this Conclusion Haec igitur in Religione concordiae sola est ratio vt omnes pio ac simplici animo purè ac integrâ— sic sapâ—ant viuant loquantur ac praedicent quemadmodum Sancta Catholica Romana Ecclâ—sia quae Dei prouidentia magistra veritatis orbi praeposita â—st docet loquitur ac praedicat This therefore in Religion is the only way of concord that all men with a pious and simple mynd do wholy and purely conceiue liue speake and preach as the holy Catholicke Roman Church which God by his prouidence hath giuen for a teacher of truth vnto the whole world doth teach speake and preach 78. And now consider yow this dealing that whereas Bish. Cunerus sayth Haec est in religione concordiae sola ratio this is the only way or meanes of concord in Religion this man alleageth it in his margent Haec est Religionis sola ratio this is the only way of religion as though concord and Religion were all one then by another tricke of crafty translation in his English text that is only true religion as though true religion and the way or meanes to come to true Religion were not different And then for all the rest how it is mangled and how many words and senteÌ„ces are put in by this Minister which are none of Cunerus and how many of his altered and put out is easy for the Reader to see by comparing the two Latin texts before alleaged and thereby to consider how facile a matter it is for this fellow to deuide tongues A course sayth he which I professe in all disputes when he deuideth and separateth the words from their Authors and the sense from the words and the whole drift from them both a very fine course and fit for a man of his profession So much wrote I at that tyme which had as you see some acrimony to draw out some satifaction froÌ„ M. Morton if he had byn as full therof as the title of his former booke of Full satisfaction pretendeth THE SEAVENTEENTH Pretermitted falshood by T. M. §. XVII NOw we come to another abuse apperteyning to two men indiffereÌ„tly to wit Cassanderâ— German Schoolâ—maister and Bellarmine an ItaliaÌ„ Cardinallâ— but we shall ascribe it rather to the Germâ—n for this present for that we haue spoken often and haue had diuers examples about Cardinall Bellarmine before Thus then I did propose the matter in my former Treatise 80. Albeit I haue not yet passed ouer sayd I the halfe of the first part of this first Treatise of M. Mort. Ful satisfaction for it is deuided into sundry Treatises and that in thisâ— first halfe also I haue pretermitted willingly many other exaÌ„ples that might haue byn alleadged yet fynding my selfe weary to prosecute any further so large a Labyrinth of these intricate iuggling tricks vsed by this Mynister in his whole corps of citations which do consist principally therof I meane to draw to an end adding only one example more in this place about a matter more neerly concerning our argument which is of Reconciliation of Protestants with Catholicks in points of Religion which T.M. willing to accuse Iâ—suits as the only hinderers therof writeth thus Only by the insolency sayth he of Iesuits all such hope of reconciliation is debarred as is playne by Bellarmyne for whereas that most graue learned Cassander honoured oâ—â—â—o â—mperours â—or his singular learning and piety did teach That Emperours should endeauour a reconciliation betwixt Papists and Protestants because saith he Protestants hold the Articles of the Creed and are true members of the Church although they dissent from vs in some particuler opinions the grand Iesuit doth answere that this iudgment of Cassander is false for that Catholicks cannot be reconciled with hereticks heretically meaning Protestants So he 81. But here I would aske him why he had not vttered also that which immediatly followeth in Bellar. that Iohn Caluin had writteÌ„ a book against this â—rrour of Cassander and that among Catholicke writers Ioannes à Louanio had done the same and shewed that it was an old heresie of Appelles as Eusebius testifieth and of other hereticks aâ—terward vnder Zeno the Emperour named Pacifyers as Euagrius testifyeth who held that Catholicks heretiks might be coÌ„posed together why I say did T.M. coÌ„ceale this As also the many great stroÌ„g argumeÌ„ts that Bellarmyne alleageth to proue his assertion And why would he lay all the fault of not agreeing vpon the insolency oâ— Iesuits seeing Ioannes à Louanio was no Iesuite nor Caluin neither 82. But to leaue this and to come to the thing it selfe and to take some more particuler view of the false behauiour of Tho. Morton in citing this authority yt is strange that in so small a matter he would shew so great want of truth or true meaning as heere he doth For first to pretermit that he goeth about to deceiue his Reader by the opinioÌ„ of grauity learning in George Cassander of Bruges who was but a Grammarian in his dayes and that he was a Catholicke who is censured for an Hereticke prima classis in the index of prohibited Bookes and not only for heresies of this tyme but also quòd dicit Spiritum Sanctum minùs aduocanduÌ„ adoranduÌ„ esse for that he saith that the holy Ghost is lesse to be called vpon or adored c. as the Index expurgatorius testifyeth Besides all this I say M. Mort. corrupteth manifestly in the senteÌ„ce before alleaged the words and plaine meaning of his Author to wit Bellarmine from whom he citeth Cassanders iudgment for thus they lye in him Tertius error sayth he est Georgij Cassandri in libro de Officio pij Viri vbi docet debere Principes inuenire rationem pacis inter Catholicos Lutheranos c. Sed interim dum non inueniunt debere permittere vnicuique suam fidem modò omnes recipiant Scripturam Symbolum ApostolicuÌ„ Sic enim omnes sunt verae Ecclesiae membra licèt in particularibus dogmatibus dissentiantâ— 83. The third errour is of George Cassander in his booke Of the office of a pious man where he teacheth that Princes ought to seeke out some meanes of peace betwixt Catholicks LutheraÌ„s Caluinists other Sectes of our tyme but in the meane space whiles they fynd no such meanes the ought to permit euery one to follow his owne particuler faith so as all do receaue the Scripture and common Creed of the Apostles for so all are true members of the Church albeit they disagree among theÌ„selues in particuler doctrines These are Bellarmines wordes Now let vs see how they are mangled by M. Morton both in Latin English as by him that hath the notablest talent therin notwithstanding his solemne protestations to the contrary that euer I read in my life 84. He putteth downe first the latin wordes in his margent thus Debent Principes inuenire rationem pacis inter
about to refute 〈◊〉 tradition VVhence is this tradition It is deriued from the Lords Authority or frâ—m the prâ—câ—pt of the Apostles For God willâ—th that we â—hoâ—d do those things which are written From whence ProtestaÌ„ts conclude that the Scriptures are of sufficiency for our direction in all questions of faith Bellarmine answereth that Cyprian spake this when he thought to defend an error and therfore iâ— is no meruaile iâ— he erred in so reasoning for the which cause S. Augustine saith he did worthily reâ—ute him The question is not what error Cyprian held but whether his manner of reasoning from the sufficiency of Scripture were erroneous or no. Bellarmine pretendeth that S. Augustine did worthily reproue him But whosoeuer shall consult with S. Augustine in the Chapter specified shall find that this poynt by him is excellently commended That Cyprian warneth vs saith S. Augustine to runne vnto tâ—e â—ountaine that is vnto the tradition oâ— the Aposâ—les from thence to deriue a conduct to our tymes it is chiâ—fly good and doubtlesse to be perâ—ormed 105. This is M. Mortons whole obiection wherin we must examine what wilfull deceipt to falsification he findeth here in Cardinall Bellarmines allegation of Cyprian For if he find not this then findeth he nothing to his purpose he hauing intituled this his Paragraph of Bâ—llaâ—mines falsiâ—ications but if he find no falshood nor falsity at all either wilfull or not wilfull then is he more in the briers but most of all if finding nothing in his aduersary himselfe be taken in manifest falshood both witting and wilful Let vs examine then this poynt more particulerly 106. And first I do note that he proposeth this obiection very obscurely that for the cause which will presently be seâ—ne for he doth not explicate vpon what occasion these words of S. Cyprian were vttered by him nor alleadged by Protestants as an obiection against vnwritten traditions Wherfore the Reader must know that the holy man S. Cypâ—ian hâ—uing conceaued an infinite auersion froÌ„ hereticks and herâ—sies of his time did vpon indiscreet zeale â—all into this errour that as their faith was not goodâ—â—o neither their baptisme and consequently that â—uch as left them and were conuerted to the Cathoâ—icke religion should be baptized againe after the Catholicke manner and hauing found some other Bishops also of Africk vpon the same groundes to ioyne with him in the same opinion for that it seemed to them to be most conforme to Scriptures that detested euery where hereticks and heresies he wrote therof vnto Stephen Bishop of Rome who standing vpon the coÌ„trary custome alwayes vsed in the Church not to rebaptize such as were conuerted from heresie misliked S. Cyprians opinion and wrote vnto him against the same wherwith the good man being somwhat exasperated wrote a letter vnto Pompeius Bishope of Sabrata in Africk cited heere by M. Morton wherin amongst other sharp speaches he hath this interrogation here set downe Vnde est ista traditio c From whence is this tradition of not rebaptizing heretickes Is it deriued from our Lords Authority c. vpon which forme of arguing in S. Cyprian M. Morton saith that Protestants do lawfully argue in like manner this or that tradition is not in the Scriptures ergo it is not to be admitted 107. But saith Cardinall Bellarmine this was no good forme of arguing in S. Cyprian nor euer vsed by him but in this necessitie for defending his errour as Protestantes also are driuen to vse the same for defence of theirs and this he proueth by two wayes First for that S. Augustine doth of purpose out of the sense of the vniuersall Church of his dayes refute that inference and forme of argument and secondly for that S. Cyprian himselfe in other places where he was not pressed with this necessity doth yeald and allow the authority of vnwritten traditions which later proofe as the most conuincent M Morton doâ—h suppresse with silence in reciting Bellarmines answere and saith only to the first that S. Augustine is so farre of from condemning S. Cyprians mannâ—r of reasoning from the sufficiency of Scriptures as he doth excellently commend the same this then is briefly to be examined out of S. Augustines ovvne wordes 108. And first I graunt as S. Augustine also doth that when any Tradition or doctryne can cleerly be shewed out of the Scriptures optimum est siâ—e dubitatione facieâ—dum it is the best way of all and questionles to be obserued And for that S. Cyprian in that his errour did certainly perswade himselfe to be able to prooue the same out of holy Scriptures as appeareth by the many places alleadged by him to thâ—t effect though wrongfully vnderstood especially in the sayd Epistle to Pompeius and else wherâ— which places of Scripture S. Augustine doth particulerly ponder and refute and shew not to be rightly applied by S. Cyprian who seeing the generall custome and tradition of the Church to be contrary vnto him in this cause prouoked to the Scriptures alone as the Protestants do in as bad a cause But now let vs see what S. Augustine teacheth in this behalfe and how he confuteth S. Cyprians prouocatioÌ„ to only Scriptures in this case of controuersy betweene them notwithstanding he allowed for the best way to haue recourse to the fountaynes when things from thence may as I sayd cleerly be proued 109. Let vs heare I say S. Augustine recounting the case betweene S. Cyprian on the one side himselfe with â—ll Catholike meÌ„ of his dayes on the other NoÌ„dâ—â—â—râ—tâ—â—aith â—â—aith he diligentâ—rilla Baptismi quâ—stio pertracta c. The question of Baptisme or rebâ—ptizing heretiks was not in S. Cyprians tyme diligently discussed albeit the Catholike Church held a most wholsome custome to correct that in Schismatiks Heretiks which was euill not to iterate that which was giuen them as good which custome I belieue to haue come downe from the Apostles tradition as many others which are not found in their writings nor yet in the later Councels of their successours neuerthelesse are obserued through the whole vniuersall Church and are belieued not to haue beene deliuered and commended vnto vs but from the sayd Apostles This most wholsome custome then S. Cyprian sayth that his predecessour Agrippinus did begin to correct but as the truth it selfe being more diligently after examined did teach he is thought more truly to haue corrupted theÌ„ corrected the same Thus S. Augustine of the state of the question and of the authority of Customes and Traditions vnwritten Now Let vs see what he saith to S. Cyprians maÌ„ner of reasoning from the sufficiency of Scripture as M. Morton tearmeth it 101. Ad Pompeium saith S. Augustine scribit Cyprianus de hac re c. S. Cyprian doth write to the Bishop Pompeius about this matter where he doth manifestly shew that Stephen whome wee vnderstand to haue beene Bishop of Rome at that tyme did not
only not consent vnto him verùm etiam contra scripsisse atque praeâ—â—pisse but also did write and gaue commandement to the contrary c. S. Cypryan did obiect Apostoli nihil quidâ—m exinde praeceperunt the Apostles did command nothing in the Scriptures about this matter It is true saith S. Augustine Sed consuetudo illa quae opponebatur Cypriano ab eorâ—m traditione exordium sumpsisse credenda est sâ—â—uâ— sunt multa quae Vniuersa tenet Ecclesia ob hoc ab Apostâ—â—â—s prâ—câ—pta bene creduntur quamquam scripta non reperiantur But that custome which was opposed to S. Cyprian by the Church is to be belieued to haue taken beginning from the tradition of the Apostles as there are many things which the Vniuersall Church doth hold and they are therfore rightly belieued to haue beene ordayned by the Apostles though they be not found written Thus S. Augustine 111. Wherby we vnderstand first his full meaning about the Authority of traditions in the Church though they be not found written in the holy Scripture and secondly that albeit in some cases it is good and lawâ—ull to runne to Scriptures when the matter may be clearly by them decided yet is it no good argument alwaies to say It is not in the Scripture and therfore we are not bound to belieue it which was the argument of S. Cyprian when he was in errour and for maintenance of the same as M. Morton cannot deny nor dareth reproue S. Augustine and the Church of his time that condemned this manner of reasoning in S. Cyprian And what now doth there result against Bellarmine in all this obiection Is he found false in any one thing which heere is said Nay is not M. Morton coÌ„uinced of euident fraud in setting downe this accusation First for concealing the true state of the questionâ— then for that S. Augustine doth not reproue but excellently commend the manner of reasoning in S. Cyprian pretermitting all that I haue alledged out of S. Augustines expresse words to the coÌ„trary which he could not but know and haue read Thirdly by cutting of the words immediatly following in Bellarmine conteyning his second reason which was that S. Cyprian in other traditions besides this of not rebaptizing heretickes which erroneously he thought to be repugnant to Scripture he allowed vrged also the force of Traditions in the Church of God though they were not writtenâ— wherof Caâ—dinall Bellarmine himselfe alleadgeth two euident exaÌ„ples the one about the necessity of holy Chrisme or Vnction vrged by S. Cypriâ—n out of only Tradition lib. 1. Epist. 12. and the offering wine togeather with water in the Sacrifice which he vrgeth as Dominicam Traditionem a Tradition of our Lord lib. 2. Epist. 3. whereas notwithstanding nothing is found written in the Scriptures of either of these traditions And if I would alleage other traditions allowed by him though not written in the Scriptures I might be large heerin as for example that of renunciation accustomed to be made in the Church before baptisme wherof he treateth in his 7. and 54. Epistles and in his booke de disciplina habitu Virginum as also of the demaundes answeres accustomed to be made in the Church about the articles of the Creed Epist. 70. of Exorcismes to be made before baptisme Epist. 2. 72. lib. conâ—ra Demetrianum 112. The tradition of baptizing Infants Epist. 59. which S. Augustine holdeth to stand only vpon vnwritten tradition and the like This second argument then of Bellarmine being craftily left out and his former from S. Augustines authority wittingly peruerted M. Morton insteed of an obiectioÌ„ against the Cardinall hath brought in a flat condemnation of two notable fraudes against himselfe Let vs see another of like sort and suite if he can haue patience to heare it HIS SECOND OBIECTION against Cardinall Bellarmine touching false allegations about Anacletus §◠XIIII SECONDLY saith he Bellarmine to establish the authority of the Pope doth giue this prerogatiue to S. Peter to wit That S. Peter was the only Bishop and that other Apostles tooke their Orders from him which he laboureth to euince from the testimonies of Anacleâ—us Clemens Alexander Eusebius Cyprian where he is refelled by his owne doctors One saying that indeed those Fathers meane no such thing Another that the Epistles of Anacletus are counterfaite which many vrge more then is meete to the end they may aduance the authority of the Sea of Rome 114. Thus farre the obiection in his owne wordes Wherin I meruaile what wilfull falshood may be found such as the writer himselfe must needes know it to be so except it be on the behalfe of M. Morâ—oÌ„ who entreth presently with a shift at the first beginning saying as you haue hard that Bellarmine giueth this prerogatiue to S. Peter that he was the only Bishop and that other Apostles tooke their orders from him wheras Bellarmines saying is some authors to be of opinion quòd solus Petrus à Christo Episcopus ordinatus fuerit caeteri autem à Petro Episcopalem consecrationâ—m acceperint that only S. Peter was ordeined Bishop immediatly by Christ and the other receaued their Episcopall consecration from S. Peter So as in so litle a sentence he leaueth out first that S. Peter was ordeined Bishop alone by Christ and then changeth Episcopall consecration into holy Orders as though they had not bene made so much as Priests by our Sauiour himselfe but only by S. Peter wheras all authors agree that Christ in making them Apostles made theÌ„ all Priests though some do doubt whether immediatly by himselfe he made them all Bishops So as no one thing is sincerely handled heere by M. Morton without some nippe or other as you see 115 Secondly wheras he saith that Bellarmine laboureth to euince froÌ„ the testimonies of Anacletus Clemens AlexaÌ„drinus c. the proofe of this prerogatiue he abuseth him egregiously for that Bellarmine doth alleadg this opinion that Christ hauing made all his Apostles Priests did make only S. Peter Bishop with authority to coÌ„secrate the rest as the opinion of Turrecremata alleadging diuers manifest reasons and proofes for the same as namely one that either Christ did ordaine none of his Apostles Bishops or all or some certaine number or one only The first cannot stand for that if Christ had ordained none then should we haue at this day no Episcopall authority among vs. Nor can it be said that he ordained all immediatly for that S. Paul was ordained by imposition of handes by the Ministers of the Church as appeareth Act. 13. and by S. Leo Epist. 81. ad Dioscorum as also by S. Chrysost. in hunc locum S. Iames in like manner is recorded not only by Anacletus Epist. 2. but by Clemens Alexandrinus Eusebius lib. 2. hist. cap. 1. and by S. Hierome de Viris Illustribus in Iacobo to haue beene made Bishop by S. Peter 116. The third
appertayne to the temporall good and prosperity therof 11. Next after the declaratioÌ„ of these three pointes to wit of the origens ends obiects of these two powers spirituall and â—eÌ„porall the sayd Catholicke Deuine deduceth out of the same the differeÌ„t dignity excellency eminency of the one the other power the one being called Deuine the other Humane for that the ends and obiects of the one are immediatly concerning the soule as now we haue declared and the other concerning humane affaires immediatly though mediatly in a Christian Common wealth referred also to God And this diâ—ference of these two powers he declareth by the similitude likenesse of flesh and spirit out of S. Gregory Nazianzen who in a certaine narration of his doth most excellently expresse the same by the comparison of spirit and flesh soule and sense which thing saith he may be considered as two distinct Common wealthes separated the one from the other or conioyned togeather in one Common wealth only An example of the former wherin they are separated may be in beasts and Angels the one hauing their common wealth of sense only without soule or spirit and the other CoÌ„mon wealth of Angels being of spirit only without flesh or body but in man are conioyned both the one the other And euen so sayth he in the Common wealth of Gentils was the Ciuill and Poliâ—icall Earthly and Humane power giuen by God to gouerne worldly and humane things but not spirituall for the soule wheras coÌ„trarywise in the primitiue Chriâ—tian Church for almost three hundred yeares togeather none or few Kings Princes or Potentates being conuerted the Common wealth of Christians was gouerned only or principally by spirituall authority vnder the Apostles and Bishops that succeeded them 12. Out of which consideration confirmed and strengthened by sundry places of holy scripture ancient Fathers alleaged by him he sheweth the great eminency of spirituall Authority aboue temporall being considered seuerally in themselues though they may stand ioyntly and both togeather in a Christian Common wealth where the temporall Princes be ChristiaÌ„s though with this necessary subordination that in spirituall and Ecclesiasticall affaires belonging to the soule the spirituall gouernours be chiefly to be respected as in Ciuill affaires the temporall magistrate is to be obeyed and this he sheweth by diuers examples and occasions out of S. Ambrose S. Chrysostome S. Gregory Nazianzen and other Bishops and Prelats that in Ecclesiasticall affayres prefered themselues and their authorities before that of Christian Emperours with whome they lyued expresly affirming that in those respects they were their Superiours Pastours the said Emperours their sheep subiects though in temporall affaires they acknowledged them to be their Superiours 13. All this is set downe by the Catholicke Deuine with great variety of proofes many examples facts and speaches of ancient Fathers And will Syr Edward Cooke say that this was froÌ„ the purpose a Nihil dicit doth not this quite ouerthrow his assertioÌ„ that all teÌ„porall Kings by vertue power of their temporall Crownes haue supreme authority also in spiritual affaires If the forsaid three Fathers to pretermit all others S. Gregory Nazianzen S. Chrysostome and S. Ambrose that had to do with Christian Emperours which had teÌ„porall authority ouer all or the most part of the Christian world did yet notwithstanding affirme vnto their faces that they had no authority at all in spirituall matters belonging to soules but were and ought to be subiect to thâ—m their Pastours in that Ecclesiasticall gouerment how much lesse could a woman-Prince haue the same by right of her temporall Crowne as most absurdly M. Attorney auerreth Which absurdity the Catholicke Deuine doth conuince so largely by all sortes of proofes both diuine and humane as well vnder the law oâ— Nature as Mosayâ—all and Christian that a person of the feminine sâ—xe is not capable of supreme Spirituall iurisdiction ouer man as nothing seemeth can be answered theruÌ„to And was this also â—rom the purpose to proue that Queene Elizabeth could not haue it What will Syr Edward answere here for his Nihil dicit 14. After all this and much more alleaged by the Catholicke Deuine which I pretermit for breuities sake he commeth to reduce the whole controuersie betweene M. Attorney and him vnto two generall heads of proofe the one de Iure the other de facto that is of right and fact shewing that in the first of these two proofes de Iure which is the principall M. Attorney did not so much as attempt to say any thing â—or proofe that by right Queene Elizabeth or any of her Ancestours had supreme iurisdiction in causes Ecclesiasticall but only that de â—acto some of them had sometymes taken and exercised such an authority Which if it were without right was as yow know nothing at all and therfore the sayd Deuine hauing proued more at large that by no right of any law whatsoeuer diuine or humane Queene Elizabeth or her predecessours had or could haue supreame authority Spirituall he coÌ„meth to ioyne with M. Attorney also in the second prouing that neyther in fact any such thing was euer pretended or practised by any of her Predecessours before the tyme of her Father K. Henry the viij either before or after the Conquest 15. And as for before the Conquest there haue beene more then an hundred Kings of different Kingdomes within the land he proueth by ten large demonstrations that none of them did euer take vpon him such supreme spirituall authority but acknowledged it expresly to be in the Bishop of Rome of which demoÌ„strations the first is of lawes made by them generally in fauour and confirmation of the liberties of the English Church according to the directions and Canons deriued â—rom the authority of the Sea Apostolicke The second that Ecclesiasticall lawes in England made before the Conquest were made by Bishops and Prelats who had their Authority from Rome and not by temporall Kinges The third that all determination of weighty Ecclesiasticall affayres were referred not only by the Christian people generally of that Realme as occasions fell out but by our Kings also in those dayes vnto Rome and the Sea Apostolicke The â—ourth that the Confirmations of all Priuiledges Franchises of Churches Monasteries Hospitals and the like were in those dayes demaunded and obteyned from the Pope The fifth that in all Ecclesiasticall controuersies suites and grieuances there were made Appeales and complaints to the Sea of Rome for remedy The sixth the succession of Bishops Archbishops in England during that time all acknowledging the supremacy of the Pope were notwithstanding in high fauour and reuerence with the English Kings with whom they lyued wherof is inâ—erred that these Kings also must needs be of the same iudgment and beliefe and consequently make lawes conforme to that their fayth and beliefe as contrariwise since the schisme began by K. Henry the 8.
Scripture â—ith The Sonne shall not beare the iniquitie of â—â—e Father nor the Father of the Sonne but eâ—â—ry one must answere for himselfe let vs seâ—â—â—en how M. Morton doth performe this point â—â—en then saith he when I was in greatest â—â—â—lousie of mine owne myscarriage I conceiâ—â—d a double matter of comfort First from â—â— selfe that knowing I durst present my â—â—plications vnto the Iudge of the secret â—â—ughts of all hartes I doubted not but that â—ng able with true confidence to appeare â—ore God I should not greatly feare the â—â—sure of man This is one defence more Rhetoricall then reall 〈◊〉 how could he dare with such confidence appeare before God with the burthen of so many â—ntruthes as afterward you will see conuinced â—â—ainst him especially in the three last Chapters â—f this our Answere And if he be not able to â—efend them before man how will he iustifie theÌ„â—efore God Let vs see his second defence for this first standeth only vpon his owne confidence SecoÌ„dly saith he from my aduersary tooke I matter of comfort presuming that he that would write in defence of mentall Equiuocation would be found to equiuocate in writing also This you see is but a presumption and that a very poore one For as a man may write of warre and yet not fight and of Agriculture or husbandry and yet neither plow nor sow So may he write of Equiuocation and yet not Equiuocate and Equiuocate also and yet not lye So as this could be but a silly comfort for M. Morton to presuppose and hope that I would Equiuocate in writing of Equiuocation which was not needfull And if I had yet might I do it without lying and so nothing therby haue relieued his case that was so deeply charged with that fault And finally if I had bene able to be conuinced of any point in that kind as afterward you will see that I was not yet S. Augustines rule is Quod societas peccantium auget potiùs quà m excusat peccatum Fellowship in sinne increaseth rather then excuseth the fault Though truly it may seâ—me that M. Morton would highly esteeme this fellowship with me if he could bring it about and thinke himselfe well defended if he could attaine it Which I am lead to belieue not only by his labour diligence solicitude therin but by the last Conclusion of his forâ—named Epistle to my self which he endeth thus for an vpshoot I may thinke saith he the Scripture verified vpon you where it is thus written Therfore art thou inexcusable O man whosoeuer thou be that iudgest for doing the same thinges by iudging an other thou condemnest thy selfe Out of which text of the Apostle M. Morton would proue that I doing the same things with him in this point of fraud and false dealing I cannot condemne him without condemning also my selfe which consequence I grant but deny the antecedent Which I assure my self M. Morton will neuer be able to proue in any one point of moment throughout this whole concertation of ours himselfe being taken faultie almost at euery turne as you will see And yet doth he vaunt as though his integritie were extraordinary in this behalfe telling vs that as the Greeke CoÌ„maunder being in appaâ—aÌ„ce mortally wounded demanded of his souldiers whether the Citie were safe whether his â—uckler or shield were sound and being saâ—isfied in them receiued health and after beâ—ame victorious So he vnder so ghastly wouÌ„ds â—f my penne hauing generally inquired â—prightly answered himself that his cause was â—afe and his conscience sound began more resolutely to confront me Thus you see that he hath cleared himselfe is become victorious vpon a suddayne by force of a similitude only And in truth the tale is pretily told by him in wordes but let vs come to the substance of the things If M. Mortons cause be so safe and his conscience so sound how do there stand togeather afterward in the sixt Chapter of this my Answere aboue thirty vntruths pretended to haue bin wittingly pretermitted by him in his last Preamblatorie Reply as vnanswerable now aboue fiftie more newly added out of the said Reply which are set downe in my seauenth Chapter If these can be really defended by him he doth somewhat And for diuers of them he ought to haue done it before But if they cannot as I assure my selfe without making of more new they cannot then is neither M. Mortons cause safe nor his conscience sound in this behalfe Nay his sheild and buckler is vtterly broken and his Cittie of refuge quite ouerthrowne But he promiseth vs a more forcible EncouÌ„ter to ensue after he hath discharged his part in another taske of more importaÌ„ce in the Answere of the Catholicke Apologie which saith he by this calumnious Treatise of P. R. his Mitigation as by an aduerse tempest hath receiued some interruption And by this you see that M. Morton is still doing whether well or euill God knoweth I maruaile he feareth not the scratch due to his ytch wherof he speaketh in his Preamble For if out of Germanie there come that multitude of scratches that is threatned by him whose letter I haue mentioned in the latter end of this Answere do ioyne themselues with these scratches of myne both old and new that do march togeather in this my answere against him they are like to make a great squadron And M. Morton will haue his hands full in defending himselfe from them and in procuring that of scratches and scarres they do not beâ—ome deeper wounds vnto his credit But indeed I do not expâ—ct any such new Encounter as he promisâ—th For if he had reallie meant it and had seene himselfe able to performe it he would haue answered substantially in this Preamble some of the chiefest difficulties that were laid against him to the end to make his Reader belieue that he would be able to satisfie the rest in the said promised EncouÌ„ter But not doing this but shewing rather his extrâ—me weaknes in clearing any one point obiected against him it seemeth but a iest to talke of a new Encounter to come And as for answering the Catholicke Apoâ—ogie which he saith he is in hand withall as 〈◊〉 taske of more importance I do easely graunt 〈◊〉 if he can performe his taske well But M. Morton well knoweth the Topicall place à maâ—ori ad minus è conuerso If he haue not â—yn able to performe lesser matters nor defend the things by himselfe written either in Latin or English but by so many vntruthes as haue bin exhibited against him what will he be able to do in another mans worke especially of such moment difficulty as the said Apologie is where he must answere to other mens sayings especially ProtestaÌ„ts out of whose testimonies the Author of that Apologie doth so clerely conâ—ute their Religion and conâ—irme the Catholicke if I mistake not the worke as neuer any booke
to vse any Equiuocation when we are iustly demauÌ„ded by our lawfull Superiour and when no iniury or violence is vsed vnto vs is a greiuous mortall synne in our Catholicke doctrine and consequently she being lawfully dâ—maunded by S. Peter in a lawfull cause touching her owne vow promise no clause of reseruation could saue her speach from lying as our Minister doth foolishly imagine 26 Wherfore S. Peter as most lawfull Iudge and gouernour of the Vniuersall Church vnder Christ and the holy ghost in him did worthily punish that dissimulation and lying boâ—h in her and her huâ—baÌ„d for example of others in that beginning and for manifesting the great and speciall assistance of the holy ghost that assisted him should be in his successors to the worlds end in that their gouernment to the terrour of wicked men that should impugne it or otherwise deserue by their demerits to be punished by the same And thus much of his examples out of Scriptures which is but one as you see that much against himselfe his owne cause if I be not deceaued for that it proueth all Equiuocation is not lawâ—ull as he will needs suppose vs to hold 27. This was my discourse then Now let vs sâ—e how M. Morton doth ouerthrow my whole Treatise of Equiuocation out of this speach of myne and that with such euidency as no wit of man can possibly excuse me He beginneth his impugnation thus The supposed Equiuocation of the woman Saphyra saith he was this I haue sold it but for so much reseruing in her mynd for ought that you shall know which is agreable to their owne example of Equiuocation I am no Priest meaning to tell it you This later P. R. hath defended throughout his whole booke and now of the other he is inforced by the word of truth to say that it is a lye and that no clause of reseruation could saue it from a lye from whence it shall inuincibly follow that Priestes Equiuocation is a Satanicall lye these two speaches being so semblable in themselues as if he should say they differ then must the difference be eyther in respect of the speaâ—ers or in respect of the hearers This is his discourse â—alking much of the word of truth and the child of truth â—nd continuing still to promise what he will do what he will proue but as yet he proueth nothing He saith it will follow inuincibly that to answere I â—m no Priest to an incompetent Iudge if I be a Priest â—s a Satanicall lye for that such was the answere of â—aphyra vnto S. Peter I haue sold my possession for so much â—ith this reseruation of mind to tell you or to conferre â—n common But first how doth he proue that she had â—his meaning of reseruation in her mind It is but â— Mortons imagination to ascribe it vnto her for it â—ay more probably be thought that she had neuer â—ny such cogitation to make her speach lawfull by â—eseruation but absolutly to lye Which is most conâ—orme to the text it selfe of holy Scripture where it â—s said by S. Peter to Ananias Cur tentauit Satanas cor tuâ—m mentiri Spiritui Sancto Wherefore hath Sathan tempted thy hart to ly vnto the Holy ghost And againe Thou hast not lyed to men but to God Wherby it is euident that his and his wiues intention was to lye and to defraud the coÌ„munity of a part of their lands and that they had no cogitation at all of speaking a truth auoyding of lying by Equiuocation as the Priest hath and so haue all those that meane lawfully and with a good consciencâ— to couer a truth which they are not bound to vtter which properly we call equiuocation so as whosoeuer hath not this intentioÌ„ as it is to be supposed that Ananias Saphyra had not he doth not equiuocate but lye Which being so it is very great simplicity to abstaine froÌ„ a worse word for M. Morton to found his whole discourse vpon this matter and especially so vaine and vaunting a discourse as this is only vpon his owne supposall that the woman Saphyra had intention to equiuocate which if I deny as iustly I may all this glorious building falleth to the grouÌ„d But yet not to cut him of so short and put him to a non plus vpon the suddaine I am content to doe him this pleasure as to suppose with him that the poore woman might haue some such reseruation in her mind as M. Morton imagineth to wit that as the Priest saith truly I am no Priest with obligation to tell it you so shee might meane that I haue sold it for no more to acquaint you withall and then I say albeit we should admit this supposall it is denied by vs flatly that these two examples are alike as now I haue declared the one being vnlawfull the other not And what inuincible argumeÌ„t hath M. Morton thinke you now to proue that they are all one And that of the Priest to be as vnlawfull as the other of the woman You shall heare 28. If you say quoth he that they differ then must the difference be eyther in respect of the speakers or of the hearers We answere that of both for in the behalfe of the speaker there was obligation in Saphyra to answere the truth and in the hearer lawfull authority to demaund it for that he was lawfull Iudge but neither of these two things are in the Priest that is vnlawfully examined by the incoÌ„petent Iudge For that as the said Iudge is no Iudge consequently hath no authority to demaund matters preiudiciall to the party examined so hath the other no obligation to answere directly to his intention or interrogatory And what hath now M. Morton to reply to these so euident and important differences that make the one answere lawfull the other a lye 29. Surely it is a pittifull thing to see how he is puzled in this matter and would faine say somewhat and can find nothing wheron he may subsist or rest himselfe For first he beginneth with the person of the woman that is the speaker that did vnlawfully equiuocate vnto S. Peter comparing her to the person of the Priest that lawfully saith vnto â—n incompetent Iudge I am no Priest and findeth no â—reater difference betweene them but first that she 〈◊〉 a woman and he is a man and then that it is as possible â—r a Priest to lye as for a woman to tell truth But he dissemâ—leth the maine differeÌ„ce now mentioned that she â—ad obligatioÌ„ to tell the truth without equiuocatioÌ„ â— he not which is the substantiall differeÌ„ce indeed Heere theÌ„ is no plaine dealing to falter so manifestly â—n the very principall point that most imported â—0 Secondly he passeth to the person of the heaâ—er or Iudge and sayth there can be no difference â—etweene the two cases in that respect whether â—hey be competent or incompetent and this he pretendeth â—o proue out
the Councells meaning and with the reason it selfe alledged by the Canon which variety of answers or expositions in a coniecturall matter as hath bene sayd are no wilfull contradictioÌ„s as M. Morton fondlie supposeth but multiplicity of expositions The most generall is that the true meaning of the Councell was that for more reuerence of holie images and to the end the thing which was proposed to be worshipped adored in them should not suffer indecency they should not be painted vpon walles of the Church where by the corruption and moysture therof they might come to be corrupted and defaced but rather that they should be made vpon tables veiles such other moueable matter wherby they might both the better be preserued and remoued also more conueniently from the iniury of Infidells in tyme of persecutioÌ„ which in effect was the verie same reasoÌ„ that mooued the ancient and Christian Emperour Theodosius to prohibite that the image of Christs Crosse which he carryed in his banner should not be engrauen vpon the ground or pauement and so trodden vpon by mens feete 37. And heere also the consideration of learned Vasquez is worth the obseruing who being a Spanyard writeth that this decre of his Country-CouÌ„cell of Eliberis maketh so litle against the Catholick moderne vse of Images as that the greatest enemy that euer they had one of them in the world Claudius Taurinensis a Spanyard in like manner and a chief head of the Iconoclasts or Image-breakers almost 800. yeares agone seeking all the arguments that he could any way scrape togeather against theÌ„ and the pious vse therof yet did he neuer alleage this CanoÌ„ of his owne Countrey-Councell which now Caluin and Caluinists doe so much vrge well foreseeing that it made nothing at all to his purpose or against the Catholicke vse of Images For yf it had bene otherwise either he or some other of that sect after him would haue cyted the same before the Protestants of our tyme. 38. I doe willingly pretermitt the pageants and childish playes which M. Morton doth make to him self in comparing and opposing the variety of our writers answers and interpretations togeather and the one against the other as before hath bene said proposing them as poppetts to make himselfe pastime which he may do also vpon the grauest CoÌ„mentaries that euer were written vpon Aristotle or â—ther author yea vpon the Scriptures themselues â—ut I can not lett passe the last assertion of all sett â—owne by M. Morton in a different letter that whatsoâ—uer the occasion of forbidding might haue bene in the Canon this is a confessed conclusion of Senensis that the Counâ—ell of Eliberis did absolutely forbidd the worshipp of Images And so he maketh the Latin text of Senenâ—is to speake in like manner Omnino vetuit Synodus Eliâ—ertina imaginum cultum But in Senensis you shall not find the word omnino or absolutely wherin standeth all the force of the matter And the fraud cannot seeme but willfull nor can it any way stand with the intention of Senensis who saith and affirmeth only according to the interpretation which he best alloweth of among manie other that the meaning of the Councell was this to forbid the vse of images for a time least the new conuerted Spanyardes not being well instructed seing images vpon the walls should thinke there were no difference betweene them and the heathen Idols For auoyding wherof it seemed good to the Councell for a while to remoue the vse of images which of it selfe they held for lawfull and pious This is the opinion of Senensis And now let the discreet reader iudge whether this were his confessed Conclusion that the Councell of Eliberis did absolutely or not rather secundum quid forbid the worship of images Surely I am ashamed of such shifting in M. Morton euen then when he preteÌ„deth to charge his aduersarie with that crime and cannot proue it Let vs passe to another instance of his noe better then this HIS THIRD EXAMPLE OF like deceipt obiected against the same Catholicke Authors about the Councell of Frankford in Germany §. IIII. AFTER the former variety of expositioÌ„s about the Canon of the Councell of Eliberis M. Morton passeth to another difference in iudgement among our Catholicke writers concerning the Prouinciall Councell of Franckeford which being held about 800. yeares past presently after the second generall Councell of Nice wherin the Catholicke vse of images was defended and established against the foresaid heresy of Iconoclasts sundry Authors alleaged by the Magdeburgians do write that the said Synode of Frankeford did condemne as well the said doctryne of images as also the Authority of the Councell of Nice that had allowed the same which if it were true yet were not the matter of any great doubt whether a Prouinciall Councell such as was that of Frankeford were rather to be obeyed then a generall as was the other of Nice But for that there is great obscurity and many contradictions in the history it selfe therfore diuers Catholicke writers do answere and expound the matter diuersly alleadging sundry excellent coniecturall reasons proofes and probabilityes ech one for themselues as may be seene in the places of their workes heere quoted but yet all agreeing in the principall poynt against the Protestants that the Councell of Frankeford indeed did not coÌ„demne eyther the Councel of Nice or the doctryne of Images in the sense at least and meaning that the said Nicene Councell had approued the same And what is this to the purpose then to proue that thâ—se Authors did erre wittingly against their conscience Do you not see that still the poore man runneth quite from the purpose and hath nothing to say to the effect he should say 40. But let vs stay our selues a little vpon the matter it selfe and giue some briefe notice to the Reader of the diuersity of opinions in our Cathoâ—icke Authors about this matter that is so obscure â—y relation of others for that no Canon or Decree â—f that Councell was euer extant about the same to my knowledge The whole controuersy is reduced â—o three opinions the first is of Surius Alanus Coâ—us Sanders and others who thinke probably â—hat albeit diuers Historiographers vpon the credit of certain bookes called falsely Carolini or of Charles the great refuted by Pope Adrian the first then â—yuing haue left recorded that the Councell of Frankeford did reproue the seauenth Generall Counâ—ell about images which is knowne to be the 2. of Nice yet was it not so indeed but another false Councell of Constantinople was condemned by them of Frankeford as held by the hereticall Image-breakers a litle before and was called the 2. of Constantinople â—nd by themselues that held it the 7. Generall Councell So as according to this opinioÌ„ the error was in mistaking the second Councell of Nice to haue bene condemned by the Councell of Frankâ—ord insteed of the second Councell of
Morton why we should ascribe more vnto the iudgement of Senensis in censuring these places of the Fathers then vnto other learnâ—d that thinke the contrary They are all acknowledged saith M. Morton expresly by Syxtus Senensis â—â—om the euidence of their contextes to haue spoken only of the â—ire of the day of Iudgemâ—nt and consequently not of Purgatory This now is properly to help a dye in deed for that Senensis doth not talke of any such euidence of the contextes but speaketh rather doubtfully and by coniâ—ctuâ—e saying of Origen that his opinion that both good and bad should be purged by fâ—re is confuted by S. Augâ—stine in his bookes de Ciâ—itate Dâ—i but yet for excusing the same from errour he saith Tu vide an Origenis verba interpretari queant de igne vlâ—imae coâ—flagrationis Do thou Reader consider whether the wordes of Origen may be interpreted of the fire of the last coÌ„flagration or â—ot So as he did not exprâ—sly acknowledge from the euidencâ— of contexts as M. Mort. shifting lying wordes are that these authorityes must needes be vnderstood of the last combustion of the world but rather leaueth it as vncertayne to be considered by the Reader and there are diuers of them that cannot be so vnderstood as that of Origen vpon the Epistle to the Romans haecipsa purgatio quae per poenam ignis adhibetur c. This purgation of synnes which is applyed by the punishment of fyre how many yeares and how many ages it shall afflict sinners only he can tell to whome his Father gaue power of iudgement which wordes cannot well be vnderstood of the last conflagratioÌ„ of the world which no man can affirme to be likely to indure many ages together 132. And many like sentences may be obserued in the other Fathers speaches which he expresly alleadgeth to the sense of this of Origen whom he saith they do imitate and follow in holding that both S. Peter S. Paul and other Saints shall passe also through this fire though without hurt Expurgabit Hierusalem saith S. Basil Dominus in spiriâ—u iudicij spiritu ardoris quod ad â—am probationem siue examâ—Ì„ refertur quod per ignem fiet in suturo saeculo God shall purge Hierusalem in the spirit of Iudgment and the spirit of burning which is referred to that probation and examination which shall be made by fire in the world to come And this I thinke Sixtus Senensis or M. Morton for him will hardly apply from the euidence of the context it selfe vnto the last coÌ„flagration of this world which indeed is but a meere coniecture of his and for such he willeth the Reader to consider of it as now you haue heard But M. Morton doth magnifie the same as somwhat helping him in his opinion to diuert the authorities of these Fathers from inferring the true fire of Purgatory but the truth is that they may include both as before we haue noted to wit the fire of Gods iudgment in examining sinnes after their deathes and the fire of Gods iustice in purging and punishing theÌ„ temporally that were not purged before Of which later execution of Iustice and purging sinnes the last conflagration of the world may be a member or part for those that shall liue vntill the last day of iudgment Wherunto S. Ambrose in the very place heere alledged seemeth to allude when he sayth Cùm vnusquisque nostrûm venerit adiudicium Dei ad illos ignes quos transituri sumus c. When euery one of vs shall come to the Iudgment of God to those fires through which we must passe then let euery man say as the Prophet did respect my humility and deliuer me Where it is euident that S. Ambrose speaketh of more fires then one And so this third contradiction of Bellarmine is found to be nothing at all 133. His fourth and last contradiction framed out of B. Fisher against Bellarmine to wit that there is very rare mention of Purgatory in the Greeke Fathers is vnderstood by him as well of the name of Purgatory not then so much in vse as that the most ancient writers next after the Apostles tyme when many thinges were not discussed so exactly as in processe of time they were did not so clearely handle that matter Nemo iam dubitat orthodoxus saith he an Purgatorium sit de quo tamen apud priscos illos nulla vel quà m rarissima fiebat mentio No rightly belieuing Christian doth now doubt whether there be Purgatory or no of which notwithstanding there was none or very rare mention made among those most ancienâ— Fathers Wherof he giueth diuers reasons and indeed the same may be said of sundry important other articles of Catholike Religion for so much as in the first primitiue Church when the said Fathers were vnder persecution and occupied in other weighty affaires against heretickes and persecutors they had not time nor occasion to discusse many things which the holy Ghost afterward did make more cleare vnto the Church by successe of time and yet doth not Bishop Fisher say that there was no knowledg of this article of Purgatory in the very first Fathers but only his meaning was that the name nature circumstance therof was not so well discussed consequently the thing more seldome mentioned by them then afterward by the subsequent writers 134. Wherfore comming afterward in his 37. article to answere Luther that sayd that Purgatory could not be proued by any substantiall argument he vseth this demonstration against him Cùm à tot Patribus saith he tam à Graecis quà m Latinis Purgatorium affirmetur non est verisimile quin eius veritas per idoneas probationes illis claruisset Wheras Purgatory is affirmed by so many Fathers as well Grecians as Latinists it is not likly but that the truth therof was made cleare vnto them by some sufficient proofes And then after the citing a multitude of Fathers of the one and the other Church he commeth to proue Purgatory first by Scripture out of both testaments and then by great variety of testimonies and authories of the said Fathers And if this will not suffice M. Morton let him see the threescore before mentioned by me out of Coccius wherof 30. or therabout were of ancient Greeke Fathers within the first 600. yeares after Christ. MAISTER MORTONS conclusion and obseruation about the article of Purgatory examined §. XVII MAISTER MORTON hauing plaied his prize as now you haue heard in charging Cardinall Bellarmine with contradictions and absurdities about the doctrine of Purgatory he maketh this conclusion If any saith he shall but obserue in this one controuersy the number of witnesses brought in for the confirmation of this their new article in the name of ancient Fathers which are by confessioÌ„ of our aduersaries meerely counterfaite as Clemens his Constitutions Clemens Epistles Athanas in quaest Eusebius Emissenus Iosephus Ben-Gorion Hieron
in Prouerb August ad Fratres in Eremo the Liturgies of Iames and others all which as they are vrged for profe of Purgatory so are they reiected by their owne men I desire to be challenged for proofe heerof as forged or corrupted or Apochrypha and indeed no better witnesses for truth then the Knights oâ— the Post be fit men for a Iury. If further he shall marke how true Fathers and Scriptures are instanced in for proofe of the same article wherof when I speake of Fathers most of them wheÌ„ I speake of Canonicall Scriptures all of them are found by the iudgment of their owne doctours to be tortured wrested and forced as it were to say that which they neuer meant if hee lastly consider how almost euerie one of theÌ„ indeauoring the defence of the same doctrine is in his owne assertions contradicted by himself which may be in this one controuersie concerning Purgatorie a late article of their faith most plainly discerned So â—ar hee 136. And this his conclusion or repetitioÌ„ in the end of this last obiection about Purgatorie seemeth to me a recapitulation and briefe represâ—ntation of all his former vnsyncere dealings concerning the same and that he cannot be trusted in any thing he saith though he struggle still to say somwhat For first of this number of witnâ—sses which heere he saith to haue bene brought in as Knights of the Post for confirmation of this new article of Purgatory to wit Clâ—mens his Constitutions and Epistles and the other six or seauen authorities heere cited they and the rest vnder the names of ancient Fathers are not so much as named by Bellarmine except only the two first in a word or two and much lesse are they brought in for principall authors in the Catalogue of ancient Fathers whose testimonies and authorities he setteth downe for proofe of Purgatory so as this is one deceiptfull vntruth to make his Reader beliâ—ue that these are our chiefe Authors wheras Bellarmine besides these doth alleadge twenty viz. ten of the Greeke Church and as many of the Latin as namely S. Gregory Nazianzen S. Basil S. Ephraim S. Epiphanius S. Cyrill S Chrysostome â—usebius Theodoretus Theophilactus and Damascenus all Fathers of the Greeke Church and Tertullian S. Cyprian S. Ambrose S. Hiâ—rome S. Paulinus S. Augustine S. Gregory S. Isidorus Victor Vticensis and S. Bernard of the latin Church All which twenty Fathers are without the number of those other against which he excepteth heere and consequently are so many good and lawfull witnesses and not Knightes of the Post for a complete Iury against M. Morâ—on 137. Secondly it is another manifest vntruth that he saith his aduersaries to wit Catholicke writers do confesse these seauen or eight Authors and autâ—orities by him mentioned to be meerely counterfaite For albeit some of them be excepted against or called in question by some writers whether they be the true workes of the Authors whose names they beare or not and therof all reputed Apocryphall that is hydden and obscure yet it followeth not that they are merely counterfaite for that they may be ancient workes and not to be contemned though not of those Authors As for example that worke intituled Opus imperâ—ectuÌ„ in Matthaeum ascribed to S. Chrysostome and the Sermons ad Fratres in Eremo ascribed to S. Augustine the Homilies also attributed to Eusebius Emissenus proued by Baronius to haue bene written by S. Eucherius Bishop of Lyons that liued aboue eleuen hundred yeares gone all these workes cannot be denied to be ancient and learned though Apocryphall hidden and doubtfull for so much as concerneth their true Authors which yet our writers do not call meerely counterâ—aite as heere M. Morton doth falsely affirme 138. His third manifest vntruth is where he saith that of Fathers the most of them and of Canonicall Scriptures all of them are found by the iudgment of our owne Doctors to be tortured wrested and forced to say for Purgatory that which they neuer meant This now whether it be not such a wilfull and witting lye as before I described for a formall malicious lye such as the writer did know to be a lye when he wrote it I am content to remit my selfe to any iudicious and ciuill Protestant in the world For if our owne Catholike doctors that make profession to belieue Purgatory do fynd in their owne iudgement as heere is said that of Fathers alleaged â—or the prooâ—e therof the most of them and of Scriptures all of them are tortured â—orceâ— to say that which they neuer meant how then do these doctors belieue the doctryne of Purgatory to be true Why do they not change their opinions and become Protestants Is it credible that they will belieue that for truth for an article of faith which all Scriptures most Fathers in their owne iudgments do impugne Can M. Morton answere any thing to this so lewd wilfull absurdity And did not he know that he lyed when he wrote this And that it was impossible to be true 139. Morâ—euer I haue now shewed that Cardinall Bellarmine in setting downe the Fathers opinions about Purgatory besydes those excepted against by M. Morton hath twenty others and Coccius in his Thesaurus hath neere threescore within the compasse of the first 600. yeares after Christ and will any Catholike doctour or writer thinke yow say that the most of these Fathers are found in their iudgements to be â—orced to speake against their owne meaning And yet saith M. Morton I desyre to be challenged for proofe herof And to the end that he may haue somewhat to do I do earnestly challenge him herein requiring at his hands that of those first threescore mentioned by Coccius within the first six hundred yeares he doe really sincâ—rely proue thirty one at least which is the maior part to be so tortured and so graunted to be by the Iudgement oâ— our owne writers or els he falleth wholy in his cause 140. And againe let him proue that all Canonicall Scriptures alleaged by Bellarmine and others for Purgatory are found also by the iudgments of our owne doctors to be so tortured wrested forced he shall proue himseâ—f an admirable man indeed But in the meane space let vs examine a litle the probability of this fond vauÌ„t to wit what he will be able to do when he commeth to the proofe Bellarmine doth alleage ten sâ—uâ—rall places out of the old â—estament for proofe of Purgatory with the expositions of the ancient Fathers vpon them and all aâ—e confessed by Protestants theÌ„selues to be taken out of Canonicall Scripture except the first two out of the bookes of Machabees and â—oby which â—ere notwithstanding accompted for Canonicall in S. Augustines tyme as appeareth by the third Councell of Carthage in which himselfe was present and out of the new TestameÌ„t he alleageth other fiue places with the expositions in like manner of the ancient Fathers vpon the same
to the same effect thâ— Authority of S. Hierome out of another Canon in another place of the law as presenly we shall see 78. So as first heere we may behold that T. M. hath not put downe this his quoted Glosse as it is fouÌ„d in the true Glosse it selfe but left out both the beginning Quia isti haeretici c. which imported soÌ„what to the vnderstanding of his meaning as also he leâ—t out the reason alleaged by the Glosse out of Gods owne wordes in Deutronomy to wit the wilâ—ull corrupting oâ— his truth And thirdly he added these words vt â—undas sanguinem ipsorum which heere as you see the Glosse hath not but they are cited out of S. Hierome in another Canon volume of the law where the holy Father excusing to his friend Ripariuâ— a Priest his earnest zeale desire to haue Vigilâ—ntiuâ— the hereticke against whome he had writteÌ„ punished by his Bishop alleadgeth diuers examples of seuerity in like cases out of the Scriptures as of Phinâ—es Elias Symon Canâ—naeus S. Peter S. Paul lastly citeth also the foresaid words of Gods Ordinance in Deutronomy Iâ— thy brother thy wife thy friend c. shall go about to peruert thee from Gods true worship c. heare him not nor conceale him but bring him forth to Iudgement and let thy hand be vpâ— him â—iâ—st then after the haÌ„d oâ— all the people c. which is to be vnderstod according to the forme of law appointed afterward in the 17. Chapter that he be orderly brought â—orth to Iudgement and then when sentence is passed against him he which heard or saw him commit the sinne and is a witnesse against him must cast the first stone at him and the rest must â—ollow And this also doth the ordinary commentary or Glosse of Lyranus and others vpon those texts of Scripture declare 79. And now let the iudicious Reader consider how many corruptioÌ„s this crafty Minister hath vsed to bring forth to his purpose this one litle distracted text for profe of professed bloudy massacres inteÌ„ded by vs against Protestants For first he corrupteth the words of the Glosse apparantly and that in diuers poynts leauing out that which the Glosse saith and adding that which the Glosse hath not then he corrupteth the meaning both of Glosse and Canon deprauing that to a wicked sense of bloudy massacring without distinction of sex or kindred which the Canon and Councell of Carthage with S. Augustine meant only of ciuill punishmeÌ„t against heretickes to wit that they could not be made heires to Ecclesiasticall men Thirdly he peruerteth in like manner S. Hieromes intent which was that albeit he wished that heretiks should be punished also bodily yet by order and forme of law and not that any one should kill another and much lesse by â—loudy massacres as this fellow setteth it downe in his marginall note And lastly he presumeth to peruert the very wordes of God himselfe in the law by translating fundas sanguinem ipsorum spill their bloud in steed oâ— shed their bloud as though God were a bloud-spiller or commaunded the same to be done vniustly by others But all is â—trayned by the Minister to make vs odious wheras himselâ—e indeed is therby made ridiculous And thus farre endured my former Charge The pretended Discharge 80. To this impoâ—tant Charge let vs see now how Mortonâ—â—ameth â—â—ameth his discharge for it â—ay be presumed that if he had not byn abâ—e to do the same sufficiently in his owne conceipt he would not haue made choice of defending this before so many others as he hath let passe without answere First then you must know that heere agayne he referreth vs to his frend M. Stocke to help him out which he doth so miserably as it is pittifull to see in what plight they both are For that M. Stocke though â—e confesse that he lent him this place also out of the Glosâ—e yet he will not take vpon him to iustiâ—y any thing theâ—in but only the citation to be true which notwithstanding he cannot performe as presently shall be shewed but as for the corruptions and falsiâ—ications vsâ—d about the same he leaueth them all to M. Morton to shift with them as he can And in truth it is a very Comedy to see how they deale togeather For first you must imagine M. Morton to enter on the scafâ—old and there being charged with this imputation of so many falsityes as now you haue heard first looketh round about him who will come forth to help him therin and then seing no body appeare sayth thus To the allegatioÌ„ oâ— thiâ— place of Gratian Ric. Stocke doth owe you an answere And so goeth of the scaffold agayne leauing the other to play his part who coÌ„ming vp prosecuteth the matter thus 81. This second place also I brought saith R. Stocke vnto T. Morton the whole being no otherwise distractedly quoted then the Glosse whence I had it warranted by me so that if P. R. reproue me he must checke his Glossary for when the Glosse had set downe the first part he quoted for the later Causa 23. q. 8. cap. Legi c. And this being said he presently recoyleth and leaueth the stage for M. Morton againe to make the Epilogue and end the Comedie But we must call him back againe for the glosâ—e cited by him doth not warrant this citation to wit apud Gratianum Glossae in decret lib. 5. ex Decret Gregoâ—ij 9. caus 23. q. 8. cap. Legi for it had bin ridiculous that this Glosse heere cited vpon the 5. of the Decretals of Pope Gregory should haue beene found cited in Gratian as the Collectour of these Decretals of Gregory the ninth for so much as the said Gratian was dead many yeares before this Pope Gregory the 9. was made Pope which was vpon the yeare 1227. as in the beginning of the said Decretals is set downe and Gratian collected his Decrees seauenty six yeares before to wit 1151. So as M. Morton in his first two bookes the Discouery and full Satisfaction citing the sentence Haeretici filij vel conâ—anguinei non dicuntur quoteth the place thus apud Gratian. Glossa in Decret lib. 5. ex decreto Gregorij noni did miste â—irst in saving apud Gratianum Glossa for that the Glosse cyted is not vpon Grâ—tiâ—n but vpon the Decâ—etals of Gregory and the Author therof is Beâ—nardus de Bottono Secondly it is not in Decretis gathered by Gratian but vpon the Decretals of Pope Gregory gathered by Saint Raimondus Barâ—inonâ—â—sis almost a hundred yeares after Gratian as hath beene sayd 82. VVherfore though before I said to M Morton that this â—ault of distracted quotation were easely pardonable if he vsed no greater fraud in the thing it selfe for that it was likely he read not the bookes which he cyted he thanketh me hartely for it as now you haue heard as for a dram of sugar â—alling seasonably vpon him
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