6. His first reason of Impossibility and that confessed as he saith by me is for that Catholicke subiectes do belieue that in some cases there is power left by God in the Church and head therof the Bishop of Rome ouer Princes to vse not only spirituall Censures for restraint of exorbitant excesses but temporall remedies also eyther directly or indirectly when vrgent necessity of the Common-wealth should require and no other sweeter meanes could preuaile Wherof M. Morton will needs inferre that our combynation in ciuill concord and obedience to our temporall Prince can not stand no more sayth he then Iewes and Iebuzites in one kingdome Isaac and Ismael in one house Iacob Esau in one â—ombe and then a litle after that our concord staâ—deth of no more possibility then Pope no Pope Kings Supremacy and not Supremacy which opposites saith he can neuer be reconciled togeather Wherto I answere that in beliefe and doctryne they cannot be reconciled but in cyuill life and conuersation and practice of due temporall obedience they may be no lesse for any thing touching this point then if they were â—ll of one ReligioÌ„ iâ— such make-bates as these would â—ease to set sedition for that all Catholicke subiects also of other Countryes do hold and acknowledge this doctryne without any preiudice at all of their fidelity affection or dutifull Allegiance towardes their Soueraigne Princes liege Lordes though ther be sundry cases wherin their said Princes may be obâ—oxious to the execution of this doctryne besydes difference of Religion which one poynt of different Religion this Stickler doth only vrge in this our caâ—e as most odious 7. But iâ— all those Christian Princes that haue bin censured by the Church froÌ„ Christes tyme downeward were layd togeather whether Emperours Kings or others the far greater part of them would be found to haue byn chastised and pursued not so much for any difference of Religion as for other causes and crymes And if we looke vpon our tymes since Protestant Religion hath byn named in the world we shal fynd only two to haue beene proceded against by the Church and many other neuer touched as the King of Denmarke the Intruder of Suetia the Duke of Saxony the Count Palatine of Rhene the Marques of Brandeburge and diuers other Princes and States as also those of Holland and Zeland and lastly his Maiestie that raigned aboue 30. yeares in Scotland professing Protestant Religion and now some good number of yeares in England without that any Pope hath gone about to vse that authority against them which is heere made by M. Morton so perilous and pernicious as though it were impossibâ—e for his Kingdome and Crowne to be in safety while this doctrine is beleiued or extant in bookes which being throughout all Christendome receiued by the whole Catholicke world will be hard for the Minister to remoue or extinguish coÌ„sequeÌ„tly he laboureth but in vaine or rather far worse then in vaine endeauoring to intangle his Princes mind with a perpetuall restles remediles iealosy suspitioÌ„ solicitude impossible euer to be cured as himselfe striueth to proue by those his impossibilityes though they proue not indeed the point it selfe which he would perswade that there is no meane of ciuill quiet vnion in life whilest this doctrine of the Popes authoritie is belieued of his subiects 8. His other two next reasons of impossibilitie for he hath foure in all are so obscurely and intricately set downe as if he vnderstand them himself it is much in my opinon for as for me I confesse I see not what inference can be made out of them though I haue perused them ouer with much attention more then twice and the same I suppose the common Reader will say when he hath in like manner considered of them For they concerne onely the excoÌ„munication of Q. Elizabeth and of King HeÌ„ry the fourth of France which Censure was promulgated by two seuerall Popes of this our age and consequently the doctrine is dangerous saith he But I haue shewed now that more then three times so many Protestant Princes were tolerated by other Popes how theÌ„ do these two examples inferre so generall a necessitie of disobedience in all Catholicke subiects yea and an impossibilitie of the contrarie that they can be obedient â— His fourth and last reason of impossibility â— wherin saith he may be obserued a sportâ—ull or rather exâ—crable impostureshipp of P. R. consisteth in this that wheras I do write in my Treatise of Mitigation that â—ut of Catholicke doctrine concerning Papall auâ—hority in some cases to wit when we talke what â—opes may absolutly do M. Morton argueth and will â—eedes inferre that such such great dangers may â—â—sue to Princes thereby I do answere him thus â—hat all this arriueth but to a may so as the questiâ—n being but de fuâ—uris contingentibus of things continent and to come wherof the Philosopher sayth â—â—ere is noâ— sâ—ieÌ„ce all remaineth in doubtfull vncerâ—â—inty but only the suspitioÌ„ enuy hatred which â—â—e Minister would rayse against vs. But on the conâ—â—ary what the ProtestaÌ„ts doctrine hath donne and â—oth at this day against lawfull Princes in their â—â—almes their armies do shew c. This in effect I â—id then and vpon this M. Morton entreth now into â—reat choler saying not only that this my answere 〈◊〉 an execrable impostureshipp as before you haue heard â—ut also he further breaketh into these patheticall â—ordes of ridiculous exaggeration I cannot laugh saith â—e for wonder horrour to see any English man conceyt so basely 〈◊〉 the wits worth of his Countrymen as to imagine they could 〈◊〉 delâ—ded with so senslesse so shamelesse so pernicious so impiâ—â— a mitigation as this is to be perswâ—ded therefore not to â—â—bour â—or preuenâ—ing ensuing dangers because they be continâ—ent that is such as may happen what can be more senseles Do you see this mans heat and do you marke how â—ocond and prachant he is when he getteth a little matter wherat he may make a shew to speake somewhat probably 10. Heere then he inueigeth and insulteth against me as though I did hold that there were no prouideÌ„ce or care to be had of future perills that are contingent saying Doth not nature in beasts reasoÌ„ in man precept of God teach vs the law of prouidence euen thâ—rfore to â—eeke to preuent ensuing dangers because they are contingent and may be heraâ—ter But M. Morton doth either willfully misâ—ake me or els I cannot conceyue so well of his wit and worth as he would haue me if he vnderstand me not For I doe not dispute against prouidence in generall in things that are contingent and may fall out for I know conâ—esse that prouidence is a principall part of the high vertue of prudeÌ„ce surnamed Cardinall wherby man is likned to God surpasseth all other terrene creâ—tures yet say I therwithall that it
endeuour to deceiue Three things also I must confesse to haue bâ—ne the speciall causes of this griefe and indignation sâ—metimes conceiued The first to see a yong man as they say you are so lately come from the Schooles so lightly furnished and so little expâ—rienced in greater studies as scarsely you could haue life or leasure to looke at the varietie of Bookes Authors that haue written therof especially concerning the Catholick religion for a thousand yeares togeather which you grant to be ours to come forth as it were in his hose and dublet challeng the whole Church of God and the whole ranke of profound learned men therof whose bookes for deep learning iudgement and varietie of reading you can not but confesse in truth and modestie that you are not able to beare after them And fynallie they are thousands and you are but one thy were ould you are yong their beards were hoarie and gray yours is yet red they wore out their ages with studie you haue yet but lately begone they haue had the continuance of many ages the wit learning experience diligence of all Christian Nations that held the same Religion with them your prescription of tyme is small your association of fellowes Fathers Doctors or Councells lesse For if you goe out of the little Iland of Britany where all that professe themselues Protestants in all things are not wholy with you you shall fynd abroad all the rest in most things against you And yet do you so confidently tryumph and insult euery where as though you alone were able to ouercome and vanquish whatsoeuer was established before you in our ReligioÌ„ different from yours saying euery where with contempt when you speake of this ranke of learned men and when any thing displeaseth you in them your owne Bishops your owne Doctors your owne CouÌ„cells your owne Fathers your owne Popes say this or that yea though they were neuer so ancient and holie As of three Popes togeather Zozimus Bonifacius Celestinus that liued with S. Augustine and were highly commended by him aboue twelue hundred yeares agoe you speake so contemptuouslie as if they had byn some three petty Ministers of your owne ranke And this I confesse to haue byn one principall cause of my sharpe wryting against you which yet if you would once amend on your part you should quiâ—klie fynd correspondence on myne And so I suppose â—ou will perceaue that I haue begone in this Booke â—hough whiles you perseuâ—re in your old vayne of preâ—â—mption and insolencie you are like to drawe forth â—nsweres nothing pleasing your owne humor which â—ing of pryde as in all Sectaries as accustâ—med to be 〈◊〉 liketh humility and patience in all people but only 〈◊〉 themselues Another cause was the circuÌ„stance of tyme when 〈◊〉 wrote your first Discouerie against Catholikes 〈◊〉 not being contented to haue set abroad diuers â—â—â—tings of yours in Latin touching fâ—ygned absurdâ—â—â—es and contraries of dâ—ctrine fâ—und as you preâ—â—â—â— in their wrytings wherof you are like shortlie â—heare out of Germany to receiue the said abâ—â—â—dities and falshoods doubled vpon your self as â—â—u will perceiue by that piece of the latyn Epistle â—â—itten from thence which I haue imparted with â—â—u in the last Chapter of this my râ—â—koning not â—â—ntented I saie with this iniurie offered vs â—ou watching a tyme of pressure and tribulation fynding the same to fall out in full measure by the hatefull accident of the powder-treason you raÌ„ne as the Rauen to the fallen sheep to picke out her eyes that is to say to adde exasperation to exasperation affliction to affliction calumniation to sycophancy against all sortes of Catholicks And then came forth in hast your litle infamous bloudie Lybell without a name which out of your charitie would needs make all Catholiks Traytors in the very roote of Catholicisme it self that is to say in the fundamentall doctrine of their Religion So as euerie one of them must be forced to denie his faith in that ReligioÌ„ or else acknowledge himself trayterous in his duty of temporall allegiaÌ„ce and subiection Which paradox to make somewhat probable you were forced to accompanie with so manie fraudulent shiftes deceipts and falsities as haue byn conuinced against yow in my former Treatise coÌ„firmed now in this which though of it self it moued no small indignation to see so many manifest falshoods so bouldly auouched and ratified againe by you afterwards as in this fynall reckoning will apeare yet must I confesâ—e that the forsaid circumstance of time did principally mooue me to be more sharpe in my CoÌ„futation And it made me also to remember a certaine historie that I had read in old Lactantius Firmianus in his first booke intituled De Iustitia which I shall recite as I fynd it in hym yow may apply vnto your self so much therof as yow maie thinke to fit you The storie is of a certayne heathen Philosopher who in tyme of persecution tooke occasion to write against Christian religion Ego saith Lactantius cùm in Bithynia Oratorias litteras accitus docerem c. When as I being sent for taught Rhetoricke in Bithynia and the Churches of Christians by the Edicts of Diocletian Maximinian were commanded to be ouerthrowne a certaine chief Philosopher taking the occasion of that tyme nescio vtrum superbiùs an importuniùs iacenti atque abiectae veritati insultaret did insult ouer the truth of Christes Religion oppressed and trodden vnder foot I know not whether with greater pryde or importunity c. And then he describeth at large the manners of this Philosopher which were ouerlong to repeate heere I meane of his Lybertine life of his good fare of his ambiâ—ion with the Magistrate and Princes And fyâ—ally he saith of him Disputationes suas moribus destruebat mores disputationibus arguebat ipse aduersus se grauis censor acerâ—imus accusator He ouerthrew his disoutations â—ith his manners and condemned his owne manners by his disputations being a graue Censurer and most sharp accuser against himselfe And theÌ„ saith further Eodem ipso tempore quo iustus populus nefariè lacerabatur tres Libros euomuit contra Religionem nomenque Christianum In the very self same time that the innocent Christian people were impiously torne in pieces by the persecutor he cast forth three Bookes against the Religion and name of Christians And Lactantius addâ—th that albâ—it he was effusus in PrincipuÌ„ laudes and flattered the Emperors then liuing no lâ—sse thâ—n M. Morton hath done ours yet all sortes of men aswell Hâ—athen as others did mislyke and detest his cruell deuise to wryte against themâ— when as they lay vnder so heauie a yoke of present persecution Id omnes arguebant saith he quòd illo potissimùm tempore id opeâ—is esâ—et agressus quo furebat odiosa crudelitas All sortes of men did condemne this that he had taken in hand to put forth his bookes at that
a notorious vntruth in that he saith she did it by the coÌ„sent oâ— her Lordes Spirituall and Temporall for that all her Lords Spirituall which make the chieâ—e part of the Parlament resisted the matter as appeareth by their depriuations depositions restraints or imprisonments that theron ensued So as this is as true as that other which followeth in the very next page and hath beene handled by me in other places to wit that as well these that were restrayned or imprisoned as generally all the Papists of this Kingdome did come to the Protestants Church nor any of them did resuse during the first ten yeares of the said Queenes gouernment which I haue coÌ„uinced before by hundreds of witnesses to be most shamefully false as also the other deuised fable that Pius Quimê° did offer to approue the Communion Booke of English seruice by his owne letters to Q. Elizabeth if she would do him the honour as to accept it from him 109. I do pretermit willingly as vnworthy of my pen those scoffes and contemptible derisions which it hath pleased his L. to vse against that holy man and high priest of our soules Pope Pius Quintus calling him Pope Impius V. his hellishnesse his horriblenesse and the like which seemeth much to sâ—uour of the spirit of those that in Iudge Pilates house did scoffe at our Sauiour bowing their knees and crying Aue Rex Iudaeorum but yet there the maister Iudge did not descend to such scurrility But surely I am sory to see a Lord Iudge vse the same in publike auditory which were fitter for one of his Kitchin amongst his Companions and when such things as these are related vnto strangers they seeme incredible to men of eâ—timation and honour 110. But Syr Edward passing on in this manner throughout his whole speach bringeth in all the accidents fallen out froÌ„ the beginning of that Raigne vnto the end of the Irish warres Doctor Sanders his being there Steukley his going to Rome and afterward to Portugall the Duke of Guise his actions and of MeÌ„doza called by him Iesuite though he were a Noble man and Ambassadour of the K. of Spaine in EnglaÌ„d Campian Persons Heywood Shirwyn and other Priests comming into England vpon the yeare 1580. and many other such like things little appertayning to them of Norwich but that my L. would needs speake like a great Counsellour that day and be Propheta in Patria and fill mens eares with tales and terrours and yet in the end after all sayd and much therof knowne to be false to the greatest part of discret men in his auditory he commeth at length to be somewhat morâ— mild and placable saying by this then our English Papists eyther Iesuits or Seminaries may learne to know that it is not Religion that they striue for but only to mayntaine the Antichristian head of Romes vsurped Supremacy And if there be in this presence any Roman Catholiks or so many oâ— them as shall heare of that which now hath beene spoken I intreat theÌ„ as my deare and louing Country-men that they will not any longer be seduced by any lying spirit sent from Rome seing that the Pope whome they belieue hath himsâ—lfe allowed as before we have shewed that in our Church we haue a doctrine of faith and religion suâ—ficiently necessary to saluation Deare Country-men we haue then inough need not the help of any Pope sithence all the Papists generally came vnto our Churches beâ—ore our late Q. Elizabeth was excoÌ„municated c. Thus he 111. And do you see this Conclusion all grouÌ„ded vpon suppositions that are manifestly false or rather ridiculous in theÌ„selues for that first he would haue vs suppose as a thing by him proued before that it is not religion for which we striue but to maintayne the Popes supreme Authority in spirituall Causes as though the article of supremacy were no poynt of Religion at all among vs which is a great absurdity to imagine For doth not the Catholicke Deuine in the Preface of his Answere vnto him and we before haue also repeated the same shew demonstrate that this point of supreme spirituall authority is so principall an article of Religion as all other controuersies may be determined therby How then doth the Iustice trifle so in this matter Is he not ashamed to say in the face and ears of such an Auditory that Catholiâ—kes striue not for religion wheÌ„ they striue for their supreme Pastours spirituall Authority It is as good an argument as if a man should say that Syr Edward when he was a Counsellour pleaded not for money but for gold as if gold were no money 112. His second supposition is that we belieue Pope Pius Quintus to haue allowed the Protestant CoÌ„munion Booke for that Syr Edward saith and sweareth it vpon his credit saying and this vpon my credit and as I am an honest man is most true which I haue els where shewed to be most vntrue and that no Catholicke of crâ—dit doth or will giue credit vnto it Thirdly he supposeth that we belieue his former assertion that all Catholickes generally did come to the Protestants Câ—urch for the first ten yeares of Q. Elizabeths raigne which they do not only thinke but know to be most false 113. Fourthly he supposeth it to be a good consequence that if Catholicks did come to their Churches for the first ten yeares they haue inough for their saluation and need not the help of any Popes authority for absolution of their sinnes or other spirituall power For such is his inference when he sâ—ith Deare Country-men we haue then inough and need not any help of any Pope sithence all the Papists generally came to our â—hurches beâ—ore the late Queene was excommunicated which inference and consequence is both false and absurd For albeit some Catholicks came to the Church for feare or otherwise yet therby haue not Syr Edward and his partners inough for their saluation for that the other came to their Churches for they might come with a repugnant mynd condemning and detesting inwardly their Religion no lesse or perhaps more then they that were Recusants and openly refused to come as no doubt but at this day also many do who are forced to Church against their consciences 114. And it is to be noted that Syr Edward saith VVe haue a doctrine of â—aith and Religion sâ—fficiently necessary to saluation So as he ascribeth no perfection to his Religion nor any aboundant sanctitie latitude or degrees of holines one aboue the other but if it be sufficiently necessary it is inough for him And yet doth our Sauiour say that there be many mansions in the house oâ— my Father and exhorteth men to perfection Perfecti estote which importeth somewhat more then sufficiently necessarie But if seemeth that Syr Edward would be content with a litle and go no further then necessarily he must God grant he go so farre and keepe him in charitie
in which heere he seemeth in part to be by his offer of vnion and agreement though in the very next leafe he falleth into extremities agayne saying That the most sacred person of Gods annoynted king Iames whome Pope Clement the ninth could proudly dare to terme the Scottish Herâ—ticke shall vnderneath his Princely foote tread downe Romes faithlesse Papall proud and Antichristian heresy c. 115. Do you see where the man is againe Euen now you haue heard him ascribe so much to Pope Pius Quintus as for that he was presumed though falsely to offer the allowance of the English Communion booke to Q. Elizabeth if she would take it of him that therfore they had a doctryne of faith religioÌ„ sufficieÌ„tly necessary to saluation for that the Pope had allowed it and yet now he turneth to his old rayling calling the RomaÌ„ faith Romes faithlesse Papall proud Antichristian heresy And therby maketh all Christian kings that acknowledg the Popes spirituall authority to be faithlesse Antichristian heretikes How will this souÌ„d in the eares of all forraine Monarches and greatest Potentates that are touched therby Is this intemperate speach befitting a Iudges person yea a Chiefe Iudge But there is nothing more intolerable in this speach then the base odious flattering of his Maiesty which vice it is read that diuers magnanimous Princes haue more hated and punished then any cryme besides yea next vnto treason it selfe especially when it is conioyned with notorious falsity as this is when he saith That Pope Clement the ninth he should haue said the eyght could proudly dare to terme the Scottish hereticke which is indeed a famous English calumniation deuised by himselfe or others and can neuer be proued to be true for that Pope Clement spake euer very respectiuely of his Maiesty in all occasions both when he was in Scotland and after Neyther will the contrary be found in any of his writings Wherfore it is both shamefull and shamelesse that such open vntruthes should be spoken in publike audience without controlment But let vs goe forward to a point or two more 116. After his former exhortatioÌ„ inuitation to draw Catholicks to his doctryne of faith and religion sufficiently necessary to saluation he pasâ—eth to another point of threatning first that his Maiesty will neuer giue any toleration to Catholicks and the second that in the meane space while they hope in vaine they shall abide the smart of punishments The first he proposeth in these words If there be any Papist so â—oolish and altogeather reasonlesse as to expect that his Maiesty may be drawne to such alteration or toleration as they desire I will them assuredly to know they hope in vaine The second he setteth downe thus Such Papists as notwithstanding the impossibility of their hope will still remaine peruerse let them know for certainty that the lawes concerning them shall receiue a most strict and seuere execution against them 117. This is the dreadfull denunciation of our new Iudge wherby you see that in the one he forestalleth absolutly his Maiesties will not only for the present but for all time to come further perhaps then he hath commission to take vpon him For what knoweth he what God may inspire his Maiesty in succeeding yeares Or what other reasoÌ„s and circumstances of time place and state of things may induce his Royall Wisdome prudently and piously for benefit of his subiects to alter somwhat his present resolution Is not the hart of kings in the hands of God Wil my L. Iustice so make himselfe Pedagogue and Maister of his Maiesties will as he will define or predetermine before hand what he shall doe or what he shall not doe for the time to come This is very predominant indeed and were more then inough for a whole Counsell to doe but much more and farre ouermuch for him that hitherto so farre as I know hath noe place among them We cannot but hope better of his Maiesties pious disposition and trust that in time we shall say also Spes non confundit notwithstanding the desperate resolution of Syr Edward to the contrary 118. And as for the second point of his threatning punishment and vexation to Catholickes it is litle to be wondred at and lesse to be esteemed in such a Cause as they suffer for Lesse to be wondred at for that such animosity of spirit is wont often to accompany them that rise in hast to excessiue wealth and authority ouer others lesse to be esteemed by Catholicks who both take it for a glory to suffer for their Religion and haue learned by experience of former tymes that God is wont to extend his hand and make an arrest euen then when those that persecute his seruants are most in their heate of pursuite against them And I could wish that Syr Edward did but looke ouer the two ancient written Bookes the one of Tertullian to Scapula the other of S. Cyprian in imitation of the former to Demetrianus both of them persecuting Iudges whome the said Authors do earnestly exhort to looke vpon the endes of such as had beene their persecutours in that their office before Possumus sayth Tertullian to Scapula exitus quorumdam Praesidum tibi proponere c. We might lay before your face the ends also of certayne Presidents or Iudges that after afflicting vs felt the hand of God themselues and then he nameth Vigelius Saturninus in Africa that was suddainly stroken blinde Claudius Herminianus in Cappadocia that was eaten with life Ceciliuâ— Capella of Byzantium that after much cruelty perished miserably when he least expected And I thinke also that I may truly adde that whosoeuer shall looke vpon the endes of such as haue bene the greatest persecutours of Catholikes in England since persecution began and among those also some Iudges of Syr Edwards ranke if I be not deceyued will finde litle cause to brag or to vaunt that they were happy therin But howsoeuer this be I say to our Iudge as Tertullian sayd to his when he layd before him the sayd examples Non te terremus quia nec timeâ—â—â— we do not go about to terrify you for that neither do we feare you in this cause though I know you may vexe vs as you haue donne and do but when all is donne our hope is where it was in the Highest and our assurance and protection is the warrant of our Maister Nolite timere eos qui corpus occidunt c. Doe not feare those that can vexe or kill the body and afterward can do noe more but feare him that after this life can cast into hell and euerlasting torments and this Iudge must our Iudge feare also For he is Iudge of Iudges and can both reuerse iudgments and reuoke sentences at his pleasure 119. And thus much haue we bene induced to speake and repeate againe in this matter of this Norwich-Charge by occasion of Syr Edwards accusation of Pricket in
of that lying Equiuocation which is knoâ—ne â—o the speaker As if he shouâ—â— sâ—ie Some her knoweth what â—e speaketh whâ—n â—e knoweth not what he speaketh And could any say thus â—ut a lyâ—r Heere inded is Logicke wherat the boyes of our Vniuersity may hisse and the boyes of his Colledge may blush yea any â—uâ—all boy if of any meane capacity may laugh â—y sight of the like So he And doe you se how he â—nsulteth ouer me as though hee had gotten a great â—duantage and how hee taketh heere his reuenge vpon me for the shipwracke hee suffered before â—n the matter of his syllogysme But let vs examine the thing somewhat more particulerly and you shall find him to haue no better successe heere then there though his animosity in both places bee great and confident as you see The Râ—ckoning about the subdiuision of false Equiuoâ—ation 55. First then where I doe say as you haue heard that this second kind of vnlawfuâ—l Equiuocation vsed by Protestants being alwaies a lye may bee diuided like a lye it selfe into a materiall lying Equiuocation and a formall M. Morton omitting craftely the word Equiâ—ocation in the members diuident diuideth the same into a materiall and formal lye as though there were no difference at all betweene theÌ„ therof frameth this inference that for so much as a materiall lye is when the lyer knoweth not that hee lyeth as the formal lyer doth it followeth that a materiall Equiuocator knoweth not when hee doth equiuocate yet sayth hee haue I defined this second kind of Equiuocation common to both membres that it is then when the speaker knoweth that he doth falsly equiuocate which definition must agree to both 56. This then is a deceipt in M. Morton that should haue diuided false Equiuocation into formall and materiall Equiuocation and not into formall and materiall lying for that albeit betwene materiall lying and materiall equiuocating for example sake there be some pointes wherin they agree as namely and principally that in the substance of the matter vttered the speaker thinketh that hee sayth a truth yet are there some other points also wherin they differ as namely in that a materiall lye or vntruth may be vttered sometymes without sinne or offence as by the examples before alledged hath beene made euident But a false equiuocation cannot for that albeit the chief point which this faâ—se Equiuocator vttered be thought by him to be truth as the Arrian before mentioned thinketh his heresy to be Catholiâ—ke and true doctrine yet doth he equiuocate in concealing some circumstance as not telling his hearer that it is against the doctrine of that Church which is commonly called Catholicke or the like 57. Another example may be if a stranger not knowing our differences of Religion in England should demand a Protestant which he meteth in the street where he may go to the Catholicke seruice he should send him to S. Paules in London for that he persuadeth himself that to be the true Catholicke seruice here the Protestant if he do erre in his iudgment and if that be not the true Catholick seruice indeed speaketh a falsity but yet is it but a material falsity for that he thinketh that he saith truth but yet further doth he falsly also equiuocate in one thing which is in not answering to the others true intention for that he knew that the other meant the Roman Catholicke seruice And so you see that materiall false equiuocation hath somewhat more â—n it of malice then a materialâ— lye for that it doth wittingly alwayes conceale some circumstance which ought to haue bene vttered and wherby it may be said to haue some knowledge or guilt of deâ—eipt which a meere materiall lye hath not â—8 Now then I would aske M. Morton whether he â—ad considered this or no when he doth so reuell â—gainsâ— me with his rurall boy For if he had not he â—ay consider it now with some reprehension of â—is owne inconsideration but if he had done it why did he equiâ—ocate so frauduleÌ„tly with me as to â—ake me to diuide false EquiuocatioÌ„ into formall and â—atâ—riall lying Wheras he should haue said into forâ—all and materiall Equiuocation and so out of this fraud â—f his owne to go about to inferre some shew of abâ—urdity against me Is this good dealing or is not â—his equiuocating in the worst sense â—9 But it may be he will obiect my wordes against me where I say that this kind of Equiuocation 〈◊〉 which really is a lye must haue also the same subdiuision which 〈◊〉 lye hath wherto I answere that it must haue the â—ame subdiuision into the tearmes oâ— materiall and â—ormall for that it is really and in substance a lye but yet not that the partes or members diuident must of necessity be altogether the same in the one and the other in such sort as a materiall false Equiuocation may containe nothing more then a materiall lye for which cause my wordes immediatly following are these so as the one sort therof may be called materiall lying Equiuocation and the other formall I do not say a materiall and formall lye for that as hath bene shewed a mateâ—iall equiuocation contayneth somewhat more malice then a barâ— materiall lye for that it contayneth the knowledge and concealing of some circumstance that ought to be vttered which the other doth not 60. But heere againe may be perhaps obiected that this material equiuocatioÌ„ if it hath any knowledge or malitious concealement as heere seemâ—th to be graunted then is it the same with that which we call formaâ—l equiuocation and so consequently both members should be coincident coÌ„founded and if it haue knowledge onely and no malice then is it no lye but lawfull Equiuocationâ— as he that saith to an incompeteÌ„t iudge I am no Preâ—st meaning as obliged to reueale it to you knoweth that the iudge is deceaued but yet without malice or sinne of his part for that hee doth not any wroÌ„ge to the said iudge as not holding himself bound to vtter the same to him 61. To these two obiections is answered first that materiall equiuocatioÌ„ is when the speaker thinketh that which hee saith to be true as the fornamed Arian doth though he conceale some circumstance that he ought to vtter which maketh it vnlawfull though nothing so grieuous as the formall equiuocatioÌ„ is where the Equiuocator knoweth that the whole matter is false which is sufficieÌ„t distinctioÌ„ to make two seuerall members or degrees of false equiuocation in generall herby is my diuisioÌ„ iustifiedâ— 62. To the second I say that a materiall false Equiuocation can neuer be lawfull for that in charity the speaker is bound not to conceale the circuÌ„staÌ„ce wherby his hearer is wrongfully iniuriously deceaued as when the stranger demaunding whither he may go to heare Catholicke seruice and a Protestant directing him to S. Paules Church though the Equiuocation be but materiall in him in that he thinketh
all these shifts to seeke out contradictions amongst vs and to fynd none and yet let vs heare and marke his Conclusion and see what maÌ„ner of contradictioÌ„ he frameth against Bellarmine for it will be substantiall I warrant you out of these premisses The contradiction is this saith he to impute vnto Protestants an heresy which taketh away all manner of repentance and hope oâ— remission of sinne past yet to acknowledg in them a contrary orthodoxall truth which is to professe necessity of repentance reconciliation and remission oâ— sinnes Wherto I answere that heere is no contradiction at all as Bellarmine setteth it downe both these propositions being false in themselues Foâ— first Bellarmine doth not impute vnto Protestants that they do take away all maÌ„ner of repentance hope of remission for sinnes in their sense but only that they take away and deny the Sacrament oâ— reconciliation by pennance and absolution of the Churchâ— and secondly Catholicks are so â—ar oâ— from acknowledging an orthodoxall truth in Protestants about repentance reconciliatioÌ„ remission of sinns that albeit they graunt that ProtestaÌ„ts do in words confesse and prescribe vnto their followers repentance faith newnesse of life and such other points vttered and practized after their fashion yet are they little auaylable and much lesse orthodoxall but a priuate manner and forme of their owne reiected and condemned by the Catholick Church for that it excludeth the Sacrament and absolution of the Priest without which after baptisme either in voto or in re as Deuines do distinguish in Christian Religion no pardon or hope of remission of synnes can orthodoxally be conceaued And thus much for this second obiected falsity to Bellarmine THE THIRD OBIECTION against Cardinall Bellarmine for false imputation of the Manichean heresy vnto Protestants §. IX HIs third obiection against Cardinall Bellarmine of vnlawfull dealing coÌ„cerning the imputatioÌ„ oâ— some points of the Manichean heresy vnto Caluinists he setteth downe in these words Belarmine attriâ—â—â—eth saith he vnto Caluin the heresie oâ— the Manicheesâ— who â—â—d condemne the naâ—ure of men depriuing them oâ— freewill 〈◊〉 ascribing the originall and beginning oâ— sin vnto the nature 〈◊〉 man and not vnto his freewill seeing he hath himselfe â—â—serued that Caluin teacheth that man in his first creaâ—â—â—n had freewill wherby in his integrity he might iâ— he would â—â—â—e attained vnto eternall lyfe This contradiction in this point 〈◊〉 â—o more then this to charge Caluin with that which he did not â—â—â—eâ—ue Is not this singular falshood and yet behould a more noble then this Wherunto I answere that if it be more â—â—table in folly theÌ„ this or els in fraud it is notable â—â—deed Let vs heere the folly pointâ—aith â—aith M. Mort. is no more theÌ„ this to charge Caluin with that â—hich he beleeued not So he Wherof I inferre that it â—as no contradictioÌ„ at all For to accuse a man to â—ould that which he holdeth not hath no contradiâ—tion in it but a false accusation nor is it alwaies â—â—lshood for it may be vpon errour and this for â—â—e folly Let vs passe to consider the fraud â—9 I do suppose that M Morton would haue said â—r should haue said that Cardinall Bellarmine was therâ—ore noted by him of a contradiction not so much â—or chaâ—ging Caluin with that which he did not beâ—eeue for this is no contradiction as hath beene â—aid as for that Bellarmine accusing Caluin of concurâ—ing with the Manichees in denyall of Free-will vnto â—an doth notwithstaÌ„ding in another place coÌ„fesse â—hat Caluin graunted Free-will to haue byn in man in his first creation but neither in this is any contradicton at all For that Caluin granting Free-will to haue byn in man at his first creation and lost aâ—terward by the fall and synne of Adam may concurre with the Manichees in this that after the fall of Adam and as now we liue we haue no Free-will so doth Cardinal Bellarmine take him proue it out of his owne words in sundry Chapters oâ— his booke that he doth hold indeed and concurreth fully with the very sense of the Manichees therin which authorityes of Caluin M. Morton ought to haue answered in some sort if in earnest he had meant to haue defended him 80. This then is one egregious fraud and the chiefe in this place to delude his Reader with the ambiguity and Equiuocation of different tymes The Manichees taught that man after Adams fall had no free will as both S. Hierome and S. Augustine do testifie in the sentence of M. Morton heere set downe though craftily he couered their names and Bellarmine proueth Caluin to hold the same out of his owne wordes and workes What answereth M. Morton Caluin saith he is conâ—essed by Bellarmine to grant free-will in man before the fall of Adam in his first crâ—â—â—ioâ— Yea but the question is aâ—ter that fall How then doth M. Morton answere to the purpose And how doth he alleage Bellarmine as contradicting himselfe in that in one place he saith that Caluin confessâ—th Freewill and in another saith that he denyeth it for so much as it is in respect of diuers times For I would aske M. Morton in his Logicke is it a contradiction to say that Caluin confesseth Freewill in man before his first faâ—l denieth it afterward seing they are distinct times and import distinct estates and if this be not any contradiction as any child will confesse that it is not why doth he seeke to abuse his Reader with such a fallacy 81. Another fraud though somwhat lessâ— perhapâ— then the former is that in setting downe the charge of Bellarmâ—ne against Caluin he recounteth the same as in Bellaâ—mâ—â—es owne wordes thus He attribueth vnto Câ—luâ—n the heresy of the Manichees who saith he dâ—d coâ—â—â—mne the nature of men depriuing them oâ— free-will and â—sâ—â—iâ—ing the originall and beginning oâ— sinne â—nto the nature of man not vnto Free-will This sentence 〈◊〉 say though M. Morton put downe in a different â—etter as Bellarmines words and affirmeth him to â—peake theÌ„ yet indeed they are not his nor set downe â—y him as his owne but are the words of S. Hierome â—nd S. Augustine with some inserted by M. Morton himâ—elfe for thus are they related by â—anichaeoruÌ„â—inquit â—inquit Hiâ—ronymus est hominuÌ„damnare naâ—â—ram liberuÌ„ auferre arbitrium Et Augustinus Hieromeâ—aith â—aith it is the heresy of the Manichees to coÌ„demne the â—ature of men and to take away Free-will And S. â—ugustine saith that the Manichees do ascribe the oriâ—en of sinne not to Free-will And why thinke you â—id M. Morton conceale these two Fathers names The â—auses are euident First for that he was loath to â—ublish that the deniall of free-will in man 〈◊〉 â—o generally taught and defended by the Proteâ—tants of our dayes should be pronounced for an â—eresy and a Manichean heresie by two such graue Fathers as S. Hierome and S. Augustine are
obiection also in this Chapter about the succession of ProtestaÌ„t Princes and the 13. about an allegation out of Frisingensis haue byn all handled before and brought in by him againe and agayne therby to make a shew that he answereth to many things wheras in truth he answereth to nothing truly and substantially no not indeed to the easiest of these which heere he hath picked out to shew his manhood in defending them And yet he saith in the Preface of this Chapter That he hopeth to giue such satisfaction to all as that not only the wound of slaunder may be cured but euen also the suspicious scarre of imputation may be wyped away THE FIRST obiected falsity pretended to be answered by Thomas Morton §. I. IN the first front of his squadroÌ„ of 14. obiected falsities chosen by him heere to be defended he placeth a reprehension of mine made vnto him in my Epistle dedicatory to the Vniuersities for that in his Epistâ—e to the K. Maiestie of his Treatise intituled A full Satisfaction he vseth these calumnious words Polidore obserueth saith he that the Popes a long time in their election had their names changed by Antiphrase viz. the elected if he were by naturall disposition fearfull was named Leo if cruell Clemens if vnciuill Vrbanus if wicked Pius if couetous Bonifacius if in all behauiour intollerable Innocentius c. This speach as malicious and contumelious fraught with deceiptfulnes I iustly reprehended noting by the way that he had cited no place in Polidore wheras he hath written sundry books besides his histories I noted also that diuers Kinges and Princes might haue names whose significations might be farre different from their qualities and actions and that Popes since the beginning of that custome of changing their names after their election did not take names by antiphrase or contrariety of sense as this man seditiously did insinuate but for reuerence commonly of other holy Popes who pasâ—ed beâ—ore thâ—m whose names they tooke as I exemplified in many and yet not hauing Polidore then by me I meane that worke of his de Inuentoribus Rerum I passed ouer diuers other pointes of deceiptfull sleightes in him which I might haue vrged and now must needes in part touch for that to this accusation of myne he hath nothing to answere in this his Reply but this which ensueth 5. First that albeit he cited not any certayne booke or place out of Polidores workes yet that the sentence reported by him vpon his memory is found in Polidore his fourth booke de inuentoribus Rerum c. 10. which is intituled De origine honorum qui Romano Pontifici habâ—ntur de eius authoritate in omnes Ecclesias of the beginning of the honors that are giuen to the Bishop of Rome of his authority ouer all Chuâ—ches And albeit this obseruation of Polidore mentioned by M. Morton be not found in any of our Bookes now commonly extant yet he saith that they are in his booke of the edition of Basilea of the yeare 1570. and that two yeares after that by order of Pope Pius Quintus the Index expurgatorius did put out these wordes but he telleth not what Index it was for I haue one containing both the Spanish Flemish Index wherin it is written about Polidore Virgil thus Ex Indice Louaniensi quae in Polidoro Virgilio de rerum inuentoribus Basileae impresso anno 1544. in octauo corrigenda sunt atque delenda The things that are to be corrected or blotted out in Polidore Virgil in his eight bookes of the first inuentors of things which worke of his was printed at Basilea in octauo vpon the yeare of Christ 1544. 6. Out of which wordes it may be presumed as to me it seemeth that vpon the said yeare of Christ 1544. whiles Polydore Virgil lyued yet in England his worke de inuentoribus Rerum though it were printed at Basile where Protestant Religion was entred yet this place of Polidor about changing of Popes names was not found for that being both scandalous and vntrue as presently shall be shewed it is very like or rather certaine that this our Index expurgatorius would haue noted it at least as it doth diuers other thinges not only out of the same worke but euen out of the same 4. booke and 2.3.4.5.6.7 and 8. Chapters and yet saith nothing at all of any thing of the tenth where M. Morton saith this his obseruation is now found in his booke printed at Basile 1570. which was 26. yeares aâ—ter the former edition wherof must needes be inferred that either M. Morton dealeth not sincerely with vs which yet in this matter I will not bee so vnfriendly as to suspect or that his edition of 1570â— which hitherto I cannot see hath receaued this addition about the Popes changing their names after the foresaid edition of 1544. which could not be from Polidore himselfe who was dead before but from some new merry brother of Basile then hereticall who to make sport put it in for a merriment indeed for so in the text it selfe he professeth that he wrote it in iest though it pleaseth M. Morton to take it vp in earnest 7. But let vs heare the wordes themselues which M. Morton setteth downe as found in his Polidore Primus honos saith he Romano Pontifici habetur vt si minùs pulchro honestetur nomine ei statim creato liceat illud mutare verbi gratia quòd non extra iocum dictum sit si homo maleficus antea fuerit vt Bonifacius appelletur si timidus Leo si rusticus Vrbanus c. This is the first honour giuen to the Bishop of Rome after his creation saith he that if his name be not fayre he may chaÌ„ge the same as for example which yet be not spoken but in iest if before he had byn perhaps an euill doer he may be called Bonifacius that is a good doer if he had byn fearfull then may he be called Leo a lyon if â—usticall then Vrbanus or ciuill c. And the first Author or beginner of this custome is said to haue bin Pope Sergius the 2. whose name hauing bin before Os Porci which signyfiâ—th the mouth of a hogge it was permitted vnto him saith the supposâ—d Polidore for auoyding the obscenity of his former name to change the same 8. Thus much out of M. Mortons Polidore wherof he vaunteth according to his fashion in these words Although they haue made Polidore by their Index expurgatorius almost in euery page dumbe not suffering him to beare witnesse against the pryde of Popes c. yet our ancient Polidore now dwelling among Protestants printed anno 1570. Basileae hath a tongue that will tell tales So he Speaking more truly then perhaps he imagineth that his Polidore in this poynt telleth meere tales indeed and consequently is no great iewell of antiquity to be bragged of as dwelling now among Protestants For now I haue shewed that in
wordes of Polidore non extra iocum dictum sit let it not be spoken but in iest wher vnto here now he answereth nothing in effect but first with this interrogation Can this be ought but a transcendent impudency to blame me for not citing that testimony which his Pope least it might be citedâ— hath vtterly razed out But Syr be more calme I pray yow for you are not blamed for not cyting that which our Pope had commanded to be blotted out in our Copies but for not cyting that which remayned in yours was willingly omitted by you as now it appeareth for that it made against you This is then his first answere very cholerike as you see His second is a certaine euasion by a sleightfull translation into English wherby he seeketh to shift of the force therof for thus he Englisheth it As for example saith he which may not be spoken without a iest if peraduenture he had byn before a wicked man c. which sleight euery man that is but meanly learned in the latin tongue will easely discouer For that non dictum sit cannot be fitly translated it may not be spoken without a iest but let it not â—e spoken but in iest wherin I remitt me to the sense of the text it self So as about this second poynt M. Morton remayneth culpable two wayes first in dissembling and suppressing this iest in his first booke and now in seeking to auoyd the same by sleightfull translation But let both trickes go vnder one and so I make it but one falshood which laid to the other before do make two notorious vntruthes wherwith I do charge M. Morton now againe in this his last Reply and say they are vnanswerable 17. As for that which he inveigheth against our Index expurgatorius wherin he saith that our Popes doe appoint what wordes shall be put out in mens bookes as if they pulled out their tongues least they should speake it is not worth the answering And I remember that I haue handled the matter els where against some of M. Mortons fellowes Good reasoÌ„ it must needs seeme in any reasonable mans iudgement that such as professe themselues Catholiks should be content that if in any workes of theirs any thing had escaped them that eyther disagreed from the publike rule of faith acknowledged by the whole Church or were temerarious scandalous inconsiderate or otherwise offensiue should be censured and reformed by publike authority of the same Church And he that hath not this humility and submission with him is not worthy to be accompted a Catholike or sonne of the Catholike Church 18. And as for others that are not Catholicks they rather gayne heerby for that wheras their bookes that handle matters of religion and are iudged to conteine inexcusable heresies are wholy forbidden to be read by Catholiks but with particuler licence yet some other workes of theirs that either treat not of that subiect or do it so moderatly as with paring and cutting of some exorbitant things that be most offensiue they may be made tollerable and are permitted to remayne to posterity and all this by the benefitt of this Index expurgatorius which otherwise should be extermined with the rest wherof almost infinite exaÌ„ples may be seene in the Indices expurgatorij of euery Catholike Country which permit bookes of hereticall Authors of all sorts to be read commonly and publikely after they haue byn censured and reviewed in this sort which is not done by the Pope himselfe or by his particuler order in this or that place as M. Morton would seeme fondly to perswade his Reader when he saith that Anno Domim 1572. by the Authority of Pius Quintus the foresaid wordes of Polidor were commanded to be blotted out and againe which his Pope saith he vtterly razed out c. but the same is performed by a Congregation of learned men in euery Nation by commission of the said Church and Head therof 19. And I would demaund of M. Morton or any indifferent man on his behalfe if in England there were the like Congregation appointed of learned men to examine and censure bookes of their owne men that are set forth or after they be published and are found to be so full of palpable vntruthes as these of his and some other of his fellowes are were it not a good prouidence and more profitable both to their publike cause and priuate credit of the writers themselues that some such reuiew should be made than that euery man writing what he list without checke or controlement do come after to shame their owne cause by so many and manifest vntruthes laid open to the publike sight and laughter of the world as in this and other bookes appeareth But this point of prouidence concerneth not me and I haue mentioned it only by inforcement of M. Mortons importunitie Let vs passe to the sebond imputation THE SECOND Charge of wilfull falshood against M. Morton and pretended to be answered by him but poorely performed § II. AFTER this first charge which he tooke vnto himselfe out of my Epistle Dedicatory and hath so badly discharged as you haue heard with adding of new falshoods he taketh the second out of the fourth Paragraph of my second Chapter of the said Treatise of Mitigation where I hauing repreheÌ„ded him for false accusing of Pope Sixtus Quintus that he censured the late K. Henry of France for this only crime as he auerreth for that himselfe being a Papist yet fauoured the Protestants c. concealing the two knowne murthers both of the Cardinall Duke oâ— Guise I do passe on to tell him of another egregious falsity about the feigned death of our English Pope Adrian by a fly in these wordes The Charge 21. And againe in the same place or precedent page he hath these words Pope Adrian being guilty of like sediâ—ious 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 insteed of Henry the second he should haue said Fredericke 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 4. our English Pope of whom 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 do write honourably of him and so doth Nauclerus affirme and therfore though he maketh mention of such a fable related by Vrspergensis that was a Schismaticall writer in those dayes who also doth not absolutly auouch it but with this temperament vt â—ertur as the report goeth yet doth the sayd Nauclerus reiect the same as false and confuteth it by
was sent to their Camp by the Pope and Emperour to informe them of the agreement submission made Fremere omnes saith this Storie seuire verbis manibus coeperunt Apostolicae legatioâ—i irrisorijs exclamatâ—onibus â—bstrepere conuitia maledicta turpissima qâ—aecâ—mque fâ—â—or suggâ—ssisset irrogare All of them began to fret and wax â—ierce both in words and casting their hands with scornfull outcries to contradict this Apostolicall legation sent vnto them to cast vpon the Pope all the most foule reproaches maledictions that furie could suggest vnto them Thus saith Lambertus and then setteth downe the particuler slanderous reproaches heere cyted by T.M. which he approueth not but condemneth as you haue heard and highly commendeth not only the vertue but sanctity also of the Pope And will euer any man credit T.M. any more in any thing that he alleageth when this coÌ„scienceles falsification is once discouered in him yea though it were but once throughout his whole Booke it were sufficieÌ„t to proue that he dealeth not out of any faith or conscience at all 113. If an enemy would discredit both Christ Christian Religion and say your owne Euangelistes do recount foule things against him as here this Minister saith our historiographer doth of Pope Gregory and namely that he was accused by the Scribes Pharisies for casting out diuells in the power of Beelzebub for deceauing the people for denying tribute to be paid to Cesar for mouing sedition and other like crymes which our Euangelistes doe recount indeed but do condemne them also as false and calumnious were not this as good and faithfull a manner of reasoning as this other of Thomas Morton out of Lambertus and Friâ—ingensis against pope Hildebrand who is by theÌ„ both most highly coÌ„mended as you haue heard and his aduersaries condemned Truly if any man can shew me out of all the Catholicke writers that be extant English or other that euer any one of them vsed this shamefull fraud in writing where no excuse can free them from malicious and witting falshood then will I grant that it is not proper to the Protestant spirit alone Hithertâ— I must confesse that I neuer found it in any and if I should though it were but once I should hold it for a sufficient argument not to belieue him euer after And this shall suffice for a tast only of M. Mortons manner of proceeding for that to prosecute all particulers would require a whole volume and by these few you may ghesse at the mans veyne and spirit in writing So I wrote then in my Treatise of Mitigation The pretended Discharge 114. To this Charge M. Mort. beginneth his Discharge thus Thou seest Christian Reader I haue had patience to heare my Inditement deliuered vnto the full and suffred my Aduersary without any interruption to say so much in this accusation as that by this tyme he may seeme to hâ—â—e runne himself out oâ— breath c. Now therâ—ore I turne my self vnto thee good Reader as to my Iudge who may seeme by this tyme to exact of me an answere and of whome I must desyre and expect a iust censure Vouchsafe thereâ—ore I pray thee an intenâ—iue examination and I dare presume thou wilt acknâ—wledg this accusation to be both so false and foolish and vnfortunate to his cause and indeed blasphemous as though he had studied to be eyther â—aithlâ—s or fond or vnluckie or impious c. So M. Mort. And you see how passionate the man is in these his speaches and how needfull it was for me to intitle this Answere A quiet and sober Reckoning for that otherwise we might haue fallen from all reckoning of reason and moderation But to come to the matter what saith he to the point it self of iustifying his allegation of the vnâ—ruth of Lambertus against Pope Gregory You shall heare it deliuerâ—d by himself 115. In the beginning saith he I am charged with impudent impiety for citing Lambert Schafnaburge to affirme that The Bishops of Italy did excommunicate Pope Gregory for capitall crimes But why is this impudencie As if saith P. R. this our Chronographer had related this as a thing of truth or that it were approued of him and not rather as a slanderous obiection cast out by his Aduersaries that followed the part of Henry the Emperour c. The point now in question is whether this Author Lambertê° Schafnaburge was of this opinioÌ„ Which P. R. denieth calling my assertion an impudent impiety Let vs be iudged by the euidence of the Author himself who in the place alleadged hath these words Postquam per Itâ—liam fama percrebuisset c. After that the fame was spread abroad throughout Italie that K. Henrie had set his foot in their coastes certatim omnes Italiae Episcopi c. All the Bishops of Italy did flocke by troups vnto him receauing him with all honour worthy the magnificence of such a person and within a few daies after an army of an infinite multitude was gathered vnto him for from the first time that he was King the longed for his comming into Italy because at this time Italy was pestered with the euery And what els It followeth a litle aâ—ter Besides they viz. the Bishops people did coÌ„gratulate his coÌ„ming because it was reported that he came with a resolute courage to depose Gregory the Pope Heere we see it graunted by Lambert that all the Bishops of Italy were desirous to haue this Pope Gregory deposed Thus far are M. Mortons wordes 116. But to beginne with that which he last mentioneth of all the Bishops of Italy the word all is fraudulently vrged by him as you will see so that scarsly in any thing doth he deale sincerely for albeit these wordes be in Lambertus Certatim ad eum omnes Italiae Episcopi Comiâ—es confluebant All Bishops and Earles of Italy did flock vnto him yet that they were only certaine Italian Bishops Earles that dwelt about the Alpes is euideÌ„t by the narration it selfe For the very next precedent words leâ—t out by M. Morton are Superatis asperrimis rupibus iam inâ—ra Italiae fines consistere certatim ad eum omnes Italiae Episcopi After that it was vnderstood that the Emperour had ouercome the high rockes and was within the borders of Italy all the Italian Bishops Earles flocked vnto him And what sort of Bishops these were he expoundeth with in few lâ—nes after saying Qui fe iampridem ab â—cclesiastica communione suspenderat they hated Pope Gregoryâ— as him that had suspended them from Ecclesiasticall CoÌ„munion And againe a litle after about the cause of their suspension Passimiactantibus Regis saâ—â—â—ribus preâ—ipuè Cleriâ—is quibus iâ—iciâ—a conâ—ra sâ—ita Canonum contâ—acta coniugia prohibeâ—at The Emperours â—auorers did cast abroad especially Clergimen vnto whom Pope Gregory had forbidden vnlawfull marriages contracted against the Decrees of the Canons that he liued dissolutely c. 117.
witnesses be not sufficient against the Pope wherof one is a Monke another an Abbot the third a Card. let vs further vnderstand that fourthly Seuerinus Binius in his new EditioÌ„ oâ— the Councells confesseth that the Bishops in a Councell at Wormes An. 1076. declared that Gregory was to be deposed And that the Councell at Papia An. 1076. did excommunicate â—im and that the CouÌ„cell of Bishops at Brixia did depose him the Asts of which CouÌ„cell as they are recited by VrspergeÌ„sis shew these causes because he was an vsurper oâ— the Sea c. And the CouÌ„cell at Mentz An. 1085. declared him to be iustly deposed Thus we see that P. R. by denying one CouÌ„cell of Bishops of Italy in Papia to haue opposed theÌ„selues against this Gregorie hath contrary to his desire gayued with that one of Papia three other Councells one of Brixia another of Wormes the last of Mentz So vnlucky hath he byn c. 136. To this I answere first that the whole supposall of this narratioÌ„ to wit that I did deny the CouÌ„cell or ConciliabuluÌ„ of Pauia to haue excoÌ„municated Pope Gregory is vtterly false For that this was not in questioÌ„ betweene vs as hath appeared by the former discourse but whether Lambertus did relate and allow of the same or no wherof neyther point is found in him to wit neither that he relateth the fact as out of his owne asseueration but only as obiected by passionate enemies much lesse doth he approue the lawfulnes therof but impugne it This was the state of our question which now M. Morton seing his errour would willingly chang but nothing falleth out more aptly for his conuiction then the bringing in of Seuerinus Binius in this place to be a fourth witnes with Benno Vrspergensis and Sigebertus for disgracing of Pope Gregory by affirming that he was condemned in foure seuerall Councells here meÌ„tioned But what if Binius do expressely say that all these CouÌ„cells were but factious metings and no Councells and set vp by the Emperour the Antipope made by him for malice against the true Pope that they were wicked and schismaticall Bishops that met there in conspiracy against their true head doth this serue to M. Mortons purpose for disgracing of Pope Gregory by Binius his testimony Or doth he deale plainly with his Reader in telling him that Binius is a 4. witnes that ioyneth with Benno Vrspergensis Sigebert in condemning Pope Greg 137. As for Benno the counterfait Card. no man denieth but that he did condemne Pope Gregory if that Booke be his that goeth in his name the like we must vnderstand of Vrspergensis and Sigebert if we belieue M. Morton who saith that they wrote out of their owne iudgment against him wherof notwithstanding we haue shewed the contrary how then can he coople Binius as a fourth witnes to these three which Binius he confesseth to be contrary in iudgement and to defend Pope Gregory most â—arnestly calling these Councells Conciliabula factious and schismaticall conspiracies Let vs set downe here a comparison for better coÌ„ceauing the matter If a Iew of our time should take vpon him to disgrace the Apostle S. Paul as many of them haue sought to do for enuy that he was first a zealous follower of their law and should reckon vp the conspiracies made against him in diuers tymes different places how he was condemned by sundry metings of principall men both Iewes Gentiles often layd in pryson often escaped by flying and the like inferring therof that he was a troublesome euill man should for witnes hereof bring forth the testimonies not only of some ancient hereticall enemy of his that liued with him but other two also who in the accuâ—ers opinion were not his frends and then for a fourth witnesse should ioyne vnto them the testimony of S. Luke himself that recounteth these things but in the Apostles high praise and then should vaunt tell his Reader as heere M. Morton doth that now he had foure witnesses conspiring togeather in the same matter would you say that this man dealt otherwise then as a Iew indeed that is to say perfidiously 138. Let vs heare then what this Binius cited here for the fourth witnes saith against or rather for in the behalfe of Pope Gregory First he speaking of a certaine pious embassage or Legation sent by the said Pope to the excommunicated Henry he saith thus Quam cùm numinis contemptor cultor perâ—idiae excepisset c. VVhich embassage when the Emperour that contemned God followed perfidiousnes had receiued coÌ„trary to the law of NatioÌ„s had beaten with wâ—ips the Legates that brought the same had afflicted theÌ„ with most grieuous iniuries he presently thereupon gathered together at Wormes in Germany a CoÌ„uentiâ—le of excommunicated Schismaticall Bishops against the Pope in which CoÌ„uenticle with the greatest coÌ„tumâ—ly that could be deuised were appointed set forth published those things which Lambertus Schaffnaburge doth relate in his history to wit about the deposing of Pope Gregory c. This is his narration And is not this a good fourth witnâ—sse to ioyne with the former for discrediting of Pope Gregory and may not a man aswell alleage S. Luke against S. Paul as Binius against this Pope in this cause Or might not wee obiect the sacred sufferings and persecutions of that holy Apostle out of S. Luke by the same sort of argumeÌ„ts that M. Morton doth here the conspiracies of the wicked Emperour schismaticall Bishops against Pope Gregory their Apostolicall gouernour though I do not compare the person of Pope Gregory with the person of S. Paul as M. Morton will presently calumniate but the manner of proceding and arguing in their supposed aduersaries the Iew M. Morton But we shall haue occasion to speake more of this in the next point concerning blasphemy for needs he will haue this my reprehension of him not only to be false foolish vnlucky as you haue heard but also blasphemous this point then we must in this last place consider of 139. In the end of my former charge I do set downe an example to shew the absurdity of M. MortoÌ„s disgracing of Pope Gregory out of the writings of Lambertê° Frisingensis by a comparison takeÌ„ out of the new Testament in these words If an enemy said I would discredit both Christ ChristiaÌ„ religion say Your owne Euangelists do recount foule things against him as heere this Minister saith that our Historiographer doth oâ— Pope Gregory namely that he was accused by the Scribes Pharisies for casting out diuells in the power of Beelzebub c. which our Euangelistes do recouÌ„t indeed but do condemne theÌ„ also as false calumnious were not this as good as faithfull a manner of reasoning as this other of T. Morton out of Lambertus Frising against Pope Hildebrand who is by them most
Dioscorian hereticks lately condemned in the sayd Councell all things are in most violent garboyles which require your Imperiall power to remedy compose and compresse the same 65. This is the true meaning of S. Leo his speach to the good and religious Emperour of the same name as appeareth throughout the whole Epistle here cited and diuers others Nonne perspicuum est sayth he quiâ—us Pâ—eâ—as Vestra succurrere qâ—â—buâ— obuiare â—e Alexandrina Ecclesia c. â—s it not euident whome your â—mperiall piety ought to assâ—st and succour and whom yow ought to resist and represse to the end the Church of Alexandria that hitherto hath byn the â—ouse of prayer become not a denne of theeues Surely it is most maniâ—est that by this late barbarous and most furious cruelty in murdering that Patriarch all the light of heauenly Sacraments is there extinguished Intercepta est Sacrificiij oblatio defecit Chrismatis sanctificatio c. The oblation of Sacrifice is intermitted the hallowing of Chrisme is ceasedâ— and all diuine mysteries of our religion haue withdrawne themselues â—rom the parricidiall hands of those hereticks that haue murdered their owne Father and Patriarch Proterius burned his body and cast the ashes into the ayre 66. This theÌ„ was the cause occasioÌ„ wherin the holy Pope Leo did implore the help secular arme of Leo the Emperour for chastising those turbulent hereticks to which effect he saith that his Kingly power was not only giuen him for the gouerment of the world but also for the defence of the Church which our Mynister 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 administration of them 67. Thus far I wrote hereof before and proceded also further shewing not only that he had corrupted both the text sense and meaning of S. Leo but also that fondly he had affirmed that the Oath of Supremacie exacted by King Henry and some of his followers in England was nor is any thing els but the acknowledging of so much authority spirituall as S. Leo granted to the Emperour of his dayes Wherupon I do ioyne isâ—ue with him and promise that if he can proue it to be no other then that all Catholicks in my opinion will accept the same and so come to vnion and concord in that point And therupon I did vrge very earnestly that this assertion might be mainteyned saying among other things Me thinks such publike doctrine should not be so publikely printed and set forth without publike allowance and intention to performe and make it good If this be really meant we may easily be accorded yf not then will the Reader see what credit may be giuen to any thing they publish notwithstanding this Booke commeth forth with this speciall commendation of published by authority c. Which words in my iudgmeÌ„t should haue moued M. Morton to haue sayd somwhat to the matter in this his answere and not to haue passed it ouer so slyly as though neuer mention had byn made therof But euery man will ghesse at the cause and so we shall expect it at some other time THE FOVRTEENTH Pretermitted falshood by T. M. §. XIIII LET vs come backe from Pope Leo vnto another priuate Doctor named Genesius Sepulueda whom M. Morton in words calleth ours but yet would make him his if he could in the question of Equiuocation and for that he will not come of himselfe so farre as he would haue him he giueth him a wrinch or two to force him to draw neerer wherof my former accusation was this that ensueth 69. And lastly quoth I where M. Morton concludeth the whole matter by the testimony of our Doctor Genesius as he calleth him I haue told before how he is ours and how in some sort he may in this controuersie be called his though he detested his Religion as by his works appeareth Ours he is as in all other points of Religion so in the subsâ—antiall and principall point of this question for that he defendeth the vse of Equiuocation in concealing some secrets but denieth it in others wherein he fauoreth somewhat the aduerse party with small ground as in the next Chapter shal be declared But what saith this Doctor Genesius He will tell yow sayth M. Morton that this sense of this text of Scripture which yow conceale is not only contrary to the sentence oâ— all Fathers but also against all common sense And is this possible Will Sepulueda deny all those Fathers alleadged by me before for our interpretatioÌ„ to be Fathers Will he say that their exposition is coÌ„trary to all common sense doth not Genesius himselfe in the very Chapter here cited alleage both S. Hierome and S. Augustine for this interpretation and alloweth the same What shameles dealing then is this of our Mynister to charge Genesius with such folly or impiety which he neuer thought of For Genesius denieth not either the sense or interpretation of the place and much lesse sayth that it is coÌ„trary to the sentence of the Fathers and least of all to coÌ„mon sense but denieth only the application therof for vse and practise to certaine Cases wherin he admitteth not Equiuocation and saith that vpon this interpretation to bring in such a new law were greatly inconuenient wherin afterwards notwithstanding we shall shew him to haue byn greatly deceiued his Latin words are Contrà non modò veterum grauissimorum Doctorum sed communem hominum sensum quasi legem inducere to bring in as it were a law not only against the iudgment of ancient most graue schole Doctors for of theÌ„ only he speaketh in that place but also against the common sense or opinion of men 70. This is Genesius his speach wherin though his iudgment be reiected by other Scholmen as singular and paradoxicall in this point as after shal be declared yet is he egregiously abused by M. Morton who first maketh him to say of the interpretatioÌ„ sense of this place of scripture that which he speaketh only of the applicatioÌ„ therof to vse practice in tribunalls And secondly he maketh him to discredit the Fathers which himselfe alleageth then he englisheth ancient Fathers for ancieÌ„t Schoole doctors last of all addeth consensum of his own leauing out hominum to make it sound common sense and other such abuses which any man may see by conferring the place And these are other manner of synnes then symple Equiuocation yf the art of falsifying or forgery be any synne with him at all And so much for this place of Scripture Thus wrote I in my said Treatise being earnest as you see to draw some answere from M.
Morton but it would not come It must be our patience to expect the same at his more commodity hereafter THE FIFTEENTH Falshood pretermitted by Thomas Morton §. XV. FROM Sepulueda we passe to another Spanish Doctor his equall or rather much better learned named Sotus whom M. Morton erroneously taketh for Scotus vnder the title of subtil Doctor and abuseth him egregiously as I do shew in my former booke of Mitigation in these words 72. Behold sayth M. Morton one Doctor amoÌ„g you so subtile that for that faculty he hath by figure of excellencie byn called The subtile Doctor who doth conclude all your Equiuocators for Lyars saying To say that I did not that which I know I haue done although I speake it with this lymitation or reseruatioÌ„ of mind vt tibi significem it is not Equiuocation but a lye And then he quoteth Sotus in his books De iure iusâ—itia setting downe also in margent the Latin words conforme to this But all is treachery falshood and lying in this impertinent impugner of Equiuocation For first by the subtile Doctor according to the phrase of Catholike Schooles euery child knoweth to be meaÌ„t Ioan. Scotus not Dominicus Sotus who liued more then 200â— yeares after the other was of the order of S. Dominicke the other being of S. Francis so as this is folish ridiculous errour if it be errour but the other is cleerly false and malicious that these words as here they are cited are in Sotuâ— which M. Morton will neuer be albe to shew for â—auing his honestie in this point and much lesse will he be able to proue that Sotus doth conclude all Equiâ—â—cators for lyars which is an other incredible impudency in him to affirme For that Sotus in this very booke question and article by him cited doth teâ—ch and proue largely the plaine contrary â—o wit tâ—at to equiuocate is lawfull in diuers Cases to which eâ—â—ect wee haue citâ—d him before when he saith in generall Possâ—nt debent sic contra ius requisiti quacâ—â—que vti amphibologia They which are vnlawfully required to speake or sweare as we haue declared may and ought to vse any kind of Amphibologie or Equiuocation 73. This is his generall assertion but aâ—terward in particuler he putteth many examples to proue the same And first he setteth downe this proposition Dum testis de alieno actu interrogatur potest riâ—â— respondere Se nescire When a witnes is vnlawfully demanded of another mans actioÌ„ which he knoweth he may iustly answere he knoweth nothing the reason wherof he sayth is this Quia oratio illa nescio recipere hunc sensum citra mendacium potest nescio vt tibi modò dicam For that the answere I know nothing therof may without falsyty admit this sense I know it not â—o tell it yow at this tyme. Sicut silius hominis nescit diem iudicij vt dicat as Christ knew not the day of iudgment to tell or vtter yt to his disciples And doth it seeme to you that Sotus in this place doth go about to conclude all Equiuocators for lyars as M. Morton affirmeth If he did he concludeth one Sauiour Christ also in his sense What extreme impudencie is this in a Myniâ—ter But let vs heare Sotus yet further in this matter 74. In his booke De tegendo Secreto the third member and third question he repeateth againe the very same Conclusion heere mentioned That a witnes being iniustly demaunded whether he knoweth such such a thing of another may answere he knoweth nothing though he secretly know it and then going further he demaundeth Whether I hauing seene Peter kill Iohn and being after examined vpon the same iniustly whether I may say I know nothing therof To which he giueth this answere Respondetur quod iure possum respondere nescio quia iure intelligitur nescio vt dicam aut nescio eo modo quo iure debeam diâ—ere I affirme saith he that I may rightly ansâ—ere I know nothing therof â—or that by law it is vnderstood that I know it not to tell it or I know it not in such manner as by law I ought to vtter the same And prâ—sently he reâ—utâ—th T. Moâ—tons Doâ—tor Genesius Sepulueda that calleth this pulchrum commeÌ„tum a faire gloze and putting him in number of Iuniores quidam certaine yonger fellowes that would reprehend that which they vnderstood not sayth Hij aut non capiunt aut dissimulant vim argumenti These yonglings either do not vnderstand or do dissemble the force of the argument for this our doctrine c. 75. Thus wrote I in my former booke and hauing conuinced so euident falsificatioÌ„s as â—ere haue byn layed downe quite contrary to the meaning sense of the Author alleaged I meruaile that some litle place had not byn allowed for some piece of answere to this also among the rest But belike M. Morton was not ready THE SIXTEENTH Falshood pretermited by Thomas Morton §. XVI FROM the Spanish Doctor Sotus we come to the Flemish Doctor Cunerus for that from all sortes of men and from all Countries M. Morton draweth tâ—stimonies either gathered of himself or by others but allwayes bestoweth some sleight of his owne bugget to peruert them from their owne meaning Now then heare good Reader what I alleaged in my late Treatise as practized against a place of Cuâ—erus noe lesse iniuriously then against the former 77. Within few lynes after this M. Morton beginneth his third Chapter with these words That is only true Râ—ligion say your Romish Doctors which is tauâ—ht in the Romish Church and therfore whosoeuer mainteynâ—th any doctrine condemned in that Church must be accompâ—ed â—n obstinate hereticke And in the margent he citeth Cunerus alleaging his Latin words thus Haec est Religionis sola ratio vt omnes intelligant sic simpliciter esse credendum atque loquendum quemadmodum Romana Ecclesia credendum esse docet ac praedicat which words if they were truly alleaged out of the Author yet were they not truly translated For if only true Religion a corrupt translation of Religionis solaratio be applied to particuler positions and articles of Religion then we grant that such true Religion may be also among hereticks not only taught in the RomaÌ„ Church for that as S. Austine well noteth Hereticks also hold many articles of true Catholiâ—ke Religion But here the corruption and falsifycation goeth yet further and it is worthy the noting for that Cunerus hauing treated largly against the insurrections and rebellions of those of Holland and Zâ—land for cause of Religion and other pretences against their lawfull King taketh vpon him in his thirteenth Chapter to lay downe some meanes how in his opinion those dissentions may be compounded giuing this title to the sayd Chapter Quae sit vera componendi dâ—ssiâ—ij ratio what is the true way of composing this dissention And then after some discourse setteth downe
Some word of answere had bene worth the writing in so great a Charge but he thought it not expedient THE TWENTITH Falshood pretermitted by Thomas Morton §. XX. FROM Christians and CouÌ„trey-men he passeth to Heathens committeth such notorious falshoods against one of them euen then and there where he speaketh of faithfull dealing against perfidiousnes as may iustly make any man admyre what he did suppose his iudicious Reader would thinke of him when he should see the fraud disclosed of which fraud I wrote thus in my former Treatise beginning first with the relation of his owne words in this manner 99. There was a man saith M. Morton who togeather with nyne other prisoners being dismissed out of the prison of Carthage vpon his Oath that he within a prefixed time should returne againe as soone as he was out of prisoÌ„ he returned as though he had forgotten something and by by departeth home to Rome where he stayed beyond the time appointed answering that he was freed froÌ„ his Oath But see now the opinion of his owne CountreymaÌ„ Cicero concerning this EquiuocatioÌ„ of returne This was not well done sayth Tully for that craft in an oath doth not lesseÌ„ but make the periury more heynous Wherfore the graue Senators of Rome sent this cosening mate backe againe to the prison of Hanniball their enimy from whom he had escaped c. 100. Thus relateth M. Morton the Case and then maketh this malicious Conclusion against vs This was the honestie of the ancient heathenish Rome whiâ—h must rise vp in iudgment against this present Rome to condemne it which hath changed that faythfull RomaÌ„ fayth in fidem PunicaÌ„ into CarthaginiaÌ„â—ayth which now by custome of speach is taken for perâ—idiousnesse it selfe And would not you thinke that M. Mort. did hold himselfe very free from this perfidiousnes who obiecteth the same so freely against vs And not only against vs but to the whole Church of Rome it selfe and to the vniuersall Catholicke ReligioÌ„ conioyned therwith Marke then the deportment of this man in this one point and if you knew him not befoâ—e learne to know him by thisâ— 101. First then I would haue some Grammer scholler that studieth Tullies Offices to turne to the places here quoted and comparing them with that which this Minister setteth downe in english consider how they hang togeather how he picketh out one sentence in one place another in another and leapeth forth backe to make some coherence of speach contrarie to the Authors order sense method as is ridiculous to behould and fit for the cosening mate of whom he talketh in his text And secondly after this is to be noted thaâ— he setteth downe the narration it selfe of ten men deliuered vpon their Oath by Hanniball not as Cicero doth out of two historiographers Polybius Accilius and in particuler against the faith of both their histories and Tullies asseueration which saith that those ten were dismissed by HaÌ„niball out of his Camp post CaÌ„nensem pugnaÌ„ after the famous battaile of CaÌ„na in Apulia Mort. ignoraÌ„tly saith they were dismissed out oâ— the prison of Carthage wheras they of all liklyhood had neuer seene Carthage in their liues 102. But the most notorious cosenage is that he peruerteth all Cicero his meaning words sense and discourse in this matter alleaging them quite contrary to himself as before you haue heard him do many other Authors so as he belieth and corrupteth them all both profane and diuine And if in this one point he can deliuer himself from Punica fides I will say he playeth the man indeed For first Cicero whome here he would seme to bring against vs doth fully agree with vs for that we say in the Case of those ten Romans deliuered by Hanniball vpon their oath to returne againe if they should not obtayne that with they were sent for which was to perswade the Senate to redeeme diuers thousands of other Roman souldiers whome Hanniball had taken in the said victory at Canna we hold I say first that if they sware absolutly to returne againe if they obteined not their suite they were bound truly and sincerely to performe the same And secondly that they being now iustly by law of armes prisoners of Hanniball they were bound to sweare sincerely to his intention and not to any other reserued meaning of their owne as in the former Chapter hath byn declared And this very same doctrine also teacheth Cicero by light of nature in these words perfidiously â—ut of and left out by this Minister in the very same place out of which he taketh the rest Est auteâ— saith he ius etiam bellicum fidesque iâ—siurandi saepe hosti seruanda quod enim ita iuratum â—st vt mens conâ—iperâ—â— fiâ—ri oportere id seruandum est quod aliter id si non 〈◊〉 nullum periurium â—st There is alâ—o a law of armes saith he and a faith in our swearing to be obserued ofteÌ„tymes â—uen vnto our enemy For that which is so sworne by vs â—s our mind doth coÌ„ceiue that it must be done that is to be obserued but if it be otherwise sworne that is no periury if he perâ—orme it not 103. Behold here the very same distinction which Catholike deuines put downe of swearing according to the intention vnderstanding of the swearer or of him to whome it is sworne that the former is that byndeth maketh periury if it be not performed and not allwayes the second to wit when any violence or force is vsed which Cicero doth expresse in the very next immediate words by the selfe same example that Azor vsed before Si praedonibus pactum pro capite pretâ—um non attuleâ—is nulla â—raus est ne si iuratus quidâ—m id non seceris c. nonenim â—alsum iurare peierare est Sed si ex animi tui sentemiâ— iuraueris sicut verbis concipitur more nostro id non sacâ—râ— periurium est Scitè enim Erupides Iuraui lingua menâ—em iniuratam gero If you should not pay the price or ransome vnto publick theeues which was agreed betweene you for sauing of your life it is no deceipt no though you had sworne to performe it for that it is not periury to sweare false in any sort whatsoeuer But if you sweare a thing which you determine in your mynd and do vtter it in words according to the common custome of â—peach and do not performe it this is periury For well and fytly to the purpose saith the Poet Euripides I haue sworne with my tongue but my mynd hath not sworne So he 104. And consider now here I pray you the Punica fidâ—s of our Minister against our Roman faith He saith that Cicero and other heathenish Romans shall rise vp against vs at the day of Iudgment for that they condemne all reseruation or doubtâ—ull seÌ„se in an oath and do condemne it for periury wheras Cicero
for the tyme to come by the yoke of any Bâ—shop or his Officers but that in all euents of things Controuâ—rsies of Cases they shal be subiect to the dâ—cree of the Abbot of the said Monastery So as c. And theÌ„ doth M. Attorney continue his speach thus 58. This Charter was pleaded in 1. H. 7. vouched by Stanâ—ord as at large appeareth which Charter granted aboue 850. yeares sytâ—ece was aâ—ter confirmâ—d per Edwinum BritaÌ„niâ—e AngioruÌ„ Regem Monarcham anno Domini 955 By which appeareâ—h that the King by this Charter made in Parliament for it appeareth to be made by the Counsâ—ll and consâ—â—nt of his Bishops and Senators of his Kingdome which wâ—re assâ—mâ—led in Parlamâ—nt did discharged and exâ—mpt the said Abbot frâ—m the iurisdiction of the Bishop c. And by the same Charter did grant to the same Abbot Ecclâ—siasâ—icall iurisdiction within his said Abbâ—â— whâ—ch Ecclesiasâ—icall Iurisdiction bâ—ing deriued fâ—oÌ„â—he Câ—oâ—â— contynned vntill the dissoluâ—ion oâ— the said Abbey in the Raigne 〈◊〉 K. Henry the eight So he 59. And by this you may see what an important ConclusioÌ„ he doth inâ—erre of the Kings supreme Iurisdiction in spirituall affaires at that tyme whereunto the Deuine comming to answere and supposing that M. Attorney would not â—alsify or bely his Authors hauing protested most solemnly fol. 40. oâ— his Booke that he had citâ—d truly the very words and texts oâ— the lawes resolutions iudgmâ—nts and actes of Paâ—lament all 〈…〉 and in print without any inâ—erence argumâ—nt or ampliâ—icaâ—iâ—n quoting particulerly the Bookes years leaues Chapters and other such lâ—ke certayne referencâ—s as euery man at his 〈◊〉 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 â—is credit honour in this behalf granting all as it lay answered the same as you may see in his Booke But now vpoÌ„ better search it falleth out that this whole Case was falsely alleaged by M. Attorney in the very point of the principall CoÌ„trouersy in hand about the Kings spirituall Iurisdiction for that whatsoeuer the Charâ—ter did ascribe expresly to the Pope and his authority the Attorney suppressing the true words relateth it as procâ—eding from the King temporall authority of his Crowne For proofe wherof I shall set downe the very words of my learned freÌ„ds letter out of England about this point after view taken of the law bookes themselues and then let any man say how far M. Attorney is to be credited in any thing he writeth or speaketh against Catholicks 60. As concerning saith my friend the Charter of King Kenulphus for the Sanctuary of the Monastery of Abindon you must know that M. Attorney hath egregiously abused his Reader in that and other pointes for the Case standeth thus That in the first yeare of King Henry the 7. Humfrey Stafford was attainted by Act of Parlament of high treason tooke Sanctuary first in Colchester in Essex and after fled to Culnam and tooke Sanctuary in the Abbey of Abindon and being taken from thence brought vnto the Tower of London and from thence brought vnto the Kings Bench he pleaded that he was drawne by force out of the said SaÌ„ctuary of Culnam and praied his Counsaile to pleade that point which by all the Iudges of both Benches was granted vnto him And so they pleaded in this manner 91. Idem Humphridus per Consilium suum dixit quòd Kenulphus Rex MercioruÌ„ per Literas suas pateÌ„tes consilio coÌ„sensu EpiscoporuÌ„ SenatoruÌ„ gentis suae largitus suit Monasterio de Abindon accuidam Ruchino tunc Abbati Monasterij illius quandam ruris sui portionem id est quindecim Mansias in loco qui à Ruricolis â—unc nuncupabatur Culnam cum omnibus vâ—ilitatibus ad eandâ—m partinentibus tam in magnis quam in modicis rebus in aeternam haereditatem Et quòd praedicius Ruchiâ—us ab omni Regis obstaculo â—piscopali â—ure in sâ—mpitâ—rnum esset quietus vt inhabitatorâ—seius nullius Regis aut Miniâ—â—roruÌ„ suorum Episcopiâ—e aut suorum Offiâ—ialium iâ—go inde deprimerentur sed in cunctis rerum euentibus disâ—tissionibus causarum Abbatis Monasterij praedicti decreto suâ—ijâ—â—râ—ntur Ita quòd c. And here ceaseth M. Attorney leauing out as you see in his recitall the wordes that go before ab omni Regis obstaculo that the Monastery should be free from all obstacle of the King as also these words vt inhabitatores eius nullius Regis aut MinistroruÌ„ suorum iugo deprimantur that the inhabitaÌ„ts be not opprest with any yoake of any King or his Ministers Wherby is euideÌ„t that the King in his Charter did for his part giue exemptions from temporall and Royall power But especially the fraud is seene by cutting of the wordes that do ensue which decide the whole controuersy which are these Et etiam allegauit vltra quòd Leo tunc Papa concessit dicto Abbati dictas immunitates priuilegia Et quod Edwinus tunc Britanniae Anglorum Rex Monarchus coÌ„â—â—ssit quòd praesatum Monastâ—rium omnis terrâ—nae sâ—râ—â—tuâ—is esset liberum quae à prâ—decâ—ssoriâ—us suis Catholicis videlicet à dicâ—o sancto Lâ—â—ne Papa dicâ—o Rege Kâ—nâ—lpho c. Et quòd virtute literarum Bullarâ—m praediciarum tâ—mpore conâ—ecâ—ionis earuâ—dâ—m eadem villa de Culnam suit Sanctuarium lâ—cus priuilegiatus c. Which in English is thus And moreouer the said â—umphrey Stafford by his CouÌ„saile alleaged further for himselfe that Pope Leo had granted vnto the said Abbot the said immunities prâ—uiledges that king Edwin theÌ„ King Monarch ouer all the English in Britany had granted that the said Monastery should be free from all earthly seruitude which by his Catholicke predecessors to wit the said holy Pope Leo and the said King Kenâ—lphuâ— was granted and that at the time of the making of the foresaid letters Patents and Bulles the said village or Towne of Culnam was a Sanctuary priuileged place by vertue of the said Patents and Bulles 62. This is word for word the very plea of Humphrey Stafford for the Sanctuary of the Monastery of Abindon as it was pleaded by his learned Counsaile in law euen as it is recorded in the Reports of the years of K. Hâ—nry the seauenth as they are printed by Pinson the law printer in the tyme of K. Henry the eight before the Protestant religion came vp And the Lord Brooke in his Abridgement of the law in the title of Corone placito 129. doth accordingly set downe the same Case with mentioning of the Bulles of Pope Leo for the said immunities and priuileges But all the Protestant editions in the tyme of the late Quene Elizabeth printed by Tottell and Yestwort haue committed a notable tricke of falsification in leauing out altogether these markable words That Leo then Pope did
for his contempt And if he were attached and would obstinateâ—y reâ—use to obey the Kings commandment in admitting the saiâ— Clerk then might the King for his contempt seyse vpon his tempoâ—alities which were oâ— tâ—e Kings endowment And this was the vttermosâ— that the King could by law do against him for that he could neither imprison nor depose or degrade him there being no presideÌ„t to be found as I suppose of the first And for the second the law it selâ— semeth cleare against it as may appeare by Bracton fol. 401. Stanford â—ol 130. c. But howsoeuer it be this proueth nothing against the Popes spirituall Iurisdicâ—ion in England this matter of Aduowsons being meere tempoâ—all things and of the kings temporall inheritance wherein as in all other temporall affaires Bishops were bound to obserue the temporall lawes 91. The other point also that happened out vnder K. Edward the 3. when one was condeÌ„ned to perpetuall prison for hauing disturbed the Kings Presentee by Bulls from Rome is nothing to the purpose at all for that it apperteined not to the Pope but to the Kings temporall inheritance as hath byn said to present Clerkes to such benefices as were of his peculiar patronage and therfore it was ordeined in the Statute of Carliâ—le in the 25. of Edw. the first that such as went about to disâ—urbe the same vniustly by false informations and negotiations at Rome should be punished at the discretion of the Prince so it were not with losse of lyfe meÌ„ber or of his liuood And what inferreth this Are not the like lawes at this day in Spaine and Sicily and els where against them that traÌ„sgresâ—e ordinations of those Realmes about like affaires Or doth this proue that those Catholike Realmes do not acknowledge the Popes Ecclesiasticall Supremacy Euery child may see the weaknes of these inferences and yet vpon these and the like doth all M. Aâ—torneys Treatise layne and consist 92. As for the other Case vnder K. Richard 2. where it was propounded by the Commons in a certaine narration that the Crowne of England hath byn at all tymes â—ree and in subiection to no Realme nor to the B. of Rome touching the Regality of the Crowne c. it is so fully answered by the Deuine in his Reply to the Reports as no more needeth to be said For that they speake but of temporall regalities and haue some reference also as may be supposed vnto the time when the Sea Apostolicke after the concession of K. Iohn preteÌ„ded teÌ„porall right also in that Crown And the answere oâ— the Bishops in that Parliament with distinctioÌ„ that they would â—eld to that Statute so far forth as they did not preiudicâ— the ancient iurisdiction Ecclesiasticall of the said Sea Apostolicke in spirituall affaires doth euidently shew that this obiection maketh nothing to the purpose to denie thereby any part of the Popes supreme Ecclesiasticall authority and consequently as it was impertinently alleaged by M. Attorney to that effect in his Reports so much more fondly was it chosen out by M. Morton as a matter of moment to furnish his Booke withall 93. And as for the last Case vnder K. Edward the fourth where he saith That it was the opinion of the Kings Bench that whatsoeuer spirituall man should sue another spirituall man in the Court of Rome for a maâ—ter spirituall where he might haue remedy before his Ordinary that is the Bishop of the diocesse within the Realme he incurreth the danger of Premunire being an heynous ofâ—ence against the honor of the King his Crown dignity though the former answeâ—e of the Deuine be very sufficient in this case yet must I needes adde â—n this place that it is rather an heinous offence in such a man as M. Attorney is or should be to misreport and misconster his law-bookes therby to make someâ— shew oâ— probability against the ancieâ—t power Ecclesiasticall of the Sea Apostolicke in England whereas the said Books being rightly alleaged vnderstood do make wholy for it As for example heere in this case alleaged out of 9. Ed. the 4. â—ol 3. the saying is only of Yeluerton of the kings Bench and his Report is meant when a spirituall man shall sue an other that is a temporall man in the Court of Rome for a thing meere temporaâ—l he shall incurre the said punishment For that for one spirituall man to sue another spirituall man in the Court of Rome in spirituall Causes was a thing all waies lawfull and vsuall both before the tyme of K. Ed. 4. and after vntill it was forbid by King Henry the eight And that this is true that it was lawfull by the CoÌ„mon-law in K. Henry 4. tyme appeareth expressely by the Booke of 14. H. 4. fol. 14. Neither can I thinke M. Attorney alleage any example where the same is prohibited either by CommoÌ„ or Statute law during the tyme aforesaid 94. And whereas for strengthning this his false assertion he citeth in his Margent vide Fitzh in Nat. Breu. fol. 45. lit â— agreeing herewith And further adâ—eth a Notandum for the same as a matter notorious he doth notoriously abuse his Reader For that Fitzh speaketh not at all of a Premunire but only That if one sueth another out of the Realme for debt or other cause wherof the kings Court may haue conusance he shall haue a prohibition against him And so if one Clearke sue an other vpon title of Collation oâ— any Prebendary out of the Realme c. he shall haue also this prohibiâ—ion And if a man purchaseth out of the Court oâ— Rom against any Clerk or others any Citation directed vnto the Archbishop of Canterbury or any others to cite such a person to appeare beâ—ore the Pope c. to answere for the Collation or Presentation vnto any benefice or Prebendary a prohibition shall lye in this Case Hitherto Fitzher in his writt of prohibition And this is all that he hath in that place of this matter So you see that all that Fitzherbert saith is but that a prohibitioÌ„ shall lye for suyng in the Court of Rome for debt or title of Patronage or such other temporall Causes wherof the Kings Court may haue conusance and he maketh no mention of any Premunire And yet euery puny StudeÌ„t in the Law can tell how much difference there is betwixt a Premunire and a Prohibition that Syr Edward delt not sincerely wheÌ„ he brought in the one for the other 95. So then we soe what striuing wresting worse vsage M. Attorney offereth to his law-bookes to make them seeme to say somwhat against vs and for Protestant religion against which most of them were written as all of them before our times without exception in fauour of the Catholicks We see also the pittifull choice that M. Morton hath made of these fiue Cases out of all M. Attorneys Reportable Reports against the Popes supreme Ecclesiasticall authority
happines who being as I am a poore despised hated scorned and vnrespected souldiour so vnfortunate as no commended meanes though many vsed with confirmation both of loue and loyalty can be of power to raise a spirit drowned in the worst of misery froÌ„ despayres gulfe c. Wherby it may appeare that Prickets chief endeauour was rather indirectly by laying forth his owne temporall needs to draw somewhat from Syr Edwards purse and by writing the story of his glorious speach at Norwich to gayne vnto himself his good will and affection for his reliefe then any way to shew malignity against him wherof I fynd no cause or probability but rather his pricking stomake against vs whom Syr Edward also impugned and consequently if any thing be found in his narration that at this present displeased Syr Edward it must be thought to proceed eyther from the errour of the others memory that directed not well his pen or from some change of mynd in Syr Edward himselfe who now perhaps reprehendeth that which before he misliked not but was well content to haue it published And to this later coniecture I am the rather induced to incline for that there are now two yeares past more since Pricket set forth in print this speach and I neuer heard that Syr Edward did mislike it vntill at this present I see it so greiuously reprehended by him in this last Preface for in the former that was prefixed before his sixt part of Reports which seemeth to haue come forth after Prickets relation no complaynt or mention is made therof 105. But you will aske me perhaps why so great a charge should be found in Syr Edward that he should so sharpely and vehemently inueigh against that which before he liked or at leastwise tolerated for so long tyme wherunto truly I know not what other thing to answere but that it may be that the exceptions I tooke in my answer to M. Morton against diuers things in that narration as notorious vntruthes might displease or stinge somewhat Syr Edward who hauing no list to answere the matters theÌ„selues thought best to fall aboard the relator to lay the fault on him saying that he hath not related matters aright wherin as I meane not to excuse him so on the other side it seemeth very hard vnto me that the substance of those points wherin I touched Syr Edwards vntrue dealing and many other wherin I might haue said much more should be feigned or deuised by Pricket or related by him more maliciously against vs then they were meant or vttered by the Iustice himself which is euident partly by that which I haue heard to be continued still by him both there and in other places where since that tyme he hath giuen Charges to the Iurie wherin the greatest part and most bitter of his speach is allwayes commonly against the Catholicks as though they were the greatest malefactours of the realme to be inquired of And in this very Charge and speach related by Pricket his malicious inâ—ectiue against them conteyneth aboue a dozen leaues printed the whole thing it self scarce being as much againe 106. And if you will behold the impertinency vanity therof considering the auditory of Norwich his Countrey where he would needs triumph gloriously in that first Charge if I be not deceyued after he was Iudge you shall fynd it not only like to be Syr Edwards but worthy also of his veyne in that vanity for that hauing first by a seuerall Exordium set down a tale of a Noble yong Roman that was by the Senate made a Iudge in his tender yeares and for diuers reasons and considerations of the dignity therof made some delay and difficulty in admitting the same he did notwithstanding vpon some friends persuasion yeald at length to accept therof all which Parable the Iustice applying to himselfe beginneth his Charge with such plausible Oratoricall wisedomes eloquence to vse the words of his Relatour M. Pricket as first he expounded vnto them vpon his fingers the Grammaticall verse Quis quibus quid quomodo and de quibus that is who sent this Commission to wit his Maiesty To whom to Syr Edward and others vnder him What did it coÌ„teyne Great and high authority How must it be executed By doing iustice Of whom and what causes must inquiry be made Principally and in the first place against Catholiks that do professe the Roman religion and obedience of the Pope 107. And is not this a goodly deduction Was there euer any English Iudge before the Apostacy of Martyn Luther that gaue a Charge from the bench against such men for being such If all the Iudges lawiers of our Nation that euer gaue Charges to inquire of malefactours for nine hundred yeares together and more in our Iland after Christian religion receyued did giue such a Charge for such a crime then hath Syr Edward somewhat to excuse his insolency heerin But if there be none as most certainly there is not how then doth he performe his promise made heere in this new Latin Preface of auoyding fiue things in setting downe his Reports Wherof the fourth he termeth Nouitatem Nouelty which he defyneth to be then when si ad amussim nostrorum librorum antiquorum exempla applicentur nequaquam quadrant If the things which he speaketh being applyed to the exact rule of their law-bookes and examples of their ancients do not agree therunto Which he holdeth for a thing most vnworthy of their profession indignissimam studiis nostris VVherefore eyther he must bring forth such ancient bookes lawes and examples for himself and his cause that precedent Iudges haue giuen such Charges or els he conuinceth himselfe to be most vnworthy of that place and dignity of law which he holdeth 108. But to returne to the Charge giuen at Norwich after he had expounded the verse of Quis Quibus c. according to his manner of ostentation he beginneth his narratioÌ„ thus Our worlds admired Queene renowned Elizabeth did as you do know in the beginning of her Raigne change the State of religion in this kingdome in her first Parliament by the consent of her Lordes Spirituall Temporall c. and then he goeth forward to shew the continuall reclayme and resistance made by Catholicke men from tyme to tyme for their religion wherby thinking to disgrace them as rebellious for their reluctation doth in deed giue them the highest coÌ„mendation that can be giuen to Christian men which is to stand firme constaÌ„t to the worlds end in their Religion once receiued and continued to their tyme. And for himselâ—e doth insinuate therby that for the gayning of aduancement and pleasing a worlds admired Queene or any other worldly Prince it were no hard matter to make him admit any change of Religion whatsoeuer for so much as he alloweth so easily of this which this VVoman-Queene made with admiration and wonder oâ— the world yet doth he vtter
This is his demaund and for ground heerof he citeth these latin words of Bellarmine out of the forenamed place Pelagiani docebant non esse in hominibus peccatum originale praecipuè in filijs fidelium Idem docent Caluinus Bucerus The Pelagians did teach that there was not Originall synne in men especially in the children of the faithfull And the same do teach Caluin Bucer which words if you conferre them with the words themselues of Bellarmine before cited who accuseth not Caluin Bucer of all the Pelagian doctrine in this poynt but only Zuinglius and as for the other two to wit Bucer Caluin he accuseth them for a part only Zuinglius denying originall synne in all and these later only in Christian Infantes two trickes at least of wilfull falsity are discouered the first that in his charge he wiâ—leth Bellarmine to be examined in confession about Caluin wheras he â—pake of three togeather to wit Zuinglius Bucer and Caluin the second that he accuseth Bellarmiâ—e as though he had charged Caluin with all the Pelagian heresie in this matter wheras he expresly profâ—ssâ—th to charge him only with one point therof coÌ„cerâ—ing the infantes of the faithfull Wherfore these words â—deÌ„ docent Caluinus Bucerus and this may be the third false tricke are not to be found in Bellarmine but are thrust in by M. Morâ—on nor cannot agree with the distinction of Cardinall Bellarmine before set downe these things then I leaue to the Readers discretion For though the points themselues for their substance be not of great weight yet is the mynd of the writer as much discouered in false tricks of small moment as of great see more of this matter before Cap. 3. num 62.63.64 c. 13. It followeth pag. 55. of this his preamble that treating of the prohibition made by the ancient Councell of Eliberis in Spayne consisting of 19. Bishops not to set vp Images in the Churches the diuers expositions of Catholicke doctours about the same what the causes and motiues might be of this prohibition for that tyme of the fresh and new conuersioÌ„ of that nation from Idolatrie to Christian Religion among other expositors he citeth the opinion of Sixtus Senensis for the last vpshot of the whole matter â—aying thus So that whatsoeuer the occasion of forbidding might haue beene this is a confessed conclusion of Senensis that the Councell of Eliberis did absolutly forbid the worship of Images And then â—etteth down the same in latin in his margent as out of Senensis alâ—o in these wordes Idcirco omnino veâ—uit Synodus Elibertina imaginum calâ—um But he that shall looke vpon the text of the Authour himself shall not fynd any such confessed conclusion or any such words of absolutly forbidding and consequently this is conuinced to be an absolute vntruth for it appeareth cleerly in Senensis that the prohibition was only for a time vntill the new conuerted Spaniards should be better instructed in Christian Religion and made to vnderstand better the difference betweene Pagan Idols and sacred Images so as heere are two grosse falsityes first in obtruding as the latin sentence of Senensis that which Senensis hath not in words or sense and then in translating the same so punctually into English setting it down in a different letter as though it were exactly so in good earnest and can there be any excuse for these sortes of procedings Let the Reader see more before c. 3. nu 38. 14. Gregorius de Valentia is brought in by M. Morton against Bellarmine as allowing of a sentence of Tertullian vsed by Bullinger the Caluinist as orthodoxall and iustifiable to wit Tres sunt in Diuinitate personae non statu sed gradu non substantia sed forma non potestate sed specie differentes and M. Morton stoutly cyteth in his margent for approuing therof Gregorius de Valentia Iesuita de vnitate Trinitate c. 9. § item Bullingerus meaning therby to oppose the one of theÌ„ against the other in this matterâ— but when the thing is examined the wordes of Gregorius de Valentia are found to be these Bullingerus Sacramentarius c. Bullinger the Sacramentary affirmeth that there are three persons in Deity which differ not in state but degree not in substance but forme not in power but kind by which wordes sayth Valentia he doth not only ouerthrow the Godhead of the sonne but euen the whole Mystery of the most holy Trinity 15. So sayth ValeÌ„tia against Bullinger for whose defeÌ„ce against Cardinall Bellarmins accusation of Arianisme he is produced And let the reader iudge whether this be an allowancâ— of that sentence for orthodoxall which Valentia sayth as yow see to be so blasphemous as it doth ouerthrow the whole mystery of the Blessed Trinity And the lyke lye yow may behold vttered by M. Morton against Cardinall Bellarmine himselfe in this very matter affirming him to expound as orthodoxall and iustifiable the forsayd hereticall paradox of Tertullian wheras he expoundeth only in good senâ—e the former part therof So as heere are two conuinced falsiâ—yes wherof yow may read more largely cap. 3. num 88.89 c. 16. There falleth out a question betweene M. Morton and Cardinall Bellarmine whether the forme of arguing vsed by S. Cyprian were good and sufficient or no whâ—Ì„ he defended the errour of rebaptizing hereticks à sufficientia scripturarum exclusiuè to wit this or that is not in the Scripture ergo it is not to be defended it being the common forme of arguing in the Protestants of our dayes and Bellarmine sayth no alleaging S. Augustine for his Authority who defending the negatiue against S. Cyprians error to wit that men returning froÌ„ heresy were not to be rebaptized which was the opinion of the whole Church in his time grounded vpon vnwritten tradition of the sayd Church reprehended that forme of arguing in S. Cyprian as not goodâ— and sufficient shewing both that many thinges bâ—sydes this are taught and belieued in the Church by tradition which are not in Scripture that S. Cyprian himselfe wheÌ„ he was out of necessity of defending this article made recourse vnto vnwritten traditions wherunto M. Mortoâ— answereth thus But whosoeuer shall consult with S. Augustine in the Chapter specifyed shall fynd that this point by himselfe is excellently commended saying that wheras Cyprian warneth vs to runne vnto the fountayne that is vnto the traditions of the Apostles from thence to deriue a coÌ„duct vnto our times is chiefly good and doubtles to be performed So he 17. But when S. Augustines discourse is examined it is found wholy against M. Morton for though he do allow and prayse recourse vnto Scriptures when things may euidently be proued from thence yeâ— doth he not hold that only such things are to be belieued as are expresly therin conteyned but rather both in this controuersie of râ—baptization wherin S. Cyprian doth pretend to hold