in the word Haereticus which Sayer hath not and most of all in making his Reader belieue that contumax praesumptus and manifestus doth signify in Sayer one that vpon presumption only is iudged to be as obstinate an Hereticke as if he were manifest wherof Sayer neither spake nor meant but in a quite different sense not appertaining to Heresy at all saith that a man may be condemned as contumacious by presumption if he appeare not or vseth sleightes diuerticles or delayes as well as if openly he refused to appeare Now then consider what a Minister of truth this is and of what naked innocency thus perfidiously to delude his Reader yet to come forth after all with this dissembled Hypocrisy Now let me be beholding vnto yow saith he for an answere And so I thinke he is but if not sharpe inough for so shamefull an abuse it may be amended and augmented herafter vpon like occasions which euery where are offered throughout his whole booke and there were no end if I would answere him to all 53. And this now is only in one sole leafe and no lesse may be said about another that within some pages after ensueth if we would stand theron to wit where he taketh vpon him to defend Iohn Caluin from the imputation of Arrianisme obiected by the moderate Answerer not only out of our Catholike writers but from cheif Protestant Authors themselues about which point for that I shall be inforced to make a particuler Treatise in the third Part of this Chapter I will heere let the most Part of that matter passe and examine only a peece therof to wit how Caluin doth deny the Sonne of God to be Deum 〈◊〉 Deo lumen de lumine God of God and light of light as the first generall Councell of Neece did decree against the Arrians wherof T. M. writeth thus Your Iesuit Bellarmine reckoneth vp Caluin and Beza to be of this opinion and I thinke he saith truly c. But now this doctrine being examined with the eye not ouercast with the webbe of preiudice doth in the iudgment of your said famous Bellarmine seeme Catholicall bycause they deny not the Sonne to be from the Father but they deny the essence of the Godhead to haue any generation this likewise is not the Part of common modesty to blind-fold your self and strike yow know not whome 54. And who would not thinke heere vpon this asseueration of T. M. but that Cardinall Bellarmine were cōtrary to himself in accusing Caluin and yet iustifying his doctrine yow shall see then how many sleightes heere are vsed for deceiuing the Reader First Bellarmine beginneth his Treatise of this matter thus in the place cited by T. M. Est noua quaedam Haeresis c. There is a new kinde of Heresy sprung vp in our dayes which I know not whether it consist in the thing it self or in wordes only Genebrard doth of purpose confute the same in his bookes of the blessed Trinity calling it the Heresy of Autotheans that is to say of such as doe hold Christ to be God of himself and not of his Father and both he and Bishop Lindan and Petrus Canisius doe ascribe the same vnto Caluin of which errour doth manifestly follow that either the Sonne is not distinguished personally from the Father which is the Heresy of Sabellius or that he is distinguished in nature which goeth neere to the heresy of the Manichies So Bellarmine Who as yow see holdeth the proposition to be Hereticall that Christ is God of himself being vnderstood simply as the ancient Church vnderstood it and namely the Councell of Neece when they set downe the contrary doctrine as true and necessary to saluation to belieue that Christ is God of God and light of light 55. But now Caluin and Beza as also M. VVillet and Doctor Fulke their schollers in a particuler sense saith our Minister doe deny Christ to be God of God to wit that the essence of his Godhead hath no generation though as he is Sonne and the second person in Trinity he is by generation from his Father which doctrine he saith our Bellarmine doth hold for Catholicall whose words he alledgeth in the margent thus Dum rem ipsam excutio non facilè audeo pronunciare illos in errore fuisse while I doe examine well the thing it self I dare not presume to pronoūce them to haue byn in errour to wit Caluin and Beza wheras Bellarmins wordes are dum rem ipsam excutio Caluini sententias diligenter considero non facilè audeo pronunciare illum in hoc errore fuisse while I examine the matter it self and diligently consider Caluins opinions I doe not easily presume to pronounce him to haue byn in this errour to wit in the particuler errour or heresy of Autotheans set downe and confuted by Genebrard and in his sense condemned expressely by the ancient Catholicke Church for denying Christ to be and to haue his essence from the Father but yet though in some sense it seemeth to Bellarmine that Caluin may be excused in this priuate particuler meaning of his yet not absolutly as T. M. would make his Reader to thinke by striking out cūningly the particle hoc this errour and leauing the word errour in common as though Bellarmine had excused him from all kinde of errour which is most false for that presently after he both impugneth of purpose and confuteth by many argumentes his manner of speach as Hereticall in this behalf 56. Restat saith he vt modum loquendi Caluini qui dicit 〈◊〉 à se habere essentiam simpliciter esse repudiandum contrario modo loquendum esse demonstremus c. It remaineth that we doe demonstrate Caluins manner of speech that saith the Sonne to haue his essence of himself is simply to be reiected and that we must speake in a quite contrary manner to wit that the Sonne hath not only his person but essence also from the Father and so is God of God and light of light as the Councell of Neece declared and this he proueth by foure wayes first Quia pugnat cum verbo Dei for that Caluins manner of speech is opposite to the word of God c. Pugnat secundò cum Conciliis and secondly it is repugnant to the manner of speech of ancient Councells as the Nicene others Pugnat tertiò cum doctrina Patrum thirdly it is contrary to the doctrine of the old Fathers fourthly it agreeth with the speech of the old Arrians and other such proofes which Bellarmine doth prosecute at large confirming each one of these members by diuers examples and instances that Caluin spake Heretically in fauour of the Arrians in this behalfe 57. So as the cosenage heere of striking out hoc out of Bellarmins wordes making him to say non audeo pronunciare illos in errore fuisse insteed of illum in hoc 〈◊〉 fuisse though it be small in sound
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
time vvhen this treason vvas plotted as to vse his owne wordes no 〈◊〉 grudge no invvard vvhispering of discōtentment did any vvay appeare VVhich assertion if you consider it well and compare it with our domesticall differences in Religion and variety of punishments laied vpon diuers sortes of men at that time euen before this fact fell out for the same will seeme a very great hyperbolicall exaggeration and ouerlashing for that the penalties of Recusancy and other like molestations were as rife then as at any other time before complaintes of Catholickes in diuers countreys no lesse pittifull 14. Another like Treatise followed this intituled A true reporte of the imprisonment arraignment and execution of the late Traitors imprinted by Geffery Chorlton VVhich so raileth vpon Catholicks and Catholicke Religion from the very beginning to the end therof as if none of them had byn free from the fact attempted or that their common doctrine had publickly allowed the same whereunto this seditious libell of the minister T. M. which now I am to confute endeauoreth to beare false witnes I will pretermit two other most virulent and spitefull Treatises intituled Pagano-Papismus and The picture of a Papist in which the Religion wherin all our auncestors both liued and died from the beginning of their Christianity vnto our daies and so many worthy nations great Princes and famous learned men doe professe round about vs at this day and doe hope to be saued therby is made worse then Paganisme vea the horrible sinke of all damnable heresies which notwithstanding were condemned by the same Religion and Church in former ages and consequently this censure sauoureth more of fury then of reason 15. But to leaue of the recitall of any more bookes or pamphlets to this effect there hath appeared further a matter of far greater importance which is a Catalogue of new lawes suggested in this Parlament against the said Catholickes wherin besides the former heape of penall statutes made to this affliction in precedent times diuers new are proposed for an addition and aggrauation of their Calamities far more rigorous if they passe then the former which being considered by forreine people doe make the state of English Catholickes vnder Protestant gouernement to seeme vnto them much more miserable and intolerable then that of the Ievves vnder any sorte of Christian Princes or that of the Grecians or other Christians vnder the Turke or Persian or that of bondsubiectes vnder the Polonians Svvecians Moscouians and other such Nations so as all this tendeth as yow see and as before we haue noted to more desperate disunion of mindes and exasperation of hartes 16. Only I must confesse that in two mens writings I finde more moderation then in any of the rest who yet being more interessed in the late grieuous designed delict then any of the other that write therof had most cause to be prouoked against the delinquents The first is his Maiesties speach both in his Proclamation and Court of Parlament In the former he professeth to distinguish betvveene all others calling themselues Catholicks the Authors of detestable treason and that by good experience he vvas so vvell persuaded of the loyalty of diuers of that 〈◊〉 as that he assured himselfe that they did as much abhorre that odious 〈◊〉 as himselfe And in the second his Maiesty speaking in Parlament distinguished betweene different sortes of Catholicks allowing to the one sort both the opinion of loyalty and possibility of saluation detesting in that point to vse his Highnes wordes the cruelty of the Puritanes and thinking it vvorthy of fier that vvill admit no saluation to any Papist VVhich is an argument of his Princely moderate meaning not to condemne the whole for a part though in our sense the distinction vsed by his Maiesty in that place of some Catholicks that holde some pointes of our Religion and of others that holde all cannot stand For that we accompt them not for Catholicks at all nor may wee that holde not all but a part for that Catholicum is secundum totum and not secundum partem as well S. Augustine noteth and consequently he that belieueth a part only or any one iote lesse then the whole cannot be in our sense nor in that of S. Augustine a true Catholicke 17. And surely though his Maiesty in this place out of the preiudicate persuasions of others and 〈◊〉 suggested informations seeme to be persuaded that no Catholicks of this condition that belieue and imbrace the whole can euer proue either good Christians or faithfull subiects yet is our hope and constant praier to almighty God that he will in time so illustrate that excellent vnderstanding of his Highnes as the same will see and discerne betweene these absolute and perfect Catholicks that yeeld themselues wholy in obsequium obedientiam fidei in all that the vniuer sall Church prescribeth vnto them to be belieued and others that chuse take and leaue what they like or list vpon their owne iudgement which choice or election called otherwise heresy if wee belieue the Holy Scriptures and sense of all antiquity in this behalfe is the most dangerous and pernicious disease in respect of both those effects heere mentioned by his Maiesty that is vpon earth And when his Highnes shall further with deliberation and maturity haue pondered how many ages his noble Auncestors Catholicke Kings and Queenes of both Realmes haue raigned in peace honour and safty ouer subiects of the first sorte and how infinite troubles turmoiles violences dangers hurtes and losses his Maiesties owne person and all his neerest in bloud and kinred haue suffered in a few yeares of those other new chusers to omit their doctrine I doubt not but that out of his great prudence and equanimity he will mollify and mitigate the hard opinion conceaued of the former notwithstanding this late odious accident fallen out by the temerity of a few as the world knoweth 18. The second example of some moderation before mentioned or at least wise meant was my L. of Salisburies answere to Certeine scandalous papers as he called them which though being written in the time and occasion they were the answerer wanteth not his stinges that pearce euen to the quicke yet supposing the pretended iniury offered by that fond menacing letter and the condition of men in his place and dignity not accustomed to beare or dissemble prouocations of that kind all may be called moderate that is not extreme though for the letter it self if any such were I presume so much of his Lordships wisedome and prudence as he could hardly deeme or suspect any Catholicke to be so mad as to write such a franticke commination but rather that it came from the forge of some such other as togeather with the blowe to be giuen therby to all Catholickes had furthermore a desire to drawe forth from his L. the answere therby to see and try his style and to that end gaue
must spit in his face which is spoken saith our Minister comparatiuely and not Rebelliously He expoundeth also those wordes of Caluin Abdicant se potestate that such Kinges are bereaued of authority meaning only saith he in that case of contradiction against God But let the Minister tell vs who shall be Iudge of this who shall determine the case To whome shall it belong to giue sentēce when a King doth contradict God when he vsurpeth Gods throne when he commaundeth any thing against God and consequently when his face must be spitten on when he must be pulled downe when he must be depriued of all regall authority Did Thomas Morton euer finde in any Catholicke writer such wordes or sense in preiudice of Princes And yet the fond Minister as though he had plaied worthily his Master-prize vaunteth in these wordes Thus is Caluin iustified concerning his doctrine and in him also Beza bycause Beza say yow his Successour in place succeeded him also both in opinion and practice True Sir they are both iustified in your manner of iustification they are fit iustified Saints for your Calendar 42. And hauing said thus he passeth yet further adding a second prouocation about practice in these wordes VVe haue heard of their opinion to wit of Caluin and Beza haue yow any thing to except against their practice And this demaund he made when he knew and had seene his Aduersaries many and most grieuous accusations against them in that kinde not only for mouing that people of Geneua to open Rebellion against their Lord and Prince the Bishop but also the people of France against their King and Soueraigne citing good authorities for the same saying Caluin and Bezae armed the subiectes against their Prince of Geneua and as Caluin himself Doctour Sutcliffe the Bishop of Canterbury be witnesses deposed their Soueraigne from his temporall right and euer after continued in that state of Rebellion They celebrated also a Councell wherin was concluded that King Francis the second then King of France his wife the Queene his Children Queene Mother c. should be destroyed And his quotations for these thinges are Beza l. de iure Magistrat Sutcliffe answ to suppl and Suruey Caluin in epist. Pet. Far. orat cont Sectar defens Reg. Relig. c. All which being seene by our Minister he demandeth notwithstanding as yow haue heard with this hypocrisy haue yow any thing to except against their practice As though there were nothing at all not only not to be accused or reprehended in them but not so much as to be excepted against And is not this notable dissimulation in a matter so cleere and euident Who can belieue this Minister at his word herafter But let vs now see how he will answere the matter it self obiected and then will yow admire his impudency much more 43. For better vnderstanding wherof yow must know that besides al that which is alledged for proofe of this accusation out of Caluin Farellus their owne Lordes and my Lord of Canterbury his booke of Dangerous positions Doctour Sutcliffe doth of purpose and at large proue the same in two whole Chapters to wit the second and third of his Suruey against the pretended discipline shewing out of diuers authors and namely Franciscus Boninardus that wrote the History of Geneua as he saith by Caluins direction Symlerus and Bodinus that for aboue fiue hundred yeares gone the Bishop of Geneua was not only spirituall but temporall Lord also of that Citty and the same confirmed vnto him by the Emperour Frederick the first vpon the yeare of Christ 1124. and as Caluin himself confesseth in his writinges to Cardinall Sadoletus had Ius gladij alias ciuilis iurisdictionis partes the power of life and death and other partes of ciuill iurisdiction and that this Prince and Bishop was cast out by the people vpon the preachinges and practises of Farellus Caluin and other Protestant Ministers Quo eiecto saith Bodinus Geneuates Monarchiam in popularem statum commutârunt who being cast out the Geneuians did change their Monarchy into a popular State 44. And finally after many proofes Doctour Sutcliffe setteth downe his opinion in these wordes I doubt not but that I may presume without any mans iust offence to speake my opinion as touching the deuinity which was pretended by the said Ministers of Geneua against their Bishop for indeed I doe dislike it If such dealinges were simply to be vrged by the word of God they might reach further then would be conueniēt I neuer thought it agreable to deuinity for Ministers to cast of their Rulers at their owne pleasures one of them writeth thus That the light of the Ghospell had restored to the Citty that principality which the Bishop had before But all the learned deuines in Germany at their conferences with the Emperour were of a contrary opinion c. I am not the man that will either iustify mine owne discretiō or impugne any thing which may be brought for the ciuil proceeding of that State or any other so as they carry no false groundes of deuinity with them which may proue dāgerous to our owne such as haue byn since published for the authorizing of subiectes in many cases to depose their Princes So he 45. And now by this large discourse yow see fully his minde first that the Bishop of Geneua was Lord and Prince of that Citty for diuers ages confirmed also by the Emperour secondly that he was vniustly depriued by the people vpon the preaching and false groundes of deuinity of Farellus Caluin Beza and other Protestant preachers thirdly we see the reason why he thinketh thus least their doctrine might reach further then would be conuenient and be dangerous in England So as he also as yow see doth accommodate his doctrine and groundes of deuinity to the commodity of his cause 46. But now let vs see how this Minister Sutcliffe and our Minister Morton haue agreed togeather vpon a farre different manner of answering this matter at this time and yow will perceiue therby what people they are who change their answeres as time and wether walketh For after that Morton had read all this in Sutcliffe yet made the matter so strāge as by his former demaund you haue heard when he said haue yow any thing to except against their practice Now heere he answereth after another fashion thus The booke saith he of Doctour Sutcliffe I could not finde and I needed not seeke it for I haue conferred with the Master who answered me that the booke De iure Magistratus he neuer thought to be Beza his worke and concerning the State of Geneua and Bishop therof he was neuer their Prince but the State of the towne was a free State of it self and now to make a question whether I should belieue him or yow is to doubt whether he that hath byn at Geneua or he that neuer saw it can better
he was 〈◊〉 that he was the High-Priest he excused himselfe that he knew it not I did not know brethren saith he that he was Chiefe-Priest for it is writen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not speake 〈◊〉 of the Prince of thy 〈◊〉 And when the said Apostle doth afterwards handle in his Epistle to the Hebrewes this Iewish Priesthood as a figure of that of Christ our Sauiour and of the new 〈◊〉 he speaketh very honorably therof saying That 〈◊〉 Chief-Priest taken out from men is appointed for men in those things that belong to to God to offer giftes and sacrifices for 〈◊〉 c. But Christ himselfe most honorably of all other gaue to his disciples and to the people this aduertisement Vpon the Chayre of Moyses haue sitten Scribes and Pharisies all things therfore whatsoeuer they shall say vnto yow obserue and do them but do not according to their workes 28. And if vnto the ancient Aaronicall Priest-hood of the old Testament so much honour so much credit so much obedience was to be performed which yet was not so sanctifyed by the diuine person of Christ himselfe nor yet so adorned with the promise of his infallible assistance as ours of the new Testament is according to the Order of Melchisedech what impiety is this in Thomas Morton to go about to discredit the one by the other yea to ascribe the lying of the Iewish souldyers and their talking against common sense as he will haue it vnto their enthralled opinion of a neuer-erring Priest-hood Is not this sensles Had these souldyers an opinion perhaps that their Priests could not sinne Or did they hold this for 〈◊〉 point of doctrine determined vnto them out of Moyses chayre Or if te y did not how is this their fact attributed by Thomas Morton vnto that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 29. But he goeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 all our errors 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 wherof 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that God in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 lyes and 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 examples the deliuery of 〈◊〉 soule out 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The donation of Constantine the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of our Lady the 〈◊〉 of a 〈◊〉 by S. 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Christians amongst the Indians c. But heere now Thomas 〈◊〉 if he would shew 〈◊〉 a man of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and iudgment indeed to deale really and not by calumniatio should proue three thinges First that all these positions are held by vs as he setteth them downe Secondly that they are all false indeed as we hold them and thirdly that therfore we erre in them for that we belieue our Priest-hood cannot erre so as the causality of these errors must fall vpon the enthralled opinion of our neuer-erring Priest-hood 30. Of which three pointes he proueth neuer a one nor goeth about to proue it and we deny them all in the sense that he obiecteth them For as for Traians soule no learned Catholicke man doth hold it either for true or likly and it is at large refuted by Baronius a Catholicke writer Constantines donation is a matter of story disputed to and fro by learned men of our religion The assumption of our B. Lady hath more groundes for it then either Morton or a thousand Mortous will be able to impugne for that he can not deny but that for many ages togeather it hath byn receaued through out all Christendome for an ancient tradition and from the time of the most learned S. Iohn Damascene that liued in the East Church almost mine hundred yeares gone and expresly recordeth the said tradition to be held for ancient in his time T. M. must needes graunt the same and then how many thousandes of more learned godly vigilant and prudent Christian men then Morton is haue belieued the same in so many worldes throughout all Christendome as namely S. Bernard and others euery man may easily see as also consider this one reason amongst the rest that if the sacred body of that Blessed Virgin Mother of God had byn left any where vpon earth as other Saintes bodyes were ther would haue remayned at least some memory some testimony therof or some deuotion to the place 31. And for so much as by Gods holy prouidence so great concourse hath byn made euer vnto the bodyes of S. Peter S. Paul and other of the Apostles Martyres and Saintes of God in different places though neuer so remote it is more then probable that some would haue byn made likewise vnto this sacred body of our Blessed Lady but the malice of these people is such to the holy memory of this blessed virgin vpon earth and their precipitation to 〈◊〉 so hasty and inconsiderate as whatsoeuer they see not with their eyes they deny as absolutly false For what certainty can T. M. haue thinke yow against the bodily 〈◊〉 of our Blessed Lady his assertion being a bare negatiue What certainty against the miracles wrought by God in the Indies Is the hand of God shortened Is not Christ as powerfull now as he was in the Primitiue Church when he extended his hand to miracles as his Disciples with exultation 〈◊〉 Are not these Indians new Christians as the other in Iury were Did not Christ euen then when he gaue power to worke miracles expressly say that he would be with them not for this or that age but vnto the end of the world How then doth this arrogant-sylly-gras-hopper insult here in fauour of Infidels and disgrace of Christians calling them lying miracles amongst the Indians Hath he perchance euer byn there Hath he aduentured his life to gaine those soules vnto Christ that dyed for them as others haue donne Hath he suffered hunger and thirst could and heates persecution and affliction with losse of his bloud for gayning of those poore Indian 〈◊〉 as others haue suffered and 〈◊〉 dayly Noe. He hath done nothing of this but contrary wise stood a farre of in England hath attended to good cheare and ease procured benefices and fauour of the State and now vpon the suddaine is become an aduocate for the Indian Pagans to scorne at the Christian miracles wrought by Gods power among them though testified by neuer so great and graue Authority vnto vs. And is not this a pious man thinke yow 32. As for S. Francis louse I neuer heard of that scorne before and I meruaile in what part of our Theologicall assertions he 〈◊〉 place 〈◊〉 or how he will deduce the 〈◊〉 of this louse from our enthraled opinion of our neuer-erring Priest-hood For soe he must if he talke to the purpose And when he will or can doe this euery man seeth In the meane space I leaue it to that glorious Saint now in heauen where no lise be to answere the contumely if he thinke good either vpon earth or else where Sure I am that I haue reade of strange euentes in some vpon lesse pride and in solency
preuented in like occasions to wit that multitudes are not to be put in despaire no nor particuler men into extreame exasperation without hope of remedy for that despaire is the mother of precipitation extreme exasperation is the next dore to fury No counsaile no reason no regard of Religion nor other respect humaine or deuine holdeth place when men grow desperate all stringes of hope are cut of We see by experience that the least and weakest wormes of the earth which cannot abide the looke of a man yet when they are extremely pressed and put in despaire of escape they turne and leape in mans face it selfe which otherwise they so 〈◊〉 feare and dread 4. Wherfore seing this dangerous stickler would put this extreme despaire into so many thousandes of his Maiesties subiectes yow 〈◊〉 imagine what good seruice he meaneth to do him therby and what pay he deserueth for his labour Surely if a great rich man whose wealth lay in his flocke of sheepe had neuer so faire and fawning a dog following neuer so diligently his trencher and playing neuer so many flattering trickes before him yet if togeather with this he had that other currish quality also as to woory his maisters sheepe disseuer his fold disperse his flock and driue them into flight and precipitation it is like that his Maister out of his wisedome though otherwise he were delighted with his officious fawning would rather hange such a dog then aduenture to suffer so great and important losses by him And no Iesse is to be expected of the great equity prudence of our great Monarch when he shall well consider of the cause and consequence therof 5. And thus much of the malice and pernicious sequele of this assertion let vs see somewhat now also of the folly falsity therof To which effect I would first enquire if it be so that subiectes of different Religions are not comportable togeather vnder a Prince that is of one of those Religions for so must the question be proposed if we will handle it in generall then how doe the Iewes Christians liue togeather vnder many Christian Princes in Germany and Italy vnder the state of Venice yea vnder the Pope himselfe how doe Christians and Turkes liue togeather vnder the Turkish Emperour of Constantinople as also vnder the Persian without persecution for their Religion how did Catholickes and Arrians liue so many yeares togeather vnder Arrian Kinges and Emperours in old times both in Spaine and els 〈◊〉 how doe Catholickes and Protestantes liue togeather at this day vnder the most Christian King of France vnder the great King of Polonia and vnder the German Emperour in diuers partes of his dominions all Catholicke Princes and in the free-cityes of the Empyre And in particuler is to be considered that the Hussites haue liued now some hundreds of yeares in Bohemia vnder the Cathòlicke Princes and Emperours Lordes of that Countrey with such freedome of conuersation with Catholicke subiectes and vnion of obedience to the said Princes as at this day in the great Citty of Praga where the Emperour commonly resideth and where Catholicks 〈◊〉 wholy gouerne there is not so much as one 〈◊〉 Church knowne to be in the handes of any Catholicke Pastor of that citty but all are Hussites that haue the ordinary charges of soules and Catholickes for seruice sermons and Sacraments doe repaire only to monasteries according to ancient agreementes and conuentions betweene them though in number the said Catholickes be many times more then the other and haue all the gouernment and Commaundry in their handes as hath byn said These are demonstratiue proofes ad hominem and cannot be denied and consequently doe conuince that this make-bate Ministers proposition is false in generall That subiects of different religion may not liue togeather in 〈◊〉 peace if their gouernours will permit them Now if he can alleadge any seuerall weighty causes why this generall assertion holdeth not or may not holde in the particuler case of English Catholiks and Protestants vnder our present King we shall discusse them also and see how much they weigh 6. He pretendeth ten seuerall reasons in his pamphlet for causes of this incompossibility and therof doth his whole inuectiue consist Eight of them appertaine to doctrine and practice of rebellion in vs as he auoucheth and the other two vnto doubtfull speech or Equiuocation Of which later point hauing touched somewhat in the precedent Preface being to haue occasion to doe the same againe more largely afterward wee shall now consider principally of the former concerning doctrine and practice of quiet or vnquiet peaceable or dangerous humours behauiours of subiects both Catholicke Protestant 7. And as for Catholickes the Minister in all his eight reasons bringeth out nothing of nouelty against vs but only such pointes of doctrine as himselfe doth consesse and expresly proue that they were held and recevued in our publique schooles aboue foure hundred yeares gone as namely in his first reason For that we hold Protestants for hereticks so farre forth as they decline and differ obstinately from the receyued doctrine and sense of the Roman Catholicke Church and consequently that being Hereticks they are not true Christians nor can haue true faith in any one article of Christian beliefe and that the punishment determined by the ancient Canon lawes which are many and grieuous both spirituall temporall do or may therby light vpon them And in his second third and fourth reasons that wee teach That the Bishop of Rome as spirituall head of the vniuersall Church hath power aboue temporall Princes and may procure to let the Election and succession of such as are opposite or enemies to Catholicke Religion and that in some cases he may dissolue oathes of obediēce and the like 8. And further yet in his fifth sixt seauenth and eight reasons that in certaine occasions and vpon certaine necessities for preuenting of greater euils imminent to any Countrey Kingdome or common wealth especially if they be spirituall and appertaine to the saluation of soules the same high Pastour may restraine resist or punish the enormous excesses of temporall Princes if any such fall out by Censures excommunication depriuation or deposition though this not but vpon true iust and vrgent causes when other means cannot preuaile for auoiding those euerlasting euils 9. All which doctrines for this is the summe of all he saith or alleadgeth do cōteine as yow see no new matter of malice against Protestant Princes inuented by vs for that the Minister himselfe as now we haue said confesseth that for these three or foure later hundred yeares these positions haue byn generally receiued by all the vniuersall Church and face of Christendome so as being established so many hundred yeares before Protestants were borne or named in the world they could not be made or inuented against them in particuler but only are drawne vnto them at this time by
more hath S. Paul in that Epistle of the eminency of Christes Priesthood therby to set forth the most admirable excellency of his power and glory therby giuen him from his Father for our saluation but of the glory of his temporal Kingdome in this life he saith little or nothing And had not then the foresaid Fathers and holy Bishops S. Chrysostome S. Gregory Nazienzen S. Ambrose and others great cause by contemplation of this supereminent worthines of Christes Priesthood to inferre the great preheminēce in generall of the Christian Priesthood before Kingly dignity of earthly principality But let vs yet consider one reason more 17. The office of high Priesthood as partly hath appeared by that we haue said and is euident by the discourse of S. Paul appointing him for a meanes or mediator betweene God and man consisteth principally in two thinges or partes first in respect of that which he is to performe towardes God as to his Superiour secondly in the functions that he is to vse towardes the people as inferiours and subiectes The first consisteth in offering sacrifice oblations prayers and intercession for the sinnes of the people as already touching Christ our Sauiour out of the Apostle we haue declared The second consisteth in the spirituall power dignity authority and functions therof which our said high Priest Christ Iesus as head high Priest of his Church purchased with the sacrifice of his owne bloud hath and may exercise vpon the said Church for euer for vnto him as our high Priest it appertaineth not only to make intercession for his said Church but to gouerne the same also and to direct it by conuenient meanes vnto the end of their saluation which he hath designed and for this to make lawes prescribe orders appoint Sacramentes ordaine spirituall tribunals of iudgment giue sentence of separation of the good from the bad forgiue and retaine sinnes which spirituall gouernment of soules belonging to the office of high Priesthood is a different thing from the ciuill gouernment of temporall principality and yet is a Kingdome also in it self but a spirituall Kingdome ouer soules and not ouer bodies And this had Christ our Sauiour togeather with his high Priesthood according to the prediction and vision of Daniel Aspiciebam ecce quasi filius hominis c. I did looke and behold there appeared as it were the Sonne of man and God gaue vnto him power and honour and a Kingdome his power is an eternall power and his Kingdome shall neuer be corrupted And so in the second Psalme after he had said I am made King by him vpon his holy Hill of Sion he addeth presently to shew that it was a spirituall Kingdome Praedicans praeceptum eius my office is to preach his commandement and many other authorities may be alledged to proue that Christ in that he was high Priest had supreame spirituall Kingly authority in like manner for gouerning of soules 18. But now for the temporall Kingdome of Christ in this life to wit whether besides this spirituall and Royall gouernment of our soules he had Kingly Dominion also vpon our bodies and goodes and vpon all the Kingdomes of the earth so as he might iustly haue excercised all actions of that temporall iurisdiction as casting into prison appointing new officers Kings and Monarches yea whether their power and authority and interest to their States did cease when he came as the right of Priestly authority did in this I say and other pointes depending herof there are two disputable opinions betweene Catholicke Deuines the one holding the affirmatiue that Christ was Lord King temporall as heere is set downe which diuers learned men both of old and our time doe de fend the other affirming that albeit Christ togeather with his high Kingly dignity of spirituall power was Lord also cōsequently ouer our bodies shall raigne ouer the same most gloriously for all eternity in the life to come yet that he renounced the vse of all that Dominion in this life and that in this sense he fled when they would haue made him King and refused to deuide the inheritance betweene the two Brethrē when he was demaunded and finally said to Pilate My Kingdome is not of this world confessing himself to be a true temporal King also according to Pilates meaning but yet that the vse and exercise therof was not for this world but only for the next wherof also the good thiefe vnderstood when he said on the Crosse Be mindfull of me when thou shalt come into thy Kingdome And finally they alledge for proofe of this the wordes of Zachary the Prophet Ecce Rex 〈◊〉 venit tibi iustus Saluator ipse pauper Behold Sion thy King commeth vnto thee as a iust and sauing King but he is poore as though he had said he is thy true King but hath renounced the vse and priuiledge of the same and chosen pouerty in this world And with this second opinion which is the more generall doe concurre also the Protestantes of our age that Christ tooke vpon him no temporall Kingly power in this life least if they held the contrary it should be inferred therof that he left the same authority both of temporall and spirituall vnto S. Peter his Successour which yet the Catholickes that hold this opinion explicate otherwise saying that albeit Christ had no direct Dominion in this life vpon temporall thinges yet indirectly for preseruation of his spirituall Dominion he had and might haue vsed the same and in that sense he left it to his said Successor 19. Of all which is inferred first the preheminence of high Priesthood in Christ before his temporall Kingly principality for that as we haue said the actions and functions of Christes Priesthood haue not only more high eminent dignity both in that they treat with men for gouerning their soules then Christes temporall Kingdome for gouerning of bodies but moreouer that the dignity of Priesthood in Christ conteineth in it self a much more high spirituall Kingly power then is the temporall 20. Secondly is inferred that the reasons heere alledged by T. M. for his paradox in preferring Christs being a King before his Priesthood are vaine foolish The first wherof is this Christes Kingdome saith he had the preheminence of Priesthood because he is Priest only for vs but he is King ouer vs. But I would aske him Is not Christ Priest ouer vs aswel as for vs hath he not a spirituall and Priestly iurisdiction ouer our soules doth not he binde and loose our sinnes doth not he prescribe vs Sacramentes appoint vs lawes of liuing and the like or doe not these actions appertaine vnto him as high Priest ouer his Church And againe I would aske him about the second member as Christ in flesh was King was he not made King aswell for vs that is for our good as ouer vs
of words yet in substance is it much for that therby T. M. would make his Reader belieue that Bellarmine cleereth Caluin and Beza from all sortes of errour in this point for that purpose turneth illum into illos and hoc errore into errore that is to say him into them and this errour into any errour at all wheras Bellarmine though in one sense he excuse him yet absolutly doth he condemne him as yow haue heard and no man can deny but that his Latin wordes were heere fraudulently and perfidiously alledged and mangled by T. M. for that he could not doe it but wittingly and of purpose and yet forsooth this man will not Equiuocate as he saith for a world though lye he will manifestly for much lesse as yow see And so much of this vntill we come to examine the matter more largely afterward in the third Part of this Chapter 58. And heere I will passe ouer many thinges that might be noted out of the sequent pages mamely 30. 31. 34. where he doth so peruert and abuse both the wordes discourse and sense of diuers Authors alledged by him as is not credible to him that doth not compare them with the bookes themselues from whence they are taken As for example Royardus the Franciscane Friar is brought in with commendation of an honest Friar for that he saith that a King when he is made by the people can not be deposed by them againe at their pleasure which is the same doctrine that all other Catholickes doe hold so long as he conteineth himself within the nature of a King for that otherwise which is the question in cōtrouersy Royard himself saith parendum 〈◊〉 non esse that he is not to be obeyed but this is not to be iudged by the people and their mutiny as Protestant Doctors teach 59. And to like effect he citeth a discourse though most brokenly alledged out of Bishop Cunerus writing against the Rebells of Flanders and testifying that it lieth not in the peoples hand to reiect their Prince at their pleasure as those Protestant subiectes did and then M. Morton as though he had achieued some great victory triumpheth exceedingly saying That forsomuch as Friars in our Councells haue no voice but only Bishops he hath brought forth a Bishop against vs whome for that the moderate Answerer had named a little before this man scornfully telleth him Caesarem appellasti ad Caesarem ibis yow haue appealed to Cunerus and now he shal be your Iudge against yow And is not this great folly and insolency for that Cunerus in all that his booke saith nothing against vs but altogeather for vs to represse the Rebellion in Flanders as hath byn signified And secōdly notwithstanding all this exact obediēce which both he and we prescribe and require at subiectes handes towardes their lawfull Princes he hath a speciall Chapter which is the third after this alledged heere by T. M. wherin he doth expressely largly proue that in some cases when Princes fall into intollerable disorders there is authority left in the common-wealth and Church of Christ to restraine and remoue them What falshood is this then to alledge Authors thus directly against their owne sense meaning and whole drift doth this become a Minister of simple truth Is this for a man that somuch abhorreth Equiuocation 60. I let passe as trifles in this very place but yet such as shew a guilty minde and meaning that he citing the booke of Alexander Carerius a Doctor of the Canon law in Padua which he wrote of late de Potestate Romani 〈◊〉 putteth in of his owne contra huius temporis Haereticos against the Heretickes of this time which are not in the title of that booke and then wheras the said Author naming or citing many other writers to be of his opinion doth say nuperrimè verò Celsus Mancinus in tract de Iuribus Principatuum c. and last of all Celsus Mancinus doth hold the same in a certaine Treatise of the rightes of principalities this man to frame vnto himself some matter of insultation turneth verò into verè and then playeth ridiculously vpon his owne fiction in these wordes Carerius citeth another called Celsus by interpretation high or lofty and therfore insignes him with verè Celsus as truly so named and so truly he may be if we iudge him by the loftines of his stile and conclusion So he And doe yow see this folly Or will yow thinke it rather folly then falshood that could not discerne betweene verò and verè Or not be able to iudge by the contexture of Carerius his speech it selfe that it could not by apt construction be verè if he had lighted vpon a corrupt coppy as he could not for that there is but one and that hath very plainly verò and consequently all this Commentary of Thomas 〈◊〉 is out of his owne inuention And where now is the assurance of his vpright conscience protested to his Maiesty in his Epistle dedicatory where is his simplicity in Christ Iesus where his naked innocency Can this be ignorance can this be done but of purpose and consequently by a guilty conscience what may the hearer belieue of all he saith when euery where he is found intangled with such foolish treachery But let vs proceed 61. There followeth within two leaues after a heape not only of falshoodes but also of impudencies For wheras his Aduersary the moderate Answerer had said that not only Kinges but Popes also for Heresy by the Canon lawes were to be deposed he Answereth thus The Authors of the doctrine of deposing Kinges in case of Heresy doe professe concerning Popes that they cannot possibly be Heretickes as Popes and consequently cannot be deposed Not saith Bellarmine by any power Ecclesiasticall or tēporall no not by all Bishops assembled in a Councell Not saith Carerius though he should doe any thing preiudiciall to the vniuersall State of the Church Not saith Azorius though he should neglect the Canons Ecclesiasticall or peruert the Lawes of Kinges Not saith Gratians glosse though he should carry infinite multitudes of soules with him to hell and these forenamed Authors doe auouch for the confirmation of this doctrine the vniuersall consent of Romish Deuines and Canonistes for the space of an hundred yeares So he And in these wordes are as many notorious and shamelesse lies as there are assertions and Authors named by him for the same 62. For first the foure writers which he mentioneth there in the text to wit Bellarmine Carerius Azorius and Gratian doe expressely cleerly and resolutly hold the contrary to that he affirmeth out of them for that they teach and proue by many argumentes that Popes both may fall into Heresies and for the same be deposed by the Church or rather are ipso facto deposed and may be so declared by the Church and their wordes heere guilfully alledged
false manner of proceeding and yet for that there is one example more that remaineth within the compasse of these few Pages by vs examined that draweth a longer sequele after it then is fit to weary the Reader withall without some breathing we shall reserue the same to a third Part of this Chapter which now ensueth THE THIRD PART OF THIS CHAPTER CONTEYNING A CONTROVERSY VVhether Caluin did fauour Arrianisme or no VVith diuers sleightes of Tho. Morton about the same ANd now albeit these examples before rehearsed doe sufficiently declare the mans humour against whome we deale who professing extraordinary sincerity in all pointes performeth the same scarcely in any I professe saith he that simplicity in Christ as neuer either in word or writing to Equiuocate yet for an vpshot of this Chapter I haue thought good to lay forth one example more to proue worse matter then Equiuocation against him as in the former Partes of this Chapter we haue already done to wit plaine falshood and faithles dealing But heere now is a particuler controuersy fallen out by occasion of certaine sleightes vsed by him in defence of Iohn Caluin against the imputation of Arrianisme laid vpō him not only by our doctors but much more by sundry learned Protestāt-writers of Germany alledged in part by the moderate Answerer in this place and shifted of sleightly by T. M. And albeit we haue treated somewhat of this matter before in the second Chapter of this booke yet the thing comming againe in question now by reason of certaine corruptions vsed by T. M. therabout I haue thought it expedient to handle the same more largely as a point of no small importance which by the sequele yow will see 74. First then T. M. taking vpon him to answere the obiection of his Aduersary That Caluin was accused of Arrianisme by the writinges of diuers most learned Protestantes of the Lutheran and other sectes in Germany hauing giuen this feeble answere only which before we haue touched in our said second Chapter and is heere repeated againe That it is not much to be regarded what those Protestant-writers in the spirit of opposition and contention did say of Caluin especially saith he seing as it may seeme by their obiections their iudgment hath beene depraued by your maliguant Doctors 75. After I say this generall but simple euasion for if this kinde of answering may be admitted that thinges are spoken or written out of the spirit of Contradiction what may not be answered he taketh vpon him for some shew of probability in this shift to set downe the iustification following First saith he concerning Arrianisme Caluin as your Iesuits affirme doth plainly teach the same saying That the Father is by a kind of excellency God wheras both the speach sense is most orthodoxall and agreing with the tenure of holy writ as your learned Iesuites confesse for the wordes of our Sauiour are plaine Ioan. 14. My Father is greater then I in the true sense Is say your Iesuites and truly the Father greater not in substance and being but by reason of birth and begetting For their authority they produce an inquest of Fathers to free Caluin in this point who was so farre from Arrianisme that your owne Bellarmine doth acknowledge that Caluin did impugne the doctrine of the Arrians 76. This is his defence wherin yow shall see how many subtilties and shiftes there be vsed to defend Caluin from this impiety who yet as will appeare is not defensible in this respect For first where he saith That our Iesuites doe affirme Iohn Caluin to teach Arrianisme in that he holdeth that the Father is by a kind of excellency God citing for the same among others in the margent both Bellarmine and Gregorius de Valentia his first corruption therin is that he citeth not the wordes of their accusations as they ly in the Authors which in Bellarmine are these Non veretur Valentino concedere nomen Dei KATH ' HYPEROCHEN id est per excellentiam quandam soli Patri attribui Caluin seared not to grant to Valentinus Gentilis the Arrian Hereticke that the name of God was attributed only to the Father by a certaine excellency And the same obiecteth Gregory de Valentia in the same wordes out of which yow see that T. M. leaueth out soli to the Father alone wherin consisteth the chiefest force of the charge against Caluin this then is the first tricke The second is that he would make his Reader belieue that for this only speach of Caluin our Doctors Bellarmine Valentia and others had condemned him of Arrianisme wheras they not only for this but for many other wicked speaches as blasphemous as this doe ascribe that crime vnto him 77. As for example for that he writeth Deum Patrem genuisse quia voluit that God the Father did beget his Sonne for that he would wherof ensueth euidently that if Christes eternall generation was voluntary in respect of his Father then was it not necessary and naturall and consequently he could not be God at all nor equall to his Father of whose will his essence depended and againe That Christ as he is the second person of the Trinity cannot properly be called Creator of heauen and earth and consequently not God nor equall to his Father And yet further Filium Dei subiectum esse Patri etiam ratione diuinitatis that the Sonne of God is subiect to his Father euen according to his diuine nature And yet more impiously That Christ was a mediator betweene God and Angels before the sinne of Adam and before his incarnation and that also according to his diuinity Out of which for that a mediator must needes be inferiour to him to whome he vseth mediation all learned men inferre that Caluin in effect taught the doctrine of Arrius who denied the equality of the Sonne with the Father all this is obiected by our Doctors in the places quoted by T. M. himselfe Wherby it is manifest that he did not of ignorance or forgetfulnes leaue out these other accusations mentioning only the first but of plaine deceipt wilfull falshood for that he thought himselfe to haue a shift for answering the first but not the other 78. Yet Gregory de Valentia goeth some-what further adding moreouer to these assertions of Caluin diuers other as namely that he did seeke to eneruate and make voide togeather with the Arrians certaine excellent places of Scripture which the ancient Catholicke Fathers did vrge against them as that of S. Iohn Ego Pater vnum sumus I and my Father are one which Caluin saith is to be vnderstood of the vnity of consent and agreement not of substance wherupō one George Blandrata a Trinitarian founding himselfe saith Valentia did in a certaine publicke disputation against the Catholickes at Alba Iulia in Transiluania allow and confirme this Arrian interpretation of Caluin saying VVe doe remit our hearers to only
is not affraide to hold vp his finger against the interpretations of the Sacred Euangelistes themselues So he 97. But to come to an end I will leaue nineteene or twenty more Prophesies vndiscussed to wit three that remaine of this first point about the comming and natiuity of Christ eight that did foretel his sacred passion and particulers therof foure of his resurrection and foure or fiue more of his miraculous ascension sitting on the right hand of God all which doth Iohn Caluin with metaphoricall and malicious interpretations weaken elude ouerthrow take from vs yea though the Euangelistes Apostles themselues haue expressely expounded them literally to appertaine to Christ which this Doctor Hunnius doth notably substantially proue out of Caluins owne wordes throughout this breif but iudicious booke of his making many exclamations against Caluins impiety therin especially in one place where seeing the mā endeauoreth to take from vs that whole Psalme Deus Deus meus which setteth downe most of the particulers of Christes passion as the percing of his feet and handes deuiding of his garments other such points which the Euangelists and 〈◊〉 themselues doe apply literally to our Sauiour and this man only in a metaphoricall sense to King Dauid yea saying further that the Euangelistes did 〈◊〉 thinges intempestiuè ad praesentem causam out of season to the present cause of Christ Et quòd dum negligunt sensum metaphoricum a natiuo sensu 〈◊〉 And whiles they did neglect Caluins metaphoricall sense they departed from the true naturall sense of the Prophet Doctor Hunnius I say vpon these other like insolences breaketh out into these wordes that he cannot sufficiently detest extremam Caluini impietatem cum intolerabili fastu coniunctam quo se super sanctissimos Dei seruos Euangelistas Apostolos quasi illorum censor effert that extreame impiety of Caluin ioyned with intolerable pride wherby he setteth himself aboue the most holy seruantes of God the Euangelistes and Apostles as their Censurer and therfore after he had demonstrated this pride and impiety in all the rest of the Prophesies by him peruerted drawing towardes the end he concludeth thus Quapropter vt receptui canam detectum satis superque iudico Angelum illum tenebrarum Iohannem Caluinum c. 98. Wherfore that I may now saith he retire my self I doe iudge that Angell of darknes Iohn Caluin to be sufficiently and more then sufficiently discouered who being raised from the pit of hell to the peruerting of mankinde hath partly by his detestable desire of wresting Scriptures and ouerthrowing the Bulwarkes of Christian Religion which it hath against Iewes and Arrians partly also by his impious pen a gainst the holy and sacred Maiesty of Iesus Nazarenus now exalted in heauen partly also by his peruerse doctrine of the Sacrament and horrible monstrous paradoxes of his absolute predestination By all these meanes I say he hath 〈◊〉 in these our later dayes no small part of the light and sunne of Godes truth drawne with him a great number of starres as the Apocalips saith into the bottomeles pit of eternall damnatiō God euerlasting out of his mercy signe his seruantes that they be not corrupted with this pestilent plague of Caluinian seducement and bring back againe vnto Iesus Christ the true Pastour of their soules those that are seduced by them that they perish not in their errour but be saued eternally with all those that faithfully loue God Amen And this I had saith he to admonish the Church of God of the most wicked deceiptes of Iohn Caluin And if Doctor 〈◊〉 will answere any thing to this let him not entertaine himselfe in generall speech only as his people are wont to doe but come to particulers c. So Hunnius 99. And now M. Morton will yow say that all this also which Doctor Hunnius hath brought against Caluin about furthering of Iudaisme and Arrianisme is out of the spirit only of opposition and contradiction as yow shifted of the Deane and Colledge of Tubinga alledged before by your Aduersary Will yow answere in like manner it is not much to be regarded what he saith seeing he bringeth so many great and substantiall proofes for the same out of M. Caluins confessed workes and wrytinges Or will yow say as yow said before that their iudgment hath byn depraued by our malignant Doctors seeing that yow haue heard this your owne Doctor Hunnius speake in his owne language and sense so resolutly and earnestly against Caluin and Caluinistes If you dare not say this again enow then was it but a shift and dissimulation before and if yow should say it againe now yow would be laughed at by all men And though yow doe not yet euery wise man will consider with what truth or ground yow said it before to wit for a meere shift not vnderstanding or thinking as yow speake And conforme to that will they esteem of the rest which yow say or write without further ground of reall substance but only that yow must say somewhat and that it serueth for your purpose to speake it for the present But now shall we returne to the place page of your Reply from whence we went forth in this digressiō about Caluin 100. Yow complaine in the said place as before hath byn shewed of the charge of Arrianisme laid falsly vpon Caluin by our Iesuites as yow say and this for one only speech of his where he saith That the Father is by a kinde of excellency God which yow say both in speech and sense is most orthodoxall and agreeing with the tenour of holy writ and iudgment of all ancient Fathers as our owne learned Iesuites confesse and doe produce say yow for their authority an inquest of Fathers to free Caluin in this point which Fathers vpon those wordes of S. Iohns Ghospell my Father is greate then I doe affirme that the Father is greater not in substance and being but by reason of birth and begetting for which yow alledge Cardinall Tolet Maldonate both Iesuites in their commentaries vpon S. Iohns Ghospell 101. But this Syr by your leaue supposing al were so doth not free Caluin in this point of Arrianisme for that he is otherwise manifoldly conuinced as now yow haue heard And secōdly for this sole point or sentēce heere mentioned albeit the two forenamed Iesuites doe cite diuers ancient Fathers that doe hold those wordes of Christ My Father is greater then I are true not only in respect of his humanity but also in a certaine sort as he is God to wit that betweene those personall relations of Father and Sonne Begetter and Begotten in the blessed Trinity there ariseth a more honourable respect out of the former then of the later yet doth not this make that in the Godhead it self the Father is more excellent then the Sonne or that by excellency he is God or that the name of God
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
where the word Exaltation may haue many senses as to be exalted to heauen or to glory which most men would vnderstand rather then an exaltation vpō a Crosse which Christ vnderstood and consequently his speech was mixt with amphibology and Equiuocation as were also the wordes omnia traham which may haue sundry senses and some in apparence not true And in like manner when he said of Lazarus sicknes Infirmitas haec non est ad mortem this sicknes it not to death and yet he died and consequently there was a further sense reserued And in the same place Lazarus amicus noster dormit our friend Lazarus sleepeth the word dormit signifieth Equiuocally either to sleep or be dead Christ vnderstood of the second his Disciples of the first will yow say that he did abuse or deceaue them or vse prophane speach in this Equiuocation And yet further the same Equiuocation our Sauiour vseth in those wordes Ignem veni mittere in terram quid volo nisi ut ardeat I came to cast fier into the earth and what would I els but that it burne The word fier signifieth both naturall fier and zeale or feruour of spirit and burning hath the like ambiguity and is this also prophanation if it were to be sworne as Christ did speake it of phrase and into Equiuocation by composition of single and simple partes togeather His second intentiō was to treat therof in regard of placing each thing in due order in his ranke of ten Predicaments or shew their relation therunto and for this cause in his first Treatise vpon the said Predicaments he maketh that notorious diuision of wordes so well knowne vnto Logitians into AEquiuoca Vniuoca Denominatiua saying those thinges are Equiuocall which doe agree only in name but are different in nature and 〈◊〉 according to that name as a liuing and painted man doe agree only in the name of a man but not in nature essence substance or definition and the like may be said in the word dog ge before mentioned 10. Now then wheras our proposition before mentioned with mentall reseruation tendeth not directly to any of these two purposes intended by Aristotle and further hath no doubtfull sense of speach or wordes by nature of the wordes themselues or their double or doubtfull significations but only that it vttereth not all the whole sense of the speaker it cannot properly be called Equiuocall according to Aristotles meaning and definition but rather in a more large ample signification as Equiuocall may signify an amphibologicall doubtfull or double-sensed propositiō in respect of the speaker and hearer wherof the one sometime vnderstandeth the same in one sense and the other in another For which cause the most ancient Schoole-Doctors Fathers and other Authors doe vse in deed rather the word Amphibology then Equiuocation in expressing like kind of speaches as our proposition is which of later yeares only hath byn accustomed to be vsed in this sense but the other is most ordinary with antiquity not only among Philosophers but also and that especially among Orators and Rhetoritians in which science it is held for lawfull most commendable in diuers occasions wheror both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 maketh mention and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a whole Chapter The cause then why the answering by such a reserued proposition as before hath byn mentioned is called by some Equiuocation is 〈◊〉 by a certain similitude thē propriety of speach to wit that euē as Equiuocation properly by community of name in things of different natures by variety of significations in the selfe same wordes or speach by 〈◊〉 of phrase and composition of sundry sortes 〈◊〉 make different and doubtfull senses meanings to the hearer so in this case by mentall reseruation of some part of the foresaid mixt proposition the like effect of doubtfulnes is bred in the hearers 〈◊〉 and therby consequently is named Equiuocation although improperly as Equiuocation is taken for any doubtfull word or speach that may haue diuersity of senses or vnderstandings 11. But now to inferre herof as T. M. doth in his first 〈◊〉 of this his wise dispute that euery such 〈◊〉 by mentall reseruation is a grosse ly is not only a grosse presumption but a 〈◊〉 ignorance also in my opinion not to call it a grosse impiety for by this meanes he might cōdemne of grosse lying a great number of speaches of the holy Ghost both in the old and new Testament where diuers propositions are set 〈◊〉 and vttered with imperfect sense somewhat being reserued which necessarily must be supplied to saue the said speach from vntruth As for example where the Prophet saith Non resurgunt impij in iudicio Wicked men doe not rise againe in iugdment if the Prophet reserued not somewhat in his mind vnuttered for the complement of this speach as namely that they shall not rise to glory as S. Paul expoundeth it to the Corinthians it would seeme an Heresy contrary to the article of our creed I belieue the resurrection spirit or life in ner 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 of maruaile of that she saw And againe the same holy Ghost talking of the immensity of Salomons wealth said Tantamque copiam praebuit argenti in Hierusalem quasi lapidum and Salomon made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as stones in Hierusalem may a man sweare this without vntruth or prophanation what say yow M. Morton may a man swear this in your Lordes Court of the Arches the same I demaund of those last wordes of S. Iohns Ghospell There are many other thinges which Iesus did which if they should be particularly written I doe not thinke that the world it selfe would hold the bookes that should be written therof 18. How can this be true M. Morton in plaine and literail sense and without some amphibology or Equiuocation and yet I thinke yow will not say it is a lye being part of the Ghospell or that it may not be sworne without abhominable prophanation How then will yow or can yow defend it Truly by no other way but by the licence of a Rhetoricall figure called HYPERBOLE which Quintilian defining saith it is Ementiens superiectio a lying exaggeration and yet will no true Deuine call it a lye indeed much lesse periury or prophanation if any man should sweare it wherby is made manifest and apparent the childish vanity of our Aduersary in his former conclusion that euery verball Equiuocation is an abominable prophanation And so much of this second kind of Equiuocation which yow see how lawfull and vsuall it is euen in the Scriptures themselues and in the speaches of our Sauiour which is truth it self wherby hauing repressed somewhat the insolency and ignorance of this our vaunting Minister we shall retourne now againe to the first kind of Equiuocation by mentall reseruation about which is our principall controuersy And for that our Minister affirmeth two pointes about the same the first that it is no proposition
non esse culpandum aliquando verum tacere It is manifest that it is not reprehensible sometimes to conceale the truth And yet further speaking of the fact of Abraham that desired his wife to say she was his sister veritatem saith he voluit celari non mendacium dici his meaning was to haue the truth hidden to wit that she was his wife but not a lye to be spoken for that according to the phrase of Scripture she might also be called his sister for that she was his brothers daughter wherupon S. Thomas determineth the matter thus Verbo mentitur aliquis quando significat quod non est non autem quando tacet quod est quod aliquando licet He lieth in word who signifieth a thing that is not so to wit in his mind but he lieth not that concealeth somewhat that is which sometimes is lawfull And againe in another place It is not lawfull saith he to make a ly for deliuering another man from any kind of perill or hurt whatsoeuer but to conceale prudently a truth by some dissimulation is lawfull as S. Augustine in his booke against lying doth testify So S. Thomas 57. Now then in this our Case we doe affirme that there is no ly or vntruth auouched at all but only a concealing of that truth-which I am not bound to vtter vnto him that demaundeth it vniustly For as if Avraham had byn demaunded whether Sarai were his 〈◊〉 he might for concealing that truth which he would not haue knowne haue answered yea this truly without a ly according to S. Augustine though in another sense then the demaunder meant So in our case for that I deny my selse only to be a Priest in that sense which in my vnderstanding meaning is true and I affirme nothing false or that is not so but only doe conceale some certaine truth which as hath byn said I am not bound to vtter to him that demandeth for that I am not his subiect in this cause nor he my lawfull iudge nor if he were yet doth he not lawfully demaund me for that the matter in right appertaineth not to his iurisdiction as hath byn said in this case I say my answere is lawfull and allowable by all the Catholike Deuines Lawiers and Canonistes that write of like cases as after in a seuerall Chapter shall more particularly be declared 58. There remaineth then only in this place to be considered whether I in this case doe deceaue or no or haue intention to deceaue according to the second clause of the definition of a ly cum intentione sallendi wherin according to that which before hath byn set downe it is euident that my intention is not to deceaue in this propositiō but to defend my selfe against the captious and iniurious demandes of an vnlawfull Iudge I speaking a truth in it selfe according to my meaning though he taking it otherwise is deceaued therby but without any fault of mine For as in the examples before mentioned when our Sauiour said to his Disciples of Lazarus Lazarus sleepeth and they deceiued therwith answered If he sleepe he is safe Christ deceiued them not but they themselues vpon his doubtfull wordes And when the Iewes were deceiued with those other word s of Christ Dissolue this Temple and I will build it vp againe in three dayes the Sonne of God cannot be truly said to haue deceaued them for that he spake that which was truth in his owne sense and permitted only the other to be deceaued so in the proposed case the vniust examiners are only permitted to be deceaued for that the Priest his principall intent is not intentio fallendi intention of deceiuing as the definition of lying prescribeth or as S. Augustine in another place saith fallendi cupiditas a desire of deceiuing but rather euadendi desiderium a desire to escape and defend himselfe And therfore as if he should goe to one of himselfe without necessity and tell him that he is no Priest he being a Priest might be argued of lying for that his principall intent may be supposed to haue byn cupiditas fallendi an appetite of deceiuing so heere the thing being euident that primaria respondent is intentio the first and principall intention of the answerer is not to hurt or impugne others but to defend and couer himselfe vnlawfully pressed as he presumeth that his defence is by speaking a truth in his owne meaning which meaning and vnderstanding of the speaker is the chiefe rule and measure of truth as before yow haue heard it followeth euidently that it can be no ly nor deception on his part though by his manner of answering they deceiue themselues which is not to be imputed to any fault of his And thus much of this matter in this place the rest shall be more fully explaned in the Chapter that ensueth THE TRVTH BEFORE SET DOVVNE IS FVRTHER DEBATED and proued by the assertion of Schoole-Doctors Deuines Lawiers both Canon and Ciuill Reasons Practice of the Aduersaries and by the very instinct of nature itself CHAP. IX THat which briefly hath byn auouched in the later end of the precedent Chapter about the lawfulnes of the former proposition might be greatly enlarged many waies if we would stand theron or handle the same to the satisfaction of learned men but for that the compasse of this short Treatise beareth it not and I must haue a care aswell of the capacity of the vulgar Reader as of the more learned I shall only adde to that which hath byn said some few more perticulars in sundry kindes of proofe fit for the confirmation of our purpose and in the ensuing Chapter lay forth some speciall and principall cases wherin the said ambiguous Proposition or Equiuocation may be vsed wherby I doubt not but that the whole controuersy will remaine cleere and manifest The first Point about Schoole-Deuines Doctors and Lavviers §. 1. 2. YOw haue heard in the precedent Chapter how Thomas Morton challenging vs to proue out of Logitians that our former reserued proposition I am no Priest with obligation to tell it vnto yow is a true Logicall proposition he excepted presently against all Logitians for these last foure hundred years wherin Logicke most florished and yet he calleth it a new-bred-hydra to wit of foure hundred yeares old by his owne confession and addeth further Mark what scope I yeeld vnto yow which if yow marke it well is a very markable point indeed for that after Aristotle by whose rules the said proposition is proued he can shew I suppose very few Authors that haue written of that science vntill within the said foure hundred yeares wherfore to except those and yet to call it so large a scope is a large folly in my opinion 3. And the same I say of Deuines which haue written within the said foure hundred yeares commonly called Schoole-Deuines and Schoole-Doctors against whome he excepteth in like manner notwithstanding they be
meane to make a seuerall Chapter afterward of his wise argumentes that he alledgeth to proue his purpose yet will I not pretermit in this place to touch one solemne foolery of his vsed to cōuince as he saith the former answere I am no Priest with the referuation to tell yow of a manifest ly And to performe this he will needes leaue for a time the Schoole of Aristotle and his forme of disputing and fall to Socraticall demaundes and interrogations Suffer me saith he Socratically to debate this point with yow and answere me friendly to these demaundes Quest. when being asked whether yow are a Priest yow 〈◊〉 no what signification hath this word no Answ. It doth signify directly I am no Priest Quest. And yet yow thinke yow are a Priest Answ. Yea I know it Quest. Wherwith doe yow know it Answ. By my inward mind and vnderstanding my conscience testifying this vnto me Quest. Can conscience beare witnes then can it also speake Answ. It speaketh as verily to my inward soule as my tongue speaketh sensibly to your eares c. Quest. Then will this be as true that when your cōscience affirmeth that which your tongue denieth that your tongue speaketh against your conscience and this is that which we haue proued to be flat lying a Conclusion that no art of Equiuocation can possibly auoid Lo heere the victory of Thomas Morton which he might take against S. Iohn Baptist for denying himself to be a Prophet asmuch as against an English Priest for answering in such a case I am no Priest 23. For let vs suppose it had byn as punishable in Iury to haue byn a Prophet in S. Iohns time as it is now to be a Priest in England and that he had byn demaunded as he was by those Priestes and Scribes whether he were a Prophet or no he answering no I would argue by interrogations as Morton doth what signification hath this word no And then S. Iohn must answere as Thomas Morton answereth for him I am no Prophet which had byn a direct ly in Mortons doctrine for that his tongue denieth the thing which his cōscience testifieth knowing that he is a Prophet and will Morton stand to this his impious processe against S. Iohn or wil he haue me to tell him his errour to deliuer S. Iohn and our Priest also from his calumniation Let him know then that this negatiue no when he saith I am no Priest doth not fall only vpon the wordes vttered according to the sense of the hearer but vpon the whole proposition as it is in the speakers mind and meaning so as whē being asked whether I be a Priest I answere no the word no serueth to my signification that I am no such Priest as I am bound to vtter And so in S. Iohns answere he being demaunded whether he were a Prophet and answering no his meaning was that he was no such or such Prophet so as this negatiue did not signify directly he was no Prophet as Morton would haue it wherby is fallen to the ground all his Socratical sciēce in arguing by interrogatories It may be he desired to giue a tast therby of his fitnes to haue some office of an Examiner against Catholickes for his sharpe manner of concluding which now men will see that he little deserueth but in defect of a better 24. I might 〈◊〉 heere to this effect and purpose that ambiguous and equiuocall answere of the said S. Iohn about Elias Elias es tu said the Pharises he answered Non sum Are 〈◊〉 Elias he answered I am not and yet Christ our Sauiour that is truth it self saith of the same S. Iohn Si vultis illum recipere ipse est Elias qui venturus est If yow will receaue him he is Elias that is to come and the later wordes make the sense more hard for that it seemeth that he describeth the true Elias in deed that was to come But all the fore alledged Fathers and others doe agree that S. Iohns negation was true in his reserued sense to wit that he was not Elias in person as the demaunders tooke him to be and Christes wordes also were true in his reserued sense to wit that he was Elias in spirit though not in person without which two reseruations neither of their speeches can be verified with them they are made doubtfull ambiguous and equiuocall to the hearer but not false So as now in one and the self same thing we haue both Christ and S. Iohn Baptist for manifest witnesses of amphibology and Equiuocation consequently it is likely that the thing is not so hellish heathenish heinous and monstrous as Morton maketh it nor is it such grosse lying as his first lying and vnlearned cōclusion auoucheth it to be But let vs goe forward 25. The next place shall be out of our Sauiours wordes to the Pharises in S. Iohns Ghospell where he saith Ego non iudico quemquam I doe not iudge any man which proposition without some reseruation cannot stand for that it should be contrary to many other places of Scripture as that Pater omne iudicium dedit filio the Father hath giuen all iudgment to his sonne and againe in the Actes of the Apostles S. Peter auoucheth in his Oration to Cornelius and those that were with him that God had commaunded him and the rest of the Apostles to testify to the whole world Quia ipse est qui constitutus est à Deo Iudex viuorum mortuorum that Christ is appointed by God Iudge both of the liuing and the dead which S. Paul confirmeth aswell to the Romans as to the Corinthians that we must all stand before the tribunall of Christ to be iudged by him 26. So as if we take this propositiō as it lieth written without any mentall reseruation it is false For if any man should aske of me whether Iesus Christ be our iudge or no if I should answere no I should speake both falsly and impiously and how then may this negatiue be made true which as vttered by Christ cannot be false Surely by no way but by a mentall reseruation of the speaker Christ our Sauiour which reseruation the ancient Fathers doe seeke after and lay forth vnto vs in diuers manners For that S. Augustine S. Bede and Rupertus in their explication of this place doe affirme that the reseruation was secundum carnem according to the flesh so as the whole proposition was I doe iudge no man according to flesh and bloud as yow Pharises doe for that the wordes of Christ immediatly going before were these to the Pharises Yow iudge according to the flesh but I iudge no man but other Greeke Fathers S. Chrysostome Leontius Theophilact and Euthymius doe thinke that this cannot stand in respect of the wordes immediatly following Et si iudico ego iudicium meum verum est and if I doe iudge any man my
owne Bishop Iansenius answering this obiection saith that these kind of speaches and all such are to be expounded according to the circumstances either of state place time or condition of the persons speaking or to whome they were spoken as namely that whatsoeuer yow aske my Father in my name he will giue yow What any thing absolutly Nay but vpon condition if it be expedient for yow So heere Christ saying I haue manifested all thinges it is expounded by the circumstāces of the present state signifying all that appertaineth vnto yow to be knowne so then 〈◊〉 is no concealed sense to deceaue the hearer c. 43. Doe yow see what an inference he maketh that because Iansenius doth shew the way how to seeke out the reseruation or concealed sense in such ambiguous propositions therfore there is no such mentall reseruation or concealed sense at all Can the Reader tolerate such an impertinent writer Nay doth not all this speach of Iansenius make wholy against Morton For if he doe set downe these circumstances of place time state and condition wherby to seeke out the hidden sense of such dubious propositions may not we well and iustly inferre quite contrary to Mortons inference Ergo there is some such hidden sense more then is expressed in the wordes which we call reseruation wherby the hearer may cōceaue a wrōg sense if he hit not vpō the said true reseruation which being not manifest to euery one but rather a cōtrary sense appearing in the words vttered maketh the proposition ambiguous doubtful and Equiuocall for that it may haue diuers senses one in the vnderstanding of the hearer another in the meaning of the speaker And for that the whole importance dependeth of the later to wit of the speaker especially in the speaches vttered by the holy Ghost that cannot be false the ancient Fathers doe labour by examination of the circumstances set downe here by Iansenius 〈◊〉 such like to find out what the speakers true meaning was when the speach of it self is doubtfull according to the wordes vttered 44. Nor is the matter so easy to euery man to find this out by consideration of circumstances as Thomas Morton would haue men to thinke that there is no doubt or difficulty at all for as in the places before alleadged yow haue heard sundry Fathers of sundry opinions and iudgmentes about the points that were reserued by our Sauiour so heere in this place vpon those wordes Omnia quaecunque c. all thinges whatsoeuer I haue heard of my Father c. diuers Authors as Leontius and others make the reseruation to be this whatsoeuer I heard of my Father with order to tell yow that I haue vtterd vnto yow but S. Chrysostome Theophilact Euthimius and other Greeke writers expound it thus that whatsoeuer I heard of my Father conuenient for yow to know that I haue reuealed vnto yow S. Augustine and S. Bede doe thinke Christes meaning to be that he had reuealed all to his disciples except such thinges as were reserued for the holy Ghost to reueale and vtter vnto them as in the precedent Chapter he promised so as albeit here diuers learned Fathers by examining the circumstances before mencioned doe ghesse at diuers mentall reseruations as yow see yet all doe agree that there were some not vttered in the wordes and not so easy to be determined which doth vtterly ouerthrow our Ministers idle imagination to the contrary that the matter is euident for euery man to vnderstand by circumstance of speech And yet he concludeth his answere in these confident wordes VVherby saith he yow may perceaue that not that infallible verity but your owne infirmity and vanity hath deceaued yow in so peruerting the truth to patronize a ly Would yow not thinke that the man had spoken somewhat to the purpose that thus concludeth Surely not a iote more then yow haue heard wherin he hath confirmed euidently our part and ouerthrowne his owne and yet he braggeth like a Conquerour as yow see but let vs leaue him in his vanity and passe to a second place or example alleadged 45. The second place is taken out of the Ghospell of S. Marke where our Sauiour speaking of the day of Iudgment said that de die autem 〈◊〉 vel hora nemo scit neque Angeli in coelo neque filius nisi Pater Of that day or houre no man knoweth neither the Angels in heauen nor the Sonne but the Father which is repeated againe in effect by S. Matthew who hath Nemo scit nisi solus Pater No man knoweth therof but only the Father yet doth the whole course of Scripture runne to the contrary shewing that Christ must be Iudge in that day as before hath byn shewed and consequently must needes be presumed to know therof S. Paul saith also expressely to the Colossians that all the treasures of wisedome and knowledge were hidden in Christ ergo it is euident that the former proposition of Christ had some reseruation of mind in it for that otherwise it had byn false And for more perspicuities sake let vs frame the case more plaine If those disciples to whome our Sauiour spake those words had demaunded him if he knew any thing of the day of Iudgment and he had answered no what would that no haue signified according to Thomas Mortons 〈◊〉 argumētation Would it not haue directly signified as his words be that he had not knowne therof in deed and would not his hearers haue taken it so and yet had it byn false and they deceaued Why For that he had some further reseruation in his mind wheron that no did reflect which his wordes did not vtter 46. Well then compare Thomas Mortons case which he obiecteth against vs and is this A Catholicke hauing a Priest in his house and demaunded whether he know where such a Priest is he answereth no reseruing in his mind a further true meaning wheron that no in his intention doth fall to wit that he knoweth it not so as it is conuenient to vtter it vnto them that aske him Syr Thomas cryeth out that this not a hidden truth but a grosse ly But I would aske him why And further intreate him to set downe the difference betweene these two answers of Christ and a Catholike in the manner of speach and nature of a reserued proposition 47. If he would say that there is no reseruation in our Sauiours speach but that the sense is cleare according to the wordes as they sound it would be ridiculous both in regard of the opposite authorities before alleadged out of Scriptures as also of the great variety of expositions which the ancient Fathers did leaue vnto vs for finding out the true reseruation And first of all condemning for Heretikes as S. Damascene testifieth vnder the name of 〈◊〉 or Agnoetae all those that following the litterall apparent sense of those wordes of our
in his owne sense is true though it be false in the sense which the hearer conceiueth so that the speaker doe not vtter those ambiguous words with intention to deceaue another but only to conceale profitably some truth euen so fiction and simulation which is in facts is not vnlawfull but profitable and wholsome wherwith a man doth something by which he knoweth that another man will conceiue a false opinion of that he saith so that he doth not this with intention to ingender this false opinion in him but for some other profitable end As for example S. Paul in a certaine manner did feigne himself to be an obseruer of the Iewish Law when he did circumcise Tymothy and did beare himself as a Iew with the Iewes and vnder the Law with them that were vnder the Law and he did know that by keeping the ceremonies of the Law the Iewes would think him to liue vnder the law but yet he deceaued them not for that he did not obserue those ceremonies of the Law to the end to deceaue them but rather that by concealing his owne opinion for a time he might gaine them or at leastwise not alienate them from Christ and so now Christ our Sauiour did feigne himself to goe further composing his gestures motions of body as though he would go beyond that Castle by doing wherof he knew that his disciples would think that he had a purpose to go further but yet he did not compose his gestures and motions to make them thinke so but his end was by this meanes to stirre vp in them their loue towards him and the vertue of hospitality wherby they might be made apt and worthie to haue their eyes opened to know him 74. This is the discourse of this learned Bishop for defending our Sauiours deed frō reprehensible fictiō and dissimulation to wit that his first and principall intention was not as neither that of S. Paul to deceaue his hearers albeit that did follow consequently vpon their facts that is to say that the other were deceaued And the very same falleth out in our case yea with one principall circumstance more of iustification then is expressed in the former exāples which is that in our case as before hath byn shewed violence and iniury is offred by the demander meaning to punish the partie examined vniustly or to draw secrets from him which he is not boūd to vtter but rather is bound sometymes not to vtter to his owne other mens preiudice hurt and dammage by which circumstance of iniuryes offred we haue recorded before that 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 are made lawfull by S. Augustine and all other Deuynes iudgment And to 〈◊〉 more Fathers sentences in proofe of this were wholy needles forsomuch as the practice therof throughout all Christendome for all ages amongest what Religions or Sects soeuer is admitted and put in vre without any doubt or contradiction 75. It remayneth then most certain among deuynes and most 〈◊〉 by Scripture it self that the clause of S. Augustine in the definition of lying animus fallendi intention to deceaue doth not include 〈◊〉 when one permitteth another to be deceaued nor yet the clause set downe by diuers Authors in the definition of deceipt which is to ingender a false opinion in the hearers mynd different from that of the speaker includeth the said permission when I suffer another man to gather a false conceipt or opinion vpon any fact or speech of mine that is true and lawfull in my sense For if we should condemne this we should condemne God himself of iniustice and iniquitie which were blasphemy 76. And for proof of this doe our deuynes cite many places and examples out of holy writ besides those already alledged wherby is shewed that Almighty God of whome otherwise all Catholicks hold as an article of faith that he is not able by any power of his to deceaue any man yet that in this kynde of permissiue deceipt he may do it and hath don it and doth it dayly according to that of the Psalme talking of wicked men and their prosperitie in this life by which they are deceaued and ouerthrowne not knowing to vse them well the Prophet saith to almighty God Veruntamen propter dolos posuisti eis Thou hast giuen them these riches for snares to intāngle them that is to say thou hast permitted them to be intangled and snared in them to their damnation by taking away thy light of grace from them 77. Yea oftentimes God goeth so farre in this permission and the Scripture 〈◊〉 the same in such effectuall wordes as it may seeme at the first sight that God doth not only permit men to be blynded and mistake be deceaued but rather that he doth it actiuely positiuely himself to which effect sound those wordes of the Gospell Tenebantar oculi 〈◊〉 ne eum 〈◊〉 There eyes were held to the end they should not know him And that of Iob speaking of Almighty God Qui immutat cor Principum 〈◊〉 terrae decipit eos vt frustrà incedant errare eos facit quasi 〈◊〉 he doth chang the harts of Princes of the earth and deceaueth them to make them walk in vaine doth cause them to erre as if they were drunke Who would not thinke that this were more then only permission We read also in the third Booke of Kinges that God appearing vnto 〈◊〉 the Prophet sitting vpon his state of Maiesty with an army of heauen about him said who shall deceaue King Achab to make him go vp and make warr in Ramoth-Galad and be ouerthrowne there and when diuers had spoken diuersly a lying spirit stept forth and said that he would deceaue him and God answered egredere fac it a go forth and do so whervpon Micheas inferreth presently dedit Dominus spiritum mendacij in ore omnium Prophetarum God gaue a lying spirit in the mouth of all the false Prophets which seemeth may inferre that God did actually cooperate to that deceipt and not only permit the same and so haue diuers heretickes taken it but the Catholick Church hath neuer vnderstood the same further then as a permission as that speech of our Sauiour to Iudas quod 〈◊〉 fac citiùs that which thou art to doe doe it quickly which was no commandment but a permission and so the other fac ita to the lying spirit 78. And the very same is to be vnderstood in many other places of Scripture as that of Isay Quare errare 〈◊〉 nos Domine de viis tuis why hast thou made vs o Lord to erre from thy wayes And that of Ezechiel where God saith of himself Propheta cùm errauerit ego Dominus aecepi Prophetam illum when any Prophet doth erre I the lord haue deceaued that prophet And S. Paul to the Romans speaking of the old heathen Philosophers Tradidit illos Deus in reprobum sensum
vt faciant ea quae non 〈◊〉 God hath deliuered them ouer into a reprobate sense that they may doe these thinges that are not conuenient All which places according to the interpretations of holy Fathers and Doctors of the Catholicke Church which were ouer long to recite in this place are to be vnderstood that God doth permit men to be deceaued and to be deliuered ouer into a reprobate sense for their sinnes and so as a great Deuine of our time doth obserue it is not only a simple permission of Almighty-God but conioyned also with his diuine ordination that ordayneth out of his iustice such a permission for punishment of their sinnes that are so blynded or deceaued which he proueth out of the wordes and reason of the last recited sentence of S. Paul concerning the old Philosophers saying propter quod tradidit illos Deus in reprobum sensum for which God deliuered them ouer into a reprobate sense what meaneth this causatiue for which saith this deuine S. Paul himself doth expound it when he saith a little before Quia cùm 〈◊〉 Deum non sicut Deum glorificauerunt for that wheras they knew him to be God they did not glorifie him as God this then saith he is more then a simple permission in respect of their demerit that God is said to haue blynded them which is not said in the fall of the Angell nor of Adam that God did blynde them though he suffred them to fal So this learned Doctor 79. Out of which obseruation is made euident that the more fault the party deceaued is in the more iustly he is permitted to be blynded deceaued and if it be lawfull for a good end to suffer any to erre or be deceaued so we vtter no ly or falshood of our part but rather speake a truth in our owne meaning as out of the former Doctrine of Iansenius which is the common Doctrine of all Catholickes and out of diuers sayinges of Christ himself and his Apostles hath byn declared how much more is it lawful for a mans owne necessary defense to vse the same when iuiustice violence or iniury is offred as before hath byn declared 80. And truly this matter is so cleer euen by the instinct of nature it self that God hath left some refuge in reason for a man to declyne lawfully such an assault when it falleth vpon him as to deny this is to deny common sense and feeling of all men For who is there of any meane wit or capacitie that being asked of a secret which he would not vtter and pressed so as he must either incurre great inconuenience by vttering or make a lye by denying which lye euery good mynd by nature hateth as both Aristotle and S. Augustine doe confesse who is there I say that naturally doth not seeke out some euasion by answering doubtfully but yet endeauoring to retaine some true sense in his owne meaning Do not all sortes of men euen by the instinct of nature it self vse and practice this without any instruction at all they being commonly the best mynds and most tymerous cōsciences that doe seek to vse these 〈◊〉 by amphibologies equiuocall speeches wheras the other of worser myndes make no scruple to lye at all 81. And I would in this point aske my Aduersary Thomas Morton this case that if a great man in England whose fauour he much desireth and esteemeth and yet would be loth to lend him money for that he knew him to spend much and not to hold payment of his debtes to be necessary to saluation if this great man I say demanded him whether he had fyue hundred poundes to lend him supposing that he had them but loth to lend or loose them what would he do or answer in this case if there be no other meanes but either to confesse that he hath them and therby loose them by lending or denie that he hath them therby incurre a lye and loose his soule Is there no meane between these two extreames Hath God and nature left no lawfull manner of euasion by force of wit and reason whereby a man may deliuer himself from such an incumbrance If not it may seeme that God hath prouided worse for mans defence in this case then he hath done for many vnreasonable creatures to whom he hath giuen such sharpnes of sense in this behalf for their lawfull defence as the stratagems are very strange which Pliny Solinus Cicero and many other Authors doe recount of them as the Hare and Fox by leaps turninges and wyndinges and going backe again in the same trace they come therby to deceiue the doggs the Hearnshaw and other foules for deluding the faulcon and other creatures in like occasions of defence 82. And for somuch as the vse of reason and wit is the cheif armour and weapon of mankynde there can be no doubt but that a man may euen by Law of nature it self extend the same to all wayes of defence that may be without offence of Gods law and therfore seeing that we haue shewed before that doubfull or amphibologicall speech that hath a true meaning in the speakers vnderstanding and is vsed by him not to deceaue or hurt but to defend himself is noly or falshood at all and consequently is lawfull it cannot be reprehensible in iust occasions to vse the same And I say in iust occasions according to the explications therof before set downe which afterwards in like manner shall more particularly be declared for that without iust cause as in confession of our faith common conuersation mutuall traffique and the like where preiudice therby may grow to any man or to the common credit of dealing there may they not be vsed as often hath byn said 83. Now then to retourne to our example of Thomas Morton and his fyue hundred pounds I do not doubt but that he would answere the Noble man that he had them not though they lay in his chest vnderstanding by force of equiuocation though neuer somuch detested by his soule as he saith that he had them not to lend him or not in his purse or not so as he could spare them or some other like reseruation which we say that without a lye he might vse And I doubt not but that either with a lye or without a ly he would practice it if I be not deceaued in my opinion of his wisdome and conscience in that behalf 84. The like case might be proposed of his wyfe if he haue any or of any other married woman who being demaunded by her iealous husband whether she had byn false vnto him or no if she say yea and confesse the truth there goeth her honour and temporall life therin but if she say no make a lye there goeth the spirituall death of her soule what would yow M. Morton counsell her to doe in this case if yow 〈◊〉 her Ghostly Father to
by amphibologie or equiuocation may be vsed which is not a lye And this in generall 14. But now in particuler what manner or forme of wordes may be vsed by the defendant for auoyding the iniury offred him and deluding the vniust Iudge is not so generally agreed of among all men For this same Sepulueda holdeth that 〈◊〉 inficiatio veri as his wordes are that is to say all manner of deny all of the thing that is true except of matters in confession hath the force of a ly or falshood and consequently cannot be admitted But this is commonly refuted by all and that with great reason as afterward shal be shewed for that otherwise in the examples before alleadged neither S. Iohn could truly haue denyed himself to be a Prophet nor Christ himselfe to be our Iudge in the sense they did for that they were truly both Prophet and Iudge in their meaning and yet did they truly deny them both 〈◊〉 Sotus also though he go further and do confesse that the defendant in such a Case being iniustly pressed by the 〈◊〉 may lawfully answere nescio I know nothing therof yet dareth he not as he saith to allow that he may say absolutly non feci I haue not done it as the priest may say of matters confessed vnto him non audiui I haue not heard any such thing for that in his iudgemēt as also in that of Sepulueda there is a great difference in the cases which though in some respectes it be graunted also by others yet in this point which is the only principall whether it be a lye or no all the rest doe hold that this negatiue answere of the defendant is no lesse free frō the nature of a lye then the other of the priest the one and the other being freed therfrom by the due and iust reseruation in the speakers mynd wherby the sense is made true not only in the meaning or vnderstanding of the speaker but in the sight of Almighty God the highest and supreme Iudge of all vnto whom it is lawfull to appeale in harte and word when any man is vniustly oppressed by humane iniquity 15. To begin then with the Authors of this cōmon opinion that the defendant may say I haue not done it vnderstanding so as by right and law I am bound to vtter it vnto yow first of all the famous Doctor Nauar that was schoolfellow with Sepulueda and liued togeather with Sotus discusseth the matter at large in diuers partes of his workes but especially in a particuler large Commentary vpon a Canon of the law taken out of S Gregories wordes that beginneth Humanae aures where he proueth that the said defendant being so pressed vniustly to answere when he hath no other way lefte to defend himselfe may truly and without any lye at all say he did it not with the foresaid reseruation of mynd that he did it not in some such sense as in his owne meaning and in the eares of Almighty God is true though the vniust Iudge taking it in another sense be deceaued therby which falleth out iustly vnto him for that he proceedeth iniustly against law And the said Doctor proueth this his assertion by many arguments taken both out of Scriptures Canon law and reason it selfe maruailling at the scrupulosity of Sotus in this behalfe and alleadging against him that of the psalme Trepidauit timore vbi non erat timor he trembled with feare where there was no feare to wit of sinne or lying in this case And moreouer refuteth his fellow-scholler 〈◊〉 by telling him that he was greatly deceaued in saying that no Schoole-Deuine vntil Gabriel had held this opiniō wheras saith he both S. Hierome S. Gregory and S. Thomas haue in effect expressed the same but more clearly Scotus Richardus Henricus Gandauensis Paludanus 〈◊〉 Io. Maior Siluester Angelus de Perusio Ioannes ab Anania whose places he cyteth out of their workes addeth the Ordinary Glosse ab omnibus nostris recepta receyued saith he by all our Canonists in cap. Ne quis 22. quaest 2. in locis infra q. 2. nu 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 citat is This writeth that renowned Doctor Nauar who was held for no lesse scrupulous tender and timerous of Conscience then any other writer cōmonly in his dayes as his austere manner of life did well testifie And after him haue written and defended the same opinion the most learned men for Scholasticall Deuinity in our age as Franciscus Toletus Michael Salon Dominicus 〈◊〉 Gregorius de 〈◊〉 Ioannes Azorius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Franciseus 〈◊〉 Tho. Sanchez all publicke Readers of Deuinity and others which for breuities sake I do omit and shall passe to set downe breifly the proofes of this their opinion The argumentes and groundes of this common opinion §. 4. 16. 〈◊〉 first is taken out of that we haue set downe before about the nature definition of truth and lying that whensoeuer any speach is cōforme in a true sense to the meaning of the speaker it is true and not a lye though the hearer should vnderstand it otherwise especially when there is no obligation at all of satisfiying the said hearer or demaunder as heere is presumed not to be and consequently saith Valentia a man may vtter any true proposition to himselfe though neuer so impertinēt to the demaund proposed by the vniust Iudge as if there were no man present or as if no such demaund had byn made at all as for example if a man that hath stolne should say to 〈◊〉 alone or to God truly sincerely I haue not stolne of malice or hatred to the person but of need or necessitie or I haue not stolne of my owne inclination but by induction of others or I haue not stolne so as I am bound to confesse it publickly for that there is no witnesse proofe or presumptiō against me or the like in all these speaches the proposition were true I haue not stolne though he reserued the other pointes in his mynd vnuttered It were true I say in it selfe and in the sight and eares of Almighty God and consequently no lye whatsoeuer the vniust Iudges do conceaue therof whose presence or demaundes in this case are nothing to be respected but that the defendant may answere and speake as though he the said Iudge or other hearers that haue no authority to examin him were not there so he vtter no falsity in it selfe 17. And for confirmation of this is alleadged the Authority of S. 〈◊〉 in his booke contra 〈◊〉 cyted by me before about the nature of a mysterious speach that vttereth one thing in wordes an another in sense and yet is 〈◊〉 by S. Augustine to be no lye Quae significantur saith he vtique 〈◊〉 dicuntur c. Those thinges that are signifyed in a mysterious speach are indeed truly spoken but they are thought to be lyes for that not the true thinges which are
testify in another mans cause as the defendant doth in his owne and consequently many thinges of those which before we haue touched concerning the said defendant do appertaine also to witnesses For first the common opinion and consent of Deuines is that when any man is called to beare witnesse against another before a lawful Iudge who proceedeth rightfully and according to forme of law doth demaund the truth of him he is bound to vtter the same sincerely and wholy vnder payne of mortall sinne for the same reasons which we haue alleadged before concerning the defendant to wit that the Iudge being in the place of almighty God of the Cōmon wealth demaunding him iustly he is bound by the law of Iustice subordination and obedience to reueale vnto him the sincere truth of all that he is demaunded and knoweth in that behalfe 25. Yea further then this he doth not only sinne mortally as hath byn said in denying or concealing the truth or any parte therof necessary to be vttered but is also bound in conscience to make restitution to the partie endamaged by his concealment of all those losses either in fame estimation goods or otherwise which he hath suffered and might haue auoyded if the other had confessed the truth So hold Syluester Nauar Sotus Salon Bannes Valentia and commonly all the rest And this is the seuerity of Catholicke Doctrine about obligation of witnesses for telling the truth when they are called and examined by a rightfull Iudge extant in all our Authors as hath bene said and I would gladly know of T. Morton what his Deuinity doth define and prescribe in this case and what his Authors haue written therof for the practice yea what the practice it self is there daily with him in all mens sight which point I thinke rather expedient to leaue to euery mans particuler knowledge and conscience to thinke consider then here to set downe what fruites their new Ghospell hath brought forth in this matter about vnconscionable witnesses 26. But on the other side our Doctors say that when the Iudge is not lawfull or that he enquireth of secretes which appertayne not to his iurisdiction nor that forme of law doth permit him so to enquire then the same Authors are of opinion that he may refuse to answere for that the Iudge hath no Authority to demaund him yea although first he hath sworne to answere directly for that that oath did presuppose that he should answere directly to that which the other should iustly demaund of him and therfore in this case he may vse the same kinds of refuge which before haue byn touched in the case of the defendant that is to say he may hold his peace or refuse to answere or appeale from him or deny all in forme as it lyeth or vse doubtfull or Equiuocall wordes and other such manner of ordinary euasions which if they preuaile not then say these Doctors that he may deny and say nihil scio nihil vidi nihil audiui I know nothing I haue seene nothing I haue heard nothing reseruing in his mynd the other parte that he knoweth nothing hath seene nothing nor heard nothing which in that iniust examination he is bound to vtter as being demaunded against law and iustice And this shall be sufficient for this case The fifth case about Equiuocation in swearing §. 6. 27. THE fifth case that we meane to handle at this tyme is about Equiuocation in swearing which act of swearing comprehending as before we haue said a calling of God to witnes in that we affirme as it is honourable to God when it is done with the foresaid due circumstances of Truth Iustice and Reuerence so is it a greiuous sinne when any of those points do want and especially when truth and iustice fayleth therin it is the heynous sinne cryme of periury so greatly detested in Catholicke Doctrine as before hath byn declared in the seauenth and eight Chapters Now only is to be considered whether Amphibologie or Equiuocation may be vsed in an oath or no and how farre without deceipt and whether he that sweareth be alwayes bound to sweare to the intention of him to whom the Oath is made or that sometimes and in some cases he may without falshood or periury sweare to his owne true intention keeping the same secret from him that exacteth the oath 28. About which point they do determine first that who soeuer offreth himself volūtarily to sweare that is to say of his owne free will and choise he is bound vnder payne of mortall sinne to sweare truly and directly according to the intention meaning of him to whome he sweareth the reason wherof is for that he swearing freely and without compulsion is bound to vtter the truth and to follow the common vse of swearing which is to sweare to the intention of him that exacteth the oath And the same they determine when any man is called and commanded to sweare by his lawfull Iudge and Superiour and in a lawfull cause and he that doth otherwise though it were to the sauing of his owne or another mans life doth commit periury 29. But if the Iudge that exacteth the oath be not a lawfull Iudge or proceedeth not lawfully in exacting the same then hath he that sweareth no obligation to sweare to his intention at all but may sweare to his owne so he make no lye but haue some true meaning and sense in his oath according to the circumstances of the place tymes matters and persons before mentioned Of which point I thinke good to alleadge heere the wordes of a great Schoole-Deuine that hath written in our age called by Morton the Great Moralist who proposing diuers rules concerning the subiect of taking an oath setteth downe his second rule thus Secunda regula faith he est si 〈◊〉 à Iudice contra vel praeter ius rogetur de crimine occultò patrato c. The second rule is that if the defendant should be demaunded an oath by the Iudge about a secret cryme committed by him and this contrary or besides the order of law he may with a secure conscience answere and sweare that he hath not committed that cryme nor knoweth any thing of it the reason of which rule is not that which some men do giue that it is lawfull for vs when we sweare to take wordes in our sense at our pleasure or as wee feigne them our selues otherwise then the hearers vnderstand them but this only is the true reason that when our wordes may haue an ambiguous signification we may take them in what sense we will when we are vrged against law though the hearers take them in another sense And wheras the ambiguity of our wordes may arise from diuers heades aswell of their significations of the circumstances of time place persons manner of proceeding and the like before mentioned wee may out of these verify our speach As for example when a priest
grant in print wheras the thing is euidently denyed Who would argue thus but Thomas Morton But let vs see your proofe in the second seeing yow faile so much in the first Equiuocation say yow in word or speach according to Aristotle the Oracle of Logitians is when one word or one speach doth equally signifie diuers things as when one shall say I am afraid of a dogge this word dogge hath a triple signification c. This hath byn examined before in the seauenth Chapter where it is shewed how yow abuse Aristotle in this place by making him to define Equiuocation in generall by a part that is to say the definition of one among three manners or degrees of Equiuocatiō there by him set downe wherby also yow destroy vnawares your owne cause for that if this be the definition of Equiuocation in generall then cannot our reserued proposition haue any equiuocation in it at all for that the wordes and speech haue no double but simple signification of themselues and consequently yow do accuse vs vniustly of equiuocating in vsing this answere wherof also your self say presently after But your mixt and patched proposition is not one word or speach signifying equally diuers things but contrarily diuers partes of speach one in the mynd and another in the mouth which whosoeuer shall call equiuocall may be iustly suspected to be bvtten with the highest dogg the proposition is so absurd and vnreasonable 13. And now good Syr what will yow proue by all this That our mixt reserued propositions are not ambiguous doubtfull and equiuocall And why then I pray yow do yow call vs Equiuocators yea hellish and heathnish Equiuocators for vsing the same Who is like rather to be bitten of the highest dogg eyther we or yow that cannot tell what yow say or proue eyther for yow or against your selfe We haue stood hithertoto defend those mixt propositiōs against your imputations of hellish heathenish impious and sacrilegious Equiuocations and now yow take vpon yow to proue that they are not equiuocall at all and that they are bitten with the highest dogg that say so and yow are 〈◊〉 earnestly sett to proue it as yow dare aduenture to corrupt Aristotles owne text to make some shew therof not only in choice of the definition before mentioned but in the very wordes also of his Greeke text heere cyted where yow say that Equiuocation is in any one word or one speach that doth equally fignifie diuers things and by vrging these ones yow exclude our mixed propositions for that they are not one word nor one speach as yow say but diuers partes of speach wheras Aristotle hath neyther of these one 's in his text as the Greeke wordes alleadged in the margent do shew but are foisted in by Morton to ouerthrow himselfe And is not this like to be the bytting of a doggish influence indeed 14. Wherfore to conclude this argument is against himselfe who vnderstādeth not the state of his owne question and therfore for instruction of the Reader I say that albeit these mixt reserued propositions be not properly equiuocall in the sense that Aristotle did define his three degrees of Equiuocation by wordes custome or construction which before we haue related for that they do not of themselues nor their owne natures signifye equally diuers things but being vnderstood wholy haue a single and simple signification in the mynd and vnderstanding of the speaker yet for that the hearer conceauing but one parte therof apprehendeth a different sense from the speaker they may ab effectu be called ambiguous amphibologicall and equiuocall after a large and improper manner of equiuocation for that they leaue a different sense in the hearer and speaker albeit of themselues as I haue said they be playne cleere and true to them that heare them out or do cōceaue the mentall reseruation as God and the speaker do And this shall suffice for the second argument His third argument from the description of lying §. 3. 15. YOVV haue seene his first argument to haue byn deduced from the definition of a lye and now this his third is from the description of lying what great difference do yow imagine there may be betweene lye and lying why had he not drawne one argument at least from the definition of truth as we haue done diuers before against him But let vs heare the method of his arguing thus it goeth Maior No man doubteth saith S. Augustine but that he lyeth which speaketh any thing which is false with intent to deceaue another Minor But our Equiuocators professe by a false speach to delude Protestant examiners c. Ergo by their art of equiuocating haue they obteyned a perfection of lying What can yow answere So he 16. And my answere is that I would gladly haue this great disputer to proue his Minor proposition and not to suppose it and say we professe it as he did in his first argument wheras we deny it or that in our foresaid proposition we speake false with intent to deceaue for we speake a truth as often before hath bene declared nor is our intent to deceaue but to defend our selues when iniury is offered and to permit the iniust examiner to be deceaued And so for that this hath bene amply proued and declared before and this poore Cauiller bringeth nothing at all of new to proue the said Minor proposition but fondly supposeth vs to graunt it which we vtterly deny as false we shall say no more of this argument but take pitty of the disputer who calling vpon vs so freshly for our answere is brought with one simple denyall to an euident Non-plus For as for his impertinent running into the example of Couentry infected and one that commeth from thence the case hath byn handled so sufficiently in the precedent Chapter and our Aduersary conuinced of so many notable vntruthes therin as there needeth no more to be spoken of that matter wherfore we passe to the fourth argument His fourth argument is taken à specie or from a particular kind of lying which is Periury §. 4. 17. THIS man as yow see cannot yet get out of lying and periury and by naming them only as impugned by him he thinketh to credit his owne cause and discredit ours wheras in deed by practising eyther one or both in this his very impugnation he honoureth our cause and ouerthroweth his owne Let vs heare his formall argument Maior Periury as Iesuites do confesse is a lye made in an oath Minor But mentall equiuocating in an oath is periury Ergo Simply in it selfe without an oath it is a ly Heere againe I would desire our disputer to proue his Minor proposition that euery speach mixt with a mentall reseruation is petiuryif it be sworne the folly and impiety of which assertion is sufficiently detected before for that it being a most certaine principle as well in reason as in Deuinity that what
〈◊〉 ordinaria neque absoluta then he inferreth out of that that it is as vnlawfull for God to Equiuocate for that otherwise saith he the elect of God should not haue any strong consolation for that they may still doubt that God doth Equiuocate with them and so when his spirite doth witnes to the spirites of his elect that they are the sonnes of God and that they shall not perish yet might they suspect saith he that it is spoken with some secret reserued clause of delusion which blasphemy saith he be farre from the hartes of his regenerate 22. Wherto I answere first that hauing set downe that which we haue before about the different nature of falsitie and Equiuocation euery child will laugh at Thomas Mortons inference God cannot lye or vtter a false proposition Ergo he cannot vtter a doubtfull or Equiuocall proposition that may haue one sense in the hearers vnderstanding and another in the speakers such as that was of Christ our Sauiour when he said dissolue this temple and I will buyld vp the same againe in three dayes which the Pharisees and all other hearers commonly vnderstood of the materiall temple wherin he stood when he spake the wordes but they were deceyued for himselfe meant the holy tēple of his sacred body Ergo in this he did Equiuocate according to the definition of Equiuocation now agreed vpon betweene vs yea Aristotles definition also agreeth to this speach of Christ for that the word temple heere doth equally signify two thinges and consequently either Morton must deny Christ to be God or affirme that God can Equiuocate though he cannot lye And the many examples which we haue alleadged before in the 9. Chapter and shall do afterward in this to the next argument must needes put this Minister in a sacke stopp his mouth in this behalfe 23. His second inference also that if God could Equiuocate the consolation of the elect could not be strong is ydle in like manner For if God could lye this inference might haue place but an Equiuocall proposition in the sense we talke of that is to say where some parte is vttered and some other reserued in the mynd is as true and certaine in the vnderstanding of the speaker as any other proposit on is or can be and in matters of religion it belongeth to the faith of the hearer so to belieue and to seeke out the speakers reseruation for his better assurance as in the examples before alleadged when God said by the Prophet That whosoeuer calleth vpon the name of our Lord shal be saued and the hearer on the other side seeth all heretickes and Sectaries whatsoeuer to call vpon the same name and yet shall not be saued yea he heareth also those wordes of Christ Not euery one that saith vnto me Lord Lord shall enter into the Kingdome of heauen c. Yet is he bound vnder payn of Infidelity to belieue that the former generall proposition of Ioel the Prophet which hath a further reserued mentall meaning then in wordes is vttered is true and infallible and consequently he must seeke out the true reseruation or clause not expressed whereby the whole proposition is made true which otherwise as it lyeth and soundeth is false for that to speake generally without reseruation That euery one that calleth vpon the name of God shal be saued cannot vniuersally be true for so much as the contrary therof is euident that many who call vpon that name are not saued but damned And almost infinite other places like to this are foūd in Scripture as he that belieueth and is baptized shal be saued he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath life euerlasting and such other which cannot be verifyed in the generall 〈◊〉 of the words without some reseruation not expressed 24. And as for that he would not haue his new elect Protestants to want of their strong consolation or to stand in doubt of some reseruation as he saith when Gods spirit witnesseth to their spirits that they are the sonnes of God that they shall not perish which reseruation he wickedly calleth A clause of delusion he might more truly terme that their fond presumption delusion wherby they will needs apply vnto themselues that thing absolutly which God speaketh alwayes with due reseruation and condition as now hath byn shewed in the examples alleadged that not euery one absolutly shall be saued that calleth vpon the name of our Lord or belieueth and is baptized or eateth his flesh and drinketh his bloud but they only that call vpon his name rightfully and as they ought to do and as Christ himself expoundeth it to witt they that call vpon him and ioyntly doe performe the will of his Father in keeping his commandemēts and the like in those that belieue are baptized and liue well and those that eat his flesh and drinke his bloud worthily which conditions and reseruations must necessarily be vnderstood also in the speach of that spirit that speaketh to protestants if it be from God as both S. Iohn and Christ himselfe expoundeth and this is not blasphemy as Tho. 〈◊〉 imagineth but true humility for here the doubtfulnes is not of the assurance of Gods promise but of our performance that is to say whether we do performe 〈◊〉 necessary conditions which alwayes are to be vnderstood in Gods promises towards vs for keeping his commandements And thus much of the first part of his argument apperteyning to God 25. But now for the other parte concerning the Dyuell it is much more childish for thus he argueth MAIOR That doctrine cannot be true which stopped a mans mouth from geuing the Dyuell the lye MINOR But if Equiuocation be admitted all mankind is silenced from geuing the 〈◊〉 his due tytle of lyer ERGO Equiuocating is no doctrine of truth c. 〈◊〉 for proofe of his Minor he alleadgeth only the 〈◊〉 of Eue in paradise demaunding of vs whether whē the dyuell said to her Though yow eate yow shall not dye she might haue said to him thou lyest For if we deny that she may then do we tye her tongue from calling the dyuell a lyer and if we grant that she may say so then would the dyuell escape by saying to her that he did not lye but only Equiuocate 26. And is not this goodly stuffe fit for a booke fit for a print fit for a Chaplyn of my Lord of Canterbury Are these things suffred to passe without controlment in England If the dyuell be father of lyes and consequently of them that do lye of what kynred will he proue to be 〈◊〉 this Minister that hath byn taken now with so many notorious witting and wilfull lyes as before hath byn shewed which how they are Equiuocatiōs also in a worser sense shall be shewed in the chapter following and consequently that T. Morton is an egregious Equiuocator in that sorte and kind which Sathan himsefe did vse to deceaue
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
his former proposition For if it were lawfull for Saint Athanasius to vse this Equiuocation in speach and fact for deluding his persecutors then had it bene lawfull also to sweare the same without sacrilegious prophanation if they had vrged him vnto it For as all Deuines hold that which may lawfully be said may also lawfully be sworne what will T. M. answere tò this what will he answere to that euasion of S. Paul mentioned by vs before when for escaping the hands of the Iewes that pursued him in iudgement he vsed an apparent equiuocall speach saying That his trouble was about the hope and resurrection of the dead Paul knowing saith the text that one parte of them that pursued him were of the Saduces that denyed the resurrection of the dead and the other of Pharises that held the contrary he cryed out in the iudgement-place saying De spe resurrectione mortuorum ego iudicor I am called to iudgement about the hope and resurrection of the dead which was true in one sense but false in another wherby the Pharises being deceyued tooke his parte Et facta est contentio sayth the text inter Pharisaeos Saducaeos soluta est multitudo and vpon this equiuocall speach there arose a dissention betwene the Pharises and Saduces one interpreting it in one sense and another in another and so the people departing the iudgement brake vp And what will Thomas Morton now answere to this did S. Paul lye in this Equiuocation or was his dissimulation impious for that one part was deceaued or had he committed 〈◊〉 prophanation if he had sworne it I demaund him also of that equiuocall oath of the Patriarch Ioseph who in one conference with his brethren did twice sweare vnto them 〈◊〉 Equiuocation that is to say with a reserued sense different from that he vttered to them in wordes the Scripture saying VVhen his brethren had adored him he knowing them to be his brethren spake sharpely vnto them as to strangers saying yow are spyes sent to discouer the strength of this land I sweare by the health of King Pharao yow shall not go hence c. And againe Per salutem Pharaonis c. I sweare by the health of Pharao that yow are spyes when notwithstanding he knew them not to be spyes so thought of them in his mynd And will T. M. say that this was a lye or at least a sacrilegious prophanation of an oath But I must go yet a little further in prosecution of this folly against the Minister 44. What then will he say to all those former examples of Equiuocall propositions which I haue alleaged out of holy Scripture out of the new Testamént and from the mouth of our Sauiour himselfe especially such as haue verball equiuocation in them As Dissolue this temple and I will build it vp againe in three dayes where the word temple hath euidently two significations and was taken in the one by Christ our Sauiour in the other by the Iewes And the other Our friend Lazarus sleepeth And againe The maid is not deed but sleepeth where the word sleepeth is equiuocall and hath two significations the one of death the other of naturall sleepe and Christ vnderstood it in the one and his hearers in the other And so the like where Christ said vnto the Iewes Abraham vidit diem meum gauisus est Abraham did see my day and did reioyce the word see is equiuocall and signifieth eyther seing in flesh or seing in spirite and the Iewes being deceyued with the equiuocation of the word vnderstood it in one sense and Christ in another wherupon they said vnto him Thou hast not yet fifty yeares of age and hast thou seene Abraham And therupon tooke stones to cast at him 45. And the very like example is of our Sauiours speach vnto the Samaritan at Iacobs well by the Citty of Sychar If thow knewest the gyfte of God and who it is that saith to thee Giue me water thou wouldest aske of him and he would giue thee liuing water where the word water being equiuocall signifieth both the element of water and heauenly grace which is the water of lyfe euerlasting which Equiuocation the woman not vnderstanding tooke it in the common sense of naturall water and asked him how he could giue her water for so much as he had no bucket to draw it vp in but Christ our Sauiour addeth an other equiuocall speach to her saying That he which shall drinke of the water which I will giue him shall neuer thirst more where not only the word water but the word thirst also is equiuocall hath two different senses wherby the woman deceaued said Giue me I pray of this water that I may thirst no more nor come hither to draw vnderstanding still of materiall water 46. Now I would demaund that for so much as all these speaches were manifestly equiuocall and had double senses and significations and that 〈◊〉 ech one of them the hearers were deceaued conceauing another sense then that which Christ mentally reserued to himselfe I would demaund I say whether notwithstanding this they were not true of themselues and whether Christ might not as well sweare them as speake them And if Thomas Morton will haue many examples togeather wherin Christ our Sauiour after his manner of swearing which is Amen amen dico vobis doth sweare or auouch by oath sundry equiuocall propositions let him looke vpon the later parte of the sixt Chapter of S. Iohn where Christ doth put the Antithesis betwene himselfe and Moyses and betwene the bread that Moyses gaue from heauen that which he was to giue being his owne flesh and betwene the lyfe that Manna gaue and that which his flesh was to giue and he shall fynd many equiuocall propositions both verball and mentall auouched by our Sauiour vnder this kind of oath repeated at least three or foure tymes in that matter One example of ech kynd shall suffice 47. When he saith Amen amen dico vobis qui credit in me babet vitam aeternam Truly truly I say vnto yow that he who beleeueth in me hath lyfe euerlasting this is a mentall reserued proposition as before hath byn shewed for that it is not true generally that euery one that beleeueth in Christ hath lyfe euerlasting but he that beleeueth accordingly which was reserued in Christs mynd and then the wordes immediatly following Ego sum panis vitae I am the bread of lyfe haue a verball equiuocation signifying of bread that gaue tēporall lyfe or spirituall lyfe as also the other words that ensue Your Fathers did eate manna in the deserte and are dead but he that shall eate of this bread shall not dye Dying heere signifyeth eyther the death of the body or the death of the soule and Christ meant of the later 〈◊〉 the Iewes of the first Nay which is more to be obserued as Euthymius noteth and
againe 4. Wherfore all our speach in this place shall be about the second kynd of Equiuocation which is false and lying and therby also euer vnlawfull which though not properly yet in a generall manner may be called Equiuocation as I haue said for that the hearer is alwayes wrongfully deceyued or intended to be deceaued by some falsity which is knowne to be such by the speaker and consequently is playne lying and for that lying hath byn shewed also before to be deuided into two sortes the one a materiall lye when the thing spoken is false in it selfe but not so vnderstood by the speaker the other a formall lye when the speaker doth know it or thinke it to be false and yet speaketh it This kynd of Equiuocatiō which really is a lye must haue also the same subdiuisiō so as the one sort therof may be called a materiall lying Equiuocation and the other a formall and so much worse as a formall lye is in it selfe which alwayes is sinne then a materiall which oftentymes may be without sinne of the speaker by so much is a formall lying Equiuocation worse then a materiall We shal giue examples of both that shall make all playne 5. If one should say to me that my Father is dead thinking in deed that he is dead though he be a liue it were a materiall lye as before hath byn declared for that in deed my Father is not dead though he perhaps that made the lye may haue said it without sinne for that he thought it so and I say perhaps for that in some case ignorance could not excuse him if it were a matter wherof he were bound to know the truth might with diligence haue learned the same But if he should say my Father is dead knowing in deed that he is not dead and meaning to deceiue me therby this is a formall lye and alwayes sinfull either veniall or mortall according to the importance of the matter wherin the lye is made And conforme to this may be the diuision also as is said of lying Equiuocation 6. Examples of the first may be these and other like An Arian deliuereth to the people those wordes of Christ Pater meus maior me est My Father is greater then I vnderstanding it heretically according to their meaning of the very Godhead this is an Equiuocation and in his sense is false and consequently alye for that the hearer is deceaued and yet because the speaker thinketh it to be true the lye is but materiall in the Arian and not formall and in that respect lesse synne then if it were formall but yet is it damnable by another way for that this error as hath bene said being wilfully defended against the Church is not excusable The other sorte of false Equiuocatiō called formall is when the hearer conceyueth any false thing vpon the speach of another which other knoweth it also a be false and so vttereth a lye against his owne knowledge and conscience As for example If a preacher in England who in deed is no Protestant in harte should preach Protestāt doctrine that is false and himselfe should thinke it also to be false as diuers perhaps doe this were to Equiuocate both falsely and formally which is the worst kynd of lying Equiuocation that may be and this is that which I say that Thomas Morton and his fellowes who inueigh bitterly euery where against true and lawfull Equiuocation do vse almost at euery turne 7. As for example when he saith No one iota of Scripture no one example in all antiquity no one reason in the naturall wit of man no one Author Greeke or Latin no one Father no any Pope Christian or Antichristian doth make for Equiuocation as we defend it or any color therof neither did they so much as fancy any such thing Heere is first seene a notorious vntruth of the assertion it selfe consequently it is a materiall lye and materiall Equiuocation for that the matter deliuered is vntrue aud secondly it is most probable that Th. Morton must needs know it to be a lye hauing seene so many Authors reasons alleadged for it by the Catholicke Treatise which he pretendeth to confute wherof it followeth that it was a formall lye also and a formall lying Equiuocation in the highest degree of deceipt and falshood 8. And so in like manner in the former Chapter when he alleadgeth Azor Dominicus Sotus and Cicero directly against their owne meaning words and drifte in the very same places which he cyteth and taketh words out of them for his pretēded purpose he could not but see and know that it was a lye to cyte them to the contrary and yet he thought best to do it and tell his Reader that they were of a contrary opinion this then is formally to lye and equiuocate in the worst and superlatiue degree of false Equiuocation 9. About which poynt the Reader may be remitted to the second Chapter of this Treatise and last paragraph therof where he shall see diuers examples laid togeather as among other that which he reporteth of the death of our English Pope Adrian choaked as he saith with a flye and cyteth Nauclerus for the same who though he mention yet refuteth expresly that fable which T. M. concealed where he is shewed in like māner to corrupt notably a passage of Doctor Boucher auouching him to say that which he expresly impugneth about the killing of a Tyrant by a priuate man and priuate authority And the like corruption he is conuinced to haue vsed in cyting Gratian the Collector of the Canon-lawes and his Glosses peruerting their wordes and whole sense as is there set downe with sundry other examples which shew that the man did not lye of error or ouersight but meerely out of malice to deceyue the simple and credulous Reader knowing indeed that he did lye And the same is demonstrated by many examples most apparent and euident throughout the whole sixt Chapter of this booke and other places so as if we had no other proofe of this spirite but in Tho. Morton himselfe it were sufficient to proue our purpose for that of all other lightly of his coate he profesleth most innocency simplicity and sincerity in this behalfe and by this doth principally proue our purpose which is that they equiuocate and lye both wittingly and willingly and then most of all when they make greatest protestation of truth 10. As when T. M. talketh of his naked innocency in his epistle to the Kings Maiestie of 〈◊〉 Equiuocation from his soule of styling himselfe A Minister of simple truth and finally his vsurping of those protestations of Saint Paul before mentioned That in all things he spake the truth and lyed not which Thomas Morton as we 〈◊〉 haue proued before could not choose but know to be a wilfull lye in deed hauing seene read the Authors which so manifestly he belyeth as neuer in this he will be
Catholicke and consequently A reformed Catholicke in matters of faith must needs be A deformed Catholicke such a 〈◊〉 as Perkins in deed describeth that admitteth one two three foure more or lesse points of the common Catholicke receaued Religion and yet starteth from the fifth or sixt as himselfe best liketh and this calleth Perkins A reformed Catholicke when the belieuer chooseth to belieue or leaue what points do please him best which choise we say is properly heresy for that an Hereticke is a Chooser as the Greeke word importeth and this heresy or choice in matters of beliefe doth Perkins professe to teach his hearer saying That he will shew them how neare they may come vnto the Romane faith and yet not iumpe with it which is a doctrine common to all hereticks and heresies that euer were for that all haue agreed with the Catholicke faith in some points for that otherwise it should be Apostacy and not heresy if they denyed all yea the Turkes and Mores at this day do hold some points of Christian Religion with the Catholickes but for that neither they nor heretickes do hold all therfore they are no true Catholickes but such Reformed Catholickes as VVilliam Perkins would teach his disciples to be to wit properly Heretikes by their choise of religion 59. And to the end we may see not only the mans folly in choosing his argument but his falshood also in prosecuting the same I shall lay forth one only example out of his very first Chapter that beginneth with his ordinary argument of the VVhore of Babylon and by this one example let the reader iudge whether he be not a fit Chaplyn for that honest woman iflying cosenage and calumniation be propertyes of her profession For that hauing spent many impertinent wordes to shew that the impieties prophesied by S. Iohn of the said VVhore of Babylon and Saincts of God to be slayne by her was not meant of the persecution of Rome vnder the Pagan Emperors but of the Church of Rome now vnder the Christian Bishopps and Popes he hath these wordes 60. This exposition saith he of the Apocalips besydes the Authority of the text hath also the fauour and defence of ancient and learned men Bernard saith They are the Ministers of Christ but they serue Antichrist And againe the beast spoken of in the Apocalips to which a mouth is giuen to speake blasphemies and to make warre with the Saints of God is now gotten into Peters Chaire as a lyon prepared to his pray It wil be said that Bernard speaketh these later wordes of one that came to the Popedome by intrusion or vsurpation It is true in deed but wherfore was he an vsurper He rendreth a reason therof in the same place bycause the Antipope called Innocētius was chosen by the Kings of Alemaine France England Scotland Spaine Hierusalem with consent of the whole Clergy and people in these nations and the other was not And thus Bernard hath giuen his verdict that not only this vsurper but all the Popes for this many yeares are the beast in the Apocalips because now they are only chosen by the Colledg of Cardinals c. Thus he 61. And now how many 〈◊〉 decepts and falsities there be in this litle narration is easie for any man to see admyre and detest that will but looke vpō the places of S. Bernard by himselfe quoted For in the first place out of his 33. Sermon vpon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where he saith They are the Ministers of Christ but do serue Antichrist he speaketh against the vices of the Clergy especially of France where he liued in his dayes And that it is not meant particulerly of the pope S. Bernardes owne words do shew in that ve y place saying They will be and are Prelates of Churches Deanes Archdeacons Bishopps Archbishopps so as this is falsely brought in to proue any speciall thing against Rome or the Pope and much more wickedly alledged to proue Perkins his exposition of the Apocalips against Christian Rome to be true in S. Bernardes sense which he neuer thought of or by any least cogitation admitted as by the whole course of his writings to the contrary is euident no man more extolling the dignity of the Pope and Sea of Rome then he euen then when most he reprehendeth euill lyfe and manners 62. But the other that followeth is much more fraudulenty alledged For if S. Bernard complained greatly that in his tyme one Petrus Leonis an vsurper and Antipope being chosen by the 〈◊〉 lesse number of Cardinals voyces did by violence notwithstanding thrust himselfe into the Chaire of Peter and playe therin the parte of Antichrist what was this in preiudice of the true Pope Innocentius the second whome Saint Bernard doth call Christs Vicar and highly commendeth him as lawfully chosen by the maior part of the Colledge of Cardinals and exhorteth all Christian Kings to obey and follow him as their high and true lawfull vniuersall pastor So as heere 〈◊〉 Perkins maketh a notorious lye in saying that Innocentius by S. Bernards iudgement was an Antipope wheras he proued him expresly in the places heere alleadged to be the true Pope and Vicar of Christ and Petrus 〈◊〉 to be the Antipope Numquid saith he non omnes Principes cognouerunt quia ipse est verè Dei electus Francorum Anglorum Hispanorum postremò Romanorum Rex Innocentium in Papam suscipiunt recognoscunt 〈◊〉 Episcopum animarum suarum Do not all Princes know that Innocentius is truly the elected of God The Kinges of France England Spaine and 〈◊〉 do receyue Innocentius for Pope and do acknowledge him to be the singular Bishop of their soules 63. Secondly he lyeth much more apparantly when he saith that Innocentius was chosen by the said Kings of Alemaine France England c. wheras S. Bernard saith not that he was chosen by them but that he was accepted followed obeyed by them as true Pope after his election Alemaniae saith he Angliae Franciae Scotiae Hispaniarum 〈◊〉 Reges cum vniuerso clero populis fauent adhaerent Domino Innocentio tanquam filij Patri tanquam capiti membra The Kings of Germany France England Scotland Spaine and Hierusalem togeather with their whole Clergy and people do fauour and adhere to Pope 〈◊〉 he doth not say they choose him as children to their Father and as members to their head 64. Thirdly Perkins lyeth most desperately of all in his last conclusion 〈◊〉 And thus Bernard hath giuen his verdict that not only this vsurper but that all the Popes for 〈◊〉 many yeares are the beast in the 〈◊〉 because now they are only chosen by the Colledge of Cardinals This I say is a notorious lye for that S. Bernard giueth no such verdict but alloweth well the election of Innocentius by the said Cardinals saying Meritò autem illum 〈◊〉 Ecclesia cuius opinio clarior electio sanior
Sauiour did hold him to be ignorant in deed of the day of Iudgment which being decreed and established by the Church ech Father endeauoured to find out the true reserued meaning of our Sauiour as hath byn said which by experience they proued to be so hard and therwith all to defend the same against the Arrians who vrged strongly the litterall signification of the wordes against Christes Diuinity as some of them held this text to be corrupted as appeared by the testimony both of S. Hierome vpon this place and S. Ambrose in his bookes de fide wherupon euen at this day in S. Matthewes Ghospell where Christ vseth the same speach the word neque filius neither the Sonne knoweth is not read either in Greek or Latin yet was it found in diuers Copies of both languages in old time as may appeare by Origen and S. Chrysostome in Greeke and S. Hilary and S. Augustine in Latin who did read it in their dayes in their Copies of S. Mathews Ghospell as we doe now in S. Marke and therupon as hath byn said indeauoured ech one to find out Christes hidden meaning and mentall reseruation therin 48. As for example Origen S. Epiphanius doe thinke Christes reseruation to haue byn that he knew not the day of Iudgment in this life but in the next and others that he knew it not quoad experientiam by experience for that he had not yet experienced the same nor doth S. Chrysostome seeme in one place altogeather to mislike this interpretation Other Fathers in great number doe thinke Christs meaning and reseruation to haue byn that he knew not of the certaine day of Iudgment as he was man that is to say by vertue of his humanity alone without his diuinity for though as he was man and God he knew it yet not by force or power of his humanity And of this opinion are S Athanasius S. Ambrose S. Gregory Nazianzen S. Cyril Theodoret and others 49. Many Fathers also yea the greatest number of all haue an other exposition expressing the very same reseruatiō in Christes wordes which we talked of in our former proposition affirming that Christes meaning was whē he said he knew not the day of Iudgment that he knew it not so as he might discouer it vnto them or make them know it And so doth hold S. Augustine in many places of his workes S. Chrysostome also in his homilies vpon S. Mathew and S. Marke S. Gregory in his Register S. Hierome and S. Bede in their exposition vpon this place with whome doe concurre Theophilact and diuers others 50. Now then we haue heere that there are three or foure sortes of reseruations at least sought out by the foresaid circūstances touched in the former example al which doe proue vnto vs that in the proposition of Christ the Sonne of man knoweth not of the day or houre of Iudgment is an amphibologicall and Equiuocall mixt proposition conteyning a mentall reseruation of our Sauiour not expressed in his wordes which ouerthroweth and vtterly vndoeth Th. Mortons whole Treatise and how doe yow thinke will he play the man heere to auoid all this battery Yow shall heare it presently and see him brought to miserable straites for thus he beginneth to answere the matter hauing confessed first out of his aduersaries Treatise of Equiuocation that Augustine Ambrose Chrysostome Basil and Theophilact doe expound it so as lastly hath byn said that Christ knew not the day of Iudgment to vtter it to his disciples wherunto he answereth thus 51. It will not saith he be pertinent to oppose the other exposition of Fathers who as your Maldonate saith were many expounding this text thus that Christ as he was man knew not the day and houre This is his first struggle and if it be impertinent as himselfe confesseth why doth he alleadge it but for lacke of better defence and that it is impertinent in deed is euident for that this exposition of some Fathers alleadged by him doth rather proue that there were diuers reseruations in Christes wordes then that there was none at all which he should proue Wherfore it falleth out to Thomas Morton in this case as when playing a bad game at Tables that is past recouery he should say this game is lost which way soeuer I play it and yet will I play it out with what shame soeuer rather then giue it vp Let vs see then what play he maketh 52. He followeth on immediatly after his former speach thus But the question is saith he whether the former exposition of S. Augustine and others doth imply any mentall Equiuocation and because Garnet at his arraignment did select only S. Augustine of all the Fathers we will appeale to S. Augustine for answere to them all by whose testimony it doth appeare that when our Sauiour said I know not the day signifying vt dicam vobis to tell vnto yow this clause wherby he meant to conceale the time was not concealed from thē who though they were by the sense of the speach held in ignorance not to know the day yet were they not ignorant of the sense of the speach which was I may not let yow know it So he And doe yow vnderstand him or doth he not labour asmuch to hold yow in ignorance of his meaning as Christ did his Disciples of the day of iudgment but let vs draw him out of this affected darkenes 53. First he saith the question is and he saith well whether the former exposition of S. Augustine other Fathers doe imply any mentall Equiuocation or rather mentall reseruation which maketh Equiuocation or doubtfulnes of meaning and I see not how he can deny it sor that the proposition Christ knoweth not of the day of Iudgment is false without some reseruation but with the reseruation gathered vpon S. Augustines exposition to wit that he knew it not to make them know it that is to say to vtter it vnto them it is true ergo S. Augustines exposition doth imply and declare vnto vs a manifest mentall reseruation and cōsequently also an Equiuocation For that as before we haue defined the matter Equiuocation or amphibology in this our controuersy is nothing els but when a speach is partly vttered in wordes and partly reserued in mind by which reseruation the sense of the proposition may be diuers 54. Secondly wheras Thomas Morton saith that Father Garnet at his arraignment did select only S. Augustine of all other Fathers to depend vpon concerning the former exposition of Christes wordes and therfore that he also will appeale to S. Augustine for answere to them all it is a shift therby to auoid the authority of all the other Fathers both in this and the other expositions before mentioned all which doe conclude against him as hath byn said that there is a mentall reseruation in Christes wordes without which vnderstood the proposition is false Neither did Father Garnet so select S.