THE PREFACE TO AL ENGLISH PROTESTANTS.  
IF the received saying ( Nothing is so incredible, but by words,( or eloquence) it may be made probable) can in any case, or time be justified: most like it is, to be proved true, when in time of question and controversy of things, corrupting, falsifying, perucrting, misapplying, and such deceitful dealing with Authorities( to delude the ignorant hearers, or readers) is joined and permitted to free words and writings, on the one side: And unto the other, by al wary and vigilant prevention, al disputing, preaching, writing, printing, publishing, or reading any thing, to confute and control it, is forbidden and with seuerities prevented. As no man can be ignorant either of the controversies of this time in matters of religion, or that the state of the recited difficulties( to answer their aduersaries) is the case of catholics, disgraced, silenced, and persecuted in England: So that the former, of corruptions, falsyfications,& joined with freedom and liberty of speech and writing, to promote their opinions, is a thing frequently used of English Protestant Doctors, will sufficiently( even by their own present testimonies) appear in this Treatise. Then resolution is easily made, by what means, by way of learning, that religion is maintained.  
And because these Protestants themselves( to be cited hereafter) 
Cap. 1. s●●  aclowledge this corrupting, and falsifying infection, to be so ordinary, or general among them, that neitheral, many, nor one writer, nor one book of quantity of their penning, can be thus examined and censured, but with great loathsomeness both to the examiner, and reader of such vile and profane abusings, of God, Religion, Scriptures, councils, Fathers, and al Authorities, as may appear in the publicly privileged works of these men; as namely D. Willet, styled Professor of divinity, 
Willet Loydor. in Titul. parks against Lymbom.  in his book name Loydoromastix, a whip for a railer, challenging M. parks his fellow in religion, of hundreds of such demeanors in one book, and he again the other in like order, and al with privilege, with such others. For which cause desirous in this vnsauoury subject, to affect as much brevity as may be, to give satisfaction in this matter, I haue of purpose passed over al that be these notoriously infamous among themselves, by public privilege: And singled forth one among them, a Doctor, dean, and great writer, Doctor Morton, which in diuers books, especially three, his so name, full satisfaction, Preamble, 
Morton full sati●●act. Prefat. Preamb. Epist. dedicat. against Higg. ep. dedic.  and book against M. Higgons( a late Minister among them, leaving them and becoming a catholic by such their corruptions) and to three great personages, his Majesty, the right honourable earl of Salisbury Lord Treasurer, and the Lord Eurc the Lord President of Wales, absolutely justifieth himself in words to be a professed publisher of truth, and no falsyficator, corrupter, or such wicked dealer: and is so not only valued by himself, but likewise esteemed of( as I understand) by most and many his Protestant readers and auditors. Therefore before al others I haue made choice of this man, so sincere and of such integrity, by so great Protestant applause. I haue made choice before al others of his writing, to examine the principal part of his book name by him, A full satisfaction; because in this he 
full satisfact epist. dedicat.  protesteth to our sovereign, most great and rare sincerity from such crimes: and runneth his book A full satisfaction, which in sincerity and true dealing, must be devoid of al cunning, corrupt, and counterfeit behaviour, which do offend and scandalise, and neither fully nor at al satisfy honest minded readers. again, I haue chosen this book, because it, was written, printed, published, and by great Protestants privileged,( if not helped in composing) in time of convocation. And further, I rather choose this, not only because it was written against myself author of the Moderate answer to his positions: but in respect he complaineth in his Preamble, why I had not written against that, his name full satisfaction also: speaking as though I had got a scratch( some foil he meaneth) at his hands, neither reflecting vpon any unworthiness in his own work, or difficulty which catholic Students in England haue to publish little, though they writ much, and often with no great ease or his helps to aid them. But although I never judged( as I shal hereafter demonstrate) that his book to be any satisfaction to my answer, nor of itself worth my labour to confute; yet( as I can prove 
Morton Preamb. chap. of Stage, &c.  by many witnesses) I had censured both that, and his Preamble also, within six weekes( and less) of their first birth; And my prints provided taken or hindered( one of those my books begun to be printed) I had no means to publish either, until his books were out of date( as never in much) or were otherwise answered. Whether I fear any Protestants scratch in schools or no, he may know, if they will grant us disputation, now they deny us printing. And I not only for these reasons do now censure him, but because in his Preamble it pleaseth him to bring me vpon the stage( as he calleth it) to play a part with his Roman adversary, and himself: where although I do not find, that I am either scratched or bitten with his nailes or teeth, though bawled and barked at with his tongue, as Latrantes use. Yet now I am enforced to enter the stage; and I fear his part will prove to be that, which his greek name signifieth, as commonly in Comedies and Tragedies Actors be chosen, to make better resemblance of things.  
I also choose that part of his book not only because it is the first in order: But is the defence and propugnacle of the very ground of al his writing against us, in that kind, as himself hath 
Rom. pos. ●at. ●.  written, and that failing al his building is overthrown. again, I choose his defence of that main argument; because it containeth more of my book, then any other, and more then many of some of the rest. And yet notwithstanding al this, and more causes, urging or rather( by his behaviour) necessitating me to 
Morton against Higg. ep. dedic.  writ, I could haue been silent( hoping better of him hereafter) but that I see him newly glory of his innocency, and singular sincerity in this behaviour, whereof I am to accuse him: and busy himself further( as I am informed) then either honour or triumph will be his reward.  
Therefore to pass over other authorities, partly because he 
D. Mortons corruption how great in that first part of his book to be examined, and proved in this Treatise.  hath heard of his sincerity in them before, as also they are not so easy to be examined of ordinary readers: I will omit al things whereof he hath been by others admonished, and take shavings, only his citations of my writing in that his sincere part of full satisfaction,( as he termeth it) and directly demonstrate not only that among al those( being many) there is not one which is not either falsely and corruptly cited or applied, but often times in one citation diuers and sundry corruptions, and such like abuses, are committed by this man of sincerity: and not one citation among them al, to be found free from such dealings.  
Neither by ending my examination there, do I free any of his arguments, or citations following, but end there at this time, only for my( before) alleged reasons. And if it shal be needful 
D. Mortons like corruption in the whole book following, against the Moderate answe●e, offered to be proved, in the same manner, &c.  hereafter to discover the rest, if print may be permitted, or Doctor Morton will truly print my book, word by word, in his answer unto it, I shal procure it to be sent written unto him. Wherein( to give an undoubted pattern of a perfect Protestant Professor) I now undertake to prove likewise of al his citations of my writing following, that among them al, there is not one among four, which is free from corruption, falsifying, perverting, or some such abusing. I do not absolutely say that al following without exception be such,( but not one among four to be f●eed) for that were more then monstrous in him, and would otherwise deprive him of his pitiful shifts and practises, to avoid arguments, and abuse other authorities, which his 
Offer of conf.  own bretheren in religion charge him, to haue committed in that his book against me. And now to my promised purpose.   

THE FIRST CHAPTER  
demonstratively proveth, by the present English Protestant Bishops, Doctors, and Writers, that corruption of Scriptures and al Authorities, is so usual among them, that they cannot be believed.  
IF I could produce no other presumption, or argument of wilful corruptions, falsyfications, slanders, and other enormous dealings of that kind, in the published writings of M. Doctor MORTON, Protestant dean of gloucester,( as I ●m informed) then only his Ministerial function and calling it else: yet the late( and present also) Protestant Professors, Do●tors, and chiefest handlers of divinity, of his own profession, ●nd the publicly authorised Examiners and Approuers of their ●rinted books, do testific it to be so usual and general a cu●tome among them, to corrupt, falsyfie, slander, and abuse the ●oly Scriptures, councils, Fathers, and al sacred Authorities, for the countenance of their cause, with the ignorant readers: That ● man may without any rash, precipitate, or uncharitable judge●ent suppose, that neither D. Morton, nor any other in particu●ar among the 
The notorious corruption used by english Protestant writers by their own words.  writers of his degree, and religion in England, ●an be freed from those and such like vnchristian, profane, and ●religious behaviour.  
For a short taste, of which distasteful testimony, of these men ●gainst themselves: The Protestant Bishop of Winchester 
D. Bilson Sur. of Christs suffer. pag. 274. 275. &c. covel de●. of Hooker, pag. 7. 9. Exam. pag. 28. 71. 139. against Burg. pref.& pag. 24. Parks ag. Limb. sect. 18. 21. pag. 181. 166. 101. 100. sect. 10. 11. 20. 7. 12. 15. 16. Ormerod. pict. pure. l. 1. Paganop. pag. 56. Willet Antilog pref. Loydoro. in Tit.& pert●t. burgess Apol. offer. of confer. pag. 8. 9. 13. 14. 22. 18. 25. 28. 29. 30. Relation cap. 32. Sutuey, pag. 7. 160. def. of Minist. reas pag. 33. 3●. 11. 22. Prach. except. 11.  D. Bilson, D. covel, M. parks, M. Ormerod, D. Willet, M. burgess, the Protestant authors of the offer of conference, The relation of religion, survey of the book of common prayer, The defendor of the Ministers reasons, The 22. Preachers of London, with others( too many to be recited) haue published in ●heir writings, printed and applauded, that the English Mini●ters of this kingdom haue so falsely translated, corrupted, in●ignely handled, clipped, abused, untruly alleged, misquoted, ●aimed Scriptures. Fathers, and other Authorities, so perverted the true arguments, deceived the world, belied catholic writers, shifted of obi●ctions, and so abused this present age, and prejudiced posterity, in relation of things,( love and disake so dazzling their eyes) that they cannot be believed. Therefore, the testimony of English Protestant Doctors and writers, being this, of their present writing Ministers, and bretheren in religion, it shal be sufficient to excuse a catholic opposite, to suspect D. Morton a man of that calling, to be infected also, with that their most filthy wickedness of corruptions, falsyfications, and especially if we consider how this adversary of true religion, neither by name, 
etymology of Morton.  age, industry, wisdom, or divinity, excelleth al Protestants, which went before him, neither fools in tune, nomine, or re, and yet chargeth catholics with such doctrine and dealings, as never 
The descanter of the letters P. R. in his Preamble.  any of his profession before him, hath attempted to do. And the Protestant witnesses of such ordinary falsyfications, and abuses among them are so many, so great, and for the most part allowed with public Protestant privilege, to be truly verified of these men.   

THE SECOND CHAPTER.  
How D. MORTON must needs( by his own words) confess himself, either a wilful corrupter, or so grossly ignorant or careless in writing, that he is unworthy any credit.  
ANd I am rather induced to give this sentence, vpon this Doctors corrupt, and falsifying dealings, being animated thereunto, by his own free and voluntary confession of this his vile and abominable proceedings, either through gross and inexcusable ignorance, which a man would not think to find in a person representing his place, or challenging to himself such skill and d●xterity in writing: or wilful and determinate desire he hath to plant errors, conceal and abandon truth, and maliciously condemn himself, to deceive his readers. For in a work entitled the first part of an apology, himself so far 
Mo●t. 1. part. Apol. Part. 2. ●pol. epist. dedicat. Apol. part. 2. in fine in tabul. D. Mort. work of ten years labour, how sincere it was, by his own testimony.  acknowledgeth his own errors in that book,( which as he witnesseth cost him ten yeares study) that in his second part of the same work, published the year following 1606. he spendeth almost five leaves, with breuiates of faults, printed in a very small character, to correct his corruptions, or mistakings,( as he would haue them name) committed in his first book, a child of so great travail by the fathers confession, and not great in quantity. Now whether so many and material things( by his own testimony) are more like to be grossly ignorantly, or maliciously wilfully falsyfied, when they escaped his diligence of ten yeares, and were found after within less then ten moneths, I refer it to be censured( an hard choice for so respect●d a writer) by his best friends and followers: for if myself should sentence vpon him in this case, he hath given me occasion in his own words, to think him so culpable, that I should marvel he should either dare to stand so much, and so often vpon his integrity in writing sincerely, or not to blushy to publish any thing after his so foul and unexcusable( yet privileged) abuse: for that we may easily see him to be in this desperate condition, without further examining his books in particular: the very Titles of his two tables, of his remembered escapes or corruptions, are more then sufficient argument, and registered by himself in these words. Tabula prima ea vitia continet quae in citatione 
Morton part. 2. Apol. sup. in fin.  testimoniorum: secunda quae in testimonijs citat is deprehenduntur. The first Table containeth the faults( or vices) which are found in the citation of the testimonies: The second Table containeth those faults( or vices) which are found in the testim●●ies cited. So that by the authors own acknowledgement, ●either his manner of citing authorities, nor the authorities( or supposed authorities) there cited can be believed; And yet that work( if any will think it worthy reading, as I cannot encourage him to do) wholly or principally consisteth of matters of that kind. If D. Morton will say this was wilful corruption in him; and his bad cause cannot otherwise be maintained, I request no more, my intent is obtained: If he will further shane himself, M. Doctor and M. dean in actu, and Lord Bishop in potentia, and pretend ignorance, negligence, or any such idle and vain pretence, in so serious and important business; it redoundeth to his as great disgrace, and ignominy in the same kind. For no man but void of al shane and conscience, can expect or request to be commended for integrity and sincerity( ●s he often challengeth to himself) who by his own words is convicted of so childish, boy-like, and bankrupt behaviour. Or who( except altogether ridiculou●) can or will hope, that judicious readers, or any( but mad or frantic) will give credit to the writing, assertion, or protestation of such a Protestant, so palpably prostituted either in shameful ignorant, or malicious wilful corruptions, in things of greatest moment, Religion?   

THE THIRD CHAPTER.  
How D. MORTON challenging catholic Priests of disobedience to Protestant Princes, is himself( by his o●ne writing) notoriously culpable for his opinion in that kind.  
THirdly, I may justly suppose, that if this Doctor would or could show sincerity and true dealing in any thing, he would haue made manifestation of it in that work, and his defence where he so vnchantably and untruly( as hath been proved against him long since) accuseth catholics, especially in matters of allegiance, and duty to Princes, for which in apparance he hath proctored so much: and not be of that boldness and so void of either integrity or shane, that he doth not blushy to enter both into the state of desperate disloyalty in himself, but the rather to procure partakers in his wickedness and 
D. Morton his dutiful love to Protestant Princes what it is by his own doctrine.  vndutifulnesse both to queen Elizabeth deceased, and our sovereign living( whom God long and happily preserve) both Protestant Princes and Patrons of his profession, he contemneth and denieth the very public, and known laws, and statute of this kingdom, and in the greatest point of obedience, wherein every one( though of small experience) can tel him how far he is fallen from his promised integrity and sincerity: And al men loving and dutiful to our late queens, and present King, and his posterity, will and must reject and detest him, as undutiful and injurious( I writ too modestly of this man) unto them al. For whereas the catholic author of the Moderate answer to his fond positions had shewed, that both queen Mary and Elizabeth( though formerly disinherited by their Father King Henry the eight) yet were both by the same Prince in public Parliament, restored again to the right of the crown, and so both of them enjoyed it: This sincere Doctor and man of integrity answereth in these words: I haue inquired in the Acts which are extant, and I find three 
Morton in his justification of Protestants, pag. 100.  Acts whereby the a-foresaid daughters( Mary and Elizabeth) were disabled, as namely in Annis ( the yeares) 25. 28. 33. of King Henry his reign: but for establishing of them in the right of succession, I think you cannot show it, except it be in anno nunquam, canone nusquam, in the year never, the canon no where. Hitherto his own words, in his so privileged book, and he calleth it boldness to affirm the contrary. Therefore, least myself should seem too bold, in suddenly presuming to censure this sincere Doctor, so absolute in this matter, I will first desire D. Barlow now Protestant Bishop of lincoln( I hope his equal) to take this boldness vpon him, and to tel D. Morton that he is foully and shamefully too bold, and far from integrity in this great business. This Bishop writing expressly against this vnsincere opinion of M. dean of gloucester, and charging a catholic writer( though manifestly untruly) to be of the same mind, excusing the first disinheriting, and showing the legitimation again of those queens, writeth thus: Princes are men, and Parliaments are assemblies of men, and men 
Barlow answ. to a nameless Cathol. pa. 88.  ( as the Philosopher said to a great King) are changeable creatures: look therefore backward; the same both Prince and Parliament but two yeares before, had ratified the marriage with her Mother for lawful: and invested the off-spring of her body with the succession to the crown. look forwards, but seven yeares 
Statut. An. 35.  after, and the same both head and body, revived the legitimation, repealed the annulling statute, and pronouncing the Lady Elizabeth for his lawful daughter, reduced the crown to her right and interest again. Hitherto the words of this Protestant Bishop, against this Protestant dean, and although he doth not mention queen Mary, because he entreateth only of queen Elizabeth, yet the statute cited by him comprehendeth them both, as I shal now allege boldly, against Doctor Morton, much more bold, then sincere: And for the year which he callet● nunquam. never, I assign the 
Statut. He●●i●. 8. ●●. 35 Regni Westmin. c. 1. collect. of Statu●s printed, An. 1603. titul. crown.  same 35. year of King He●●● the eight, which Bishop Barlow hath also assigned unto him before: for the place, I name Westminster, where the Parliament was kept that year: and for the Canon or Chapter( which his integrity termeth nusquam, I city and tel him it is in the first Chapter; The words of the Abridgement of the statutes lately enough printed, in the year 1603. are these: The crown of England is entailed to the Kings daughter, the Lady Mary, and to the heir●s of her body: and for lack of such issue to the Kings daughter the Lady Elizabeth. The statute at large will more largely show the great insincerity and little integrity of this Protestant Minister. And the regiments of those two queens, so ratified and publicly applauded, will argue too much boldness in this dutiful writer. But perhaps D. Morton would desire to be thought to bear so respective love to his Majesty and his catholic M●ther, queen of Scotland before him, that he wished the crown of England should then haue descended unto his, by the first Parliament illegittimation of those English queens, Mary and Elizabeth, because he seemeth to suppose in his positions that a person illegittimate cannot be made legitimate. And this I should( rather then anything contrary) haue expected of him, which in so much sincerity and integrity, would see me to plead so earnestly for our present Kings, safety and security: although I could never yet read a Protestant Minister, which in sincerity might be thought to desire that any catholic Prince( such as his Majesties Mother lived and died) though neu●r so true inheritor, should possess or ke●pe their crown. But Doctor Morton cleareth his meaning in this matter, and neither respecteth 
D. Morton in justification supr. pag. 101.  the catholic Mother, no● the Protes●ant son our sovereign: for in the same Treatise, fi●st he j●stifiet● Crammer, Ridley, and al other Protestants which j●yned with Lady jane Seymer,( mained to the Lord Gilf●rd Dudley) to advance a Title in her to the crown, absolutely to bar& illegittimate according to his former doctrine, both the Titles of our Queens, Mary and Elizabeth, in England; and for ever to inualidate the lawful and just descent and interest of the daughter of King Henry the seventh, married to ●ing james of Scotland, of whom his Majesty is truly and lineally descended. And expressing his affection in this business, and to show how much this pleader for Princes, loveth and favoureth their true right and possession, speaking of the Protestants rebels against queen Mary of England, who next succeeded King Edward the sixth, and was to suppress( for herself, her sister queen Elizabeth, and the line of his Majesty) the pretended claim of Lady jane, so much approved by this Doctor, he breaketh intemperately into these words: If King Henry ( the 8.) might haue 
Pag. 101. sup.  spoken from the dead, in the day of the succession of queen Mary, he would haue pleaded the cause of the apposites. Those he meaneth, which with him maintained Lady jane for queen: and laboured to frustrate the right of queen Mary, Elizabeth, and our present sovereign King james. And further he particularly 
Morton sup▪  defendeth the letters patents of King Edward the sixth, a child, supposed to give the crown unto the same Lady jane, and utterly disinherit al others, queen Mary, Elizabeth, and the house of King james. Such is the integrity, sincerity, and incorrupt behaviour, of this worthy dean and Doctor, even in that matter, and that b●oke, wherein he so vehemently ouerbreadeth himself, to find any exception against catholic subj●ct●. And besides these, in the same his name justification 
Morton Iustifi. of Protest.  of Protestants, he justifieth for true, so many and monstrous disobedient and rebellious assertions of Caluin, and other Protestants, that this place of brevity permitteth not, and I am ash●med to repeat them. Then what sincere dealing is to be hoped for at this mans hands, so guilty and impudent, to defend those horrible crimes in himself and Protestants, which he so condemneth in others, I leave to censure.   

THE fourth CHAPTER.  
How D. MORTON in particular is censured of English Protestant writers, to haue abused my writings; and discredited himself in his answers unto me, in his b●oke to be examined.  
ANd to come somewhat nearer the vnsincere and corrupt dealing of D. Morton in particular, in that his book( or first part whereof) I am to examine: his own bretheren in 
D. Mortons shifts by Protestant witnesses in his full satisfaction.  religion the Protestant authors, and consenters unto the book entitled, A Christian and modest offer, of a most indifferent conference, entreating of my arguments against D. Morton, give their censure against him in these words: In a late reply unto 
Christian and modest offer pag. 19.  the Papists, the matter is pitifully shifted off. A pitiful thing, that a man so sincere as he valueth himself, and worthy a writer, as he would be esteemed, should thus be sentenced by his own friends. And he is so bold with the whole conference 
Confor. pag. 47.  at Hampton-Court, before the King, and the Kings speech itself, not knowing how to avoid my answer without some other shameful devise, that the same his Protestant consortesin religion tax him again of his pitiful shifting in that business, and thereupon call the credit of the Narration of the Hampton conference,( penned by D. Barlow now Protestant Bishop of lincoln) into question. Their words are these: That which 
Christian and modest offer, pag. 28.  is set forth as the true report of it, deser●eth no credit: the rather considering, that D. Morton hath been allowed to call some part of it into question, even some speeches fathered vpon his majesty. Therefore seing the matter is come to this issue, even by the testimony of Protestants themselves, that either the Bishops, and the rest of the Ministry, assembled at Hampton, haue a licence by their religion to say and unsay, in such things, or Bishop Barlow is a false reporter, or these Protestants charging M. Morton be wicked slanderers( let them take among them) this dean of gloucester, of whom I entreat is culpable of that, whereof he is accused.  
And now I haue proved my purpose, and his wickedness by his own fellowes in profession, I may more confidently suppose, that which an other not inferior to these men in virtuous learning, hath written of him in the same business, and is virtually granted to be true by D. Morton himself. For better justifying whereof, this Protestant dean writing of the like business, whereof we now entreat, concerning corruptions, false allegations, and such, in the same book( for which I now challenge him of these proceedings) citeth and setteth down a law, for trial of such things, in these words: He that excepteth in some, doth yield to the rest. 
Morton reply, pag. 49.  Yet when a catholic adversary had charged him, of so many and notorious corruptions, falsyfications, as are not 
Mitigat. p. 102.  easily to be recompted, this sincere Doctor doth only except against 14. or thereabouts, as appeareth from the 88. page. 
Morton Preamb. pag. 88.  of his Preamble, to the end thereof, and although he is far from excusing himself in those, yet he mentioneth none 
D. Mort. foiled by the Moderate answerer, by his owns law, &c.  wherewith I shal hereafter accuse him, neither speaketh any thing to free his book from such vile corruptions, as he is accused and consequently( by his own law before) condemned off, in general terms by the author of the Mitigation, concerning his satisfying of my answer. Some whereof do follow in this manner: This replier( D. Morton) is so far 
Mitigat. supped.  from performing his promise, of a full satisfaction, and that he hath scarce satisfied fully or meanly, one argument or authority alleged by his adversary. To this accusation this Doctor taketh no exception at al, but by his former law confesseth himself g●ilty. But this shal not be al, whereof he is convicted: for he is accused further, in these words, and by his own law also thereof condemned. This Minister T. M. in his reply 
Mitigat. pag. 113. 114.  doth use al the arte possible, to dissemble the same, telling a piece of his aduersaries allegations in one place, and another piece in an other, altering al order both of chapters, matter, and method, set down by the answerer, so as never Hare when shee would sit, did use more turnings and windings, for covering herself( which the reader may observe, even by the places themselves quoted by him out of his aduersaries book:) yet are his answers such, where he doth answer,( for to sundry points he saith nothing at al) as do easily show, that in substance he confesseth al, and cannot deny what is objected. Al this Doctor Morton taketh quietly, being truly affirmed of him, and himself by his own law and judgement( as before) justly so to be reprehended. And he disgesteth in an other place, with as great contentment, this which followeth. To the point itself of his 
Mitigat. pag. 92. 9●.  reply, which he calleth A full satisfaction: it seemeth to me, as full pipes and hogsheads are wont to be here in these Countries, at the time of Vintage, when they are full, only of wind and air, and nothing else: so you shal see afterwards, that his reply is full of words, without substance, of flourish without truth, of fraud without real dealing: for that lightly he scarcely allegeth any text of his aduersaries writing, without some sort of sophistication, both of words and sense, or other like knacks. And further so distracteth and dismembreth his aduersaries thread of speech, citing one branch of it in one part of his reply, an other in another, one sentence first, that should haue been last, and an other last, that should haue been first, thereby to confounded the readers memory: one period half divided, the other quartered, the third left out, the fourth disguised: So that it is evident, that he sought rather to fly, to cover, shadow, and hid himself, then really and substantially to come to the combat. When we come to the substance, we find that neither he allegeth his aduersaries speech sincerely, nor answereth truly to the sense, but either dissembleth the same or runneth aside, or confirmeth his aduersaries argument by his feeble answers. Hitherto the sentence and judgement against D. Morton: to which he pleadeth nothing, nor excepteth against it, but( by his own law and position) acknowledgeth he is a man justly condemned of these enormous crimes objected. Which al readers, which will not grossly voluntarily be seduced and dwell in error, shal aclowledge also by those so many particulars, jointly without intermission which I shal demonstrate against him.   

THE FIFT CHAPTER.  
Freeing the author of any one such corrupting or wicked abuse in writing.  
NExt unto these, and before I enter into the particular corruptions, and abuses of this Doctor, in his firnamed full satisfaction; because I will not accuse an other, of that whereof myself should be culpable, I will examine whether he doth, or can( for if he could I doubt not of the good will and desire of so loving a friend) charge me of any such dealing, as is proved against him in this examination. First, in his Preamble being 
Morton Preamb. pag. 50. 62.  charged by a catholic adversary to challenge( if he could) any one catholic writer of this wickedness objected against him, though I was then fresh in his memory, and next at his elbow for the books written between us, yet he leaveth me quiter out, as freed from al such accusation. Yet in the Preface 
Morton Pref. Reply.  of his reply he affirmeth that I scarce examine one of twenty of the testimonies which he bringeth: a foul fault, if it were true, and as great a sin and slander in D. Morton, if it be false, as al men that ever did or shal read his positions and my answer, will presently pronounce it is. For in his book of positions 
Mort. positions hath about 90. citat.  there be not one hundred of testimonies alleged: Then I haue not examined five, or else the whetstone belongeth to D. Morton. Which he will quietly take unto him, because I was so careful and diligent to examine his authorities, that himself forgetting himself, what he had uttered in this place, in the 76. page. of the same book maketh a wonder both in 
Reply pag. 76.  words, and blank space, for a sign, and in these words; ( what nothing? not one word in behalf of Pope Sixtus?) when I passed over to make answer to a supposed oration of Sixtus Quintus, for which he bringeth no one author, as is evident in his positions. Therefore, it is not one in twenty testimonies, 
Rom. posit. pag. 28. 29.  which I only examined: but it is odds twenty to one, that D. Morton is a corrupt, false, and consciencelesse writer. again, in an other place of this his reply, he chargeth me only 
Reply pag. 5.  to answer Panormitane, when he alleged other authors, and that I had written three untruths: which hereaf●er I must put to the number of his corruptions: for the untruths with which he chargeth me, are his own false corruptions of my writing, as I prove against him at large in their place to be examined, 
Cap. 11. infr.  and answer the other au●hours also cited with Panormitane, as will and doth appear in the place following, and my first answer also in the 5. Chapter thereof. And these be al 
Moderat. answ. cap. 5. §. Let us hear.  the quarrels I find him to advance against me in this kind of contention: whereof having freed myself and proved them particulars of D. Mortons corruptions and falsyfications. I will proceed to my examination of his dealings as I haue promised before: thinking it is a new corruption in himself, if in 
Morton Preamb. cap. of his stage.  general he speaketh, as though I falsyfied, when he bringeth no reason of such conjecture, nor further in particular accuseth me.   

THE sixth CHAPTER.  
Of D. MORTONS corrupt dealing; in that, not making any mention at al of more then the fift part of the Moderate answer: yet in●●tuleth his book, A full satisfaction.  
NOw M. Doctor Morton, with al your Protestant helps, fraudes, and friends, defend( if you can) your reply, called by you, A full satisfaction: for I am so far from accepting it, for a full satisfaction to my answer, that I say it is no satisfaction at al, in any true moral judgement: But my answer and arguments stand stil to this day, by you unsatisfied. And that your surnamed, A full satisfaction, concerning my answer is rather a full foolery, forgery, or soil to you the author, or a fool●sh satisfaction( one more, or al if you please:) which I will presently prove.  
And first concerning the Title of your book, ( A full satisfaction:) In the very first page. and inscription thereof, it being 
Mortons reply in titul.  by you divided into three partes: you say( to use your own words) The two former belong to the reply vpon the Moderate answerer: Then I demand of you, M. Doctor Satisfier, whether to satisfy an argument, reason, book, author, adversary, or opponent, is not( at the least) to show some insufficiency, inualidity, or defect in it, or in any wise to say somewhat unto them: otherwise they remain both unanswered, and unsatisfied, as also untouched and vunamed, even as they did before: And a full satisfaction must consequently, fully, and to al purposes, satisfy: And ridiculous it were, so to be name, if it performed no such thing, otherwise it can not be a full, but no satisfaction: things, for al that, remaining as they did before, and wholly and fully unsatisfied.  
Then M. Doctor, that book of mine which you say is fully satisfied, consisted of four partes: first Apologetical epistic 
Moderate ans. epist. dedic. c. 1.  to his Majesty, for the defence of catholics: secondly, a general censure of your positions in the first chapter, truly entitled( as it did perform:) A general censure of this slander ous 
Cap. 2. 3. 4. 5.& Conclus.  pamphlet: proving that no one argument therein, can conclude the authors intent. The third a particular answer to your reasons; the fourth a very long defensive conclusion: when I had confuted your then by me condemned( and since by greater and 
Apolog, for the oath. D. Barlow against a name. Cathol. B. Androwes. Doct. Field, &c.  more worthy Protestants then yourself) invective arguments. In your( so called) full satisfaction, you haue not so much as made any mention at al, of any but the third part, excepting that in your 
Mort. reply epist. dedicat.  Epistle dedicatory, you do hystorically only, and impertinently relate six or seven lines, from one of the other: so that three parts in your reply satisfactory( as pleaseth you) be not so much as name, or any one thing in them either satisfied or spoken off: And how the other third part is satisfied, and how fully, you haue heard to your shane already, and by your own law& silence granted it: and you shal haue sufficient satisfaction hereafter that it is so, whether we haue your consent or no. And although, that third part which among four you haue chosen to answer, and said somewhat unto, is the greatest of al, yet the other being of such consequence for catholics, as I haue shewed( and will more hereafter appear) and utterly condemning your position, it was neither full satisfying dealing, sincerity or integ●ity,( the coat which you would give) wholly and fully to omit them. But as I said before, you haue not so much as spoken of the fift part of my book in your denominated full satisfaction, which I thus demonstrate. There be in that my answer( thus careful I haue been to give you satisfaction) thirty leaves, cuery leaf containing threescore& sixteen lines, except it be interrupted by a small space, for the beginning of chapters or such li●e, not frequent in that work, containing only eleven chap●ers, besides the Conclusion and Epistle dedicatory: so that the number of the lines amount unto, about or above 2000. And you( M. Doctor) make show unto your reader as though you do& would city my very words, and wholly. And yet of these 2000. lines( or more) he doth not so much as mention 400. in his whole book, called a full satisfaction. So that by his own account he hath not either satisfied fully, or once spoken off, more then the fift part of my book.  
And that he may know I deal friendly, and plain●l● with him( seeking his amendment) I haue taken pains to help him, and direct the reader( otherwise not worth labour) particularly to gather the number of the lines, which he hath cited and where( not exceeding mine in greatness and number of letters) to make a perfect proof or disproof of A full satisfaction,( if his reply were fully satisfactory:) which I recount in this order. In his Epistle dedicatory he reciteth six or seven lines, In defence of his first reason and chiefest( which I examine) 83. lines. in the 2. reason 47. in the third 26. in the fourth 40. in the fift 8. or 9. in the sixth 47. in the seventh 13. in the eight 11. in the ninth 26. in the tenth 10. Then to delude his reader he deviseth an other part of his book, out of al order, by his own first writing, calling it justification of Protestants:( wherein what vile disloyalties be defended by this accuser of catholics, I leave to others) And in that he citeth about one hundred. Al which collected together( and be al he vouchsafeth to acquaint the world with from my book, by such men and their means suppressed) do not make 400. not the fift of my book as is evident before. Then no satisfaction, much less a full satisfaction. But it is my answer, and not his reply, which hath fully satisfied, and stil remaineth by him unsatisfied, even by his own judgement; except one is more then four, or four fewer then one: though his counter-coine( as I shal shortly demonstrate it to be) might pass for true payment and satisfaction. And if M. Doctor could give denial unto this, or with any face before, haue wished me to haue written against his name full satisfaction, he might now do well( I request him, having command of print, unto it) to cause to be printed, word by word, without any addition, detraction, or alteration at al,( as they were published first by him, and me) his positions; my answer unto them: and his called full satisfaction, only so much as concerneth my book. And let the world judge, who hath given best satisfaction; I wish and desire him to accept, this disadvantage( if he dealeth sincerely) unto myself.   

THE seventh CHAPTER.  
How D. MORTON concealeth without any mention at al, both the oath of allegiance to Prince, and love to al Protestant subiects, as if they were of our own religion, and as far as the law of God, nature, and would together with a disputation, offered for catholics: and proving them innocent.  
ANd M. Doctor, that it may be manifest, I do not charge you for concealing and passing over, either without satisfaction or any memory at al, things of small moment but of greatest consequence, and fully satisfying( because it is your phrase) al indifferent mindes, both of the sincere and loyal affection to superiors, and holy Doctrine in catholics, and falsely suggested crimination of you, against them: I beseech you to remember that your positions were grounded vpon supposed doctrine, and practise of catholics denial, of dutiful allegiance to Prince, and yielding communications of human and civil respects, to Protestant subjects in their degree. And if we grant al these, then al your positions, reply, defence of them, and your baptized full satisfaction be out of date. And if you knew it in your own conscience, and by testimony of your own Protestants, and my writing, and yet you concealed it from the world; as though I had never written to such purpose, and you by that means persevered in your former calumniations,( as you did in your reply) we are to be pronounced innocent: and yourself proved to be such a man, as I do entitle you. And that we were thus innocent, and you thus guilty, even in your own knowledge, thus I presume against you; first in that, you know no catholic teacheth that equivocation 
No catholic can equivocate in any point of religion, by any catholic opinion.  or concealed meaning, may be used in matter of faith and religion, such as express dogmatical principles( your first and again urged positions in your judgement) are to be esteemed. And to hold otherwise was the heretical excuse and practise of your Cranmer, as I proved against you from your friend 
Moder. answ. c. equiu.  and father Fox. Then much less may any catholic dissemble, or equiu●cate, in oath in such business, which you well knew, by the lamentable losses and extremities, of those of our religion, about the oath of Supremacy in late daies, and later how prepared many were in this time of his Majesty in a case not so clear, then in some judgements to suffer the like, had not his gracious Clemency and most honourable council, more pitied our distresses, then you and such Teachers of divinity had persuaded. Then harken unto your own confession, concerning doctrine: your own words unto me, are these: 
Mortons reply pag. 23.  If al your sect would allow your answer, we should need no clamours. And thus again: But to conclude with your own words, 
page. 14.  those duties are not to be denied unto Protestants. It were well, if either you writ, as you thought, or that your Doctors did think, as you writ: and so should we haue less cause of scruples to fear, either you or them. Good M. Doctor hitherto your words, and I pray remember, it is a matter of religion, by your own confession, wherein you know, I speak as I think, and think as I speak, and that what I writ hath been thought likewise by other our Doctors, even from Rome itself, as your Preamble 
Mitigat. Preamble.  telleth me. The like you haue heard often times from your own brethren in print of late both Doctors with you, and Bishops above you. Wherefore, good D. Thomas, be not you alone incredulous, but beleeue me. At the least I hope you will be persuaded if you had known, we would haue sworn as I taught and writ. Then harken again what you knew and concealed in my writing, without full satisfaction: In that dedicatory Epistle which you wholly concealed, I offered, and by warrant for al English catholics in these words: We will s●eare, 
Moderat. answ. epist. dedicat. An oath of fidelity,& duty to King, and al Protestant subjects, offered by catholics and concealed by D. Morton.  protest, promise, and perform to your majesty, whatsoever loyalty, obedience, and duty, is due from a subject to his temporal Prince, by the word of God, law of nature, or hath been used by the subiects of this kingdom, to any your Pr●genitors Christian, from the first to the last: aclowledge and render to your honourable counsel, and al Magistrates in civil causes, so much honour, reverence, and submission: And to al other Protestant subiects, like amity, and neighbourly affection, as if they were of the same religion, which we profess. Hitherto the oath of allegiance which I offered with allowance: and it containeth the plain contradictory to that which he laboured to prove against us: and the same doctrine affirmative, which he accepted before for sufficient, to stop his and such mens fears, clamours, and scruples. And promiseth as much, as the law of God, of nature, and the law of duty in England allow, to Prince, and al kind of Protestant subjects: and as much as to those of our own religion, in those combinations, which he slandered us, to deny to al Protestants. In general he could not, neither doth wish for more: And that we might haue agreed in the particulars without such hiss, and like exploded clamours, we offered even in that time of Parliament, convocation, and assembly of their best learned, a conference and disputation to our own great inequality, and al Protestants full satisfaction, If any thing will satisfy, but those things, which without sin can neither be granted of us, or desired of them: and such as must needs haue accorded this contention, as I shal declare hereafter in this Chapter.  
What man then, of such sincere integrity, as this Doctor is, by his own writing, and himself commended, would haue dissembled and concealed offers, and conditions so ample, general, so confidently made, and( himself confessing it) stoping al clamours, and quieting contention in so great business? who would not shane to persever in that, which he knoweth a wrong? if my doctrine was so satisfactory, why was my poor person so persecuted, and extraordinarily preached for? my books so pleasing, and full of contentment, why were they suppressed? why were such proceedings( as stil are) urged against us al by the Protestant Clergy? why did such spirits as this, so unnaturally incense the Parliament against us, that the Protestant Prelates made res●stance, as Protestants themselves haue published. The words of the Protestant authors, of A Christian and modest offer, in that respect, are these. Resistance was made to the laws intended 
Christian and modest offer, pag. 15.  to haue been made against the Papists, especially by some and those not the meanest of the Prelates. Whereby M. Morton may see diuers things, in his own judgement against himself: first, that catholic Priests neither deserve their clamours, nor persecutions: secondly, how unjustly he hath behaved himself, as well in concealing from his readers, that which excuseth them for innocent, as in so passionate invectives against them, whom he thus esteemeth and findeth guiltless: thirdly, how religiously and charitably his fellowes in profession urged such laws and proceedings against us, and many( by his own confession unjustly) and stil prosecute, which some of their own Protetestant Prelates are ashamed off, made resistance against.  
And because M. Morton is a great man, and Doctor in his religion, let me further confer with him in this matter of so great moment: Sir, your calling doth or should understand, that although there is not evidence in faith, yet for the revelation from God, in which it is founded, it is called( and so is) the greatest certainty, then men which may not Mortonize, and haue no certainty of faith, cannot easily be removed in judgement in such things: and to seek the contrary by compulsion, without instruction, is but tyranny, as( if you were present) you heard preached before the King, by the then Bishop 
Bish. of Durh. Sermon. 19. of March, 1603.  of Durham, the 19. day of March in the year 1603. or if you were absent, I doubt not but you haue heard, or red, his Majesties speech in Parliament, the same day, where he citeth and 
kings speech in Parliament, 1603.  commendeth the same sentence: his regal words are these: For as you my Lord of Durham, said very learnedly to day in your sermon, correction without instruction is but tyranny. And a little before he persuadeth us thus: to be studious to read and confer with learned men: by which he meaneth the learned Protestants.  
Then M. Doctor, I suppose you haue seen it lately proved, 
Protest. proofs cap. 6. 8.  forth of your own bretheren of England, which haue written since his Majesties entrance, and yourself for one, that you Protestants in England haue not yet resolved anything in matters of faith, which is infallibly certain,( as faith must be) neither by your proceedings haue you any such rule in religion, to resolve it by, or to bind others to receive it, as D. Field writeth, 
Field pag. 226. 228.  and yourself is not of other mind, when you know that matters of question in religion( where agreement cannot be had) are to be de●ided by the highest judge; otherwise appeals may stil be, and no end of controversies: And yet you 
Morton part. 2. Apolog. Epist. dedicat. in Argument. l. 4.& cap. 18. l. 4.  writ of the King, that he is not. Supremus judex, the highest judge, But Concilium publicum, a general Council; ●here among your 9. conditions, you find no place for him, a●d yet you say, quivis docti Theol●gi v●ces decisinas habent: al learned divines haue deciding voices in it. And your Relator of religion 
Relat. of relic. cap. 47.  putteth you out of hope. But to follow your doctrine: then before catholics can be condemned, you must haue some such invincible and highest argument against them. And if quivis docti Theologi, al learned divines haue, or must haue v●ices, in this decision; I trust neither you nor any Protestant is of mind, but some catholic D●uines( even of England) in al this your time of Protestancy, are in this number, and must be acquainted with such proceedings, and present at them by your j●dgement. And to prove, that the Priests of England haue not been unwilling, with a l●sse trial, then yourself only approve for juridical; And you knew this▪ and yet both concealed it, and against your own doctrine, so inj●riously proceeded: hark M. Doctor, what I first wrote in this matter, and you remembered it not: my words in the Epistle of my answer be these: We haue of●en, earnestly, and by al means we could, desired to 
Moderat. answ. Epi●t. dedicat. §. this is.  haue a trial granted, with equal conditions, against the most selected and best learned Doctors of that( Protestant) religion. If you thinks not this plain dealing in our behalf, then let me take witness of your own Protestants, the authors of the cited offer of conference, which after offer made with equal conditions, conclude for us in these words. There is such indifferency 
Offer of confer. pag. 3. 4. 5. 6. pag. 11.  in this offer, and it standeth vpon so iu●t and equal grounds, that it ought not to be refused of any Christians, no though made by Iewes, Turkes, Arrians, Papists, or any other heretics, whatsoever. Then M. Doctor if disputation is so necessary, without our c●nuiction in it, w● cannot by your own sentence be condemned, and by your Protestants j●dgement it ought not to be refused vpon equal grounds: how much less ought an offer vpon unequal grounds for Papists, made to a whole Parliament, and convocation of Protestant Doctors, and to their great advantage, be either denied or so concealed, as your 
The offer of disputation made for catholics in the time of the last Parliament, concealed by D. Morton.  learned sincerity hath done: And yet injuriously consented unto, and incensed persecution against vs. Wherefore harken to the offer I made, and you concealed: it followeth immediately in my answer to the words last cited; And is word for word as here ensueth.  
And at this present, when your chiefest Protestant clergy 
Moderat. answ. Epist. dedicat. §. And at.  ( Bishops and others) is assembled, we most humbly entreat, this so reasonable a Placet, that although they will not( as we fear) easily consent to an indifferent choice, opp●sition and defence in questions: yet, at the least( to avoid the wonder of the world) they ●il be content, that we may haue public audience for those articles, opinions, and practise, for which we are so much condemned and persecuted. If we shal not be able to defend or prove, any position generally maintained in our doctrine, to be conformable to those rules in divinity, which your majesty and the Protestant la●es of England( we can offer no more) haue confirmed for holy the caconical Scriptures, the first general councils, the daies of Constantine, and the primitive Church: Let the penalties be imposed and executed against vs. If we perform it, or this Petition may not be admitted, we trust that both our office to God, and duty to Prince, is discharged in this point. Hitherto the words of that offer in my Epistle dedicatory, and by my adversary D. Morton omitted, without any mention at al.  
Wherefore as we may see both the integrity and valour of this great champion, by hiding his head for such a combat; So I trust al men of judgement will make construction with this equity, that they which offered so public a trial, and at such a time of convocation and Parliament, and the greatest assembly of Protestant Bishops and Doctors, and to them al, by their own grounds, and for those articles, opinions, and practise, for which we are so much condemned and persecuted, are in al moral and probable sentence, men innocent, and unjustly accused by such Positioners. And I hope Master Doctor, that you will not hereafter, nor did not truly and with discretion say, that myself which made this offer, and was assigned to be one of the three catholic disputants to perform it, against you al( for as some of your side gave hope of disputation, so we did not muster multitudes against you) and remained in London to my great hazard among your searches for me, either feared scratching or biting of you, or your best biting dogges.   

THE EIGHT CHAPTER OR ACT.  
Wherein D. MORTON is convinced further, to haue omitted a whole Chapter of the Moderate answer, in which manifest demonstration was made, that no one of al his arguments could conclude his intent and promise.  
ENter again M. Doctor, and excuse yourself if you can, why the very first Chapter of my answer being entitled, ( A general censure of this slanderous pamphlet: proving, that no one argument therein can conclude the authors intent) is quiter omitted, without any memory at al, in that your styled full satisfaction. Sir tel me; was this integrity? was it sincere dealing, whereupon you stand so much? was I so idle a disputer, to give so glorious a name to a Treatise, and prove nothing in it? I doubt not, but the world thinketh your memory, or your friends would haue put you in mind of such an advantage, to haue cried a victory, if my mistaking had been so great. But whether I proved so much or no; yet seing, I contented therein( as the Title testifieth) to stop your course at the first entrance, by overthrowing that foundation, whereupon you had hazarded al; and in denying those to be dogmatical principles with us, which you styled for such, and deduced conclusions from them( in your mind or words) infallible, you should haue said some-what against me: and in omitting it, you both grant your error, and this notwithstanding persisting in your slanders, detect your malice.  
But you knew well, and could not but know, that( according 
Moderate a●swere, cap. 1.  to the Title of that Chapter) I proved so much by diuers reasons, as is manifest in that place of my answer, which for brevity, and to avoid repetitions, I must pass over at this time, and leave them to the reader to be considered in the place remembered, and urge against you, but one only argument there insinuated: and yet d●monstratiuely prove the Title of that Chapter, and utterly overthrow both D. Mortons whole book of positions, and his conceited Satisfaction ●n defence thereof.§. Then M. Doctor, thus I must pu● you in mind, that your firs● book is entitled, An exact discovery of Romish doctrine, 
D. Mortons R●mish po●●tions in titul.  in the case of conspiracy and rebellion. By ●hich we are given to understand, that in your judgement this your work is perfect and absolute in this kind, otherwise the names Disc●uery and Exact cannot be truly app●ied unto it, so that what you haue done in this business was such, that additions and amplifications need not to be annexed unto it: And therefore ●ou add in these words: that it is coll●cted out of the express d●gmatical 
Supr. in titul.  principles of Popish Priests and Doctors. And hereupon in your ten pa●ticular syllogisms, you propose these general propositions. But al Popish Priests do hold and practise this, and that: ergo. al Popish Priests, &c. is that which you would conclude: 
Romish posit. reas. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. &c.  as appeareth by your general conclusions in those your positions. Now learned M. Doctor, men under your degree and every young Sch●ller doth know, that in al Arts and Sciences, those be Principles, w●i●h be so clear, and generally granted of al, that it is so absurd a t●i●g for a man ●o den● them, that the Philosopher telleth us▪ Contran●ga●tem principia non est disputa●dum, there i● no disputing against him ●hich denieth the principles: but he is to be beaten ●ith clubs, and not urged by reason. Much more, ●● they be so manifest, to be such principles, that they deserve by the c●mmon knowledge, which is had of them, to be called either express principles, or dogmatical principles; for by such epithers, or names, they are denounced to be plainly expressed, declared, and sentenced to be such. And yet for failing, you join altogether, and say they be the express, d●gmatical principles, of Popish Priests and Doctors. And so they had need, which infer your general positions or conclusions, al Priests and al Popish Priests, &c.  
Now most sincere and learned disputer, I affirm against you( and will presently so demonstrate) that in your whole book you do not prove one position, which you bring to be a principle, much less an express dogmatical principle. Then your ten several general conclusions must be deduced from no principle at al( a thing in true reasoning and concluding unpossible) or else your whole book and defen●e thereof is a forgery, a shameless lye, foolish fiction, more then satis, and no full satisfaction.  
And that I do not fully satisfy herein, after your manner I 
D. Mortons p●sitions proved slanders, by great Protestant●, and him self al●o.  cou●d bring greater Protestant witness, and you yourself for testimony also in this b●sinesse: for first you know well( though 
Rom. posit. in Prefat.  you say you writ by direction, or not without direction of superiors) that in the Protestant book called 
Apol. pag. 52. pag. 28 pag. 77. pag. 4. pa. 8.  Apology, published authoritate Regia, the quiter contradictory to your slanderous conclusions( I hope with as great warrant as you had) is contained in many places on the behalf of catholics, Priests, and the● religion, and much more then is required to your consutation: where you are expressly  told, that you and men of your opinion( if any more can be found) are slanderers. The like you may learn from other books of that kind since, both by 
Bish. Ba●low. B. Androw●, &c  Bishops among you, and of higher place. And before them or their question handled from D. Field, in his Adjections to his 
Field l. 3. pag. 21. 22. 23. cap. 17.  third book of the Church. And although these were written since your golden works of Positions and Satisfaction: yet you cannot excuse yourself, knowing that your opinion was den●unced an error by his Majesties public pr●clamation, before 
Procl●m. against the late conspi●acy.  it was written: therefore except you haue a supercathedrical command, as well over the proclamations and edict of Princes, as you haue challenged before over their p●rsons and Enthronings, you might haue suppressed your spirit.  
Secondly, M. Doctor ●ourselfe hath condemned yourself, in those vile and slanderous assertions: for as before you haue freed al of my opinion in my answer▪ so confirmed as before. again, in your 
Rom. posit. p●g. ●1.  positions themselves you except many Priests, and yet in the 
Rom. posit. ●at. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. &c.  same you conclude with open mouth ●ften times, Al Priests are Traitors. And in your P●eamble since, you writ thus again: Diuers of the zealous among us 
Preamble, pag. 36.& in merg.  Romish Professors do abhor such doctrines and practises, as your positions charge al Priests withal.  
And now thirdly, M. Doctor, thus I dispute against your 
D. Morton his dogmatical principles demon●tratiuely overthrown.  express dogmatical principles, as you call them: you make your first syllogism the ground of al your book; And yet in that you 
Morton positions, pag. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.  city( and about diuers matters) only these authorities; Andreas Iurgiwicius, M. Reinalds, D. Gifford, Possiuinus a Iesuite, Cardinal Allen, Father Parsons, M. Thomas Wright, Simancha, Lod●uicus de orleans, lib. de Abdicat. Henr. 3. Polydore, and three Glosses from Gratian: and not any other, and these be cited for diuers and distinct things: Then M. Morton, where is the express dogmatical principle, whereupon not only your ergo and conclusion of that syllogism, but your whole Treatise is founded? for here neither is express, nor impress principle, dogma or dogmatical, as you haue promised us; except private men of diuers questions, can give this Title, which you dare not for further shane affirm.  
Fourthly, tel me M. Doctor, in what page., line, or chapter of your book, do you once prove, that any one authority you use is defined, decreed, or received as a matter of faith, dogmatical principle, expressly or impresly; I haue perused your book, yet I find no such probation, then it is not your denomination extrinsical, or intituling your book, which can make express dogmatical principles, and so many as you need in that Treatise, for ten general conclusions.§.  
Fiftly, M. Doctor, suppose he should be( according to Doctor Fields opinion of them of Paris) a Sorbonist or Parisian 
D. Field Adject. to hi● 3. book pag. 21.  divine( though I am not) which disputeth against you;( for many hundred such be learned Priests or Doctors) Then tel me, what one authority in al your book there is, which hath the least colour to be called an express dogmatical principle? There be in your book about 90. authorities cited, among which there is neither general council, nor provincial council, confirmed, or not confirmed, alleged but only private writers, the authorities of some matters of fact, of not above five or six Popes at the most, Gregory VII. Gregory IX. pus V. Zistu● V. never urged as definitions or matters of faith; And yet among these the chiefest cited by you as from Gregory IX. is counterfeit or mistaken at the least by your own confession, in your reply. And of al the rest you 
Mortons reply pag. 48. 49.  labour not to prove any one to be a dogmatical principle, in that common catholic opinion which holdeth that the definition of a Pope in matter of doctrine is a declaration of faith. Then if you are so far wide, that in your whole discourse of ten several conclusions, to be deduced from express dogmatical principles, as you promised, there is not by the probable opinion of any divines, any one such principle: how much more haue you gone astray by the sentence of these catholic Doctors, Gerson, almain, Occhum, Adrianus sextus, Durandus, Alphonsus a Castro and most of the Sorbonists, learned Doctors and Priests of the Roman Church? which would take exception to this writing, in more ●ample manner, as your friend D. Field hath witnessed. Then in what state 
Field supr.  of credit and reputation are those poor ten naked conclusions, standing alone vpon the word of so recalling, recanting, and contradictory Doctors. Alas, alas, to you poor conclusions; for your Master Morton learned in Cambridge long ago, when he was but a fresh man( scarcely salted and well seasoned with good sincere dealing yet) and studied jack Seatons( so called there) logic, that Conclusio semper sequitur debiliorem partem: The conclusion always followeth the weaker part; in negation, particularity, falsehood, &c. For being deduced and drawn from( and in a manner through) both the premises, it must needs participate of the defect which is in any of them, such worthinesse and security we find in these Oracles of D. Morton.   

THE NINTH CHAPTER.  
Of D. MORTONS corruption, and fals●fication of his aduersaries writing, in particular: wherein is begun to be proved in order( as before is promised) that in every citation without exception, he corrupteth, or falsyfieth his answerer: so far as is examined.  
THus I haue hitherto made evident demonstration in general, so far as is necessary for me to examine without entering into the quarrel of others( which I need not to do) that D. Morton his books of Romish positions and full satisfaction, are in al probable and reasonable j●dgement( even of Protestants themselves) a mere slander▪ forgery, or corruption of a wicked irreligious, or unlearned writer, utterly unworthy hereafter either to be believed by Protestant, or confuted by catholic.  
Now I will make this matter more plain in particular, and yet follow so friendly a course also in this combat, that I intend only to take the shavings of his Roman adversary, and not burden D. Morton with any thing, he chargeth him with al, nor to take so large a scope, as to examine his whole books, or any great part of any one of them, to reckon his corruptions and unconscionable dealings, which would make a volume too large, of so base a business, as a Protestant Doctors falshoods, and too distasteful to so chief a champion, and learned Doctor.  
Therefore I haue determined( as I said before) only to ex●mine the first portion, of his full satisfaction, or reply unto m answer, in the first syllogism of his positions, and no further: And this also with such restriction and moderation, to my own loss, and my aduersaries advantage( if by any possible means he could clear himself) that I will pass over al other his citations and authorities, not so easy for every reader to consider and discuss, and touch only his false allegations, corruptions, and alterations, of my answer, in one only chapter of my book: And yet I am bold to pronounce D. Morton( which I will presently prove to his shane and confusion) to be a wilful, dissolute, false alleager, corrupter, and deprauer: or else a man grossly ignorant, unlearned, and forgetful in so high degree, that he is utterly unworthy to writ of divine matters, to be credited in his Assertions, or to receive any further answer hereafter.  
For proof whereof, in his reply to my second chapter mentioned before( for the first as I haue declared, he never mentioneth) thus he behaveth himself: There be in that chapter 255. lines, and he proposing this to be his method, to city my writing, word for word, as he would persuade his reader, by the manner of his proceedings, maketh but 83. lines by his citation, and yet they do not exceed in number of characters, those which be in my answer, both this and his reply being printed in quarto, and yet sometimes he citeth one thing twice, as the first and sixth chapter of his book do witness in this question: 
Reply cap. 1. 6. pag. 1. 14.  So that before I complain further, first he hath not cited or handled the third part of my answer, to that his Reason or syllogism.  
Secondly, citing my answer in this chapter in 14 several citations, he citeth not any one of them al without corruption, or falsyfication, more or less, which will fully satisfy, that his surnamed full satisfaction is, as I haue termed it, and himself that man which I haue promised to prove him. And this I demonstrate by induction and particular conviction of every one of these his citations, diuers containing many corruptions.  
And thus I proceed in examining his first citation, in the first chapter of his reply: At the first beginning he misquote●h the 
Reply pag. 1.  place of my answer, citing the second section where there is no such thing, as he citeth of the consequence. Secondly, he quiter dissembleth the question, which was between him and me set down in his positions, and so recited in my answer, in 
Romish posit. pag. 1. Moderat. answer cap. 2. §. I will.  these words: Their general assumption whereupon al their rebellious positions are founded, is this, that al Protestants are heretics, and excommunicate. And to declare of what kind of heretics and excommunicate, lye disputed, thus he interpreteth himself, in the next words, heretics so odious as vn●orthy 
R●mish posit. 1. Rea●.  of any civil or natural society: And of such heretics was our question. Now in this place of his reply, he changeth the controversy, and citeth me disputing only against this naked proposition, Al Protestants in the censure of catholics are 
Reply supr. pag. 1.  heretics, and excommunicate. Absolutely concealing, of what heretics, denounced or not denounced, as also of what excommunication we entreated. And not content with this, he maketh no answer at al to my confutation of that, which he made the ground of al, and so at his first entrance his positions and express dogmatical principles be overthrown.  
In his reply to my second citation, he allegeth me using these words: No Papist doth judge any Protestant an heretic 
Reply pag. 2. §. what is.  or excommunicate. Where we see he hath changed the nature of the question again, from a conjunctiue proposition ( Protestants are heretics and excommunicate) which himself useth before, and to which, and no other I answered, into a disjunctive proposition ( heretic or excommunicate:) between which there is so great difference, that the first is not true, except both parts be true, the second is true, if one part only be such: as appeareth in these propositions: Thomas Morton is a Protestant Doctor, and a corrupt writer: Thomas Morton is a Protestant Doctor, or a corrupt writer. The latter proposition being a disjunctive is true, if M. Morton were free from corruption in writing, because he is known to be a Protestant Doctor, and the disjunctive proposition did not affirm both, but the one, or other. The first proposition conjunctiue and copalatiue affirming both, the one and the other, is not true, except both parts, that is, that Thomas Morton is a Protestant Doctor( which England well knoweth) and a corrupt writer, be true, which I haue sufficiently proved.  
There be also other corrupt●ons in M. Doctors citation, for( as before) he citeth me for this proposition: No Papist doth 
Reply supr. pag. 2.  judge any Protestant an heretic, or excommunicate. When first, I do not exclude al catholics in general, by the name 
answer cap. 2. §. wherefore.  of no Papist, or any thing equivalent to a general proposition, but speak only of the learned catholics in this kingdom, which be my words: which he corruptly turneth into the recited ( no Papist) without limitation of Country, learning, state, time, place, &c. The next corruption in this citation is, that he chargeth me to say, that not any Protestant is judged by us an heretic,& when this restriction or limitation ( any) which altereth the sense, and truth of the proposition, is his corruption, making that a particular, which in our question was general: as appeareth both in his positions and my answer, where 
Romish posit. page. 1. Moderat. answ. cap. 2. §. 1. 2.  the proposition is this: Al Protestants are heretics and excommunicate. And yet we dispute of denounced heretics and subject to the penalties of the Canons, and not of al kind of heretics, as he pretendeth.  
And yet again, in the same page. of his book, he citeth my 
Reply pag. 2. §. I suppose.  words indefinitely without either general or particular sign, that the catholics of this kingdom will not defend this opinion, that Protestants are heretics and excommunicate. Where besides his different citation, touched, he again confoundeth himself, first in showing we contended of a copulative proposition ( heretics and excommunicate) which he before hath chopped into a disjunctive ( heretics or excommunicate.) And 
Romish posit. pag▪ 1. Moderate answer cap. 2.  here also he dissembleth the state of the controversy, which was of heretics subject to the penalties pretended by him, and not of heretics absolutely without that addition. By such sincerity and integrity as D. Mortons is, a man may prove any thing, and disprove whatsoever, when the adversary and his book be absent.   

THE TENTH CHAPTER.  
Of D. MORTONS corruptions, shiftings, and unlearned dealings in his next citation.  
MAster Doctors second and next chapter, is thus entitled: Chap. 2. Containing five of the arguments of the Moderate 
Reply cap. 2. pag. 2.  answerer. And why Sir I pray you, should it not in true dealing haue contained 8. arguments?( if you so term them) for so many be used in my answer: only with caueate for the printers mistaking, printing ( sixthly) twice, that the latter sixthly should be eleventhly, and this eightly or the eight in number.  
again M. Doctor, your citation consisteth only of 9. lines, and yet a part of them is your own,& not my words: is it then likely, that either eight or five arguments( to use your phrase) are truly& substantially alleged in so short a breuiate? And further sincere Sir, where I recompted them in order, first, second, third, and you to abuse your reader, and shift them over, do recite 
Reply supr. pag. 2. 3.  them with this disorder, naming that first, which is the fourth, then you return to the first, next you jump to the second and third, after you rebound again to the first, and from thence you leap and skip to the fift.  
And in these citations you further behave yourself with this sincerity, M. Doctor: first, you city my answer to be in these words: No man doubting in faith, but only such as be obstinate: no ignorant believer, or deceived of heretics, but he to hom the truth hath been made known: none only internally infected, but he that is a manifest Professor, is subject to the censure of excommunication for heresy. Now Sir, I must tel you that there is not any one such proposition, in the places you city from my answer, as is manifest in my answer; for proof whereof I 
Reply cap. 1. 2. answer cap. 2. §. fourthly, ibid §. for f●rst,& §. secondly, §. thirdly, ●. for first, fiftly.  haue set down the sections which you city in this marg●ne, that al men may see your corruptions, too tedious to be particularly here discussed. And I am so far from writing as you haue avouched in the places cited by you, that in my whole answer they are not to be found, only in the f●ft place I writ in these words: Fiftly, al heretics( as internal) be not subject to censure 
answer cap. 2. §. Fi●tly.  and excommunication. And yet I hope there is great difference between this, and to say as you city, That none but he that is a manifest Professor is subject to the censure of excommunication, for heresy. For by internal heretics we understand them, which approve heresy only in their mind, and never signify it with external sign, word, writing, and to bring it to the notice and jurisdiction of the external court: which cannot proceed but by external allegations and probations, which of a thing merely internal( such as that I suppose in this cogitation) cannot be had in such a case. Yet many may, and do, outwardly speak or hold heresy, which be not manifest Professors, Doctors, or Teachers of it, as D. Morton and such others, by preaching, writing, printing, teaching, defending, and are made manifest.  
Neither is this sincere disputer and learned Doctor, fully satisfied with these so odious corruptions, in this one citation, but adding new and more glosses of his own invention, for my writing telleth his reader, I conclude, That Protestants in our 
Reply supr. pag. 3.  opinion be not heretics. When I never meant any such absolute proposition, neither was that in question, but who be, or whether English Protestants are denounced heretics, and( to use the words of D. Morton, being the foundation of his Romish positions) so odious as unworthy of any civil, or natural 
Romish posit. pag. 1. §. they who.  society, or to be denied al civil or natural respects. Which in his first syllogism he hath re●orded, accordingly as is here cited, and in my answer I disputed against him.  
But M. Doctor now clearly perceiveth, that this the ground of his cavils and clamours( to speak in his own phrase) 
Reply pag. 24.  is overthrown, and that the Priests and catholics of England do not esteem their Country Protestants, to be in that odious and unworthy state, to which this worthy writer hath assigned them, but do and will yield unto them al civil, and natural society, and respects, in as ample manner, as if they were of the same religion with us: Therefore he hath divised a new trick, further to shane himself for ever, and to discredit his whole writing, to proceed from a very ignorant or wilful Doctor. His devise and words be these: Seing the nature of heresy is such, 
Reply pag. 3. §. we may not.  that it is a 'vice proper to the mind: it may denominate the subject whatsoever an heretic without obstinacy, which is only a perverse obliquity of the will: And therefore man may be an heretic, though he be not obstinate. This is the excellent reasoning of this Syllogist: in the former proposition he would haue al heretics and Protestants especially, so odious and unworthy of 
D. Morton m●keth not only al Protestants, but the ancient Fathers, and Christs Di●●iples also to be ●●r●tikes.  civil society, as is declared: And in this last doctrine, he doth not only make al Protestants, by their own proceedings, to be heretics, and such heretics by reason of their manifold errors, by themselves acknowledged, but would accuse al the ancient Fathers( whom the Protestants charge with errors) and the Disciples themselves of Christ,( as 
D. dove pe●●w●sion pag. 13.  D. dove h●th noted) of heresy: So that by this argument, if al those holy Fathers and Disciples of Christ were now living, D. M●rt●n could not by his doctrine, give any civil or natural respect unto them, not so much as to salute them. And( except heaven is provided for heretics) they are al damned in hel for ever by his sentence.  
But this absurdity of D. Morton hath been more then sufficiently confuted by his other adversary, in the Mitigation: wherefore I will briefly confute him in this point, only with his present Protestant brethren in England. And first D. covel writeth thus: heretics are neither simplo Infidels nor Idolaters, 
covel Examinat. pag. 202.  but obstinately erring in some fundamental point. B. dove hath these words: I define an heresy in this manner: it is an error 
dove perswas. supr. pag. 13.  st●fly and obstinately defended and maintained, and for example, the Disciples( Act. 15.) erred when they held it necessary to be circumcised, yet were not heretics, because they were not obstinate, for they submitted themselves to the iudgement of the Church, and after due consultation was had, they consented to the truth. Hitherto B. dove; where D. Morton may learn, that obstinacy is required to heresy, and that himself not submitting to the judgement of the Church, but remaining in obstinate writing against it, is an heretic,§. M. Ormerods sentence is 
Ormerod pict. pure. Dialog. 2.& Pict. pap. pag. 114.  this: He is an heretic which so swerveth from the wholesome doctrine, as contemning the iudgement both of God, and the Church, persisteth in his opinion, and breaketh the unity of the Church. And again in these words: It is not denied by any sort of divines, 
Dialog. 2. supr.  ancient or recent, but that he is an heretic, which doth stiffly and obstinately defend any error, that doth either directly impugn some article of the faith, or the true sense and meaning of the same article of faith. And citing Beza and Danaeus for the same doctrine, he addeth thus: And of the same iudgement are al other writers of note. Then D. Morton by this Protestant judgement, is no writer of note, for al such condemn him, whether they be catholics or Protestants, ancient or recent. And the note which is left for him, is to be notable, or notorious, for singularities, forgeries, slanders, corruptions, errors, and vices of like note. ∵   

THE eleventh CHAPTER  
Of D. MORTONS corruptions and false citations further in particular.  
DOctor Morton having thus sincerely and learnedly behaved himself, in his second and third chapter, in reciting my answer, and expressing his own opinion about heresy, as is declared; In his fourth chapter maketh his fourth citation of my answer, that before excommunication, communion is not forbidden, 
Reply cap. 4. pag. 5.  where among other authorities reciting the lateran council, to delude his readers, he quiter leaveth out these words: By whose decree the party must be both so censured, and requisitus 
Moderat. answ. cap. 2. 3. sixthly. & monitus ab Ecclesia, required and monished of the Church; In which the force of the argument, and authority consisted, for the matter questioned.  
And yet, the more to colour his own behaviour, he challengeth me of three untruths, which he uttereth in these words: 1. No communion forbid to any before excommunication. 
Reply pag. 5. §. I haue justly.  2. No heretic excommunicate by name, is subject to any penalty. 3. No Protestant is excommunicate by name. Hitherto M. Doctors accusation of three palpable untruths committed by me. But I will discharge myself, and lay both the untruths, and palpability vpon him. And concerning the first: ( No communion forbid to any before excommunication.) If he meaneth, I speak it absolutely of men not excommunicate by any excommunication: how is it untruth? can a man not excommunicate, be excommunicate? or a man in communion, be not, in, but out of communion? if these contradictories cannot be true, this cannot be an untruth palpable, or vnpalpable; for a man in communion, is not excommunicate, which is to be out of communion. If he expoundeth it of men excommunicate by name( which his words express not:) Then 
Antonin. part. 3. Tit. 25. c. 3 Tolet. Instruct. l. 1. c. 9. Fum. sum. v. excom. num. ●●. Sil●. v. excom. num. 5. §. 7. Sci●nd. c●● 4. M●ior. 4. dist. 18. q. 3. Sot. 4. dist. 22. Ledesm. 4. q. 23. art. 1. Victor. sum. de Sacram. tract. de excom. Angel. excom. 8. num. 3. Tabien. Interdict. 3. q. 9. azure l. 8. instit. cap. 11. Rosell. v. excom. 6. num. 44. &c. joh. Molan. tract. 1. cap. 16. concl. 2. Coua●. c. Alma. matter▪ Nauar. de orat. cap. 9.& manual. c. 27. Sa. v. v. excom. council. Const. apud S. Anton. part. 3. titul. 25. cap. 3.& Caiet. sum. v. excom. Moderat. answ. c. 2. §. seau●nthly.& ●. supr.  S. Antoninus, Tollet, Fumus, silvester, Maior, Sotus, Ledesm. Victor. Angel. Tabien. azure, Molanus, Rosell. Couaruvias, Nauarre, with others, and the general council of Constance itself, do tel him, that in our question of civil communications, there is truth, and no untruth in that proposition: And this hath been so palpably already proved against him, that he giveth no contradiction to it: but thus shifteth up and down.  
The second citation is D. Mortons corruption, and not my assertion: for my proposition is only this: No Protestant, or heretic not excommunicate by name, lieth subject to any penalty pretended. When( as before) my sincerely dealing adversary citeth me to say: That such are not subject to any penalty at al. Which is his corruption and not my proposition, as is manifest.  
The last also is his forgery, and not my opinion, which is this: No Protestant in England is excommunicate by name: which limitation ( in England) for which our controversy was, he leaveth out, and maketh it an unlimited proposition, containing al Protestants, of al times and places, wholly changing the state of the question.  
He raiseth further a new slander against me, as though 
Reply pag. 5. 6.  when he cited diuers authorities besides Panormitane, I should only answer the authority of Panormitane; when these authorities be alleged by D. Morton, only in his fourth reason, and 
Romish posit. ration. 4. pag. 15. 16.  not in this place. And in my answer to that reason, I answered them al by name particularly, which be these, there recounted, Tollet, Massouius, Panormitane, Gregorius de Valentia, 
answer cap. 5. §. let us hear.  Bannes, and Philopater. And there I shewed how he misalleaged their authorities, and they rather made against himself. And these be the wrongs which he complained before I had done: whereof( as I promised in my fift chapter) I haue freed 
Cap. 5. supr.  myself, and put them among his falshoods.   

THE TWELFTH CHAPTER.  
Of D. MORTONS corruptions and falsyfications further in particular.  
THe next citation from my answer, he citeth in his fift chapter, and is set down in these words: ( None is excommunicate, 
Reply c. 5. p. 8. §. this your.  who is not excommunicate by name:) and he calleth this my proposition, when himself in the very lines before citeth my opinion in this manner: No Protestant in England is in 
Reply pag. 8. supr. §. No Protestant.  our opinion excommunicate by name: and therefore lieth not subject to the penalty pretended, ergo, the foundation of this discovery is ruinated. Now M. Doctor( your self being judge) that is not my proposition, but your corruption: And this you further confirm, in your next citation in the same chapter, thus alleging my opinion: We do not esteem al Protestants for heretics 
Reply pag. 12. §. thus haue.  and excommunicate, as he pretendeth: neither that they are subject to such penalties, as he allegeth. This M. Doctor doth not agree with that, which you cited before, therefore you are at shameful disagreement and variance with yourself. And yet in this very last citation, you are not forgetful of your usual art, and custom of false dealing: for you pass over the most material words, which immediately follow and be these: Neither 
Moderat. answ. c. 2. §. thus haue  that they are subject to such penalties as he allegeth, that they are not censured, or as such to be deprived of any civil society, 
English catholics love to English Protestants.  communication, their goods, lives, liberties, dignities, honour, homage, fealty, subiection, duty, love, or any thing precious, their proper and peculiar: but contrariwise to enjoy and possess their privileges, in as ample manner and freedom, as if they were of the same religion which we defend. Hitherto the words of my conclusion, which he wholly omitted, ●o reserve some colour of countenance his slanders against us: for what semblance, or least show of reason can he devise, to persecute and prosecute those catholic Priests for temporal enemies, which teach, hold, writ, and will swear to perform al such ciuilities, duties, and love, and live in as great amity with Protestants( though obstinate in their opinion) as if they were of the same religion with us? To al this, to his confusion, and whole ruin of his cause, he maketh no answer, but with lying evasion granteth victory: In your mind you gainsay that, which with your pen 
Reply pag. 13. §. thus haue you.  you publish. Why M. Doctor, is the issue come to this, with al your express dogmatical principles, that except my pen and mind disagree, your cause quiter is overthrown as I argue in that place?  
Then Sir, to persuade you( as before, and if not you, yet al that be not infected with such your obstinacy and malice) that my mind and pen and the mindes of other Priests and catholics herein agree; Tel me I pray you, is it not a question of doctrine and religion, which was between D. Morton and the Moderate answere●? yes Sir, you affirm it to be Romish doctrine: 
Romish posit. in titul.  Then I demand again where you find it in our doctrine, that any Priest or catholic writer, or not writer may dissemble his religion, or equivocate in the least question belonging to faith, and the honour of God? for this cause M. Doctor, so many Priests and catholics in England endure persecution, because they will not, and may not dissemble, or deny their inward mind and opinion, by pen, word, or any external sign. For this cause so many renowned of that holy function and religion, haue rather chosen to suffer most cruel death, in a late Protestant regiment in this kingdom,& for this quarrel, then to equivocate or halt in professing any point of faith, though with such means al penalties might haue been avoided. There fore as it cannot be doubted, but my mind and pen agree, so it is evident your cause is desolute and overthrown, and you ought to cease persecution and clamour against vs.  
And yet further for the wraping up of this matter, take a lye, or two more of your making, with you in this place: within the space of two lines you ingeminate and twice city for my words this proposition: Protestants are no heretics: Protestants are 
Reply pag. 13.  no heretics. When I never spake, writ, or thought any such absolute assertion, therefore it is to be added to the number of your inventions. And concluding this chapter with these words from my answer: Thus is his chiefest building of slanders against us ruinated. In which you first leave out, ( al these) which destroyeth your whole book of Principles. Secondly, you haue passed over al those essential things, which I cited before, and were assigned the cause why the chiefest buildings of althes● your slanders was ruinated. Thirdly, you answer nothing to that which you city, but only that which condemneth you by your own silence, and law of exception before: your only reply is this: O good Sir, you might haue learned this good by others 
Reply pag. 13. ●●pr.  late evils, to take heed you intermeddle not in ruinating of buildings. Therefore( O good Sir) I may safely conclude you haue nothing to say, to save your express dogmatical principles from a forged slander, so expressed or impressed by your own writing. And as my art in ruinating, consisteth in ruinating and destroying such rotten arguments and corruptions, as you haue used: So other kind of ruinating here insinuated( out of the matter) by you, I leave to the author of justification of Protestants, &c. as before I proved.   

THE THIRTEENTH CHAPTER.  
How D. MORTON hath condemned himself, and of his corruptions further in particular.  
AFter this D. Morton recoileth back, no further then to the very place where he began, as appeareth both by the citation, and his marginal quotation of my answer ( initio, in the beginning.) A large jump backward, 9. pages long: though not so Doctorlike, after he had handled the conclusion, as is before declared: Yet before he citeth my answer, he giveth this Title to this his sixth chapter. Hitherto haue we only confirmed 
Reply pag. 14. cap. 6.  our Autecedent, namely that Protestants in the common censure of Papists, are esteemed heretics, &c.  
Now M. Doctor, let us haue a little sincere dealing, though you must be haled, pulled, and drawn unto it: you tel us, you haue confirmed your Antecedent, and that this Antecedent was this, Namely that Protestants in the common censure of Papists are esteemed heretics: But I pray you, be remembered first, that this was not your Antecedent: Because your memory is bad, when you are at a non plus, and know not what to say, I will make repetition of your( so called) Antecedent. Your words be these in the beginning of your reasons. The first reason: Their 
Romi●h posit. pag. 1.  general assumption, whereupon al their rebellious positions are founded, is this, that al Protestants are heretics, and excommunicate. This M. Doctor I think you make as a supposition, and not Antecedent in any argument, for it is thus alone set by itself. And yet, if it were your Antecedent, you must needs grant me, that your last citation is false: first, because in your positions you call it their general assumption, which word ( general) you know comprehendeth al, and excludeth none: and yet in this place you only name it the common censure( or opinion) of Papists. Which is not the same, with your former, because besides the common censure and opinion, there be often many or diuers o●hers, and not condemned. Secondly M. Doctor, in your first assertion, you make it only the assumption of Priests, to make them only worthy of death, here you call it the common censure of Papists, making Papists, not Priests, as deep in these positions as Priests, and so worthy of equal punishment. Then Sir I pray you, how doth this agree with your late Preamble, where you 
Morton Preamble pag. 36.  haue these words? I writ against our aduersaries( Papists or Priests) but not without note of difference and distinction, being 
D. Morton condemneth ●is own positions, and false accusation of catholics.  verily persuaded that diuers even of the zealous amongst them, do abhor such doctrines and practises, as haue been discovered in the cases of rebellion and equinocation. Now Sir, here you excuse diuers even of the zealous of our religion, then generally your doctrine is not true, and your latter interpretation of Papists common censure, is like to be as false.  
And to make evident demonstration again, that you haue overthrown your express dogmatical principles, in the cited place of your Preamble, you note in the margin in these words: A difference of Romish Professors, concerning the case 
Preamble pag. 36. in marg.  of rebellion. Therefore seing you are a Doctor, and will speak like a scholar, only calling them Professors, or Romish Professors, which be Doctors, Priests, and divines, as the manner of speaking is, you do exclude diuers Romish Professors, from holding those opinions which you call express dogmatical principles, which be such( as before) that no Professor may deny them. Therefore your express dogmatical principles by your own sentence are expressly overthrown. And M. Doctor, further if that assumption were your Antecedent▪ you haue committed two other errors in your citation; first you leave out the word ( al) which altereth the proposition: secondly, you haue clipped away these words ( and excommunicate:) in which by your own interpretation, the force of al consisted. For if men be heretics, and yet not excommunicate, or not so excommunicate, that they are to be deprived of civil societies, and al your arguments be fallacies, and conclude nothing.  
And this I demonstrate, by your own Antecedent, expounded by yourself, which is in this manner: After you had in your positions set down the assumption, of which I haue entreated: in your first syllogism you expound it for your Antecedent thus, and in these words: They who by their slanderous 
Romish posit, pag. 1. supr.  doctrine make al Protestants( in their common censure heretics) so odious and unworthy of any civil or natural society, must necessary be adiudged seditious and intolerable amongst the Protestants: This is your own Antecedent M. Doctor, or your interpretation thereof, word for word: recited in the same place, where you name that general assumption. And immediately following the same, only with these conuecting words between them: Now then we may argue, first: after which followeth 
Pag. 1. sup.  your recited interpretation of your Antecedent, which you make the first proposition of your first syllogism; And then recite the second proposition thus: But the Romish Seminaries 
Supr. pag. 1.  and Iesuites, do brand al Protestants with detestable crimes: thereby to deny them al civil or natural respects: And immediately from hence you infer your Ergo, or Conclusion. Now M. Doctor, let the world judge, whether your Antecedent was, as in this place you city it: ( That Protestants in the 
Reply pag. 14.  common censure of Papists are esteemed heretics) and in no other manner.  
After this let us come to his citation of my answer in this place: thus he allegeth it: His assumption being ruinated, that 
Reply pag. 14. supr.  Protestants are not esteemed of us heretics, or excommunicate: it followeth, that no p●sitions which we maintain are rebelli●us: because he telleth us, that al such are built vpon this assumption. Hitherto his citation from my answer: in which question I first desire al readers, to keep in memory what interpretation D. Morton hath made of that Assumption before, and in what sense I did and was enforced by his own exposition to answer, as is before declared.  
Then I must further tel him, that besides that his corrupt dealing, he hath again corrupted the words of my answer: for my position is, as followeth: This position( al Protestants 
Moderat. answ. cap. 2. ●. wherefore.  are heretics and excommunicate) is no general assumption in catholic Religion. For al men in error are not heretics, except they be obstinate as D. Morton is, as I haue proved even by his own fellowes in religion, the present Protestant writers of England. Secondly, M. Doctor leaveth out the word ( al) which changeth the nature of the proposition. Thirdly,( as he hath done in a former citation) he turneth the copulative proposition into a disjunctive, altogether altering the sense and truth, of that which is questioned.  
Next let us hear what he answereth to that last citation, overthrowing al his arguments at once: his words be these: Which( it followeth) wanteth feet to follow, because there be two 
Reply pag. 14. supr.  other reasons to prove your doctrine rebellious. The first from the effects we see: the second from an other principle of doctrine, which you generally maintain. Which he after expoundeth to be the Popes excommunications. Concerning these his two reasons, I 
Christian and modest offer, An. 1606. p. 19. Offer of confer.  haue reasoned so much with him already, that his own friends haue  told him he doth pitifully shift off the matter in a late reply unto the Papists. And so many other Protestants in England at this present, and of chief account, haue before condemned him. And himself being often charged, how I haue confuted him, in his late Preamble is so silent to deny it, that by his own law and rules of arguing, he hath granted victory. And to this pass he is also brought in this place, for he doth not deny but my consequent( that Priests and catholics be innocent, and his positions be slanders) doth follow vpon the overthrow of his Antecedent or Assumption; but he would find an evasion by those other two reasons, already also confuted. Which how vnseeming a thing it is for a Doctor to writ, I leave to al young Schollers to teach him, that no new supply( yet those here be confuted) can make a former erroneous argument, or fallacy to be of force. Therfore there be feet, and legs also, to make this consequent to follow; Where the foundation is overthrown; that which was builded vpon it, cannot stand. And if M. Doctor is so much decayed in his own sences, that he cannot perceive this, except he be also admonished of his brethren Protestants; the words of the Protestant apology of the oath of allegiance( so privileged as before) be these: The ground failing, the building 
Apolog. pag. 82.  cannot stand. Therefore, except catholics and Protestants be deceived by their sences, except a building can be without foundation; an effect without a cause; a consequent, when the antecedent is not; a syllogism without a medium: two things connected or separated in a third, where there neither is any such connection or separation, or any third at al, to join or divide them,( al which be things unpossible) al D. Mortons express dogmatical principles are utterly overthrown, and turned into express principal lies, falsyfications, and forgeries.   

THE FOVRTEENTH CHAPTER.  
Of the like corruption of D. MORTON, and how no credit i● to be given to his and other Protestants writings.  
THe next place of my answer which D. Morton citeth in his reply, is four leaves from the former, and alleged by 
Moderat. answ. cap. 2. §. now I will. Reply cap. 7. pag. 16.  him in these words: My answer is absolute before, that no learned catholic reputeth the Protestants, or any one Protestant of this kingdom an heretic. Hitherto the words of his citation: And to show a little further, the integrity of this holy Protestant Doctor, both in this and other things of like nature before, because the section of my answer from whence he would city these words, is but brief, and yet containeth the question between him and me, which he hath so often dissembled, and corrupted my writing to conceal it, I will crave pardon to city it word for word in this place, and it is as followeth.  
Now I will with brevity answer to his particular pretended reasons, 
Moderat. answ. cap. 2. §. now I will.  grounded vpon the general before confuted: And first to his syllogism, or rather sophism: the maior proposition whereof is already overthrown, and only requiring repetition, is as followeth: They who by their slanderous doctrine make al Protestants( in their common censure heretics) so odious and unworthy of any civil or natural society, must necessary be adiudged seditions, and intolerable among the Protestants: My answer is absolute before, that no learned catholic so reputeth the Protestants, or any one Protestant of this kingdom: but attributeth( or ought so to do by his 
Catholik● duty to Prince, and affection to al English Protestants.  religion) as much terrene honour, homage, duty, and love, to our King, his Honourable counsel, and al in authority, in their degrees, and unfeigned affection to the rest, as if they were of the same faith and profession in religion. Hitherto the whole section in my answer from whence D. Morton allegeth that, which he cited before in these words: My answer is absolute 
Reply supr. pag. 16.  before, that no learned catholic reputeth the Protestants, or any one Protestant of this kingdom an heretic. When we see, there is not any such sentence in my answer; but our question was this, whether in the doctrine of catholics al Protestants were made so odious and unworthy of any civil or natural society: which he in his positions did set down for his ground, and seing it so evidently confuted, is forced to such corruptions, to conceal and dissemble the question, and the words of my answer to his confusion.  
But yet he will not amend, for in the next citation from my 
Reply pag. 17.  answer, whereas in true dealing it should prove( as my answer there doth) that the Protestants themselves as much comdemne Protestants, as catholics do, and so make( by D. Mortons argument) Protestants intolerable among Protestants, and in the same condition with Priests& Iesuites among Protestants in his opinion: This Doctor not willing to undergo the inconveniences of his own disputing, and positions, being perfectly instructed and practised for his advantage, in the Arts of contraction, dilatation, amplification, diminution, alteration, subtraction, corruption, falsyfication, and other vndoctor like behaviours, useth his cunning of contraction in this place; for that which in my answer consisted of above 20. lines, he in his citation by his omnipotent faculty of penetration, hath couched and condensed in four lines, one word, and an half: and yet useth no abridgement at al, but skippeth it over, and moveth from bound to bound without passing by the middle. And that 
The Protestant dean& College of Tubinge Reply pag. 17. §. that which.  which he citeth being of a learned Protestant dean and College among them, he answereth in these words: 
Protestants w●ting in opposition, not much to be regarded, by D. Mortons judgement.  That which they did in the spirit of opposition and contention, is not much to be regarded. I thank you M. Doctor, for this your sincere dealing, though but little; for if that is not much to be regarded, which Protestants and of such credit among you, as Philippus Nicholaus and the College of Tubinge, did in the spirit of opposition and contention; it is not much, but very little, or nothing to be regarded, what your Doctorship endowed with a spirit of opposition, and contention to catholics, P●otestants, and yourself also,( as hath been proved) haue done or published in your writings.   

THE FIFTEENTH CHAPTER.  
Of diuers other corruptions of D. MORTON in particular: And how by his own arguments, either wilfully or grossly ignorantly, he proveth himself an Idolater, Atheist, of no religion, and in manifest state of damnation.  
NEither is D. Mortons contracting and penetrating art forgotten in his next citation, nor his corrupt and profane dealing any thing at al amended: for first he hath drawn my section of 23. lines, into three lines, and an half: And to give some experi●●nt thereof, he only citeth from my answer, concerning M. H. Broughton his dislike of English Protestant proceedings, these words: Who telleth the Bishops of England that their translation of the Scripture is corrupt, and that Christianity is deuied here in England. Hitherto his citation, in which there is no mention, what and how great this corruption, neither who they be, which thus deny Christianity, but a man would by such citation rather think they were some few vpst●●t Atheists or nullifidians, rather then chief Protestant Professors: But to make the matter and this mans sincerity somewhat more manifest, I will recite some of the assertions of this great Linguist& learned Protestant, set down in my answer, and forgotten by D. Morton: which follow in this manner.  
The English( Protestant) translation of Scriptures is such, 
Moderat. answ. cap. 2. §. I will. H. borough. aduertis. of corrupt. An. 1604.  that it causeth millions of millions to reject the new Testament, and to run to eternal flames, the text of the old Testament is perverted in eight hundred and eight and forty places. The Archbishop of Canterbury might with as good learning haue subscribed to the Alcaron, as consent with such Protestants as he did. Christianity denied in England by public authority. The Bishops betray the gospel to the Iewes, and agree with the enemies of our Lord. Their Bible is inferior to the Alcaron. The Bishops notes betray our Lord and redeemer, and befoule the rock of salvation. They are the very poison to al the gospel, &c.  
Now M. Doctor, you may see your sincerity and integrity, vpon which you stand so much, by the difference there is between the citation you used, and that which I haue here repeated from my answer, and the advertisement of this your 
Morton reply pag. 18.  learned friend, and companion in religion, and so much commended by yourself in this place.  
Secondly, tel me M. Doctor; of what religion you are, a 
D. Morton his Religion most wicked or none by his argument  Protestant, or of none at al? or what you would be esteemed? for atheism or some strange kind of Infidelity may seem by your writing( presently to be recited) to be your profession. For first, you affirm of this Aduertiser and condemner of your Bible, and Religion to be worse then the Alcaron, and( consequently) antinomianism, these words: that he is sequestered from you,( the English Protestants) rather by impotency of passion, then any difference in religion. By which sentence, except you will deal plainly and say both he and you be of a most wicked and lying religion, which and more you grant in effect:( because true religion cannot writ so slanderously of true religion, as he hath done of English Protestancy, which you practise;) you haue granted these and more absurdities against yourself: that Bible which you use, and Religion which you profess, are worse then the Alcaron and antinomianism; you deny Christianity; betray the gospel; agree with the enemies of our Lord, &c. for these and more strange things are affirmed of your religion, by that your Protestant, and so much esteemed friend.  
Thirdly, tel me M. Doctor, with what species or kind of quality, 
Protestant passions of what vehemency.  your wit& judgement was possessed, when you wrote these things? were you in a passion, habit, power, form? or what? be the passions of Protestants so great, so large, so long, of such force& efficacy, that they do not only endure a short moment and pass away( as true passions do;) but dwell, inhibit, and continue with you, in thinking, writing, printing, and publishing of books, and book vpon book,( as is known of that your beloved Protestant brother) and al and ever condemning your religion as I haue recited? Therefore, sincere and learned Sir, if this man and you be of one religion( as you say) and you a Protestant, you and your Protestancy are absolutely guilty of most horrible Infidelity. again, if Protestant impotency of passion is such, of that extremity and duration, that you know not, or care not, what you speak, writ, or publish, we may less marvel at what you haue written: and nothing regard what you do hereafter.  
In your next citation, you haue practised again your former contracting faculty, drawing 23. lines into five, and one word. That which you city is contained and repeated by you in these words: That no man, in whom there is any spark of grace or conscience, 
Morton reply pag. 19.  can live in the Church of England, whose inhabitants be al Infidels, going to the Churches of Bishops and Archbishops, whose government is Antichristian and devilish. Hitherto D. Mortons citation. But Sir, why did you forget that which followeth 
Moderat. answ. cap. 2. §. The Admonition. Admonit. 2. p. 25. 33. suppl. vers. 56.  in the same place, from the same admonishing Protestant authority, and is in these terms: Antichrist is among them. It is traitorous against the majesty of Christ. It is accursed. It is an unlawful, false, and bastardly government. It shal be easier for sodom and Gomorrhe in the day of iudgement, then for the Court of Parliament, where the Protestant Religion was confirmed: there 
D. Morton and Protestant writers( by his argument) more intolerable in England, then Priests& lesuits  is no right Religion established in England. Hitherto that Protestant testimony of the English Protestant Church& religion: Then M. Doctor tel me, what catholic ever did, or can more condemn you and your religion, then these Protestants haue done, and then yourself haue done and do, joining with these men in religion. Then by your argument 
Mort. reply pag. 18. Barl. ag. a nam. Cath. p. 115 120. dove persw. pag. 31. suit. ag. Keliis. pag. 42. D. Field p. 170. D. Abbot ag. D. ●il p. 101. 102. 106. 2●6. 237. 347. Willet Antileg. p. 275. Wo●ton def. of. P●rk. p. 28. Middleton papisto. p. 201. Powel Conlid. p 17. ag. an Apologe●ical epist. p. 48. 52. Abridgement pag. 39.  yourself, Bishop Barlow, Bishop dove, D. Sutcliffe, D. Field, D. Goerge Abbot, D. Willet the Professor, M. Wotton, M. Powel, the author of the Protestant Abridgement, and other Protestants in England, at this present public writers among you,( as your writings t●stifie) being of the same religion with these men, which comdemne Protestant English religion for so vile a thing, are as unsufferable( and more by your doctrine) in this Protestant kingdom and government, as any catholic Priest or Iesuite. And you with al the rest recited, and others are void of any spark of grace or conscience, are Infidels, live in a devilish government of religion, are traitorous against the majesty of Christ, haue no right Religion, &c. These and more such inconveniences, you M. Doctor a chief Apologist and champion for the English Protestant Church, haue heaped vpon your own heads, by your worthy writing.  
Neither are you either more free from corruption, or a more prudent disputer in that which followeth: for in the next citation, whereas I taxed D. Fulke and M. Willet for their strange doctrine, that Christ is Autotheos, God of himself, thus you allege my opinion: The denial of Christ to be God, which 
Reply pag. 19. 20.  M. Willet and D. Fulke d●e, denying Christ to haue received the substance of his Father: or that he is Deus de Deo; God of God▪ as the first general councils defined. Which citation first hath no sense, not being any perfect sentence, as is manifest, in that manner as it is here cited. Secondly, I am cited to writ, that M. Willet and D. Fulke do deny Christ to be God: 
Moderat. answ. c. 2. ●. therefore first.  when my words be only these: Philippus Nicholaus a learned Protestant Minister, and the Protestant dean and College of Tubinge, bring in Luther pr●phesying( as he calleth it) that the Sacrame●taries would never cease, until they denied Christ to be God, which M. Willet and D. Fulke, and others haue almost fully effected, denying Christo to haue received his substance of his Father, or that he is Deus de Deo, God of God, as the first general councils haue defined. Where I do not say( as D. Morton citeth me) that M. Willet and D. Fulke do deny Christ to be God; but only th●s, that they haue almost fully effected it. Which doth not affirm the thing done, but almost done. Thirdly, he citeth me to say: Christ received the substance of his Father: when my words be: received his( that is his own) substance of his Father. So that if it were in ordinary proceedings, the question is thereby quiter altered, by this his alteration.  
Now let us come to the learned Diuinit● of these positions: Christ is God of himself: Christ hath his essen●e of himself, 
D. Morton an Infidel by his doctrine.  and not of his Father, &c. as these Protestants tel us:( for concerning D. Mortons usage towards Cardinal Bellarmine, he hath heard sufficiently from his ●ther adversary:) wherefore briefly thus I argue in this question.  
If Christ hath only his Person, and not his substance of his Father, but this essentially of himself, as these Protestants affirm: Then the person and substance in Christ must needs be essentially and really diuers; because that which is essentially received, and that which is not received, but one hath it of himself, must needs be really distinct: But this destroyeth the mystery of the Trinity, and the nature of God, making real composition in God, most simplo; and further proveth three Gods: because there must needs be three distinct essences, which maketh three Gods. For if the son hath his essence of himself, then the holy Ghost also, then every person aswell that of the Father, the son, and holy Gh●st being distinct really, and having essences thus really distinct, they make three Gods.  
Secondly, because wheresoever there is a substance in God, there is a person,( which is not really distinguished from one another;) by this divinity it must needs follow, that there is no generation, no procession, and consequently no Father begetting, no son begotten, no holy Ghost proceeding: And so again either three Gods, or no God at al.  
Thirdly, howsoever the case standeth by their doctrine; that God which these Protestants haue made, must be such an aggregatum per accidence, that no Infidels in the world were at any time greater Idolaters, then those Christians, which worship such a God, which be these Protestants. And because D. Morton hath divinity of as strange a nature, in an other place of his writings; which is, that Pater est trinus v●us: Th● 
Morton 1. part. Apolog. concl. in fine.  Father is three and one: Thus I must instruct him of this matter: if that position is true, then seing in this mystery there is only essence and persons, the Father must needs be either three persons and one essence, or three essences and one person. If the first, then there is no person of the son, or of the holy Ghost: because the Father is supposed by this doctrine to haue three, and in the whole Trinity there neither be, nor can be more, for so it should not be a Trinity, but a Quadruplity, Quinquplity, Sexuphty, and except we should likewise divide them into their Triplicities, and make 9. persons in divinity.  
If D. Morton meaneth the second, of one person, and three essences, or substances, in the Father; then the Father himself must needs be three Gods, because the substance is not many, except the things( in this case Gods) be many: Then seing there is equality in this mystery, and the son and holy Ghost be equal to the Father, there must n●edes be 9. Gods, by the divinity of this learned Doctor. And other absurd inferences which may be demonstratively made from hence are too many irreligious, vnchristian or Athe●stical to bee published in writing.  
After this M. Doctor reboundeth back again two leaves 
Reply pag. 23.  at the least; and in his citation useth his old art of penetration, condensing 40. lines in 14. And yet the contents is of that 
Reply p. 23. 24.  force and efficacy, that by his own judgement, it stoppeth the clamours of Protestants against catholic Priests: And yet in these few lines his sincere dealing is in this manner; In the first three lines he maketh none or a defective sense. In the fourth and fift he citeth me to say: We do not esteem the Protestants 
Reply pag. 23.  of England in the case of heretics: where he quiter leaveth out the substantial point of the question, that is, heretics to whom al civil society is to be denied, as D. Morton objected: whereupon my answer and words be: These societies are not to be 
Moderat. answ. 6. 2. §. the rest.  denied to the Protestants of England, because we do not esteem them in that case of heretics and excommunicates. Besides this, he quiter omitteth the chiefest reasons of that section; And yet that which he citeth is of such effect and purpose, that it enforceth him to these words, to his own confusion: If al your sect would allow your answer, we should need no clamour. Therefore seing my answer is so generally allowed, as is shewed before, and this man is not ignorant thereof, al his clamours in his Positious, his counterfeit full satisfaction, his Preamble to a further Encounter, and the Encounter itself( if it prove not an abortive) are needless clamours, and with the shane of this Doctor, and such Protestant accusers, to be recalled and reca●ted.  
And thus I haue passed over al his citations, which I promised to examine, only one the last consisting but of three lines, excepted: And to justify my former assertion, that they be al more or less corrupted, this also leaveth out the chiefest 
Reply pag. 25.  and most effectual words: ( In whose Dominions they be in force) in which a great efficacy of the sentence consisted. So that without any one exception, he hath corrupted and falsified my answer in every citation, in defence of his first syllogism, which he planted as the ground and foundation of al.  
And as I haue clearly demonstrated in every one of these ●itations, his ignorance, corruption, falsyfication, or profane proceedings: So it is as easy to proceed to the end of his reply: And I shal remain most ready and willing( if it be required) to prove or defend against him, that not the fourth part of those which follow, for defence of his syllogisms, are free from corruption or shameful usage: But these are more then sufficient, to prove this Doctor guilty of the crimes objected.   

The conclusion of this Treatise.  
WHerefore seing the success of this sincere, learned, and true dealing Doctor, hath been so unfortunate, that even by the judgement of himself, and his dearest Protestant friends, whatsoever he hath written in this kind hath thus proved to his own shane and reproach; And that( accordingly as is cited from him) his clamours should cease: At the last I request him, to stand to the last words and Conclusion of this his examined syllogism,( the ground of al his express dogmatical 
Reply pag. 2●.  principles:) which be these: But to conclude with your own words, those duties are not to be denied unto Protestants. It were well if either you writ as you thought, or that your Doctors did think as you writ:( whereof M. Morton is assured before) And so should we haue less cause of scruples, to fear either you or them. If he should not perform my desire, but be stil clamorous against his own grant and conscience, or make new fears or scruples,( as himself termeth them) I hope his clamours, fears, and scruples, will be little offensive unto others, or regarded of any, being so authentically before condemned by himself, to be needless, and without cause. Which hath been proved in the whole passage of this my examination: wherein appeareth, not only that he is convinced to b● so notorious, and infamous a corrupter, forger, falsyfier, and irreligious slanderer, accuser, and shifter in this business, of so great importance, even by his own and his adherents 
D. Willets great Synops. against catholics, of what credit by Protestants.  judgement: But al his books of this kind are such, that I may safely say of them as M. parks writeth of his Brother M. Doctor Willet, hi● worthy Synopsis whereof he had gloried so much in these words: 
parks against Lymbomasti●. pag. 7.  even that great work, whereof you boast and presume so much, I mean your general view of Papistry