only not consent vnto him verùm etiam contra scripsisse atque praeâ—â—pisse but also did write and gaue commandement to the contrary c. S. Cypryan did obiect Apostoli nihil quidâ—m exinde praeceperunt the Apostles did command nothing in the Scriptures about this matter It is true saith S. Augustine Sed consuetudo illa quae opponebatur Cypriano ab eorâ—m traditione exordium sumpsisse credenda est sâ—â—uâ— sunt multa quae Vniuersa tenet Ecclesia ob hoc ab Apostâ—â—â—s prâ—câ—pta bene creduntur quamquam scripta non reperiantur But that custome which was opposed to S. Cyprian by the Church is to be belieued to haue taken beginning from the tradition of the Apostles as there are many things which the Vniuersall Church doth hold and they are therfore rightly belieued to haue beene ordayned by the Apostles though they be not found written Thus S. Augustine 111. Wherby we vnderstand first his full meaning about the Authority of traditions in the Church though they be not found written in the holy Scripture and secondly that albeit in some cases it is good and lawâ—ull to runne to Scriptures when the matter may be clearly by them decided yet is it no good argument alwaies to say It is not in the Scripture and therfore we are not bound to belieue it which was the argument of S. Cyprian when he was in errour and for maintenance of the same as M. Morton cannot deny nor dareth reproue S. Augustine and the Church of his time that condemned this manner of reasoning in S. Cyprian And what now doth there result against Bellarmine in all this obiection Is he found false in any one thing which heere is said Nay is not M. Morton coÌ„uinced of euident fraud in setting downe this accusation First for concealing the true state of the questionâ— then for that S. Augustine doth not reproue but excellently commend the manner of reasoning in S. Cyprian pretermitting all that I haue alledged out of S. Augustines expresse words to the coÌ„trary which he could not but know and haue read Thirdly by cutting of the words immediatly following in Bellarmine conteyning his second reason which was that S. Cyprian in other traditions besides this of not rebaptizing heretickes which erroneously he thought to be repugnant to Scripture he allowed vrged also the force of Traditions in the Church of God though they were not writtenâ— wherof Caâ—dinall Bellarmine himselfe alleadgeth two euident exaÌ„ples the one about the necessity of holy Chrisme or Vnction vrged by S. Cypriâ—n out of only Tradition lib. 1. Epist. 12. and the offering wine togeather with water in the Sacrifice which he vrgeth as Dominicam Traditionem a Tradition of our Lord lib. 2. Epist. 3. whereas notwithstanding nothing is found written in the Scriptures of either of these traditions And if I would alleage other traditions allowed by him though not written in the Scriptures I might be large heerin as for example that of renunciation accustomed to be made in the Church before baptisme wherof he treateth in his 7. and 54. Epistles and in his booke de disciplina habitu Virginum as also of the demaundes answeres accustomed to be made in the Church about the articles of the Creed Epist. 70. of Exorcismes to be made before baptisme Epist. 2. 72. lib. conâ—ra Demetrianum 112. The tradition of baptizing Infants Epist. 59. which S. Augustine holdeth to stand only vpon vnwritten tradition and the like This second argument then of Bellarmine being craftily left out and his former from S. Augustines authority wittingly peruerted M. Morton insteed of an obiectioÌ„ against the Cardinall hath brought in a flat condemnation of two notable fraudes against himselfe Let vs see another of like sort and suite if he can haue patience to heare it HIS SECOND OBIECTION against Cardinall Bellarmine touching false allegations about Anacletus §◠XIIII SECONDLY saith he Bellarmine to establish the authority of the Pope doth giue this prerogatiue to S. Peter to wit That S. Peter was the only Bishop and that other Apostles tooke their Orders from him which he laboureth to euince from the testimonies of Anacleâ—us Clemens Alexander Eusebius Cyprian where he is refelled by his owne doctors One saying that indeed those Fathers meane no such thing Another that the Epistles of Anacletus are counterfaite which many vrge more then is meete to the end they may aduance the authority of the Sea of Rome 114. Thus farre the obiection in his owne wordes Wherin I meruaile what wilfull falshood may be found such as the writer himselfe must needes know it to be so except it be on the behalfe of M. Morâ—oÌ„ who entreth presently with a shift at the first beginning saying as you haue hard that Bellarmine giueth this prerogatiue to S. Peter that he was the only Bishop and that other Apostles tooke their orders from him wheras Bellarmines saying is some authors to be of opinion quòd solus Petrus à Christo Episcopus ordinatus fuerit caeteri autem à Petro Episcopalem consecrationâ—m acceperint that only S. Peter was ordeined Bishop immediatly by Christ and the other receaued their Episcopall consecration from S. Peter So as in so litle a sentence he leaueth out first that S. Peter was ordeined Bishop alone by Christ and then changeth Episcopall consecration into holy Orders as though they had not bene made so much as Priests by our Sauiour himselfe but only by S. Peter wheras all authors agree that Christ in making them Apostles made theÌ„ all Priests though some do doubt whether immediatly by himselfe he made them all Bishops So as no one thing is sincerely handled heere by M. Morton without some nippe or other as you see 115 Secondly wheras he saith that Bellarmine laboureth to euince froÌ„ the testimonies of Anacletus Clemens AlexaÌ„drinus c. the proofe of this prerogatiue he abuseth him egregiously for that Bellarmine doth alleadg this opinion that Christ hauing made all his Apostles Priests did make only S. Peter Bishop with authority to coÌ„secrate the rest as the opinion of Turrecremata alleadging diuers manifest reasons and proofes for the same as namely one that either Christ did ordaine none of his Apostles Bishops or all or some certaine number or one only The first cannot stand for that if Christ had ordained none then should we haue at this day no Episcopall authority among vs. Nor can it be said that he ordained all immediatly for that S. Paul was ordained by imposition of handes by the Ministers of the Church as appeareth Act. 13. and by S. Leo Epist. 81. ad Dioscorum as also by S. Chrysost. in hunc locum S. Iames in like manner is recorded not only by Anacletus Epist. 2. but by Clemens Alexandrinus Eusebius lib. 2. hist. cap. 1. and by S. Hierome de Viris Illustribus in Iacobo to haue beene made Bishop by S. Peter 116. The third
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
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
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
to vse any Equiuocation when we are iustly demauÌ„ded by our lawfull Superiour and when no iniury or violence is vsed vnto vs is a greiuous mortall synne in our Catholicke doctrine and consequently she being lawfully dâ—maunded by S. Peter in a lawfull cause touching her owne vow promise no clause of reseruation could saue her speach from lying as our Minister doth foolishly imagine 26 Wherfore S. Peter as most lawfull Iudge and gouernour of the Vniuersall Church vnder Christ and the holy ghost in him did worthily punish that dissimulation and lying boâ—h in her and her huâ—baÌ„d for example of others in that beginning and for manifesting the great and speciall assistance of the holy ghost that assisted him should be in his successors to the worlds end in that their gouernment to the terrour of wicked men that should impugne it or otherwise deserue by their demerits to be punished by the same And thus much of his examples out of Scriptures which is but one as you see that much against himselfe his owne cause if I be not deceaued for that it proueth all Equiuocation is not lawâ—ull as he will needs suppose vs to hold 27. This was my discourse then Now let vs sâ—e how M. Morton doth ouerthrow my whole Treatise of Equiuocation out of this speach of myne and that with such euidency as no wit of man can possibly excuse me He beginneth his impugnation thus The supposed Equiuocation of the woman Saphyra saith he was this I haue sold it but for so much reseruing in her mynd for ought that you shall know which is agreable to their owne example of Equiuocation I am no Priest meaning to tell it you This later P. R. hath defended throughout his whole booke and now of the other he is inforced by the word of truth to say that it is a lye and that no clause of reseruation could saue it from a lye from whence it shall inuincibly follow that Priestes Equiuocation is a Satanicall lye these two speaches being so semblable in themselues as if he should say they differ then must the difference be eyther in respect of the speaâ—ers or in respect of the hearers This is his discourse â—alking much of the word of truth and the child of truth â—nd continuing still to promise what he will do what he will proue but as yet he proueth nothing He saith it will follow inuincibly that to answere I â—m no Priest to an incompetent Iudge if I be a Priest â—s a Satanicall lye for that such was the answere of â—aphyra vnto S. Peter I haue sold my possession for so much â—ith this reseruation of mind to tell you or to conferre â—n common But first how doth he proue that she had â—his meaning of reseruation in her mind It is but â— Mortons imagination to ascribe it vnto her for it â—ay more probably be thought that she had neuer â—ny such cogitation to make her speach lawfull by â—eseruation but absolutly to lye Which is most conâ—orme to the text it selfe of holy Scripture where it â—s said by S. Peter to Ananias Cur tentauit Satanas cor tuâ—m mentiri Spiritui Sancto Wherefore hath Sathan tempted thy hart to ly vnto the Holy ghost And againe Thou hast not lyed to men but to God Wherby it is euident that his and his wiues intention was to lye and to defraud the coÌ„munity of a part of their lands and that they had no cogitation at all of speaking a truth auoyding of lying by Equiuocation as the Priest hath and so haue all those that meane lawfully and with a good consciencâ— to couer a truth which they are not bound to vtter which properly we call equiuocation so as whosoeuer hath not this intentioÌ„ as it is to be supposed that Ananias Saphyra had not he doth not equiuocate but lye Which being so it is very great simplicity to abstaine froÌ„ a worse word for M. Morton to found his whole discourse vpon this matter and especially so vaine and vaunting a discourse as this is only vpon his owne supposall that the woman Saphyra had intention to equiuocate which if I deny as iustly I may all this glorious building falleth to the grouÌ„d But yet not to cut him of so short and put him to a non plus vpon the suddaine I am content to doe him this pleasure as to suppose with him that the poore woman might haue some such reseruation in her mind as M. Morton imagineth to wit that as the Priest saith truly I am no Priest with obligation to tell it you so shee might meane that I haue sold it for no more to acquaint you withall and then I say albeit we should admit this supposall it is denied by vs flatly that these two examples are alike as now I haue declared the one being vnlawfull the other not And what inuincible argumeÌ„t hath M. Morton thinke you now to proue that they are all one And that of the Priest to be as vnlawfull as the other of the woman You shall heare 28. If you say quoth he that they differ then must the difference be eyther in respect of the speakers or of the hearers We answere that of both for in the behalfe of the speaker there was obligation in Saphyra to answere the truth and in the hearer lawfull authority to demaund it for that he was lawfull Iudge but neither of these two things are in the Priest that is vnlawfully examined by the incoÌ„petent Iudge For that as the said Iudge is no Iudge consequently hath no authority to demaund matters preiudiciall to the party examined so hath the other no obligation to answere directly to his intention or interrogatory And what hath now M. Morton to reply to these so euident and important differences that make the one answere lawfull the other a lye 29. Surely it is a pittifull thing to see how he is puzled in this matter and would faine say somewhat and can find nothing wheron he may subsist or rest himselfe For first he beginneth with the person of the woman that is the speaker that did vnlawfully equiuocate vnto S. Peter comparing her to the person of the Priest that lawfully saith vnto â—n incompetent Iudge I am no Priest and findeth no â—reater difference betweene them but first that she 〈◊〉 a woman and he is a man and then that it is as possible â—r a Priest to lye as for a woman to tell truth But he dissemâ—leth the maine differeÌ„ce now mentioned that she â—ad obligatioÌ„ to tell the truth without equiuocatioÌ„ â— he not which is the substantiall differeÌ„ce indeed Heere theÌ„ is no plaine dealing to falter so manifestly â—n the very principall point that most imported â—0 Secondly he passeth to the person of the heaâ—er or Iudge and sayth there can be no difference â—etweene the two cases in that respect whether â—hey be competent or incompetent and this he pretendeth â—o proue out
togeather with Caluin for so many falshoods shiftes errors of history malicious fictions and other like abuses as is a shame to read And finally not to name more authors for this poynt Cardinall Baronius as last of all so with more exact examination historicall theâ— any of the rest hath cleared the whole matter in his fifth Tome of his Ecclesiasticall History vpon the yeare 419. to whome I remit the studious Reader 26. Well then in all these six Authors at least I do suppose that M. MortoÌ„ as a learned man had seene this obiection discussed and answered though not perhaps to his contentment why then if he had meant playnly as often he protesteth had not he eyther mentioned these Authors or refuted them or at leastwise told his Reader that there had bene some such answers before though not sufficient to ouerthrow the obiection wherby the said Reader might haue sought to haue a view therof For if a Marchant that professeth much sincerity and vpright dealing should offer coyne for good and cuâ—rant that himselfe had knowne to haue bene six times at least reiected for couÌ„terfait by skilfull men and yet he should obtrude the same againe the 7. time without saying any one word that it had bene called into question and refused before none would say that this mans sincerity is worth a rush The application I leaue to M. Morton himselfe 27. Wherfore in a word or two to answere the substance of the matter thus it passed A certayne Priest of Sicca in Aâ—rick named Appiarius hauing a controuersy with his owne Bishop Vrbanus after diuers disagreements passed betweene them wherin he thought himselfe hardly dealt with all he appealed to Rome to Pope Zozimus bringing with him coÌ„mendatory letters from the Primate of all Africk Zozimus hauing heard his cause thought best to send him â—acke againe into Africk and with him two Legates â—ith instructioÌ„s that they should see procure not â—nly this man to be restored to his right but moreâ—uer that 3. Canons of the Councell of Nice the â—â—rst about Appeales of Bishops the second of Priests â—â—e third of Bishops following the Court to be obâ—â—rued Whereupon the African Bishops gathered a â—ationall CoÌ„ncell at Carthage of 217. Bishops about â—â—e satisfying of the Order of Pope Zozimus â—8 But when this Councell had examined their â—â—pyes of the Councell of Nice they found not those 〈◊〉 Canons therin Wherupon they sending into the â—ast partes to seeke other Copies they receyued both â—om S. Cyrill Patriarch of Alexandria and Atticus of â—onstantinople other Copies which in like manner â—â—anted these 3. Canons as also they did want diuers â—ther Canons cyted by sundry ancient Fathers to â—aue bene made in the Councell of Nice as by S. â—ierome S. Augustine S. Ambrose and diuers later â—ouncels which Canons notwithstanding were â—ade decreed in the first Councell of Nice though â—ot extant in the Copies that were in Africa which â—oth D. Harpsfeild Bellarmine do particulerly proue â—t large and it appeareth playnly that these copâ—ies sent out of the East had 20. Canons only of â—he said Councell of Nice which Ruffinus in his story â—oth recount wheras both S. Athanasius and many â—ther Fathers that were preseÌ„t in the same Councell of Nice do testify that there were more which are â—et downe in the first tome of Councells as translaâ—ed out of the Arabian language though not found in the Greeke 29. But indeed â—ll the errour or mistaking was this that there begin a generall Councell gathered togeather at Sardica very soone after that of Nice which Sardicense ConciliuÌ„ conteyned more Bishops in number then were in that of Nice for that in thiâ— there were 3OO out of the West only and 70. frâ—â— the East as both Athanasius Socrates Zozomonus other Authors do affiâ—me for that the most of these Fathers were the selfe same that had bene in the Councell of Nice and had determined nothing concerning faith differing from the Nicene Councell but only seemâ—d to be called â—or better manifestation and confirmation of the said Nicene Councell it was held especially in the West Church for a part or appendix of the said first Nicene Councell in which regard S. Gregorie and other Fathers when they do mention the first 4. Generall Councells do leaue out this of Sardica though it were as Generall and more great then the first Nicene as hath bene said 30. Wherefore this Councell of Sardica hauing set downe the foresaid three Canons as conforme to the decrees of the first late Councell of Nice and going vnder the name of the said Nicene Councell as a member therof in those copyes that Pope Zozimuâ— in the West Church had he did name them CanoÌ„s of the Nicene Councell as made by the authority of the selfe same Fathers that sate at Nice and the naming of one for the other was no greater an errour in effect then when S. Matthew doth name Hieremy the Prophet for Zachary for so much as the thing it selfe was true and so was the allegation of Pope Zozimus for that in the Councell of Sardica these three Canons are extant nor euer was there any least suspition or speach of forging vsed in the Church by eyther Catholicks or Hereticks for so many ages before the Lutheranes and Caluinists vpon meere hatred and gall of stomake began those clamours in this our age against so holy aÌ„cient Fathers as those 3. Bishops of Rome were to wit Zozimus Boniâ—acius and Celestinus by the testimony of Saint Augustine and other Fathers that lyued with them who also I meane S. Augustine at that very tyme when the controuersy was in treating about the Copyes of the Councell of Nice and matter of appellation did appeale himselfe to the later of these three Popes to wit to Celestinus in the cause of Antonius Bishop of Fessala as appeareth out of his owne Epistle about that matter And so this shal be sufficient and more then was necessary to answere vnto â—his stale impertinent obiectioÌ„ of counterfaiting the Canons of the first Nicene Councell which is nothing â—o our purpose in hand as hath bene seene and yet â—ncoÌ„bred with so many vntruthes as would require â— seuerall Treatise to display them Let vs come then â—o his second instance HIS SEC0ND EXAMPLE of wilfull fraud falsely obiected against sundry moderne Catholicke writers about the Councell of Eliberis in Spayne §. III. BEFORE he coÌ„meth to set downe this instance about the Councell of Eliberis he falleth agayne to boast and bragge exceedingly saying P. R. is more merciâ—ull requiring three sensible instaÌ„ces as it were 3. witnesses against any one of his writers before he be condemned yet this also is horribly vnmerciâ—ull on their part I wish he had but named any one whose credit he valueth most that I might haue answered his challenge in that one Howsoeuer it wil be no more easie a
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
Morton why we should ascribe more vnto the iudgement of Senensis in censuring these places of the Fathers then vnto other learnâ—d that thinke the contrary They are all acknowledged saith M. Morton expresly by Syxtus Senensis â—â—om the euidence of their contextes to haue spoken only of the â—ire of the day of Iudgemâ—nt and consequently not of Purgatory This now is properly to help a dye in deed for that Senensis doth not talke of any such euidence of the contextes but speaketh rather doubtfully and by coniâ—ctuâ—e saying of Origen that his opinion that both good and bad should be purged by fâ—re is confuted by S. Augâ—stine in his bookes de Ciâ—itate Dâ—i but yet for excusing the same from errour he saith Tu vide an Origenis verba interpretari queant de igne vlâ—imae coâ—flagrationis Do thou Reader consider whether the wordes of Origen may be interpreted of the fire of the last coÌ„flagration or â—ot So as he did not exprâ—sly acknowledge from the euidencâ— of contexts as M. Mort. shifting lying wordes are that these authorityes must needes be vnderstood of the last combustion of the world but rather leaueth it as vncertayne to be considered by the Reader and there are diuers of them that cannot be so vnderstood as that of Origen vpon the Epistle to the Romans haecipsa purgatio quae per poenam ignis adhibetur c. This purgation of synnes which is applyed by the punishment of fyre how many yeares and how many ages it shall afflict sinners only he can tell to whome his Father gaue power of iudgement which wordes cannot well be vnderstood of the last conflagratioÌ„ of the world which no man can affirme to be likely to indure many ages together 132. And many like sentences may be obserued in the other Fathers speaches which he expresly alleadgeth to the sense of this of Origen whom he saith they do imitate and follow in holding that both S. Peter S. Paul and other Saints shall passe also through this fire though without hurt Expurgabit Hierusalem saith S. Basil Dominus in spiriâ—u iudicij spiritu ardoris quod ad â—am probationem siue examâ—Ì„ refertur quod per ignem fiet in suturo saeculo God shall purge Hierusalem in the spirit of Iudgment and the spirit of burning which is referred to that probation and examination which shall be made by fire in the world to come And this I thinke Sixtus Senensis or M. Morton for him will hardly apply from the euidence of the context it selfe vnto the last coÌ„flagration of this world which indeed is but a meere coniecture of his and for such he willeth the Reader to consider of it as now you haue heard But M. Morton doth magnifie the same as somwhat helping him in his opinion to diuert the authorities of these Fathers from inferring the true fire of Purgatory but the truth is that they may include both as before we haue noted to wit the fire of Gods iudgment in examining sinnes after their deathes and the fire of Gods iustice in purging and punishing theÌ„ temporally that were not purged before Of which later execution of Iustice and purging sinnes the last conflagration of the world may be a member or part for those that shall liue vntill the last day of iudgment Wherunto S. Ambrose in the very place heere alledged seemeth to allude when he sayth Cùm vnusquisque nostrûm venerit adiudicium Dei ad illos ignes quos transituri sumus c. When euery one of vs shall come to the Iudgment of God to those fires through which we must passe then let euery man say as the Prophet did respect my humility and deliuer me Where it is euident that S. Ambrose speaketh of more fires then one And so this third contradiction of Bellarmine is found to be nothing at all 133. His fourth and last contradiction framed out of B. Fisher against Bellarmine to wit that there is very rare mention of Purgatory in the Greeke Fathers is vnderstood by him as well of the name of Purgatory not then so much in vse as that the most ancient writers next after the Apostles tyme when many thinges were not discussed so exactly as in processe of time they were did not so clearely handle that matter Nemo iam dubitat orthodoxus saith he an Purgatorium sit de quo tamen apud priscos illos nulla vel quà m rarissima fiebat mentio No rightly belieuing Christian doth now doubt whether there be Purgatory or no of which notwithstanding there was none or very rare mention made among those most ancienâ— Fathers Wherof he giueth diuers reasons and indeed the same may be said of sundry important other articles of Catholike Religion for so much as in the first primitiue Church when the said Fathers were vnder persecution and occupied in other weighty affaires against heretickes and persecutors they had not time nor occasion to discusse many things which the holy Ghost afterward did make more cleare vnto the Church by successe of time and yet doth not Bishop Fisher say that there was no knowledg of this article of Purgatory in the very first Fathers but only his meaning was that the name nature circumstance therof was not so well discussed consequently the thing more seldome mentioned by them then afterward by the subsequent writers 134. Wherfore comming afterward in his 37. article to answere Luther that sayd that Purgatory could not be proued by any substantiall argument he vseth this demonstration against him Cùm à tot Patribus saith he tam à Graecis quà m Latinis Purgatorium affirmetur non est verisimile quin eius veritas per idoneas probationes illis claruisset Wheras Purgatory is affirmed by so many Fathers as well Grecians as Latinists it is not likly but that the truth therof was made cleare vnto them by some sufficient proofes And then after the citing a multitude of Fathers of the one and the other Church he commeth to proue Purgatory first by Scripture out of both testaments and then by great variety of testimonies and authories of the said Fathers And if this will not suffice M. Morton let him see the threescore before mentioned by me out of Coccius wherof 30. or therabout were of ancient Greeke Fathers within the first 600. yeares after Christ. MAISTER MORTONS conclusion and obseruation about the article of Purgatory examined §. XVII MAISTER MORTON hauing plaied his prize as now you haue heard in charging Cardinall Bellarmine with contradictions and absurdities about the doctrine of Purgatory he maketh this conclusion If any saith he shall but obserue in this one controuersy the number of witnesses brought in for the confirmation of this their new article in the name of ancient Fathers which are by confessioÌ„ of our aduersaries meerely counterfaite as Clemens his Constitutions Clemens Epistles Athanas in quaest Eusebius Emissenus Iosephus Ben-Gorion Hieron
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
am content to stand heerin not only to any Iudge that sitteth vpon any of his Maiesties Benches at this day but euen to Syr Edward himselfe with condition only that he will be content with patience to heare my reasons which are these that ensue 4. First a Iudgment of Nihil dicit cannot proceed as I suppose but vpon one of these two causes that â—yther the party sayth nothing at all as when one standing at the barre to answere for his life will for sauing of his goods and lands vtterly hold his peace or when he speaketh his speach is nothing to the purpose But neyther of these causes can be iustly alleaged in our case Not the first for that the Catholicke Deuines printed Answere is large and conteyneth as I haue said aboue 400. pages in quarto Not the second as now shall euidently be declared ergo no iudgment could passe in iustice vpon a Nihil dicit in behalfe of Syr Edward against the sayd Deuine 5. Now then let vs come to demonstrate that the Catholicke Diuine did speake to the purpose in deed for better vnderstanding wherof we must recall to memory the true state of the question and what Syr Edward Cooke then Attorney vpon his offer and obligation was to proue to wit that Queene Elizabeth by the right of her temporall Crowne had supreme spirituall Ecclesiasticall authority ouer all her subiects in Ecclesiasticall affayrs as largely as euer any persoÌ„ had or could haue in that Realme and this by the common lawes of England before any Statute law was made in that behalfe For proofe wherof the sayd Attorney pretended to lay forth a great number of cases examples and authorityes out of his law-bookes which he said should proue the ancient practice of this authority in Christian English Kings both before and since the Conquest which being his purpose whatsoeuer his aduersary the Catholicke Deuine doth alleage substantially to ouerthrow this his assertion and to proue that Q. Elizabeth neyther had nor could haue this spirituall Authority though she had beene a man neither that any of her ancestours Kings and Queenes of EnglaÌ„d did euer pretend or practice the like authority this I say caÌ„not be iudged to be froÌ„ the purpose much lesse a Nihil dicit Let vs examine then the particulers 6. The Catholicke Deuine at his first entrance for procuring more attention in this great and weighty controuersy betweene M. Attorney and him about the Spirituall power and authority ouer soules in the moderne English Church doth auerre the question to be of such moment as that the determination of all other controuersies dependeth therof For that whersoeuer true â—pirituall authority and iurisdiction is found there must needs be the true Church to whom it appertaineth to determine of the truth of the doctrine taught therin or in any other false Church or coÌ„gregatioÌ„ for approuing the one condemning the other Wherof coÌ„sequently also depeÌ„deth euerlasting saluatioÌ„ or condeÌ„natioÌ„ of all those that belieue or not belieue those doctrines 7. He sheweth further that the life spirit essence of the true Church in this world consisteth in this true iurisdiction of gouerning and directing soules by preaching teaching bynding and absoluing from synne administring true Sacraments and the lyke And that where this true power Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction is not lawfully fouÌ„d but eyther none at all or violently assumed there wanteth this vitall spirit Neyther is it any Church at all but a Synagogue rather of Sathan and therfore that the firâ—t and chiefe care of euery Christian ought to be for sauing of his soule eâ—pecially in tymes of strife contentions and heresyes as are these of ours to study well this point and to informe himselfe diligently therin for if he fynd this he fyndeth all and iâ— he misse in this he misseth in all Nor is it possible for him to be saued 8. Moreouer he declareth that as in England at this day there be three different professioâ—s of religion the Protesâ—ant the Puritan and the Catholicke all three clayming this true and vitall power oâ— Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction to be in their Congregations so do they deriue the same from three different heads and fountaynes immediatly though all pretend that mediatly at leastwise it commeth from God The Protâ—stants taking it from the Temporall Princes authority giuen him from God by right of his Crowne as here is taught by M. Attorney The Puritans from the people gathered togeather in their congregation The Catholicks from their Bishops and Prelats descending by continuall succession from the Apostles to whome they belieue that Christ first gaue heauenly power and iurisdiction for gouerning of soules and especially to the cheefe Bishop Successor to S. Peter and not vnto temporall Princes or to lay people or popular Congregations made by themselues who cannot properly be called Successours of the Apostles and this difference as it is maniâ—est and euident so is it of such weight as it maketh these three sortes of men and their Congregations or Churches irreconciliable for that which soeuer of these three partes hath this true iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall hath therby the truâ— Church as hath beene said maketh the other two to be no Churches at all but rather prophane and Diabolicall Sâ—nagogues and such as haue neyther true Prelats nor Prelacy nor true preaching nor teaching nor SacrameÌ„ts nor absolutioÌ„ of sinnes nor any one act or thing oâ— a Christian Church in them And that the tryall of all this dependeth of the discussion of this controuersie betweene M. Attorney and him All this hath the Deuine in his first entrance And did he not herin speake to the purpose or can this be condemned for a Nihil diâ—it 9. Aâ—ter this for better vnderstaÌ„ding of the whole controuersie the Deuine layeth downe at large the ground beginning and origen of all lawfull power and iurisdiction of men ouer men both spirituall and temporall in this world shewing how both of them are from God though differently the spirituall being instituted immediatly by him and deliuered to the Apoâ—â—les and their Successours but the temporall mediatly that is to say giuen first to the Common wealth to choose what forme of gouernment they list and by mediation of that election giuing to temporall Princes supreme Authority in all temporall affaires 10. Then he â—heweth the different ends and obiects of these powers the end of spirituall power being to direct vs to euerlasting saluation both by instruction discipline direction and correction of the temporall or ciuill power by lyke meanes and helpes to gouerne well the Common wealâ—h in peace aboundance order iustice and prosperity And according to thâ—se ends are also their obiects matter meanes As for exaÌ„ple the former hath for her obiect spirituall things belonging to the soule as matters of sayth doctrine Sacraments such other and the later handleth the Ciuill affayres of the Realme and Common wealth as they
appertayne to the temporall good and prosperity therof 11. Next after the declaratioÌ„ of these three pointes to wit of the origens ends obiects of these two powers spirituall and â—eÌ„porall the sayd Catholicke Deuine deduceth out of the same the differeÌ„t dignity excellency eminency of the one the other power the one being called Deuine the other Humane for that the ends and obiects of the one are immediatly concerning the soule as now we haue declared and the other concerning humane affaires immediatly though mediatly in a Christian Common wealth referred also to God And this diâ—ference of these two powers he declareth by the similitude likenesse of flesh and spirit out of S. Gregory Nazianzen who in a certaine narration of his doth most excellently expresse the same by the comparison of spirit and flesh soule and sense which thing saith he may be considered as two distinct Common wealthes separated the one from the other or conioyned togeather in one Common wealth only An example of the former wherin they are separated may be in beasts and Angels the one hauing their common wealth of sense only without soule or spirit and the other CoÌ„mon wealth of Angels being of spirit only without flesh or body but in man are conioyned both the one the other And euen so sayth he in the Common wealth of Gentils was the Ciuill and Poliâ—icall Earthly and Humane power giuen by God to gouerne worldly and humane things but not spirituall for the soule wheras coÌ„trarywise in the primitiue Chriâ—tian Church for almost three hundred yeares togeather none or few Kings Princes or Potentates being conuerted the Common wealth of Christians was gouerned only or principally by spirituall authority vnder the Apostles and Bishops that succeeded them 12. Out of which consideration confirmed and strengthened by sundry places of holy scripture ancient Fathers alleaged by him he sheweth the great eminency of spirituall Authority aboue temporall being considered seuerally in themselues though they may stand ioyntly and both togeather in a Christian Common wealth where the temporall Princes be ChristiaÌ„s though with this necessary subordination that in spirituall and Ecclesiasticall affaires belonging to the soule the spirituall gouernours be chiefly to be respected as in Ciuill affaires the temporall magistrate is to be obeyed and this he sheweth by diuers examples and occasions out of S. Ambrose S. Chrysostome S. Gregory Nazianzen and other Bishops and Prelats that in Ecclesiasticall affayres prefered themselues and their authorities before that of Christian Emperours with whome they lyued expresly affirming that in those respects they were their Superiours Pastours the said Emperours their sheep subiects though in temporall affaires they acknowledged them to be their Superiours 13. All this is set downe by the Catholicke Deuine with great variety of proofes many examples facts and speaches of ancient Fathers And will Syr Edward Cooke say that this was froÌ„ the purpose a Nihil dicit doth not this quite ouerthrow his assertioÌ„ that all teÌ„porall Kings by vertue power of their temporall Crownes haue supreme authority also in spiritual affaires If the forsaid three Fathers to pretermit all others S. Gregory Nazianzen S. Chrysostome and S. Ambrose that had to do with Christian Emperours which had teÌ„porall authority ouer all or the most part of the Christian world did yet notwithstanding affirme vnto their faces that they had no authority at all in spirituall matters belonging to soules but were and ought to be subiect to thâ—m their Pastours in that Ecclesiasticall gouerment how much lesse could a woman-Prince haue the same by right of her temporall Crowne as most absurdly M. Attorney auerreth Which absurdity the Catholicke Deuine doth conuince so largely by all sortes of proofes both diuine and humane as well vnder the law oâ— Nature as Mosayâ—all and Christian that a person of the feminine sâ—xe is not capable of supreme Spirituall iurisdiction ouer man as nothing seemeth can be answered theruÌ„to And was this also â—rom the purpose to proue that Queene Elizabeth could not haue it What will Syr Edward answere here for his Nihil dicit 14. After all this and much more alleaged by the Catholicke Deuine which I pretermit for breuities sake he commeth to reduce the whole controuersie betweene M. Attorney and him vnto two generall heads of proofe the one de Iure the other de facto that is of right and fact shewing that in the first of these two proofes de Iure which is the principall M. Attorney did not so much as attempt to say any thing â—or proofe that by right Queene Elizabeth or any of her Ancestours had supreme iurisdiction in causes Ecclesiasticall but only that de â—acto some of them had sometymes taken and exercised such an authority Which if it were without right was as yow know nothing at all and therfore the sayd Deuine hauing proued more at large that by no right of any law whatsoeuer diuine or humane Queene Elizabeth or her predecessours had or could haue supreame authority Spirituall he coÌ„meth to ioyne with M. Attorney also in the second prouing that neyther in fact any such thing was euer pretended or practised by any of her Predecessours before the tyme of her Father K. Henry the viij either before or after the Conquest 15. And as for before the Conquest there haue beene more then an hundred Kings of different Kingdomes within the land he proueth by ten large demonstrations that none of them did euer take vpon him such supreme spirituall authority but acknowledged it expresly to be in the Bishop of Rome of which demoÌ„strations the first is of lawes made by them generally in fauour and confirmation of the liberties of the English Church according to the directions and Canons deriued â—rom the authority of the Sea Apostolicke The second that Ecclesiasticall lawes in England made before the Conquest were made by Bishops and Prelats who had their Authority from Rome and not by temporall Kinges The third that all determination of weighty Ecclesiasticall affayres were referred not only by the Christian people generally of that Realme as occasions fell out but by our Kings also in those dayes vnto Rome and the Sea Apostolicke The â—ourth that the Confirmations of all Priuiledges Franchises of Churches Monasteries Hospitals and the like were in those dayes demaunded and obteyned from the Pope The fifth that in all Ecclesiasticall controuersies suites and grieuances there were made Appeales and complaints to the Sea of Rome for remedy The sixth the succession of Bishops Archbishops in England during that time all acknowledging the supremacy of the Pope were notwithstanding in high fauour and reuerence with the English Kings with whom they lyued wherof is inâ—erred that these Kings also must needs be of the same iudgment and beliefe and consequently make lawes conforme to that their fayth and beliefe as contrariwise since the schisme began by K. Henry the 8.
themselues which seeming a strange fact of the Pope the sayd Breue prefixed before that edition of the Canon law was examined and it was found that Pope Gregory did only therin giue licence and priuiledge according to custome for printing the sayd Decretals Extrauagants and Corps of the CanoÌ„ law togeather with their Glosses and Annotations as they were set forth in Rome and Roman edition without any one word of equalling them in authority the one with the other which seemeth so notorious an abuse and imposture as vnlesse we should imagine M. Morton to be a very simple and senseles man in mistaking quid for quo which I thinke he would be loath to be accompted he caÌ„not be excused from manifest wilfull fraud wherof we haue written before Cap. 5. num 92.93.94 c. 23. In the page 64. of this preamble M. Morton accuseth Cardinall Bellarmine falsely to haue ascribed vnto Caluin the heresie of the Manicheans saying Againe he atâ—ributeth vnto Caluin the heresie of the Manichees who saith he did condemne the nature of men depriuing them of Freewill and ascribing the Originall and beginning of sinne vnto the nature of man and not vnto his Freewill So he But when the Originall text of Bellarmine is examined it is found that M. Morton insteed of the words sayth he to wit Bellarmine should haue sayd S. Hierome and S. Augustine do say so for that Bellarmine citeth the first part of the wordes of S. Hierome and the second as the wordes of S. Augustine which names of authority M. Morton cunningly clipping of to the end the Reader should not be moued therwith to see the coÌ„mon doctrine of Protestants about Freewill to be accompted Manichean heresie by those two Doctors he reciteth the sentence as Cardinall Bellarmines owne speach and not as of the other and this the first tricke of falsitie in this point 24. The second is that wheras Bellarmine doth accuse Caluin to deny Freewill with the Manicheans M. Morton obiecteth vnto him a contradiction in this matter as though he had granted elswhere that Caluin had held the doctrine of Freewill wherupon he vrgeth Bellarmine in these wordes This contradiction in this point is no more then this to charge Caluin with that which he did not belieue is not this singular falshood But when the matter is examined it is found that M. Morton endeauoreth to deceyue his reader with a notable equiuocation about the tyme. For that Bellâ—â—mine granteth that Caluin aâ—cribeth Freewill to man before his fall but not afterward wherin standeth the controuersie betweene vs and Protestants and therfore when he sayth Caluin with the Maâ—ichees doth deny Freewill to wit after mans fall granting it before it is no contradiction at all for that both are true and consequeÌ„tly I do not see how it can be excused from wilfull fraud that M. Morton heere went about to deceiue his Reader with so grosse an Equiuocation in fact practise the name wherof otherwise in sound of words he doth so eagerly impugne about which matter see more Chap. 5. numâ— 79.80.81 c. So as heere are two notable fraudes as yow see 25. But in the next place there is a greater multitude of fraudes discouered by me togeather to wit fiue and I cannot see how any one can be excusedâ— For wheras M. Morton pag. 63 64. complayneth that Cardinall Bellarmine doth make Protestants guilty of the heresie of the NouatiaÌ„s in taking from the Church all power of reconciling men vnto God he should haue sayd heresies in the plurall number for that Bellaâ—mine reciteth two to wit this and the denying in lyke manner the vse of holy Chrisme he so goeth about to deliuer his Protestants from this imputatioÌ„ I meane of the first only without saying any thing of the â—econd as partly vnder the Equiuocation of the word Pennance vnderstanding it now for priuate Pennance as it is a vertue only and may be exercised by euery man of himselfe both in wardly and outwardly of what religioÌ„ soeuer he be and then taking it as it is a Sacramentall PeÌ„nance which prescribeth a certayne externall forme and requireth absolution of the Church he so intangleth himselfe and his Reader I say with his defence as he is conuinced before in this our answere to haue committed fiue seuerall falshoodes which cannot possibly be excused from witting and wilfull wherof yow may see more at large cap. 3. of this our Answere num 67.68 c. 26. But yet there followeth a more notable conuiction of falshood against him for alleadging pag. 84â— 85. of his Preamble the Iesuit Doctour Azorius as condemning all vse of Equiuocation and that by fiue rules wherof the last is vrged by him as hitting the naile on the head to vse his phrase but when the matter is duely examined it doth so hit M. Morton on the head that I take pitty to consider how he reeleth at the blow for it maketh him to fly and conceale foure rules of the fiue for that they make wholy against him As namely the first which resolueth that a Priest may Equiuocate say he knoweth nothing when he is demaunded any thing concerning Confession the second that any man may Equiuocate when he is demauÌ„ded by an incompetent iudge euen with an Oath wherof he setteth downe 4. or 5. seuerall cases resolued by him directly against M. Morton in this doctrine His 3. rule also which concerneth common conuersation of men determineth That whensoeuer any iniury is offred to any man it is lawful for him to vse EquiuocatioÌ„ eyther in Oath or speach by this he resolueth foure other seuerall cases against M. Mor. wherof one is the famous Couentry-Case so ofteÌ„ by him meÌ„tioned The fourth rule setteth down no particular cases but only giueth direction how we may not vse certaine formes of EquiuocatioÌ„ if no iniury be offred vs to lyke effect is the fifth rule so much esteemed by M. Morton but for the former three conteyning the resolution of ten seuerall cases all directly against M. Mort. his doctrine being by him both seene read yet concealed and dissembled do conuince him of ten seuerall witting falshods and cannot possibly be excused for so much as he alledgeth Azor as denying all Equiuocation except he will say that in reading the selfe same pages and lines of Azor his eye sight did not serue him to read the precedent foure rules that resolued so many cases against him but only opened it selfe vpon the fifth which were a strange case Or if he did read them all then it was a much more strange resolution to suppresse and embezell them yet to alledge Azor against his Aduersary with this confident tytle â—hat P.R. his Equiuocation is proued a lye himselfe a â—alsificator by the Confession of three Iesuits wherof the first conuâ—ncing him is Azorius a great Casâ—ist and learned Iesuit How will the poore man defend