed Catholicke such a 〈◊〉 as Perkins in deed describeth that admitteth one two three foure more or lesse points of the common Catholicke receaued Religion and yet starteth from the fifth or sixt as himselfe best liketh and this calleth Perkins A reformed Catholicke when the belieuer chooseth to belieue or leaue what points do please him best which choise we say is properly heresy for that an Hereticke is a Chooser as the Greeke word importeth and this heresy or choice in matters of beliefe doth Perkins professe to teach his hearer saying That he will shew them how neare they may come vnto the Romane faith and yet not iumpe with it which is a doctrine common to all hereticks and heresies that euer were for that all haue agreed with the Catholicke faith in some points for that otherwise it should be Apostacy and not heresy if they denyed all yea the Turkes and Mores at this day do hold some points of Christian Religion with the Catholickes but for that neither they nor heretickes do hold all therfore they are no true Catholickes but such Reformed Catholickes as VVilliam Perkins would teach his disciples to be to wit properly Heretikes by their choise of religion 59. And to the end we may see not only the mans folly in choosing his argument but his falshood also in prosecuting the same I shall lay forth one only example out of his very first Chapter that beginneth with his ordinary argument of the VVhore of Babylon and by this one example let the reader iudge whether he be not a fit Chaplyn for that honest woman iflying cosenage and calumniation be propertyes of her profession For that hauing spent many impertinent wordes to shew that the impieties prophesied by S. Iohn of the said VVhore of Babylon and Saincts of God to be slayne by her was not meant of the persecution of Rome vnder the Pagan Emperors but of the Church of Rome now vnder the Christian Bishopps and Popes he hath these wordes 60. This exposition saith he of the Apocalips besydes the Authority of the text hath also the fauour and defence of ancient and learned men Bernard saith They are the Ministers of Christ but they serue Antichrist And againe the beast spoken of in the Apocalips to which a mouth is giuen to speake blasphemies and to make warre with the Saints of God is now gotten into Peters Chaire as a lyon prepared to his pray It wil be said that Bernard speaketh these later wordes of one that came to the Popedome by intrusion or vsurpation It is true in deed but wherfore was he an vsurper He rendreth a reason therof in the same place bycause the Antipope called Innocētius was chosen by the Kings of Alemaine France England Scotland Spaine Hierusalem with consent of the whole Clergy and people in these nations and the other was not And thus Bernard hath giuen his verdict that not only this vsurper but all the Popes for this many yeares are the beast in the Apocalips because now they are only chosen by the Colledg of Cardinals c. Thus he 61. And now how many 〈◊〉 decepts and falsities there be in this litle narration is easie for any man to see admyre and detest that will but looke vpō the places of S. Bernard by himselfe quoted For in the first place out of his 33. Sermon vpon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where he saith They are the Ministers of Christ but do serue Antichrist he speaketh against the vices of the Clergy especially of France where he liued in his dayes And that it is not meant particulerly of the pope S. Bernardes owne words do shew in that ve y place saying They will be and are Prelates of Churches Deanes Archdeacons Bishopps Archbishopps so as this is falsely brought in to proue any speciall thing against Rome or the Pope and much more wickedly alledged to proue Perkins his exposition of the Apocalips against Christian Rome to be true in S. Bernardes sense which he neuer thought of or by any least cogitation admitted as by the whole course of his writings to the contrary is euident no man more extolling the dignity of the Pope and Sea of Rome then he euen then when most he reprehendeth euill lyfe and manners 62. But the other that followeth is much more fraudulenty alledged For if S. Bernard complained greatly that in his tyme one Petrus Leonis an vsurper and Antipope being chosen by the 〈◊〉 lesse number of Cardinals voyces did by violence notwithstanding thrust himselfe into the Chaire of Peter and playe therin the parte of Antichrist what was this in preiudice of the true Pope Innocentius the second whome Saint Bernard doth call Christs Vicar and highly commendeth him as lawfully chosen by the maior part of the Colledge of Cardinals and exhorteth all Christian Kings to obey and follow him as their high and true lawfull vniuersall pastor So as heere 〈◊〉 Perkins maketh a notorious lye in saying that Innocentius by S. Bernards iudgement was an Antipope wheras he proued him expresly in the places heere alleadged to be the true Pope and Vicar of Christ and Petrus 〈◊〉 to be the Antipope Numquid saith he non omnes Principes cognouerunt quia ipse est verè Dei electus Francorum Anglorum Hispanorum postremò Romanorum Rex Innocentium in Papam suscipiunt recognoscunt 〈◊〉 Episcopum animarum suarum Do not all Princes know that Innocentius is truly the elected of God The Kinges of France England Spaine and 〈◊〉 do receyue Innocentius for Pope and do acknowledge him to be the singular Bishop of their soules 63. Secondly he lyeth much more apparantly when he saith that Innocentius was chosen by the said Kings of Alemaine France England c. wheras S. Bernard saith not that he was chosen by them but that he was accepted followed obeyed by them as true Pope after his election Alemaniae saith he Angliae Franciae Scotiae Hispaniarum 〈◊〉 Reges cum vniuerso clero populis fauent adhaerent Domino Innocentio tanquam filij Patri tanquam capiti membra The Kings of Germany France England Scotland Spaine and Hierusalem togeather with their whole Clergy and people do fauour and adhere to Pope 〈◊〉 he doth not say they choose him as children to their Father and as members to their head 64. Thirdly Perkins lyeth most desperately of all in his last conclusion 〈◊〉 And thus Bernard hath giuen his verdict that not only this vsurper but that all the Popes for 〈◊〉 many yeares are the beast in the 〈◊〉 because now they are only chosen by the Colledge of Cardinals This I say is a notorious lye for that S. Bernard giueth no such verdict but alloweth well the election of Innocentius by the said Cardinals saying Meritò autem illum 〈◊〉 Ecclesia cuius opinio clarior electio sanior
bloud insteed of shed their bloud as though God were a bloud-spiller or comaunded the same to be done vniustly by others but all is strained by the Minister to make vs odious wheras himself indeed is therby made ridiculous And for that I haue byn somewhat longer in this example then I had purposed as also for that by this one if it were but one yow may ghesse of al the rest of his proceeding I wil heere cease referring the rest of this kinde to other more fit places and occasions afterwardes 58. And yet truly I cannot wel pretermit for ending this Chapter one little note more of rare singularity in this man aboue others which I scarce euer haue obserued in any one of his fellowes and this is that the very first wordes of Scripture alledged by him in the first page of his booke for the poesy of his pamphlet are falsly alleadged corrupted and mangled though they conteine but one only verse of Isay the Prophet and then may yow imagine what liberty he will take to himself afterward throughout his whole discourse His sentence or poesy is this Isay. 29. vers 9. But stay your selues and wonder they are blinde and make yow blinde which he would haue to be vnderstood of vs Catholickes but let any man read the place of Isay it self and he shall finde no such matter either in wordes or sense but only the word wonder to wit obstupescite admiramini fluctuate vacillate inebriamini non a vino mouemini non ab ebrietate And according to this are the Greek and Hebrew textes also So as what should moue T. M. to set downe so corruptly the very first sentence of his booke and cite the Chapter and verse wherin his fraude may be descried I know not except he obserued not the last clause of the Prophetes precept mouemini non ab ebrietate And so much for this HOVV THIS TREATISE VVAS LAIED ASIDE By sicknesse of the Author and some other causes And why it was taken in hand againe vpon the sight of a Catholicke Answere and a new Reply of T. M. dedicated to his Maiesty with the Authors iudgment of them both CHAP. III. HAuing written hitherto and passed thus far-forth in examination of the Ministers opprobrious libel of Discouery I was partly forced by grieuous sicknesse that continued for some moneths partly also induced for that I vnderstood that another Catholicke man had answered the said libell to lay that which I had written a side as also for that the occasion of time wherin this Treatise was begun soone after the detection of the often forenamed powder-treason seemed in great part to be past and hauing once laied it out of my handes had no great will afterward to goe forward theriwth as an argument of loathsome contention against most odious imputations and calumniations but yet after diuers monethes againe seing the said Catholicke answere to appeare which before I had not viewed togeather with a large Reply to the same by the Minister that first made and deuised the libell and that the said Minister had now resolued vpon instance of the said Answerer to manifest his name to wit of Thomas Morton which before went ciphered with the letters only of T. M. that might aswell haue signified Thomas Malmesbury or Montague or Monte-banke or any such like sur-name and further that he presumed to dedicate the same vnto the Kinges Maiesty by a speciall glosing Epistle full of fond Ministeriall malice against Catholickes intituling his said Reply A full satisfaction concerning a double Romish iniquity heynous Rebellion and more then heathenish 〈◊〉 And further that he had encreased his said worke with two or three new Treatises partly for iustifying of Protestantes in the case of Rebellion and partly for confuting of a Treatise written in defence of Equiuocation I was moued aswell of my self as by others exhortation to resume the thing into my handes againe to adioine by the view of the whole that which was wanting to the full confutation of this Ministers iniquity in laying such heinous Rebellion heathenish Equiuocation vnto Catholickes charge who of all men liuing are most free from iust reprehension in them both and the Caluinian sect and sectaries conuinced to be most guilty in the one and consciencelesse in the other as the iudicious Reader I doubt not shall see euidently proued and confirmed in that which is to ensue 2. It moued me also not a little to goe forward somewhat with this confutation though in as breiffe manner as might be to see that this deuise though neuer so fond and false of charging Catholicke doctrine with Rebellion Equiuocation was applauded not a little by some men of marke in our State as namely by his Maiesties late Attorney Generall aswel in his writing as pleadinges against Catholicks borrowing from this Ministers first Treatise diuers large parcelles and passages of his calumnious imputations about the forenamed two heades of Rebelliō and Equiuocation lending him againe in lue therof for his second Reply sundry obseruations collections of his owne concerning diuers Kings of England that seemed to him not so much to fauour or acknowledge the Bishop of Rome his authority ouer the English Church which yet now vpon further search is found to be contrary and so set downe and demonstrated at large by a late Answere published to the said Attorney his booke of Reportes as I thinke in hast will not be answered Wherupon forsomuch as this new deuised accusation of Rebellious doctrine and Equiuocation is taken vp by so many handes of those that be enemies to Catholicke Religion I thought it conuenient to cleere somewhat more this 〈◊〉 and as I had before I laid aside this worke treated sufficiently as it seemed to me of the former point concerning Rebellious doctrine vpon the sight only of T. M. his first pamphlet as in the precedent two Chapters yow haue seen yet now vpon the appearance of this Minister Thomas Morton in his proper name and person of his new Reply that promiseth full satisfaction in all it seemed necessary that I should goe forward to finish my first intent and to examine the second point or head of his accusation in like manner apperteining to the doctrine of Equiuocation made no lesse odious now by continuall clamours of sycophancy then the other of Rebellion it selfe 3. One other circumstance also stirred me greatly to proceed in this short worke which was that togeather with these bookes sent out of England aduertisement was giuen that this Minister Thomas Morton was Chaplain to my Lord of Canterbury who being head of the spirituall Court of Arches which is or ought to be the supreame for matters of cōscience in England I was in hope to haue some remedy against this his Lordships Chaplaine if I should demonstrate that he dealeth against all conscience obseruing no law either of truth or modesty towardes Catholick men
must spit in his face which is spoken saith our Minister comparatiuely and not Rebelliously He expoundeth also those wordes of Caluin Abdicant se potestate that such Kinges are bereaued of authority meaning only saith he in that case of contradiction against God But let the Minister tell vs who shall be Iudge of this who shall determine the case To whome shall it belong to giue sentēce when a King doth contradict God when he vsurpeth Gods throne when he commaundeth any thing against God and consequently when his face must be spitten on when he must be pulled downe when he must be depriued of all regall authority Did Thomas Morton euer finde in any Catholicke writer such wordes or sense in preiudice of Princes And yet the fond Minister as though he had plaied worthily his Master-prize vaunteth in these wordes Thus is Caluin iustified concerning his doctrine and in him also Beza bycause Beza say yow his Successour in place succeeded him also both in opinion and practice True Sir they are both iustified in your manner of iustification they are fit iustified Saints for your Calendar 42. And hauing said thus he passeth yet further adding a second prouocation about practice in these wordes VVe haue heard of their opinion to wit of Caluin and Beza haue yow any thing to except against their practice And this demaund he made when he knew and had seene his Aduersaries many and most grieuous accusations against them in that kinde not only for mouing that people of Geneua to open Rebellion against their Lord and Prince the Bishop but also the people of France against their King and Soueraigne citing good authorities for the same saying Caluin and Bezae armed the subiectes against their Prince of Geneua and as Caluin himself Doctour Sutcliffe the Bishop of Canterbury be witnesses deposed their Soueraigne from his temporall right and euer after continued in that state of Rebellion They celebrated also a Councell wherin was concluded that King Francis the second then King of France his wife the Queene his Children Queene Mother c. should be destroyed And his quotations for these thinges are Beza l. de iure Magistrat Sutcliffe answ to suppl and Suruey Caluin in epist. Pet. Far. orat cont Sectar defens Reg. Relig. c. All which being seene by our Minister he demandeth notwithstanding as yow haue heard with this hypocrisy haue yow any thing to except against their practice As though there were nothing at all not only not to be accused or reprehended in them but not so much as to be excepted against And is not this notable dissimulation in a matter so cleere and euident Who can belieue this Minister at his word herafter But let vs now see how he will answere the matter it self obiected and then will yow admire his impudency much more 43. For better vnderstanding wherof yow must know that besides al that which is alledged for proofe of this accusation out of Caluin Farellus their owne Lordes and my Lord of Canterbury his booke of Dangerous positions Doctour Sutcliffe doth of purpose and at large proue the same in two whole Chapters to wit the second and third of his Suruey against the pretended discipline shewing out of diuers authors and namely Franciscus Boninardus that wrote the History of Geneua as he saith by Caluins direction Symlerus and Bodinus that for aboue fiue hundred yeares gone the Bishop of Geneua was not only spirituall but temporall Lord also of that Citty and the same confirmed vnto him by the Emperour Frederick the first vpon the yeare of Christ 1124. and as Caluin himself confesseth in his writinges to Cardinall Sadoletus had Ius gladij alias ciuilis iurisdictionis partes the power of life and death and other partes of ciuill iurisdiction and that this Prince and Bishop was cast out by the people vpon the preachinges and practises of Farellus Caluin and other Protestant Ministers Quo eiecto saith Bodinus Geneuates Monarchiam in popularem statum commutârunt who being cast out the Geneuians did change their Monarchy into a popular State 44. And finally after many proofes Doctour Sutcliffe setteth downe his opinion in these wordes I doubt not but that I may presume without any mans iust offence to speake my opinion as touching the deuinity which was pretended by the said Ministers of Geneua against their Bishop for indeed I doe dislike it If such dealinges were simply to be vrged by the word of God they might reach further then would be conueniēt I neuer thought it agreable to deuinity for Ministers to cast of their Rulers at their owne pleasures one of them writeth thus That the light of the Ghospell had restored to the Citty that principality which the Bishop had before But all the learned deuines in Germany at their conferences with the Emperour were of a contrary opinion c. I am not the man that will either iustify mine owne discretiō or impugne any thing which may be brought for the ciuil proceeding of that State or any other so as they carry no false groundes of deuinity with them which may proue dāgerous to our owne such as haue byn since published for the authorizing of subiectes in many cases to depose their Princes So he 45. And now by this large discourse yow see fully his minde first that the Bishop of Geneua was Lord and Prince of that Citty for diuers ages confirmed also by the Emperour secondly that he was vniustly depriued by the people vpon the preaching and false groundes of deuinity of Farellus Caluin Beza and other Protestant preachers thirdly we see the reason why he thinketh thus least their doctrine might reach further then would be conuenient and be dangerous in England So as he also as yow see doth accommodate his doctrine and groundes of deuinity to the commodity of his cause 46. But now let vs see how this Minister Sutcliffe and our Minister Morton haue agreed togeather vpon a farre different manner of answering this matter at this time and yow will perceiue therby what people they are who change their answeres as time and wether walketh For after that Morton had read all this in Sutcliffe yet made the matter so strāge as by his former demaund you haue heard when he said haue yow any thing to except against their practice Now heere he answereth after another fashion thus The booke saith he of Doctour Sutcliffe I could not finde and I needed not seeke it for I haue conferred with the Master who answered me that the booke De iure Magistratus he neuer thought to be Beza his worke and concerning the State of Geneua and Bishop therof he was neuer their Prince but the State of the towne was a free State of it self and now to make a question whether I should belieue him or yow is to doubt whether he that hath byn at Geneua or he that neuer saw it can better
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 yow haue heard Though he should carry many people with him to hell yet no mortall creature may presume to say why doe yow so But in the Latin neither heere nor in the Canon it selfe is there any such interrogation at all as why doe yow so And therfore I may aske T. M. why doe yow ly so Or why doe yow delude your Reader so Or why do yow corrupt your Author so Or why doe yow translate in English for the abusing of your Reader that which neither your selfe doe set downe in your Latin text nor the Canon it selfe by yow cited hath it at all Is not this wilfull and malicious fraude Wherin when yow shall answere me directly and sincerly it shall be a great discharge of your credit with those who in the meane space will iustly hold yow for a deceauer 59. His fourth answere to the former argument of Gods prouidence is the difference he saith of Kings and Popes in this point for that the Papall power saith he which will be thought spirituall if it be euill may be the bane of soules the power of Princes is but corporall therfore feare them not because they can goe no further then the body Thus he And did euer man heare so wise a reason And cannot euill Kinges and Princes be the cause of corrupting soules also if they should liue wickedly permit or induce others to doe the same And what if they should be of an euill Religion as yow will say Q. Mary and K. Henry were and all Kinges vpward for many hundred yeares togeather who by Statutes and lawes forced men to follow the Religiō of that time did all this touch nothing the soule who would say it but T. M But he goeth forward in his application for that bodily Tyranny saith he worketh in the Godly patience but the spirituall Tyranny doth captiuate the inward soule This now is as good as the former and is a difference without diuersity so farre as concerneth our affaire that a man may with patience if he will resist both the one and the other And euen now we haue seene that when any Pope shal decline from the common receaued faith of Christendome he cannot captiuate other men but is deposed himselfe Wherfore this mans conclusion is very simple saying Therfore heere is need according to Gods prouidence of power to depose so desperate a spirituall euill wherof it is written if the salte want his saltenesse it is good for nothing but to be cast vpon the donghill Marke then that concerning the spirituall that God hath ordeined eiiciatur foras let it be cast out but concerning the temporall resiste not the power 60. Lo heere and doe not these men find Scriptures for all purposes This fellow hath found a text that all spirituall power when it misliketh them must be cast to the donghill and no temporall must be resisted and yet he that shall read the first place by him alleadged out of S. Matthew shall find that the lacke of saltenesse is expresly meant of the want of good life and edification especially in Priestes and Preachers and yet is it no precept as this man would haue it to cast them al to the donghill but that salte leesing his taste is fit for nothing but to that vse S. Paul in like manner to the Romanes doth not more forbid resisting of temporall authority then of spirituall but commaundeth to obey both the one and the other which this man applieth only to temporall which he would haue exalted obeyed and respected and the other contemned and cast to the donghill Oh that he had byn worthy to haue byn the scholler of S. Chrysostome S. Gregory Nazianzen or S. Ambrose before cited who so highly preferred spirituall authority before temporall how would they haue rated him if he would not haue byn better instructed or more piously affected No doubt eiecissent foras they would haue cast him forth to the donghill in deed and there haue left him and so doe we in this matter not meaning to follow him any further except he reasoned more groundedly or dealt more sincerly 61. Yet in one word to answere his comparison we say that both temporall spirituall Magistrates may doe hurte both to body and soule for as the temporall may preiudice also the soule as now hath byn said so may the spirituall afflict in like manner the body as when the Pope or Bishoppes doe burne Heretikes so as in this respect this distinction of T. M. is to no purpose yet doe we also say that when spirituall authority is abused it is more pernicious preiudiciall then the other Quia corruptio optimi est pessima The best thinges become worst when they are peruerted and spirituall diseases especially belonging to faith be more pernicious then corporall for which cause God had so much care to prouide for the preuention therof in his Christian Church for the conseruation of true faith by the authority vnion visibility succession of the said Church and diligence of Doctores Teachers Synodes Councels and other meanes therin vsed and by his assistance of infallibility to the head therof which head though in respect of his eminent authority he haue no Superiours to Iudge or chastise him except in case of heresy as hath byn said yet hath he many and effectuall meanes wherby to be admonished informed stirred vp and moued so as he being but one in the world and furnished with these helpes bringeth farre lesse danger and inconuenience then if all temporall Princes who are many had the like priuiledge and immunity And this euery reasonable man out of reason it selfe will easily see consider 62. As also this other point of no small or meane importance to wit that English Protestantes pretending temporall Princes to be supreame and without Iudge or Superiour in matters of Religion as well as ciuill and secular they incurre a farre greater inconuenience therby then they would seeme to lay vpon vs. For that if any temporall Prince as Supreame in both causes would take vpon him the approbation or admission of any sect or heresy whatsoeuer they haue no remedy at all according to the principles of their doctrine wheras we say the Pope in this case may and must be deposed by force of his subiectes all Christian Princes ioined togeather against him so as in place of one generall Pope which in this case is vnder authority they make so many particuler Popes as are particuler Kings temporall Princes throughout all Christendome that are absolute and consequently without all remedy for offences temporall or spirituall in manners or faith 63. And now let vs imagine what variety of sectes and schismes would haue byn at this day in Christianity if for
a thousand and six hundred yeares which Christian Religion hath endured this doctrine of liberty and immunity of temporall Princes to belieue hold and defend what they list had byn receaued and practised for good and currant vnto this time From which singuler inconuenience danger and desperate desolation the doctrine beliefe of the only Bishop of Rome his Supreame authority and exercise therof hath chiefly deliuered vs as to all men is euident And this only reason were sufficient in all reason to refute this mans ydle confutation of that Supremacy heere pretended which confutation standing vpon so feeble and ridiculous groundes as now in part yow haue seene supported principally by certaine new shifts and iugglinges scarcely vsed by any before by casting out shaddowes of our Catholicke Authors sayinges and sentences as making for him though I meane to passe no further in impugning his said grondes which are of so small weight as yow haue seene yet doe I not thinke it amisse to adde another seuerall Chapter for better discouering of the said iugglinges vsed by him in this short Treatise not conteyning much aboue twenty 〈◊〉 in all For by this little yow may gather what a volume might be framed of his false dealings if we would dwell any longer therin A BRIEF VIEVV OF CERTAINE NOTORIOVS FALSE AND FRAVDVLENT DEALINGS VSED BY T.M. In this his short seuerall Treatise against the Popes Supremacy As also sundry examples of the like proceeding in the former Part of his deceiptfull Reply CHAP. VI. IT is the saying both of Philosophers and Deuines Bonum nisi bene fiat bonum non esse A good thing except it be well rightly done is not good As for example if a man would relieue the necessity of poore and distressed people with almes gotten by stealth or robbery albeit giuing of alms of it selfe be a good thing yet for that it is not heere lawfully performed in this case it is not good nor lawfull So M. Thomas Morton taking vpon him to confute the Popes Supremacy ouer Kinges and Princes thought no doubt to doe a good worke therin at least-wise bonum vtile a profitable good thing for himself in regard of some fauour or beneuolence which he might hope to gaine with some Prince therby to his preferment but not performing the same by lawfull meanes of truth but of sleightes not withstanding to his Maiesty he tearmeth himself the Minister of simple truth though it should proue vtile yet not honestum that is for his gaine but not for his credit or conscience and consequently deserueth rather disgrace then estimation euen with those whome most he desired to gratify in that affaire 2. For demonstration wherof though I suppose to haue said sufficient before both in the second fourth and fifth Chapters by occasion of matters that occurred in discussion betweene vs yet now hauing determined with my self to passe on no further in the particuler refutatiō of this his Treatise as a thing not worth the time to be lost therin and handled far better by diuers of his owne side before him namely by M. Iewell M. Horne D. Iohn Reinoldes M. Bilson and some others in their bookes of this subiect I thought good notwithstanding for some kinde of recompence of this my breuity in answering so simple and idle a Treatise to ad some few examples more in this place of other corruptions and falsifications practized by him in this his confutation not of all for that alone would require a great booke but of some competent number wherby the Reader may ghesse at the rest his Maiesty take some proofe of the extraordinary vanity of that vaunt wherwith he presented himself to his Highnes in the very first entrance of his Epistle dedicatory in so constant assurance of an vpright conscience to vse his owne wordes as that he would willingly remit that iust aduantage against his aduersary which the difference betweene a Minister of simple truth and a professed Equiuocator did offer vnto him Now then let vs enter to the examination it self 3. Wherin only the Reader is to be aduertised that wheras this man by a new deuise of his owne doth pretend to put downe the sayings of our Catholicke writers for his purpose and that both in Latin and English the one in the text and the other in the margent pretending therby to make them speake cōtrary one to the other A course saith he to the Kinges Maiesty which I professe in all disputes he dealeth so perfidiously therin to bring them to debate as commonly the simple fellow committeth three seuerall sortes of fraudes and falshood in most of his allegations First in corrupting the meaning of the Authors alledging them quite against their owne whole drift and intended discourse and conclusion therof Secondly in setting downe fraudulently the Latin text by peecing patching their sentences togeather that stand farre a sunder in the Authors themselues by dismembring others that were coherent before as often now wee haue complained Thirdly in translating the same by like fraude into English vsing manifest violence to the wordes and sense it selfe to get therby some shew of aduantage or at least wise to say somewhat All which sortes and kindes of shifts yow shall see expressed in the examples that are to ensue 4. In the second page of his pretended confutation he hath these wordes In the old Testament the Iesuites are forced to allow that the King was supreame ouer the Priestes in spirituall affaires and ordering Priestes For proofe wherof he citeth in the margent Salmeron a Iesuit a very learned man that hath left written in our dayes many volumes vpon the Ghospells Epistles of S. Paul and other partes of Scriptures and was one of the first ten that ioined themselues with the famous holy man Ignatius de Loyola for the beginning 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 Kinges were head of the Church or aboue Priestes by their ordinary Kingly authority in Ecclesiasticall matters in the new or old Testament and hauing proued the same largly he commeth at length to set downe obiections to the contrary and to solue answere them saying Sed contra hanc solidam veritatem c. But now against this sound truth by me hitherto confirmed I know that many thinges may be obiected which we are diligently to confute First then may be obiected that Kinges in the old Testament did sometimes prescribe vnto Priestes what they were to doe in sacred thinges as also did put some negligent Priestes from the execution of their office To which is answered Vbi id euenisset mirum esse non debere If it had so fallen out it had byn no maruaile for that the Synagogue of the Iewes albeit it conteined some iust men yet was it called rather an earthly then
of the Church In this then we agree and haue no difference 24. There followeth in T. M. his assertion heere But not in the personall administration of them to wit of spirituall causes this now is a shift dissembling the difficulty and true State of the question which is in whome consisteth the supreame power to treate iudge and determine in spirituall causes which this man flying as not able to resolue telleth vs only that he cannot personally administer the same which yet I would aske him why For as a Bishop may personally performe all the actions that he hath giuen authority to inferiour Priestes to doe in their functions and a temporall Prince may execute in his owne person if he list any inferiour authority that he hath giuen to others in temporall affaires so if he haue supreame authority spirituall also why may he not in like manner execute the same by himself if he please But of this is sufficiently writteÌ„ of late in the foresaid booke of Answere to Syr Edward Cooke where also is shewed that a farre greater authority spirituall was giuen to King Henry the eight by Parlament then this that T. M. alloweth his Maiesty now for outward preseruation of the Church to wit To be head therof in as ample manner as euer the Pope was or could be held before him ouer England and to King Edward though then but of ten yeares old was granted also by Parlament That he had originally in himself by his Crowne and Scepter all Episcopall authority so as the Bishops and Archbishops had no other power or spirituall authority then was deriued from him to Queene Elizabeth by like graunt of Parlament was also giuen as great authority spirituall and Ecclesiasticall ouer the Church and Clergy of England as euer any person had or could exercise before which was and is another thing then this outward preseruation which T. M. now assigneth hauing pared the same in minced wordes to his purpose to make it seeme little or nothing but dareth not stand to it if he be called to the triall 25. Wherfore this matter being of so great importance and consequence as yow see I doe heere take hold of this his publicke assertion and require that it may be made good to wit that this is the substance meaning only of the English oath and that neither our Kinges of England doe chalenge more nor subiectes required to condescend to more then to grant to their authority for outward preseruation or ad Ecclesiae praesidium as S. Leo his wordes and meaning are and I dare assure him that al Catholickes in England will presently take the oath and so for this point there will be an attonement Me thinkes that such publicke doctrine should not be so publickly printed and set forth without publicke allowance and intention to performe and make it good Yf this be really meant we may easely be accorded if not then will the Reader see what credit may be giuen to any thing they publish notwithstanding this booke commeth forth with this speciall commendation of Published by authority c. 26. And for conclusion of all it may be noted that there hath byn not only lacke of truth and fidelity in citing Pope Leo for Ecclesiasticall Supremacy in Emperours aboue Popes but want of modesty discretion also for so much as no one ancient Father doth more often and earnestly inculcate the contrary for the preheminence of the Sea of Rome then doth S. Leo in so much that Iohn Caluin not being able otherwise to answere him saith that he was tooto desirous of glory dominion and so shifteth him of that way and therfore he was no fit instance for T. M. to bring heere in proofe of spirituall supremacy in temporall Princes 27. But yet in the very next page after he vseth a far greater immodesty or rather perfidy in my opinioÌ„ in calumniation of Cardinall Bellarmine whome he abuseth notably both in allegation exposition translation application and vaine insultation for thus he citeth in his text out of him Ancient generall Councelles saith the Romish pretence were not gathered without the cost of good and Christian Emperours and were made by their consentes for in those dayes the Popes did make supplication to the Emperour that by his authority he would gather Synods but after those times all causes were changed because the Pope who is head in spirituall matters cannot be subiect in temporall Bellarm. lib. 1. de Concil cap. 13. § Habemus ergo 28. And hauing alledged this resolutioÌ„ of Bellarmine the Minister insulteth ouer him in these words Who would thinke this man could be a Papist much lesse a Iesuit how much lesse a Cardinal who thus disableth the title of the Pope granting to vs in these wordes after these times that is after six hundred yeares the truth of purer antiquities challenging Popes to be subiect vnto Christian Emperours And yet who but a Papist would as it were in despite of antiquity defend the degenerate state saying after those times Popes might not be subiect in temporall matters As if he should haue said Then gratious fauour of ancient Christian Emperours then sound iudgment of ancient reuerend Fathers then deuout subiection of ancient holy Popes in summe then ancient purity and pure antiquity adieu But we may not so bastardly reiect the depositum and doctrine of humble subiection which we haue receaued from our Fathers of the first six hundred yeares and not so only but which as your Barkley witnesseth the vniuersall Christian world imbraced with common consent for a full thousand yeares So he 29. And doe yow see how this Minister triumpheth Who would thinke that men of conscience or credit could make such ostentation vpon meere lies deuised by themselues as now wee shall shew all this bragge to be And as for D. Barkley alledged in the last lines let any man read him in the booke and Chapter cited and he will wonder at the impudency of this vaunter for he speaketh no one word of gathering Councells or comparison of spirituall authority betweene the Pope and Emperour concerning their gathering of Councelles or Synodes but of a quite different subiect of taking armes by subiectes against their lawfull temporall Princes And what will our Minister then answere to this manifest calumniation so apparently conuinced out of Doctor Barkley But let vs passe to the view of that which toucheth Cardinall Bellarmine against whome all this tempest is raised 30. First then we shall set downe his wordes in Latin according as T. M. citeth him in his margent Tunc Concilia generalia fiebant saith he non sine Imperatorum sumptibus eo tempore Pontifex subiiciebat se Imperatoribus in temporalibus ideo non poterant inuito Imperatore aliquid agere idâ—irco Pontifex supplicabat Imperatori vt iuberet conuocari Synodum At post illa tempora omnes causae
which I shortly hope for 58. But now to his third argument à minore That Iesuiticall 〈◊〉 is lesse honest then the doctrine of Infidels and Pagans procedeth of lesse wit I suppose then malice seing that for proofe therof he cyteth only this sentence of Emanuel Sà the Iesuite Iurans redire in carcerem c. He that sweareth to returne into his prison except he were iniustly deteyned is bound euen with the perill of his lyfe to returne to the same prison yea and some are of opinion that albeit he were iniustly imprisoned yet ought he to returne except his oath were released by the Bishop Marke this authority whether it do proue the doctrine of Iesuites to be worse then that of Infidels and Pagās the ministers malice in cyting this determination of Emanuel Sà Iesuite alludeth to the place of Cicero before mentioned and is alleadged by him immediatly after in this place but yow haue heard that Cicero is quite against him and fully maketh with vs first that a man being iustly deteyned in prison as those ten Romanes are presumed to haue bene that were let forth vpon their oath by Hannibal to returne if they could not effectuate their busines is bound in conscience to returne againe which is the first parte of this speach of Emanuel Sà 59. Secondly that if he be iniustly deteyned made prisoner as by theeues pyrates tyrants or the like Cicero saith he is not bound to returne albeit he had sworne it Sà the Iesuite saith that some are of opinion that he ought notwithstanding to returne except his oath be dispensed by the Bishop Heere then we agree fully with Cicero the pagā adding also some further restraint as yow see and now then is Morton so shameles as to say and put in print vpon this authority of Sà that Iesuiticall doctrine in this matter is lesse honest then the doctrine of Infidels or Pagans Is this honesty in a Minister but especially in him that professeth himselfe a Minister of simple truth but such is his truth and such is his simplicity as in his Ministry Let vs draw to an end 60. His last argument à paribus wherby he compareth vs to the heretike Arius and vnto his dissimulation in Religion may better fall vpon himselfe and his fellowes who more neerly do follow the spirite and steppes of that and other ancient heretickes and principally in this one point of varying one from an other and among themselues and changing their opinions so often and frequently as that which is noted by Tertullian in the heresies of his dayes That euery yeare brought forth a newe faith And this may be seene in the number of sects that haue risen in this age from Lutber downward which are come to be so many in effect as scarcely they can be numbred and a hard matter it is to bring them to any certainty of sentence when they are pressed but do dissemble Equiuocate and ly with such facility as scarsely any thing can be proued against them wherof among many others before mentioned we haue had a good example of Tho. Morton himselfe in this and the precedent Chapters and shall haue of some more of his fellowes in the next 61. And yet as though he were a great and sincere louer of truth he entitleth the last paragraph of his Treatise thus This our Apostolicall defence of Protestantes I will cōclude with the protestations of the Apostle I say the truth lye not my conscience bearing me witnesse c. And againe God the Father of our Lord Iesus Christ knoweth that I lye not And yet further to his scholler Timothy I speake the truth and ly not And finally to the Galathians This that I write vnto yow behold I witnes before God and ly not 62. And now consider heere I pray yow Thomas Mortons Apostolicall defence by protestations which more truly perhaps may be called Apostaticall for that he who shall read the monstrous multitude of his malicious and wilfull lyes which haue bene discouered and layd open through out his booke and especially in the second sixt and this Chapter and withall heare him make these solemne protestations against lying must needs thinke that rather the spirite of Apostacy then Apostleship doth possesse his tongue pen and harte that speaketh writeth and protesteth so desperatly and directly against his deedes knowledge and Conscience which thing that yow may the better vnderstand I am content to adioyne also this next ensuing chapter for better proofe and confirmation therof OF TVVO SORTES OF EQVIVOCATION The one true and lavvfull the other false and synfull And that Catholickes only vse the first in certayne cases and with due circumstances and limitations But T. M. and his fellowes impugning the first do vse ordinarily the second which is false lying Equiuocation indeed CHAP. XII HITHERTO we haue declared and made manifest as I suppose that all Equiuocation is not lying both for that the definition of a lye agreeth not ther vnto for that Christ himselfe and many of his seruantes both in the old and new Testament haue vpon iust occasions vsed the same and the common consent of Catholicke Deuynes and Lawyers haue allowed and confirmed the lawfulnes therof in certain Cases with due and iust circumstances and considerations 2. But now must we further distinguish the same into two different sortes or kyndes the one proper according to the true nature of Equiuocation before defyned which though it may seeme to haue falsitie in it and somtymes also hath in deed in respect of the wordes only or vnderstanding of the hearer yet alwayes hath it truth in respect of the speakers meaning The other sorte is improperly called Equiuocatiō for that no way it is true therfore his proper name in deed is a lye though after a large improper manner it may be called also Equiuocation for the reason which after we shall declare 3. Now then both of those kyndes of Equiuocation are subdeuided againe ech one into two sortes for that true Equiuocation may be either verball or mentall as before hath byn shewed Verball is that when any word or speach hath either naturally or by peculiar custome of particular language two or more significations as out of Aristotle hath 〈◊〉 declared Mentall Equiuocation is when any speach hath or may haue a double sense not by any double signification or composition of the wordes themselues but only by some reseruation of mynd in the speaker wherby his meaning is made different frō that sense which the wordes that are vttered do beare or yeeld without that reseruation And of both these sortes of Equiuocations that they are lawfull and free from falsity and may be vsed without syn in certaine cases before specifyed we haue now layd forth so many examples out of Scriptures and Fathers in the precedent Chapters as it were a needles worke to name them heere
cut of the other clause that expounded all sub nomine diuinarum Scripturarum vnder the name of diuine Scriptures And secondly that in relating which are diuine Scriptures the bookes of the Machabees Tobie Iudith and others excluded by him and his from that number are set downe for Canonicall And thirdly which maketh the falfification most notoriously wilfull is that in the selfe same Canon there followeth these wordes Liceat etiam legi passiones Martyrum cùm 〈◊〉 dies eorum celebrantur It is lawfull also to read in the Church besides Canonicall Scriptures the passions of Martyrs when their yearly festiuall dayes are celebrated which wordes do cleerly decide the controuersy and proue M. Iewell a wilfull lyer and that he did know that he did lye as nothing can be more cleare or euident And besides they decyde two seuerall controuersies against them as yow see the first that the books of Machabees were held for Canonicall by this Councell in S. Augustines tyme and the second that the festiuall dayes of Saincts were celebrated 〈◊〉 yeare publikely in the Church and the histories of their 〈◊〉 read in those dayes 39. The sixt and last example in this place for I haue promised to passe no further shall cōteyne two or three cases togeather the first out of Leo the great Pope Leo saith M. Iewell in the Apologie holdeth that vpon one daye it is lawfull to haue but one massem one Church but these men say dayly in one Church commonly ten masses 20. or 30. yea sometimes more So M. Iewell But he that shall looke vpon the place it selfe in S. Leo shall find the quite contrary decreed and sett downe by that holy man for thus he writeth vnto the Archbishop or Patriarch of Alexandria Vt in omnibus obseruantia nostra concordet illud quoque vloumus custodiri c. That our vse or obseruance may agree in all poynts as well in Alexandria as heere we will haue this also to be kept that when any more solemne sestiuity shall call togeather a more aboundant meeting of people and that the multitude of the faithfull shall be so great as the Church or Chapell cannot hold them togeather that then without doubt of further deliberation the oblation of the sacrifice be iterated or celebrated againe least otherwise if they only which came first should be admitted vnto this deuotion they which came afterward might seeme to be excluded wheras it is conforme both to piety and reason that so often as the presence of new people do fill the Church wherin the solemnity is exhibited so often also should the sacrifice be offred for that otherwise it must necessarily fall out that some parte of the people should be depriued of their deuotion if the custome of saying one masse only being reteyned none could offer sacrifice but such as came in the first parte of the day 40. These are the wordes of S. Leo by which yow see that he doth determine decree the plaine contrary to that which M. Iewell affirmeth to wit that as 〈◊〉 as any multitude of people should come to the Church so often the sacrifice of the masse should be reiterated for their deuotion In which wordes though among Catholiks there may be some question about S. 〈◊〉 his meaning to wit whether he meant of more then one chiefe or solemne masse to be said in one Church or Chappell or that one and the selfe same Priest in such cases might reiterate his owne masse and sacrifice if there were no other Priest present as Strabo and Dur and do interpret him yet in this controuersie there can be no doubt or question but that he saith the quite contradictory to that which M. Iewell affirmeth him to say who telleth vs that Pope Leo saith that it is not lawfull to say vpō one day mere then one masse in one Church wheras S. 〈◊〉 saith it is both lawfull expedient and necessary to be done What Equiuocation then call yow this in M. Iewell And furthermore S. Leo in this place as supreme Bishopp prescribeth and giueth order in Ecclesiasticall rites as yow see to Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria for offering and iterating the sacrifice of the Masse wherby is euident that in these two articles at the least of Supremacy the Masse which are of the first and principall that M. Iewell setteth downe S. Leo was against him and flatly for vs so as it may please him now to leaue out of his Apostrophe O Leo if we be deceaued your haue deceaued vs c. And this for the first case 41. The second case may be that of M. Iewell in the defence of the Apologie pag 131. where talking of the most excellent man Pope Celestinus that sarte in the Sea before Leo he saith of him thus Pope Celestinus was a Nestorian heretike but cyteth no Author at all for it and the assertion is so strange and so contrary not only to truth and reason but also probability as of no man he could haue spoken it more falsely and absurdly for that it was Celestinus that condemned Nestorius and all his heresyes it was Celestinus in whose place Cyrillus the Archbishop of Alexandria sate President in the third generall Councell at Ephesus where Nestorius was accursed and condemned Of this Celestinus the learned Bishop Prosper who then 〈◊〉 writeth Nestorianae impietati praecipua Alexandrini Episcopi industria Papae Celestini repugnat authoritas The speciall diligence of the Bishop of Alexandria and the Authority of Pope Celestinus resisteth the impiety of Nestorius And yet is Pope Celestinus a Nestorian Who would say so but M. Iewell who careth not what he saith 42. The third Case is somwhat more pleasant though no lesse malicious for wheras it had byn obiected vnto M. Iewell for the 〈◊〉 of S. Peter in feeding gouerning that Christ had said to him alone pasce oues meas pasce agnos meos feed my sheepe feed my lambes M. Iewell to 〈◊〉 this priuiledge alledgeth a sentence of Christ out of S. Markes 〈◊〉 quoted in the margent Quod vni dico omnibus dico What I say to one I say to all therby inferring that the foresaid wordes of Christ to S. Peter as a so the other Thou art Peter or a rocke and vpon this rocke will I buyld my Chruch and other such like speaches were equally meant also of the rest wheras in deed Christ neuer vsed these wordes Quod vni dico omnibus dico noris it to be 〈◊〉 out of Scripture but rather our Sauiour hauing made in S. Marks Ghospell a large Sermon about the day of Iudgement and the terror therof and exhorted all sortes of people to be watchfull extended the same also vnto those that were absent or should liue in succeeding ages saying Quod vobis dico omnibus dico vigilate That which I say to yow heere present I speake to all both absent to come be watchfull which