wrought by him so myraculously as both the said S. 〈◊〉 and S. Bede after him and all other ancient historiographers as Malmesbury 〈◊〉 and the rest do call him our English Apostle of whose many and great miracles wrought in that worke not only the said Authors but S. Gregory himselfe doth write a speciall narration to Eulogius Archbishop of Alexandria yea 〈◊〉 Fox himselfe in his Acts and Monumentes albeit not a little imbued with M. Iewels spirit against this holy man for that he planted Catholicke Romane Religion in England yet writing the story of the conuersion of Ethelbert our first Christian English King he hath these words at lēgth When the King had well considered the honest conuersation of their life and moued with their miracles wrought through Gods hād by them he heard them more gladly and lastly by their wholsome exhortations and example of Godly life he was by them conuerted and Christened in the yeare of Christ aboue said 596. and the six and thirtith of his Reigne So Fox Whervnto I may add a testimony of much greater credit out of S. Bede that liued neere vnto his time recordeth the very Epitaph remayning in his dayes written vpon S. Augustines tombe in these wordes 34. Heere lyeth Blessed Augustine the first Archbishop of Canterbury who was sent hither by S. Gregory Bishop of Rome and strengthened of God by working of miracles who conuerted King Ethelbert and his Realme from the worshipping of Idolls to the faith of Christ. And thus much of the sanctity of this blessed man out of their testimony that liued with him or not long after him But now what writeth M. Iewell of him and with what truth and conscience He was a man saith he as it was iudged by them that saw him and knew him neither of Apostolicke spirite nor any way worthy to be called a Saint but an Hypocrite a super stitious man cruell bloody and proud aboue measure and for proofe of all this he cyteth only in his margent 〈◊〉 of Monmouth in his history of the Britans which Ieffrey dyed in the dayes of King Henry the 2. very neere 600. yeares after S. Augustine and almost 500. after S. Bede and writeth no such thing at all of S. Augustine as heere is set downe by M. Iewell but rather much in his commendacion with note of the emulous dealing of the British Bishops against him for the hatred they bare to the English nation and their conuersion 35. So as heere now M. Iewels assertion is not only false and impious against so venerable a man as Augustine was but must needs be also against his owne conscience this in diuers pointes For first he knew that there was no Author extant that wrote in his dayes saw him and knew him but only S. Gregory who writeth 〈◊〉 in his commendations as yow haue heard Secondly he knew that S. Bede who liued in the very next age after him and all other English Authors succeeding for the space of eyght or nine hundred yeares till our time did highly cōmend him in their workes and especially the forenamed Malmesbury Huntington that liued with Ieffrey Moumouth And lastly he knew that this only witnes the said Ieffrey had no such thing And what then will yow say to this Equiuocation may not M. Mortons Epithets of hellish heathenish impious and sacrilegious haue place heere 36. The fourth example may be those wordes of M. Iewell in the Apology of England writing against the Pope Let him in Gods name saith he call to mynd let him remember that they be of his owne Canonists which haue taught the people that fornication betwene single folke is not synne as though they had fetched that doctrine from 〈◊〉 in Terence whose words are It is no synne belieue me for a yong man to haunt harlotts And for this he cyteth in his margent Io. de Magistris li. de Temperantia And who would not thinke but that this accusation were sure for so much as it is so opprobriously vrged and insulted vpon But now I pray yow considerthe particulers and therwithal what a conscience this man had 37. First then Io. de Magistris was Martinus de Magistris not a Canonist but a Schoole deuine that wrote a Treatise De Temperantia Luxuria so as it seemeth that he that gaue this charge eyther had not read the Author himselfe which I suppose M. Iewell will not confesse or else meant to dazle the eyes of his Reader by naming Iohn for Martin Secondly this Author in his said Treatise as the fashion of Scholemen is propoundeth this question Vtrum simplex fornicatio sit peccatum mortale whether simple fornication be a mortall synne and according to vse of Schooles saith Arguitur quòd non It is argued or reasoned for the negatiue parte thus and so 〈◊〉 downe some arguments for that syde by way of obiections which afterward he solueth and cometh to conclude absolutly in the affirmatiue parte by six conclusions that simple fornication is not only synne but mortall synne for that it is forbidden by Gods law and excludeth from the Kingdome of heauen as S. Paul affirmeth And now lett any man consider of the conscience of him that auoucheth in print the other slaunder Would Maister Garnet or M. South-well or any other Catholicke man accused for lawfull Equiuocation euer haue made so notorious a lye against their owne consciencies Let our aduersaryes bring forth but two examples 38. The fifth example shall be also out of his wordes in the same Apologie writing against the reading of Saincts lyues in the Church The old Councell of Carthage saith he commaundeth nothing to be read in Christs congregation but the Canonicall Scriptures but these men read such things in their Churches as themselues know to be starke lyes and fond fables So he But now let vs see whether it be more probable that we know to be lyes those thinges which we read in our Churches or that he knew to be a lye that which heere he relateth and printeth in his booke For if he read the Canon it selfe which he mentioned which is the forty and seauenth of the third Councell of Carthage wherin Saint Augustine was present then must he needs know that he lyeth indeed egregiously for that the Canō beginneth thus Item placuit vt praeter Scripturas Canonicas nihil in Ecclesia legatur sub nomine diuinarum Scripturarum sunt autem Canonicae Scripturae Genesis Exodus c. 〈◊〉 ludith Hester Machabaeorum libri duo c. It hath seemed good to this Councell that nothing be read in the Church vnder the name of diuine Scripture but only such as be Canonicall Scriptures in deed as are Genesis Exodus c. The two bookes of the Machabees Tobias Iudith Esther and the rest Wherby we see that in alleadging these words that nothing be read in the Church but Canonicall Scriptures is guylfully
second and third Reasons §. 2. HIs second reason why his Maiesties Catholicke and Protestant subiects may not liue togeather in England is For that all Popish Priestes faith he doe attribute a double prerogatiue ouer Kings that is to say a Democraticall and Monarchicall Soueraigne ciuill power the first to the people the second to the Pope And for proofe of the first concerning the people he alleadgeth fower seuerall authorities of Catholicke writers but so corruptly and perfidiously as if nothing else did shew his talent of cogging and treacherous dealing this were sufficient to discouer the same though afterwardes greater store will occurre we shall runne ouer briefly all these fower 23. First he saith that Doleman in his Conference about succession hath these wordes The Common-wealth hath authority to chuse a King and to limit him lawes at their pleasure Which if it were truly alleadged as it lieth in the Author yet heere is no mention of the people or of Democraticall state but only of the Common-wealth which includeth both nobility and people and all other states Secondly Dolemans wordes are not of chusing a King but of chusing a forme of gouernement be it Democraticall Aristocraticall or Monarchicall Let vs heare the Author himself speake In like manner saith he it is euident that as the Common-wealth hath this authority to chuse and change her gouernement as hath byn proued so hath it also to limit the same with what lawes and conditions shee pleaseth wherof ensueth great diuersity of authority and power which ech one of the former gouernments hath in it self So he Where we see that Doleman speaketh of the power which a Common-wealth hath that is deuoid of any certeine gouernement to chuse vnto themselues that forme that best liketh them with the limitations they thinke most expedient and so we see in England France Polonia Germany Venice Genua and in the Empire it self different formes and manners of gouernement with different lawes and limitations according to the choice and liking of ech nation This place then of Doleman is corrupted by T. M. both in wordes and sense for he neither speaketh nor meaneth as the false Minister auoucheth him of giuing Democraticall power to the people ouer Princes established 24. There followeth the second place taken out of the French Iesuite as he calleth him De iusta abdicatione c. though it be well knowne that D. Bouchier Author of that booke yet liuing in Flanders and Canon of Tourney was neuer Iesuite in his life but all must be ascribed to Iesuits that may seeme odious This French Iesuite saith he sheweth a reason of Dolemans speach saying For Maiesty is rather seated in the Kingdome then in the King But I would aske the poore man why he doth alleadge this place or of what weight it is or may be for his purpose for so much as D. Bouchier in these wordes denieth not Maiesty to be in the King but to be more in the Kingdome for that the Kingdome giueth Maiesty vnto the King when it chuseth him and not the King properly vnto the Kingdome And is not this a great obiection or doth this proue that we ascribe Democraticall soueraignity ouer Kings vnto the people One of his owne Ghospell-brethren speaketh more roundly and roughly to the matter when he writeth Populo ius est vt imperium cui velit deferat The people hath right to bestowe the crowne vpon whome they list if we had said so what aduantage would T. M. haue sought thereat 25. His third place is out of D. Stapleton in his booke called Dydimus where he saith That the people are not ordeyned for the Prince but the Prince for the people His wordes in Latin are Non populi in Principum gratiam facti sed Principes in populi commodum creati sunt Multitudes of people are not made by God for Princes sakes but Princes are created for the commodity or good of the people and what is there in this sentence iustly to be reprehended Is not this euident by diuine and humane lawe and by the very light of nature it self that Princes were first ordeined by God for the good of multitudes and not multitudes for the vtility of Princes Will T. M. deny this or is not this far more modest and temperate then that of his owne brethren before mentioned whose wordes are Populus Rege est praestantior melior the people are better more excellēt then the King what wilfull wrangling is this in a turbulent Minister 26. His fourth and last place is out of M. VVilliam Reinoldes in his booke De iusta Reip. auctoritate c. whome he abuseth egregiously both in ascribing to him that which is not his and in deliuering the same corruptedly and by a little yow may learne much ex vngue leonem His wordes he citeth thus Rex humana creaturae est quia ab hominibus constituta and Englisheth in this manner A King is but a creature of mans creation where yow see first that in the translation he addeth but and mans creation of himself for that the Latin hath no such but nor creation but constitution Secondly these wordes are not the wordes of M. Reinoldes but only cited by him out of S. Peter and thirdly they are alleadged here by T. M. to a quite contrary sense from the whole discourse and meaning of the Author which was to exalte and magnify the authority of Princes as descending from God and not to debase the same as he is calumniated For proofe herof whosoeuer will looke vpon the booke and place it self before mentioned shal find that M. Reinolds purpose therin is to proue that albeit earthly principality power and authority be called by the Apostle humana creatura yet that it is originally from God by his commandement to be obeyed His wordes are these Hinc enim est c. hence is it that albeit the Apostle doe call all earthly principality a humaine creature for that it is placed in certaine men from the beginning by suffrages of the people yet election of Princes doth flow from the law of nature which God created and from the vse of reason which God powred into man and which is a little beame of diuine light drawne from that infinite brightnes of almighty God therefore doth the Apostle S. Paul pronounce that There is no power but from God and that he which resisteth this power resisteth God himselfe So M. Reinoldes 27. And now let the indifferent Reader iudge whether M. Reinoldes hath byn calumniated in this allegation or no whether this Minister is led by any rule of conscience and whether these be such pregnant arguments and proofes against vs as he promised at the first entrance of his booke And for the matter in hand he promised to proue as yow haue heard that we ascribed popular and Democraticall power to the people ouer Kings which how well he hath
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
there heere any word peculiar of a Protestant Prince or of his succession nay doth not the text speake plainly of making a King where none is doth it not speake also indifferently of all sortes of Religion of what side soeuer the truth be How then can this malicious cauilling Minister expect to be trusted hereafter or how may any man thinke that he speaketh or writeth out of conscience seing him to vse such grosse shiftes and falshoodes in so manifest and important a matter It is no marueyle that he set not his name at large to his booke as not desirous to haue the dew praise of such desert To the rest of his reasons §. 3. BVt let vs passe a little further in these his deuises for much I may not both in regarde of the breuity which I haue designedvnto my self for the loathsomnes I take of such vncharitable railings as in steed of reasons he casteth forth with no greater authority then of his owne assertion or rather calumniation 37. As for example in his fourth reason he subsumeth in his minor proposition thus But all Popish Priests 〈◊〉 dissolue the oath of obedience to all Protestant Gouernours And in the fifth But all Popish Priestes defend violent deposing of Kinges and Emperours And in the sixt But all Popish Priestes are guylty of intending designing or practising murther of Princes And in the seauenth But all Popish Priestes doe iustify the actes of treason and 〈◊〉 parricides And yet further in the eight But all Popish Priestes professe Rebellion as soone as they can presume of their strength In the ninth likewise But all Popish Priestes are guylty of 〈◊〉 for denying or violating with men of diuerse Religion And lastly in histenth But all Romish Priestes ex officio that is to say as they are Priestes must and doe professe such seditious 〈◊〉 as thereby they are desperate traitors 〈◊〉 38. And is it possible for any tongue though borrowed from hell it self and embrewed with neuer so virulent or serpentine prison to vtter more precipitate malice then this His propositions yow see are generall in all these assertions to wit that al Catholicke Priestes are guilty in all these accusations and the nature as yow know of a generall proposition is such as if any one instance may be giuen to the contrary it ouerthroweth the whole And is it probable thinke yow that no one Priest may be found in England or elswhere deuoide of all these heynons accusations or of any one of them Surely I am of opinion that there will hardly be found any man so passionate on his owneside which in this case will not condemne him of passion precipitation and conscienceles calumniation And we on the other side may well vrge to the contrary that no one Priest hath truely hitherto byn conuinced to haue treated or conspired or giuen consent to the Princes death in all the long raigne of the Queene past no not Ballard himself who only can be named to haue byn condemned for this pretence though in deed his crime was as of all the 14. Gentlemen that died with him rather to haue deliuered Queene Mary out of prison then to depriue Q. Elizabeth of her life and so they protested at their deathes 39. But leauing this let vs come to examine some of the pointes themselues that are obiected they are all if yow consider them well but little buddes and branches deduced from one and the selfe same roote of the Popes authority and consequently but minced-meates made out in different seruices by the cunning cookery of T. M. to feede the phantasies of such as hunger after variety of calumniations against the Catholicke doctrine For what great difference is there for example sake betweene that which is treated in the fourth reason of sreeing subiectes from their obedience to Princes the other of the fifth about Deposing Princes or that of the sixt and seauenth of designing their deathes and of iustifying treasons against the same And so in the ninth of oathes euacuated which was handled before vnder other tearmes in the fourth reason wherby appeareth that this mans purpose was as before I haue noted to straine matters to the vttermost and to set out as many shewes of inconueniences dangers and damages to ensue by our doctrine of Papall authority as either his wit could deuise or his malice vtter 40. And yet the seely fellow did not consider one instance vnanswerable that might be giuen to all these his inuentions which is the experience of so many ages both in England other Kingdoms round about vs wherin the Kings and Princes haue raigned prosperously and doe at this day notwithstanding this doctrine and vse of the Popes power this not only Catholicke Princes but diuers Protestant Potentates in like manner for any thing that Popes haue done or attempted against them For what hath any Pope done against the Protestant Kings of Denmarke in this our age what against those of Sweueland either Father or Sonne though the later doth offer open iniury to a Catholicke King the true inheritor what against the Dukes of Saxony the Count Palatines and Protestant Princes of the Empire notwithstanding the said Electors whole authority in that action was giuen them by the Sea Apostolicke and consequently doth depend therof what against diuers other particular Princes both of the Empire and otherwise who haue in this our age departed from the obedience of that Sea how many hath it molested censured deposed or troubled for the same 41. And that which is most of all to our purpose at this time what manner of proceeding hath the same Sea Apostolicke vsed towardes the Kingdome of Scotland and his Maiesty that now ruleth also the scepter of England for the space of 36. yeares wherin he raigned from an infant after the iniust deposition of his mother by her Protestant subiects did the Sea of Rome or any Bishop therof euer goe about to hurt or preiudice him Or is it not well knowne that diuers Popes did endeauour to doe good and friendly actions for the preseruation of his safty when it was many times put in ieopardy by the Protestant party And among other I can well remember that about the yeare 1585. when his Maiesty was besieged by them in his towne and castle of Striueling and driuen to yeeld vnto them both his owne royall person and amongst other articles this as the Protestant History it self doth recount it was one That his Maiesties olde guarde was to be remoued and another placed by them the Pope then liuing hearing therof by his Maiesties Embassador in France the Archbishop of Glasco and others he was so moued with compassion as he offered an honorable contribution towards the preseruation of his Maiesties person in that case and especially for maintenance of a trusty guard about the same the like good will in other lesse occasions haue other Popes shewed in like manner So as all
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
inuenta est nimirum 〈◊〉 numero vincens merito Worthily doth the Church admit him to wit Innocentius whose estimatiō is more renowned whose election is found to be more lawfull as passing the others election both in number and merit of the choosers And so in these few lynes we see how many wilfull lyes and falsifications this Minister hath vsed which cannot be excused eyther by ouersight ignorance or error but must needs be ascribed to wilfull malice and expresse purpose of deceyuing his hearer And so though I might alledge diuers other places to like effect yet this shall 〈◊〉 for one example yea for all them of that sorte in this behalfe For albeit examples without number may be alleaged out of these mens workes yet by these few 〈◊〉 may be made of the rest I shall therfore adioyne some three or foure examples more of lay-men to shew the conformity of their spirits to their spiritual guydes and so make an end The vse of Equiuocation in Lay-men and Knightes §. 5. 65. OF this sorte of men I will alledge only three in this place that in these later dayes haue written against Catholicke Religion but yet such as are more eminent amōg the rest they being Knightes all three whose honorable condition state of calling ought to haue obliged them to defence of truth and that also by true meanes and not by sleightes of this worst kynde of Equiuocation as heer yow shall see them doe The first is Sir Francis Hastings that wrote the iniurious VVatchword some yeares past aga nst Catholickes The second is Sir Philip Mornay Lord of Plessis that hath written many workes much respected by those of his partiality in Religion The third is Syr Edward Cooke late Attorney of his Maiesty now a Iudge and writer against Catholicks And albeit the second be a French-man borne yet for that he hath liued much in England and wrote some of his bookes there and all or most parte of them are 〈◊〉 to be in the English language I may well accompanie him with English Knightes in this behalfe 66. For the first then which is Syr Francis I may be the briefer with him for that his aduersarie or Antagonist hath in his Answers to the said VVatchword and Apologie therof often put him in mynd of his 〈◊〉 against truth euen then when himselfe must needs know it to be so and consequently that it was not only voluntarie but witting also and wilfull 〈◊〉 wherof I might alledge many particulars but two or three shall be ynough for a tast 67. In his defence of the VVatch-word pag. 74. he treating against the abuse of pardons auoucheth out of sundry Chronicles as he saith the storie of the poysoning of King Iohn by a Monke named Symon and this vpon dispensatiō first obteyned of his Abbot to do the fact without sinne which historie being taken by him out of Iohn Fox his Actes and Monumentes who affirmeth that most of the ancient Historiographers of our Country do agree in this matter both of them are conuinced of wilful vntruthes for that they could not be ignorant but that of all the old Historiographers that liued in the time of King Iohn or within two hundred yeares after no one did euer affirme the same but rather the quite contrarie setting downe other particuler causes occasions of King Iohns death And further they could not but know and haue read Iohn Stowes Chronicle printed anno 1592. who hauing made diligent search about this matter out of all authors of antiquity could fynd no such thing and so he testifyeth in these wordes Thus saith he haue I set downe the life and death though much abbreuiated of King Iohn according to the writinges of Roger 〈◊〉 Roger Houeden Rad. Niger Rad. Cogshall Matthew Paris and others who all lyued when the King raigned and wrote for that tyme what they saw or heard credibly reported c. 68. Now then if this Chronicle of Stow was out and in euery mans hand some yeares before Syr Francis wrote his VVatchword and that hereby is euident according to all ancient writers that the foresaid poysoning of King Iohn by a monke was neither written nor reported by any in those dayes with what Conscience could 〈◊〉 Francis and Fox alledge the 〈◊〉 againe 〈◊〉 a truth Was not heere wilfull deceipt nay 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will and desire of deceauing 69. The same is layed against Syr Francis in cyting of sundry others as namely the Authority of S. Hierome for proofe of common prayer in a vulgar tongue Tota Ecclesia saith S. Hierome instar tonitruireboat Amen The whole Church like a mighty thunder doth sound out 〈◊〉 inferring therof that all by liklyhood did vnderstand the language wherin publicke seruice was then celebrated for that otherwise they could not so answere But marke the fraudes that are in this allegation First the Knight doth not explicate in particuler what Church it was wherof S. Hierome spake nor vpon what occasion nor to whome and secondly he doth conceale the wordes ' that immediatly went before followed after for that they made al against him For first S. Hierome spake of the Church of Rome in particuler where the latin tongue being in vse so commonly in his dayes that it was as it were their naturall language no maruaile though the common people could sound out Amen they vnderstanding for the most parte the latin tongue for we see also that in other Catholicke Countryes where the latin tongue is not so commonly in vse the common people by vse and practice can and do with common voyce sound out Amen in Letanies and other partes of latin seruice wherfore this circumstance was fraudulently concealed 70. As that other was in like manner that S. Hierome wrote these wordes vnto two vowed virgins Paula and Eustochium to whom he dedicated his said second booke of his Commentaries vpon the Epistle to the Galathians commending vnto them the faith and deuotiō of the Church of Rome aboue other Churches and yeelding a reason why the Apostle S. Paul did so highly commend the Roman Christians in his time both for their faith and obedience saying of the first I do giue thankes to my God by Iesus Christ for yow all sor that your faith is divulged throughout the whole world and in the end of the same Epistle he saith of their obedience in liuing according to their faith Your obedience is divulged into euery place of the world wherfore I take ioy in yow c. Vpon which testimony of the Apostle S. Hierome writeth thus Romanae plebis laudatur 〈◊〉 c. The faith of the Roman people is praysed by the Apostle for in what other place of the world is there such cōtinuall concourse vnto Churches and vnto the Sepulchers of Martyrs as in Rome In what place do they so sound out the word Amen to the likenesse of a certayne heauenly thunder Not for that the Romanes haue
the least things that may be as appeareth by their knowne and confessed doctrine by vs set downe then are their aduersaryes in the greatest yea highest kind or degree of that sinne I meane of lying and in the second besides the multiplicy of conuictions wherby I haue made demonstration of this mans falsity euery where I haue shewed in the foresaid 12. Chapter that he this Minister to wit of simple truth as also his fellowes which professe themselues such enemyes of lawfull Equiuocation that may be vsed without lying do Equiuocate euery where in the worst most sinfull sort of flat lying that may be imagined without any reseruation or veile or substance of truth at all For proofe wherof I 〈◊〉 me to the said 12. Chapter and shall returne to follow this fellow somwhat further in the said Epistle to his Maiesty 11. For not many lynes after the former passage by occasion of certayne wordes of him that first answered him about a march of apes he taketh vpon him to set forth a certayne march of Soldiers cōming against his Maiesty and other Protestant Princes from the 7. hills of Babilon to wit Rome saying thus May it please your sacred Maiesty to see how exactly they imitate Souldiers in their march Parsons teaching persecution against all Kings and States Protestant doth propound for his imitation the example of Dauid in his conflict against Goliah Allen the example of Eliah in calling if it were possible for fyre from heauen to consume the Messengers of Kings Reynolds the example of Iabel to knock Generaels on the head Bellarmine the example of Iehoida and other Priestes for murthering of opposite Queenes Sanders the example of Mattathias who fought against King Antiochus Simancha the example of Heathenish Scythians who murthered their naturall King Scyles Boucher the example of Sampson to kill if they can a thousand of his supposed Philisthians with the iaw bone of an Asse 12. So he And doth not the man deserue to haue a iawe-bone of an Asse for his dinner that hath so laboured to lay togeather these impertinent examples without head or foote ground or proofe purpose or coherence truth or similitude with the matter in hand For where doth he fynd these marchinges against his Maiesty why had not he cyted some place or testimony wherby might appeare this to be true that he obiecteth heere to these mē against his Highnes Nay if his Maiesty will remember marchinges against him indeed not imaginations in the ayre as these are he will consider what manner of men they haue byn either Protestants or Catholickes that haue marched and machinated against him and his for more then 40. yeares togeather while he was in Scotland what royall bloud was shed of his neerest and dearest in kynred what violence vsed and practised vpon his owne person and parents who were the Authors incensers fyre-brands bellowes of these enraged flames Priests or Ministers those that came from the hills of Rome or such as had their spirite from the valley of Geneua and then if we would frame a squadron of all those turbulent lawlesse Protestant people that vexed and afflicted his Maiesty in Scotland and marched against him and his noble Mother and grand Mother with banners displayed and that we should place before these againe a Vanguard of preaching-Scottish-Ministers as Knox and all his 〈◊〉 exhorting in cyting sounding out the trumpets of these rebellions and a Rereward againe of English-Ministers standing behind them and clapping their handes to their encouragemēt writing bookes and sending them all ayde both in words and workes that possibly they could procure whilest in the meane space both Catholicke priests people in England Rome and els where prayed hartely for the good successe of his Maiesties said parents and for his in theirs this I say was a true and reall march in deed that other imaginary which our Minister to make vs odious hath heere deuised 13. And to speake one word more of this matter for that it is of much importance and the truth therof notorious to the world When vpon the yeare of Christ 1586. fourteene principall and zealous yong gentle-men were most pittifully put to death in London and diuers others condemned and their goods confiscated for an imputation that they would 〈◊〉 deliuered his Maiestyes mother 〈◊〉 of prison and fauoured her succession to the Crowne did not 〈◊〉 raging Ministers then no lesse fyerie 〈◊〉 MORTON now raue out of euery pulpit not so much against them as againste the cause and obiectes of their calamity which was the loue they bare both to mother and sonne in that behalfe Against 〈◊〉 also they neuer ceased to crye vntill they had gotten the life of the one to be taken away and the Statute of Association to be made for endangering the other 14. And when before that againe vpon the yeare 1581. fourteene learned priests and Iesuites were arraigned condemned vpon pretence that their comming into England was for some designement against the State was not the greatest and most odious part of their arraignment and most amplyfied by the Attorney Popham at that time for that they were deuout to the Queene of Scotland and her tytle and prayed for her in their Masses Letanies and other prayers Yea when some of them came to dye at Tyborne and prayed at their death for the Queene of England did not some principall men demaund them publikly from among the people what Queene they meant Elizabeth or Mary And was not this an ordinary Equiuocation which Ministers cryed out that Catholickes then vsed and especially priests And how then doth this fond and malicious Minister bring in such Marchinges of Catholicke Soldiers against his Maiesty who euer 〈◊〉 for him How doth he talke of such kylling of supposed Philisthines by the iaw-bone of an asse The asse in deed we haue found but the iaw-bone as yet we see not 15. But let vs heare him go forward in vaunting to his Maiesty of his goodly workes After the reply is finished saith he there is presented to your Princely and most religious iudgement A confutation of the reasons of two of their more then vnreasonable positiōs as namely of haynous Rebellions and execrable Equiuocations both which are refelled I hope sufficiently by the testimonyes of their owne most principall Doctors A course which I professe in all disputes knowing that by no better wisdome may this new Babylon be confounded then wherwith God wrought the destruction of the old euen The diuision of their tongues So he 16. And yow must know that this diuision of our tongues is nothing els but that he alleageth some tymes different opinions out of some of our Schoole-Doctors which our men do for him he hauing nothing heerin of his owne industry in matters that be disputable and not determined by the 〈◊〉 And is not this a great point for so great a Rabbyn to bragge of
both by bookes preachings and publike speeches of Magistrates as if it had byn a most heinous attempt in deed and not only these but by this occasion all Catholicks generally were most odiously traduced especially in this one point that touched them neerest to wit that they would seeme to conceaue any least hope of his Maiesties clemency and mercy towardes them by way of toleration or conniuency for their Religion or mitigation of their continuall pressures for the same 8. To which end were brought into this booke and published in print not only the Bishop of London his sermon at Paules Crosse vpon the fifth of August then past wherein he auowed his Maiesties protestation against Catholickes to the contrary but the speach also and charge of the L. Chancellour in the Star-chamber vnto the Lordes Iudges and communalty there present ready to departe into their countryes was deliuered as from the Kings owne mouth all tending to the same end of afflicting and disgracing the said people and depriuing them of all hope of any tolerance yea scoffing most bitterly and contemptuously at their folly for conceauing any such vaine hopes and inioyning the most seuere order for descrying searching apprehending imprisoning and punishing them which euer lightly was heard of as though they had 〈◊〉 the only or most grieuous male factors within the Realme and this only for their Religion 9. Soone after vpon the backe of this came forth S. Edvvard Cooke his Maiestyes Attorneyes Booke intituled by him his Fifth Part of Reportes which though in the entrance and fore-front it promised more calme and mild proceeding and so it performeth in phrase and style of writing yet was the drift and ending therof no lesse stinging then the Scorpions tayle it self against all sortes of Catholicks and their Religion And to say somewhat of it in this place his argument or subiect was new and strange taking vpon him to proue out of the old and ancient common lawes of England that the spirituall iurisdiction giuen by Act of Parlament to the late Queene Elizabeth in the first yeare of her raigne and exercised afterwardes by her in Ecclesiasticall matters was dew vnto her not only by vertue of that Statute but by vigour also of the said ancient common lawes and so acknowledged and practised by the olde ranke of our foregoing Kinges and Princes a conclusion no lesse strange and paradoxicall in wise and learned mens eares then that was of him who diuers ages after the warres of Troy ended and the true successe therof published by all writers throughout the world tooke vpon him to teach the contrary to wit that not the Grecians but the Troianes had the victory in that warre and so to reuerse and contradicte whatsoeuer had byn written taught or receaued before 10. Let the histories of our Christian English Kings euen from the first conuerted Ethelbert vnto King Henry the eight be examined whether this be so or not and whether a thousand monuments of theirs in almost a thousand yeares doe not testify them all to haue byn of contrary iudgment practice sense and beliefe in the controuersy proposed to that which M. Attorney by a few pieces of lawes distractedly alleadged woulde haue men to thinke Or if he delight as I take him to be learned to haue this argument more discussed for it is both ample and important let him but procure licence for his Antagonist to write and print his booke and I doubt not but that he will quickly be answered by some of his owne profession among whome I doe imagine that many fingers must needes itch and tickle to be doing in so aduantagious a cause or if not yet doe I dare assure him that some Deuine of our side shall ioine issue with him in that point for the confutation of his whole drifte and narration in those his Reportes but principally in the ouerthrowing of his iniurious conclusion wherby he would inferre that whosoeuer did not belieue and acknowledge the said late Queenes Ecclesiasticall feminine authority power and iurisdiction in spirituall matters was and is a traitor by the iudgment of the ancient common lawes of England receaued helde and practised euen vnder Catholicke Kinges and Princes of former times 11. Vnto which vntrue and improbable paradox he addeth another no lesse stinging nor better founded then the former which is that for the foremost eleuen yeares of Queene Elizabeths raigne vntill she was excommunicated by Pius Quintus No sorte of people of vvhat persvvasion soeuer in Religion refused to goe to the Protestantes Church which is euidently false both in many Puritanes and more Catholicks that refused openly in that time and then That vpon that occasion Catholicks first began to refuse which in like manner is false both for that they refused before and this occasion was altogeather impertinent to their refusall and thirdly most iniuriously of all he would further seeme to inferre that such as refuse now may in like manner be presumed to doe it vpon the same vndutifull minde towardes his Maiesty All which points doe tend to the exasperation and exulceration which euery one seeth and comming from a man of his place roome and neerenes in office about his Maiesty could not but make deepe impression and giue perhaps a great push to the lamentable precipitation of those vnfortunate Gentlemen that soone after ensued 12. VVhich being hapned came forth presently this other odious pamphlet of T. M. his deuised discouery wherunto now I am forced in particuler to answere it being in it self no lesse slaunderous and iniurious then the fact of the conspirators was wicked and grieuous to all Catholickes The booke beareth this title An exact discouery of Romish doctrine in case of Conspiracy and Rebellion But he that shall weigh it well shall finde it a more exacte discouery of English Ministeriall malice in case of sycophancy and calumniation the Authour endeauoring to ascribe that to publicke and generall doctrine which proceeded from priuate and particuler passion as also to drawe the temerity of a few to the hatred and condemnation of the whole Of which iniquity we shall haue occasion to speake more afterward in due place 13. Soone after this pamphlet appeared many more tending all for the most part to the same end of exulceration or driuing rather to plaine desperation euery one adding affliction to affliction and heaping hatred and enuy vpon them that detested bewailed the transgression happened no lesse but much more then these insolent insultors themselues Of this kinde I might name sundry that my self haue seene though being out of England I may presume to haue seene the least part of such as haue byn published and set forth 〈◊〉 this fact fell out as namely one intituled A Discourse of the late intended Treason wherin the discourser beginneth with this foundation That all English both at home and abroad vvere so fully in possession of contented peace at the
the malicious application of this Minister to make the diuorce before mencioned betweene our Prince and vs to seeme remedilesse For if the doctrine approued and receyued so many ages before this difference of Religion was heard of shall be laid vnto vs now for matter of vndutifulnes with which doctrine notwithstanding our Auncestors liued most peaceably and duetifully for many hundred yeares as good subiectes vnder his Maiesties 〈◊〉 both in England Scotland what fault can this be in vs now or what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is it in the Minister to obiect it against vs yea to make a criminall accusation therof in this his calumnious libell against all Catholikes of our Countrey whatsoeuer 10. If we consider their doctrines and positions togeather with their practice and exercise concerning this point of quiet obedience and subiection euen from these later times of Luther Zuinglius and 〈◊〉 beginninges of innouation we shall find an other manner of nouelty to contemplate and another sorte of dangers for Princes to tremble at For if in steed of Rebellious doctrine of the 〈◊〉 Church which is the title of this aduersaries pamphlet wee should set downe the positions and practice of the Geneuian Church and Caluinian sect planted and directed therby we should easely see what were the difference as the whole world both may and doth For that concerning their positions and doctrine that touch this point they are extant in their owne bookes not wronge or drawne by strained inferences as our Ministers Calumniations are against Catholicks in this place but plainely cleerely and Categorically set downe by their owne pen testified and put in print by their owne writers and especially by one in England that is now in highest dignity vnder his Maiesty and another in place of some dignity also by his office who out of their owne bookes cited particulerly by them relate these and other like positions That Princes may be restrained by force pursued iudged and punished by the people excommunicated depriued deposed and cast into hell by the Ministers arraigned condemned and put to death by the inferiour Magistrates whensoeuer in their opinion he becommeth a 〈◊〉 or opposite to the ghospell which in effect falleth out to be so often as these head-strong new brethren shall mislike of his or her gouernement thinke them worthy to be remoued 11. And if to the testimony of our English Protestant writers in this point any be desirous to haue ad ioined the suffrages in like manner of externe authors of the same Religion concerning the same article about the lawfulnes of violent vsage towardes Princes in cases by them prescribed let them read Bezae himselfe in his Apology to the Bishop Claudius de Sainctes in defence and praise of Pultrot that murdered traiterously the famous great Duke of Guise his Maiesties great vncle and supreme Generall of all the French forces as also the discourse of the French famous Minister Suriau otherwise calling himselfe Rosier in his Booke of Reasons why it was lawfull for any of his 〈◊〉 brethren to kill as he saith Charles the ninth King of France and his mother if they would not obey the Caluinian Ghospell as both Launay Belsorest other French writers in their Histories do relate To which effect also was written that notorious and seditious booke intituled 〈◊〉 matin and others by the brethren of the ghospell yea aboue others that most dangerous firebrand by Orsinus Hoto man and the rest of Geneua allowed also by 〈◊〉 intitu led Vindiciaecontra Tyrannos The reuenge vpō Tyrantes conteyning a most shameles publique approbation of all desperate of all villanous attemptes whatsoeuer made or to be made by their brethren against lawfull Princes vnder the name of Tyrantes whensoeuer it might seeme to be done in fauour of their ghospell 12. So as now after all this manifest assertiue doctrine of theirs knowne and confessed in the world and practised by them in so many places for so many yeares in so notorious manner as no man can deny it for this Minister to come peeping forth with certaine poore illations strained inferences against Catholiks for that in certaine cases they acknowledge power to remaine in the head of the Church by way of Canonicall lawes and publique iudgment to restraine exorbitant outragious excesses of Princes when they shall fall out is a ridiculous kind of byting at the heele while the other do strike at the head and so will it also appeare if we obserue the euētes themselues for that heere in this place our Minister for example 〈◊〉 only foure factes or processes of Popes to wit two of Gregories the seauenth and ninth and other two of Pius and Sixtus the fifth who in so many ages haue giuen sentence of depriuation against Princes wheras if we consider but this one age only which hath passed since Luther began and not yet one whole age we shall find many more Princes deposed slaine molested or violated by Protestant people then by all Popes put togeather since the beginning of Pope-dome haue byn troubled or Censured which is a markeable point and not lightly to be passed ouer by prudent Princes for that the reason herof is that the one side proceedeth by lawe publique iudgement and mature deliberation the other by popular mutiny rash and temerarious precipitation And this of doctrine in this place vntill we come to the fourth Chapter where much more is to be added to this effect 13. But if we should come now from doctrine to action and examples of the exercise therof in this behalfe there were no end of the narration and there is no man or woman lightly of any yeares or vnderstanding in publique affaires whose mind and memory is not full of them For who remembreth not what passed in Germany presently almost vpon the beginning of Luthers doctrine at the least not aboue 7. or 8. yeares after to wit from the yeare 〈◊〉 testified aswell by Sleidan and other Protestant Authors as by those that were Catholicke how the new brethrē incited by this new doctrine again 〈◊〉 their Princes both temporall and spirituall tooke armes and entred into tumult and rebellion with such violence and headlong pertinacy throughout al that countrey as in one Prouince only there were aboue two hundred Monasteries and Castels taken razed and spoiled and aboue an hundred and thirty thousand people slaine this was for that beginning which fire once enkindled and the humour of sedition once setled in the heades o that Hereticall faction neuer ceased afterward but continued more or lesse still against 〈◊〉 Emperour Charles the 〈◊〉 vnder diuers deuises and pretences of the 〈◊〉 association and the like vntill more then twenty yeares after to wit vntill the yeare 1546. wherin he was forced to take in hand that great and dangerous warre Luther himselfe 〈◊〉 yet aliue against the Duke of Saxonie Marques of 〈◊〉 and other Protestant Princes whome he subdued therin but not without
is not fire and sworde excommunication and anathematization prodition deposition conspiracy murther absoluing of subiects relaxation of oathes and other such hostile actions as our seditious aduersary heere laieth togeather to make the Popes office and authority more odious 42. Only two publicke examples to my remembrance can be alleadged of any Protestant Princes excommunicated censured or molested by the Sea Apostolicke since Luther began his breach which are now almost an hundred yeares notwithstāding there haue byn so many of them and so exorbitant things committed by them against Catholicke Religion and the said Sea Apostolicke as is notorious to all men And these two vpon speciall causes and inducements to wit Q. Elizabeth of England and King Henry then of Nauarre and now also of France for of King Henry of Enggland I make no mention for that his cause was not Religion at that time the first of the two in regarde of the publicke violent change of Religion which shee made in her Realme with the deposition depriuation imprisonment or exile of all Catholicke Bishops Prelates Clergy and others that would not yeeld their consent thereunto and this as is alleadged contrary to her publicke promise and oath at her Coronation 43. The second for feare least he comming to the Crowne of France in that disposition wherein then he was presumed to be should attempt the like change in that great Kingdome And to both these actes were the Popes of those times drawen and incited either secretly or openly by some of the chief Nobility of both Realmes whome most it concerned And albeit the former hath not had that successe which was hoped and perhaps suggested yet the finall euent of the second hath byn more prosperous then at that time could be expected no King lightly in Christendome hauing made more reall demonstratiōs of loue vnion and reuerence to the Sea of Rome then his most Christian Maiesty nor receaued greater enterchange of graces and fauours from the same Sea and this in matters of most importance for the setling and establishment of his Imperiall Crowne and royall race 44. Wherfore al this bitter barking of this Minister T. M. about excommunicating depriuing deposing and murthering Princes as also about absoluing of subiectes from their oathes and the like ceaseth as yow see by a little good correspondence betweene the said Princes and their generall Pastor And when matters passe at the worst and are in most exasperation betweene them yet is it not the tenth part of perill which Protestant doctrine and practice draweth them into vpon any generall disgust against their gouernments For if in lue of these two Protestant Princes censured by the Sea Apostolicke we should recount all the Catholicke Princes that haue byn vexed molested iniured or depriued of their States or violated in their persons or brought to confusion in our Northerne parts of the world in this time to wit in Sauoy France Switzerland Germany Bemeland Austria Poland Sweueland Denmark Flanders England and Scotland and some other places wherof we haue treated more largely in the precedent Chapter there would be no comparison at all Of false dealing and sleights of T. M. §. 4. ANd yet further yow must vnderstand that this malicious calumniator proposing vnto himself for his end to make vs hatefull doth not only encrease multiply and exaggerate matters against vs by all art of sycophancy as making some things to seeme odious that of themselues are true and laudable and exaggerating others to a farre higher degree then wherin they were spoken or are to be vnderstood inferring also generall propositions vpon some shewes of particuler proofes but besides all this he passeth also further obiecteth often times against vs the very same things that his owne Authours doe hold wherof before we haue laid downe some examples and shall doe more hereafter yea shameth not manifestly to falsify and ly also as when he auoucheth with great resolution that the late K. Henry of France was censured by Pope Xixtus v. for this only crime for that himselfe being a Papist yet fauoured the Protestantes and especially the Prince of Nauarre Wheras it is knowne that besides this he had murthered most miserably two principall peeres Princes of his Crowne the Duke and Cardinall of Guise neerest in bloud to his Maiesty of England and therby broken his solemne oath made but a little before in presence of many when he receaued the Bl. Sacrament to the contrary And how then was his only crime to haue fauoured the Protestants as this Minister auerreth 46. And againe in the same place or precedent page he hath these wordes Pope Adrian being guilty of like seditious practice against the Emperour Henry the second was choked with a fly And in his quotation citeth Nauclerus for it Generatione 139. which should be 39. for that Nauclerus hath nothing neere so many Generations in that Part and in steed of Henry the second he should haue said Frederick the first of that name for that Henry the second was before the time of our Conquest and almost two hundred yeares before Adrian the fourth our English Pope of whome we now speake who liued in the time of King Stephen and King Henry the second of England and was a Holy man and accompted the Apostle of Noruegia for conuerting the same to our Christian faith before he was Pope and all Authors doe write honorably of him so doth Nauclerus affirme and therefore though he make mention of such a fable related by Vrspergensis that was a Schismatical writer in those dayes who also doth not absolutely auouch it but with this temperament vt fertur as the reporte goeth yet doth the said Nauclerus reiect the same as false and confuteth it by the testimonies of al other writers especially of Italy that liued with him and therby knew best both his life and death And yet all this notwithstanding will this false ladde T. M. needes set downe this History as true affirming it for such and neuer so much as giuing his Reader to vnderstand that any other denied the same or that the only Author himself of this fiction doubted therof And is not this perfidious dealing or can any man excuse him from falshood and malice in this open treachery 47. Another like tricke he plaieth some few pages before this againe citing out of Doctor Bouchiers booke De iusta abdicatione these wordes 〈◊〉 occidere honestum est quod cuiuis impunè facere permittitur quod ex communi consensu dico And then he Englisheth the same thus Any man may lawfully murder a Tyrant which I defend saith he by common consent But he that shall read the place in the Author himself shall find that he holdeth the very contrary to wit that a priuate man may not kill a Tyrant that is not first iudged and declared to be a publicke enemy by the common-wealth and he proueth the same at
to Princes concerning the obedience or Rebellion of their subiectes whatsoeuer hath byn obiected by the accusation or calumniation of our Minister in his former discouery against Catholickes hath not byn any direct doctrine teaching or insinuating much lesse inciting subiectes to disobedience or Rebellion as before hath byn declared but only by a certaine consequence or inferēce that for so much as in certaine vrgent and exorbitant cases we ascribe to the Christian Common-wealth and supreme Pastour therof authority to restraine punish supreme Magistrates in such cases that therfore our doctrine is seditious and tending indirectly at least à longè to Rebellion though the visible experience of so many great Kingdomes round about vs lyuing for so many yeares and sometimes ages also in quiet security notwithstāding this doctrine doth conuince this to be a calumniation 14. But our Aduersaries doe not onely teach this That euery Christian Common-wealth vpon mature deliberation and with generall consent hath such anthority but further also that particular men and Common people haue the same and are not only taught but vrged in like manner exhorted to vse it when soeuer they suppose their Prince to offer them iniury or hard measure especially in matters of Religion wherof the moderate Answerer obiecteth many examples and proofes against T. M. taken out of their owne bookes wordes and wrytinges as also by the testimonies of other principall Protestant-writers wherevnto though T. M. would make a shew to answere somewhat now in this his Reply and therupon hath framed a second seuerall part of his booke for iustificatiō of Protestantes in that behalfe yet is it so far of from A full satisfaction the title of his whole worke as in effect he confesseth all that his Aduersary opposeth no lesse then yow haue heard in the former question though somewhat he will seeme sometimes to wrangle and to wype of the hatred of their assertion by Commentes of his owne deuise 15. And indeed what other answere can be framed to most plaine assertions out of their owne wordes and writinges as of Caluin Beza Hottoman and so many other French Caluinistes as I haue mentioned in the first Chapter of this Treatise Goodman also Gilby VVhittingham Knox Buchanan and others neerer home vnto vs All the forenamed Collections in like manner of him that is now Archbishop of Canterbury of Doctour Sutcliffe and others in the books intituled Dangerous positions Suruey of the pretended Disciplinary Doctrine and the like wherin their positions are most cleerly set downe concerning this matter And albeit this Minister T. M. in his Reply doth vse all the art possible to dissemble the same by telling a peece of his Aduersaries allegations in one place and another peece in another altering all order both of Chapters matter and method set downe by the Answerer so as neuer hare when she would sit did vse more turninges and windinges for couering her selfe which the Reader may obserue euen by the places themselues quoted by him out of his aduersaries booke yet are his answerers such where he doth answere for to sundry chiefe points he saith nothing at all as doe easely shew that in substance he confesseth all and cannot deny what is obiected And where he seeketh to deny any thing there he intangleth himself more then if flatly he confessed the same Some few examples I shall alledge wherby coniecture may be made of the rest 16. The Answerer alledgeth first the wordes of Goodman in his booke against Queen Mary wherin he writeth expressely that it is lawfull by Godes law and mans to kill both Kinges and Queenes when iust cause is offered and herself in particuler for that she was an enemy to God and that all Magistrates and Princes transgressing Gods lawes might by the people be punished condemned depriued put to death aswel as priuate transgressours and much other such doctrine to this effect cited out of the said Goodman All which the Bishop of Canterbury his second booke of Dangerous positions hath much more largely both of this Goodman and many other English Protestantes cheife Doctours of their Primitiue Church residing at that time in Geneua And what doth T. M. reply now to this Yow shall heare it in his owne wordes If I should iustify this Goodman saith he though your examples might excuse him yet my hart shall condemne my self But what doe yow professe to proue all Protestantes teach positions Rebellious Proue it Heere is one Goodman who in his publicke book doth maintaine him I haue no other meanes to auoid these straites which yow obiect by the example of one to conclude all Protestants in England Rebellious then by the example of all the rest to answere there is but one So he 17. And this is his full satisfaction and faithfull Reply as he calleth his booke but how poore satisfaction this giueth and how many pointes there be heere of no faith or credit at all is quickly seene by him that will examine them For first how doe the 〈◊〉 alledged agaist this Goodman by the Moderate Answerer excuse him as heere is said seeing the wordes he alledgeth against him out of his owne booke are intollerable and my Lord of Canterbury alledgeth farre worse As for example that it is most lawfull to kill wicked Kinges when they fall to Tyranny but namely Queenes and thervpon that Queene Mary ought to haue byn put to death as a Tyrant Monster and cruèll beast alledging for confirmation therof diuers examples out of Holy Scripture as that the Subiectes did lawfully kill the Queenes Highnes Athalia and that the worthy Captaine Iehu killed the Queenes Maiesty Iesabell and that Elias though no Magistrate killed the Queenes Highnes Chaplaines the Priestes of Baal and that these examples are left for our instruction c. And now tell me how may these examples excuse M. Goodman as our Minister Morton auoucheth 18. Secondly it is both false and fond to affirme that the moderate Answerer tooke vpon him to proue either that all Protestantes in these our dayes doe teach such Rebellious positions or that all Protestantes in England are Rebellious as heere is affirmed for that this were to deale as iniuriously with them as they and he doe with vs by imputing this last Rebellious fact of a few in England to the whole sort of Catholickes and to their doctrine It was sufficient for the Answerers purpose to shew that both Goodman and many others principall pillars of the English new Ghospell in those daies did hold belieue and practice those positions out of the true spirit of the said Ghospell And herevpon thirdly it followeth that it is a notorious impudency to auouch with such resolutiō as this man doth that there is but this one of that opinion and that one dram of drosse as he saith proueth not the whole masse to be no gold For who knoweth not first that VVhittingam afterward Deane of Durham
from Syr Edward Courtney Earle of Deuonshire Syr Nicolas Throckmorton others what to the conspiracy of VVilliam Thomas who hauing determined and plotted the murder of the said Queene and conuicted therof professed saith Stow at his death at Tyburne that he died for his countrey 30. I passe ouer other conspiracies and Rebellions as that of Vdall Throckmorton Iohn Daniel Stanton Cleber the three Lincolnes and after them Thomas Stafford and others that comming out of France with instructions of the brethren of Geneua surprised Scarborough Castle made proclamations against the Queene that she was iustly deposed and other such like attemptes by that sort of people who all professed themselues to be Protestantes and to haue entred into those affaires principally for their Religion And with what face or forhead then doth T. M. say in this place Shew vs what Protestant euer resisted c. 31. But much more impudent is the second part of his assertion about Ministers saying That no Minister of the Ghospell did euer kindle the least spark of sedition against Queene Mary Wheras his aduersary obiecteth many by name as Cranmer Ridley Rogers and Iewel before mentioned who as is euident by Fox his story in his Actes and Monumentes both dealt preached stirred people against her all that lay in their power And as for Cranmer it is euident he was condemned for the same treason in Parlament Ridley preached openly at Paules Crosse against her title Rogers at Clocester and Iewel was appointed to preach in Oxford had he not byn preuented by the sudden and vnexpected proclayming of the said Queene there by Syr Iohn VVilliams others 32. The instances also that we haue alledged of Goodman VVhittingham Gilby Couerdale VVitehead sundry others testified by my Lord of Canterbury to haue taught and practized sedition against the said Queene in those daies doe they not conuince this Minister Thomas Morton of rare singular impudency will any man euer belieue him hereafter what he saith or affirmeth denieth or shifteth of seing him to auouch so manifest vntruthes as these are with so shameles asseueration 33. But yet to conuince him somewhat more I think good to set downe some of the particuler wordes and phrases of two or three of the principall forenamed pillars of the Protestant primitiue Church in our Iland omitted for breuities sake by the moderate Answerer to the end yow may see their spirit iudge of this mans forehead in standing so resolutely in the deniall taken in hand For first Iohn Knox in a booke written printed at Geneua 1558. which was the last of her raigne wherin after he had said That is is not birth only or propinquity of bloud that 〈◊〉 a King lawfull to raigne aboue the people professing Iesus Christ c. He goeth forward saying thus I feare not to affirme that it had byn the duty of the Nobility Iudges Rulers and people of England not only to haue resisted and withstood Mary that Iezabel whome they called their Queene but also to haue punished her to death with all the sort of her Idolatrous Priestes togeather with all such as should haue assisted her c. Doe yow see here his Euangelicall spirit Doe yow see the essence of his doctrine Doe yow heare this new Prophet declare himself cleerly But let vs giue audience to another of like vocation and spirit 34. The second is his deere brother Christophor Goodman who in a booke of his printed also at Geneua the same yeare 1558. the title wherof was How Superiours ought to be obeyed writeth thus I know yow of England will say that the Crowne is not entailed to heire-males but appertaineth aswell to the daughters therfore by the lawes of the Realme ye could doe no otherwise then admit her but if this be true yet miserable is the answere of such as had so long time professed the Ghospell and the liuely word of God For if it had byn done by Pagans and heathens which knew not God by his word it might better haue byn borne with all but among them that beare the name of Godes people with whome his lawes should haue chief authority this answere is not tolerable If she had byn no bastard but the Kinges daughter as lawfully begotten as was her sister that Godly Lady and meeke lambe yet at the death of our lawfull Prince King Edward that should not haue byn your first coūsaile or question who should be your Queene but first and principally who had byn most meet among your Brethren to haue had the gouernment ouer yow For a woman to raigne Godes law forbiddeth whose raigne was neuer accompted lawfull by the word of God c. So he And behold heere now whether these mens worde of God did not serue them to all turnes euen to barre lawfull succession to depose the possessor and whatsoeuer themselues listed 35. The third Doctor of this learning was M. VVhittingham Deane afterwardes for his good merittes of Durham who made a preface to the foresaid booke of Goodman allowing and commending the same highly as a thing consulted examined approued by Caluin and the rest of the most learned Ghospellers of Geneua for thus he writeth M. Christophor Goodman conferred his articles and cheif propositions of his booke with the best learned in these partes who approuing the same he consented to enlarge the said worke and so to print it as a token of his duety and good affection towardes the Church of God and then if it were thought good in the iudgment of the Godly to translate the same into other languages that the profit therof might be more vniuersall So VVhittingham with whom concurred in iudgment VVhithead Couerdale Gilby and others then liuing in Geneua which Gilby wrote also of the like argument a speciall admonition to the Realmes of England and Scotland to call them to repentāce by all likelyhood for that they had admitted tolerated and not put to death Q. Mary of England and not yet deposed as after they did Q. Mary of Scotland both Mother and daughter and the booke was printed the same yeare by the same Crispin in Geneua wherin besides that which he vttereth against this Queene Mary as a Catholicke Princesse or rather no Princesse in his opinion he hath these wordes also of King Henry her Father euen after his fall from Catholicke Religion The boare was busy wrooting digging in the earth with all his pigges that followed him but they sought only for the pleasant fruites that they winded with their long snowtes and for their owne bellies sake c. This monstrous boare for all this must needes be called head of the Church vnder paine of treason displacing Christ our only head who alone ought to haue this title So Gilby And for that all this was spoken written and printed diuers yeares after Q. Mary was proclaimed and installed Queene and all tending euidently to sedition as
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
Morton not content after the pretended confirmation of his first discouery and reasons therof to haue added a second Treatise conteyning as he saith A Iustification of Protestantes against imputations of disobedience and Rebellion against temporall Princes either in doctrine or practice both which you haue heard now how substātially he hath performed he thought good also to ad a third Treatise though nothing needfull to the argument in hand which he intituleth A confutation of the principles of Romish doctrine in two pointes first concerning the Pope supreame head of Rebellion and secondly the impious conceipt of Equiuocation And forasmuch as of the second point which is Equiuocation we are to treat more largly in the ensuing Chapters and that the first seemed to me impertinent to be treated againe seuerally in this place the substance therof hauing byn touched sufficiently forasmuch as belongeth to this affaire in the former Chapters especially the second I had purposed once to passe it ouer without any answere at all as indeed not deseruing any it being only a certaine disorderly hudling togeather of peeces and parcelles of other mens collections about that matter better handled by themselues But yet considering afterward the speciall manner of this mans treating the same matters both in regard of fraude and simplicity though contrary the one to the other I iudged it not amisse to giue the Reader some tast therof in this one Chapter wherby he may be able to frame a iudgment of the rest and of the exorbitant veine of this mans writing 2. First then he beginneth the very first lines of his first Chapter with these wordes This pretended predominance saith he of the Pope in temporall causes whether directly or indirectly considered in which diuision of gouerning the Romish schoole is at this day extreamly deuided if it be from God it will sure plead Scriptum est c. By which sole entrance yow may take a scantling of the mās discretion for it cannot be denied I thinke except we deny the Ghospell but that Scriptum est was pleaded also by the diuell and not only by God as in like manner it hath byn by all Hereticks the diuels cheif Chaplains since that time and consequently it was no good exordium to build all vpon this foundation 3. Secondly it is not true that the Romish schole is so extreamly deuided in this diuision of gouerning directly or indirectly as the Minister would make it for the question is not at all of gouerning but how the right to gouerne in temporall causes was deliuered by Christ to S. Peter and his Successours whether directly togeather with the spiritual gouernment ouer soules or els indirectly and by a certaine consequence when the said spirituall gouernment is letted and impugned as before hath byn declared In which difference of opinions there is no such extremity of diuision among Catholickes as this man would haue men thinke for that all doe agree in the substance of the thing it self that the Pope hath this authority from God Iure diuino in certaine cases whether directly or indirectly that little importeth to this our controuersy with the Protestantes who deny both the one and the other And so much for that 4. The next sentence or obiection after the former preface which is the very first of his discourse is framed by him but yet in our name vnder the title of the Romane pretence in these wordes The high Priestes in the old Testament saith he were supreame in ciuill causes ergo they ought to be so also in the new for which he citeth one Carerius a Lawier that wrote of late in Padua De potestate Romani Pontificis defending the former opinion of Canonistes for direct dominion citeth his wordes in Latin thus Dico Pontificem in veteri Testamento fuisse Rege maiorem And Englisheth the same as before yow haue heard that the high Priest was supreame in ciuill causes which wordes of ciuill causes he putteth in of his owne and if yow marke them doe marre the whole market for that Carerius hath them not either in wordes or sense but teacheth the plaine cōtrary in all his discourse to wit that he meaneth in matters appertaining to Religion and Preisthood and not of temporall principality which this Author granteth to haue byn greater in the old Testament in dealing with Ecclesiasticall men matters then in the new to that effect is he cited presently after by the Minister himself contrary to that which heere he feigneth him to say But let vs heare the wordes of Carerius Tertiò dico saith he etiam in Testamento veteri fuisse Pontificem Rege maiorem quod quidem probatur c. Thirdly I say that the high Priest was greater also in the old Testament then the King which is proued first out of the 27. Chapter of Numbers where it is appointed by God that Iosue and all the people should be directed by the word of the high Priest Eleazar saying whē any thing is to be done let Eleazar the high Priest consult with God and at his word aswell Iosue as all the children of Israell and whole multitude shall goe forth and come in c. And secondly the same is proued out of the fourth of Leuiticus where foure kind of Sacrifices being ordained according to the dignity of the persons the first two are of a calfe for the high Priest commonwealth the third and fourth of a hee and shee-goat for the Prince and priuate persons Wherby Carerius inferreth a most certaine dignity and preheminence of the Priestes state aboue the temporall Prince though he say not in ciuill causes as this Minister doth bely him 5. And wheras Carerius had said in two former Answeres first that in the old Testament Ecclesiasticall and secular iurisdiction were not so distinct but that both might be in some cases in the King and secondly that in the new law the spirituall power was more eminent then in the old he commeth thirdly to say that in the old law the High Priest in some respectes was greater also then the King which cannot be vnderstood of ciuill power except the Author will be contrary to himself And therfore that clause was very falsly and perfidiously thrust in by the Minister and this with so much the lesse shame for that in the end of the same Chapter he citeth the same Author to the plaine contrary sense saying In veteri lege Regnum erat substantiuum sacerdotium adiectiuum c. That in the old law the Kingdome was the substantiue that stood of it self and Preisthood was the adiectiue that leaned theron but contrary-wise in the new law Preisthood and spirituall iurisdiction is the substantiue or principall in gouernment and temporall principality is the adiectiue depending therof for direction and assistance the one both by nature and Godes law being subordinate to the other to wit the temporall to the
giue vnto thee the Gentiles for thy inheritance and the confines of all the earth for thy possession so as in this Kingdome God the Father required an acknowledgment And yet further the Prophet speaking to the said Father of this Kingdome of Christ in flesh said Constituisti eum super 〈◊〉 manunm tuarum omnia subiecisti sub pedibus eius thou hast appointed him for Lord and King ouer the workes of thy handes that is to say ouer all thy creatures and thou hast subiected all thinges vnder his feet which point S. Paul doth prosecute most excellently in the first two Chapters of his Epistle to the Hebrewes and there can be no doubt in this matter for Christ himself speaketh most plainly Data est mihi omnis 〈◊〉 in caelo in terra All power is giuen vnto me both in heauen and earth so as he acknowledgeth it to be giuen which cannot stand with his diuinity in that he is God and equall with his Father in which regard all was his owne without gift according to those wordes of S. Paul to the Philippians Non rapinam arbitratus est esse se aequalem Deo He did not thinke it Vsurpation to be equall to God his Father according to his diuinity Wherfore it must needs appeare great ignorance in our Minister to assigne him this his temporall Kingdome as he was God and equall to his Father 13. But now to the principall proposition VVhether Christ his Kingdome had the preheminence of his Priesthood or his Priesthood of his Kingdome though in part the matter be made cleere by that which is already spokē yet shal we adde two or three wordes more And first the matter is manifest by the narration it self in Scripture when the figure of his Priesthood and Kingdome is declared in Genesis in the person of Melchisedech for thus saith the text Melchisedech King of Salem bringing forth bread and wine for he was the Priest of God most high gaue his benediction to Abraham and tooke tithes of him for all that he had In which example is greatly to be noted the reflection it self and emphasis which the Scripture maketh vpon his Priestoood Erat enim sacerdos Dei altissimi For he was the Priest of the most high God as who should say that otherwise he could neuer haue offred vp in sacrifice that bread and wine the highest action of all other vpon earth as King except he had byn Priest nor yet haue blessed Abraham and much lesse haue taken tithes of him Which point S. Paul doth ponder very deeply and seriously in his Epistle to the Hebrewes repeating often times for the greater glory of Christ and his powerfull Priesthood this example of Melchisedech Assimilatus 〈◊〉 Dei saith he manet sacerdos in perpetuum intuemini autem quantus sit hic cui decimas dedit de praecipuis Abraham Patriarcha This Melchisedech bearing a likenes of the Sonne of God remained a Priest perpetually Neque initium dierum neque finem vitae habens hauing neither beginning of his dayes nor end of his life consider then how great a man this was to whome the Patriarch gaue tithes of all the principall thinges he had 14. This is S. Paules contemplation of the matter who in his said Epistle to the Hebrewes laying this foundation of the figure of Melchisedech for the Priesthood and Kingdome of Christ though more specially as yow see for his Priesthood doth presently after the consideration of those wordes Filius meus es tu ego hodie genui 〈◊〉 thou art my Sonne I haue this day begotten thee wherby he proueth Christ to haue byn not the adopted but natural Sonne of God after this I say he doth insist for demonstration of his highest 〈◊〉 and dignity vpon those wordes of God the Father for his Priesthood Tu es facerdos in aeternum secundum ordinem Melchisedech Thou art a Priest foreuer according to the order of Melchisedech out of which wordes of highest dignity and commission S. Paul doth make many inferences as that in the second Chapter Nusquam Angelos apprehendit sed 〈◊〉 Abrahae c. vt misericors fieret fidelis Pontifex ad Deum God tooke not Angelles but the seed of Abraham to frame Christ to the 〈◊〉 he might be both a mercifull and faithfull High Priest for vs with God for propitiation of our sinnes And againe in the third Chapter Behold yow Holy brethren who are partakers of this our heauenly vocation Consider our Apostle and High Priest of this our confession Iesus And in the fourth Chapter hauing spoken much of the Sabboth day that he is to giue vs in the next life he adioineth this exhortation Habentes ergo Pontificem magnum c. we hauing therfore a great high Priest that hath pearced the heauens Iesus the Sonne of God let vs hold fast our confession for we haue not a Priest that cannot take compassion of our infirmities c. And againe in the fifth Chapter hauing said first 〈◊〉 Pontifex c. Euery High Priest chosen out of men is appointed for men in those thinges that appertaine vnto God that he offer giftes and Sacrifices for sin c. after this I say S. Paul doth immediatly inferre this conclusion about the supreame honor dignity of Christ his Priesthood Nec quisquam sumit sibi honorem c. Neither may any man take the honour of Priesthood vnto him but he that is called by God as Aaron was and so Christ though he were the true Sonne of God did not aduance himself to this honour of being high Priest but that he who said vnto him filius meus es tu thou art my Sonne said vnto him also tu es sacerdos in aeternum thou art a Priest for euer appellatus à Deo Pontifex being called by God to be high Priest according to the order of Melchisedech of whome there remaineth to vs a great speech to vtter and such a one as needeth exposition wherof yow as yet for your weaknes ar not capable So S. Paul 15. And then in the other two sequent Chapters to wit the seauenth and eight he doth prosecute the same argument of the high dignity of Christes Priesthood much more largely Among the Iewes saith he there were many Priestes made for that they were letted by death to remaine but this our high Priest remaineth for euer his Priesthood is eternall wherof it ensueth that he can for euer saue vs interposing himself with God for vs by himself and euer lyuing to make intercession for vs for such a high Priest was it conuenient that we should haue holy innocent vnspotted seperated from sinners and more excellent then the heauens themselues And againe in the next Chapter Such a high Priest we haue as sitteth on the right hand of the seat of maiesty in heauen and there he is Minister of the Saintes and true Tabernacle 16. All this much
more hath S. Paul in that Epistle of the eminency of Christes Priesthood therby to set forth the most admirable excellency of his power and glory therby giuen him from his Father for our saluation but of the glory of his temporal Kingdome in this life he saith little or nothing And had not then the foresaid Fathers and holy Bishops S. Chrysostome S. Gregory Nazienzen S. Ambrose and others great cause by contemplation of this supereminent worthines of Christes Priesthood to inferre the great preheminēce in generall of the Christian Priesthood before Kingly dignity of earthly principality But let vs yet consider one reason more 17. The office of high Priesthood as partly hath appeared by that we haue said and is euident by the discourse of S. Paul appointing him for a meanes or mediator betweene God and man consisteth principally in two thinges or partes first in respect of that which he is to performe towardes God as to his Superiour secondly in the functions that he is to vse towardes the people as inferiours and subiectes The first consisteth in offering sacrifice oblations prayers and intercession for the sinnes of the people as already touching Christ our Sauiour out of the Apostle we haue declared The second consisteth in the spirituall power dignity authority and functions therof which our said high Priest Christ Iesus as head high Priest of his Church purchased with the sacrifice of his owne bloud hath and may exercise vpon the said Church for euer for vnto him as our high Priest it appertaineth not only to make intercession for his said Church but to gouerne the same also and to direct it by conuenient meanes vnto the end of their saluation which he hath designed and for this to make lawes prescribe orders appoint Sacramentes ordaine spirituall tribunals of iudgment giue sentence of separation of the good from the bad forgiue and retaine sinnes which spirituall gouernment of soules belonging to the office of high Priesthood is a different thing from the ciuill gouernment of temporall principality and yet is a Kingdome also in it self but a spirituall Kingdome ouer soules and not ouer bodies And this had Christ our Sauiour togeather with his high Priesthood according to the prediction and vision of Daniel Aspiciebam ecce quasi filius hominis c. I did looke and behold there appeared as it were the Sonne of man and God gaue vnto him power and honour and a Kingdome his power is an eternall power and his Kingdome shall neuer be corrupted And so in the second Psalme after he had said I am made King by him vpon his holy Hill of Sion he addeth presently to shew that it was a spirituall Kingdome Praedicans praeceptum eius my office is to preach his commandement and many other authorities may be alledged to proue that Christ in that he was high Priest had supreame spirituall Kingly authority in like manner for gouerning of soules 18. But now for the temporall Kingdome of Christ in this life to wit whether besides this spirituall and Royall gouernment of our soules he had Kingly Dominion also vpon our bodies and goodes and vpon all the Kingdomes of the earth so as he might iustly haue excercised all actions of that temporall iurisdiction as casting into prison appointing new officers Kings and Monarches yea whether their power and authority and interest to their States did cease when he came as the right of Priestly authority did in this I say and other pointes depending herof there are two disputable opinions betweene Catholicke Deuines the one holding the affirmatiue that Christ was Lord King temporall as heere is set downe which diuers learned men both of old and our time doe de fend the other affirming that albeit Christ togeather with his high Kingly dignity of spirituall power was Lord also cōsequently ouer our bodies shall raigne ouer the same most gloriously for all eternity in the life to come yet that he renounced the vse of all that Dominion in this life and that in this sense he fled when they would haue made him King and refused to deuide the inheritance betweene the two Brethrē when he was demaunded and finally said to Pilate My Kingdome is not of this world confessing himself to be a true temporal King also according to Pilates meaning but yet that the vse and exercise therof was not for this world but only for the next wherof also the good thiefe vnderstood when he said on the Crosse Be mindfull of me when thou shalt come into thy Kingdome And finally they alledge for proofe of this the wordes of Zachary the Prophet Ecce Rex 〈◊〉 venit tibi iustus Saluator ipse pauper Behold Sion thy King commeth vnto thee as a iust and sauing King but he is poore as though he had said he is thy true King but hath renounced the vse and priuiledge of the same and chosen pouerty in this world And with this second opinion which is the more generall doe concurre also the Protestantes of our age that Christ tooke vpon him no temporall Kingly power in this life least if they held the contrary it should be inferred therof that he left the same authority both of temporall and spirituall vnto S. Peter his Successour which yet the Catholickes that hold this opinion explicate otherwise saying that albeit Christ had no direct Dominion in this life vpon temporall thinges yet indirectly for preseruation of his spirituall Dominion he had and might haue vsed the same and in that sense he left it to his said Successor 19. Of all which is inferred first the preheminence of high Priesthood in Christ before his temporall Kingly principality for that as we haue said the actions and functions of Christes Priesthood haue not only more high eminent dignity both in that they treat with men for gouerning their soules then Christes temporall Kingdome for gouerning of bodies but moreouer that the dignity of Priesthood in Christ conteineth in it self a much more high spirituall Kingly power then is the temporall 20. Secondly is inferred that the reasons heere alledged by T. M. for his paradox in preferring Christs being a King before his Priesthood are vaine foolish The first wherof is this Christes Kingdome saith he had the preheminence of Priesthood because he is Priest only for vs but he is King ouer vs. But I would aske him Is not Christ Priest ouer vs aswel as for vs hath he not a spirituall and Priestly iurisdiction ouer our soules doth not he binde and loose our sinnes doth not he prescribe vs Sacramentes appoint vs lawes of liuing and the like or doe not these actions appertaine vnto him as high Priest ouer his Church And againe I would aske him about the second member as Christ in flesh was King was he not made King aswell for vs that is for our good as ouer vs
with God and the Prince follow their word and direction 33. And albeit God did some-times vse for externall guiding and direction of Priestes and Priestly affaires the authority of good Kinges in those daies especially when they were Prophetes also as Dauid Salomon in the correcting and remouing of some Priestes yet this was extraordinary and proueth not that simply and absolutly Kingly dignity and authority was aboue Priesthood in that law albeit also it be most true which the Authors by this man heere alledged Salmeron Cunerus Carerius and the rest doe note that the Priesthood of the old Testament was nothing comparable to that of the new this descending directly from the person and office of Christ himself and indued with farre higher and more powerfull spirituall authority for guiding of soules then had the Priestes of the old law which was but a figure of the new therfore to argue from that to this is a plaine fallacy and abusing of the Reader 34. Wherfore leauing this of the comparison betweene Kinges and Priestes of the old and new Testament I will end this first point with the very same conclusion concerning the safty of Princes from violence of their subiectes which our Aduersary himself alledgeth out of our Catholicke Author Cunerus in these wordes VVe are taught saith he from the example of the people of God as your Cunerus teacheth with great patience to endure the tyranny of mortall Kinges yea when wee haue power to resist and because they be next vnder God in earth in all their iniuries to commend their reuenge vnto God nay he teacheth Kinges another excellent rule of pollicy fitting for the preseruation of all States which is that he who succeedeth a King violently murdered of any though of Godly zeale yet ought he to reueng his Predecessours death by the death of the malefactours So T.M. And now followeth that of the Ghospell Ex ore tuo te indico serue 〈◊〉 for first I would aske him is not this Catholicke doctrine Is it not ours doth he not heere call the Author therof Cunerus ours how then doth he affirme euery where that our doctrine teacheth killing of Princes Let him shew vs any of his Authors that euer of this argument hath written so moderatly 35. And yet further I must aske him whether he will stand to the iudgment of this our Cunerus when he commeth to the point indeed How incorrigible Princes in some cases may lawfully be restrained as also depriued by the Common-wealth and consent of the supreame Pastour will he stand to this I say or rather fleet back againe to the doctrine of the Scottish Geneuian French Flemish Ministers when the King should mislike him and especially for his Religion wherof I make little doubt what euer he saith heere finding himself and his at good ease And finally I would aske him seriously whether he would haue his Maiesty of England to practice that excellent rule of pollicy which he so highly comendeth out of our 〈◊〉 who notwithstanding saith not a word therof by way of rule or obseruation but only affirmeth that Amasias did iustly put to death those seruantes of King Ioas that vpon zeale had slaine him in his bed I would aske him I say whether indeed he would wish his Maiesty of England to put the same rule and so highly commended pollicy in vse against such as violently murdered abetted or procured the same against not only his Predecessours but parentes and immediate Progenitours Father Mother and Grand-mother And then we know how many Ministers and their friendes would enter into that daunce but these men frame their tongues according to times fit occasiōs And with this he endeth his proofes out of the old Testament Out of the new Testament §. 2. 36. ANd then comming to the second part he beginneth his discourse with this title The former question disputed according to the state of the new Testament and presently in our manner he giueth the onset with this proposition The Pope hath all absolute and direct power and dominion temporall ouer all Kinges and Kingdomes of the world c. And for proofe therof citeth Carerius and Bozius in the margent and beginneth to lay forth their proofes and then against these two that hold the opinion of Canonistes wherof before we haue treated to wit that Christ was the immediate Lord of all temporalties and consequently also is his substitute he opposeth Franciscus de Victoria Bellarmine Sanders and others that hold the other opinion to wit that the Pope hath not directly but indirectly only such authority to deale with Princes in temporall affaires and so not informing his Reader that these are different opinions of the manner how the Pope hath this authority but yet that both do agree in the thing it self that he hath it he playeth pleasantly vpon the matter and would make men thinke that he taketh vs at great aduantage as contrary or rather contradictory among our selues which indeed is no more cōtradiction then if two Lawiers agreeing that such a noble man had such an office or authority ouer such a Lordship by succession from the Crowne should differ only in this whether the said office were giuen by the Prince seuerally and expressely by particuler gift and writinges or were giuen by a certaine consequence included in the gift of the said Lordship The differēce were nothing in the thing or certainty of authority but in the manner of hauing it and so is it heere and yet out of this difference of these two opiniōs doth our Minister furnish himself with good probability of argmentes on the one side as though they were his owne who otherwise would appeare very poore pittiful therin And this tricke he plaied before with the moderate Answerer when he serued himself of the two differēt opinions of some Deuines and Canonistes about the question VVhether Hereticks before personall denuntiation and sentence giuen be subiect to externall penalties appointed by the Canons And generally he runneth to this shift more then any other commonly of his fellow-writers which I haue seene in these our dayes to wit that whersoeuer he findeth any difference of opinions in disputable matters betweene our Catholicke writers which S. Augustine saith may stand with integrity of faith there he setteth downe any one of these opinions for ours and argueth against it with the argumentes of the other or bringeth in the others authority wordes against the same which maketh some shew or muster of matter on his side wheras in deed and substance he hath nothing at all 37. It were ouer long to examine in this place all the obiections which he putteth downe on our behalfe vnder the second head of our proofes concerning the time of the new Testament calling them Romish pretences and the fond resolutions he giueth vnto them as first that we doe found the Popes temporall sword vpon the keyes giuen by
a heauenly Kingdome insomuch as S. Augustine doth doubt whether in the old Testament the Kingdome of heauen was euer so much as named and much lesse promised for reward and therfore those things that were then done amōg them foreshewed only or prefigured diuine thinges that were to succeed vnder the new Testament the other being not diuine but humane and earthly So Salmeron 5. Heere then are sundry important corruptions fraudes vttered by T.M. the one that the Iesuites and namely Salmeron are inforced to allow the temporall King to haue byn Supreme ouer the high Priest in spirituall matters vnder the old law wheras he doth expressely affirme and prooue the contrary both out of the Scripture it selfe by the sacrifice appointed more worthy for the Priest then the Prince many other testimonies as that he must take the law interpretation therof at the Priestes hands that he must ingredi egredi ad verbum Sacerdotis goe in and out and proceed in his affaires by the word and direction of the Priest and the like as also by the testimony of Philo and Ioseph two learned Iewes and other reasons handled at large in this very disputation and in the self same place from whence this obiection is taken And this is the first falsification concerning the Authours meaning and principall drift 6. The second corruption is in the wordes as they ly in the Latin copy as they are by me before mentioned Vbi id euenisset mirum esse non debere If any such thing had fallen out as was obiected to wit that Kinges sometimes had prescribed to the Priests what they should doe in Ecclesiasticall things deposed some c. it had byn no maruaile for somuch as their Ecclesiasticall Kingdome or Synagogue was an earthly and imperfect thing but yet this proueth not that it was so but only it is spoken vpon a supposition which suppositiō this Minister that he might the more cunningly shift of and auoid left cut of purpose the most essentiall wordes therof Vbi id euenisset if that had happened c. as also for the same cause to make thinges more obscure after those words of Salmeron that stand in his text Synagoga Iudeorum dicebatur terrenum potius quà m caeleste regnum The Synagogue or Ecclesiasticall gouernment of the Iewes was called rather an earthly then a heauenly Kingdome wheras contrary-wise the Ecclesiasticall power in the Christian Church is euery where called Celestiall after those wordes I say this man cutteth of againe many lines that followed togeather with S. Augustines iudgmēt before touched which serued to make the Authors meaning more plaine and yet left no signe of c. wherby his Reader might vnderstand that somewhat was omitted but 〈◊〉 againe presently as though it had imediatly followed 〈◊〉 cùm populus Dei constet corpore animo carnalis pars in veteri populo primas tenebat Wheras Godes people doth consist of body and minde the carnall or bodily part did cheifly preuaile among the Iewes and heerwith endeth as though nothing more had ensued of that matter thrustnig out these wordes that immediatly followed and made the thing cleere which are Et ad spiritualia significanda constituebaiur and that kinde of earthly power was appointed to signify the spirituall that was to be in the new Testament wherby is euidently seene that Salmeron vnderstood not by carnalis pars and regnum terrenum the temporall Kingdome of Iury as this Minister doth insinuate to make the matter odious but the Ecclesiasticall gouernment of the Synagogue vnder the old law in respect of the Ecclesiasticall power in the new wherof the other was but an earthly figure or signification 7. But now the third corruption most egregious of all is in his English translation out of the Latin wordes of Salmeron for thus he translateth them in our name In the Synagogue of the Iewes saith Salmeron was a State rather earthly then heauenly so that in that people which was as in the body of a man consisting of body and soule the carnall part was more eminent meaning the temporall to haue byn supreame In which translation are many seuerall shifts and fraudes For wheras Salmeron saith Synagoga Iudeorum dicebatur potius terrenum quà m caeleste regnum the Synagogue or Ecclesiasticall power among the Iewes was called rather an earthly then a heauenly Kingdome he translateth it the Synagogue of the Iewes was a State rather earthly then heauenly and this to the end he might apply the word of earth to the temporal Prince and heauenly to the Iudaicall Priestes which is quite from Salmerons meaning Secondly those other wordes of Salmeron being Cùm populus Dei constet ex corpore animo wheras the people of God doe consist of body and minde meaning therby aswell Christians as Iewes and that the Iewes are as the bodily or carnall part of the man and the Christians the spirituall and consequently their Ecclesiasticall authority earthly and ours heauenly this fellow to deceaue his Reader putteth out first the word Dei the people of God and then translateth it in that people to wit the Iewes the carnall part was the more eminent meaning saith he the tēporall which is false for he speaketh expressely of the Ecclesiasticall power among the Iewes which he calleth carnall and terrene in respect of the spirituall Ecclesiasticall among the Christians and not the temporall or Kingly power vnder the old Testament as this man to make vs odious to temporall Princes as debasing their authority would haue it thought And Salmerons cōtraposition or antithesis is not betweene the temporall and Ecclesiasticall gouernment among the Iewes but betweene their Ecclesiasticall gouernment and ours that of the Synagogue and this of the Christian Church wherof the one he saith to be terrene earthly the other spirituall and heauenly the one infirme the other powerfull ouer soules c. So as all these sortes and kindes of corruptions being seene in this one little authority yow may imagine what will be found in the whole booke if a man had so much patience and time to leese as to discusse the same exactly through 8. A little after this againe he bringeth in an example of the King of Israell Ozias who for presuming to exercise the Priests office in offering of incense being first reprehended and resistest for the same by Azarias the high Priest and fourescore other Priestes with him in the Temple was for his presumption presently and publickly in all their sightes punished by God and stroken with a leprosy and therupon remoued by the authority of the said high Priest first from the Temple and common conuersation of men and then also from the gouernment or administration of his Kingdome the same being committed to his sonne Ioathan all the dayes of his Fathers life about which example M. Morton first of all bringeth in Doctor
Barkley dissenting from Doctor Boucher in this matter about the deposition of this King the one holding that he was deposed the other not but only that as a sicke man was debarred of the administration Doctor Bouchers wordes are these cited by D. Barkley Sic Oziam Azarias de Templo primùm mox etiant de Regno eiecit So Azarias the high Priest did cast out King Ozias first frō the Temple and then from his Kingdome Which the other will not haue to be vnderstood that the title and interest of his Kingdome was taken from him but only the administration which in effect is no great difference of opinions for that Bellarmine also talking of this matter saith Cùm regni administratione priuatus fuerit wheras he was depriued of the administration of the Kingdome which after in other words he expressing saith Regnandi authoritate he was depriued of the authority of actual raigning or exercising that authority wherunto the wordes of the Scripture seene plainly to agree which are these Festinatò expulerunt c. Azarias and the rest of the Priestes did hastily driue him out of the Temple and he himself being terrified with that which he felt to be the punishment of God made hast to goe forth VVherfore this King Ozias remaining a leper vnto the day of his death did dwell in a separate howse and he was full of leprosy for the which he was cast forth of the howse of our Lord so as his sonne Ioathan did gouerne the howse of the King iudge the people of the land 9. Out of which wordes of Scripture as also out of the Booke of Leuiticus where the law saith That whosoeuer shal be spotted with leprosy and is separated at the apointment of the Priest shall dwell alone without the tentes Bellarmine doth gather that this separation of King Ozias was not voluntary but by prescript order of the said high Priest Azarias and that consequently he was depriued also by the same sentence and authority of his gouernment and administration of the Kingdome against which T. M. bringeth in a great tempestuous storme of wordes and warre of the foresaid Doctor Barkley Scottishman against Cardinall Bellarmine as though he had refuted him with some contumely and contempt wheras Doctor Barkley neither nameth nor meaneth Bellarmine but only Boucher vpon his wordes before recited against whome he being according to his custome somewhat vehement in speech the difference in substance being little or nothing as yow haue seene T. M. endeauoreth by his sleightes to increase or aggrauate the same For wheras Doctor Barkley presuming Boucher to vnderstand by those his wordes De regno eiecit that Azarias had taken from K. Ozias the name and right of Kingdome saith vnto him Magna sanè imprudentia vel impudentia est ea scriptis mandare quae manifestis scripturae testimoniis redarguuntur It is truly a great imprudence or impudēcy to cōmit those thinges to writing which are controlled by manifest testimonies of Scripture There our Minister blotteth out in his Latin text the word imprudentia and will haue only to stand impudentia to set them further out then they be which me thinkes was some impudency also in him and againe when the said Barkley writeth immediatly after the former wordes Malo te negligentiae quà m nequitiae reum facere I had rarher accuse you of negligence then of malice these wordes also not without some malice T. M. striketh out and pittifully mangleth the whole discourse putting in and putting out at his pleasure and yet all set downe in his booke as the continuall speech of the Author 10. Heere then yow see how many wilfull corruptions there be first to bring in Doctor Barkley rating of Cardinall Bellarmine with magna sanè impudentia est c. Wheras he talketh not against Bellarmine at all nor indeed is Bellarmines manner of speech contrary to that which Barkley will haue to be the meaning of the History for that Barkley doth not so much stand vpon the thing in controuersy for Priestes authority but vpon the manner of proofe by the examples alledged by D. Boucher of Ieroboam Ozias Athalia and some other Princes in whose punishment God vsed Priestes for meanes and instrumentes Non ignoro saith he Ius esse Ecclesiae in Reges Principes Christianos nec quale ius sit ignoro sed id tam alienis argument is ostendi prorsus ignoro imò non ostendi planè scio I am not ignorant saith Doctor Barkley that the Church hath right ouer Christian Kinges Princes nor am I ignorant what manner of right it is yet doe I not see how the same may be proued by such impertinent argumentes nay I know rather that it cannot be so proued Which wordes going but very few lines before those that T. M. alledgeth he could not but see and yet left them out and then beginneth against vs his English text thus Your owne Doctor calleth this your assertion most false and contrary to the direct History of the Byble to wit that Ozias was deposed of his Kingdome by Azarias the high Priest 11. But now yow haue seene that howsoeuer it may be called either deposition depriuation restraint sequestration or inhibition certaine it is that he was separated from the administration of the gouernment by 〈◊〉 the high Priest and whether his sonne during his life were truly King or only regent or Gouernour vnder his Father or whether he were bound to consult with his said Father in his greatest affaires take his approbation and commission that point which is most important Doctor Barkley proueth not but only that Ozias notwithstanding his separation was called King during his life which letted not but that his sonne might be truly King also during his Fathers dayes for otherwise D. Barkley might aswell say that his Maiesty now of England for example was not King of Scotland whiles his Mother the Queene liued in her exile which yet I thinke he will not say and therfore to vse the wordes impudentia nequitia and falsissimum in a matter so doubtfull might perhaps haue byn omitted but much more ought to haue byn the multiplicity of falsities vsed by T. M. in relating the same namely in bringing in Cardinall Bellarmine with such ardent desire to haue him contradicted disgraced as he not only applieth to him that which was spokē against another but reciting also two lines of his speech besides other manglinges shufleth in falsly two or three words that ouerthrow the whole controuersy to wit separatus extra Regnum that King Ozias was separated by Azarias the Priest forth of the Kingdome wheras Bellarmine hath not these wordes extra Regnum at al but only that he was separated from the Citty extra vrbem in domo solitaria forth of the Citty in a solitary house which thing the Scripture it self before related doth testify wherby yow see what botching there
is to bring matters to his purpose and yet will he needs stile him self The Minister of simple truth 12. It followeth in the 16. page thus Your deuise saith he of exemption of Priestes from the iurisdiction of temporall Princes in certaine cases is to crude to be disgested by any reasonable Deuine for as your Victoria saith Priestes besides that they are Ministers of the Church they are likewise members of the Common-wealth and a King is aswell a King of the Clergy as of the laity therfore the Clergy is subiect vnto the ciuill authority in temporall thinges for such matter is not ruled by any power spirituall A plaine demonstration So he And I say the same that indeed it is a plaine demonstration of his egregious falshood and abusing his Reader First in making him belieue that the learned man Franciscus de Victoria doth fauour him or his in this matter of the exemption of Priestes wheras in this very place heere cited by T. M. his first proposition of all in this matter is this Ecclesiastici iure sunt exempti c. I doe affirme that Ecclesiasticall men are by Law exempted and freed from ciuill power so as they may not be conuented before a secular Iudge either in criminall or ciuill causes the contrary doctrine to this is condemned for Hereticall among the articles of Iohn VVickliffe in the Councell of Constance So he And now see whether Victoria make for him or no or whether he disgested well this crude doctrine of Priestes exemption as this Ministers phrase is 13. Secondly if we consider either the English translation heere set downe out of the wordes of Victoria or his Latin text for ostentation sake put in the margent wee shall find so many and monstrous foule corruptions intercisions geldinges and mutilations as is a shame to behold and I beseech the learned Reader to haue patience to conferre but this one place only with the Author and he will rest instructed in the mās spirit for the rest but he must find them as I hà ue cited them heere in the margent and not as T. M. erroneously quoteth them if not of purpose to escape the examine For that Victoria hauing set downe his precedent generall proposition for the exemption of Clergy men that they were exempted Iure by Law he passeth on to examine in his second proposition Quo iure by what Law diuine or humane they are exempted and in his third he holdeth that Aliqua exemptio Clericorum est de iure Diuino That some kinde of exemptions of Clergy men from ciuill power is by diuine Law and not humane only and fourthly he commeth to this which heere is set downe by T. M. but not as he setteth it downe Our fourth proposition saith Victoria is that the persons of Clergy men are not absolutly and in all thinges exempted from ciuill power either by diuine or humane lawe which is euident by that Clergy men are bound to obey the temporall lawes of the Citty or Cōmon-wealth wherin they liue in those thinges that doe appertaine to the temporall gouernment and administration therof and doe not let or hinder Ecclesiasticall gouernment 14. These are the wordes of Victoria as they ly togeather in him and then after some argumentes interposed for his said conclusion he addeth also this proofe That for so much as Clergy mē besides this that they are Ministers of the Church are Citizens also of the Common-wealth they are bound to obey the temporall lawes of that Common-wealth or Prince in temporall affaires and then ensueth the last reason heere set downe in English by T. M. in these wordes Moreouer saith Victoria for that a King is King not only of laymen but of Clergy-men also therfore aliquo modo subiiciuntur ei in some sort they are subiect vnto him Which wordes aliquo modo in some sorte the Minister leaueth out and then it followeth immediatly in Victoria And for that Clergy-men are not gouerned in temporall matters by Ecclesiasticall power therfore they haue their temporall Prince vnto whome they are bound to yeeld obedience in temporall affaires 15. And this is all that Victoria hath in this matter in these very wordes And let any man consider the patching which T. M. vseth both in English and Latin in this place to make some shew for his fained demonstration out of Victoria and he will see how poore and miserable a man he is and how miserable a cause he defendeth And in particular let the very last proposition be noted which he citeth and Englisheth as out of Victoria to wit the Clergy is subiect vnto the ciuill authority in temporall thinges for such matter is not ruled by any power spirituall wherby he would haue his Reader to imagine that no spirituall power may haue authority to gouerne temporall matters wheras the wordes of Victoria are Clerici quantum ad temporalia non administrantur potestate Ecclesiastica that Clergy men for so much as appertaineth to temporall affaires are not gouerned by Ecclesiasticall power but by the temporall which there beareth rule So as this fellow by a subtile sleight changing the nominatiue case from Clerici non administrantur to temporalia non administrantur frameth his plaine demonstration out of plaine cosenage and forgery And is this naked innocency 16. From the page 18. vnto 27. he handleth togeather many sentences and authorities of ancient Fathers alledged by Catholicke Authors Cunerus Tolosanus and especially Barkleius to shew that the Apostles and their successours and those Fathers amongest the rest did not take armes against their Princes either Infidels or Christians but did rather suffer iniuries then seeke by force to reuenge the same which being our conclusion in like manner and held and defended by our Catholicke writers as yow see and that for the most part by name against Protestant writers practisers both in Scotland France Flanders other places yow may perceaue how corruptly this is brought in against vs as though our common beliefe and exercise were the contrary this may be called falsification and sophistication of our meaning 17. But yet if we would examine the particular authorities that be alledged about this matter though nothing making against vs as hath byn said consider how many false shiftes are vsed by T. M. therin yow would say he were a Doctor in deed in that science for that a seuerall Treatise will scarce conteine them I will touch only two for examples sake He citeth Doctor Barkley bringing in the authority of S. Ambrose that he resisted not by force his Arrian Emperour when he would take a Church from him for the Arrians but he setteth not downe what answere of his Doctor Barkley doth alledge in the very self same place which is Allegatur Imperatori licere omnia c. It is alledged that it is lawfull for the Emperour to doe all thinges for that all thinges are his and
consequently that he may assigne a Church to the Arrians Wherto I answere saith S. Ambrose trouble not your selfe O Emperour nor thinke that yow haue Imperiall right ouer those thinges that are diuine doe not exalt your selfe but if yow wil raigne long be subiect to God for it is written that those thinges that belong to God must be giuen to God and to Cesar only those thinges that belōg to Cesar Pallaces appertaine to the Emperour but Churches to the Priest the right of defending publicke walles is committed to yow but not of sacred thinges Thus Doctor Barkley out of S. Ambrose in the very place cited by T. M. which he thought good wholy to pretermit and cut of as not making for his purpose and so had he done more wisely if he had left out also the other authority of Pope Leo which he reciteth in the eight place of authorities out of ancient Fathers in these wordes 18. The eighth Father saith he is Pope Leo writing to a true Catholicke Emperour saying Yow may not be ignorant that your Princely power is giuen vnto yow not only in worldly regiment but also spirituall for the preseruation of the Church as if he said not only in cases temporall but also in spirituall so far as it belongeth to the outward preseruation not to the personall administration of them and this is the substance of our English oath And surther neither doe our Kinges of England chalenge nor subiectes condescend vnto In which wordes yow see two thinges are conteined first what authority S. Leo the Pope aboue eleuen hundred yeares gone ascribed vnto Leo the Emperour in matters spirituall and Ecclesiasticall The second by this mans assertion that neither our Kinges of England chaleng nor doe the subiectes condescend vnto any more in the oath of the Supremacy that is proposed vnto them which if it be so I see no cause why all English Catholickes may not take the same in like manner so far forth as S. Leo alloweth spiritual authority to the Emperour of his time Wherfore it behooueth that the Reader stand attent to the deciding of this question for if this be true which heere he saith our controuersy about the Supremacy is at an end 19. First then about the former point let vs consider how many waies T. M. hath corrupted the foresaid authority of S. Leo partly by fraudulent allegation in Latin and partly by false translation into English For that in Latin it goeth thus as himself putteth it downe in the margent Debes incunctanter aduertere Regiam potestatem non solùm ad mundi regimen sed maximè ad Ecclesiae praesidium esse collatam Yow ought ô Emperour resolutly to consider that your Kingly power is not only giuen vnto yow for gouernment of the world or worldly affaires but especially for defence of the Church and then doe ensue immediatly these other wordes also in S. Leo suppressed fraudulently by the Minister for that they explicate the meaning of the Author Vt ausus nefarios comprimendo quae bene sunt statuta defendas veram pacem his quae sunt turbata restituas To the end that yow may by repressing audacious attemptes both defend those thinges that are well ordeined and decreed as namely in the late generall Councell of Calcedon and restore peace where matters are troubled as in the Citty and Sea of Alexandria where the Patriarch Proterius being slaine and murdered by the conspiracy of the Dioscorian Heretickes lately condemned in the said Councell all thinges are in most violent garboiles which require your imperiall power to remedy compose and compresse the same 20. This is the true meaning of S. Leo his speech to the good and Religious Emperour of the same name as appeareth throughout the whole Epistle heere cited and diuers others Nonne perspicuum est saith he quibus pietas vestra succurrere quibus obuiare ne Alexandrina Ecclesia c. Is it not euident whome your Imperiall piety ought to assist and succour and whome yow ought to resist and represse to the end the Church of Alexandria that hitherto hath byn the house of praier become not a den of theeues Surely it is most manifest that by this late barbarous and most furious cruelty in murdering that Patriarch all the light of heauenly Sacramentes is there extinguished Intercepta est Sacrificij oblatio defecit chrismatis sanctificatio c. The oblation of sacrifice is intermitted the hallowing of Chrisme is ceassed and all diuine misteries of our Religion haue withdrawne themselues from those parricidiall handes of those Heretickes that haue murdered their owne Father and Patriarch Proterius burned his body and cast the ashes into the ayer 21. This then was the cause and occasion wherin the holy Pope Leo did implore the helpe and secular arme of Leo the Emperour for chastising those turbulent Heretiks to which effect he saith that his Kingly power was not only giuen him for the gouernmēt of the world but also for the defence of the Church which our Minister doth absurdly translate not only in worldly regiment but also spirituall for the preseruation of the Church turning ad into in and praesidium into preseruation and then maketh the commentary which before we haue set downe As if he had said quoth he not only in causes temporall but also in spirituall so far as it belongeth to outward preseruation not to the personall administratiō of them 22. And heere now he sheweth himself intangled not only about the assertion of Imperiall power in spirituall matters by that S. Leo saith it is giuen ad praesidium Ecclesiae to the defence of the Church which proueth nothing at all for him but against him rather as yow see and much more in the explication therof to wit what is meant by this authority how farre it strecheth it self wherin truly I neuer found Protestant yet that could cleerly set downe the same so as he could make it a distinct doctrine from ours and giue it that limites which his fellowes would agree vnto or themselues make probable 23. About which matter M. Morton heere as yow see who seemeth no small man amongest them and his booke must be presumed to haue come forth with the approbation and allowance of his Lord and Maister the Archbishop at least saith as yow haue heard that it is no more but such as S. Leo allowed in the Emperour ad Ecclesiae praesidium to the defence of the Church and Church matters and men and for punishing Heretickes that troubled the same And further more T. M. expoundeth the matter saying That this Imperiall Kingly authority in spirituall causes reacheth no further but as it belongeth to outward preseruation not to the personall administration of them And doe not we graunt also the same Or doe not we teach that temporall Princes power ought principally as S. Leo saith to extend it self to the defence ad preseruation
of words yet in substance is it much for that therby T. M. would make his Reader belieue that Bellarmine cleereth Caluin and Beza from all sortes of errour in this point for that purpose turneth illum into illos and hoc errore into errore that is to say him into them and this errour into any errour at all wheras Bellarmine though in one sense he excuse him yet absolutly doth he condemne him as yow haue heard and no man can deny but that his Latin wordes were heere fraudulently and perfidiously alledged and mangled by T. M. for that he could not doe it but wittingly and of purpose and yet forsooth this man will not Equiuocate as he saith for a world though lye he will manifestly for much lesse as yow see And so much of this vntill we come to examine the matter more largely afterward in the third Part of this Chapter 58. And heere I will passe ouer many thinges that might be noted out of the sequent pages mamely 30. 31. 34. where he doth so peruert and abuse both the wordes discourse and sense of diuers Authors alledged by him as is not credible to him that doth not compare them with the bookes themselues from whence they are taken As for example Royardus the Franciscane Friar is brought in with commendation of an honest Friar for that he saith that a King when he is made by the people can not be deposed by them againe at their pleasure which is the same doctrine that all other Catholickes doe hold so long as he conteineth himself within the nature of a King for that otherwise which is the question in cōtrouersy Royard himself saith parendum 〈◊〉 non esse that he is not to be obeyed but this is not to be iudged by the people and their mutiny as Protestant Doctors teach 59. And to like effect he citeth a discourse though most brokenly alledged out of Bishop Cunerus writing against the Rebells of Flanders and testifying that it lieth not in the peoples hand to reiect their Prince at their pleasure as those Protestant subiectes did and then M. Morton as though he had achieued some great victory triumpheth exceedingly saying That forsomuch as Friars in our Councells haue no voice but only Bishops he hath brought forth a Bishop against vs whome for that the moderate Answerer had named a little before this man scornfully telleth him Caesarem appellasti ad Caesarem ibis yow haue appealed to Cunerus and now he shal be your Iudge against yow And is not this great folly and insolency for that Cunerus in all that his booke saith nothing against vs but altogeather for vs to represse the Rebellion in Flanders as hath byn signified And secōdly notwithstanding all this exact obediēce which both he and we prescribe and require at subiectes handes towardes their lawfull Princes he hath a speciall Chapter which is the third after this alledged heere by T. M. wherin he doth expressely largly proue that in some cases when Princes fall into intollerable disorders there is authority left in the common-wealth and Church of Christ to restraine and remoue them What falshood is this then to alledge Authors thus directly against their owne sense meaning and whole drift doth this become a Minister of simple truth Is this for a man that somuch abhorreth Equiuocation 60. I let passe as trifles in this very place but yet such as shew a guilty minde and meaning that he citing the booke of Alexander Carerius a Doctor of the Canon law in Padua which he wrote of late de Potestate Romani 〈◊〉 putteth in of his owne contra huius temporis Haereticos against the Heretickes of this time which are not in the title of that booke and then wheras the said Author naming or citing many other writers to be of his opinion doth say nuperrimè verò Celsus Mancinus in tract de Iuribus Principatuum c. and last of all Celsus Mancinus doth hold the same in a certaine Treatise of the rightes of principalities this man to frame vnto himself some matter of insultation turneth verò into verè and then playeth ridiculously vpon his owne fiction in these wordes Carerius citeth another called Celsus by interpretation high or lofty and therfore insignes him with verè Celsus as truly so named and so truly he may be if we iudge him by the loftines of his stile and conclusion So he And doe yow see this folly Or will yow thinke it rather folly then falshood that could not discerne betweene verò and verè Or not be able to iudge by the contexture of Carerius his speech it selfe that it could not by apt construction be verè if he had lighted vpon a corrupt coppy as he could not for that there is but one and that hath very plainly verò and consequently all this Commentary of Thomas 〈◊〉 is out of his owne inuention And where now is the assurance of his vpright conscience protested to his Maiesty in his Epistle dedicatory where is his simplicity in Christ Iesus where his naked innocency Can this be ignorance can this be done but of purpose and consequently by a guilty conscience what may the hearer belieue of all he saith when euery where he is found intangled with such foolish treachery But let vs proceed 61. There followeth within two leaues after a heape not only of falshoodes but also of impudencies For wheras his Aduersary the moderate Answerer had said that not only Kinges but Popes also for Heresy by the Canon lawes were to be deposed he Answereth thus The Authors of the doctrine of deposing Kinges in case of Heresy doe professe concerning Popes that they cannot possibly be Heretickes as Popes and consequently cannot be deposed Not saith Bellarmine by any power Ecclesiasticall or tēporall no not by all Bishops assembled in a Councell Not saith Carerius though he should doe any thing preiudiciall to the vniuersall State of the Church Not saith Azorius though he should neglect the Canons Ecclesiasticall or peruert the Lawes of Kinges Not saith Gratians glosse though he should carry infinite multitudes of soules with him to hell and these forenamed Authors doe auouch for the confirmation of this doctrine the vniuersall consent of Romish Deuines and Canonistes for the space of an hundred yeares So he And in these wordes are as many notorious and shamelesse lies as there are assertions and Authors named by him for the same 62. For first the foure writers which he mentioneth there in the text to wit Bellarmine Carerius Azorius and Gratian doe expressely cleerly and resolutly hold the contrary to that he affirmeth out of them for that they teach and proue by many argumentes that Popes both may fall into Heresies and for the same be deposed by the Church or rather are ipso facto deposed and may be so declared by the Church and their wordes heere guilfully alledged
sect 15. it seemed saith he a plausible thing vnto them to cite out of Dauid the wordes now rehearsed verbo Domini coeli firmati sunt c. to proue that the Creation of the world was no lesse the worke of the holy Ghost then of the Sonne the second person in Trinity Sed infirma illa ratio fuit but that proofe was weake So Caluin very piously as yow see 84. From this Doctor Hunnius passeth to examine these wordes of the 45. Psalme as spoken of the Sonne of God Thronus tuus ô Deus in seculum seculi c. propterea vnxit te Deus Deus tuus c. Thy throne ô Lord is to endure for euer and therfore hath God euen thy God anointed thee with the oile of ioyfulnes aboue thy fellowes which the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrues saith Hunnius doth expresly apply vnto the eternall Diuinity of Christ but Caluin ouerthroweth the same by applying the meaning to haue byn of K. Salomon only The simple and naturall sense of this place saith Caluin is that Salomon did not gouerne Tyrannically as other Kinges but with right and equall lawes and therfore his Kingly seate should be stable for euer See how base a conceipt this man had of diuine thinges but yet heare him further for in another place he writeth thus Faciendum est c. VVe must confesse that this Psalme was made of Salomon as a bridesong of his marriage with the King of Egypts daughter Doe yow see the prophanity of this mans spirit But yet let vs produce a farre greater audacity of his 85. The Apostle S. Paul in the 4. to the Ephesians doth vrge much for proofe of Christes diuinity the wordes of the Psalme 67. Ascendens in altum captiuam duxit captiuitatem dona dedit hominibus c. He ascending vp to heauen did carry with him our Captiuity as captiue distributed giftes to men vpon earth which thing S. Paul doth vrge as a point of singuler moment for proofe of Christes diuinity But what saith Caluin yow shall heare what he writeth both of the thing and of his Censure of S. Paules simplicity in so applying the same Quia locum hunc Paulus saith he subtiliùs ad Christum deflexit Ephes. 4. videndum est quà m bene cum mente Dauidis conuenit For so much as Paul did more subtily wrest this place to Christ it is to be considered how well he agreeth therin with the mind or meaning of Dauid shewing in deed by diuers reasons that his exposition and application doth not agree with Dauids intention in that Psalme which is a most impious insolency if it be well considered 86. After this the said Doctor passeth on to cite that famous place of Esay the sixt Sanctus Sanctus Sanctus Dominus Exercituum as a testimony for the blessed Trinity by the witnes and allegation of al ancient writers wheras Caluin of purpose calleth the same into doubt saying in fauour of the Arrians Wheras ancient writers haue vsed this testimony of Esay whē they would proue the Trinity of persons in the essence of one God I doe not reiect their sentēce but yet if I should haue to doe with Hereticks I would rather vse more strong testimonies ne Haereticis ridiculi simus least we be ridiculous vnto Heretikes and in truth the Prophet by this triple repetition holy holy holy doth rather note a restles assiduity or continuance of Angelicall melody in the prayses of God c. And doe yow not see saith Hunnius how this arrogant fellow doth saucely pull by the locks old venerable antiquity making the same 〈◊〉 and how he instructeth the Arrians to illude or shifte of this sacred testimony for the blessed Trinity Could the Arrians doe more for themselues or their owne cause So he Shewing also the like boldnes and impiety in that he goeth about to weaken the Authority of Michaeas the Prophet vsed by all ancient Fathers for the proofe of Christes Godhead where he saith Et egressus eius ab initio à diebus aeternitatis and his going forth is from the beginning from the dayes of eternity which words Caluin though he cannot but grant for the euidēcy therof to appertaine to the diuinity of Christ yet doth he diuert the Prophetes meaning to a farre different sense and saith Hic est simplex sensus scio quosdam insistere pertinaciùs quod hic loquatur Propheta de aeterna essentia Christi c. This is the simple sense and meaning of the Prophet albeit I know that some doe more obstinatly contend that the Prophet speaketh heere of the eternall essence of Christ and for my part though I doe willingly acknowledge that the diuinity of Christ is heere proued yet for that we shall neuer get the Iewes to confesse it I would rather simply take the wordes of the Prophet as they sound So he And note heere his good reason saith Hunnius for that because the Iewes will not be brought to confesse the truth of this text Caluin himself will dissemble it also and peruert the Scriptures to another meaning to please them Is not this wickedly to betray the cause of Christians And is not this secretly to collude with the aduersaries Is not this by dissimulation to weakē our owne forces in fauour of the enemies But herof yow shall see more in that which ensueth Out of the new Testament §. 2. 87. ANd with these places and some other the said Doctor endeth his discourse for corrupting of the Scriptures of the old Testament in fauour of Iewes and Arrians passeth to the new shewing 〈◊〉 no lesse to fauour them both therin then in the other but rather much more And first he alledgeth that most excellent place of S. Iohns Ghospel before mentioned Ego Pater vnum sumus I and my Father are one which testimony al ancient Fathers without exception did vrge against the Arrians as an inuincible bulwark to proue the vnity of Godhead in Christ with his Father But what saith Caluin Ego saith he Pater vnum sumus abusi sunt hoc loco veteres vt probarent Christum esse Patri Homusion neque enim Christus de vnitate substantiae disputat sed de consensu quem cum Patre habet c. The ancient writers did abuse this place to proue 〈◊〉 that Christ was of the same nature and substance with his Father for that Christ did not dispute heere of the vnity of substance but of the vnity only of consent betweene him and his Father which was the very answere and shift of Arrius himselfe and of the old Arrians and is at this day saith Hunnius of the new Arrians in Transiluania and els where to wit of Franciscus Dauid Blandrata and others 88. And so in like manner where in the 10. and 14. of S. Iohn Christ our Sauiour repeateth oftentimes Ego 〈◊〉 in Patre
lying 26. Another example most manifest is in the fourth booke of the Kinges where the King of Syria sending certaine Captaines with forces to apprehend the Prophet Elizeus in the Citty of Dothaim he going forth of the Citty and meeting with the said Captaines they not knowing him said vnto them Non est haec via neque ista est Ciuitas sequimini me ostendam virum quem quaeritis This is not the way to Dothaim nor is this that Citty but doe yow follow me and I will shew vnto yow the man whome yow seeke for and so they did and he lead them into the middest of Samaria where the King of Israel his army might and would haue destroyed them if the said Prophet had permitted So as this stratageme also conteyning the exteriour shew of a great vntruth and falshood cannot be deined to haue byn lawfull in this Prophet as appeareth by the concurrence of God with diuers miracles in the same 27. The like may be shewed out of the example of Iudith who by the instinct of Almighty God and his plaine ordinance as the Scripture saith was sent to Holofornes who told him a long narration of many thinges that in euent and outward shew were not true as that he should get not only 〈◊〉 but Hierusalem also and conquer the whole nation of the Iewes adding therunto this asseueration Et misit me Dominus haec nunciare tibi and our Lord hath sent me to tell yow these thinges by which stratageme as you know she deliuered her whole countrey from the forces of the said Holofernes which otherwise had byn like to haue destroyed them 28. And thus much in this place for stratagemes in warre but for other examples great numbers might be alledged wherin some Equiuocations must needes be admitted though no ly as that of the Angell appearing to Toby the elder who being taken by him to be a man and demaunded of what family or tribe he was he said ego sum Azarias Ananiae Magni silius I am Azarias the Sonne of the Great Ananias wherunto Toby answered Ex magno genere tu es yow are of a great stocke indeed which yet was not so in the vnderstanding of the speaker and consequently heere must be confessed an euident Equiuocation or amphibology of speach wherby the hearer was deceaued And not vnlike to this is that speech of our Sauiour when standing in the temple he vsed to the Iewes demanding a miracle Doe yow dissolue this Temple and I will build it vp againe in three dayes meaning the Temple of his body but his hearers vnderstood him of the materiall Temple of Hierusalem and so to their sense it seemed that he speake for 〈◊〉 cause they accused him afterward very solemnly therof at this passion and insulted against him for the same vpon the crosse ergo Equiuocation may not alwayes be condemned for lying as our Minister auoucheth 29. I pretermit diuers other speeches of our Sauiour of like quality as that when he said to his brethren Ego non ascendam ad diem festum istum I will not goe vp to Hierusalem to this feast and yet he meant to goe vp and so went but not in publicke and therin stood the Equiuocation of his 〈◊〉 but his brethren vnderstood not his meaning for if they had no doubt they would not haue gone vp without him ergo one sense was vnderstood by the speaker and another by the hearer which wee shall afterward shew to be properly Equiuocation and yet no ly can be inforced theron but with singuler impiety 30. These wordes also of S. Paul to the Hebrewes Melchisedech King of Salem c. which was without Father without Mother without genealogy neither hauing beginning of his dayes nor end of his life must needs be confessed to haue an Equiuocation or amphibology in them and somewhat to be reserued by the speaker for their vnderstanding for as they lye they seeme impossible to be true that a man could be without Father Mother genealogy beginning or ending yet is there no more expressed by the Apostle but his meaning was that nothing is set downe in Scripture of those particularities 31. And finally the same Apostle S. Paul seing himself pressed at a certaine time in iudgment by his enemies and considering that they were of two factions Pharisies and Saduces wherof the one sort confesseth resurrection of the dead and the other not he protested openly that the cause wherof he was accused was about the said resurrection of the dead which though in his sense was true for that his chiefe trouble was for defending the resurrection of Christ and our hope of resurrection by him yet was it not so then in the vnderstanding of the hearers who vpon this deviding themselues let him goe yea the Pharisies began to excuse defend him in that Councell who otherwise were the greatest enemies of his Religion and profession By all which is seene that sometimes of necessity wee must admit some vse of Equiuocation without lying for otherwise many places of the Scriptures themselues and of other holy mens writings doings cannot be well vnderstood or defended as afterwardes more at large shall be shewed 32. But now to passe no further in the recitall of more argumentes to this purpose we may conclude with that common doctrine of Schole-men taken out of S. Augustine and other Fathers that albeit a ly is lawfull in no case yet often may it be lawfull to conceale a truth for that he handling those wordes of the Psalme Thou shalt destroy all those which speake lyes he saith Aliud est mentiri aliud verum occultare aliud est falsum dicere aliud verum tacere It is a different thing to ly to conceale a truth one thing to speake that which is false another thing to hold our peace in that which is true And then concludeth Non est ergo culpandum aliquando verum tacere c. It is not therfore to be reprehended if a man sometimes doe not vtter a truth which hardly can be performed in sundry cases without some amphibology or Equiuocation of speech consequently that this may be without lying And heerof one example may serue for all taken out of Hieremy the Prophet who hauing had a long conference in secret with Sedechias the King in Hierusalem told him many thinges of the will of God about his voluntary yeelding to the Chaldeans and army of Nabuchodonosor King Sedechias in conclusion said thus vnto him Nullus sciat verba haec c. Let no man know those wordes that thou hast spoken vnto me and thou shalt not dye if the Princes or Noble men of my Kingdome shall heare that thou hast spoken with me and shall come vnto thee and say tell vs what thou hast talked with the King and the King with thee and see thou hide nothing from vs thou
shalt say vnto them c. And the said Princes came to Hieremy and examined him and he spake vnto them according to all the wordes which the King had commanded him and so they left him 33. Thus far the Scripture and no man can probably imagine but that in this recapitulation made by Hieremy vnto the Princes of so long a conference had with the King in secret but that for couering of those thinges which the King would not haue to be vttered and the Noble men were greedy to know in such a dangerous and suspicious time of seige as that was Hieremy himself being held for more then half a traitour to his countrey for that he perswaded men to yeeld themselues to the common enemy no doubt I say but that in so strait an examinatiō as they would make about that matter in whose power his life and death as the Scripture signifieth did ly diuers Equiuocations of speeches must necessaryly be vsed by him though alwaies with a true sense in his meaning which is the difference betweene Equiuocation and lying as after more particulerly shall be shewed if first we set downe one other consideration for better declaring the difference in these two thinges and how farre those are from approbation of lying who in some cases doe admit Equiuocation in our doctrine The fifth Consideration §. 5. 34. IN the fifth place it may be considered about this matter how farre the teachers or allowers of Equiuocation are from teaching or allowing of lies which is the ordinary calumniation of this malicious Minister throughout his whole seditious booke which if it be proued to be a false charge then falleth all his accusation to the ground or rather vpon his owne head Wherfore we must stād somewhat more long vpon this point then vpon the former to the end it may appeare how 〈◊〉 a Minister of Sathan this is whose principall exercise hath euer byn to calumniate from the beginning and we shall talke especially of the Catholicke writers of these last foure hundred years by him mentioned and of the Popes of the same time that haue approued the same doctrine for that of this principall accusation that they made no difference betweene lying and Equiuocating but expresly rather patronized the one as much as the other 35. First then for battery of this wicked slaunder we will beginne our confutation from the receaued authority of the famous learned doctor S. Thomas of Aquin that liued and died aboue three hundred yeares gone He proposeth this question in his most excellent Summe of Deuinity VVhether all kind of lying be alwayes a sinne and consequently vnlawfull for any cause And he holdeth affirmatiuely that it is so alleadging many proofes and reasons for the same And the very same seuerity of doctrine in that point doe hold all other Schoolemen aswell after him as before him and our Minister himselfe citeth Vasquez the Iesuite late Reader of Deuinity in Spaine in certaine disputations of his vpon S. Thomas affirming Mendacium esse malum tam intrinsecè vt bonum reddi nulla ratione posset That a lye is so intrinsecally euill of his owne nature as that by no meanes it may be made good or lawfull And the like rigour of doctrine teacheth the said S. Thomas in the next question after against dissimulation and Hypocrisy which he saith to be a kind of lye in fact deceauing a man by exteriour signes or actes as the other sort of lies doth by wordes against both which kindes or sortes of lies or vntruthes he holdeth this conclusion That neither of them in any case is dispensable from sinne though in some cases one may be a lesse sinne then another and if this be so how then can Equiuocation be permitted by him if he held it to be a lye as our Minister would haue it For if as Vasquez said no sort of ly can be made lawfull by any circumstāce then must M. Morton grant that it followeth by the same reason that either Equiuocation is no ly or els that Vasquez the Iesuite and his fellowes doe not allow Equiuocation in any case whatsoeuer consequently that Iesuites are falsely accused by this fellow for admitting Equiuocation But let vs goe forward and shew his folly out of other Authors of no lesse antiquity 36. Before S. Thomas the Maister of the Sentences Peter Lombard in his third booke and 38. and 39. distinctiō holdeth the same seuerity against all sorts of lies and falsities deuiding them into three sortes to wit perniciosum officiosum iocosum the first pernicious or malicious that intendeth hurt without good the second that intendeth the good of some without hurte to any the third in iest all which notwithstanding are condemned for sinfull and no wayes to be practised or tolerated for any cause whatsoeuer though the secōd two sortes may be oftentimes veniall sinnes only but yet of such nature and so intrinsecally euill of themselues as neither for sauing our owne liues or the life of another man they ought wittingly to be committed as out of S. Augustine also by him and other Schoolemen alleadged is confirmed yea they alleadge eight seuerall kinds sortes or degrees of lies out of the same S. Augustine some farre lesse then others but yet none allowable and so they conclude with this sentence of the said Doctor Quisquis verò aliquod genus esse mendacij quod peccatum non sit putauerit decipit seipsum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 se deceptorem aliorum arbitretur Whosoeuer shall thinke that there is any kind of lye which is not sinne he 〈◊〉 deceaueth himselfe by thinking that he may be an honest deceauer of other men 37. This is the doctrine of the Maister of Sentences for foure hundred yeares past and of other Schoole Doctors ensuing after him vnto our time wherin yow see how rigorous they are in condemning lying wheron this Minister Thomas Morton either by chaūce or his good happe stumbling found store of matter to wrangle with vs in this controuersy and to make a shew of some reading of different Authors wherin otherwise he must haue byn very briefe and dry For whatsoeuer he hath of ostentation in this behalfe against Equiuocation is stolne 〈◊〉 of the said Maister of Sentences and Fathers by him alleadged spoken and meant by them against lying and not Equiuocation And is not this a goodly manhood trow yow deserueth he not a laurell for this conquest Our Authors detest lying and admit in some cases Equiuocation he applieth their detestation to Equiuocation or their admittance to lies and saith that he deuideth our tongues turneth our owne Authors against vs what a ridiculous toy and foolery is this But let vs see yet somewhat further 38. The same Schoole Doctors stay not heere but doe passe on to many other particularities for shewing their detestation against the foresaid kind of lying for fauouring wherof they are brought into question by this Minister
and equiuocall as you see they doe all determine our controuersy most cleerly and confound Mortons vanity most apparently that saith and auoucheth No one Iota to be found in all Scripture no one example in all antiquity for the iust proofe or colour of any such Equiuocation or mixt proposition 32. I should vtterly weary my Reader if I would follow all or the greatest Part of that which may be sayed in this behalfe for that alwaies commonly all Prophecies that are minatory and doe threaten punishment haue still some secret-reseruation if they repent not as that of Isay to King Ezechias Haec dicit Dominus dispone Domui tuae quia morieris tu non viues This 〈◊〉 our Lord dispose of thy houshold for thou shall dy and shalt not liue and yet he liued 〈◊〉 yeares after If therfore the Prophet had byn demaunded shall not Ezechias liue any longer he had answered no vpon what had fallen the negatiue no If only vpō the wordes vttered it had byn false for he liued longer but if vpon that togeather with the reseruation in the meaning of the holy Ghost it was true And the like may be said of the Prophecy of Ionas Adhuc quadraginta dies Niniue subuerietur There remaine but fourty dayes before Niniue shall be destroyed so infinite other places Wherfore in this Th. 〈◊〉 was greatly ouerseene in making of confident a chaleng as before yow haue heard THE THIRD POINT OF THIS CHAPTER CONCERNING Other Scriptures alleadged And pretended to be answered by Thomas Morton §. 3. 33. BVt now we must come to a greater conflict which is to examine how our aduersary hath answered certaine examples out of Scripture alleadged as he saith for I haue not yet seene the writing it selfe by a Catholicke Treatise in written-hand intercepted wherby the lawfulnes of this kind of Equiuocation is auouched by his answere to those that are cited by himselfe we may imagine what he will be able to say to these other which haue byn here produced by vs and innumerable others that might be alleadged Examples out of the old Testament First then out of the old Testament he produceth two examples only the one of Iacob that told his Father that he was his eldest sonne Esau which in deed he was not and consequently we must graunt that either he spake false lied which the ancient Fathers S. Ambrose S. Augustine and others doe piously deny or els that he had some reserued further sense in his mind wherby his said speach might be verified and consequently his proposition be ambiguous and Equiuocall 34. But herunto T.M. answereth first that Cardinall Caëtan and diuers other learned men doe hold that Iacob is inexcusable from some sort of 〈◊〉 in this his speach and for this he alleadgeth the testimony of Pererius a Iesuite in his Commentaries vpon Genesis who disputing this matter at large in fiue seuerall disputations whether Iacob did ly or sinne at all in this speach saith that the said Caïétan with some other moderne writers doe hold that it may be graunted that the said Patriarch did commit some veniall sinne by making an officious ly in that behalfe But what doth 〈◊〉 himselfe agree to that opinion No truly But maketh this title of his last disputation therabout The common sentence of Deuines saith he is declared and defended which doth excuse and free Iacob from all manner of lying in his foresaid speach and then beginning with S. Augustine who in diuers partes of his workes doth most earnestly defend the Patriarch Iacob in this behalfe by many and manifold reasons and authorities both from all ly and sinne doth shew and declare that his speach was figuratiue and not deceiptfull conteyning mysterium non mendacium a mystery and not a ly To which effect one place out of his booke against lying shall serue for all Non est mendacium saith he quando silendo absconditur verum sed cùm loquendo promitur falsum Iacob autem quòd matre fecit auctore vt patrem fallere videretur si diligenter fideliter attendatur non est mendacium sed mysterium c. It is no ly when a truth is concealed by silence but when a falsity by speach is vttered that which Iacob did by the persuasion of his mother as though he would deceaue his Father if it be diligently and faithfully considered was no ly but a mystery 35. And then a little after in the same Chapter talking of such misterious speaches that seeme to say one thing and yet doe meane another he saith thus Vera non falsa dicuntur quoniam vera non falsa significantur seu verbo seu facto quae significantur enim vtique ipsa dicuntur putantur autem mendacia quoniam non ea quae vera significantur dicta intelliguntur sed ea quae falsa sunt dicta esse creduntur In a mysterious speach true thinges and not false are spoken for that true thinges and not false are signified either by the word or fact that hath a mystery in it for that in deed those thinges are spoken which are mysteriously signified by the speach but they seeme to be lies for that all men vnderstād not those things that are truly signified by the speach but rather those thinges that are false are thought to be spoken So S. Augustine Wherby is euident what he meaneth by a mysterious speach to wit when one sense is gathered by the wordes another sense truly signified which the naturall signification of the wordes doe not beare and therby a mysterious proposition must be called also Equiuocall in the sense that now wee handle and consequently also S. Augustine must needes be graunted to admit this kind of Equiuocation without lying wherby he so earnestly defendeth this Patriarch from all kind of ly whatsoeuer 36. And with S. Augustine doe concurre in this defence of holy Iacob both S. Hierome S. Chrysostome S. Gregory Theodoret S. Ambrose S. Isidorus S. Bede and of later writers Rupertus Gratian Alexander Halensis Petrus Lombardus S. Thomas and almost infinite others so as for Th. Morton to creepe out now vnder the shaddow of Caïētan and two or three other moderne Authors more against the whole streme and torrent of so many ancient Fathers and Catholike Deuines is a ridiculous euasion and worthy of Thomas Mortons defence and full satisfaction 37. His second example out of the old Testament is that of Hieremy the Prophet set downe by me before in my seauenth Chapter and fourth Consideration therof which this Minister the better not to be vnderstood relateth only in these few obscure wordes out of his aduersaries answere Such Equiuocation saith he did the Prophet Ieremy vse Ier. 38. when he tooke aduise of the King This relation is briefe abrupt and darke as yow see but we haue declared the matter with the circumstances in the former place to wit how
his former proposition For if it were lawfull for Saint Athanasius to vse this Equiuocation in speach and fact for deluding his persecutors then had it bene lawfull also to sweare the same without sacrilegious prophanation if they had vrged him vnto it For as all Deuines hold that which may lawfully be said may also lawfully be sworne what will T. M. answere tò this what will he answere to that euasion of S. Paul mentioned by vs before when for escaping the hands of the Iewes that pursued him in iudgement he vsed an apparent equiuocall speach saying That his trouble was about the hope and resurrection of the dead Paul knowing saith the text that one parte of them that pursued him were of the Saduces that denyed the resurrection of the dead and the other of Pharises that held the contrary he cryed out in the iudgement-place saying De spe resurrectione mortuorum ego iudicor I am called to iudgement about the hope and resurrection of the dead which was true in one sense but false in another wherby the Pharises being deceyued tooke his parte Et facta est contentio sayth the text inter Pharisaeos Saducaeos soluta est multitudo and vpon this equiuocall speach there arose a dissention betwene the Pharises and Saduces one interpreting it in one sense and another in another and so the people departing the iudgement brake vp And what will Thomas Morton now answere to this did S. Paul lye in this Equiuocation or was his dissimulation impious for that one part was deceaued or had he committed 〈◊〉 prophanation if he had sworne it I demaund him also of that equiuocall oath of the Patriarch Ioseph who in one conference with his brethren did twice sweare vnto them 〈◊〉 Equiuocation that is to say with a reserued sense different from that he vttered to them in wordes the Scripture saying VVhen his brethren had adored him he knowing them to be his brethren spake sharpely vnto them as to strangers saying yow are spyes sent to discouer the strength of this land I sweare by the health of King Pharao yow shall not go hence c. And againe Per salutem Pharaonis c. I sweare by the health of Pharao that yow are spyes when notwithstanding he knew them not to be spyes so thought of them in his mynd And will T. M. say that this was a lye or at least a sacrilegious prophanation of an oath But I must go yet a little further in prosecution of this folly against the Minister 44. What then will he say to all those former examples of Equiuocall propositions which I haue alleaged out of holy Scripture out of the new Testamént and from the mouth of our Sauiour himselfe especially such as haue verball equiuocation in them As Dissolue this temple and I will build it vp againe in three dayes where the word temple hath euidently two significations and was taken in the one by Christ our Sauiour in the other by the Iewes And the other Our friend Lazarus sleepeth And againe The maid is not deed but sleepeth where the word sleepeth is equiuocall and hath two significations the one of death the other of naturall sleepe and Christ vnderstood it in the one and his hearers in the other And so the like where Christ said vnto the Iewes Abraham vidit diem meum gauisus est Abraham did see my day and did reioyce the word see is equiuocall and signifieth eyther seing in flesh or seing in spirite and the Iewes being deceyued with the equiuocation of the word vnderstood it in one sense and Christ in another wherupon they said vnto him Thou hast not yet fifty yeares of age and hast thou seene Abraham And therupon tooke stones to cast at him 45. And the very like example is of our Sauiours speach vnto the Samaritan at Iacobs well by the Citty of Sychar If thow knewest the gyfte of God and who it is that saith to thee Giue me water thou wouldest aske of him and he would giue thee liuing water where the word water being equiuocall signifieth both the element of water and heauenly grace which is the water of lyfe euerlasting which Equiuocation the woman not vnderstanding tooke it in the common sense of naturall water and asked him how he could giue her water for so much as he had no bucket to draw it vp in but Christ our Sauiour addeth an other equiuocall speach to her saying That he which shall drinke of the water which I will giue him shall neuer thirst more where not only the word water but the word thirst also is equiuocall hath two different senses wherby the woman deceaued said Giue me I pray of this water that I may thirst no more nor come hither to draw vnderstanding still of materiall water 46. Now I would demaund that for so much as all these speaches were manifestly equiuocall and had double senses and significations and that 〈◊〉 ech one of them the hearers were deceaued conceauing another sense then that which Christ mentally reserued to himselfe I would demaund I say whether notwithstanding this they were not true of themselues and whether Christ might not as well sweare them as speake them And if Thomas Morton will haue many examples togeather wherin Christ our Sauiour after his manner of swearing which is Amen amen dico vobis doth sweare or auouch by oath sundry equiuocall propositions let him looke vpon the later parte of the sixt Chapter of S. Iohn where Christ doth put the Antithesis betwene himselfe and Moyses and betwene the bread that Moyses gaue from heauen that which he was to giue being his owne flesh and betwene the lyfe that Manna gaue and that which his flesh was to giue and he shall fynd many equiuocall propositions both verball and mentall auouched by our Sauiour vnder this kind of oath repeated at least three or foure tymes in that matter One example of ech kynd shall suffice 47. When he saith Amen amen dico vobis qui credit in me babet vitam aeternam Truly truly I say vnto yow that he who beleeueth in me hath lyfe euerlasting this is a mentall reserued proposition as before hath byn shewed for that it is not true generally that euery one that beleeueth in Christ hath lyfe euerlasting but he that beleeueth accordingly which was reserued in Christs mynd and then the wordes immediatly following Ego sum panis vitae I am the bread of lyfe haue a verball equiuocation signifying of bread that gaue tēporall lyfe or spirituall lyfe as also the other words that ensue Your Fathers did eate manna in the deserte and are dead but he that shall eate of this bread shall not dye Dying heere signifyeth eyther the death of the body or the death of the soule and Christ meant of the later 〈◊〉 the Iewes of the first Nay which is more to be obserued as Euthymius noteth and
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
c. by his letters patentes with the counsell and consent of the Bishops and Counsellours of his nation did giue to the 〈◊〉 of Abindon in Barkshire and to one Ruchinus Abbot of that Monastery a certayne portiō of his land to wit fifteene Mansians in a place called by the country-men Culnam with all profittes and commodityes great and small appertayning thervnto for euerlasting inheritance And that the foresaid Ruchinus c. should be quiet from all right of the Bishop for euer so as the inhabitantes of that place shall not be depressed for the tyme to come by the yoke of any Bishop or his officers but that in all euentes of thinges and controuersyes of causes they shall be subiect to the decree of the Abbot of the said Monastery so as c. And then doth M. Attorney continue his speach thus This Charter was pleaded in 1. H. 7. and vouched by Stanford as at large appeareth which Charter graunted aboue 850. yeares sithence was after confirmed per Eduinum Britaniae Anglorum Regem Monarcham anno Domini 955. by which appeareth that the King by this Charter made in Parliament for it appeareth to be made by the Counsell and consent of his Bishops Senators of his Kingdome which were assembled in Parlament did discharge and exempt the said Abbot from the Iurisdiction of the Bishop c. And by the same Charter did grant to the same Abbot Ecclesiasticall iurisdiction within his said Abbey which Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction being deriued from the Crowne continued vntill the dissolution of the said Abbey in the raigne of King Henry the eight So he 85. And by this yow may see what an important conclusion he doth inferre of the Kinges supreme iurisdiction in spirituall affayres at that time Whervnto the Deuine comming to answere and supposing that M. Attorney would not falsity or belye his Authors hauing protested most solemnly fol. 40. of his his booke that he had cyted truly the very wordes and textes of the lawes resolutions iudgmentes and actes of Parlament all publicke and in print without any inference argument or amplification quoting particularly the bookes yeares leaues Chapters and other such like certayne references as euery man at his pleasure may see and read them c. The answerer I say hearing this formall protestation and supposing besides that the man would haue some respect to his credit and honour in this behalfe granting all as it lay answered the same as yow may see in his booke but now vpon better search it falleth out that this whole 〈◊〉 was falsely alledged by M. Attorney in the very point of the principall controuersy in hand about the Kinges spiritual Iurisdiction for that whatsoeuer the Charter did ascribe expresly to the Pope his Authority the Attorney suppressing the true wordes relateth it as proceeding from the King temporall authority of his Crowne For proofe wherof I shall set downe the very wordes of my learned friends letter out of England about this point after view taken of the law-bookes themselues and then let any man say how farre M Attorney is to be credited in any thing he writeth or speaketh against Catholickes 86. As concerning saith he the Charter of King Kenulphus for the Sanctuary of the Monastery of Abindon yow must know that M. Attorney hath egregiously abused his Reader in that and other points For the Case standeth thus That in the first yeare of King Henry the 7. Humphrey Stafford was attainted by Act of Parlament of high 〈◊〉 and tooke Sanctuary first in Colchester in Essex after fled to Culnam and tooke Sanctuary in the Abbey of Abindon and being taken from thence brought vnto the Tower of London from thence brought vnto the Kings-bench he pleaded that he was drawne by force out of the said Sanctuary of Culnam and prayed his Counsell to plead that poynt which by all the Iudges of both benches was graunted vnto him And so they pleaded in this manner 87. Idem Humphridus per Consilium suum dixit quod Kenulphus Rex Merciorum per litteras suas patentes consilio consensu Episcoporum Senatorum gentis suae largitus fuit Monasterio de Abindon ac cuidam Ruchino tunc Abbati Monasterij illius quandam ruris sui portionem id est quindecim Mansias in loco qui a ruricolis tunc nuncupabatur Culnam cum omnibus vtilitatibus ad 〈◊〉 pertinentibus tam in magnis quà m in modicis rebus in aeternam haereditatem Et quod praedictus Ruchinus ab omni Regis obstaculo Episcopali iure in sempiternum esset quietus vt inhabitatores eius nullius Regis aut ministrorum suorum Episcopiue aut suorum Officialium iugo inde deprimerentur sed in cunctis rerum euentibus discussionibus causarum Abbatis Monasterij praedicti decreto subijcerentur 〈◊〉 quod c. And heere ceaseth M. Attorney leauing out as yow see in his recitall the wordes that go before ab omni Regis obstaculo c. that the monastery should be free from all obstacle of the King as also these wordes vt inhabitatores eius nullius Regis aut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 deprimantur that the inhabitants be not opprest with any yoke of any King or his ministers wherby is euident that the King in his Charter did for his part giue exemptions from temporall royall power but especially the fraude is seen by cutting of the wordes that do ensue which decyde the whole controuersy which are these Et etiam allegauit vltra quod Leo tunc Papa concessit dicto Abbati dictas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Et quod Eduinus tunc Britaniae Anglorum Rex Monarchus concessit quod praefatum Monasterium omnis terrenae seruitutis esset liberum quae 〈◊〉 praedecessoribus suis Catholicis videlicet à dicto Sancto Leone Papa dicto Rege Kenulpho c. Et quod virtute litter arum bullarum praedictarum tempore confectionis earundem eadem villa de Culnam fuit Sanctuarium locus priuilegiatus c. Which in English is thus And moreouer the said Humphrey Stafford by his Counsell alledged furthet for himselfe that Pope Leo had graunted vnto the said Abbot the said immunityes and priuiledges that K. Edwin then King monarch ouer all the English in Britany had graunted that the said Monastery should be free from all earthly seruitude which by his Catholike predecessors to wit the said holy Pope 〈◊〉 the said King Kenulphus was graunted and that at the tyme of the making of the foresaid letters patentes and Bulles the said village or towne of Culnam was a Sanctuary and priuiledged place by vertue of the said patents and Bulles 88. This is word for word the very plea of Humphrey Stafford for the Sāctuary of the Monastery of Abindon as it was pleaded by his learned Counsell in law euen as it is recorded in the reportes of the yeares of King Henry the seauenth as
they are printed by Pinson the law-printer in the tyme of King Henry the eight before the Protestant religion came vp And the Lord Brooke in his Abridgement of the law in the tytle of Corone placito 129. doth accordingly sett downe the same case with mencyoning of the Bulles of Pope 〈◊〉 for the said immunities and priuiledges But all the Protestant editions in the tyme of the late Queene Elizabeth printed by Tottell and 〈◊〉 wert haue committed a notable tricke of falsificatiō in leauing out altogeathcr these markable wordes That Leo then Pope did graunt the said immunityes and priuiledges and also those wordes of King Edwyn which of his Catholike 〈◊〉 S. Leo King Kenulphus were granted c. And againe By force of the letters and Bulles aforesaid the said village of Culnam was a Sanctuary and place priuiledged 89. And hereby allois euident that the King did not by his Charter in Parliament for it appeareth to be made by the Counsell and consent of his Bishops and Senators not by Parlament as M. Attorney doth misreport it neyther was there any Parlament held at that tyme in the land or many hundred yeares after for as it appeareth by Holinsheds Cronicle pag. 34. the first vse of Parlament in England was in the tyme of King Henry the first it is cleare I say that the King did not discharge and exempt the said Abbot from Iurisdiction of the Bishop nor did graunt vnto the said Abbot Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction within the said Abbey neyther had that Abbot any Ecclesiasticall Iurisdiction deriued from the Crowne But as it appeareth by the authenticke reporte of the Case the Pope and the King did both ioyne in making the said Sanctuary according vnto their seuerall powers authorityes So that the exemption from Episcopall Iurisdiction did proceed duely from the graunt of Pope Leo as likewise the exemption from all regall and temporall Iurisdiction proceed from the Charter of King Kenulphus Note also that King Edwins grant was only that the said Monastery should be free from all earthly seruitude and toucheth not any spirituall immunities or iurisdiction at all 90. Thus farre my friend out of England And by this now yow may see how well M. Attorney hath obserued his foresaid protestation that he had cyted the very wordes and textes of the lawes without any inference argumēt or amplification at all And this being my friends aduertisement from England with like obseruation of many other places cyted by M. Attorney with like fidelity I thought good to produce this one amongst many being the first in order for a taste in this place reseruing the rest to a fitter or at leastwise to a second Edition of the foresaid answere of the Catholicke Deuyne where euery thing may be referred to his due place And with this will I end both this Chapter and the whole Booke THE CONCLVSION OF THE VVHOLE VVORKE VVith a briefe exhortation vnto Catholickes not to use the liberty of Equiuocation euen in lawfull cases but where some urgent occasion induceth them therunto CHAP. XIII AND now gentle reader hauing brought this Treatise to an end and iustified as I hope our Catholicke doctrine in the eyes and Iudgments of all indifferent men from the two odious imputations of Rebellion and Equiuocation iniuriouslie cast vpon the same by the malice of Thomas Morton there remayneth nothing but that I conclude this our small labour with an exhortation to all Catholicke people not only to abstayne from the first which is vtterly vnlawfull I meane the attempting of any thing contrary to their loyall dutyes in subiection be their pressures neuer so great but also from the practice and frequent vse of the second though in some cases most lawfull as abundantly hath byn 〈◊〉 except some vrgent occasion or obligation either of defence of innocency secresy right iustice or the auoyding of open wrong do force them to the contrary For as the holy Apostle in two seuerall places affirmeth to the Corinthians in cases not much vnlike to this about matter of scandall Omnia mihi licent sed non omnia expediunt All thinges are lawfull vnto me touching meates and other such thinges but all are not expedient to be practised And againe Omnia 〈◊〉 licent sed non omnia edificant All things are lawfull vnto me but all things do not edifye So I say in this case that albeit a man may without breach of truth or offence of almighty God in certayne cases equiuocate or vse a doubtfull speach for a good and necessary end either in oath or out of oath though the hearer doe not alwayes vnderstand it or be deceyued therwith and that many holy men haue done the same yea Christ himselfe that is the example and paterne of all holinesse and truth in speach as by many examples before at large hath byn declared yet considering the tymes and condition therof wherin Catholicks at this day liue in England the offence and scandall which Protestants and some others that vnderstand not the lawfulnes therof or will not vnderstand the same do receyue or raise thervpon my wish and counsell to Catholickes should be to vse the benefit of this liberty most sparingly euen in lawfull thinges and neuer but vpon great and vrgent 〈◊〉 and occasions 2. And the reasons of this my wish and counsell are principally the two already touched The one the auoyding of scandall euen with the Aduersary himself and that as Catholicke Religion is the only true in doctrine so the practice also therof in conuersation should not only be in all truth and sincerity re ipsa in very deed but in opinion likewise and estimation of others in so much as the word of a Catholicke man ought to weigh more then the oath of an other and the oath or promise of a Catholicke more then any band or obligation of an other which for the most parte I doubt not but is so already taken in England For that albeit by this doctrine before declared about Equiuocation men do know that Catholickes in certayne cases may vse the same yet know they also that the said cases are straitly limited with many exceptions and that in common conuersation as in buying selling traffique and the like Equiuocation may not be vsed to the 〈◊〉 or preiudice of any man and that in Iudgments and tribunals where most vse therof doth fall out all lawyers Iudges and Magistrates do know in Catholicke Countryes wherin the 〈◊〉 may vse Equiuocation wherin not and consequently truth Iustice can suffer no wrōg therby And moreouer they know as before hath byn said that the obligation of a Catholicke man is so great to auoyde all kynd of lyes whether veniall or mortall as for the gayning of a world no one is wittingly and willingly to be committed which accōpt I doubt whether men of other sectes and Religion do make or noe So as though already I perswade my self that
num 8. Abused by Tho. Morton Ibid. num 27. VVitnesses hovv and vvhen they are obliged to speake the truth cap. 10. nu 25. 26. Y YESTVVERT the Printer his falsification in printing the Charter of K. Kenulphus cap. 12. nu 88. Z ZVINGLIVS the chiefe styrrer of Rebellion in the Cantons of Zuitzerland c. 1. num 14. Slaine Ibid. Zuinglianisme impugned by Luther cap. 2. nu 15. 16. FINIS The Authors first intention 4. Reg. 18. Esay 36. 〈◊〉 of hearers Reasons of the dedication Sundry heades vvherin Equiuocation is touched both in Lavv and Deuinity T M his appâ—ale to his Maiesty Epist â— initio The conformity of T. M. A Minister of simple truth Epistle to the King A sayned march against his Maiesty A 〈◊〉 march against his Maiesty VaÌ„guard 〈◊〉 CathoIicke Gentlemen suffering for his Maiesties title 〈◊〉 accused for their deuotion to the title of Scotland * Gen. 11. 7. 9. The vanity 〈◊〉 T. M in deuidinge our tongues A fond vaunt of T. M. refated Epist. ad Regem A false and malitious obseruation of T. M. against Popes refuted Hovv T. M. his bookes are so published as not published Epistle to the King against Equiuocation T. M. his idle Epistle to the deceaued brethren 1. Tim. 2. The diffi culty of 〈◊〉 M. hovv men may knovv vvhat is done 〈◊〉 they are a sleepe resolued Iohn 11. Priesthood of the old TestameÌ„t derided by T. M. greatly honored by Christ and his Apostles Act. 23. Heb. 7. 1. Thes. 2. False calumniations Baron tom 2. anno 100. sub finem in tom 8. anno 604. fusè The defence of the bodily assumptioÌ„ of the B. virgin See S. Bernard in his 5. Sermons of the Assumption of our B. Lady alibi Miracles vvrought by God for the coÌ„uersion of the Indians scoffed at by T. M. Act. 4. Marc. vlt. The contumely of T. M. about S. Francis louse * Anglicanos * Flemus Plus quà m ciuilia The pittifull 〈◊〉 of EnglaÌ„d Iusque datum sceleri Populumque potentem in sua c. Mat. 12. Exasperations Psal. 136. Malitious extension Of bookes and pamphletes Commotion of vvales In the Epistle of T. H. 22. Iunij 1605. * Auant false and lying Varlets saith one your vvordes are vaine and your hopes are more vaine Sir Edward Cookes booke against Catholicks His argument M. Attorneyes paradox of English Kings * Novv I heare it is answered False odious 〈◊〉 of M. Attorney The booke of T. M. about Romish doctrine A discourse vvithout name of Author or truth of argument Another Treatise Two other furious bookes * Now they are passed The Princely moderation of his Maiesty in his speach VVhat is Catholicum according to S. Augustine VVhich is the best sort of Catholicks My Lord of Salisbury his booke Against my Lord of Salisburies Deuine The first question about authority ouer Princes The second questioÌ„ The third questioÌ„ Sess. 15. About the doctrine of Equiuocation The law fulnes necessity and circumstances of EquiuocatioÌ„ The argument of the ensuing booke against T. M. The 〈◊〉 drift and seditious scope of T. M. The maine propositioÌ„ of T. M. censured Cicero lib. offic Inconueniences of exasperation and despaire Sheepe-biters not to be tolerated in a Common vvealth His vniuersall proposition improued by diuerse particulers 10. Reasons About doctrine and practice of Rebellion 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. An impor tant consideratioÌ„ Caluinian doctrine about obe 〈◊〉 to Princes Archb. of Cant. in the first Booke of dangerous positions cap. 4. 5. and 〈◊〉 in the Suruey of pretended discipline Forraine vvriters of Protestantes pernicious doctrine against Princes Launay in Replique Christienne lib. 1. c. 9. 6 n. 1566. Belfor lib. 6. cap. 〈◊〉 fol. 1565. A ' markeable point Practice of the Protestant doctrine for tumultes against Princes The Rebellions vpon Luthers doctrine The Smalcaldian associatioÌ„ Multitudes of insurrectioÌ„s against true Princes by the nevv Ghospel North. South In the East In the VVest France Flanders England Scotland See the Histories of ScotlaÌ„d 〈◊〉 by BucchanaÌ„ and Knox and by Holinshed and my Lord of 〈◊〉 his booke of dangerous Positions cap. 2. 3. 4. c. 〈◊〉 afflictions and death of Q Mary Regent of Scotland 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proceeding against his Maiesties Mother A brief summe of matters fallen out in Scotland 〈◊〉 Holinsh. 〈◊〉 supra Prior 〈◊〉 made Earle of Murrey 1563. 1566. The barbarous murther of the Secretary Dauid The murther of the King The barbarous dealing against his 〈◊〉 Mother VVhat the King 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath suffered at Protestats handes in 〈◊〉 of disobe dience RebellioÌ„ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Intollerable insolencies of Ministers against the King A vveighty consideratioÌ„ 〈◊〉 Princes Streyned 〈◊〉 against Catholickes The comparison betvveene the disobedience of Catholicks and ProtestaÌ„ts A decalogue of T. M. his reasons hardly streined Hovv T. M. proueth his assertions Iurginicius M. VVright M Reinoldes D. Gifford 〈◊〉 No sociability in doctrine but in coÌ„uersation there may be Perkins Catholick The harde speeches against Caluinistes ansvvered CaluinoTurcismus of M. Reinoldes Maister VVrights speeches D. Thomas 2. 2. quaest 5. art 3. Ibidem quaest 10. art 6. Hovv heinous a sinne heresy is * See Tertull li. de pudicitia Cypr. li. 4. ep 2. Athan ser. 2 contr Arrian Aug. li. de gratia Hier. con lucifer c. Tit. 3. M. Reinoldes collection about moderne heresies Franciscus Stancarus Minister epad Regem Poloniae Conradus Schlusselburgius in l. de Theologia CaluinistaruÌ„ impress Francof 1592. l. 2. art 13. 〈◊〉 Schulz lib. de 50. 〈◊〉 lit A. 6. lit Q. 〈◊〉 Tilmanus Heshusius AEgidius Hunnius fol. 181. Apo. 12. Many bookes of the learneder Protestantes against Caluinistes Ioannes Modestus 1587. Ioannes Matthias Albertus Grauerus RefutatioÌ„ of his second medium Luther contr art Louanien Thes. 27. Luther de Caena Dotomo 2. Ger. f. 182 190. Concerning the penalties incurred by Heresy according to the Canons The moderation of S. Augustine vvillingly admitted Aug. lib. de vtilitate credendi ad Honoratum Manichaeum VVho is an Hereticke lib. 4. de bap contra Donatistasc 16. Euery one that belieueth heresy is not properly an Hereticke Choice or election make Heresy Dol. par 1 pag. 13. cyted in Discouery pag. 9. DolemaÌ„s text abused in vvordes sense D. Bouchier p. 36. cyted in Disc. pa. 8. His cauillation against D. Bouchier Buchan l. de iure regni p. 13 Stapleton in Dydimo pa. 261 cyted in Disc. pa. 8. Peeuish vvraÌ„gling against D. StapletoÌ„ Buchanan li. de iure regnip 61 Reginaldus de iusta Reip. auctoritate c. c. 1. cited in Disc. pa. 8. 1. Pet. 2. M. Reinol des discourse M. Reinolds abu sed by T. M. The secoÌ„d charge ansv vered about the Popes authority The ansvver to S. Edvvard Cooke T. M. putteth his fictions for our positions Calumniation 〈◊〉 coÌ„uinced Catholick Princes successioÌ„s resisted by ProtestaÌ„ts CalumnÌ„ia tioÌ„ against Doleman Doleman part 1. pag. 216. T. M. 〈◊〉 bad dealing A