lying 26. Another example most manifest is in the fourth booke of the Kinges where the King of Syria sending certaine Captaines with forces to apprehend the Prophet Elizeus in the Citty of Dothaim he going forth of the Citty and meeting with the said Captaines they not knowing him said vnto them Non est haec via neque ista est Ciuitas sequimini me ostendam virum quem quaeritis This is not the way to Dothaim nor is this that Citty but doe yow follow me and I will shew vnto yow the man whome yow seeke for and so they did and he lead them into the middest of Samaria where the King of Israel his army might and would haue destroyed them if the said Prophet had permitted So as this stratageme also conteyning the exteriour shew of a great vntruth and falshood cannot be deined to haue byn lawfull in this Prophet as appeareth by the concurrence of God with diuers miracles in the same 27. The like may be shewed out of the example of Iudith who by the instinct of Almighty God and his plaine ordinance as the Scripture saith was sent to Holofornes who told him a long narration of many thinges that in euent and outward shew were not true as that he should get not only 〈◊〉 but Hierusalem also and conquer the whole nation of the Iewes adding therunto this asseueration Et misit me Dominus haec nunciare tibi and our Lord hath sent me to tell yow these thinges by which stratageme as you know she deliuered her whole countrey from the forces of the said Holofernes which otherwise had byn like to haue destroyed them 28. And thus much in this place for stratagemes in warre but for other examples great numbers might be alledged wherin some Equiuocations must needes be admitted though no ly as that of the Angell appearing to Toby the elder who being taken by him to be a man and demaunded of what family or tribe he was he said ego sum Azarias Ananiae Magni silius I am Azarias the Sonne of the Great Ananias wherunto Toby answered Ex magno genere tu es yow are of a great stocke indeed which yet was not so in the vnderstanding of the speaker and consequently heere must be confessed an euident Equiuocation or amphibology of speach wherby the hearer was deceaued And not vnlike to this is that speech of our Sauiour when standing in the temple he vsed to the Iewes demanding a miracle Doe yow dissolue this Temple and I will build it vp againe in three dayes meaning the Temple of his body but his hearers vnderstood him of the materiall Temple of Hierusalem and so to their sense it seemed that he speake for 〈◊〉 cause they accused him afterward very solemnly therof at this passion and insulted against him for the same vpon the crosse ergo Equiuocation may not alwayes be condemned for lying as our Minister auoucheth 29. I pretermit diuers other speeches of our Sauiour of like quality as that when he said to his brethren Ego non ascendam ad diem festum istum I will not goe vp to Hierusalem to this feast and yet he meant to goe vp and so went but not in publicke and therin stood the Equiuocation of his 〈◊〉 but his brethren vnderstood not his meaning for if they had no doubt they would not haue gone vp without him ergo one sense was vnderstood by the speaker and another by the hearer which wee shall afterward shew to be properly Equiuocation and yet no ly can be inforced theron but with singuler impiety 30. These wordes also of S. Paul to the Hebrewes Melchisedech King of Salem c. which was without Father without Mother without genealogy neither hauing beginning of his dayes nor end of his life must needs be confessed to haue an Equiuocation or amphibology in them and somewhat to be reserued by the speaker for their vnderstanding for as they lye they seeme impossible to be true that a man could be without Father Mother genealogy beginning or ending yet is there no more expressed by the Apostle but his meaning was that nothing is set downe in Scripture of those particularities 31. And finally the same Apostle S. Paul seing himself pressed at a certaine time in iudgment by his enemies and considering that they were of two factions Pharisies and Saduces wherof the one sort confesseth resurrection of the dead and the other not he protested openly that the cause wherof he was accused was about the said resurrection of the dead which though in his sense was true for that his chiefe trouble was for defending the resurrection of Christ and our hope of resurrection by him yet was it not so then in the vnderstanding of the hearers who vpon this deviding themselues let him goe yea the Pharisies began to excuse defend him in that Councell who otherwise were the greatest enemies of his Religion and profession By all which is seene that sometimes of necessity wee must admit some vse of Equiuocation without lying for otherwise many places of the Scriptures themselues and of other holy mens writings doings cannot be well vnderstood or defended as afterwardes more at large shall be shewed 32. But now to passe no further in the recitall of more argumentes to this purpose we may conclude with that common doctrine of Schole-men taken out of S. Augustine and other Fathers that albeit a ly is lawfull in no case yet often may it be lawfull to conceale a truth for that he handling those wordes of the Psalme Thou shalt destroy all those which speake lyes he saith Aliud est mentiri aliud verum occultare aliud est falsum dicere aliud verum tacere It is a different thing to ly to conceale a truth one thing to speake that which is false another thing to hold our peace in that which is true And then concludeth Non est ergo culpandum aliquando verum tacere c. It is not therfore to be reprehended if a man sometimes doe not vtter a truth which hardly can be performed in sundry cases without some amphibology or Equiuocation of speech consequently that this may be without lying And heerof one example may serue for all taken out of Hieremy the Prophet who hauing had a long conference in secret with Sedechias the King in Hierusalem told him many thinges of the will of God about his voluntary yeelding to the Chaldeans and army of Nabuchodonosor King Sedechias in conclusion said thus vnto him Nullus sciat verba haec c. Let no man know those wordes that thou hast spoken vnto me and thou shalt not dye if the Princes or Noble men of my Kingdome shall heare that thou hast spoken with me and shall come vnto thee and say tell vs what thou hast talked with the King and the King with thee and see thou hide nothing from vs thou
and equiuocall as you see they doe all determine our controuersy most cleerly and confound Mortons vanity most apparently that saith and auoucheth No one Iota to be found in all Scripture no one example in all antiquity for the iust proofe or colour of any such Equiuocation or mixt proposition 32. I should vtterly weary my Reader if I would follow all or the greatest Part of that which may be sayed in this behalfe for that alwaies commonly all Prophecies that are minatory and doe threaten punishment haue still some secret-reseruation if they repent not as that of Isay to King Ezechias Haec dicit Dominus dispone Domui tuae quia morieris tu non viues This 〈◊〉 our Lord dispose of thy houshold for thou shall dy and shalt not liue and yet he liued 〈◊〉 yeares after If therfore the Prophet had byn demaunded shall not Ezechias liue any longer he had answered no vpon what had fallen the negatiue no If only vpō the wordes vttered it had byn false for he liued longer but if vpon that togeather with the reseruation in the meaning of the holy Ghost it was true And the like may be said of the Prophecy of Ionas Adhuc quadraginta dies Niniue subuerietur There remaine but fourty dayes before Niniue shall be destroyed so infinite other places Wherfore in this Th. 〈◊〉 was greatly ouerseene in making of confident a chaleng as before yow haue heard THE THIRD POINT OF THIS CHAPTER CONCERNING Other Scriptures alleadged And pretended to be answered by Thomas Morton §. 3. 33. BVt now we must come to a greater conflict which is to examine how our aduersary hath answered certaine examples out of Scripture alleadged as he saith for I haue not yet seene the writing it selfe by a Catholicke Treatise in written-hand intercepted wherby the lawfulnes of this kind of Equiuocation is auouched by his answere to those that are cited by himselfe we may imagine what he will be able to say to these other which haue byn here produced by vs and innumerable others that might be alleadged Examples out of the old Testament First then out of the old Testament he produceth two examples only the one of Iacob that told his Father that he was his eldest sonne Esau which in deed he was not and consequently we must graunt that either he spake false lied which the ancient Fathers S. Ambrose S. Augustine and others doe piously deny or els that he had some reserued further sense in his mind wherby his said speach might be verified and consequently his proposition be ambiguous and Equiuocall 34. But herunto T.M. answereth first that Cardinall Caëtan and diuers other learned men doe hold that Iacob is inexcusable from some sort of 〈◊〉 in this his speach and for this he alleadgeth the testimony of Pererius a Iesuite in his Commentaries vpon Genesis who disputing this matter at large in fiue seuerall disputations whether Iacob did ly or sinne at all in this speach saith that the said Caïétan with some other moderne writers doe hold that it may be graunted that the said Patriarch did commit some veniall sinne by making an officious ly in that behalfe But what doth 〈◊〉 himselfe agree to that opinion No truly But maketh this title of his last disputation therabout The common sentence of Deuines saith he is declared and defended which doth excuse and free Iacob from all manner of lying in his foresaid speach and then beginning with S. Augustine who in diuers partes of his workes doth most earnestly defend the Patriarch Iacob in this behalfe by many and manifold reasons and authorities both from all ly and sinne doth shew and declare that his speach was figuratiue and not deceiptfull conteyning mysterium non mendacium a mystery and not a ly To which effect one place out of his booke against lying shall serue for all Non est mendacium saith he quando silendo absconditur verum sed cùm loquendo promitur falsum Iacob autem quòd matre fecit auctore vt patrem fallere videretur si diligenter fideliter attendatur non est mendacium sed mysterium c. It is no ly when a truth is concealed by silence but when a falsity by speach is vttered that which Iacob did by the persuasion of his mother as though he would deceaue his Father if it be diligently and faithfully considered was no ly but a mystery 35. And then a little after in the same Chapter talking of such misterious speaches that seeme to say one thing and yet doe meane another he saith thus Vera non falsa dicuntur quoniam vera non falsa significantur seu verbo seu facto quae significantur enim vtique ipsa dicuntur putantur autem mendacia quoniam non ea quae vera significantur dicta intelliguntur sed ea quae falsa sunt dicta esse creduntur In a mysterious speach true thinges and not false are spoken for that true thinges and not false are signified either by the word or fact that hath a mystery in it for that in deed those thinges are spoken which are mysteriously signified by the speach but they seeme to be lies for that all men vnderstād not those things that are truly signified by the speach but rather those thinges that are false are thought to be spoken So S. Augustine Wherby is euident what he meaneth by a mysterious speach to wit when one sense is gathered by the wordes another sense truly signified which the naturall signification of the wordes doe not beare and therby a mysterious proposition must be called also Equiuocall in the sense that now wee handle and consequently also S. Augustine must needes be graunted to admit this kind of Equiuocation without lying wherby he so earnestly defendeth this Patriarch from all kind of ly whatsoeuer 36. And with S. Augustine doe concurre in this defence of holy Iacob both S. Hierome S. Chrysostome S. Gregory Theodoret S. Ambrose S. Isidorus S. Bede and of later writers Rupertus Gratian Alexander Halensis Petrus Lombardus S. Thomas and almost infinite others so as for Th. Morton to creepe out now vnder the shaddow of Caïētan and two or three other moderne Authors more against the whole streme and torrent of so many ancient Fathers and Catholike Deuines is a ridiculous euasion and worthy of Thomas Mortons defence and full satisfaction 37. His second example out of the old Testament is that of Hieremy the Prophet set downe by me before in my seauenth Chapter and fourth Consideration therof which this Minister the better not to be vnderstood relateth only in these few obscure wordes out of his aduersaries answere Such Equiuocation saith he did the Prophet Ieremy vse Ier. 38. when he tooke aduise of the King This relation is briefe abrupt and darke as yow see but we haue declared the matter with the circumstances in the former place to wit how
then to betray the truth of God The wordes I then spake as neere as I can call them to mynd were these that if any learned man of all our Aduersaries or if all the learned men that be aliue be able to bring any one sufficient sentence out of any old Catholicke Doctor or Father out of any one old Generall Councell out of the holy Scriptures of God or any one example of the primitiue Church wherby any of these ensuing articles of priuate Masse reall presence Primacy of the Bishop of Rome setting vp and honoring of Images Common prayer in a strange language offering vp Christ in sacrifice c. may be proued I am content to yeeld and subscribe c. 17. And againe in an other place My offer was this in my sermon at the Court that if any of all those things that I then rehearsed could be proued by your side by any sufficient authority either of Scriptures Councels or by any one allowed example c. I would yeald now it standeth vpon yow to proue but one example to the contrary And yet further in an other place in my Sermon saith he at Paules and els where I required yow to bring forth on your parte either some Scripture or some old Doctor or some ancient Councell c. and if yow of your parte would vouchsafe to bring but two lines the whole matter were concluded And yet further I protest before God bring me but one sufficiēt authority or one old Doctor on your side and I will yeeld c. At least yow should haue alleadged Augustine Ambrose Chrysostome Hierome c. I haue offered yow oftentymes bring me but two lines of your side and the field is yours c. O M. Doctor deale simply in Gods cause and say yow haue Doctors when yow haue them indeed 18. This and much more hath he to this effect all tending to shew his rare confidence in the Protestant cause which he defended but yet that he did not speake as he thought in these matters and that his iudgement did not concurre with his tongue and pen and consequently that he did Equiuocate in this worse sorte of Equiuocation many argumentes do mightely perswade me and especially these halfe dozen that follow Sixt argumentes of Maister Iewell his hipocrysy in this case §. 2. 19. FIRST for that he cannot be presumed to haue beene so ignorāt but that how soeuer he might thinke of the Scriptures that by his priuate interpretations he could shifte them of and deliuer himselfe from their Authority yet that the Fathers could not so easily be dispached wherof he had seene the profe but few yeares before in the disputation held in Oxford with B. Cranmer Ridley and Latymer vpon the 16. 17. and 18. dayes of Aprill in the yeare of Christ 1554. in which disputation M. Iewell as Fox saith was Notary among others and saw so many most euident testimonyes of auncient Fathers both Greeke and Latyn alleadged there and vrged against them as they could no wayes answere or handsomely shifte of as yow may see in Fox himselfe though neuer so partially related but much more orderly fully in a speciall Treatise writen of late of that matter intituled A Reuiew of ten publicke disputatiōs about Religion vnder the raignes of K. Edward and Queene Marie which euidency of testimony did worke so greatly with M. Iewell himselfe as after these disputatiōs ended he subscribed publikly in S. Mary-Church of Oxford to the Roman Catholicke doctrine in that behalf as M. Doctor Harding then present writeth to himfelfe in a speciall Epistle prefixed before his Reioynder which being so with what conscience could he say now so soone after Shew me one only Father one Doctor one place one sentence two lynes and the like for so much as lately before he had heard and registred so great a multitude of Fathers sentences that are yet extant in those disputations wherfore this must needs be Equiuocation of the worst kynde which could not be true neyther in the meaninge of the speaker himselfe 20. The second reason is that M. Iewell could not be ignorant that diuers ancient Fathers within the tyme by him limited had not only many sentences for the Catholicke parte in these heades of controuersyes alleadged by him and others but whole discourses also homilyes sermons chapters and treatises if not bookes therof As for exāple about the reall presence if he had read the Fathers he could not be ignorant of the mayne multitude of large Authorityes alleaged in these our dayes aswell by Bishop Claudius de Sainctes as Bellarmin and others about that matter not out of single or doubtfull sentēces but of whole discourses as hath bene said and those as effectually writen by the Authors for the truth of the reall presence as we can do in a manner now as namely S. Cyprian S. Hilary both Cyrills S. Ambrose S. Basil three Gregories Saint Chrysostome S. Hierome and others downward And the like multitude or more is alleadged for the Masse or dayly sacrifice of the Catholicke Church by the same Author And further no man can deny but that S. Augustine for example hath many large discourses treatises or Bookes directly tending to the proofe of diuers poynts now in controuersie betwene Protestants and vs as De cura pro mortuis habenda De libero arbitrio De fide operibus De nuptiis concupiscentia many others where he doth largely and of purpose impugne diuers Protestant opinions and confirme ours both about the valour of the Masse or dayly sacrifice for quicke and dead merite of workes and the like not only approuing but prouing also the same by great variety of Scriptures And the like doth S. Hierome against Iouinian and Vigilantius and S. Epiphanius against Aërius and other heretickes that held the same proposition that Protestants do now All which authorityes if M. Iewell had read or heard of them as may be presumed he had how then could he say with any conscience at all Bring me one Author one Father one Doctor one sentence one place or two lines and the like which he could not do without notable Equiuocation as yow see himselfe knowing that he spake falsely in that behalfe 21. The third reason is that M. Iewell could not but haue seene and considered the small accoumpt which other Protestāt writers more elder then himself had made and did make of the ancient Fathers when in any thing they were against their opinions nay their reiecting of them with contempt doth euidently shew that they held them for their aduersaries As for example M. Iewell beginneth his chalenge as yow remēber O Gregory O Augustine O Hierome O Chrysostome O Leo O Dionyse c. Now as for S. Gregory Caluin giueth this generall sentence of him Gregorius homo multis erroribus imbutus Gregory a man corrupted with many errors and Martyn Luther the Father
a thousand and six hundred yeares which Christian Religion hath endured this doctrine of liberty and immunity of temporall Princes to belieue hold and defend what they list had byn receaued and practised for good and currant vnto this time From which singuler inconuenience danger and desperate desolation the doctrine beliefe of the only Bishop of Rome his Supreame authority and exercise therof hath chiefly deliuered vs as to all men is euident And this only reason were sufficient in all reason to refute this mans ydle confutation of that Supremacy heere pretended which confutation standing vpon so feeble and ridiculous groundes as now in part yow haue seene supported principally by certaine new shifts and iugglinges scarcely vsed by any before by casting out shaddowes of our Catholicke Authors sayinges and sentences as making for him though I meane to passe no further in impugning his said grondes which are of so small weight as yow haue seene yet doe I not thinke it amisse to adde another seuerall Chapter for better discouering of the said iugglinges vsed by him in this short Treatise not conteyning much aboue twenty 〈◊〉 in all For by this little yow may gather what a volume might be framed of his false dealings if we would dwell any longer therin A BRIEF VIEVV OF CERTAINE NOTORIOVS FALSE AND FRAVDVLENT DEALINGS VSED BY T.M. In this his short seuerall Treatise against the Popes Supremacy As also sundry examples of the like proceeding in the former Part of his deceiptfull Reply CHAP. VI. IT is the saying both of Philosophers and Deuines Bonum nisi bene fiat bonum non esse A good thing except it be well rightly done is not good As for example if a man would relieue the necessity of poore and distressed people with almes gotten by stealth or robbery albeit giuing of alms of it selfe be a good thing yet for that it is not heere lawfully performed in this case it is not good nor lawfull So M. Thomas Morton taking vpon him to confute the Popes Supremacy ouer Kinges and Princes thought no doubt to doe a good worke therin at least-wise bonum vtile a profitable good thing for himself in regard of some fauour or beneuolence which he might hope to gaine with some Prince therby to his preferment but not performing the same by lawfull meanes of truth but of sleightes not withstanding to his Maiesty he tearmeth himself the Minister of simple truth though it should proue vtile yet not honestum that is for his gaine but not for his credit or conscience and consequently deserueth rather disgrace then estimation euen with those whome most he desired to gratify in that affaire 2. For demonstration wherof though I suppose to haue said sufficient before both in the second fourth and fifth Chapters by occasion of matters that occurred in discussion betweene vs yet now hauing determined with my self to passe on no further in the particuler refutatiō of this his Treatise as a thing not worth the time to be lost therin and handled far better by diuers of his owne side before him namely by M. Iewell M. Horne D. Iohn Reinoldes M. Bilson and some others in their bookes of this subiect I thought good notwithstanding for some kinde of recompence of this my breuity in answering so simple and idle a Treatise to ad some few examples more in this place of other corruptions and falsifications practized by him in this his confutation not of all for that alone would require a great booke but of some competent number wherby the Reader may ghesse at the rest his Maiesty take some proofe of the extraordinary vanity of that vaunt wherwith he presented himself to his Highnes in the very first entrance of his Epistle dedicatory in so constant assurance of an vpright conscience to vse his owne wordes as that he would willingly remit that iust aduantage against his aduersary which the difference betweene a Minister of simple truth and a professed Equiuocator did offer vnto him Now then let vs enter to the examination it self 3. Wherin only the Reader is to be aduertised that wheras this man by a new deuise of his owne doth pretend to put downe the sayings of our Catholicke writers for his purpose and that both in Latin and English the one in the text and the other in the margent pretending therby to make them speake cōtrary one to the other A course saith he to the Kinges Maiesty which I professe in all disputes he dealeth so perfidiously therin to bring them to debate as commonly the simple fellow committeth three seuerall sortes of fraudes and falshood in most of his allegations First in corrupting the meaning of the Authors alledging them quite against their owne whole drift and intended discourse and conclusion therof Secondly in setting downe fraudulently the Latin text by peecing patching their sentences togeather that stand farre a sunder in the Authors themselues by dismembring others that were coherent before as often now wee haue complained Thirdly in translating the same by like fraude into English vsing manifest violence to the wordes and sense it selfe to get therby some shew of aduantage or at least wise to say somewhat All which sortes and kindes of shifts yow shall see expressed in the examples that are to ensue 4. In the second page of his pretended confutation he hath these wordes In the old Testament the Iesuites are forced to allow that the King was supreame ouer the Priestes in spirituall affaires and ordering Priestes For proofe wherof he citeth in the margent Salmeron a Iesuit a very learned man that hath left written in our dayes many volumes vpon the Ghospells Epistles of S. Paul and other partes of Scriptures and was one of the first ten that ioined themselues with the famous holy man Ignatius de Loyola for the beginning of that Religious order in which citation diuers notable corruptions are to be seene First for that Salmeron proueth the quite contrary in the place by this man quoted to wit that neuer Kinges were head of the Church or aboue Priestes by their ordinary Kingly authority in Ecclesiasticall matters in the new or old Testament and hauing proued the same largly he commeth at length to set downe obiections to the contrary and to solue answere them saying Sed contra hanc solidam veritatem c. But now against this sound truth by me hitherto confirmed I know that many thinges may be obiected which we are diligently to confute First then may be obiected that Kinges in the old Testament did sometimes prescribe vnto Priestes what they were to doe in sacred thinges as also did put some negligent Priestes from the execution of their office To which is answered Vbi id euenisset mirum esse non debere If it had so fallen out it had byn no maruaile for that the Synagogue of the Iewes albeit it conteined some iust men yet was it called rather an earthly then
Barkley dissenting from Doctor Boucher in this matter about the deposition of this King the one holding that he was deposed the other not but only that as a sicke man was debarred of the administration Doctor Bouchers wordes are these cited by D. Barkley Sic Oziam Azarias de Templo primùm mox etiant de Regno eiecit So Azarias the high Priest did cast out King Ozias first frō the Temple and then from his Kingdome Which the other will not haue to be vnderstood that the title and interest of his Kingdome was taken from him but only the administration which in effect is no great difference of opinions for that Bellarmine also talking of this matter saith Cùm regni administratione priuatus fuerit wheras he was depriued of the administration of the Kingdome which after in other words he expressing saith Regnandi authoritate he was depriued of the authority of actual raigning or exercising that authority wherunto the wordes of the Scripture seene plainly to agree which are these Festinatò expulerunt c. Azarias and the rest of the Priestes did hastily driue him out of the Temple and he himself being terrified with that which he felt to be the punishment of God made hast to goe forth VVherfore this King Ozias remaining a leper vnto the day of his death did dwell in a separate howse and he was full of leprosy for the which he was cast forth of the howse of our Lord so as his sonne Ioathan did gouerne the howse of the King iudge the people of the land 9. Out of which wordes of Scripture as also out of the Booke of Leuiticus where the law saith That whosoeuer shal be spotted with leprosy and is separated at the apointment of the Priest shall dwell alone without the tentes Bellarmine doth gather that this separation of King Ozias was not voluntary but by prescript order of the said high Priest Azarias and that consequently he was depriued also by the same sentence and authority of his gouernment and administration of the Kingdome against which T. M. bringeth in a great tempestuous storme of wordes and warre of the foresaid Doctor Barkley Scottishman against Cardinall Bellarmine as though he had refuted him with some contumely and contempt wheras Doctor Barkley neither nameth nor meaneth Bellarmine but only Boucher vpon his wordes before recited against whome he being according to his custome somewhat vehement in speech the difference in substance being little or nothing as yow haue seene T. M. endeauoreth by his sleightes to increase or aggrauate the same For wheras Doctor Barkley presuming Boucher to vnderstand by those his wordes De regno eiecit that Azarias had taken from K. Ozias the name and right of Kingdome saith vnto him Magna sanè imprudentia vel impudentia est ea scriptis mandare quae manifestis scripturae testimoniis redarguuntur It is truly a great imprudence or impudēcy to cōmit those thinges to writing which are controlled by manifest testimonies of Scripture There our Minister blotteth out in his Latin text the word imprudentia and will haue only to stand impudentia to set them further out then they be which me thinkes was some impudency also in him and againe when the said Barkley writeth immediatly after the former wordes Malo te negligentiae quà m nequitiae reum facere I had rarher accuse you of negligence then of malice these wordes also not without some malice T. M. striketh out and pittifully mangleth the whole discourse putting in and putting out at his pleasure and yet all set downe in his booke as the continuall speech of the Author 10. Heere then yow see how many wilfull corruptions there be first to bring in Doctor Barkley rating of Cardinall Bellarmine with magna sanè impudentia est c. Wheras he talketh not against Bellarmine at all nor indeed is Bellarmines manner of speech contrary to that which Barkley will haue to be the meaning of the History for that Barkley doth not so much stand vpon the thing in controuersy for Priestes authority but vpon the manner of proofe by the examples alledged by D. Boucher of Ieroboam Ozias Athalia and some other Princes in whose punishment God vsed Priestes for meanes and instrumentes Non ignoro saith he Ius esse Ecclesiae in Reges Principes Christianos nec quale ius sit ignoro sed id tam alienis argument is ostendi prorsus ignoro imò non ostendi planè scio I am not ignorant saith Doctor Barkley that the Church hath right ouer Christian Kinges Princes nor am I ignorant what manner of right it is yet doe I not see how the same may be proued by such impertinent argumentes nay I know rather that it cannot be so proued Which wordes going but very few lines before those that T. M. alledgeth he could not but see and yet left them out and then beginneth against vs his English text thus Your owne Doctor calleth this your assertion most false and contrary to the direct History of the Byble to wit that Ozias was deposed of his Kingdome by Azarias the high Priest 11. But now yow haue seene that howsoeuer it may be called either deposition depriuation restraint sequestration or inhibition certaine it is that he was separated from the administration of the gouernment by 〈◊〉 the high Priest and whether his sonne during his life were truly King or only regent or Gouernour vnder his Father or whether he were bound to consult with his said Father in his greatest affaires take his approbation and commission that point which is most important Doctor Barkley proueth not but only that Ozias notwithstanding his separation was called King during his life which letted not but that his sonne might be truly King also during his Fathers dayes for otherwise D. Barkley might aswell say that his Maiesty now of England for example was not King of Scotland whiles his Mother the Queene liued in her exile which yet I thinke he will not say and therfore to vse the wordes impudentia nequitia and falsissimum in a matter so doubtfull might perhaps haue byn omitted but much more ought to haue byn the multiplicity of falsities vsed by T. M. in relating the same namely in bringing in Cardinall Bellarmine with such ardent desire to haue him contradicted disgraced as he not only applieth to him that which was spokē against another but reciting also two lines of his speech besides other manglinges shufleth in falsly two or three words that ouerthrow the whole controuersy to wit separatus extra Regnum that King Ozias was separated by Azarias the Priest forth of the Kingdome wheras Bellarmine hath not these wordes extra Regnum at al but only that he was separated from the Citty extra vrbem in domo solitaria forth of the Citty in a solitary house which thing the Scripture it self before related doth testify wherby yow see what botching there
the other alone had byn imperfect and false for he knew them better then they knew themselues but he knew them not as his and so was all but one proposition or enunciation negatiue And to deny that this was a true enunciatiue proposition for that one part was reserued in the mind and another vttered is against all truth and reason as now we haue declared and might further by infinite examples but that a few doe shew the force of the rest and diuers of these examples out of Scriptures will come more fitly to haue their place in the sequent Paragraphe 38. Wherfore to end that which now we haue in hand wee see with what confident ignorance or ignorant confidence Thomas Morton did so resolutly before tell and promise vs that if throughout so many thousand generations of mankind any Logitian whether infidell or belieuer did allow a mixt proposition partly mentall and partly verball he would against the detestation of his owne soule to the contrary be an Equiuocator which if it be now proued a simple Hypocrisy then may that sinfull soule of his begin rather to detest lying then Equiuocating which may stand with truth as now more largely we are to 〈◊〉 THE THIRD PART OF THIS CHAPTER VVhether the former mixt proposition partly vttered and partly reserued be a ly or no §. 2. NOw come we to the chiefe point of this controuersy to discusse whether the foresaid reserued proposition be truly and properly a lye or no. Hitherto we haue handled that which lesse imported whether it be properly Equiuocation and properly a true and logicall proposition and therin discouered the small substance and vaine cauillations of our Aduersary but now we must examine that which is of chiefe importance whether it be a ly periury deceipt falshood and finally whether it be sinne or no to vse the same in any case or for any cause whatsoeuer for that our Aduersary Thomas Morton his conclusion is both arrogant and vniuersall as before yow haue heard Our first conclusion saith he is that euery Equiuocation by mentall reseruation is not a hidden truth but a grosse ly Now with what rigour and seuerity our Catholike doctrine doth condemne and detest lying euen in the least degree therof we haue declared partly in the former Chapter and for clearing the matter more in this place it will be necessary to set downe briefly both the definitions of truth falsity lying periury deceipt and the like then to consider whether our former proposition doe incurre any of the foresaid imputations or no 40. And first of all this word Truth is defined in different manner by diuers Philosophers as also ancient Fathers and namely by S. Augustine S. Anselme S. Hilary and others who haue written of this matter And S. Augustine in diuers places of his workes and namely in his bookes De soliloquiis de vera religione S. Anselme also hath written a speciall booke De ueritate and it is a question as yow know that Pilate proposed vnto our Sauiour in his iudgment but had so little care of the resolution therof as he would not stand to expect the answere wherfore S. Thomas gathereth out of the said Authors diuers definitions and before him againe our learned Countreyman Halensis gathereth eight and holdeth that euery one of them is true in a seuerall sense some as they respect God the first truth measure of truth some as they respect mans vnderstanding some the thinges themselues of all which number of definitions two seeme to me most cleare and effectuall one of S. Augustine Veritas est qua ostenditur id quod est Truth is that wherby is shewed that which is in deed to wit in the vnderstanding as S. Thomas interpreteth saying that Veritas principaliter est in intellectu secundariò verò in rebus Truth consisteth principally in the mind and vnderstanding and secondarily in the thinges themselues for which cause he approueth wel this other definition set downe by a Philosopher Veritas est adaequatio rei intellectus Truth is an equalling of the thing it selfe with mans vnderstanding that is to say when a man vnderstandeth a thing as it is in it selfe and the thing in it self is in deed as it is vnderstood then is it truth and when this is not obserued riseth falsity 41. For better vnderstanding wherof we must consider three sortes or degrees as it were of truth and consequently as many of falsity for that as the Philosopher saith Contrariorum eadem est disciplina the selfe same discipline or methood is to be held in contraries let vs treate then of truth and falsity as it is vttered in speach for this is to our purpose for examining of truth or falsity in our foresaid mixt proposition 42. The first sort or kind of truth is when that which is spoken is conforme to the thing it selfe though not to the mind of the speaker as if one should say my Father is dead if he be dead though the speaker thinke not so then is this speach conforme to the thing and it is truth in this first kind 43. The second sort of truth is when our speach is conforme to our vnderstanding though not to the thing it selfe as If I thinking that my Father is dead should say so though he be not dead in deed yet is it truth in respect of my vnderstanding though in respect of the thing it selfe it be not so and in this sort may a man speake false without a ly 44. The third sort is when our speach agreeth both with the one and the other and is conforme both to our vnderstanding and the thing it selfe as when I say that my Father is dead and do thinke so and it is so in deed and this is the most perfect kind of truth in speach when there is an adequation of the speakers vnderstanding with the thing spoken as the former definition prescribed 45. And in contrary manner there are three sortes of falsity correspondent to these three sortes of truth the first called materia material only when our speach is not conforme to the thing spoken though it be agreable to the vnderstanding of the speaker The second a formall falsity when the speach agreeth not with the mind or meaning of the speaker though it doe with the thing meant or spoken The third is when the speach agreeth neither with the vnderstanding of the speaker nor with the thing it selfe this is a complete falsity as if my Father not being dead nor I thinking him to be dead should say notwithstanding he is dead and these two last kindes of falsity or either of them doe make a ly and not the first kind alone for that the essence and formality of a ly requireth that the speach doe disagree from the mind and vnderstanding of the speaker in which sense S. Augustine saith Non facit linguam ream nisi mens rea
kill Princes he answereth thus It will be requisite without preiudice to the most learned and Religious iudgment of his Maiesty to satisfy for two places related from that conference c. And then he passeth on to discourse at large of the meaning of those places and vnder the colour of the foresaid honorable preface he taketh licence to dissent from his Maiesty signifying in effect that either the conference was not well related or his Maiesty mistooke their meaning in those notes and yet is the matter cleere by his owne confession that their said notes vpon the second booke of Cronicles and 15. Chapter vers 16. doe not only allow the depofing of the Queene Maacha by her sonne King Asa for Idolatry but further doe reprehēd him also sharply for that he had not put her to death by fier saying thus in their note That whether she were Mother or Grandmother yet herin the King shewed that he lacked zeale for she ought to haue byn burnt by the couenant as vers 13. appeareth by the law of God Deuteronomy 13. but he gaue place to foolish pitty and would also seeme after a sort to satisfy the law So they in their note 26. But who will looke vpon the two textes of Scripture by them heere cited shall finde no mention of burning but only of putting to death and in Deut. of stoning only But how doth he now defend this note of our English Ministers allowing the deposition and putting to death of Princes Yow shall heare his shift for he is much troubled with his Maiesties obseruation VVhat shall we say then saith he is the Soueraignty of Kinges disabled God forbid but it is rather established therby for the King is made the deposer yea euen of whosoeuer Doe yow see his poore flattering shift If the Queene Maacha might be deposed according to their note and that ex Augusto Imperio from her Imperiall gouernment as the text of Scripture hath yea and that she ought according to the law of God to haue byn put to death as now hath byn said for her Idolatry then is it a poore shift to say that Kinges cannot be deposed for that they must be the deposers seing that in Deut. where the Commission is giuen there is no mention of Kinges at all but Gods speach commission there is vnto the people Sitibi voluerit persuadere frater 〈◊〉 c. If thy brother or wife or friend will perswade thee to leaue God let thy hand be vpon him and after thee the hand of all the people which notwithstanding is to be vnderstood as before in the second Chapter we haue noted both out of the 13. 17. Chapters of Deut. and the glosse therevpon according to the order there set downe to wit after the cause examined sentenced by lawfull Iudges And at this time when this law was ordained there were no Kinges in Israel nor in many yeares after and consequently this commission could not be giuen to Kinges only 27. So then for so much as English Protestant-Ministers that made these notes doe authorize by this place of Deut. the deposing and killing of that Imperiall Queene his Maiesties censure was iudicious true that therby they allowed that lawfull Princes might be in certaines cases deposed and put to death And the first shift of T. M. in this place is ridiculous wherby he would seeme to make secure al Kinges from danger of deposition for that themselues by Godes word which yet he proueth not must be the deposers and then he presumeth they will not depose themselues but for Queenes he leaueth them to shift as they may Which doctrine I suppose he would not haue set forth in print in the late Queenes daies But their assertions are according to times and places and so this shall be sufficient for the second Question The third Question concerning practice of Rebellion §. 3. 28. ANd now hauing byn lōger in the former two Questions then in the beginning was purposed I shall endeauour to be shorter if it may be in this last though the multitude of examples partly set downe by vs before in the first Chapter of this Treatise and partly to be read in Histories and obserued by experience of Protestantes continuall tumultuation against Catholicke Princes would require a larger discussion then both the other two Questions put togeather albeit on the other side againe the matters are so cleere as they need no discussion at all but only narration For what can our Minister answere in reason or truth to all that multitude of instances of Protestantes Rebellions in the foresaid first Chapter set downe and for the most part obiected before as now I perceiue by his aduersary the moderate Answerer We shall briefly runne ouer some few examples 29. To the instances in England of continuall conspiracies and insurrections against Queene Mary he setteth downe first this bold and shameles prouocation After the proclamation of her title saith he shew vs what Protestant euer resisted what Minister of the Ghospell in all that fiery triall did kindle the least spark of sedition among her people In which wordes is to be obserued first that he saith after the Proclamation of her title to excuse therby the Dukes of Northumberland and Suffolke the Marques of Northampton and others that tooke armes against her before shee was proclaimed in Londen though in Norfolke she had proclaimed her self presently vpon the death of her brother King Edward as also to excuse Cranmer Ridley Sandes Latimer Rogers Iewell and other Ministers that had preached most bitterly against her title But what is the residue true that heere so boldly he auoucheth that neuer any Protestant resisted nor Minister kindled the least spark of sedition among her people after her title proclaimed Is this true I say Is this iustifiable for he calleth this Treatise a iustification of Protestantes Is this any way to be mainteined by any shew or shift whatsoeuer What then wil he say to the new conspiracy and iterated Rebellion of the Duke of Suffolke of his brother the Lord Iohn Grey not only after the said Queenes title proclaimed but after she was in possession and had pardoned them both of their former Rebellion What will he say to the Rebellion of Syr Peter Carew Syr Gawyn Carew Syr Thomas Denny other Protestant Gentlemen that tooke armes in Deuonshire within six daies saith Stow after the arraignemēt of the Duke of Northumberland What wil he say to the conspiracy of Syr Iames a Croftes others in VVales discouered saith the same Authour about the fiue and twentith day of Ianuary next ensuing What will he say to the Rebellion of Syr Thomas VVyat and his confederates in Kent ensuing about the same time Were they not Protestantes that were authors therof Or was not Queene Maries title yet proclaimed Will our Minister face out this What will he say to the cōspiracies ensuing after this againe
Christ to S. Peter and that it is a strange art to make a sword of a paire of keyes which seemeth to him a fine iest then commeth he out with this vanut Neither can any shew me one Doctour but of reasonable antiquity peto vel ex millibus vnum who by keyes vnderstand ciuill power But Syr what needeth antiquity of Doctors in this behalf will not your owne moderne Protestant Doctors graunt that when the keyes of any Citty Towne or Fort are giuē to a Prince ciuill power ouer that Fort is meant therby who will deny this 38. And secondly whereas he alleadgeth Franciscus à Victoria to say that the keyes giuen to S Peter imported spiritual authority of remitting and reteyning sinnes ergo no way temporall is a fond illation for that albeit Victoria saith that those keyes did principally importe spirituall authority yet they include also supreme temporall indirectly when the defence of the spirituall doth require it Whereupon he frameth this conclusion in the same place Our eight proposition is saith he that the Pope by authority of the foresaid keyes hath most ample temporall power ouer all Princes and Kinges and the Emperour himself in order to a spirituall end which he proueth there by many arguments And this of the first iest about swordes to be made of keyes 39. The second iest also is as wise and witty as this former that when we found the same temporall sword or authority of S. Peter and his successours vpon the words of Christ Feed my sheep he doth inferre that Princes also must be fed and dietted corporally at the Popes discretion and other such toyes he not vnderstanding as it seemeth or rather dissembling the force of Catholicke argumentes drawne from those and other like Scriptures both by later Doctors and ancient Fathers which this fellow turneth into scofs and contempt or wicked railing for that presently he falleth into these rages O arrogant Glossers O impudent Glosers and peruerters of the sacred Oracles of God! And why is all this heat of exclamations Forsooth for that in some Popes Bulles though corruptly fraudulently alledged some mention is made of the great authority that was giuen to Elias Elizeus Ieremy and other Prophetes and especially to Christ himself vpon earth to plant destroy pull vp or punish where need should be and that this authority by allusion vnto the same wordes of Scripture is applied to Christes Successour vpon earth affirmed to be left in the Christian Church to be vsed when need shall require and is this so great an impiety thinke yow 40. But he goeth on and saith That next to this he will examine the antiquity of pretended Papall power from the Apostles time downward and then produceth this assertion of ours The Priestes saith the Romish pretence of the new Testament in the Priesthood of Christ haue more authority then that of the old law ouer Kinges to depose them whervnto he adioyneth presently his owne spruse Ministeriall answere in these wordes This is not probable except yow can shew some footinges either of Christ or his blessed Apostles or their Holy Successours in the purer periods of times And is not this answered as from a man of his coat Marke the phrase Of footings in purer periods I will for footinges in this matter referre him to the large demonstrations which out of Scriptures Doctours Fathers Councelles and Ecclesiasticall Histories the Authors by him heere often alledged Carerius Bozius Bellarmine Sanders Salmeron and others doe aboundantly and substancially alledge when he shall haue ouerthrowne or supplanted those footinges of theirs which they 〈◊〉 fix throughout all periods of times from the beginning of Christian Religion vnto our dayes and generall practice therof then may the poore man get to haue some little footing for himself and his cause which hitherto he hath none at all as to any man whosoeuer with any indifferency of iudgment shall read ouer and examine his booke will euidently appear yea though he compare but only that which himself alledgeth heere both in the text and margent which seldome agree in true sense if you marke it well But if yow would examine the Latin authorities cited in the said margent with the originalles of the Authors themselues you shall scarce euer finde them sincerly to agree but that one fraud or other is vsed in their allegation by chopping changing infarcing leauing out and other such sleightes and deceiptes which though the breuity of this Treatise permit me not to examin and lay forth at large in this place yet some we haue touched before and some others shall we haue occasion to note afterwardes and the Reader himself may vpon this warning make some little triall 41. And as for the succession of times which this Author T. M. pretendeth to bring downe from the Apostles dayes not to ours but for a thousand yeares only after Christ wherin he saith that no Pope can be shewed euer to haue had any temporall iurisdiction ouer any Emperour King or temporall Prince though Catholickes doe hold the later six hundred yeares also to be of no lesse force for president of examples in the Church of God then the former thousand yet are the instances so many and euident which may be alledged against his former prescription of the said thousand yeares as doe manifestly cōuince him of folly in that assertion wherin I referre me to the collections and demonstrations therof by the foresaid Authors Carerius Bozius Bellarmine Sanders and others in the places heere quoted in the margent but especially to the three that are not Iesuites to the first for all to wit Carerius that in diuers thinges wrote against the Iesuits whoe in his second booke alleadgeth 10. or 12. examples out of antiquity for prouing his purpose I remit me also to the many learned writinges set forth of late about the cause of the Venetians by Penia Baronius Bouius Eugenius Nardus others shewing the most euident right which the Pope had and hath to commaund them as high Pastor of the Church to recall certaine ciuill lawes made by them in preiudice of the said Church and Ecclesiasticall State which Commandement we doubt not but God will moue that most excellent Cōmon-wealth finally to obey they being knowne to be so good and sound Catholickes as they are though for some time in regard of some temporall respectes they haue deferred to doe the same 42. Many more pointes might be examined in this descēt of his throughout periodes of times but it would be ouerlong and my intention is to giue a tast only or short view for to examine the places cited out of Fathers of diuers ages for proofe of his pretence were time wholy lost For that in effect they say nothing else but that we graunt which is that temporall Princes are to be respected and obeyed by Ecclesiasticall men also but in temporall affaires And as for his examples of
in the Index of prohibited bookes and not only for Heresies of this time but also quod dicit spiritum sanctum minùs aduocandum adorandum esse for that he saith that the holy Ghost is lesse to be called vpon or adored c. as the Index expurgatorius testifieth besides all this I say he corrupteth manifestly in the sentence before alledged the wordes plaine meaning of his Author to wit Bellarmine from whome he citeth Cassanders iudgment for thus they lye in him Tertius error saith 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 〈◊〉 vnicuique suam fidem modò omnes recipiant Scripturam Symbolum Apostolicum Sic enim omnes sunt vera Ecclesiae membra licèt in particularibus dogmatibus dissentiant 68. The third errour is of George Cassander in the booke Of the office of a pious man where he teacheth that Princes ought to seeke out some meanes of peace betwixt Catholickes Lutheranes Caluinistes and other sectes of our time but in the meane space whiles they finde no such meanes they ought to permit euery one to follow his owne particuler faith so as all doe receaue the Scripture and common Creed of the Apostles for so al are true members of the Church albeit they disagree among thēselues in particuler doctrines These are Bellarmins wordes Now let vs see how they are mangled by M. Morton both in Latin and English as by him that hath the notablest talent therin notwithstanding his solemne protestations to the contrary that euer I read in my life 69. He putteth downe first the Latin wordes in his margent thus Debent Principes inuenire rationem pacis inter Catholicos Lutheranos 〈◊〉 qui omnes dum Symbolum tenent Apostolicum vera sunt membra Ecclesiae licèt à nobis in particularibus dissentiant Princes ought to seeke a meanes of peace betweene Catholickes Lutheranes Caluinistes all which for so much as they hold the Apostolicke Creed are true members of the Church albeit they dissent from vs in some particuler opiniōs And heere now yow see first to be omitted cunningly and wilfully by this crafty Minister the wordes of much moment that whiles Princes doe not finde a fit meane of peace they ought to permit all to liue according to their particuler faith which sentence of his graue and learned Cassander not seeming to himself allowable in our English State or to his owne Brethren the English Caluinistes that now hauing gotten the gouernment will suffer no other Religion but their owne thought best to suppresse and cut them quite out Secondly in steed of the condicionall speech vsed by Cassander modò omnes recipiant Scripturam c. So all 〈◊〉 receaue the Scripture and Apostolicall Creed he putteth it downe with a causatiue clause Qui omnes dum Symbolum tenent c. All which sectes because they doe hold the Articles of the Creed are true members of the Church leauing out the word Scripture as yow see and peruerting the other wholly in sense For who will not hold it absurde that Catholickes Lutherans Caluinistes and other sectes of our time though in wordes they doe admit both Scripture Apostolicall Creed yet differing in sense and so many doctrines as they doe are all to be held notwithstanding for true members of one and the selfe same Church Can any thing be more ridiculous then this 70. Thirdly he doth most notably cogge in thrusting in the wordes à nobis from vs which are not in the originall meaning therby to make Cassander to seeme a Catholicke to speake in the behalf of Catholickes which is plaine cosenage and to this end also he leaueth out dogmatibus finally yow see that he shapeth euery thing to his owne purpose and by making Cassander as a Catholicke seeme to wish and endeauour this vnion and Bellarmine to reiect it he would confirme his former calumniation that only by the insolency of Iesuites all such hope is debarred 71. And thus much for the corruption of the Latin text but his English hath other corruptions also according to his ordinary custome For first he translateth Debent Principes that Emperours should endeauour a reconciliation to confirme therby his former vanity that Cassander was so great a man with Emperours as he talketh not but to Emperours Secōdly he translateth Catholicos Lutheranos Caluinistas c. which wordes 〈◊〉 comprehend all other sects of our time as Anabaptistes Arrians Trinitarians Hussites Picardians and the like he translateth them I say Papistes and Protestantes as though all those sectes of our time were to be comprehended vnder the name of Protestantes of the English faith or as though Cassander if he were a Catholicke as heere he is pretended would call vs 〈◊〉 Thirdly wheras in his owne Latin heere set downe he saith Qui omnes dum Symbolum 〈◊〉 c. All which to wit Catholickes Lutherans Caluinistes other Sectaries whiles they hold the Apostolicall Creed are true members of the Church he doth English it thus because Protestantes hold the Articles of the Creed and are true members of the Church excluding Catholickes from belieuing the said Articles or being true members which in his owne Latin and that of Bellarmines also are included and fourthly is the corruption before mentioned although they dissent from vs in some particuler opinions which in Bellarmine is although they dissent among themselues in particuler doctrines and finally the wordes by him cited of Bellarmins iudgment which he controlleth to wit falsa est haec sententia Cassandri non 〈◊〉 enim Catholici reconciliari cum Haereticis are not so in Bellarmine but these potest facilè refelli 〈◊〉 Cassandri sententia primum enim non possunt Catholici Lutherani Caluinistae eo modo conciliari c. This sentence of Cassander may easely be refelled first for that Catholickes Lutherans and Caluinistes for example can not so be reconciled as Cassander appointeth to wit by admitting only the wordes of the Creed for that we differ in the sense and sometimes in the articles themselues as in that descendit ad inferos he descended into hell and in like manner we agree not about the sense of those other articles I belieue the Catholicke Church and Communion of Saintes remission of sinnes c. So Bellarmine All which this fellow omitteth 72. And so you see there is no truth or sincerity with him in any thing neither can these escapes be ascribed any way to ouersight errour mistaking or forgetfulnes but must needes be attributed to wilfull fraude malicious meaning purposly to deceaue as the things themselues doe euidently declare for which cause I shall leaue him to be censured by his owne Brethren but especially by his Lord and Maister for so notable discrediting their cause by so manifest
sect 15. it seemed saith he a plausible thing vnto them to cite out of Dauid the wordes now rehearsed verbo Domini coeli firmati sunt c. to proue that the Creation of the world was no lesse the worke of the holy Ghost then of the Sonne the second person in Trinity Sed infirma illa ratio fuit but that proofe was weake So Caluin very piously as yow see 84. From this Doctor Hunnius passeth to examine these wordes of the 45. Psalme as spoken of the Sonne of God Thronus tuus ô Deus in seculum seculi c. propterea vnxit te Deus Deus tuus c. Thy throne ô Lord is to endure for euer and therfore hath God euen thy God anointed thee with the oile of ioyfulnes aboue thy fellowes which the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrues saith Hunnius doth expresly apply vnto the eternall Diuinity of Christ but Caluin ouerthroweth the same by applying the meaning to haue byn of K. Salomon only The simple and naturall sense of this place saith Caluin is that Salomon did not gouerne Tyrannically as other Kinges but with right and equall lawes and therfore his Kingly seate should be stable for euer See how base a conceipt this man had of diuine thinges but yet heare him further for in another place he writeth thus Faciendum est c. VVe must confesse that this Psalme was made of Salomon as a bridesong of his marriage with the King of Egypts daughter Doe yow see the prophanity of this mans spirit But yet let vs produce a farre greater audacity of his 85. The Apostle S. Paul in the 4. to the Ephesians doth vrge much for proofe of Christes diuinity the wordes of the Psalme 67. Ascendens in altum captiuam duxit captiuitatem dona dedit hominibus c. He ascending vp to heauen did carry with him our Captiuity as captiue distributed giftes to men vpon earth which thing S. Paul doth vrge as a point of singuler moment for proofe of Christes diuinity But what saith Caluin yow shall heare what he writeth both of the thing and of his Censure of S. Paules simplicity in so applying the same Quia locum hunc Paulus saith he subtiliùs ad Christum deflexit Ephes. 4. videndum est quà m bene cum mente Dauidis conuenit For so much as Paul did more subtily wrest this place to Christ it is to be considered how well he agreeth therin with the mind or meaning of Dauid shewing in deed by diuers reasons that his exposition and application doth not agree with Dauids intention in that Psalme which is a most impious insolency if it be well considered 86. After this the said Doctor passeth on to cite that famous place of Esay the sixt Sanctus Sanctus Sanctus Dominus Exercituum as a testimony for the blessed Trinity by the witnes and allegation of al ancient writers wheras Caluin of purpose calleth the same into doubt saying in fauour of the Arrians Wheras ancient writers haue vsed this testimony of Esay whē they would proue the Trinity of persons in the essence of one God I doe not reiect their sentēce but yet if I should haue to doe with Hereticks I would rather vse more strong testimonies ne Haereticis ridiculi simus least we be ridiculous vnto Heretikes and in truth the Prophet by this triple repetition holy holy holy doth rather note a restles assiduity or continuance of Angelicall melody in the prayses of God c. And doe yow not see saith Hunnius how this arrogant fellow doth saucely pull by the locks old venerable antiquity making the same 〈◊〉 and how he instructeth the Arrians to illude or shifte of this sacred testimony for the blessed Trinity Could the Arrians doe more for themselues or their owne cause So he Shewing also the like boldnes and impiety in that he goeth about to weaken the Authority of Michaeas the Prophet vsed by all ancient Fathers for the proofe of Christes Godhead where he saith Et egressus eius ab initio à diebus aeternitatis and his going forth is from the beginning from the dayes of eternity which words Caluin though he cannot but grant for the euidēcy therof to appertaine to the diuinity of Christ yet doth he diuert the Prophetes meaning to a farre different sense and saith Hic est simplex sensus scio quosdam insistere pertinaciùs quod hic loquatur Propheta de aeterna essentia Christi c. This is the simple sense and meaning of the Prophet albeit I know that some doe more obstinatly contend that the Prophet speaketh heere of the eternall essence of Christ and for my part though I doe willingly acknowledge that the diuinity of Christ is heere proued yet for that we shall neuer get the Iewes to confesse it I would rather simply take the wordes of the Prophet as they sound So he And note heere his good reason saith Hunnius for that because the Iewes will not be brought to confesse the truth of this text Caluin himself will dissemble it also and peruert the Scriptures to another meaning to please them Is not this wickedly to betray the cause of Christians And is not this secretly to collude with the aduersaries Is not this by dissimulation to weakē our owne forces in fauour of the enemies But herof yow shall see more in that which ensueth Out of the new Testament §. 2. 87. ANd with these places and some other the said Doctor endeth his discourse for corrupting of the Scriptures of the old Testament in fauour of Iewes and Arrians passeth to the new shewing 〈◊〉 no lesse to fauour them both therin then in the other but rather much more And first he alledgeth that most excellent place of S. Iohns Ghospel before mentioned Ego Pater vnum sumus I and my Father are one which testimony al ancient Fathers without exception did vrge against the Arrians as an inuincible bulwark to proue the vnity of Godhead in Christ with his Father But what saith Caluin Ego saith he Pater vnum sumus abusi sunt hoc loco veteres vt probarent Christum esse Patri Homusion neque enim Christus de vnitate substantiae disputat sed de consensu quem cum Patre habet c. The ancient writers did abuse this place to proue 〈◊〉 that Christ was of the same nature and substance with his Father for that Christ did not dispute heere of the vnity of substance but of the vnity only of consent betweene him and his Father which was the very answere and shift of Arrius himselfe and of the old Arrians and is at this day saith Hunnius of the new Arrians in Transiluania and els where to wit of Franciscus Dauid Blandrata and others 88. And so in like manner where in the 10. and 14. of S. Iohn Christ our Sauiour repeateth oftentimes Ego 〈◊〉 in Patre
As for example wheras they write that God is omnipotent and can doe all thinges and vse his creatures to what end and vse it shall please him yet cannot he neither by his ordinary nor absolute power either by himselfe or by another concurre to the making of a lye fraudulently to deceaue the vnderstāding of man or Angell or induce another so to deceaue the same with intention indeed of deceipt or fallacy Of which point of doctrine the said Schoole-Doctors and others after them doe dispute largely vpon the third article of S. Thomas his second Part and first question of his Summe of Deuinity demaunding this doubt VVhether any kind of deceipt or falsity by any meanes mediatly or immediatly may proceed from God which they hold negatiuely that it is impossible he being truth it selfe and the fountaine of all truth and sincerity in others And albeit there be many and great arguments alleadged out of Scriptures which in shew doe proue the contrary to wit that God not only can by his absolute power but hath also oftentimes in effect deceaued others by meanes of wicked spirites as S. Augustine also holdeth and is euident by many places of Scripture as 2. Reg. 22. where to deceaue Achab it is said Dedit Dominus spiritum mendacem in ore omnium Prophetarum God gaue a lying spirit in the mouth of all his false Prophettes And Esay 63. Ezech. 14. Iob 12. Rom. 1. it is said expressely that God deliuereth men into a reprobate sense which is the worst sort of deceauing a mās vnderstāding that may be yet to all this they answere out of the ancient Fathers and Scripture it selfe that God doth only permit men to be deceaued and to belieue vntruth but doth not concurre actually or effectually to the same by any cooperation of his to any falshood or vntruth whatsoeuer nor can he doe it by any power of his for that he should impugne himselfe which is truth And this is the greatest and highest detestation of lying vsed by our Doctors that possibly can be imagined and yet will the lying Minister say that they are 〈◊〉 Fathers and patrons of lying But let vs see more of our Schoole-Doctors in this behalfe 39. Our learned countreyman also Alexander of Hales liuing before S. Thomas and as some say was his Maister being held for one of the most learned of all Schoole-men that euer were before or after him doth handle diuers questions very learnedly and piously about this point for detestatiō of lying as namely one VVhy theft and man-slaughter may be lawfully permitted in some cases and lying neuer Also how it cōmeth to passe that the least degree of lying that is to wit an officious or 〈◊〉 which in ordinary imperfect men is only a venial sinne may come to be in men of perfection a mortall and damnable sinne concluding thus Quod sicut de Adam dicitur quòd ratione status sui peccauit mortaliter ita iste ratione status in hoc genere peccat mortaliter As it is said of Adam that by reason of his high state of innocency he sinned mortally in eating an apple by disobedience so this man professing perfection of life in a religious state by any sort of voluntary lying sinneth mortally for which he alleadgeth diuers authorities of S. Augustine as namely this Sanctus vir c. A holy man that doth perfectly cleaue to God which is truth it selfe is forbidden either purposely or rashly to vtter vntruth and for that the Scripture saith He that lieth killeth his owne soule and againe Thou shalt destroy all those that speake lies perfect men doe fly with all care these kindes also of least lies in such sort as no mans life may be defended therby least they hurt their owne soules while they goe about to profit another mans flesh 40. Againe the said Father in another place Tam sibi clausum deputat ad subueniendum hominem per mendacium quà m si per stuprum transire cogatur A good and perfect man doth thinke the way so shut vnto him from helping another man by any kinde of lye though neuer so officious as if it were required at his hand to helpe him by cōmitting rape or incest nay yet Halensis goeth further proposing this question Whether if a man did certainly know that by any least kinde of lying on his behalfe he might conuert an Infidell to Christianity and not otherwise whether he might doe it or no and then concludeth that he may not in any case alleadging this reason out of S Augustine that as it is not lawfull for me to procure another mans chastity by my owne sinne of carnality so much lesse is it lawfull to bring another man to the knowledge of truth by my corrupting of truth So this holy Religions Countreyman of ours whose cōscience let the indifferent Reader compare with that of this irreligious Minister who not only in iest or officious lying to any mans good either in body or soule but in malicious lying in preiudice of both is euery where taken most manifestly as before yow haue seene and shall againe after vpon sundry occasions 41. Well then this seuerity of doctrine is taught by our Catholicke Deuines against the sinne of simple lying But if we talke of lying in an oath which is periury euery man may imagine how much more earnestly the same is detested by them in so much as the famous Doctor Nauarre before mētioned who is held to be one of the most liberall and largest in admitting Equiuocations both in wordes and oathes with the due circumstances and hath written three whole Treatises about the same yet is he so seuere and rigorous against lying and periury as he teacheth that it is a mortall and damnable sinne to sweare falsely euen in iest And others yet goe further auouching that it is damnable to sweare 〈◊〉 by euill custome yea sometimes also though the thing in it selfe be true which he sweareth the reason wherof they alleadge to be this for that the act of swearing being actus latriae as Deuines call it that is to say an act of highest honour to God for that he is cited and alleadged in an oath as an infallible witnes the man that accustometh to sweare rashly putteth himselfe in manifest danger to sweare also falsely therby sinneth mortally albeit for that time he sweareth the thing that is true but as easily would he haue done it thogh it had byn false in respect of his yll custome of swearing rashly and consequently no lesse dishonour and contempt doth he vse towardes the Maiesty of Almighty God therin then if he had sworne false which is an important note for rash swearers to consider of and remember 42. Well now all this being so will our Minister still stand in his obstinate calumniation that we are louers of lies patrons of periury defenders allowers of falshood Doctors of
significant for that the Iewes did not vnderstand the same Hence then appeareth that it dependeth not of the hearer to make the speach 〈◊〉 or not but it is 〈◊〉 that it be so of it selfe and of his owne nature 29. And so now to apply all this to our owne purpose in hand this proposition wherof part is vttered in voice and part reserued in mind being but one simple propositiō denying that I am a 〈◊〉 with obligation to vtter the same is truly enuntiatiue of it selfe though the hearer vnderstand not all but one part therof only and consequently it is truly and properly a proposition euen according to the rules of Logicke for that Aristotles definition agreeth therunto which our Minister before so confidently denied 30. But now heere lastly he may seeme perhaps to make some doubt whether this mixt propositiō partly vttered and partly reserued be one 〈◊〉 proposition or no wherof yet in reason there cā be no doubt for that heere is but only one single enunciation in the mind of the speaker to wit that he is no Priest with obligation to vtter the same heere is but one only simple negatiue enuntiation depending of one only verbe and negation that denieth me to be a Priest with that obligation which is the thing appointed by Aristotle to make a persect enuntiation or proposition which may be proued also by this example If I should vtter those wordes of the Scripture Pater meus 〈◊〉 me est My Father is greater then I reseruing in my mind those other that I affirme them according to the sense and meaning that Arrius had I should incurre Heresy and be damned for this proposition but not 〈◊〉 the former part for that they are wordes of Scripture nor for the later alone that are reserued for that they affirme or deny nothing of themselues as hauing no verbe and therfore they 〈◊〉 cōdemne me as part of the former and consequently all maketh but one single proposition For that for the first operation of our mind only which is simple apprehension without affirmatiō or negation God condemneth no man there being no consent at all therin and consequently no merit nor demerit but only in the second and third operations before specified 31. And to this effect that the two partes of these and like propositions the one partly vttered and partly reserued doe make but one single and simple proposition we might alleage many other proofes both by reasons and examples By reasons for that they answere but to one only conceipt of the speakers mind that they conteine but one only negatiue 〈◊〉 to wit that I am no such Priest as I meane and finally that they haue but one subiectum one copula and one praedicatum Logitians know what I meane for the subiectum wherof all is affirmed is I the copula that ioineth togeather is the verbe am and all the rest is the praedicatum wherfore it cannot be diuers but one only proposition 32. By examples the same may be confirmed diuers wayes I meane both by prophane and diuine As first if one should make an interrogation the other answere all in effect is but one proposition as if one should say to a seruant Is your maister at home And 〈◊〉 answere no it were in effect but one only proposition equiualent to this my maister is not at home yea though the one part were vttered in signes only and the other in voice or writing as if the seruant should answere only by a shrugge of the shoulders or by 〈◊〉 king his head as in Italy they are wont to expresse a negatiue 33. But this is somwhat more perspicuous if the answere be ambiguous as when Cicero was demanded by his aduersary in the cause of Clodius slaine by Milo whome he defended what time of the day Clodius was slaine to wit before noone or after thinking therby to intrappe Milo Tully answered serò which word signifying both towardes the Euening as also to late Cicero meant in the second sense to wit that he was slaine to late hauing deserued to haue byn slaine sooner so as this only word serò conteineth the force of a whole proposition in the sense of the speaker though not of the hearer 34. And the like answere was that of the same Orator to a base fellow that hauing byn a cooke came after by riches to pretend an office in the common-wealth and asked of Cicero whether he also among others that were to giue their voices would fauour him therin wherunto he answered Immò Ego quoque tibi iure fauebo which answere hauing two senses by reason of the wordes quoque and iure the hearer tooke it in the better sense that he also would of right fauour him but the speaker meant that he would shew him fauour due to ae cooke with a messe of pottage and yet did not this reserued sense make it two propositions but one 35. And finally I might alleadge all the examples that Orators doe vse and prescribe vnder the figure called by Cicero Reticentia and by the Grecians APOSIÓPESIS as Quid plura What shall I say more or what shall I complaine more which verbes say complaine or the like were reserued in mind by the speaker and yet is it but one proposition so that of Virgil Quos Ego sed motos praestat c. Whome I if I had them in my handes would c. All which later part is reserued in the mind of the speaker and yet it maketh but one proposition with the rest that is expressed And thus much of prophane examples 36. But if we would alleadge all the diuine that might be cited out of the Scriptures there would be no end as that among other before mentioned out of the Psalme Impij non resurgent in iudicio wicked men shall not rise againe in iudgment which though it seeme a whole proposition yet is it in deed but a part and the other part was reserued in the Prophets mind and expounded afterward by S. Paul to the Corinthians saying Omnes resurgemus sed non omnes immutabimur We shall all rise againe but all shall not be changed into glory and how doe I know that these later wordes were reserued in the Prophets mind for that otherwise his other wordes that were vttered should conteine an Heresy against the article of our Creed I belieue the resurrection of the dead wherof is inferred that those wordes vttered with the other reserued made but one only simple and single proposition 37. In like manner when our Sauiour said to those negligent virgins that came to late Non noui vos I know yow not it made but one negatiue proposition with other wordes reserued in his mind to wit vt saluem vos c. I know yow not amongst mine to saue yow or the like And how know wee that these or like wordes were reserued in Christes mind For that
those to whome it belongeth principally to discusse examine and determine this matter as afterwardes shall be shewed And yet as though he had made no such exception but admitted all kind of writers throughout all times in this matter he maketh this new ridiculous vaunt Shew vs saith he for your mentall reseruation but one Father whether Greeke or Latin one Pope whether Catholicke or Antichristian one Author whether learned or vnlearned who did euer so fancy c. 4. Wherunto I may answere that if the maker of this vaunt had had but one dram of discretion he would neuer haue set downe so many ones to confound himself for that presently we shall shew so many Fathers Greeke and Latin to haue allowed of the foresaid speech as had occasions to handle such Scriptures as conteine like propositions and so many Popes to haue approued the same as haue allowed the said Fathers sentences or haue liued since the collecting of the Canon Lawes wherin the said Fathers sentences are aboundantly cited and set downe and that so many learned graue pious Authors haue byn of this fancy if it be a fancy as haue byn consulted in cases of most moment that comprehend this controuersy So as for this Minister to except against foure hundred yeares togeather which in effect conteineth a graunt of all the learned of that time and yet to challeng one Father one Pope one Author learned or vnlearned sheweth a broken phantasy of an ydle braine indeed 5. But now to lay before the Readers eyes some brief consideration what is reiected in the exclusiō of these last foure hundred yeares about our point in controuersy it is to be noted that the science of Deuinity called by the Greeks Theology for that it is properly immediatly about God matter belonging vnto God hath growne frō time to time according to the growth of mankind and to the most ordinate and excellent prouidence of almighty God as S. Paul diuinely 〈◊〉 in diuers partes of his Epistles which we shall heere indeauour to declare by this particuler deduction that from the beginning of the world vnto the deluge there passing aboue a thousand and six hundred yeares to wit more then from Christ to this time set downe in Scripture vnder the liues only of ten mē there was no other Theology in all that time but only by speech and tradition of Father to sonne freind to friend maister to scholler predecessour to successour and from this againe vnto the time of Abraham which was vpon the point of three hundred yeares the same was obserued and from him to Moyses which was aboue other foure hundred yeares no booke is extant that was written though in these last foure hundred yeares from Abraham to Moyses God had his seuerall people as is knowne which were gouerned without any written word at all 6. But Moyses hauing written the fiue first bookes of the Bible commonly called the Pentateuch so many ages after the beginning of the world and sundry other holy men diuers bookes and Treatises after him againe vntill the comming of Christ albeit the sciēce and study of Deuinity was much enlarged therby yet was it barren in a certaine sort in respect of that which ensued after vnder Christ in the writinges of the Apostles and Apostolicke men and large Commentaries and expositions written theron by succeeding Christian ages which in time growing to be so many and great volumes partly of the said expositions and explanations of Scriptures partly of Treatises bookes and dogmaticall discourses partly of Ecclesiasticall Histories partly of discussions and determinations of Councelles both Generall Nationall Prouinciall and partly finally of resolutions decrees of Bishops chiefe Pastors for directiō of their flocks especially of the highest that held the Chaire for gouerning and moderating of all the rest 7. These thinges I say growing at length to so great a bulke manifold multitude of bookes Treatises tomes and volumes as many men had not time to read them ouer and much lesse leasure and iudgement to digest or conceaue them with that distinction order and perspicuity which was necessary it pleased almighty God out of his continuall prouidence for his said Church to inspire certaine men 〈◊〉 foure hundred years past to reduce the said vast corpes of Deuinity to a cleare methode by drawing all to certaine common places and heades and by handling and discussing the same so punctually distinctly and perspicuously as any good wit in small time may come to comprehend the whole without reading ouer the other so many huge volumes as before was necessary And this method was called afterwardes Schoole-Deuinity for that it did principally consist in disputation and discussion of matters exactly by discending into particulers and dissoluing all doubtes wheras the other manner of 〈◊〉 of Scriptures Fathers Doctors Histories and Councells seuerally remained with the name of positiue Deuinity as contenting it self only with assertiue doctrine without disputation or further discussion 8. The first and principall Authors of this method or methodicall study is accounted to be Petrus Lombardus Bishop of Paris aboue foure hundred fifty yeares past who for that he gathered into the foresaid method of generall heades all that any way appertained to Deuinity out of the sayinges and sentences of Scriptures and Fathers deuiding the same into foure bookes and euery booke into seuerall distinctions he was called afterwardes the Maister of the sentences and many learned men in ensuing times wrote Commentaries theron enlarging with great variety of matter the said method which he had inuented Others also made seuerall Summes of Theology differēt in name but in effect to the same imitation wherof may be accounted one of the first our often named learned Countreyman Alexander of Hales in Suffolke and after him S. Thomas of Aquine vpon whome many other learned men since that time haue and doe vnto this day write large Commentaries Diuers also considering that this methodicall study hath two partes the one speculatiue which is handled principally by the exercise of our vnderstanding in dispute the other moral that apperteineth to manners and action of life sundry learned men doe betake themselues principally to this later as more necessary to practice of Christian life and cases therin to be resolued in Conscience 9. And about the very same time or little before it came to passe by the like prouidēce of almighty God that the same method was thought vpon for reducing the Decrees and Constitutions of Councels Fathers Bishops and Popes apperteyning to Ecclesiasticall gouernment which grew now to be many vnto like general heades bookes causes questions and Chapters 〈◊〉 more facility of comprehending and remembring the same the cheif Author therof being Gratian a learned Monke of S. Benedicts Order which laborious and methodicall compilation approued by Popes at that time and from time to time afterwards and expounded by the writinges and
Fathers and learned Doctors did afterward by the learning and light they had from the spirit and tradition of the Church which proposition if he were put to proue in the presence of learned men I doubt not but that he would quickly be in a poore and pittifull plight 68. The second thing which by this his answere he would haue vs vnderstand is that if these brethren or kinsmen of Christ did any way conceaue our Sauiours meaning then was there no reseruation at all for that as he saith our ioyned reseruation is alwayes supposed to be a clause concealed and not vnderstood But this is a greater foolery then the first for that there may be a reseruation in the speakers mynd though vnderstood to some of the heares As for example in our proposition being demaunded whether I be a priest and I say no reseruing to my selfe as often before hath byn declared that I am no such or such priest as I ought to vtter the same to you though some of the examiners should ghesse at my reseruation or know the same certaynly for that otherwise they know I am a priest this doth not make that this proposition in it selfe in my meaning is not a reserued or equiuocall proposition for that they vnderstand it And yet as though the poore man had played his prize well he concludeth 〈◊〉 in these wordes Therfore 〈◊〉 all these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there 〈◊〉 not the least haire of your fox 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 Scriptures forsake you or rather you them now will you haue recourse vnto Fathers 69. But whether Scriptures haue forsaken him or vs in this conflict or whether the Fathers expositions haue stood with his or our cause the reader I suppose hath sufficiently seene nor is it needfull for vs to make any further recourse vnto Fathers hauing shewed them to stand fully for vs in allowing reserued mixt propositions which of necessity do make ambiguity and equiuocation euen in Christes owne speaches as hath bene declared Which if Mortons vncircumcised mouth will call also fox-tayles we may well be contented to beare such a Ministeriall scoffe in so good a cause and company And finally what this man esteemeth of holy Fathers when they make against him is easely seene by that he saith in the next Chapter after where hauing cyted out of the former Catholicke Treatise the saying of S. Gregorie the Great that we ought not to respect so much the wordes of any speech as the will intent of the speaker 〈◊〉 non debet intentio verbis deseruire sed verba intentioni for that the intētion of the speaker ought not to serue to his wordes but his wordes to his intention after a soffe or two against the said Father that if an Author must be sought for a lye it was most likely he should be a Pope he maketh this cōclusion I dare boldly conclude saith he that though S. Gregorie or a thousand of Saincts yea 〈◊〉 celestiall Gabriel or any Angell from heauen should teach and authorize such a Doctrine as this we may from the word of God pronounce him Anathema So he 70. And he concludeth boldly in deed but who more bold then blynd Bayard as the prouerbe saith he may as well pronounce Anathema and curse not only vpon Saincts and Angels but vpon the Sonne of God himselfe as by this time his discreete Reader hath seene and considered And can there be any more blind boldnes then this Is he not ashamed of this so shamefull ouersight doth he not remember what he said before not one iota in all Scripture not one example in all antiquity not one shaddow of reason in all the wit of man can be brought for any colour of Equiuocation I wil not pretermitt his very last wordes immediatly following wherwith he concludeth his twelueth Chapter for that they conteyne a full vpshot of his folly Now saith he that we haue wrested your weapons out of your handes by answering Scriptures and Fathers as before he hath answered it wil be easie to pearce you euen with 〈◊〉 the bluntest kind of arguments that are And then he followeth on in the next Chapter to pearce vs with signes coynes Giges ringes and other like toyes but we as you haue seene haue pearced him in the meane pace wit h substantiall arguments of truth her selfe out of both Scriptures and Fathers and shall do yet more in the ensuing paragraph leauing him now to his similitudes signes coynes Giges ringes and other such like iugling wordes and instruments fitt for a man of his disposition THE FOVRTH AND LAST POINT OF THIS CHAPTER About Scriptures and Fathers That defended Equiuocation from the name and nature of Deceipt and fallacy VVITH Some other proofes out of common Reason c. §. 4. 71. I May be very breifin this for that I haue handled the same argument in the later end of the former Chapter and in this I haue byn longer then I had purposed therfore I will only adioyne in 〈◊〉 place some few examples more for iustifying of that which there we touched in few wordes For wheras according to S. Augustines defynition before set downe two thinges are to be required to a ly first to vtter that with is false and disagreeing from the vnderstanding of the speaker the other that there be intention to deceaue the first of falsitie hath byn largly proued not to be found in our reserued proposition I am no priest for that the speaker hath a true meaning in his sense Now must we handle the second about deceit of which we haue said 〈◊〉 that neither this clause of the definition of lying is found in the said proposition for that the Answerers first principall intent is not to deceaue the demaunder to his hurt but to deliuer himselfe by concealing a truth only which truth he is not bound to vtter this in effect is to permit the other to be deceaued and not properly to deceaue or to haue intention or cupidity of deceauing as S. Augustines wordes are 72. And for that I promised in the former paragraph to handle more largly in this place the dissimulation or fiction of our Sauiour related in the end of S. Lukes Ghospell when he went with his two disciples to the Castle of Emaus which by the Euangelist it set downe in these words Iesus autem finxit se longiùs ire Ie sus did feigne that he would goe further or as the Greek hath it Prosepoiêito he did make shew or pretend as though he would go further I shall heere relate somewhat largely the wordes of a learned Bishop of our time vpon that place to wit Iansenius oftentymes cyted by Thomas Morton himself 73. Est mendacium saith he secundum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nem c. Aly according to S. Augustines definition is a false signification with a will to deceaue wherfore as it is no lye or fallacy at all when a man speaketh that which
is apparant in being taken in so many liues about Sotus and Azor as heere he hath byn 37. And now for that we haue byn ouer long in this one example drawne out by the multiplicity of 〈◊〉 manifold vntruthes we shall breifly touch an example or two more and so make an end A wyfe being demaunded by her husband that is no competent Iudge and compelled to sweare whether she be an adulteresse or no may lawfully sweare if the sinne be secret say our Doctors that she is not vnderstanding VT TIBI REVELEM that I am bound to reueale it vnto yow and therby auoid the danger that otherwise she were like to incurre In which resolution though Sotus do somwhat differ from the rest as also about the answere of a defendant in his owne act whether he may say absolutly he hath not done it or no as before in the third Case hath byn debated yet doth Doctor Nauarre at large proue that she may answere truly so as a priest may answere also in matters of Confession by Sotus owne rule though the Cases be different in other pointes And with Nauar do concurre in this Syluester Lopez Cosmus Philiarchus Angelus de Clauatio Pedrazza Tolet Azor and others 38. An other Case is that a man hauing borrowed an hundred pondes of another and payd him againe but being not able to proue the said payment in iudgment and therupon forced by the Iudges to sweare that he will pay an hundred poundes by such a day he is not 〈◊〉 if he pay him not or haue no intention to pay him for that in his oath Soluam I will pay him is vnderstood by law and by the very circumstance of the thing it selfe that I will pay him so much as I owe him for that this also must be presumed to haue byn the true intention of the Iudge according to right and law though otherwise by his externall actuall iudgement he bound him to pay it absolutly 39. Many more such like cases and examples might be added but it were ouer long The substance of Schoole-doctrine in this poynt of Canon-lawers is That when a man is offered iniury or iniustly vrged to vtter a secret that without his hurt or losse or publicke damage he may not do then is it lawfull for him without lying or periury to answere eyther in word or oath according to his owne intention and meaning so it be true though the hearer be deceaued therwith But whersoeuer this iniury is not offered nor violence vsed or that he hath liberty to sweare or not sweare as in common conuersation and traffique it falleth out ther is he alwayes bound to sweare according to the intention of him to whom he sweareth and this vnder payne of periury and much more where the Equiuocation may turne to the hurt of others that offer him no iniury nor cannot force him to sweare against his will This is the resolution of Catholike-schooleDoctors vpon the groundes which before yow haue heard both of reason equity Scriptures and Fathers against the vnlearned clamors of a few English ministers that out of emulation and ignorance doe impugne the same without proofe at all And this shall suffice for this Chapter THE ARGVMENTS AND REASONS OF THO. MORTONS BOOKE are examined and ansvvered AND His notorious errors follyes and falsifications therin discouered CHAP. XI ALBEIT whatsoeuer hath hitherto byn said and written by vs about this subiect of Equiuocation hath byn in reprofe of Thomas Mortons reasons and arguments against the same yet haue I not thought it amisse in this place to looke ouer his booke againe and to bring againe into the Readers sight by way as it were of methodicall repetition whatsoeuer substāce he pretendeth to haue in this affaire which though it be so small that it is scarce worth the repetition yet may the reuiew therof make some impression what 〈◊〉 of people they are that take vpon them to write bookes at this day in England against Catholiekes and to be Maisters and directors of others that are so ignorant and farre out of the way themselues 2. First then to pretermit the 〈◊〉 exaggerations vsed by him in the beginning of this booke which vpon some occasions I haue touched before intituling the same Against more then heathnish Equiuocation and in another place Against the doctrine of sacrilegious Equiuocation and yet futther Against the impious conceipt of Equiuocation and lastly Against the wicked doctrine of Equiuocation against the new-bred-hydra and vggly monster a peece of the black art the mystery of iniquity and the like we shall briefly go to the substance of the matter for now already yow haue seene how vaine and childish these termes are and much more that asseueration That no iota in all Scripture no one èxample in all antiquity no one reason in all the naturall wit of man is to be found for profe or colour of any lvwfull vse of Equiuocation Yow haue seene I say how light and vaine these wordes of his are and haue pittyed I thinke the poore mans ouersight in vttering them forasmuch as so many Scriptures so many Fathers so many Doctors and graue learned men both in Law and Deuinity so many euident reasons and arguments haue byn alleadged for the iust vse therof in due occasions tymes matters and places as no modesty can maintayne the former fond and childish vaunts to the contrary 3. To hasten then to the matter I am first to admonish the reader that wheras this Minister doth take vpon him to confute a certaine Catholicke manuscript Treatise made in defence of Equiuocation and intercepted as it seemeth by them I could neuer yet come to the sight therof and therfore must be forced to admitt what he saith out of it without controlment heere a peece there a peece though there be diuers coniectures 〈◊〉 he as in other matters so in this dealeth very vnfaithfully partly for that such peeces as heere are alleadged do not seeme well to hang togeather or to haue any due connexion and partly also for that I hauing taken Thomas Morton in so many falsifications of thinges alleadged by him as before yow haue seene and that the law saith VVhosoeuer is once euill is presumed to be euill still vntill he proue the contrary I must in a manner assure my selfe that the minister hath vsed notable legter-de mains in citing the sentences and textes of this Catholicke Treatise which I haue hope to see ere it belong and if it come in time I may chance by some appendix to giue yow more notice of the particulers 4. This then presupposed we come to the 〈◊〉 pointes of his whole Treatise which 〈◊〉 as yow haue heard of two conclusions The first that euery Equiuocation by a mentall reseruation is not a hidden truth but a grosse lye The second that euery Equiuocation whether mentall or verball if it be vsed in an oath
our Grandame Eue. His fixt argument intituled from examples of dissimulation condemned by Scriptures Fathers Pagans §. 6. 27. HEERE yow see how he tyeth togeather Scriptures Fathers and Pagans all do proue indeed his purpose alike for that he bringeth nothing to the purpose out of any of them And first yow see that he flyeth the word Equiuocation and nameth only Dissimulation which Equiuocation we haue proued lately before to be a different thing from Dissimulation for that Equiuocation hath a true sense and meaning in the mynde of the speaker conforme to the matter and circumstance that is handled and most euidently vsed by Christ himselfe and diuers holy men as largely before hath bene declared which yet without impiety cannot be called or tearned Dissimulation in such a sense as Tho. Morton would haue it to wit as Dissimulation importeth deceipt or fraud for otherwise S. Augustine himselfe writing contramendacium against lying doth confesse that in a good sense Christ did dissemble when he said 〈◊〉 tetigit who touched me when he knew well ynough 〈◊〉 it was and of Lazarus Vbi posuistis eum where haue yow buryed him Per hoc nescire se finxit saith S. Augustine Christ by this kynde of speech did feigne that he knew not And againe in the same booke neyther that which Iacob did to obtayne the benediction of his Father nor that which Ioseph did to delude his brethren nor that which Dauid did when he feigned himselfe to be mad Neque caetera huiusmodi mendacia iudicanda sunt neyther other such like dissimulations as these are may be iudged for lyes Before also we haue heard his opinion for allowing all dissimulation in stratagems so the war be iust And thus much for the tytle of his argument now to the substance 28. First to begine with his examples out of Scriptures I say that he might better haue said Example in the singuler number for wheras we of our parte haue alleadged so many and so great variety of examples in our former discourse to the contrary he poore man out of all the body of the whole Bible hath alleadged but one and that nothing to his purpose as presently shall appeare His example is out of the Acts of the Apostles where it is recounted how Ananias and Saphira his wife hauing sold a certayne field of theirs and bringing a parte of the price and laying it at the feete of the Apostle as though it had bene the whole price were miraculously punished by Saint Peter for defrauding the Community of that which they had promised or would pretend to giue An Act saith T. Morton proper to the infancy of the Church to bring their substance and tender it to the Apostles for the comon good of the Saints By which words if he allow that fact as a forme of perfection in that purity and integrity of the Christian Churches begining why then now is the imitation therof in religious men of our dayes impugned by the Protestants And if by the word infancy he meane weaknes or imperfection in the sense of S. Paul saying Cùm essem paruulus c. VVhen I was a child or infant I speake as a child I vnderstood as a child I thought as a child but when I came to the yeares of a man I cast of those thinges that belonged to a child If this I say be Thomas Mortons meaning to note the act of imperfection the ancient Fathers do stand wholy against him and do allow it rather for great perfection and that it was a vow of voluntary pouerty to liue in comon which those first Christians had made by counsell of the Apostles and consequently do interprete those wordes Nonne manens tibi manebat c. Did it not remayne in your power to giue it or not to giue it to haue byn meant by S. Peter before their vow which if it be true and that S. Peter did giue so dreadfull a sentence vpon the first vow-breakers of voluntary pouerty euen for deteyning somwhat of their owne how much may Thomas Morton and some friends of his feare the like sentence for teaching it to be lawfull to take away that from a Religious cōmunity which themselues neuer gaue 29. But let vs come to the application of this example against Equiuocation which he hath chosen to vse principally about the womans speach The woman is asked saith he Sould yow the land for so much Her answere is yea for so much meaning but one halfe concealing the other in which dissimulation it is impossible but that your reserued clause must haue come into her mynd to thinke but so much to giue in common or to signifye vnto yow Thus Thomas Morton teacheth that poore woman to equiuocate after his manner of Equiuocation that is to say to lye for that now I suppose he hath learned by that which hath byn set downe in our precedent Chapter that to speake an vntruth or to conceale a truth or to vse any Equiuocation when we are iustly demaunded by our lawfull Superiour and when no iniurie or violence is vsed vnto vs is a greiuous mortall sinne in our Catholick Doctrin and consequently she being lawfully demaunded by S. Peter in a lawfull cause touching her owne vow promise no clause os reseruation could saue her speech from lying as our Minister doth foolishly imagine 30. Wherfore S. Peter as most lawfull Iudge and gouernour of the vniuersall Church vnder Christ the holy Ghost in him did worthily punish that dissimulation and lying both in her and her husband for example of others in that beginning and for manifesting the great and special assistance of the holy Ghost that assisted him and should be in his Successors to the worldes end in that their gouernement to the terror of wicked men that should impugne it or otherwise deserue by their demerites to be punished by the same And thus much of his examples out of Scriptures which is but one as yow see and that much against himselfe and his owne cause if I be not deceaued for that it proueth all equiuocation is not lawfull as 〈◊〉 will nedes suppose vs to hold 31. In the Fathers he is more copious for he hath two examples but of as small moment to the purpose as this The first out of S. Augustine in his booke against lying where he proposeth a certaine Case that if a sicke Father hauing a sonne vpon the point of death whom he loueth so tenderly that if he should know he were dead it would indanger also his owne life what might his friend answere vnto him who comming from his sonne and knowing him to be dead should be demaunded by the said Father whether he were dead or no S. Augustines resolution is that which before we haue also set downe in our generall Doctrine to be true that for sauing any mans temporall life a lye is not to be
disputeth Caluin though more cyuilly and cunningly about the same matter saying Non est cur vlla hominum authoritate vel annorum praescriptione c. There is no reason why we should suffer our selues to be drawne a side from the doctrine we teach by any authority of men or prescription of yeares Where yow see that he graunteth both antiquity of time and authority of the ancient Fathers to be against him in that controuersy of the Masse and Sacrifice And as we haue shewed the same in this article so might we in all the rest if time and place did permit but this is sufficient to proue in my opinion that the protestation of M. Iewell before mencyoned which so solemnly he made in the presence of almighty God was feigned and hypocriticall when he saith Not one father not one Doctor c. and then addeth for more asseueration when I say not one I speake not in vehemency of spirite or heate of talke but euen as before God by the way of simplicity and truth For if M. Iewell did know that this his maisters and elders Luther and Caluin were forced to reiect generally all the Fathers or the most parte of them for that they were against him for the sacrifice of the Masse then was it notable cosening Equiuocation to sweare protest before God in simplicity that no one did make for vs either in this or the rest of the articles 26. The fifth reason is for that we see by experience that all other English Protestant writers succeeding M. Iewell and being as it were his schollers and participating of his spirite sense and meaning began presently to reiect and cast of the Fathers vpon euery occasion wherin they were pressed by their authority as by the writings of Doctor Calshill Doctor Humfrey Fulke Charke VVhitakers and others is euident wherof I will alleadge only one example out of the last named in steed of all who being pressed with the consent of Fathers in a 〈◊〉 controuersy against him answered in this wise We repose no such confidence in the Fathers writinges that we take any certain proofe of Religion frō them because we place all our Faith and Religion not in humaine but in diuine Authority If therfore you bring vs what some one Father hath thought or what the Fathers vniuersally altogeather haue deliuered the same except it be approued by testimonyes of scriptures auayleth nothing it gayneth nothing it conuinceth nothing For the Fathers are such witnesses as they also haue need of the Scriptures to be their witnesses If deceyued by error they giue forth their testimony disagreeing from Scriptures albeit they may be pardoned erring for want of wisdome we cannot be pardoned if because they erred we also will erre with them So Doctor VVhitakers Where yow see what accompt he maketh of ancient Fathers and Doctors Patres etiam simul 〈◊〉 to vse his owne wordes yea all Fathers put togeather without proofe of Scripture to Authorize them it 〈◊〉 nothing saith he gayneth nothing it conuinceth nothing So as if M. Iewell had dealt plainly he might only haue called for Scripture at our hands and not so often for Fathers knowing by all probability aswell as his schollers that the Fathers were at least in many controuersyes against him and what Equiuocation then was this to call so often and earnestly for ancient Fathers yea some one place or sentence some two lines for wynning of the field was not this singuler and extraordinary yea hypocrisy and lying Equiuocation in the highest degree 27. The sixt reason is the consideration of his earnest exhorting of Catholickes to answere his Chalenge Now it standeth vpon yow saith he to proue but one affirmatiue against me and so to require my promise of subscribing And againe If yow of your parte would vouchsafe to bring but two lynes the whole matter were concluded And yet further Me thinketh both reason and humanity would that yow should answere somewhat especially being so often and so openly required c. VVhy be yow so loth being so earnestly required to shew forth but one Doctor of your side c. VVhat thinke you there is now iudged of you that being so long tyme required yet cannot be wonne to bring forth one sentence in your defence And yet againe more earnestly I protest before God bring me but one sufficient authority in the matters I haue required and afterward I will gently and quietly conferre with yow further at your pleasure And therfore for as much as it is Gods cause if yow meane simply deale simply betray not your right if yow may saue it with one word the people must needs muse at your silence for thinke not that any wise man will be so much your friend as in so weighty matters he will be satisfied with your said silence c. And not content with this he concludeth in these wordes of earnest exhortation Wherfore heere I leaue putting yow eft-somes gently in remembrance that being so often and so openly desired to shew forth one Doctor c. Yow haue brought nothing and that if yow stand so still it must needs be thought yow do it conscientia imbecillitatis for that there was nothing to be brought And heere once againe I conclude as before putting yow in remembrance that this long tyme I haue desired yow to bring forth some sufficient Authority for proofe of your party Thus farre M. Iewell 28. And would yow not thinke that this desire this intreaty this vrging and prouocation did proceed from a great confidence in his cause Truly if the confidence were not great the crafte and dissimulation was singuler but what ensued M. Doctor Harding and other learned men lying in Flanders being moued by zeale of Religion and prouokd by these insolent eggings began soone after to write bookes in answere of these challenges and to lay open the vntruthes and vanities therof which labours wrought so great effect with diuers of the discreeter sorte both Catholickes Protestants in England as M. Iewell thought it best to procure the publike prohibition of those bookes by the Magistrate for which he had so earnestly called before wherupō there were diligēt searches made to find out the same both in the vniuersities townes cittyes portes of the Realme as one that was then a searcher among others and a Protestant preacher in Oxford but conuerted afterward by these very reasons and by the vntruthes found in M. Iewell bookes doth testifie at large in an answere of his written to M. D. VVhitakers whose wordes I haue thought good to sett downe in this place For hauing refuted a speach of M. VVhitakers who pretended to be very glad that the Rhemes English Testament was abroad in many mens handes M. Reynolds writeth thus With like phrase saith he and character of shamelesse vaunting wrote M. Iewell to Doctor Harding saying VVe neuer suppressed any of your bookes M. Harding as
wrought by him so myraculously as both the said S. 〈◊〉 and S. Bede after him and all other ancient historiographers as Malmesbury 〈◊〉 and the rest do call him our English Apostle of whose many and great miracles wrought in that worke not only the said Authors but S. Gregory himselfe doth write a speciall narration to Eulogius Archbishop of Alexandria yea 〈◊〉 Fox himselfe in his Acts and Monumentes albeit not a little imbued with M. Iewels spirit against this holy man for that he planted Catholicke Romane Religion in England yet writing the story of the conuersion of Ethelbert our first Christian English King he hath these words at lēgth When the King had well considered the honest conuersation of their life and moued with their miracles wrought through Gods hād by them he heard them more gladly and lastly by their wholsome exhortations and example of Godly life he was by them conuerted and Christened in the yeare of Christ aboue said 596. and the six and thirtith of his Reigne So Fox Whervnto I may add a testimony of much greater credit out of S. Bede that liued neere vnto his time recordeth the very Epitaph remayning in his dayes written vpon S. Augustines tombe in these wordes 34. Heere lyeth Blessed Augustine the first Archbishop of Canterbury who was sent hither by S. Gregory Bishop of Rome and strengthened of God by working of miracles who conuerted King Ethelbert and his Realme from the worshipping of Idolls to the faith of Christ. And thus much of the sanctity of this blessed man out of their testimony that liued with him or not long after him But now what writeth M. Iewell of him and with what truth and conscience He was a man saith he as it was iudged by them that saw him and knew him neither of Apostolicke spirite nor any way worthy to be called a Saint but an Hypocrite a super stitious man cruell bloody and proud aboue measure and for proofe of all this he cyteth only in his margent 〈◊〉 of Monmouth in his history of the Britans which Ieffrey dyed in the dayes of King Henry the 2. very neere 600. yeares after S. Augustine and almost 500. after S. Bede and writeth no such thing at all of S. Augustine as heere is set downe by M. Iewell but rather much in his commendacion with note of the emulous dealing of the British Bishops against him for the hatred they bare to the English nation and their conuersion 35. So as heere now M. Iewels assertion is not only false and impious against so venerable a man as Augustine was but must needs be also against his owne conscience this in diuers pointes For first he knew that there was no Author extant that wrote in his dayes saw him and knew him but only S. Gregory who writeth 〈◊〉 in his commendations as yow haue heard Secondly he knew that S. Bede who liued in the very next age after him and all other English Authors succeeding for the space of eyght or nine hundred yeares till our time did highly cōmend him in their workes and especially the forenamed Malmesbury Huntington that liued with Ieffrey Moumouth And lastly he knew that this only witnes the said Ieffrey had no such thing And what then will yow say to this Equiuocation may not M. Mortons Epithets of hellish heathenish impious and sacrilegious haue place heere 36. The fourth example may be those wordes of M. Iewell in the Apology of England writing against the Pope Let him in Gods name saith he call to mynd let him remember that they be of his owne Canonists which haue taught the people that fornication betwene single folke is not synne as though they had fetched that doctrine from 〈◊〉 in Terence whose words are It is no synne belieue me for a yong man to haunt harlotts And for this he cyteth in his margent Io. de Magistris li. de Temperantia And who would not thinke but that this accusation were sure for so much as it is so opprobriously vrged and insulted vpon But now I pray yow considerthe particulers and therwithal what a conscience this man had 37. First then Io. de Magistris was Martinus de Magistris not a Canonist but a Schoole deuine that wrote a Treatise De Temperantia Luxuria so as it seemeth that he that gaue this charge eyther had not read the Author himselfe which I suppose M. Iewell will not confesse or else meant to dazle the eyes of his Reader by naming Iohn for Martin Secondly this Author in his said Treatise as the fashion of Scholemen is propoundeth this question Vtrum simplex fornicatio sit peccatum mortale whether simple fornication be a mortall synne and according to vse of Schooles saith Arguitur quòd non It is argued or reasoned for the negatiue parte thus and so 〈◊〉 downe some arguments for that syde by way of obiections which afterward he solueth and cometh to conclude absolutly in the affirmatiue parte by six conclusions that simple fornication is not only synne but mortall synne for that it is forbidden by Gods law and excludeth from the Kingdome of heauen as S. Paul affirmeth And now lett any man consider of the conscience of him that auoucheth in print the other slaunder Would Maister Garnet or M. South-well or any other Catholicke man accused for lawfull Equiuocation euer haue made so notorious a lye against their owne consciencies Let our aduersaryes bring forth but two examples 38. The fifth example shall be also out of his wordes in the same Apologie writing against the reading of Saincts lyues in the Church The old Councell of Carthage saith he commaundeth nothing to be read in Christs congregation but the Canonicall Scriptures but these men read such things in their Churches as themselues know to be starke lyes and fond fables So he But now let vs see whether it be more probable that we know to be lyes those thinges which we read in our Churches or that he knew to be a lye that which heere he relateth and printeth in his booke For if he read the Canon it selfe which he mentioned which is the forty and seauenth of the third Councell of Carthage wherin Saint Augustine was present then must he needs know that he lyeth indeed egregiously for that the Canō beginneth thus Item placuit vt praeter Scripturas Canonicas nihil in Ecclesia legatur sub nomine diuinarum Scripturarum sunt autem Canonicae Scripturae Genesis Exodus c. 〈◊〉 ludith Hester Machabaeorum libri duo c. It hath seemed good to this Councell that nothing be read in the Church vnder the name of diuine Scripture but only such as be Canonicall Scriptures in deed as are Genesis Exodus c. The two bookes of the Machabees Tobias Iudith Esther and the rest Wherby we see that in alleadging these words that nothing be read in the Church but Canonicall Scriptures is guylfully