A TREATISE TENDING TO MITIGATION towards Catholicke-Subiectes in England. WHEREIN IS DECLARED, That it is not impossible for Subjects of different Religion, (especially Catholics and Protestants) to live together in dutiful obedience and subjection, under the government of his Majesty of Great Brittany. AGAINST The seditious writings of THOMAS MORTON Minister, & some others to the contrary. Whose two false and slanderous grounds, pretended to be drawn from Catholic doctrine & practice, concerning REBELLION and EQVIVOCATION, are overthrown, and cast upon himself. Dedicated to the learned school-divines, civil and Canon Lawyers of the two Universities of England. By P. R. Prou. 26. Vers. 20. Susurrone subtracto, iurgia conquiescunt. The makebate being removed, brawls do cease. Permissu Superiorum. 1607. THE SUM OF ALL THAT IS HANDLED IN THIS TREATISE. 1. IN the Preface and first six Chapters, is discussed all that belongeth to the first imputation about Disobedience or Rebellion, either out of the Catholic or Protestant doctrine, use, practice, or consequence thereof: with what is objected, or answered on both parts. 2. IN the other 7. Chapters, is treated the Question of Equivocation, how it began, what origen, causes, use, or necessity it hath, or may have; what circumstances for lawfulness, what restraints, or limits: and finally, what practice among all sorts of men in certain cases, even with those that most impugn the same. 3. Upon all which is inferred the principal conclusion; that these two pretended obstacles do not let, but that Catholic and Protestant English Subjects may live together in union of dutiful obedience under his Majesty, to his, and their both safety and comforts, if seditious makebates be removed. THE EPISTLE DEDICATORY. To the learned Schole-devines and Lawyers of both faculties in the Universities of England. IT was no part of my purpose (learned Countrymen) when I took this Treatise first in hand, either to wade so far therein, as now I have been compelled; or yet to prefix any other Epistle Dedicatory before the same, than the large common Preface itself that doth ensue, which may partly appear by the argument thereof, as namely also and principally, by that which we have set down in the third Chapter of this Treatise: for that taking in hand, but to point, as it were, at the exorbitant number of some monstrous, and malicious lies, and slanders cast abroad this last year in a certain small contemptible, but wicked and hateful libel, under the title of A discovery of Romish doctrine in the case of Conspiracy and Rebellion by T. M. I thought it sufficient to that purpose to show not only the cankered untruths of those most false & virulent calumniations; but the many inonveniences The Author's first intention. also, and public hurts, which do, and must needs ensue to any Common wealth, that suffereth such venomous tongues to sow hatred, dissension, diffidence, and the seeds of perpetual enmity and alienation among the Subjects thereof. 2. Which point having to my judgement sufficiently performed, I saw a far greater book published from the same Author stuffed with Merchandise of like mark, but yet embracing more matter, to wit, n t only the former argument, or invective of heinous Rebellion; but (to use the writers words) of heathenish, hellish, and execrable Equivocation, chargin Catholic people so deeply and desperately in them both, as t●at in these two respects, they are not only in his censure insociable, & intractable, but also insufferable in any Protestant common wealth: whereupon I was enforced as well to reassume again that which before I had done and laid aside, upon certain causes whi●h afterwards are uttered; as also to dilate myself much further, for defence of equity and truth, and for the repressing somewhat this violent railing 〈◊〉 and 4. Reg. 18. for rendering some evident reasons of Catholics innocency Esay. 36. and integrity in them both. Wherein what I have performed for their just and lawful defence, I leave it to the judgement of you my learned Countrymen, after you shall have read over this our Answer, presuming that your learning and understanding is accompanied also with such ingenuity of good nature, and maturity of judgement, as you will not be carried away with the wind, and sound of words only as others of lesser capacity; nor yet be much moved with the false outcries of perfidious makebatess, who enraged with the imaginations of hate and aversion, do like 〈◊〉 hounds runne-counter upon every false sent they apprehend, or frame unto themselves; but rather will stand firm, and weigh the substance, and proofs of matters with their due circumstances. 〈◊〉 of hearers. Which if you perform, you shall find all these odious and clamorous accusations, and exaggerations of this fiery Minister to be nothing else, but evaporations of a hot distempered brain with abundance of hatred and want of Christian charit. 3. And to say a word or two of the reasons that moved me to present this work to you the learned of our English Universities in the foresaid sciences of School- divinity and Law, both Canon & Civil, whereof the first is, that the question of Equivocation (whereof our chief contention is) being a matter handled in these three faculties, (though upon different occasions) you can far better 〈◊〉 thereof then Reasons of the dedication. others, who apprehending only the name together with their own conceits thereof without true knowledge of the grounds, reasons & circumstances whereby it is made lawful, do not so eagerly, as ignorantly, cry out against it, condemning & detesting that which they understand not, as largely is declared in the 7. Chapter of the ensuing Treatise, which is the first concerning that argument. But such as are more conversant and better studied in the said sciences, and know the true principles whereon the question standeth, are not so rash nor headlong, but go more reservedly therein, distinguishing between 〈◊〉 and unlawful, Amphybologie or Equivocation, as signing to 〈◊〉 one their times, cases, causes, reservations and limitations, according to the observation of Aristotle: Prudentis est distinguere; It appertaineth to a wise and discreet man to distinguish; whereas the ignorant and unlearned doth commonly confound all without distinction. 4. My second reason was, for that foreign Universities, and learned men thereof, unde standing such a book to have been set forth by an English University man, and not without direction (as he saith) from his Superiors, wherein all use of Equivocation or Amphybology in any case whatsoever is condemned as unlawful, impious execrable, hellish, heathenish, the black-art, and other such terms, without respect or regard, that in all other universities in Catholic Countries throughout the world, in all Courts and Tribunals, and in all learned Authors & professors of the foresaid three faculties, for many ages, some use thereof hath been taught and allowed: divers learned (I say) have wondered thereat and laughed also, especially being advertised that this doctrine of Equivocation is ascribed, as a new thing to the jesuits, whereas many ages before their name was heard of in the world this doctrine was known, taught, and held. Wherefore these strangers are wont to demand, whether there be any learned men indeed in these three faculties now in our Universities, and whether any be studied in Schoole-devinity and the Laws, either Civil or Canon; for if there be, it seems impossible to them that such a book should be suffered to come forth so full of ignorance as this is. For (say they) if they had read or looked over but these heads in the said sciences, to wit, of the nature of truth and lying of the lawfulness of dissimulation in certain cases both in words & works, as namely, in stratagems of war, of the lawfulness of covering some truth upon just occasion in the Canon law out of S. Augustine, of 〈◊〉 malus and Dolus 〈◊〉 or Sundry heads wherein Equivocation is touched both in Law and divinity. utilis in the same law out of S. Hierome, and other Fathers; of the cases wherein a man may swear, or not swear lawfully, or not be bound to keep his oath; of the question whether God can deceive, or any man else by his spirit, of the limitations of an accuser and defendant; of the obligation of a witness to utter, deny or dissemble the truth; of the office of a judge, Advocate, or Solicitor in accusation or defence of any body; of the cases wherein secrecy is necessarily to be observed by all lawful means, both in & out of confession, and divers other such like heads of doctrine, as occur daily in all the foresaid three faculties, and in the common use of man's life; these learned men affirm, that it is impossible for our university-Doctors to have read and weighed them, but they must confess the lawfulness of Equivocation in divers cases, and that it may be without lying (which is lawful in no case, nor for any cause whatsoever.) Whereof they infer that either their sciences are not studied in our Vniversites, or that the students profit little in them, or that the worst learned of all are suffered to write books: which thing for that it appertaineth to the disgrace of your so famous Schools; I thought it one sufficient cause amongst the rest, to dedicate this Answer unto you. 5. My third reason was to move you by this occasion, to consider more attentively what manner of men they be for the most part, that write in England at this day; how shallow in the matters they take upon them to make books of; but especially to wish you, that when any book cometh forth, you would but examine the truth of the citations which are alleged by them, for this only would be sufficient to inform and satisfy you where the truth is. And so I desire no more but your attention in this one point, for the decision of the controversy between me and Thomas Morton: for if you find him to have dealt sincerely in alleging his Authors, I am content he have the victory, though he have behaved himself otherwise never so weakly. For trial of which point, I remit myself to that, which I have handled afterward more plentifully and particularly in the 2. 6. and 12. Chapters of purpose. 6. But yet for that since the writing of the ensuing Preface, I have read and perused two Epistles of his last book entitled, A full satisfaction, the one to the King's Majesty, the other to the seduced brethren, as scornfully he calleth the Catholics, which Epistles have as much gall in them as the man's despiteful stomach could utter, I shall pray you to have patience with me, if I run over briefly certain notes out of the said Epistles, whereby you may partly take notice of the man's talon in writing, but especially in railing, until you come unto a more full view thereof in the sequel of this our Answer that doth ensue. 7. Thus than he beginneth with his Majesty within some half dozen lines after the entrance of his Epistle. T M his appeal to his Majesty Epist, ●. initio. Innocency, (saith he) which though naked was never ashamed, hath charged me to manifest myself unto your Highness, and together with my Adversary to appeal unto your incomparable wisdom, which I do in so constant assurance of an upright conscience as that I shall willingly remit that just advantage, which the difference of comparison both between a legitimate or conformable subject, and a person suspiciously degenerate, as also between a Minister of simple truth, and a professed Equivocator doth offer unto me. here you see him vaunt of sundry points; as first of his naked innocency, which we have afterwards to his greater shame, so clothed with the foul rags of his lying and most deceitful dealing, as she may no more be called a naked, but rather a clouted innocency, if innocency at all, and not rather malicious nocencie, intending to wound and injury the just, and such as are faultless and innocent in deed. 8 Secondly he appealeth to his majesties incomparable wisdom, as you see, in the constant assurance of an upright conscience; but we have showed throughout this whole work, that nothing is further of from this fellow, than any conscience at all: for that we have taken him in so many wilful falsifications and corruptions (wherein he could not but know that he did lie and falsify;) as besides all other examples laid forth in sundry several parts of this Answer, I have been forced to make a special Chapter thereof, which is the sixth of this ensuring work, where as also in the 4. Paragraph of the 2. Chapter and else where, the Reader shall find such store of testimonies against the uprightness of this man's conscience, as I dare assure myself, he will lose, with indifferent men, the constant assurance of honesty, howsoever in his own opinion he may hold the same assurance for other matters. 9 Thirdly he saith to his Majesty he doth willingly remit that just advantage which the difference of a legitimate and conformable subject, and a person suspiciously degenerate doth offer unto him: wherein what he would say I do rather guess by discourse, then understand by the sense of his words. For I imagine that the Minister would The conformity of T. M. say, that he is ready and priest to conform himself to any thing, that the State or Prince shall appoint him, as well in Religion, as in other matters whatsoever, and that therein consists his uprightness of conscience, to wit, to be conformable. And for that his adversary showing himself (perhaps) more scrupulous and timorous in certain points concerning his soul or conscience, and not so conformable: therefore he calleth him suspiciously degenerate, and no legitimate, and conformable subject, which whither it tendeth, and towards what gate of Atheism, or Herodianisme, every man that hath judgement and conscience in deed will easily discern. 10. But of all the rest, the fourth point is the most ridiculous, wherein he entituleth himself, A minister of simple truth, and his adversary A professed Equivocator, whereas I have showed in the 7. and 12. Chapters of this Answer, first, that such as grant the lawfulness of Equivocation in some limited cases, are far more severe & rigorous against all kind of lying in the least things that may be (as appeareth by their known, and confessed doctrine by us set down,) then are their adversaries in the greatest; yea highest kind or degree of that sin, I mean of lying: and in the second, besides the multiplicy of convictions, whereby I have made demonstration of this man's falsity every where, I have showed in the foresaid 12. Chapter, that he (this Minister to wit of simple truth) as also his fellows A Minister of simple truth. which profess themselves such enemies of lawful Equivocation that may be used without lying, do Equivocate every where in the worst & most sinful sort of flat lying that may be imagined, without any reservation or veil, or substance of truth at all. For proof whereof I 〈◊〉 me to the said 12. Chapter, and shall return to follow this fellow somewhat further in the said Epistle to his Majesty. 11. For not many lines after the former passage, by occasion of certain words of him that first answered him about a march of apes; he taketh upon him to set forth a certain march of Soldiers coming against his Majesty and other Protestant Princes from the 7. hills of Babylon, to wit Rome, saying thus: May it Epistle to the King. please your sacred Majesty, to see how exactly they imitate Soldiers in their march? Parsons, teaching persecution against all Kings and States Protestant, doth propound for his imitation the example of David A feigned march against his Majesty. in his conflict against Goliath: Allen, the example of Eliah in calling, if it were possible, for fire from heaven to consume the Messengers of Kings: Reynolds the example of jabel to knock Generaels' on the head: Bellarmine the example of jehoida, and other Priests for murdering of opposite Queens: Sanders, the example of Mattathias, who fought against King Antiochus: Simancha the example of Heathenish Scythians, who murdered their natural King Scyles: Boucher the example of Samson, to kill, if they can, a thousand of his supposed Philisthians with the jaw bone of an Ass. 12. So he. And doth not the man deserve to have a jawbone of an Ass for his dinner, that hath so laboured to lay together these impertinent examples, without head or foot, ground or proof, purpose or coherence, truth or similitude with the matter in hand? For where doth he find these marchinges against his Majesty? why had not he cited some place or testimony whereby might appear this to be true that he objecteth here to these men against his Highness? Nay if his Majesty will remember marchinges against him indeed, not imaginations in the air as these are, he will consider what manner of men they have been, either Protestants or Catholics that have marched and machinated against him and his, for more than 40. years together, while he was in Scotland; what royal blood was shed of his nearest and dearest in kindred; what violence used and practised upon his own person, and parents; who were the Authors, incensers, fyrebrands, & bellows of these A 〈◊〉 march against his Majesty. enraged flames; Priests or Ministers; those that came from the hills of Rome, or such as had their spirit from the valley of Geneva: and then if we would frame a squadron of all those turbulent & lawless Protestant people, that vexed and afflicted his Majesty in Scotland, and marched against him, and his noble Mother, and grand Mother with banners displayed: and that we should place before these again, a Vanguard of preaching-Scottish-Ministers, Vanguard as Knox, and all his 〈◊〉, exhorting, in citing & sounding out the trumpets of these rebellions; and a Rearward again of English-Ministers 〈◊〉 standing behind them, and clapping their hands to their encouragement, writing books and sending them all aid both in words and works that possibly they could procure; whilst in the mean space both Catholic priests & people in England, Rome, and else where, prayed heartily for the good success of his majesties said parents, and for his in theirs: this (I say) was a true and real march in deed, & that other imaginary, which our Minister to make us odious hath here devised. 13. And to speak one word more of this matter, for that it is of much importance, and the truth thereof notorious to the world: When upon the year of Christ 1586. fourteen principal and zealous young CathoIicke Gentlemen suffering for his majesties title. gentlemen were most pitifully put to death in London, and divers others condemned, and their goods confiscated for an imputation, that they would 〈◊〉 delivered his majesties mother 〈◊〉 of prison, and favoured her succession to the Crown; did not 〈◊〉 raging Ministers then, no less fiery 〈◊〉 MORTON now, rave out of every pulpit, not so much against them, as against the cause and objects of their calamity, which was the love they bore both to mother and son in that behalf? Against 〈◊〉 also they never ceased to cry until they had gotten the life of the one to be taken away, and the Statute of Association to be made for endangering the other. 14. And when before that again, upon the year 1581. fourteen learned priests and Jesuits, were arraigned & condemned upon pretence that their coming into England was for some designment against the State; was not the greatest, and most odious part of their arraignment (and most amplified by the Attorney Popham at that time) for that they were devout to the Queen of Scotland, and her title, and prayed for 〈◊〉 accused for their devotion to the title of Scotland. her in their Masses, Litanies, and other prayers? Yea when some of them came to die at Tyburn, and prayed at their death for the Queen of England, did not some principal men demand them publicly from among the people, what Queen they meant, Elizabeth, or Mary? And was not this an ordinary Equivocation, which Ministers cried out that Catholics then used, and especially priests? And how then doth this fond, and malicious Minister bring in such Marchinges of Catholic Soldiers against his Majesty, who ever 〈◊〉 for him? How doth he talk of such killing of supposed Philisthines by the jaw-bone of an ass? The ass in deed we have found, but the jaw-bone as yet we see not. 15. But let us hear him go forward in vaunting to his Majesty of his goodly works. After the reply is finished (saith he) there is presented to your Princely, and most religious judgement, A confutation of the reasons of two of their more than unreasonable positions; as namely of heinous Rebellions, and execrable Equivocations: both which are refelled (I hope) sufficiently by the testimonies of their own most principal Doctors; A course which I profess in all disputes; knowing that by no better wisdom may this new Babylon be confounded, then wherewith God wrought the destruction of the old, even * Gen. 11. 7. & 9 The division of their tongues. So he. 16. And you must know, that this division of our tongues is nothing else but that he allegeth some times different opinions out of some of our Schooledoctors (which our men do for him, he having nothing herein of his own industry) in matters that be disputable, and not determined by the 〈◊〉. And is not this a great point, for so great a rabbin to brag of, as of a course which he 〈◊〉 in all his disputes? How doth foolish vanity discover itself in all these men's words & actions? And yet let the Reader note attentively that notwithstanding this brag, he hath no one Catholic Author in all this controversy about Equivocation, that absolutely denieth the thing, or The vanity 〈◊〉 T. M in dividing our tongues. holdeth it for unlawful in all points as he doth, albeit some do differ in opinion concerning the cases, causes, times, means, manners, limitations, and circumstances of the same, as after is largely by us declared. So as here he hath no division of our tongues, but which himself maketh, to wit, where sometimes to seem to find a difference where none is, he belieth our Authors flatly, and forceth them to speak one against an other, as in many places we do demonstrate and leave him with the shame. 17. Wherefore to say as he doth that our execrable Equivocations are sufficiently refelled by him with the testimonies of our most principal Doctors is as true, as that he is a Minister of simple truth, and naked innocency, and of constant assurance of an upright conscience: all which are ridiculous A fond vaunt of T. M. refated. antiphrases in deed, for he hath no one Doctor of ours, either most or least principal with him in his opinion, or that calleth Equivocations, used with due circumstances or limitations, execrable, or unlawful, or not necassary in some cases; nor hath he any one sentence, or testimony of theirs to the contrary, as after is made evident. And consequently this course of Tho. Morton in all his disputes, is a lying course, a vaunting course, a ridiculous course. And as for his disputes, I do show him after to be so silly a disputer, as that he knoweth not how to make a true syllogism, and therefore am forced to send him back again to Cambridge to reform his Logic, or to learn more: about which point I remit the Reader to that which is handled in the 11. Chapter and else where of this Treatise. 18. Next after this he layeth before his Majesty a certain observation about Pope's names, as full fraught with malice, and deceitfulness, as the former with vanity; and he layeth the observation upon Polydore Virgil, though citing no place for it. Polydore observeth (saith he) that the Popes a long time in their election had their Epist. ad Regem. names changed by Antiphrasis, videl. the Elected, if 〈◊〉 were by natural disposition fearful, was named Leo, if cruel, Clement, if uncivil, Vrbanus, if wicked, Pius; if covetous, Bonifacius; if in all 〈◊〉 intolerable, Innocentius: And with this he thinketh to have laid down an observation of importance. But why had he not adjoined also, that if he were careless of his flock, than Gregory must be his name, which importeth a vigilant pastor? 19 But now let the judicious Reader observe the malice, and falsehood of this observation, and thereby judge, whether the Author thereof be a Minister of simple A false and malicious observation of T. M. against Pope's refuted. truth or no. Polydore saith only that sometimes Popes, as other Princes in like manner, have had names, that have been different, or rather contrary to their nature & manners, which is an ordinary case if we examine the signification of men and women's names; but that Pope's names were changed of purpose by Antiphrasis, or contrary speech to cover their defects, as here is set down, this is a malicious lie of the Minister, and hath neither simplicyty, nor truth in it, for that all these names here mentioned of Leo, Clemens, Vrbanus, Pius, Bonifacius, Innocentius, and Gregory, were chosen by the Popes that took them for the great reverence, and estimation they had of certain excellent men of that name that went before them; as also for the good abodement of their future government, and to be stirred up the more by the memory of those names to the virtues signified by them; but especially for the honour and imitation of the first Popes that bore those names. As for example of S. Leo the first, who how excellent a man he was, both for learning and sanctity, appeareth by the acknowledgement of the Protestants themselves. M. jewel making this Apostrophe unto him in his challenge, O Leo, O 〈◊〉, O Paul, O Christ! 20. The like may be said of S. Clement the first and next Pope after S. Peter; and the same of S. Vrbanus Pope and Martyr, in the second age after the Apostles: and the like of Pius the first Pope and Martyr, in the first age after the said Apostles; and no less of S. Bonifacius the first that lived in the beginning of the fourth age, and a little before him again in the same age S. Innocentius the first, so highly commended by S. Augustine for a great Saint: and after him again S. Gregory the Great, and first Pope of that name most admirable both to those of his time and all posterity for many excellent virtues, who though living some ages after all the former; yet have there been 13. Popes after him, that for reverence of his virtues have taken his name, and ten of S. Leo, 7. of S. Clement, 6. of S. Vrbanus, 4. of S. Pius, 7. of S. Bonifacius, and 8. of S. Innocentius, whereof none had that name by 〈◊〉, but all by choice after they were elected Popes, for the causes now touched. Which being so, it is evident what a wicked lost conscience this Minister hath, to avouch unto a King, and by him to all others, so manifest, and malicious a calumniation. 21. But he goeth further yet in folly to magnify his own learning and to compare the same with no less than Aristotle. 〈◊〉 have so framed this dispute (saith he) that it may seem, I hope, to be like Aristotle's books of natural Philosophy, so published, as not published, etc. And his reason is. For that as he saith, he always putteth down the clause of meant all reservation in Latin: which yet is not true, as the Reader will see by perusing this book, he having to my remembrance set down the same in Latyn but once only throughout all his book, and that in four words in his second page, the said reservation being mentioned in English, more perhaps then forty times, nor were it of any importance if it were always put down in Latyn. For that any man lightly whether he understand Latyn, or no, if he see or hear the precedence both of question and answer, will easily guess what the reservation is, if he suspect any to be at all, as if a man do hear or read the premises of a syllogism in English, he will easily guess at the conclusion, though it be in Latin; yea if he be of any mean capacity, he will gather the inference himself by natural discourse. Wherefore this of Aristotle's books was brought in only by the vain Minister to compare them with his books, or, as he calleth them, his disputes, so published (forsooth) as not published, for that he imagineth that the common capacity of men cannot reach unto the depth thereof, he wadeth so profoundly in his own folly. But you will see afterwards that How T. M. his books are so published as not published. he is understood, and so deciphered, as he may be understood, and pitted also by others. And I know no sense wherein he may say, that his works are so published, as not published, but that they are not worthy indeed the publishing and much less the reading, wherein they do differ much from those of Aristotle. 22. It followeth in his said Epistle to his Majesty: Epistle to the King against Equivocation. For that this doctrine of Equivocation (saith he) acknowledged by your admirable wisdom to be in religion most 〈◊〉 and detestable, in politic State most pernicious and intolerable, and in every actor most baneful to the soul of man; it may please your Excellent Majesty to provide in this behalse for your faithful and religious Subjects, that they never be so intoxicated with this Antichristian spirit, as either to deceive, or be deceived thereby, etc. Would God it might please his Highness in his admirable wisdom to peruse over but two, or three Chapters of this Treatise about Equivocation, and the reasons of the lawfulness and necessity thereof in some cases, together with the gross, monstrous, sacrilegious, and detestable licence of lying, taken up, and vied by the impugners of lawful Equivocation, and especially Ministers, that most talk, and make profession of simple truth; I do not doubt, but his Excellent Majesty out of his Christian piety would provide in this behalf, for his faithful and religious Subjects that they should not be so much deceived by 〈◊〉, as they are, nor intoxicated with their Antichristian lying spirit, to their eternal perdition. And this is so much as I have thought good to reply in this place concerning his Epistle to his Majesty. 23. As for the other which scornfully he directeth T. M. his idle Epistle to the deceived brethren. to the deceived brethren, it is so short, fond & idle a thing, that it deserveth no answer at all, the principal point, whereupon he standeth therein, being this, that Catholic people are seduced by their priests, who 1. Tim. 2. will be Doctors (saith he out of S. Paul to Timothy) and yet understand not what they say, nor whereof they affirm. But whether this description of fond presumptuous Doctors touched by S. Paul do agree rather to Protestant-Ministers, or to Catholic priests, will appear in great part by reading over this book, especially the 5. 8. and 10. Chapters, if by Thomas morton's errors and ignorances, a scantling may be taken of the rest. But now let us 〈◊〉 how he doth go about to prove that our priests are such bad Doctors, as S. Paul speaketh of. 24. His chief proof consisteth in a certain comparing of them with those jewish priests of the old law in Christ's time, who taught the soldiers that watched at the Sepulchre of our Saviour, to say, that whilst they were sleeping, his disciples came & stole him away; Common sense (saith he) might have replied, how could you tell, what was done, when you were all a sleep? But minds enthralled in the opinion of a never-erring priesthood (which confirmed that 〈◊〉) could not possibly but err with their priests; such (alas) is the case of all them, etc. Do you see how substantially he hath proved this matter? Let us examine the particulars: 〈◊〉 the story, than the inference. 25. About the story, S. Matthew recounteth in the 28. chapter of his Gospel, how Christ our Saviour being raised miraculously from death to lice, with a great and dreadful earthquake, and descent of an Angels, so as the soldiers that kept the sepulchre were astonished, and almost dead for fear, some of them ran and told the chief priests thereof, who making a consultation with the Elders, devised this shift to give them store of money and to bid them say, that in the night when they were a sleep his disciples came and stole him away, and so they did. And S. Matthew addeth, that this false brute ran currant among the jews, even until that time, wherein he wrote his Gospel. This is the narration, what hath now Thom. Morton to say to this against us, for thereunto is all his drift. First he saith as you have heard that this devise was improbable, and against common sense itself. Common sense (saith he) might have replied (to the soldiers) what could you tell what was done when you were The difficulty of 〈◊〉. M. how men may know what is done 〈◊〉 they are a sleep resolved. all a sleep? See here the sharpness of Tho. morton's wit, above that of the Priests, Scribes, and pharisees. But what if one of the soldiers had replied to him thus: We saw it not, when we were a sleep, but afterward when we were awakened, we perceived that he was stolen away. What rejoinder would our minister make? As for example if Tho. Morton were walking with a communion-booke under his arm through a field, and wearied should lie down to sleep with his book by his side, and at his awaking should see his book gone, were it against common sense for him to say, that his book was stolen from him while he was a sleep? Or is not this an assertion fit for one of those Doctors whereof S. Paul talketh, that understand not what they say, or whereof they affirm. But this will better yet appear by the second point which is his inference. Wherefore we must a little also examine that. 26. But 〈◊〉 (saith he) 〈◊〉 in the opinion of a never-erring priesthood (which confirmed that answer) could not possibly but err with their priests, such (alas, is the case of all them, etc. The malicious man would deface Christian priesthood by the jewish priesthood, and our Priests by theirs: but consider how far he runneth from the mark in both: Minds enthralled (saith he) in the opinion of a never-erring priesthood, which confirmed this answer: Did the Priesthood of jury confirm this Answer? Who saith so? We read that the Priests with the Elders did devise this answer, and they knew they did evil, and lie therein, and so did the soldiers also that published the same. But this was a matter of fact, not a determination of faith. Neither among the jews nor Christians was there ever opinion that Priests, or Priesthood could not err in matters of fact, life, or their manners. How then is this to the purpose? Or doth not this also prove him to be one of those forenamed Doctors, that understand not what they say, or whereof they affirm? How much more modesty and piety had it been in Thom. Morton to have followed the example of Christ and his Apostles, who though persecuted by those Priests; yet both thought and spoke reverently of the Priesthood. 27. S. john the Evangelist setting down the speech of wicked caiphass the Highpriest about the death of john. 11. Christ, to wit, that it was necessary for one to die for the people; addeth presently: that Cayphas spoke not this of himself, but prophesied as being Highpriest of that year. S. Paul Priesthood of the old Testament derided by T. M. greatly honoured by Christ and his Apostles. in like manner being apprehended, and brought into a Counsel of the jews, and unjustly strooken on the face by the commandment of wicked Ananias the Highpriest, whom thereupon in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called Paynted-wall, as soon as ever he was 〈◊〉 that he was the Highpriest, he excused himself, that he knew it not. I did not know brethren (saith he) that he was Act. 23. Chiefe-Priest for it is written, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not speak 〈◊〉 of the Prince of thy 〈◊〉 And when the said Apostle doth afterwards handle in his Epistle to the Hebrews this jewish Priesthood, as a figure of that of Christ our Saviour, and of the new 〈◊〉 he speaketh very honourably thereof, saying: That 〈◊〉 Chief-Priest taken out from men, is appointed for men in those things that belong to Heb. 7. to God, to offer gifts, and sacrifices for 〈◊〉, etc. But Christ himself most honourably of all other gave to his disciples, and to the people this advertisement: Upon the Chair of Moses have sitten Scribes and pharisees; all things therefore whatsoever they shall say unto you, observe, and do them, but do not according to their works. 28. And if unto the ancient aaronical Priesthood of the old Testament, so much honour, so much credit, so much obedience was to be performed (which yet was not so sanctified by the divine person of Christ himself, nor yet so adorned with the promise of his infallible assistance, as ours of the new Testament is, according to the Order of Melchisedech) what impiety is this in Thomas Morton to go about to discredit the one by the other? yea to ascribe the lying of the jewish soldiers and their talking against common sense (as he will have it) unto their enthralled opinion of a never-erring Priesthood? Is not this senseless? Had these soldiers an opinion perhaps that their Priests could not sin? Or did they hold this for 〈◊〉 point of doctrine, determined unto them out of Moses' chair? Or if te y did not, how is this their fact attributed by Thomas Morton unto that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? 29. But he goeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 all our errors 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the same 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: for 〈◊〉 whereof 1. Thes. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that God in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 lies and 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 examples the delivery of False calumniations. 〈◊〉 soul out 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: The donation of Constantine; the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of our Lady; the 〈◊〉 of a 〈◊〉 by S. 〈◊〉; the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Christians amongst the Indians etc. But here now Thomas 〈◊〉, if he would show 〈◊〉 a man of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and judgement indeed, & to deal really and not by calumniatio, should prove three things. First that all these positions are held by us as he setteth them down: Secondly that they are all false indeed as we hold them: and thirdly, that therefore we err in them, for that we believe our Priesthood cannot err; so as the causality of these errors must fall upon the enthralled opinion of our never-erring Priesthood. 30. Of which three points he proveth never a one, nor goeth about to prove it: and we deny them all in the sense that he objecteth them: For as for Traian's soul, no learned Catholic man doth hold it, either for true or likely: and it is at large refuted by Baronius a Catholic writer. Constantine's donation is a Baron. tom. 2. anno 100 sub finem & in tom. 8. anno. 604. fusè. matter of story disputed to and fro by learned men of our religion. The assumption of our B. Lady hath more grounds for it, then either Morton or a thousand Mortous will be able to impugn, for that he can not deny, but that for many ages together it hath been received through out all Christendom for an ancient tradition, and from the time of the most learned S. john Damascene, (that lived in the East Church, almost mine hundred years gone, and expressly recordeth the said The defence of the bodily assumption of the B. virgin. tradition to be held for ancient in his time) T. M. must needs grant the same; and then how many thousands of more learned, godly, vigilant, and prudent Christian men than Morton is, have believed the same in so many worlds throughout all Christendom, as See S. Bernard in his 5. Sermons of the Assumption of our B. Lady & alibi. namely S. Bernard and others, every man may easily see, as also consider this one reason amongst the rest; that if the sacred body of that Blessed Virgin, Mother of God, had been left any where upon earth, as other Saints bodies were, there would have remained at least some memory, some testimony thereof, or some devotion to the place. 31. And for so much as by God's holy providence so great concourse hath been made ever unto the bodies of S. Peter, S. Paul, and other of the Apostles, Martyrs and Saints of God, in different places, though never so remote, it is more than probable, that some would have been made likewise unto this sacred body of our Blessed Lady: but the malice of these people is such to the holy memory of this blessed virgin upon earth, and their precipitation to 〈◊〉 so hasty and inconsiderate, as whatsoever they see not with their eyes, they deny as absolutely false. For what certainty Miracles wrought by God for the conversion of the Indians scoffed at by T. M. can T. M. have (think you) against the bodily 〈◊〉 of our Blessed Lady, his assertion being a bare negative? What certainty against the miracles wrought by God in the Indies? Is the hand of God shortened? Is not Christ as powerful now, as he was in the Primitive Church, when he extended his hand to miracles, Act. 4. as his Disciples with exultation 〈◊〉? Are not these Indians new Christians as the other in jury were? Did not Christ even then when he gave power to work miracles, expressly say, that he would be with Marc. ult. them (not for this or that age) but unto the end of the world? How then doth this arrogant-sylly-gras-hopper insult here in favour of Infidels, and disgrace of Christians, calling them, lying miracles amongst the Indians? Hath he perchance ever been there? Hath he adventured his life to gain those souls unto Christ, that died for them, as others have done? Hath he suffered hunger and thirst, could and heats, persecution and affliction with loss of his blood for gaining of those poor Indian 〈◊〉, as others have suffered, and 〈◊〉 daily? Noe. He hath done nothing of this, but contrary wise stood a far of in England, hath attended to good cheer and ease, procured benefices and favour of the State, and now upon the sudden is become an advocate for the Indian Pagans, to scorn at the Christian miracles wrought by God's power among them, though testified by never so great and grave Authority unto us. And is not this a pious man think you. 32. As for S. Francis louse, I never heard of that scorn before, and I marvel in what part of our Theological The contumely of T. M. about S. Francis louse. assertions he 〈◊〉 place 〈◊〉, or how he will deduce the 〈◊〉 of this louse from our entrhalled opinion of our never-erring Priesthood. For so he must, if he talk to the purpose. And when he will or can do this, every man seeth. In the mean space, I leave it to that glorious Saint now in heaven, where no lise be, to answer the contumely, if he think good, either upon earth or else where. Sure I am that I have read of strange events in some upon less pride and in solency used towards the servants of God than this. The examples most known are of Herod's lise, that devoured him; and if we believe Doctor Bolsacke the Physician of Geneva, john Calvin died of the like disease. God defend all good men, and T. M. also from like chastisement, and cure 〈◊〉 rage of his contumelious & blasphemous tongue, whilst he hath time of 〈◊〉. 33. And now for that this Epistle groweth over long, and we shall have large occasions afterwàrdes to 〈◊〉 open this man's defects in these behalfs, we shall go no further in examining of matters here, but pass to the treatise itself designed to procure (if it be possible) some Mitigation of affliction & persecution towards Catholic Subjects, drawn into public hatred, exulceration and exceration by such devilish Sycophancy and odious Calumniations, as this fellow and his like have cast forth against them, without all ground, but of malice & hatred, as by his accusations and our answers, I doubt not, you will manifestly perceive. I beseech Christ jesus our Saviour to turn all to his greater glory, & then happy are our sufferings: & so to his holy providence & protection I commit the whole. Your loving Countryman, that wisheth your best good. P. R. A TABLE Of the particular Contents, Chapters, and Paragraphes of the ensuing TREATISE. THE Preface to all true hearted Englishmen, that love the honour; safety, and best good of their Nation, Prince and Country; of the present division and disagreement about matters of religion in England, and of so many importune exasperations used by divers sorts of men, to increase the same: and namely by this Minister Th. Morton his injurious libel. Pag. 1. That the main Proposition insinuated and urged by T. M. That Catholics are not tolerable in a Protestant Common wealth in respect of Rebellion and Conspiracies is untrue, indiscreet, and pernicious; and falleth rather upon Protestant-subiects than catholics. Chap. I. pag. 31 Ten Reasons or rather Calumniations brought by T. M. for maintenance of 〈◊〉 former Proposition: That Catholic people are intolerable in a Protestant Government, in respect of 〈◊〉, conspiracies and rebellion, 〈◊〉, and returned upon himself and his, Chap. II. p. 52. How this Treatise was laid aside by 〈◊〉 of the Author and some other causes: And why it was taken in hand again upon the sight of a Cath. Answer, and a new Reply of T. M. 〈◊〉 to his Maiefly; with the Author's judgement of them both. Chap. III. pag. 89. What the 〈◊〉 Thomas Morton doth in this Reply and full satisfaction answer, concerning the former point of Charge against Protestants for Rebellion, Conspiracies, and disobedience; the effect whereof is drawn to three principal Questions. Chap. four pag. 103. The first Question about Heretics & heresy, §. 1. pag. 105. The second Question about seditious doctrine, para. 2. p. 112. The third Question concerning practice of 〈◊〉. §. 3 p. 122. A brief Censure is given of a new Treatise set forth by T. M. 〈◊〉; A Confutation of the Pope's 〈◊〉 as supreme head of rebellion, etc. annexed to his former justification of Protestant-Princes for matters of 〈◊〉. Chap. V. pag. 139. The second Part of this Chapter containing three particular kinds of proofs, alleged by T. M. against the Pope's supremacy to wit: Out of the new and old Testament, & from Reason itself. pag. 159. A brief view of certain notorious; false and fraudulent dealings used by T. M. in this his short several Treatise against the Pope's Supremacy: As also sundry examples of the like proceeding in the former part of hisdeceytfull Reply. Chap. VI pag. 189. The second part of this Chapter representing some of the falsifications which are 〈◊〉 in the former Part of M. morton's reply; which came to our hands after our Answer made before in our second Chapter against his ten Reasons. pag. 218. The third Part of this Chapter containing a Controversy, Whether Calvin favoured Arianisme, or no; with divers 〈◊〉 of. T. Morton about the same. pag. 244. Of the second General Point of Calumniation set forth against Catholics by T. Morton concerning Equivocation, which is reduced to certain particular Considerations for better discussion thereof, Chap. VII. pag. 273. The substance of the Cause is entered into; and it is discussed, What 〈◊〉, what 〈◊〉, what falsity, and lying is: and some other points 〈◊〉 this effect, Chap. VIII. pag. 307. The second Part of this Chapter, Whether a mixed Proposition partly uttered; and partly reserved in mind, may be a true Logical Proposition and Enunciation, §. 1. pag. 321. The third Part of this Chapter, Whether the former mixed Proposition, partly uttered, and partly reserved, be 〈◊〉 or no? §. 2. pag. 335. The truth before set 〈◊〉 is further debated and proved by the assertions of Schooledoctors, Divines, Lawyers, both Canon and Civil, Reasons, Practise of the Adversaries, and by the very instinct of nature it 〈◊〉, Chap. IX. pag. 348. The first Point about school-divines, Doctors and Lawyers, §. 1. pag. 349. The second Point touching Scriptures and Fathers; for 〈◊〉 and reserved Propositions, §. 2. pag. 358. The third Point concerning other Scriptures alleged, and pretended to be answered by T. Morton; §. 3. pag. 369, The fourth and last Point of this Chapter, about Scriptures and Fathers, that defended Equivocation from the name and nature of deceit and 〈◊〉 with some other 〈◊〉 out of common Reason. etc. §. 4. pag. 396. Of certain particular cases, and occasions, wherein it may be lawful to use the manner of Equivocation or Amphibology before set down, either in speech or 〈◊〉, with the 〈◊〉 thereof, Chap. X. pag. 406. The first case about the Secret of Confession §. 1. pag. 407. The second case about Secrets of the Commonwealth §. 2. p. 〈◊〉. The third case about any Party accused or 〈◊〉 in Question, §. 3. pag. 414. The arguments and grounds of this Common 〈◊〉, §. 4. pag. 420. The fourth case about Witnesses, §. 5. 425. The 〈◊〉 case about 〈◊〉 in swearing, §. 6. pag. 427. divers other cases in particular, §. 7. pag. 430. The arguments and Reasons of T. morton's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 examined and answered: and his notorious errors, follies, and falsifications therein discovered, Chap. XI. pag. 439. His first argument 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 definition of aly, §. 1. pag. 442. His second Argument from the 〈◊〉 of Equivocation, §. 2. pag. 444. His third Argument from the description of lying, §. 3. p. 447. His fourth Argument is taken ● specie, or from a particular kind of lying, which is perjury, §. 4. pag. 449. His fifth Argument, Truth God, lying the Devil, parag. 5. pag. 453. His six Argument entitled, from examples of dissimulation condemned by Scriptures, Fathers, Pagans, etc. §. 6. pag. 457. His example of Pagan writers out of Cicero. §. 7. pag. 462. His 〈◊〉 Argument taken from a sign, an Interpreter, a coin, and Giges-ring, §. 8. pag. 466. Of his second Conclusion and proofs thereof, para. 9 p. 468. Of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Equivocation, the one 〈◊〉 and lawful; the other 〈◊〉 and sinful: And that Catholics only use the first in 〈◊〉 cases, and with circumstances and limitations: But T. 〈◊〉 and his follows 〈◊〉 the first, do use 〈◊〉 the second, which is false and lying 〈◊〉. Chap. XII. pag. 483. The 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 in some Protestant 〈◊〉 Bishops, §. 1. pag. 490. Six arguments of M. jewel superintendant of 〈◊〉 his 〈◊〉 in this case. §. 2. pag. 493. Six examples of M. 〈◊〉 particular Equivocation, §. 3. pag. 504. The use of Equivocating in English Protestantes-Ministers, §. 4. pag. 517. The use of Equivocation in lay-men & Knights, §. 5. p. 529. The Conclusion of the whole 〈◊〉, with a brief exhortation 〈◊〉 Catholics not to use the liberty of Equivocation, 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 cases, but where some 〈◊〉 occasion induceth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. A Table of the particular matters 〈◊〉 in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. TO ALL TRVE-HARTED ENGLISHMEN, That love the honour, safety, and best good of their Nation, Prince, and Country. THE PREFACE. OF THE PRESENT DIVISION AND DISAGREEMENT About matters of Religion in England, and of many importune exasperations used by divers sorts of men, to increase the same: and namely by this Minister T. M. his injurious Libel. I DO not see (dear Countrymen) why I may not justly (our times & circumstances thereof considered) begin these my first lines of Preface with those words of Complaint and Admiration of the Poet Lucan, whereby in few verses he comprehended and laid forth the rueful state of the rent Commonwealth and Roman Empire by civil wars, saying: Bella per * Anglicanos. Aemathios plusquam civilia campos jusque datum sceleri * Flemus. canimus: populumque potentem, In sua victrici conversum viscera dextra. 2. For if here we change but Thessalian fields into English land, and the Poets singing, into our weeping and wailing, all the rest agreeth most aptly, if our division be not more rueful and lamentable then that of the Romans. For first our wars may truly be said to be plus quam civilia, more than Plus quam civilia. civil, in that they are not only internal, but domestical also, in such sort, as no one Province, no one town, no one village, no one house or family is lightly to be found, where some part or other of this war and dissension The pitiful 〈◊〉 of England. upon difference of Religion taketh not some hold: The Father somewhere accusing or suspecting his children: the children flying or fearing their Father: the Mother entering into 〈◊〉 with her daughter: the daughter not trusting or confiding in her Mother. the brother impugning his brother, and wife complaining of 〈◊〉 husband: the friend breaking with his friend: and the nearest of kin with those whom law of nature, & bandof blood did most straightly combine & knit together. 3. Neither is this war ended only in words, or in bare debate of minds, judgements, wills and affections, but it breaketh forth also into works, and hostile actions, to the sight and admiration of all the world, no adversary Camps or armies standing more watchful and distrustful one of an other, or using more stratagems of discovery, spiery, prevention or impugnation, the one against the other, than we among ourselves; whereof our continual searches, privy intelligences, bloody and desperate conspiracies, apprehensions, imprisonments, tortures, arraignementes, condemnations and executions are most loath some and lamentable witnesses. 4 And as for Ius datum sceleri, never could jusque datum sceleri. it be spoken so properly in the Romans misery as in ours, when in deed (though in some different sense) that which was ius before, is now scelus, to uvitt, that which was law, right, and equity under Catholic Religion, is now offensive and punishable by the laws of Protestants, that which was then piety, is now iniquity, that which by them was used for devotion, is now scorned for superstition, that which they reverenced for highest Religion, is now held in contempt and greatest derision; such as then should have been hated and punished for heretics, are now esteemed for Christian and best reform Catholics, and they which in those days were called Catholics, as well by their enemies as themselves, and sat in judgement upon the rest, are now brought into judgement under them whose judges at that time they were, in the self same cause, right and law being changed with the time, and equity with men's affections, articles of old faith become crimes of new treason, and finally all so inverted and turned upside down, and the differences so pursued with such hostile enmity of exulcerated minds, as the Poet's conclusion falleth upon us evidently in Populumque potentem in sua, etc. the eye of all Christendom, that we being a potent people, and dreadful otherwise to all our neighbours, have turned our victorious hands into our own bowels, by this disunion in Religion, and thereby have just cause to fear the event and inference threatened by our Saviour (except his holy hand protect us) that; Every Kingdom divided in itself shall Mat. 12. come to desolation. 5. And that which most increaseth the feeling of this misery is, that no man endeavoureth to mollify matters, but all to exasperate; no man applieth lenitives, but all corrosives; no man poureth in wine or oil into the wound, but all salt and vinegar; no man bindeth Exasperations. up or fomenteth, but every one seeketh to crush, bruise, and break more; all cry and clap their hands to exulceration, saying with the children of Edom, in the day of hierusalem's affliction: Exinanite, exinanite, usque ad Psal. 136. fundamentum in ea. Pull her downc, pull her down even unto the foundation. 6. And to this effect have we heard and seen many speeches and sermons made, sundry Books and pamphlets cast abroad or set forth in print, some before the late cruel and hateful Malicious extension. conspiracy (which might perhaps be some incitation to the designment or hastening thereof, and some presently thereupon, not only to exaggerate that fact (whose atrocity by itself is such, as scarcely it leaveth any place to exaggeration) but also to extend and draw out the hatred and participation thereof to others of the same Religion most innocent therein, yea unto the whole multitude, so far as in them lieth, a matter of exorbitant injustice and intemperate malice. 7. Of the former sort of books and pamphlets Of books and pamphletes. we have seen one set forth the year passed by Thomas Hamond, entitled: The late Commotion of certain Papists in Hereford Shire, about the burial of one Alice Wellington Recusant, after the Popish manner, in the town of Alens-moore, two miles from Hereford etc. Which thing though it were but the fact of a few poor country people catholicly affected (as most are known to be in those parts) to bury the said Commotion of wales. Alice, and that in a sort they were forced thereunto, lest the dead corpse should rot above ground (the Minister of the place most obstinately refusing to bury the same) and that some other false companion in like manner is thought to have been set a work to induce them into that trap, as since hath been understood: yet was the matter so exaggerated every where, both by books, preachings, and public speeches of Magistrates, as if it had been a most heinous attempt in deed: and not only these, but by this occasion all Catholics generally were most odiously traduced, especially in this one point (that touched them nearest) to wit, that they would seem to conceive any least hope of his majesties clemency and mercy towards them by way of toleration or connivency for their Religion, or mitigation of their continual pressures for the same. 8. To which end were brought into this book and published in print not only the Bishop of London his sermon at Paul's Cross upon the fifth of August then past, wherein he avowed his majesties protestation against Catholics In the Epistle of T. H. 22. Junii 1605. to the contrary, but the speech also and charge of the L. Chancellor in the star-chamber unto the Lords, judges, and communality there present ready to depart into their countries, was delivered as from the Kings own mouth, all tending to the same end of afflicting, and disgracing the said people, and depriving them of all hope of any tolerance, yea * avant false and lying Varlets (saith one) your words are vain, and your hopes are more vain. scoffing most bitterly and contemptuously at their folly, for conceiving any such vain hopes, and enjoining the most severe order for descrying, searching, apprehending, imprisoning, and punishing them, which ever lightly was heard of, as though they had 〈◊〉 the only or most grievous male factors within the Realm, and this only for their Religion. 9 Soon after upon the back of this, came forth S. Edward Cook his majesties attorneys Sir Edward Cook's book against Catholics. Book, entitled by him: his Fifth Part of Reports: which though in the entrance, and forefront it promised more calm and mild proceeding (and so it performeth in phrase and style of writing) yet was the drift and ending thereof no less stinging, than the Scorpion's tail itself, against all sorts of Catholics and their Religion. And to say somewhat of it in this place, his argument or subject was new and strange, taking upon him to prove out of the old and ancient common laws of His argument. England, that the spiritual jurisdiction given by Act of Parliament to the late Queen Elizabeth in the first year of her reign, and exercised afterwards by her in Ecclesiastical matters, was dew unto her, not only by virtue of that Statute, but by vigour also of the said ancient common laws, and so acknowledged and practised by the old rank of our foregoing Kings and Princes: a conclusion no less strange and paradoxical in wise and learned men's ears, then that was of him who divers ages after the wars of Troy ended, and the true success thereof published by all writers throughout the world, took upon him to teach the contrary, to wit, that not the Grecians, but the Trojans had the victory in that war, and so to reverse and contradict whatsoever had been written, taught, or received before. 10. Let the histories of our Christian English Kings even from the first converted Ethelbert, unto King Henry the eight be examined whether this be so or not, and whether a thousand monuments of theirs (in almost a thousand years) do not testify them all to have been of contrary judgement, practice, sense, and belief (in the controversy proposed) to that which M. Attorney by a few pieces of laws distractedly alleged, would have men to think. Or if he delight (as I take him to be learned) to have this argument more discussed (for it is both ample and important) let him M. attorneys paradox of English Kings. but procure licence for his Antagonist, to write and print his book, and I doubt not but that he will quickly be answered by some of his own profession, among whom I do imagine that many fingers must needs itch and tickle to be doing in so advantageous a cause: or if not, yet do I dare assure him, that some Divine of our side shall join issue with him in that point, for the * Now I hear it is answered. confutation of his whole drift, and narration in those his Reports, but principally in the overthrowing of his injurious conclusion, whereby he would infer, that whosoever did not believe and acknowledge the said late Queen's Ecclesiastical feminine authority, power, and jurisdiction in spiritual matters, was and is a traitor by the judgement of the ancient common laws of England, received, held, and practised even under Catholic Kings and Princes of former times. 11. Unto which untrue and improbable paradox, he addeth another no less stinging, nor better founded then the former, which is that for the foremost eleven years of Queen Elizabeth's reign, until she was excommunicated by Pius Quintus: No sort of people of what persuasion soever in Religion, False & odious 〈◊〉 of M. Attorney. refused to go to the Protestants Church (which is evidently false, both in many Puritans and more Catholics that refused openly in that time) and then: That upon that occasion Catholics first began to refuse (which in like manner is false, both for that they refused before, and this occasion was altogether impertinent to their refusal) and thirdly most injuriously of all, he would further seem to infer, that such as refuse now, may in like manner be presumed to do it upon the same undutiful mind towards his Majesty. All which points do tend to the exasperation and exulceration which every one seeth, and coming from a man of his place, room, and nearness in office about his Majesty, could not but make deep impression, and give perhaps a great push to the lamentable precipitation of those unfortunate Gentlemen that soon after ensued. 12. Which being happened, came forth presently this other odious pamphlet of T. M. his devised discovery (whereunto now I am forced in particular to answer) it being in itself no less slanderous and injurious, than the fact of the conspirators was wicked and grievous to all Catholics. The book beareth this title: An The book of T. M. about Romish doctrine exact discovery of Romish doctrine in case of Conspiracy and Rebellion: But he that shall weigh it well, shall find it a more exact discovery of English Ministerial malice, in case of sycophancy and calumniation; the Author endeavouring to ascribe that to public and general doctrine, which proceeded from private and particular passion, as also to draw the temerity of a few, to the hatred and condemnation of the whole. Of which iniquity we shall have occasion to speak more afterward in due place. 13. Soon after this pamphlet appeared many more, tending all for the most part to the same end of exulceration, or driving rather to plain desperation, every one adding affliction to affliction, and heaping hatred and envy upon them that detested & bewailed the transgression happened, no less, but much more than these insolent insultors themselves. Of this kind I might name sundry that myself have seen (though being out of England I may presume to have seen the least part of such as have been published and set forth 〈◊〉 this fact fell out) as namely one entitled: A Discourse of the late intended Treason; wherein the discourser beginneth with this foundation: That all English, both at home and abroad, were so A discourse without name of Author or truth of argument. fully in possession of contented peace at the time when this treason was plotted, as, to use his own words, no 〈◊〉 grudge, no inward whispering of discontentment did any way appear. Which assertion if you consider it well, and compare it with our domestical differences in Religion, and variety of punishments laid upon divers sorts of men at that time (even before this fact fell out) for the same, will seem a very great hyperbolical exaggeration, and overlashing: for that the penalties of Recusancy and other like molestations were as rife then as at any other time before, & complaints of Catholics in divers countries no less pitiful. 14. Another like Treatise followed this, entitled: A true report of the imprisonment, arraignment, and execution of the Another Treatise. late Traitors, imprinted by Geoffrey Chorlton: Which so raileth upon Catholics, and Catholic Religion from the very beginning to the end thereof, as if none of them had been free from the fact attempted, or that their common doctrine had publicly allowed the same; whereunto this seditious libel of the minister T. M. which now I am to confute endeavoureth to bear false witness. I will pretermit two other most virulent and spiteful Treatises entitled: Pagano-Papismus, and The picture of a Papist; in which the Religion Two other furious books. wherein all our ancestors both lived and died from the beginning of their Christianity unto our days, and so many worthy nations, great Princes, and famous learned men do profess round about us at this day, and do hope to be saved thereby, is made worse than Paganism, vea the horrible sink of all damnable heresies, which notwithstanding were condemned by the same Religion and Church in former ages, and consequently this censure savoureth more of fury then of reason. 15. But to leave of the recital of any more books or pamphlets to this effect, there hath appeared further a matter of far greater importance, which is a Catalogue of new laws suggested in this Parliament against the said Catholics, wherein besides the former heap of penal statutes made to this affliction in precedent times, divers new are proposed for an addition and aggravation of their Calamities, far more rigorous (if they * Now they are passed. pass) than the former; which being considered by foreign people do make the state of English Catholics under Protestant government to seem unto them much more miserable and intolerable, then that of the jew under any sort of Christian Princes, or that of the Grecians, or other Christians under the Turk, or Persian; or that of bondsubiectes under the Polonians, Swecians, Moscovians, and other such Nations: so as all this tendeth as you see (and as before we have noted) to more desperate disunion of minds and exasperation of hearts. 16. Only I must confess, that in two men's writings I find more moderation, then in any of the rest; who yet being more interessed in the late grievous designed delict, than any of the other that write thereof, had most cause to be provoked against the delinquents The first is his majesties speech both in his Proclamation, and Court of Parliament. In the former he professeth to distinguish between all others, calling themselves Catholics, & the Authors of detestable treason, and The Princely moderation of his Majesty in his speech. that by good experience he was so well persuaded of the loyalty of divers of that 〈◊〉, as that he assured himself that they did as much abhor that odious 〈◊〉, as himself. And in the second, his Majesty speaking in Parliament, distinguished between different sorts of Catholics, allowing to the one sort both the opinion of loyalty and possibility of salvation, detesting in that point (to use his highness words) the cruelty of the Puritans, and thinking it worthy of fire, that will admit no salvation to any Papist: Which is an argument of his Princely moderate meaning, not to condemn the whole for a part: though in our sense the distinction used by his Majesty in that place of some Catholics that hold some points of our Religion, and of others that hold all, cannot stand. For that we account them not for Catholics at all (nor may we) that hold not all, but a part, for that Catholicum is secundum What is Catholicum according to S. Augustine. totum, and not secundum partem, as well S. Augustine noteth, and consequently he that believeth a part only or any one jot less than the whole, cannot be in our sense, nor in that of S. Augustine, a true Catholic. 17. And surely though his Majesty in this place, out of the prejudicate persuasions of others, and 〈◊〉 suggested informations, seem to be persuaded that no Catholics of this condition that believe and embrace the whole, can ever prove either good Christians, or faithful subjects: yet is our hope and constant prayer to almighty God, that he will in time so illustrate that excellent understanding of his Highness, as the same will see and discern between these absolute and perfect Catholics that yield themselves wholly in obsequium Which is the best sort of Catholics & obedientiam fidei, in all that the universal Church prescribeth unto them to be believed, and others that choose, take, and leave what they like or list upon their own judgement: which choice or election (called otherwise heresy) if we believe the Holy Scriptures and sense of all antiquity in this behalf, is the most dangerous and pernicious disease (in respect of both those effects here mentioned by his Majesty) that is upon earth. And when his Highness shall further with deliberation and maturity have pondered, how many ages his noble Ancestors, Catholic Kings and Queens of both Realms have reigned in peace, honour and safety over subjects of the first sort, and how infinite troubles, turmoils, violences, dangers, hurts, and losses his majesties own person, and all his nearest in blood and kindred, have suffered in a few years of those other new choosers (to omit their doctrine) I doubt not but that out of his great prudence and equanimity, he will mollify and mitigate the hard opinion conceived of the former, notwithstanding this late odious accident fallen out by the temerity of a few, as the world knoweth. 18. The second example of some moderation before mentioned, (or at least wise meant) was my L. of Salisburies' answer My Lord of Salisbury his book. to Certain scandalous papers, as he called them; which though being written in the time and occasion they were, the answerer wanteth not his stings that pierce even to the quick: yet supposing the pretended injury offered by that fond menacing letter, and the condition of men in his place and dignity, not accustomed to bear or dissemble provocations of that kind, all may be called moderate that is not extreme: though for the letter itself (if any such were) I presume so much of his Lordship's wisdom and prudence, as he could hardly deem or suspect any Catholic to be so mad, as to write such a frantic commination, but rather that it came from the forge of some such other, as together with the blow to be given thereby to all Catholics, had furthermore a desire to draw forth from his L. the answer, thereby to see and try his style, and to that end gave him so urging an occasion, as by his friends is thought that in the conveniency of reason and honour, he could not well omit to accept thereof as he did, and performed the enterprise in such manner, as might be expected at his L. hands; to wit, as himself writeth of his majesties speech in the Parliament, Every line declaring the workman. 19 Only I may not let pass to note by the way, that in two points of 〈◊〉, touched by him of the Pope's authority, concerning Princes and the lawfulness of Equivocation in certain cases, as they are matters not appertaining Against my Lord of Salisburies' Divine. properly to his faculty, and profession: so must I think that his Divine did somewhat mistake, or misinform him therein. For of the first, thus he writeth: that he hath been a long time sorry, that some clear explication of the Papal authority hath not been made by some public and definitive sentence orthodoxal etc. He addeth further this reason of his desire: That not only those Princes which acknowledge this Superiority might be secured from fears and jealousies of continual treasons and bloody Assassinates against their persons, but those Kings also which do not approve the same, & yet would fain reserve a charitable opinion of their subjects, might know how far to repose themselves in their fidelity in civil obedience, howsoever they see them divided from them in point of conscience etc. 20. To the former clause touching his L. desire to have the matter defined and declared, his Divine might easily have informed him, that among Catholic people the matter is clear, and sufficiently defined, and declared in all points wherein there may be any doubt concerning this affair. As for The first question about authority over Princes. example in three things question may be made: first whether any authority were left by Christ in his Church and Christian commonwealth to restrain or repress, censure or judge any exorbitant and pernicious excess of Great men, States or Princes, or that he had left them remediless wholly by any ordinary authority? In which case as in other commonwealths that are not Christian, all Philosophers, lawmakers, Senators, counsellors, Historiographers, and other sorts of soundest wisdom, prudence, and experience, either jew or Gentile, have from the beginning of the world concurred in this; that God and nature hath left some sufficient authority in every common wealth, for the lawful, and orderly redressing of those evils, even in the highest persons. Nor did ever Philosopher of name, or lawmaker hitherto deny this assertion, as founded in the very law of nature, nations, and reason itself. 21. So when Christ our Saviour came to found his commonwealth of Christians in far more perfection than other states had been established before, subjecting temporal things to spiritual, according to the degree of their natures, ends, and eminencies, and appointing a supreme universal Governor in the one, with a general charge to look to all his sheep, without exception of great or small, people or potentates: upon these suppositions (I say) all Catholic learned men do ground, and 〈◊〉 ever grounded, that in Christian commonwealths, not only the foresaid ordinary authority is left, which every other state and Kingdom had by God and nature to preserve and protect themselves in the cases before laid down; but further also for more sure, and orderly proceeding therein, that the supreme care, judgement, direction and censure of this matter was left principally by Christ our Saviour unto the said supreme Governor, and Pastor of his Church and commonwealth. And in this there is no difference in opinion or belief between any sort of Catholics whatsoever (so they be Catholics) though in particular cases, diversity of persons, time, place, cause, and other circumstances, may move some diversity of opinions. And thus much of the first question. 22. The second may be about the manner The second question. how this authority, or in what sort it was given by Christ to his said supreme Pastor, whether directly or indirectly, immediately or by a certain consequence. As for example, whether Christ, as he gave the general charge of his sheep to S. Peter and his Successors directly and immediately in spiritual matters, by that commission three times repeated in S. john. Pasce oves meas; which words include, according to Catholic exposition, not only authority to feed, but to govern also, direct, restrain, cure, repress, and correct, when need is, as we see it doth appertain to a temporal shepherds office: so whether with this commission in spiritual affairs, our Saviour gave also immediately and directly, the charge and oversight of temporalities in like manner, or rather indirectly and by a certain consequence: that is to say, that when the government of spiritual affairs, to wit, of souls to their eternal bliss and salvation is so letted, or impugned by any temporal governors, as the said spiritual commission cannot be executed without redress or remedy; in such cases, and not otherwise, the said supreme pastor to have authority to proceed also against the said temporal Governors, for defence and preservation of his spiritual charge. Of which question the canonists do commonly defend the first part, but Catholic Divines for the most part the second: but both parts fully agree, that there is such an Authority left by Christ in his Church, for remedy of urgent cases, for that otherwise he should not have sufficiently provided for the necessity thereof. So as this difference of the manner maketh no difference at all in the thing itself. 23. The third question may be about the The third question. causes, for which this authority may be used, as also the form of proceeding to be observed therein; whereabout there are so many particularities to be considered, as are overlong for this place: only it is sufficient for Catholic men to know, that this may not be done without just cause, grave and urgent motives, and due form also of proceeding, by admonition, prevention, intercession, and other like preambles, prescribed by Ecclesiastical Canons to be observed, whereby my Lordship's doubts of fears, and ielosies of continual treasons, and bloody assassinates may justly be removed. For that this authority doth not only not allow any such wicked, or unlawful attempts of private men, but doth also expressly and publicly condemn the same and the doctrine thereof, as may appear not only by the condemnation of Wicklifs wicked article, in the Council of Constance, wherein he affirmed: That Sess. 15. it was lawful for every private man to kill any Prince whom he held to be a Tyrant, but also by like condemnation of Calvin, Beza, Ottoman, Bucchanan, Knox, Goodman, and others of that sect, who hold and practice in effect the same doctrine of Wickliff, concerning Princes, if not worse, as shall more largely and particularly be declared afterward in the first and fourth Chapters of this Treatise. And this I desire may satisfy his Lordship for the present, until we come to the foresaid places where better occasion in this kind will be offered. 24. As for the second point touched by his Lordship about the doctrine of Equivocation, About the doctrine of Equivocation. ambiguity of speech, amphibology, or mental reservation, in certain cases lawful (which doctrine his Lordship termeth strange, and gross, and that it teareth in sunder all the bands of human conversation) for that I am to handle this matter more largely and particularly in the ensuing Chapters of this book, especially from the fourth forward (the whole bulk of our adversaries calumniations consisting in these two points of Rebellion and Equivocation) I will here make answer to his Lordship, as to a man of science and experience, that I marvel greatly, how he can think that doctrine to be strange, which is so ordinary and usually to be seen in all the books of Catholic Divines for the space of these three or four hundred years, by confession of his own writers: how also he can term it gross, that the greatest wits of Christendom, for so long at least, have held for learned, and founded not only upon evident grounds of reason, nature, equity, and justice in divers cases (and for such allowed throughout all tribunales of Christendom, both Ecclesiastical and Civil) but warranted also by authority of many express examples of Holy Scriptures and Fathers, and in some cases so necessary for avoiding the sin of lying, perjury, discovering of secrets, injuring our neighbours, and other such inconveniences, as if I should here set down the said particular cases, both concerning secrecy or safety of him that is forced to equivocate (as afterward I shall do in convenient place) I presume his The law fullness, necessity, and circumstances of Equivocation. Lordship as so great a common-wealthesman would allow thereof with due circumstances, as just and necessary, and recall that part of his censure wherein he saith: That it teareth in sunder all the bands of human conversation, especially if he remember, that we do except from the licence of Equivocation, the common conversation of men in contracts, bargains, and other like affairs, whereby any damage or prejudice may grow to another man, and much more in matters appertaining to the clear and manifest profession of our faith. And thus much for this place, the refidue afterward. 25. And now having spoken all this by way The argument of the ensuing book against T. M. of Preface, we shall return to the particular Treatise of T. M. (for more of his name we cannot yet find out) entitled, An exact discovery of 〈◊〉 doctrine in case of conspiracy etc. which we have taken in hand to answer in this place, and to show that as his meaning is malicious, and means foolish: so is his proposition pernicious, and arguments vain, to prove the same, wherein I remit me to that, which afterwards you shall see set down. THAT THE MAIN PROPOSITION INSINVATED AND URGED BY T. M. That Catholics are not tolerable in a Protestant Commonwealth in respect of Rebellion and Conspiracies, Is untrue, indiscreet and pernicious, and falleth rather upon the Protestant-Subiect, than the Catholic. CHAP. I. THe whole drift of the Author throughout this malignant invective to be nothing else, but to persuade, that Protestants and Catholics cannot live together in The 〈◊〉 drift and seditious scope of T. M. one commonwealth, nor under one Prince or Governor, if he be a Protestant, is clear and manifest by all his whole discourse, proofs and arguments, which afterwards we shall more particularly in due place discuss: yea to the end he may make this divorce and separation between the kings Majesty of Great Brittany, and his Catholic subjects (for thither he bendeth all his battery) the more irreconcilable and remediless he placeth the ground of this incompossibility, not in the will, which may be changed, but in the judgement, and belief of Catholics; to wit, in their public and received doctrine, which doctrine well he knoweth not to lie in the hands of particular men, nor of particular Provinces, to change or alter at their pleasure (as Protestants may, and do, here taking a part, and there leaving as they list,) but they must stand firmly, and universally to the whole, this being truly Catholicum as ancient Fathers define it. And hence it is, that T. M. inferreth thus: It is taken out (saith he) of the express dogmatical principles of their Priests and Doctors, and collected from their own public positions etc. which how true or false it is, shall appear after. Now let us examine some other circumstances of this proposition. 2. First then, I say and aver, that this his main and fundamental axiom, of the incompossibility of Catholic and Protestant people together, under the Government of his Majesty of Great Brittany, is not only false and erroneous in itself (as afterward The main proposition of T. M. censured. shallbe declared) but pernicious also to the commonwealth, prejudicial to his majesties both comfort & safety, hurtful to the state, seditious against peace, scandalous to the hearers, offensive to foreign nations that live under Princes of different Religion, both Catholic and Protestant, and hateful finally to the ears of all moderate, peaceable, and prudent people: and is on the other side no ways profitable, needful, expedient, or convenient thus in public to be proposed. For I would first demand this famous mak-bate, what gain or utility may be expected, either to Prince or people by putting in print this so odious an assertion of extreme diffidence, and distrust between his Majesty, and so many thousand of his subjects, that admitted him with all joy & comfort at his first entrance to the Crown? Is it (perhaps) to prevent some danger that may be doubted from such kind of people, and to make his Majesty more careful and vigilant for his safety? If that be so, a private advise had been more important to himself, or his Counsel: for that the publishing and proclaiming thereof procureth not only diffidence, but also restless solicitude on both sides, the one to prevent the other. 3. Secondly I would ask, what he will do, or have to be done with so great a multitude of people, as in all his majesties Kingdoms do love and favour the Religion, which this masked Minister impugneth, and would put them in despair of any sufferance or tolerable condition under his majesties government? Will he have them all made away from the face of the Earth? This were hard, except No his flood should: come again, or some other equivalent inundation,: either of water, fire, or sword. And for the later, though some think he could wish it, yet who knoweth not, but that the bowels of England are so combined and linked together at this day in this point, as hardly can the sword pass the one, but it must: wound also deeply the other. What then? Will he have them to live in perpetual torment, hatred, suspicions, iealosyes, aversions, detestations, & deadly hostilities, the one with the other? This is a state more fit for hell, then for any peaceable and Christian common wealth, nor of itself is it durable, if we believe either reason, or experience of former times. For we know what Cicero, what other wisemen among the Cicero lib. office very Heathens have observed, what they have written, what they have counseled to be done, or to be prevented in like occasions: to wit, that multitudes are not to be put in despair, no nor particular men into extreme exasperation without hope of remedy: Inconveniences of exasperation and despair. for that despair is the mother of precipitation, & extreme exasperation is the next door to fury. No counsel, no reason, no regard of Religion, nor other respect humane or divine holdeth place, when men grow desperate, & all strings of hope are cut of. We see by experience, that the least and weakest worms of the earth, which cannot abide the look of a man, yet when they are extremely pressed, and put in despair of escape, they turn and leap in man's face itself, which otherwise they so 〈◊〉 fear and dread. 4. Wherefore seeing this dangerous stickler would put this extreme despair into so many thousands of his majesties subjects, you 〈◊〉 imagine what good service he meaneth to do him thereby, and what pay he deserveth for his labour. Surely if a great rich man, whose wealth lay in his flock of sheep, had never so fair and fawning a dog, following never so diligently his trencher, and playing never so many flattering tricks before him; yet if together with: this, he had that other currish quality also, as to woory his masters sheep, dissever his fold, disperse his flock, and drive them into flight and precipitation; it is Sheepbiters not to be tolerated in a Common wealth. like that his Master out of his wisdom (though otherwise he were delighted with his officious fawning) would rather hang such a dog, than adventure to suffer so great and important losses by him. And no: jesse is to be expected of the great equity & prudence of our great Monarch, when he shall well consider of the cause and consequence thereof. 5. And thus much of the malice and pernicious sequel of this assertion: let us see somewhat now also of the folly & falsity thereof. To which effect I would first inquire, if it be so that subjects of different Religions are not comportable together, under a Prince that is of one of those Religions for so must the question be proposed if we will handle it in general) then how do the jews & Christians live together under many Christian Princes in Germany and Italy? under the state of Venice? yea under the Pope himself? how do Christians and Turks live together under the Turkish Emperor of Constantinople, as also under the Persian without persecution for their Religion? how did Catholics and Arrians live so many years together under Arrian Kings and Emperors in old times, both in Spain and else 〈◊〉? how do Catholics and Protestants live together at this day His universal proposition improved by diverse particulars. under the most Christian King of France? under the great King of Polonia? and under the Germane Emperor in divers parts of his dominions (all Catholic Princes) and in the free-cityes of the Empire? And in particular is to be considered that the Hussites have lived now some hundreds of years in Bohemia under the Cathòlicke Princes and emperors Lords of that Country, with such freedom of conversation with Catholic subjects, and union of obedience to the said Princes, as at this day in the great City of Praga, where the Emperor commonly resideth, and where Catholics 〈◊〉 wholly govern, there is not so much as one 〈◊〉 Church known to be in the hands of any Catholic Pastor of that city but all are Hussites that have the ordinary charges of souls; and Catholics, for service, sermons and Sacraments do repair only to monasteries, according: to ancient agreements and conventions between them, though in number the said Catholics be many times more than the other, and have all the government and Commaundry in their hands, as hath been said. These are demonstrative proofs ad hominem, and cannot be denied, and consequently do convince that this makebate Ministers proposition is false in general: That subjects of different religion, may not live together in 〈◊〉 peace, if their governors will permit them. Now if he can allege any several weighty causes why this general assertion holdeth not, or may not hold in the particular case of English catholics and Protestants under our present King, we shall discuss them also, and see how much they weigh. 6. He pretendeth ten several reasons in his pamphlet, 10. Reasons. for causes of this incompossibility, and thereof doth his whole invective consist. Eight of them appertain to doctrine and practice of rebellion in us, as he avoucheth; and the other two unto doubtful speech or Equivocation. Of which later point, having touched somewhat in the precedent Preface & being to have occasion to do the same again more largely afterward we shall now consider principally of the former, concerning doctrine and practice of quiet or unquiet, peaceable or dangerous humours & behaviours of subjects both Catholic & Protestant. 7. And as for Catholics, the Minister in all his About doctrine and practice of Rebellion. eight reasons bringeth out nothing of novelty against us, but only such points of doctrine, as himself doth confess, and expressly prove that they were held and recevued in our public schools, above four hundred years gone: as namely in his first reason, For that we hold Protestants for heretics so far forth as they decline and differ obstinately from the received doctrine and sense of the Roman Catholic Church, and consequently that being Heretics they are not true Christians, nor can have true faith in any one article of Christian belief, and that the punishment determined by the ancient Canon laws, which are many and grievous, both spiritual & temporal, do, or may thereby light upon them. And in 2. 3. 4. his second, third and fourth reasons, that we teach, That the Bishop of Rome, as spiritual head of the universal Church, hath power above temporal Princes, and may procure to let the Election and succession of such as are opposite, or enemies to Catholic Religion, and that in some cases he may dissolve oaths of obedience, and the like. 8. And further yet in his fifth, sixth, seventh, and 5. 6. 7. 8. eight reasons, that in certain occasions, and upon certain necessities, for preventing of greater evils, imminent to any Country, Kingdom, or common wealth, especially if they be spiritual and appertain to the salvation of souls, the same high Pastor may restrain, resist, or punish the enormous excesses of temporal Princes (if any such fall out) by Censures, excommunication, deprivation or deposition, though this not but upon true, just, and urgent causes, when other means cannot prevail, for avoiding those everlasting evils. 9 All which doctrines (for this is the sum of all An impor tant consideration, he saith or allegeth) do contain, as you see, no new matter of malice against Protestant Princes, invented by us, for that the Minister himself, as now we have said, confesseth, that for these three or four later hundred years, these positions have been generally received by all the universal Church and face of Christendom; so as being established so many hundred years before Protestants were borne or named in the world, they could not be made or invented against them in particular; but only are drawn unto them at this time by the malicious application of this Minister, to make the divorce before mentioned between our Prince and us to seem remediless. For if the doctrine approved and received so many ages before this difference of Religion was heard of, shall be laid unto us now for matter of undutifulness (with which doctrine notwithstanding our Ancestors lived most peaceably and dutifully for many hundred years, as good subjects under his majesties 〈◊〉 both in England & Scotland) what fault can this be in us now, or what 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is it in the Minister to object it against us; yea to make a criminal accusation thereof in this his calumnious libel against all Catholics of our Country whatsoever? 10. If we consider their doctrines and positions, together with their practice and exercise concerning this point of quiet obedience and subjection, even from these later times of Luther, Zuinglius and 〈◊〉 beginnings of innovation, we shall find an Calvinian doctrine about sh〈…〉 to Princes. other manner of novelty to contemplate, and another sort of dangers for Princes to tremble at. For if in steed of Rebellious doctrine of the 〈◊〉 Church (which is the title of this adversaries pamphlet) we should set down the positions and practice of the Genevian Church and Calvinian sect, planted and directed thereby, we should easily see what were the difference, as the whole world both may and doth. For that concerning their positions and doctrine that touch this point, they are extant in their own books, not wrong or drawn by strained inferences, as our Ministers Calumniations are against Catholics in this place, but plainly, clearly, and Categorically set down by their own pen, testified and put in Archb. of Cant. in the first Book of dangerous positions. cap. 4. & 5. and 〈◊〉 in the Survey of pretended discipline. print by their own writers, and especially by one in England that is now in highest dignity under his Majesty, and another in place of some dignity also by his office, who out of their own books cited particularly by them, relate these and other like positions: That Princes may be restrained by force; pursued, judged, and punished by the people; excommunicated, deprived, deposed, and cast into hell by the Ministers; arraigned, condemned and put to death by the inferior Magistrates, whensoever in their opinion he becometh a 〈◊〉, or opposite to the gospel; which in effect falleth out to be so often as these headstrong new brethren shall mislike of his or her government, & think them worthy to be removed. 11. And if to the testimony of our English Protestant writers in this point any be desirous to have add joined the suffrages in like manner of extern authors of the same Religion, concerning the same article, about the lawfulness of violent usage towards Princes, in cases by them prescribed; let them read Foreign writers of Protestants pernicious doctrine against Princes. Bezae himself in his Apology to the Bishop Claudius de Saints in defence and praise of Pultrot that murdered traitorously the famous great Duke of Guise his majesties great uncle, and supreme General of all the French forces; as also the discourse of the French famous Minister Suriau otherwise calling himself Rosier in his Book of Reasons why it was lawful for any of his 〈◊〉 brethren to kill (as he saith) Charles the ninth King of France and his mother, if they would not obey the Calvinian Gospel, as both Launay, Launay in Replique Christienne. lib. 1. c. 9 6 n. 1566. & Belfor. lib. 6. cap. 〈◊〉. fol. 1565. Belsorest & other French writers in their Histories do relate. To which effect also was written that notorious and seditious book entitled 〈◊〉 matin and others by the brethren of the gospel; yea above others, that most dangerous firebrand by Orsinus Hoto man and the rest of Geneva, allowed also by 〈◊〉, intitu led Vindiciaecontra Tyrannos: The revenge upon tyrants containing a most shameless public approbation of all desperate, of all villainous attempts whatsoever made, or to be made by their brethren, against lawful Princes, under the name of Tyrants, whensoever it might seem to be done in favour of their gospel. 12. So as now after all this manifest assertive doctrine of theirs, known and confessed in the world, and practised by them in so many places, for so many years, in so notorious manner, as no man can deny it, for this Minister to come peeping forth with certain poor illations & strained inferences against catholics, for that in certain cases they acknowledge power to remain in the head of the Church by way of Canonical laws and public judgement, to restrain exorbitant outrageous excesses of Princes, when they shall fall out, is a ridiculous kind of biting at the heel, while the other do strike at the head: and so will it also appear, if we observe the events themselves, for that here in this place our Minister (for example) 〈◊〉 only four facts or processes of Popes, to wit, two of Gregory's the seventh and ninth, and other two of Pius and Sixtus the fifth, who in so many ages have given sentence of deprivation against Princes: whereas if we consider but this one A ' markable point. age only, which hath passed since Luther began (and not yet one whole age) we shall find many more Princes deposed, slain, molested, or violated by Protestant people, then by all Popes put together since the beginning of Popedom have been troubled or Censured, which is a markable point, and not lightly to be passed over by prudent Princes: for that the reason hereof is, that the one side proceedeth by law, public judgement, and mature deliberation, the other by popular mutiny, rash and temerarious precipitation. And this of doctrine in this place until we come to the fourth Chapter, where much more is to be added to this effect. 13. But if we should come now from doctrine to Practise of the Protestant doctrine for tumults against Princes. action and examples of the exercise thereof in this behalf, there were no end of the narration, and there is no man or woman lightly of any years or understanding in public affairs, whose mind and memory is not full of them. For who remembreth not what passed in Germany presently almost upon the beginning of Luther's doctrine (at the least not above 7. or 8. years after) to wit, from the year 〈◊〉. testified aswell by Sleidan and other Protestant Authors, as by those that were Catholic, how the new brethren incited by this new doctrine again 〈◊〉 their Princes, both temporal and spiritual, took arms and entered into tumult and rebellion with such violence and headlong pertinacy, throughout all that country, as in one The Rebellions upon Luther's doctrine. Province only, there were above two hundred Monasteries and Castles taken, razed, and spoiled, and above an hundred and thirty thousand people slain, & this was for that beginning: which fire once enkindled, and the humour of sedition once settled in the heads o that Heretical faction, never ceased afterward, but continued more or less still against 〈◊〉 Emperor Charles the 〈◊〉, under divers devices and pretences of the 〈◊〉 association, and the like, until The Smalcaldian association. more than twenty years after, to wit, until the year 1546. wherein he was forced to take in hand that great and dangerous war (Luther himself 〈◊〉 yet alive) against the Duke of Saxony, Marquis of 〈◊〉 and other Protestant Princes, whom he subdued therein, but not without great effusion of Christian blood. 14. And the like I might relate of many other particular States and principalities of Germany, as namely that of the Princes and Archbishops Electors of Collen, Trevers and Mentz with all the State Palatine of Rhine, the Bishopric and Dukedom of Liege, and other parts adjoining, where together with this new Gospel (especially now divided into different sects of Lutheranisme, Zuinglianisme, Caluinisme, Multitudes of insurrections against true Princes by the new Gospel. Anabaptisme new arianism and the like) entered presently new sedition, Rebellion, and wars, and from thence dispersed itself long and wide, both North and South, East and West. In the North, to Saxony, Denmark, Norway, Sweveland, Polonia, 〈◊〉, North. and other adjoining countries; and on the south to South. Switzerland first, Savoy, Grisons, and other parts next adhering, where divers battles were fought, Zuinglius himself being present as the chief stirrer in those of the Cantons of Switzerland his country, and 〈◊〉 therein, and Calvin Beza, Farellus, and other such Ministers being the principal inciters in the Rebellions of Geneva, and neighbour countries, against the Duke of Savoy, and other Lords and Princes thereof, as is apparent by their own, and other men's books of the same part and faction. 15. Towards the East, the same fire of sedition passed with the same new Protestant Gospel, to Bemeland In the East. Austria, Hungary, Siletia, Moldavia and other bordering Provinces, where more or less it hath continued till our time, wherein we see by lamentable experience, that they have joined even with the Turk himself against their Sovereign Lord and Emperor, and against the Christian name and cause, in despite of Catholic Religion, as Boscaine, the famous Calvinian Rebel, and others of that Religion, or irreligion rather in these parts, for some years now have done; and finally have forced the said Emperor for avoiding the fatal ruin of Christendom, to grant him the Princedom of Transiluania during his life, which God for his so great wickedness hath soon cut of. 16. But to the West parts of the world, to wit, France, and all parts and parcels of that 〈◊〉 Kingdom, In the West. the same fire was transported with greatest fury of all, as do testify their four general most bloody France. wars, lasting for many years together, whereof if I should recount but the least particulars set down by their own histories, it would rue any Christian heart to hear or read the same. 17. From hence if we draw near homeward to Flanders, England and Scotland, the effects of this new Gospel and gospellers are yet more present unto our eyes. For who can recount the thousands of people, that upon this occasion have lost their lives both temporal and eternal as may be feared, in these long, & bloody wars of the low countries, begun first, Flanders. and continued ever since, upon the entrance of Protestant Religion in those States? Who can number the Cities besieged, taken, rifled and ransacked? The towns and villages burnt and overthrown? The countries spoiled? The people slain and murdered about this difference? And if we look into England, and the state but of one sole Catholic Princes governing, England. there, but for four or five years over Protestant subjects misliking her government for Religion, you shall find more conspiracies, treasons, and Rebellions practised against her in proportion of so: few years, by the said sort of people (if we consider what Northumberland, Suffolk, Wiat, Courtney, Stafford, Fetherstone, William Thomas, and others in different conspiracies practised against her) then in more than 40. years was done against her Protestant sister by her Catholic subjects, though never so much afflicted, injured and persecuted by her. 18. But of all other countries, Scotland may be an Scotland. example and precedent of Protestant spirits, what See the Histories of Scotland 〈◊〉 by Bucchanan, and Knox and by Holinshed, and my Lord of 〈◊〉. his book of dangerous Positions, cap. 2. 3. 4. etc. they are under a Catholic Prince or Princess, though otherwise never so virtuous, or never so mild. For who can deny the exceeding great prudence, moderation, benignity, liberality, and other virtues of the Noble Queen Mary Regent of Scotland, Grandmother to our Sovereign that now reigneth, when those furious and seditious Ministers Knox, Goodman, Mollocke, Douglasse, Meffan, and others began to raise up her subjects against her, from the year 1557. (which was the fourth of Queen Mary's reign of England) and continued the same in most spiteful and barbarous manner, with intolerable insolency, both of words and acts, for 3. or 4. years together, assisted principally by the helps, aid and encouragement of Queen Elizabeth (that had succeeded in the Crown of England) until through grief, sorrow, and affliction, 〈◊〉 afflictions and death of Q Mary Regent of Scotland. the excellent Princess gave up the Ghost, upon the year 1560. having been 〈◊〉 deposed, and the lie given her publicly, and most 〈◊〉 by them. And finally seeing herself so extremely 〈◊〉 and environed with these rebel forces, and with a puissant army sent from England in their succour, consumed and pined away with 〈◊〉 of mind as hath been said: And no Christian could but have compassion of her case. The particulars are written by Knox and Buchanan themselves, in their histories of Scotland, who were two chief firebrands in that combustion, and by Holinshed an English Protestant Author in his description of Scotland, allowing well, and liking the same, according to the sense of English Protestants who concurred with them both in good will and cooperation. 19 And thus much of the Queen Regent: but now of her excellent daughter, the Queen regnant, Mother of our Sovereign, had they any greater respect unto her notwithstanding all her benignity and benefits towards them at her new return out of France, when she pardoned all that was past, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proceeding against his majesties Mother. accepted of new oaths and promises of faithful obedience at their 〈◊〉? did all this I say any thing avail her or procure her safety or quietness, in governing these new gospellers? No truly, so long as she remained Catholic, that is, to her death, and after her death, they pursued her with the greatest hatred, and most barbarous cruelty, that ever perhaps was read of against Prince or Princess before, or after her. I shall briefly here set down some 〈◊〉 particularities of many, as I find them 〈◊〉 both in English and Scottish Histories themselves, and that by Protestant writers, as hath been said. 20. This Noble Queen after long deliberation in France, what course to take in those troublesome times, when the spirit of the new Calvinian Gospel had raised tumults, conspiracies, wars, and Rebellions A brief sum of matters fallen out in Scotland. throughout the most part of all States, Kingdoms, and Provinces round about her, determined finally to credit the fair promises of her said Protestant subjects in Scotland, and to go thither, which she did, and arrived at Lith the 20. of August, upon the year 1561. But before she departed from France, there 〈◊〉. being sent to her from the Catholic party Doctor john Lesley Bishop of Rosse to counsel her not to trust her bastard-brother james Steward Prior of S Andrew's, that had been the chief Author of all the former broi Holinsh. les in Scotland, and was now sent unto her from the 〈◊〉 supra. Protestant party to flatter and deceive her with false oaths and 〈◊〉, she promised that she would not: but he arriving the next day after the Bishop unto her at 〈◊〉 in France, made so great promises, oaths, and protestations unto her, as by little and little gate credit with her; and so returned into Scotland by England (where he had his full instructions you must think) to dispose the minds of all sorts, to receive, and obey the said Queen after his and their fashion and agreement; for which good office Prior 〈◊〉 made Earl of Murrey. she gave him soon 〈◊〉 her return the Earldom of Murrey, and committed the chief Government of the Realm unto him. But what effects ensued, we shall now in few words declare. 21. When upon the year 1563. which was two 1563. years after her return to Scotland, she resolved by consent of her Parliament to marry her knisman the Lord Darley, newly made 〈◊〉 of Rosse and Duke of Albany, this Earl of Murrey made a leagne of his confederates against the same, pretending that it would be in 〈◊〉 of their Religion, and broke into open wars against them both, saith Holinshed, and when they were pressed by the Kings and Queen's forces, they had always their refuge into England, and their counsel and direction both thence, and from their Ministers that never parted from them, how to prosecute their matters against their Princes: whereof the first point was, to abuse the young kings credulity, and to set him against the Queen: and hence ensued that strange and horrible act of entering her privy chamber, when she was at supper upon the fourth of march 1566. in the company of the 〈◊〉 of Murton, 1566. the Lords Ruthen and Lindsey, all Protestants, and armed, who saluted her first with this greeting, she being great with child: That they would no longer suffer her to have the governing of the Realm, nor to abuse them, as hitherto she had done: And then pulled violently from her, her Secretary David, which stood there present serving her at table, and for his refuge took hold of her gown, which they cut of, and slew him with The barbarous murder of the Secretary David. many stabs, to such fright of the afflicted Queen, as it was no less than a miracle, that she had not perished therewith or miscarried of her child (which was his Majesty that now governeth England) having six months gone with the same. This was done at a Parliament when all the Protestant confederates met together, and took (as you must think) the ghostly counsel of their good Ministers for so holy an enterprise. And upon the 20. of june next, was the Prince borne, which thing not pleasing some, that there should remain any issue of that family, which they desired to extinguish, the said King his majesties The murder of the King. Father was most cruelly murdered in Edenbrough on the tenth of February next ensuing. 22. Nor did the matter cease here, but rather now ascended to the greatest height of malicious Treason 〈◊〉 ever perhaps hath been used against any crowned Prince in the world, for that these Lords of the Congregation, as they called themselves, that is to say, Religious Rebels, congregated against their sworn Prince, gathering forces together, laid violent hands The barbarous dealing against his 〈◊〉 Mother. on her majesties person first at Carbar-hill by Edenbrough when confidently she presumed, as to her subjects, to go unto them, and treat of peace, and then casting her into prison, deprived her of her Crown, set up against her the name of her dearest jewel the young Prince, not yet a year old, made Regent her greatest enemy the Earl of Murrey her bastard traitorous brother, held parliaments, made laws, debarred her the sight of her son for ever: and finally waging open war against her, and overthrowing her forces in the field, she being present, forced her into England, and there following her also, procured unto her the greatest disgraces, dishonoured her with the foulest reports, defamed her with the most spiteful sermons, books and printed libels; and finally oppressed her with the most notorious open injuries, that ever were cast upon a person of her majesties quality & dignity. And all this without any scruple, or remorse of conscience at all: nay all was averred to be done according to the very rule of the Gospel & for the Gospel, and this by all the Ministers both of Scotland and England. 23. And thus much of the second Queen Mary of Scotland brought to her ruin by the evangelical obedience of these new gospellers: but as for the young Prince her Noble son, whom she loved most dearly above all earthly creatures, and never was permitted so much as to embrace, or see him more afterward, what passed in this time by the same sort of men, both during his minority and afterward, what contentions, 〈◊〉 wars, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, what murders, what conspiracies, Rebellions and violences were used, What the King 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath suffered at Protestats hands in 〈◊〉 of disobe dience & Rebellion. were overlong to recount in this place: the Histories are full, and the 〈◊〉 made, and set forth in print by the foresaid 〈◊〉 Author of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in his sixth Chapter and 〈◊〉 book against the 〈◊〉 doth touch many 〈◊〉 points of divers notorious 〈◊〉, and violences offered by them and their 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 the kings person, state, and dignity, as their taking his authority upon them, his surpriz and restraint at Rutheven upon the year 1582. the brethren's allowing and authorizing 〈◊〉. the same afterward expressly against the kings declaration to the contrary. 24. The 〈◊〉 also against his person at Striueling upon the year 1584. and many railing speeches, 〈◊〉. sermons and books against him and his government made in England to disgrace him, and namely the seditious preaching of Dauison and other Scottish Ministers against 〈◊〉 in London, in the Church of the Old-Iury and this being in the month of May, it followed in November after that these Ministers with their complices returning into Scotland with aid from England (though this circumstance the Author con ealeth as not making for his purpose) they got ten thousand Rebels together, and 〈◊〉 their tents before the town of Striueling, whither the King was retired to fortify himself in the Castle, making proclamations Intolerable insolencies of Ministers against the King. in their own names, and there drove at length his Majesty to yield his person into their hands, with the lives of his dearest friends, and was deprived also by them of his old guard, and a 〈◊〉 put upon him. All which acts were not only defended afterward by the chief Ministers of that Realm, but the King himself was called in like manner jeroboam by them, and threatened to be rooted out, as jeroboams race was, if he continued in the course he held: and many other like 〈◊〉 by them committed, which for brevities sake I forbear to recount in this place. 25. Now then to return again to our former ponderation set down in the beginning of this Chapter, let every sage and prudent Prince consider and weigh A weighty consideration 〈◊〉 Princes. with himself, which of these two ways which of these two people, which of these two grounds of doctrine, which of these two methods of practice, which of these two manners of spirit in Protestant & Catholic subjects do best content him, and which of them he may think more sure or dangerous unto him. For if we look over the ancient records of our countries for a thousand years before, while English men were Catholic, we shall not find so much violent and barbarous dealing with their 〈◊〉, as I have here recounted in less than thirty, within the compass of one only Kingdom under the Protestants. 26. And if we compare the objections made here against us by T. M. in this his calumnious pamphlet (as in the sequent Chapter more particularly you shall see discussed) with these, and the like actions of their people; they are very trifles and streyninges in respect of these other. As for example Doleman is accused to write, that: The commonwealth hath authority to choose to themselves a King (when they have none) and to limit him Strained 〈◊〉 against Catholics. laws whereby they would be governed. And that of Doctor Stapleton: That the people (or multitude) was not made for the Prince's sake, but the Prince for the people: That Religion is is to be had in consideration, in choice or admittance 〈◊〉 a King, where choice and admittance is permitted: That the Pope being head of the Catholic Church may in some cases, and for some causes dispense in oaths: That he may censure Princes upon just causes, though not in temporal matters but indirectly only, and upon such necessity as no other remedy can be found for 〈◊〉 of the spiritual good of his subjects: That evil 〈◊〉 declining into Tyranny may be repressed, but not by private men, or popular mutiny. 27. All these points (I say) and divers others, which this fellow doth so greatly exaggerate and odiously amplify against us, are so overrun by them both in The comparison between the disobedience of Catholics and protestāns. doctrine and practice, if we compare them, as they scarce admit any comparison at all, especially if we cast our eyes upon their present practice, which representeth the lively fruit of their doctrine: as namely, the most dangerous Rebellions of Calvinian and Trinitarian Sectaries, even now standing on foot in Hungary Austria, and Transiluania against the Emperor: and of like men in Polonia against that mild and most just King: and of Lutherans in Suetia, of Puritans, Brownists, Protestants, and the like in the Low-countries, so many years now continued against their true and natural Prince as before hath been declared; which maketh another manner of impression and force of consequence, if it be well pondered, then doth the particular temerarious fact of half a score of young Centlemen put in despair by apprehension of public persecution, without demerit of the persecuted, or hope of remedy for the same, though this also be inexcusable; but the difference of evils, is worthy of consideration, especially with the more grave and prudent sort of people, that are not carried away with passion, or otherwise misled by sinister information. 28. And thus having said sufficiently in general about the first and chief ground of our Minister's calumniation, concerning Rebellion and Conspiracies, whereby he would make impossible the 〈◊〉, and mutual union of Catholic subjects with Protestants, we shall pass on to his second pillar of impugnation, named by him The doctrine of Equivocation: but yet first we think it expedient to examine in a several Chapter the particular reasons which he hath framed for some show of proof to this his seditious assertion. TEN REASONS OR RATHER CALUMNIATIONS BROUGHT BY T. M. For maintenance of his former Proposition: That Catholic people are intolerable in a Protestant government in respect of disloyalty, conspiracies and Rebellion, Confuted and returned upon himself and his. CHAP. II. ALbeit that which we have laid forth before in the precedent Chapter, for the overthrow of the slanderous & injurious imputations of our adversary, about Rebellion and conspiracies, be sufficient (I doubt not) for satisfaction of any indifferent and dispassionate mind, that is not overborne with prejudice; yet have I thought it expedient to pass somewhat further also, and to enter the list with him for improving his particular reasons, on which he would seen to found his calumniations, wherein as nothing is so absurd or false (according to the Orators opinion) but that by speech and smooth discourse it may be made in some ears probable, at leastwise in the conceit of him that speaketh and indeavoreth to deceive another: so this Minister T. M. (for of that trade he is held now to be) having designed to himself an argument whereby to make Catholics odious, and gathered together for that end divers shows or shadows for the furniture of his foresaid found assertion, that Catholics are not tolerable in a Protestant State, he entituleth them: Pregnant observations directly proving Remish schools to be Seminaries of Rebellion in all Protestants government: Whereas indeed they are not so much pregnant observations, as malignant collections and enforced inferences upon false grounds. Neither do they at all either directly or indirectly prove that which he pretendeth, as by examination shall presently appear, if it may please the Reader to hold an equal and indifferent ear in the mean space to the discussing of the controversy. 2. And first of all to make up a competent number in form of a decalogue, he straingeth himself much to bring out ten different reasons, and in deed every man A decalogue of T. M. his reasons hardly strained may see that it is a strain, for that all might have been uttered in two or three at the most, if not in fewer; for that all do concern in effect the Catholic doctrine, about the Pope's authority either in Princes or private men's affairs. And here-hence is deduced his first reason concerning the censures and punishments determined by Ecclesiastical Canons against them that by the Church are denounced for Heretics. The second reason toucheth the said Pope's authority spiritual 〈◊〉 secular Princes. The third, the hindrance of their succession by the same laws. The fourth, the oath and obedience of their subjects. The fifth, their excommunication and deposition. The sixth the practice of their death by the Pope's licence. The 〈◊〉, the allowance and approbation thereof. The eight the Rebellion of Priests whensoever they are able. The ninth the dissolving and evacuation of oaths by the Pope's authority. The last that Romish Priests by the order of the Pope must profess seditious positions ex officio, that is to say, as he is a Romish Priest. By which enumeration you may see in deed, that the poor man was more barren than pregnant, and after his strain had partum difficilem, a hard childbirth, as may appear by that which he hath brought forth, to wit a mouse for a mountain, and thereupon we may justly say: parturiunt montes etc. We shall give a short view over all his reasons. The first Reason. §. 1. THey who by their slanderous doctrine (saith he) do make all Protestants by their common censure Heretics, so odious, as unworthy of any civil or natural society, must necessarily be judged seditious & intolerable amongst the Protestants: But the Romish Seminaries and Jesuits do so, ergo. This is his reason and manner of reasoning, and in this sort go all the rest, each thing with his ergo, that you may know that the learned man hath studied Logic, or rather sophistry to set down all in form of syllogism. And to prove his propositions or premises in How T. M. proveth his assertions. this first argument he useth two means, first to cite the hard speeches of certain Catholic writers against the Calvinian faith, as though it were none at all, but rather infidelity: (wherein we shall see after what great store of Protestant writers they have also with them in that point) the other medium is a certain odious enumeration of the penalties inflicted by Church-lawes, and Canons of old time upon heresy and Heretics in general; all which T. M. will needs apply to himself and to English Protestants at this day, to break thereby all civil association with us that are Catholics: but both the one and the other are proofs of no validity. Let us begin with the first. 4. He citeth the words of Andrea's jurgivicius Canon of Cracovia in Polonia, affirming that Protestants do hold no one article of the Apostles Creed to wit rightly jurginicius. and entirely. Of M. Wright in his articles, teaching Protestants to have no faith, no Religion, no Christ. Of M. Wright. M. Reynoldes, entituling his book Caluino-Turcismus. Of D. Gifford in the preface to the said book, avouching M Reinoldes. the pretended now Gospel of Calvin, in many things, D. Gifford to be worse and more wicked than the Turks Koran. And finally of Antonius Possevinus who wrote a book De Atheismis 〈◊〉. Protestantium: Of the Atheisms, or points of doctrine leading to Atheism, which are taught by divers Protestants, especially by Calvin, and his followers. 5. Out of all which speeches T. M. inferreth the general meaning of us Catholics to be: That all human society with Protestants must be utterly dissolved, which is utterly false and a mere mistaking. For these speeches prove only that there cà be no society 〈◊〉 Catholics and Protestants in their doctrine & belief, but not in life, manners & conversation, which is the point in question: so as T. M. inferreth here quid pro quo. And if he will hear one of his own brethren hold this position also; That there can be no union, society, or conformity between their & our doctrine pretended by some, No sociability in doctrine but in conversation there may be. let him read William Perkins epistle to S. William Bowes in the preface of his reformed or rather deformed Catholic, where he reprehendeth the new brethren of France, and some also in England, for giving hope of Perkins Catholic this union. So as in this point we agree, that no agreement can be in Religion, but in conversation there may, as we have showed by many examples in the precedent Chapter of people of different Religion that live together at this day in union of obedience, and quiet subjection under the 〈◊〉, Turk, and Christian Emperor, as also under the great Kings of France, Polonia and other Princes. Fondly then doth T. M. infer the incompossibility of cohabitation & conversation out of the insociability of their doctrine and Religion. 6. Now as for the hard and harsh speeches of the Authors alleged, though unto many they may seem somewhat sharp exaggerations; yet unto him The hard speeches against calvinists answered. that shall consider well the matter in hand, and the accustomed phrases of ancient Fathers in like occasions, it will appear far otherwise. For first 〈◊〉 his meaning is nothing else, as appeareth by his book, but that in all and every article of the Creed, calvinists have innovated and altered somewhat in the true sense thereof, and added particular errors of their own, as you shall hear afterward proved, and declared more largely out of the 〈◊〉 and assertions of divers great Lutheran Protestants, that hold Caluinists to have perverted all the articles of the said Creed. Of which point our learned countryman M. William Reinoldes, that had bun divers years a Protestant and Preacher of that doctrine, after long study to prove the same by many demonstrations, resolved to write a whole book, That calvinists believe no one article of the Apostles Creed; but afterwards turned the same into that other work entitled Caluino-Turcismus, CaluinoTurcismus of M. Reinoldes. which is held by strangers to be one of the most learned, that hath been written of this kind of controversy in our age, and M. Sutcliffe hath made himself ridiculous by attempting to answer the same. 7. Those words also of M. Wright (if he used them) that Heretics have no faith, no Religion, no Christ, but are Master Writes speeches. mere infideles, do contain an ancient position of Catholic doctrine, delivered in schools and Fathers writings against old Heretics, many hundred years before the name of Protestants was heard of in the world; so that this cannot be of malice properly against them. The famous doctor S. Thomas above three hundred years gone, hath this Question in his Treatise of faith: Whether he that 〈◊〉 obstinately in one point, D. Thomas 2. 2. quaest. 5. art. 3. or article of his belief, doth lose his whole faith in all the rest, and holdeth yea; alleging for the same invincible reasons. And the same Doctor in like manner proposeth another question, to wit, which of three sins belonging to infidelity is most grievous, judaism, Paganism Ibidem quaest. 10. art. 6. or Heresy? & resolveth the question thus: That albeit in some respects the former two may be thought more grievous in that they deny more points of faith; yet absolutely in regard of the malice and How heinous a sin heresy is. obstinacy of an Heretic, that knew once the Catholic truth, and now wilfully impugneth the same, against the judgement of the universal visible Church, his sin and damnation is much more grievous; and hereupon the ancient * See Tertull. li. de pudicitia. Cypr. li. 4. ep. 2. Athan. ser. 2 contr. Arrian. Aug. li. de gratia. Hier. con. lucifer. etc. Fathers do every where aggravate the heinousness of this sin above all other sins, and in particular, do deny them to be Christians, but rather to be Infideles, and worse than Infideles, as now by S. Thomas hath been said: which is most conform to the writings of the Apostles themselves and Apostolic men, who detested this sin in the highest degree, as might largely be showed out of their works, even to the horror of the Reader, if this place did bear it. That severe speech of S. Paul may be sufficient for all the rest, exhorting his disciple Titus to avoid an heretical man after one or two Tit. 3. reprehensions, knowing that such a one is subverted, and sinneth as damned by his own judgement. Which is never found written of other sorts of Infideles. 8. No man then ought to be offended with these earnest and sharp speeches, where heresy or the presumption thereof is in question, for that nothing is more dreadful to Catholic people then the very name and apprehension of heresy; howsoever in our unfortunate days, it be made a matter of dispute only, or tabletalk by many now in England, and he that will see store of proofs and reasons laid together by the foresaid learned man M. Reynoldes to prove that M. Reinoldes collection about modern heresies. the heresies of these our times, of such as call themselves Protestant's, but especially the followers of Calvin, are far more perilous and detestable than Paganism, judaism or turcism, let him read not only his foresaid four books De Caluino-Turcismo, but two special large Chapters or Treatises of this very matter in his book De justa Reipublicae potestate etc. to wit the 4. and 5. and he will rest satisfied. 9 Nor do Catholic writers only make these Protestations against Calvin and his doctrine, but many of the most learnedest other Protestants of these days, as hath been touched. One most famous preacher and Protestant writer or rather superintendant in Polonia called Francis Stancarus in an epistle to the King Franciscus Stancarus Minister epad Regem Poloniae. himself saith of him, and to him: Quis Diaboluste, o Caluine, seduxit, ut contra filium Dei cum Arrio obloquaris? etc. Cavete, o vos Ministri omnes, a libris calvini, praesertim in articulis de Trinitate, incarnatione, mediatore, Sacramento Baptismi, & praedestinatione: continent enim doctrinam impiam & blasphemias Arrianas': What devil hath seduced thee, o Calvin, that thou shouldest speak injuriously against the son of God with Arrius the Heretic? etc. Beware, all ye Ministers, of Calvin's books, especially in the articles of the Bl. Trinity, Incarnation, of the mediator, of the Sacrament of Baptism, and of predestination: for they contain impious doctrine, and blasphemies of Arrius. 10. Another brother and Protestant-Preacher no less zealous than he in Germany named Conradus Schlusselburge saith of him & his 〈◊〉 that himself hath declared & proved in three large books: Hòs de nullo ferè Conradus Schlusselburgius in l. de Theologia Caluinistarun impress. Francof. 1592. Christianae doctrinae articulo rectè sentire: That they scarcely believe aright any one article of Christian belief, which is the self same that the forenamed Catholic writer jurgivicius objected before, which T. M. took so impatiently as you have heard. And the same brother in one of his said books affirmeth: Quod Caluinistae ipsum filium Dei mendacij arguunt, Deum sua omnipotentia spoliant, sunt abiurati hosts & profligatissimi falsatores Testamenti filii Dei: That Caluinists do charge the Son l. 2. art. 13. of God with a lie, do spoil God of his omnipotency, and are forsworn enemies, and most wicked falsifiers of the Testament of the Son of God. 11. And another famous Doctor of the same new Gospel and spirit, saith that this sect of Caluinists & their doctrine, Sentina quaedam est etc. is a certain sink 〈◊〉 Schulz. lib. de 50. 〈◊〉 lit. A. 6. into which all other heresies do flow: it is the last rage of the devil, which he in his fury doth exercise against Christ and his Church etc. And then further: Qui partes eorum sequitur etc. he that followeth their sect, is a manifest and sworn lit. Q. 〈◊〉. enemy of God, and hath denied his faith which he promised to Christ in his baptism: So he. And consider now whether this be not as great detestation of Calvin's doctrine, by principal learned Protestants, as T. M. hath picked out of Catholics wrested words before recited? 12. But you must not think that here is an end for there would be no end, if I should prosecute all that might be said in this case: Tilmannus Heshusius a superintendant of the Protestants in the same country Tilmanus Heshusius calleth Calvin's doctrine: Blasphemam & Sacrilegam sectam; a blasphemous and Sacrilegious sect: and writeth a special book of this title: A defence of the Holy Testament of Christ against the blasphemous confession of Caluinists. AEgidius Hunnius. fol. 181. And AEgidius Hunnius writing a book De Caluino judaizante, of Calvin playing the jew, after a long confutation saith thus: D●●●●um satis superque judico etc. we have detected I suppose sufficiently, and more than sufficiently that Angel of darkness john Calvin, who coming forth of the pit of hell, hath partly by his detestable wickedness in wresting Scriptures, partly by his impious pen against the Holy Majesty of Christ, partly Apo. 12. by his horrible and monstrous paradoxes about predestination, drawn both himself into hell, & a great number of stars, as the apocalypse speaketh. 13. I pretermit many others, as that of Philippus Nicolaus a Protestant-Minister of Tubinga, who in the Many books of the learneder Protestants against calvinists. year 1586. set forth a book in 4. with this title: A Discovery (and this I write for our discoverer) of the fundaments of the Calvinian Sect, and how they agree with old Arrians and Nestorians: Whereby also is demonstrated that no Christian man can take part with them, but that he must defend arianism and Nestorianisme: So he. But the next year after there came another book forth printed in the same University with this joannes Modestus. 1587. title: A demonstration out of the Holy Scriptures, that Caluinists and Sacramentaries are not Christians, but rather baptised jews and mahometans: and a little after that again joannes Mathias. came forth the book of joannes Mathias the great Preacher in Wittenberg: De cavendo Caluinistarum fermento, how to avoid the leaven of the Caluinists; and then Albertus Graverus another of Albertus Graverus of like function upon the year 1598. entitled: Bellun joannis calvini & jesu Christi: The war between john Calvin and jesus Christ; and all this written, set forth, and printed by chief Protestant brethren: which if the inference of T. M. be true against Catholics, that in respect of the difference of their doctrine, and for that they hold Caluinists to have no true faith, they may not live together under one Prince: then must it follow also that neither these Lutherans and Calvinian Protestants can live together: and the very same ensueth between English Protestants & Puritans, upon the difference of their doctrine and belief, which hath no less opposition in deed and detestation the one of the other in bitterness of speech, then have the Lutheran Protestant's against them both; as may easily be demonstrated out of their own books, if we would stand upon it. And this shall be sufficient for the refutation of his first medium, brought forth to prove that Catholics and Protestants cannot live together in one common wealth, for that the one side accounteth the other for Heretics. 14. But the second medium is yet more childish, Refutation of his second medium. which is, that for so much as we not only do hold Protestants to be excommunicate Heretics, but subject also to all the punishments & penalties set down in the Pope's Ecclesiastical Canons, Decrees, & Constitutions for the same, which are many and grievous, (as that Heretics must lose their goods, cannot gather up tithes, nor recover debts, nor institute heirs, and other such like, and more sharp penalties prescribed in old time by the Canon law against ancient Heretics) hereof he inferreth that we detract all human society from Protestants, and consequently we are not tolerable in a Protestant commonwealth. 15. But we answer first, that touching the former part to wit the imputation of heresy and excommunication to the Protestant party of England, that followeth the Sacramentary doctrine of Calvin and Zuinglius, you have heard now immediately before, how that imputation is laid upon them, not only by Catholics, but also by the most renowned Protestant writers that have been since that name and profession began. And if we would allege much more out of the very Father of Protestancy itself Martin Luther, Luther. contr. art. Lovanien. Thes. 27. we might have store, especially where he pronounceth this judicial sentence of them all: Haereticos seriò censemus & alienos ab Ecclesia Dei Zuinglianos & Sacramentarios omnes, qui negant Christi corpus & sanguinem ore carnali sumi in venerabili Sacramento. We do unfeignedly hold for Heretics, and for aliens from the Church of God all zwinglians and other Sacramentaries that do deny Christ's body and blood to be received by our bodily mouth in the venerable Sacrament. 16. Behold here both Heresy and excommunication or separation from the Church of God averred against both zwinglians and Caluinists, by him that was their chiefest parent and Patriarch: and in other places of his works, the same Luther hath many more particulars to this purpose, as namely that men must fly the books and doctrine of Zuinglius and his followers, Non secus ac tartarei Daemonis venenum, no otherwise Luther, de Caena Dotomo 2. Ger. f. 182 & 190. then the poison of the devil of hell. And yet further that: They are not to be held in the number of Christians, for that they teach no one article of Christian doctrine without corruption, and are seven times worse than Papists etc. Whereby is evident that this charge of Heresy and excommunication proceedeth not against Caluinists from us only, but much more eagerly from their own brethren, & consequently it is with very little discretion brought in by the Minister T. M. against us as a singular fault of ours, whereof we are to treat more afterward in some occasions that will be offered. 17. But now as for the penalties contained in the Canon law, against excommunicate Heretics, as deprivation of dignities, loss of goods, infamy, imprisonment, Concerning the penalties incurred by Heresy according to the Canons. debarment from Sacraments, and from conversation, with the like; the answer is soon made, that those external punishments are not incurred ordinarily, but after personal denunciation and condemnation by name. For albeit the inward punishments that follow Heresy which are sin and deprivation of grace, excommunication and separation from God's true Church, and other spiritual losses thereon depending, be incurred by the obstinate holding or defending of any condemned Heresy whatsoever, if the defender know the same to be condemned by the Church, as both Holy Canons do expressly denounce, and Bulla Caenae Domini every year 〈◊〉 on Maundy-Thursday doth confirm: yet commonly are they not held for subject to the other external punishments (and in particular to be avoided and their company fled) until by a lawful judge he or they be denounced, convicted, and condemned by name, which we ascribe not to the Protestants of England, and therefore this charge was maliciously devised by this Minister against us, to make us odious. 18. Nay we go yet further for pacifying & milding matters between us, that we do not easily condemn or hold all and every sort of Protestants, Puritans, or the like sorts different at this day in our country from the Catholics, for absolute Heretics, but excusing them rather wherein we may by any charitable interpretation, do willingly lay hands where probably The moderation of S. Augustine willingly admitted. we may on that wise, learned, and discreet moderation of the famous doctor S. Augustine, affirming to his friend Honoratus infected with the Manichean Heresy, that there is a great difference between an Heretic, and one that believeth Heretics, and is deceived by them; you shall hear his own words to that purpose: Si mihi (Honorate) unum atque idem videretur Aug. lib. de utilitate credendi ad Honoratum Manichaeum. esse Haereticus & Haereticis credens homo, tam lingua, quam stylo in haec causa conquiescendum esse arbitrarer: nunc verò cum inter duo plurimùm in●ersit etc. 19 If it had seemed to me (friend Honoratus) that an Heretic & a man believing Heretics had been all one thing, I should have thought it better to hold my peace in this cause between us, rather than to speak or write any thing therein: but now seeing there is such great difference between these two, I thought Who is an Heretic. it not good to be silent with you, for so much as an Heretic in my opinion is he, that for some temporal respect or commodity, but especially for vain glory and singularity, doth invent, or follow false and new opinions: but he which believeth such people is a man only deluded by a false imagination of truth & piety. So S. Augustine. And hereby openeth to us a door to think charitably of many Protestants, whom though we hold for deceived; yet not properly in S. Augustine's meaning for Heretics. 20. And this doctrine teacheth the same Doctor in other places against the Donatists, saying, that if a man should believe the heresy of Photinus (for example) lib. 4. de bap. contra Donatistasc. 16. who denied the distinction of three persons in God, and the divinity of Christ, and should think it were the true Catholic faith: Istum nondum 〈◊〉 dico (saith S. Augustine) nisi manifestata sibi doctrina Catholicae fidei resistere maluerit, & illud quod tenebat elegerit. I do not Every one that believeth heresy is not properly an Heretic. think this man as yet to be an Heretic, except when the doctrine of the Catholic faith (to wit that which is held generally by all or the most Churches over Christendom) being made clear and manifest unto him, he shall resolve to resist the same, and shall make choice of that which before he Choice or election make Heresy. held: so as now this choice or election with obstinate resolution to hold and defend the same against the public authority of the Church, maketh that to be properly heresy, which before was but error; which error though it might be in itself damnable; yet nothing so much as when it passeth into the nature of heresy; both which points are seen by that which the said Holy Father hath in another place, to wit in his book De haeresibus ad Quod-vult-Deum, where having recounted eighty and eight Heresies, that had passed before his time unto the Pelagians, that were the last, he concludeth thus: There may be yet other Heresies besides these that I have in this our work recounted, or there may rise up other hereafter, whereof whosoever shall hold any one, he shall not be a Christian Catholic. He doth not say he shall be an Heretic properly, but no Christian Catholic, which though it be sufficient to damnation, if ignorance excuse him not; yet nothing so great as if he were an heretic, for that as before we have showed out of S. Thomas, the damnation of jews and Gentiles is much more tolerable than that of Heretics. 21. And all these limitations and charitable moderations we do willingly use to calm and mitigate matters, and to temper that intemperate breaking humour of this makebate Minister T. M. and his companions that would put all in combustion and desperate convulsion. And so much of this first reason, the rest we shall pass over with greater brevity. To his second and third Reasons. §. 2. HIs second reason why his majesties Catholic and Protestant subjects may not live together in England is, For that all Popish Priests (faith he) do attribute a double prerogative over Kings, that is to say, a democratical and Monarchical Sovereign civil power, the first to the people, the second to the Pope: And for proof of the first, concerning the people, he allegeth four several authorities of Catholic writers, but so corruptly and perfidiously, as if nothing else did show his talon of cogging and treacherous dealing, this were sufficient to discover the same, though afterwards greater store will occur: we shall run over briefly all these four. 23. First he saith that Doleman in his Conference about succession hath these words: The Commonwealth Dol. par. 1 pag. 13. cited in Discovery pag. 9 hath authority to choose a King, and to limit him laws at their pleasure: Which if it were truly alleged as it lieth in the Author, yet here is no mention of the people, or of democratical state, but only of the Commonwealth, which includeth both nobility and people, and all other states. Secondly Dolemans words are not of choosing a King, but of choosing a form of government be it democratical, Aristocratical or Monarchical. Let us hear the Author himself speak: In like manner (saith he) it is evident, that as the Commonwealth hath this authority to choose and change her government (as hath been proved:) so hath it also to limit the same with what laws and conditions she pleaseth, whereof ensueth great diversity of authority and power, which each one of the former governments hath Dolemans text abused in words & sense. in itself. So he. Where we see that Doleman speaketh of the power which a Commonwealth hath, that is devoid of any certain government, to choose unto themselves that form that best liketh them, with the limitations they think most expedient: and so we see in England, France, Polonia, Germany, Venice, Genua, and in the Empire itself different forms and manners of government, with different laws and limitations, according to the choice and liking of each nation. This place then of Doleman is corrupted by T. M. both in words and sense, for he neither speaketh nor meaneth as the false Minister avoucheth him, of giving democratical power to the people over Princes established. 24. There followeth the second place taken out of D. Bouchier p. 36. cited in Disc. pa. 8. the French jesuit, as he calleth him: De justa abdicatione etc. though it be well known that D. Bouchier Author of that book yet living in Flanders, and Canon of Tourney was never jesuit in his life; but all must be ascribed to jesuits, that may seem odious: This French jesuit (saith he) showeth a reason of Dolemans speech, saying: For Majesty is rather seated in the Kingdom, then in the King. But I would ask the poor man, why he doth allege this place? or of what weight it is, or His cavillation against D. Bouchier. may be for his purpose? for so much as D. Bouchier in these words denieth not Majesty to be in the King, but to be more in the Kingdom; for that the Kingdom giveth Majesty unto the King when it chooseth him, and not the King properly unto the Kingdom. And is not this a great objection? or doth this prove that we ascribe democratical sovereignty over Kings unto the people? One of his own Ghospell-brethrens speaketh more roundly and roughly to the matter when he writeth: Populo ius est ut imperium cui velit deferat: Buchan. l. de iure regni. p. 13 The people hath right to bestow the crown upon whom they list: if we had said so, what advantage would T. M. have sought thereat? 25. His third place is out of D. Stapleton, in his book called Dydimus, where he saith: That the people are Stapleton in Dydimo pa. 261 cited in Disc. pa. 8. not ordained for the Prince, but the Prince for the people. His words in Latin are: Non populi in Principum gratiam facti, sed Principes in populi commodum creati sunt. Multitudes of people are not made (by God) for Prince's sakes, but Princes are created for the commodity Peevish wrangling against D. Stapleton. or good of the people: and what is there in this sentence justly to be reprehended? Is not this evident by divine and human law, and by the very light of nature itself, that Princes were first ordained by God, for the good of multitudes, and not multitudes for the utility of Princes? Will T. M. deny this? or is not this far more modest and temperate then that of his own brethren before mentioned, whose words are: Populus Rege est praestantior & melior; the people are better Buchanan li. de iure regnip. 61 & more excellent than the King? what wilful wrangling is this in a turbulent Minister? 26. His fourth and last place is out of M. William Reinoldes in his book De justa Reip. auctoritate etc. whom Reginaldus de justa Reip. auctoritate etc. c. 1. cited in Disc. pa. 8. he abuseth egregiously, both in ascribing to him that which is not his, and in delivering the same corruptedly, and by a little you may learn much, ex ungue leonem. His words he citeth thus: Rex humana creaturae est, quia ab hominibus constituta: and Englisheth in this manner: A King is but a creature of man's creation. where you see first that in the translation he addeth but, and man's creation of himself, for that the Latin hath no such but, nor creation, but constitution. Secondly these words are not the words of M. Reinoldes, but only cited by him out of S. Peter; and thirdly they are alleged here 1. Pet. 2. by T. M. to a quite contrary sense from the whole discourse and meaning of the Author, which was to exalt and magnify the authority of Princes, as descending from God, and not to debase the same, as he is calumniated. For proof hereof whosoever will look upon the book and place itself before mentioned, shall find that M. Reinolds purpose therein is to prove, that albeit earthly principality, power and authority M. Reinol des discourse. be called by the Apostle humana creatura: yet that it is originally from God, & by his commandment to be obeyed. His words are these: Hinc enim est etc. hence is it, that albeit the Apostle do call all earthly principality a humane creature, for that it is placed in certain men (from the beginning) by suffrages of the people; yet election of Princes doth flow from the law of nature, which God created; and from the use of reason which God powered into man, and which is a little beam of divine light drawn from that infinite brightness of almighty God; therefore doth the Apostle S. Paul pronounce that There is no power but from God, and that he which resisteth this power, resisteth God himself. So M. Reinoldes. 27. And now let the indifferent Reader judge whether M. Reinolds abu sed by T. M. M. Reinoldes hath been calumniated in this allegation or no, & whether this Minister is led by any rule of conscience, and whether these be such pregnant arguments and proofs against us as he promised at the first entrance of his book. And for the matter in hand, he promised to prove, as you have heard, that we ascribed popular and democratical power to the people over Kings, which how well he hath performed by these places alleged you have seen. 28. Finally to stand no longer upon this, whether we or they, Catholics or Protestants do attribute more to popular licence, against Princes (when they give not contentment) may abundantly be seen in that we have set down before, and will ensue afterward, both of their doctrine and practices in like occasions. And so much of this first charge: now will we pass to the second. 29. The second is, that we ascribe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The second charge answered about the Pope's authority. power and sooner aignty over Kings unto the Pope: wherein first what he saith of civil sooner aignty is a mere fiction and calumniation of his own, if it be out of the Popes own temporal Dominions. For we ascribe no such unto him over other Princes or their subjects, but that authority or sovereignty only which Catholic doctrine ascribeth to the Bishop of Rome as Successor to S. Peter Prince of the Apostles, & spiritual head of the universal visible Church of Christ, which is only spiritual, & for spiritual ends, to wit, for the direction and salvation of souls. And if at any time he be forced to pass further than this, and by a certain consequence to deal in some temporal affairs also; it must be only indirectly in defence or conservation of the said spiritual, that is to say, when the said spiritual power appertaining to souls cannot other wise be defended or conserved, as more largely hath been treated before. 30. This then is the sum and substance of Catholic doctrine, about this point of the Pope's authority, which from the beginning of Christianity hath been acknowledged in God's Church, and in no place more than in England, where it hath been both held & practised from the very first Christened King of our The answer to S. Edward Cook. nation Ethelbert unto K. Henry the 8. for the space of almost a thousand years, without interruption, as largely and abundantly hath been showed and laid forth to the view of all men in a late book written in answer to S. Edward Cook's fifth part of Reports; and this with great honour & prosperity of the Princes thereof, and union of their people under their government, and without such odious or turbulent inferences, as now are made thereupon by unquiet spirits, that would set at war even men's imaginations in the air, thereby to maintain disunion, discord, and diffidence between Princes, and namely between our present noble Sovereign and his Catholic subjects. 31. And first of all let us hear this turbulent T. M. how upon the envy of this authority he frameth and foundeth all his ensuing reasons. We demand (saith he) how far these pretended powers (of people & Pope) T. M. putteth his fictions for our positions. may extend, and hereupon we argue. To which I answer, that in imagination they may extend so far as any fantastical brain shall list to draw them; but in the true meaning of Catholic real doctrine, they can extend no further than hath been declared. And as for the popular power of people over Princes, we have now refuted the calumniation, & showed that it is a mere fiction of his own, and no position of ours; and that his Protestant doctrine doth ascribe much more licence to popular tumult, than the Catholic without comparison: and for that of the Pope, I have declared how it is to be understood to be of his own nature in spiritual affairs only, without prejudice of civil Princely government at all, and so the practice of the world and experience of so many Princes, great States and monarchs living quietly & securely under the same authority, both in former times and ours most evidently doth prove and confirm. 32. But yet let us see and consider how falsely and calumniously this makebate doth hereupon argue in his third reason, inferring for his assumption or minor proposition thus: But all Popish Priests upon this pretended Supremacy and prerogative of Pope and people, do utterly abolish the title of succession in all Protestant Princes: Ergo. Wherein to show him a notable liar, it shall be sufficient to name all the Protestant Princes, that have had title of succession in our country (for thereof he speaketh principally) Calumniation 〈◊〉 convinced. since the name of Protestant hath been heard of in the world, being three in number, to wit K. Edward the sixth, Q. Elizabeth, and K. james that now reigneth, all which were admitted peaceably to their Crowns, as well by Priests as Catholic people, who notwithstanding in some of their admissions wanted not means to have wrought disturbances as the world knoweth: so as if one instance only doth truly overthrow any general proposition; how much more doth this triple instance not able to be denied, overthrow and cast to the ground this universal false assertion of T. M. which averreth: That all Popish Priest's 〈◊〉 utterly abolish the Succession of all Protestant Princes. Will he not be ashamed to see himself convinced of so great and shameless overlashing? 33. And on the other side, one only Catholic Princess being to succeed in this time, to wit Q. Mary, we know what resistance the Protestants made both by books, sermons, Treatises and open arms; and Catholic Princes successions resisted by protestāns. how many Rebellions, conspiracies, robberies, privy slaughters, and other impediments were designed and practised afterward, during the few years she reigned: we know also what was executed against the government and lives of the two noble Catholic Queens her nearest neighbours, & one of them most straightly conjoined in blood that reigned at that time in Scotland, to omit others before mentioned, that were debarred from their lawful succession, or excluded from their rightful possession for their Religion in Sweveland, Flanders, & other places as cannot be denied. 34. Wherefore it is more than extraordinary impudence in T. M. to charge us with that which is either peculiar or more eminent in themselves, and false in us: and what or how far this fellow may be trusted in these his assertions, may be gathered by the last sentence calumniation against Doleman. of all his discourse in this matter, where he hath these words: F. Persons (in his Doleman) doth pronounce sentence, that whosoever shall consent to the succession of a Protestant Prince is a most grievous and damnable 〈◊〉. And is it so in deed Sir 〈◊〉? and will you stand to it, and lose your credit if this be falsely or calumniously alleged? then if you please let us hear the Authors own words. 35. And now (saith he) to apply all this to our purpose Doleman part 1. pag. 216. for England, and for the matter we have in hand, I affirm and hold, that for any man to give his help, consent, or assistance towards the making of a King, whom he judgeth or believeth to be faulty in Religion, and consequently would advance no Religion, or the wrong, if he were in authority, is a most grievous & damnable sin to him that doth it, of what side soever the truth be, or how good or bad soever the party be, that is preferred. So he. And his reason is, for that he should sin against his own conscience in furthering such aching. And is there here any word peculiar of a Protestant Prince, or of his succession? T. M. 〈◊〉 bad dealing. nay doth not the text speak plainly of making a King where none is? doth it not speak also indifferently of all sorts of Religion, of what side soever the truth be? How then can this malicious cavilling Minister expect to be trusted hereafter, or how may any man think that he speaketh or writeth out of conscience, seeing him to use such gross shifts and falsehoods in so manifest and important a matter? It is no marvel that he set not his name at large to his book, as not desirous to have the due praise of such desert. To the rest of his reasons. §. 3. But let us pass a little further in these his devices, for much I may not, both in regard of the brevity which I have designedunto myself, & for the loathsomeness I take of such uncharitable railings, as in steed of reasons he casteth forth, with no greater authority, then of his own assertion, or rather calumniation. 37. As for example in his fourth reason he subsumeth in his minor proposition thus: But all Popish Priest's 〈◊〉 dissolve the oath of obedience to all Protestant Governors. And in the fifth: But all Popish Priests defend violent deposing of Kings and Emperors. And in the sixth: But all Popish Priests are guilty of intending, designing, or practising murder A rabblement of false illations. of Princes. And in the seventh: But all Popish Priests do justify the acts of treason and 〈◊〉 parricides. And yet further in the eight: But all Popish Priests profess Rebellion, as soon as they can presume of their strength In the ninth likewise: But all Popish Priests are guilty of 〈◊〉, for denying or violating with men of diverse Religion. And lastly in histenth: But all Romish priests ex officio, that is to say, as they are Priests, must and do profess such seditious 〈◊〉, as thereby they are desperate traitors. 〈◊〉. 38. And is it possible for any tongue (though borrowed from hell itself, and imbrued with never so virulent or serpentine prison) to utter more precipitate malice then this? His propositions you see are general in all these assertions, to wit, that all Catholic Priests are guilty in all these accusations, and the nature as you know of a general proposition is such, as if any one instance may be given to the contrary, it overthroweth the whole. And is it probable (think Injurious dealing of T. M. you) that no one Priest may be found in England or elsewhere, devoid of all these heynons accusations, or of any one of them? Surely I am of opinion, that there will hardly be found any man so passionate on his owneside, which in this case will not condemn him of passion, precipitation, and conscienceles calumniation. And we on the other side may well urge to the contrary that no one Priest hath truly hitherto been convinced to have treated or conspired, or given consent to the Prince's death in all the long reign of the Queen past, no not Ballard himself who only can be named to have been condemned for this pretence, though in deed his crime was, as of all the 14. Gentlemen that died with him, rather to have delivered Queen Mary out of prison, then to deprive Q. Elizabeth of her life: and so they protested at their deaths. 39 But leaving this let us come to examine some of the points themselves, that are objected: they are all (if you consider them well) but little buds and branches deduced from one, and the self same root of the Pope's authority, and consequently but minced-meates made out in different services, by the cunning cookery of T. M. to feed the fantasies of such as hunger after variety of calumniations against the Catholic doctrine. For what The 〈◊〉 authority strained to many branches of 〈◊〉. great difference is there (for example sake) between that which is treated in the fourth reason of sreeing subjects from their obedience to Princes, & the other of the fifth about Deposing Princes, or that of the sixth and seventh of designing their deaths, and of justifying treasons against the same: And so in the ninth of oaths evacuated, which was handled before under other terms in the fourth reason, whereby appeareth, that this man's purpose was (as before I have noted) to strain matters to the uttermost, and to set out as many shows of inconveniences, dangers and damages to ensue by our doctrine of Papal authority, as either his wit could devise, or his malice utter. 40. And yet the silly fellow did not consider one instance unanswerable, that might be given to all these his inventions, which is the experience of so many ages, both in England, & other Kingdoms round about us, wherein the Kings and Princes have reigned prosperously (and do at this day) notwithstanding this doctrine, and use of the Pope's power; & this not only Catholic Princes, but divers Protestant Potentates in like manner, for any thing that Popes have done, or attempted against them. For what hath any Many 〈◊〉 Princes never molested by the Pope. Pope done against the Protestant Kings of Denmark in this our age? what against those of Sweveland either Father or Son, though the later doth offer open injury to a Catholic King the true inheritor? what against the Dukes of Saxony, the Count Palatines and Protestant Princes of the Empire, notwithstanding the said Electors whole authority in that action was given them by the Sea Apostolic, and consequently doth depend thereof? what against divers other particular Princes both of the Empire and otherwise, who have in this our age departed from the obedience of that Sea? how many hath it molested, censured, deposed, or troubled for the same? 41. And that which is most of all to our purpose at this time, what manner of proceeding hath the same Kind offices of the sea Apostolic towards his Majesty of great Britanny. Sea Apostolic used towards the Kingdom of Scotland, and his Majesty (that now ruleth also the sceptre of England) for the space of 36. years, wherein he reigned from an infant, after the injust deposition of his mother by her Protestant subjects? did the Sea of Rome or any Bishop thereof ever go about to hurt or prejudice him? Or is it not well known that divers Popes did endeavour to do good and friendly actions for the preservation of his safety, when it was many times put in jeopardy by the Protestant party? And among See Thynnes' addition to Holinshed pag. 446. & the book of dangerous positions p. 26 other I can well remember that about the year 1585. when his Majesty was besieged by them in his town and castle of Striueling, and driven to yield unto them both his own royal person, and amongst other articles this, as the Protestant History itself doth recount it, was one; That his majesties old guard was to be removed and another placed by them: the Pope then Pope Gregor. 13. living, hearing thereof by his majesties Ambassador in France the Archbishop of Glasco, and others, he was so moved with compassion, as he offered an honourable contribution towards the preservation of his majesties person in that case, and especially for maintenance of a trusty guard about the same: the like good will in other less occasions have other Popes showed in like manner. So as all is not fire and sword, excommunication, and anathematization, prodition, deposition, conspiracy, murder, absolving of subjects, relaxation of oaths, and other such hostile actions, as our seditious adversary here layeth together to make the Pope's office and authority more odious. 42. Only two public examples to my remembrance can be alleged of any Protestant Princes excommunicated, censured, or molested by the Sea Apostolic since Luther began his breach (which are now almost an hundred years) notwithstanding there have Two Protestant Princes only censured by the Sea Apostolic in our age. been so many of them, and so exorbitant things committed by them against Catholic Religion, and the said Sea Apostolic as is notorious to all men. And these two upon special causes and inducements, to wit, Q. Elizabeth of England, and King Henry then of Navarre, and now also of France (for of King Henry of Enggland I make no mention, for that his cause was not Q. Elizabeth. Religion at that time:) the first of the two, in regard of the public violent change of Religion, which she made in her Realm, with the deposition, deprivation, imprisonment or exile of all Catholic Bishops, Prelates, Clergy, and others that would not yield their consent thereunto, and this (as is alleged) contrary to her public promise and oath at her Coronation. 43. The second for fear lest he coming to the Crown of France in that disposition wherein then he K. of Navarre. was presumed to be, should attempt the like change in that great Kingdom: And to both these acts were the Popes of those times drawn and incited either secretly or openly by some of the chief Nobility of both Realms, whom most it concerned. And albeit the former hath not had that success which was hoped, The happy success in the K. of France. and perhaps suggested; yet the final event of the second hath been more prosperous, then at that time could be expected, no King lightly in Christendom having made more real demonstrations of love, union, and reverence to the Sea of Rome then his most Christian Majesty, nor received greater interchange of graces, and favours from the same Sea, and this in matters of most importance for the settling and establishment of his Imperial Crown and royal race. 44. Wherefore all this bitter barking of this Minister T. M. about excommunicating, depriving, deposing, and murdering Princes, as also about absolving of subjects from their oaths and the like, ceaseth (as you see) by a little good correspondence between the said Princes and their general Pastor. And when matters pass at the worst, and are in most exasperation between them: yet is it not the tenth part of peril Protestant people more perilous than Popes. which Protestant doctrine and practice draweth them into, upon any general disgust against their governments. For if in lieu of these two Protestant Princes censured by the Sea Apostolic, we should recount all the Catholic Princes that have been vexed, molested, injured, or deprived of their States, or violated in their persons, or brought to confusion in our Northern parts of the world in this time, to wit, in Savoy, France, Switzerland, Germany, Bemeland, Austria, Poland, Sweveland, Denmark, Flanders, England and Scotland, and some other places whereof we have treated more largely in the precedent Chapter; there would be no comparison at all. Of false dealing and sleights of T. M. §. 4. ANd yet further you must understand that this malicious calumniator proposing unto himself for his end to make us hateful, doth not only increase, multiply, and exaggerate matters against us by all art of sycophancy, as making some things to seem odious, that of themselves are true and laudable; and exaggerating others to a far higher degree, then wherein they were spoken, or are to be understood, inferring also general propositions upon some shows of particular proofs: but besides all this, he passeth also further, & objecteth often times against us the very Examples of bad dealing in T.M. same things that his own Authors do hold (whereof before we have laid down some examples, and shall do more hereafter) yea shameth not manifestly to falsify and lie also; as when he avoucheth with great resolution, that the late K. Henry of France Disc. p. 31. was censured by Pope Xixtus. v. for this only crime, for that himself being a Papist, yet favoured the Protestants, and especially the Prince of Navarre: Whereas it is known that besides this, he had murdered most miserably two principal peers & Princes of his Crown, the Duke, and Cardinal of Guise, nearest in blood to his Majesty of England, and thereby broken his solemn oath made but a little before in presence of many, when he received the Bl. Sacrament to the contrary. And how then was his only crime to have favoured the Protestants, as this Minister averreth? 46. And again in the same place or precedent page he hath these words: Pope Adrian being guilty of like seditious Naucl. p. 〈◊〉 gener. 39 practice against the Emperor Henry the second, was choked with a fly. And in his quotation citeth Nauclerus for it, Generatione 139. which should be 39 for that Nauclerus hath nothing near so many Generations in that Our English Pope Adrian egregiously abused by T.M. Part, and in steed of Henry the second, he should have said Frederick the first of that name, for that Henry the second was before the time of our Conquest, and almost two hundred years before Adrian the fourth our English Pope, of whom we now speak who lived in the time of King Stephen and King Henry the second of England, and was a Holy man, and accounted the Apostle of Noruegia for converting the same to our Christian faith, before he was Pope, and all Authors do write honourably of him, & so doth Nauclerus affirm: and therefore though he make mention of such a fable related by Vrspergensis that was a Schismatical writer in those days (who also doth not absolutely avouch it, but with this temperament ut fertur, as the report goeth) yet doth the said Nauclerus reject the same as false, and confuteth it by the testimonies of all other writers, especially of Italy, that lived with him, and thereby knew best both his life and death. And yet all this notwithstanding will this false lad T. M. needs set down this History as true, affirming it for such, and never so much as giving his Reader to understand, that any other denied the same, or that the only Author himself of this fiction doubted thereof. And is not this perfidious dealing? or can any man excuse him from falsehood and malice in this open treachery? 47. Another like trick he playeth some few pages before this again, citing out of Doctor Bouchiers book, De justa abdicatione these words: 〈◊〉 occidere honestum Disc. p. 23. est, quod cuivis impunè facere permittitur, quod ex communi consensu dico: And then he Englisheth the same thus: Any man may lawfully murder a Tyrant, which I defend A notable corruption about Doctor 〈◊〉. (saith he) by common consent. But he that shall read the place in the Author himself, shall find, that he holdeth the very contrary, to wit, that a private man may not kill a Tyrant, that is not first judged and declared to be a public enemy by the commonwealth; and he proveth the same at large, first out of Scriptures, & by the decree of the General Council of Constance, his words be these: Neque verò eo iure quod ad Regnum habet, nisi per publicum judicium, spoliari potest etc. Neither can a Tyrant be deprived of that right, which he hath to a Kingdom, but only by public judgement; yea further also so long as that right of Kingdom remaineth, his person must be held for sacred, whereof ensueth, that no right remaineth to any private man against his life: & albeit any private man should bring forth never so many private injuries done by the said Tyrant against him; as that he had whipped him with iron rods, oppressed him, afflicted him, yet in this case must he have patience, according to the admonition of S. Peter: That we must be obedient not only unto good and 1. Pet. 2. modest Lords, but also unto those that be disorderly, and that this is grace, when a man for Gods cause doth sustain and bear with patience injuries unjustly done unto him etc. 48. And in this sense (saith he) is the decree of the Consil. Constan. Sess. 15. Council of Constance to be understood, when they say: Errorem in fide esse etc. It is error in faith to hold (as john Wickliff did) that every Tyrant may be slain meritoriously Catholic moderation towards censuring of Princes. by any Vassal or subject of his, by free or secret treasons etc. Thus writeth that author, holding as you see, that no Tyrant whatsoever, though he be never so great a Tyrant, may be touched by any private man, for any private injuries, though never so great, nor yet for public, though never so manifest, except he be first publicly condemned by the commonwealth; which is another manner of moderation, and security for Princes, than the Protestant doctrine before rehearsed: and namely that of Knox, uttered in the name of Knox 〈◊〉 hist. p. 372. the whole Protestant Congregation both of Scotland and Geneva: If Princes be Tyrants against God and his truth, his subjects are freed from their oaths of obedience. So he. And who shall be judge of this? The people, for that the people (saith he) are bound by oath to God to revenge the injury Knox apple. fol. 33. done against his Majesty. Let Princes think well of this, and let the Reader consider the malicious falsehood of this Minister T. M. who in alleging that little sentence before mentioned, about killing of a Tyrant, struck out the words of most importance: quem hostem Reipublicae iudicaverit; whom the commonwealth hath judged for a public enemy; and adding that other clause, which I say by common consent, which is not there to be found: And with such people we are forced to deal, that have no conscience at all in cozenage, and yet they cry out of Equivocation against us, where it is lawful to be used; making no scruple at all themselves to lie, which in our doctrine is always unlawful for any cause whatsoever. 49. But will you hear a case or two more out of the Canon law, how dexterous Sir Thomas is in corrupting Disc pa. 4. that which he loveth not, nor seemeth well to understand? you may read in the fourth page of this his pamphlet an ancient decree (for so he calleth Another cozenage about a text of Gratian. it) alleged by him out of Gratian in the gloss, determining that though a man have sworn to pay money to one that is excommunicated, yet is he not bound to pay the same, and he allegeth the Latin text thus: Si iuravi me soluturum alicui pecuniam qui excommunicatur, Apud Gra. causa 15. q. 6. cap. 4. gloss. non teneor ei solvere: If I have sworn to pay money to any man that is excommunicated, I am not bound to pay it, adding this reason: Quia 〈◊〉 possumus, debemus vexare malos ut cessent a malo; We ought to vex evil men by what means soever we may, to the end they may cease from doing evil. In the allegation of which little text, a man would hardly believe how many false tricks there be, to make Catholic doctrine to seem odious and absurd. For first these words not being found in any text of law or decision of any Pope or Council, but only in the gloss or commentary, they make not any ancient or modern decree, as the Minister falsely avoucheth, but rather show the opinion of him, who writeth the commentary, if his words were as here they are alleged. 50. But the truth is, that the words of the gloss contain only a certain objection upon a clause of a Canon, concerning promise to be observed to one that is excommunicated after the promise was made; A doubt proposed & solved. & the objection or doubt is made in these words by the Author of the gloss or Commentary: Sed quid dices, si iuravi etc. But what will you say, if I have sworn to pay money to any person, or have promised the same under some forfeiture, and in the mean space, he to whom I made the promise is excommunicated, am I bound to pay the same or not? This is the question, and then he argueth on both sides: and first for the negative, videtur quod non, it seemeth I am not, for that the Canon law saith Causa. 23. q. 6. That we ought to afflicct wicked men by all means possible, to the end they cease from their wickedness. So he, alleging divers other arguments for the same opinion; but yet afterwards coming to give his own resolution, he saith thus: Verius credo, quòd licèt ille non habeat ius petendi, tamen debet ei solui. I do believe the truer opinion to be, that albeit he that is so excommunicated do lose his right to demand his money, yet is the other bound to pay him. And for this he citeth divers laws and reasons therein mentioned, as namely, Extrau. de Iu. debitoris, & extr. de sent. excommunicationis, Si verè, & 11. q. 3. Cum excommunicato. 51. So as here our Minister not of ignorance but See of this History of the Disputation before the King of France annexed to the confut. of the first 6. months of Fox's Calendar. of falsehood taketh the objection for the resolution, as Plessy Mornay did in his book against the mass, where he would prove that Scotus, Durand and other schoole-devines did doubt of the real presence and transubstantiation, for that having proposed the question, they began to argue for the negative part, saying, videtur quod non, though afterwards they resolved the contrary, & solved the argument. And the very like doth our Minister here, calling this objection of videtur quod non, not only a resolution but an ancient Decree. Secondly there is wilful deceit in leaving out the first words of the Author, Sed quid dices, si iuravi? But what will you say, if I have sworn? which do plainly show that it is but an objection. Thirdly that he allegeth the reason of the objection Quia qualitercumque possumus etc. for the reason of the resolution, which is false: for that the resolution is made against that reason. Fourthly the true resolution of the Commentor is utterly concealed, and a contrary determination by him impugned set down, and this not as a private opinion, but as an ancient decree of the law & Canon itself. Consider I pray you how many frauds and falsehoods there be in one little quotation, and what a volume I should be enforced to make, if I would examine exactly such a multitude of citations as he quoteth against us, but yet one or two more shall I produce in the same kind and matter. 52. In the sixth page of his discovery he hath this grievous accusation out of the Canon law against us: Haeretici Another fraudulent case out of the Canon law. filii vel consanguinei non dicuntur, sed 〈◊〉 legem sit manus tua super eos, ut fundas sanguinem ipsorum, and then he quoteth thus: Apud Grat. gloss. in Decret. li. 5. ex Decret. Gregor. 9 caus. 23. q. 8. cap. Legi. Which distracted kind of quotation, separating the first and last words, that should have gone together, seem to import that he scarce read the books themselves, but cited the same out of some other man's notes; but that fault were easily pardoned if he used no greater fraud in the thing itself. For first he Englisheth the words thus: Heretics may not be termed either children or kindred, but according to the old law thy hand must be against them to spill their blood: And then in the margin he setteth down this special printed note: The professed bloody massacre against the Protestants, without distinction of sex or kindred. And what can be more odiously urged than this? Now then let us see how many false tricks and shifts, fit for a Protestant-Minister, doely lurking in this short citation. 53. First of all is to be considered, that this gloss or Commentary of the Canon law, which here is both untruly cited and maliciously applied, is upon a Canon beginning Si quis, which Canon is taken out of Decret. 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. de Haer. tit. 7. c. 〈◊〉. the third Council of Carthage, wherein the famous Doctor and Holy Father S. Augustine was present, as a chief Bishop, that had voice in that Council, and the decree of the Canon is; that if any Bishop should institute Heretics or pagans for his heirs, whether they were consanguinei or extranei, kinsmen or externes, ei Anathema dicatur, atque eius nomen inter Dei sacerdotes nullo modo recitetur: Let him be accursed, & let not his name be remembered any way among the Priests of God. 54. This is the severity of that Canon, for ground whereof another precedent Canon setteth down out of the same S. Augustine: Quod Haereticus persever ans aeternaliter Thesevere sentence of S. Augustine against Heretics. August. l. de 〈◊〉 Cath. damnatur etc. That an Heretic persevering in his Heresy is damned eternally, neither can he receive any profit by baptism, alms, martyrdom, nor any other good works. So hath the title of the Canon, but the words of S. Augustine are these: Firmissimè tene, & nullatenùs dubites etc. Hold for most certain and no ways doubt, but that every Heretic or Schismatic shall be partaker of hell fire everlastingly, together with the devil and his angels, except before the end of his life he be restored and incorporated again into the Catholic Church; neither shall baptism or alms never so abundantly bestowed, no nor death itself suffered for the name of Christ, profit him any thing to salvation. So S. Augustine. 55. Upon this ground then that Heretics out of the Church, & so censured as here you have heard, though they be never so near of kin, may not be made heirs, especially by Churchmen; the gloss yielding a reason thereof, hath these words: Quia isti Haeretici iam non dicuntur filii vel consanguinei, unde dicitur in lege: si frater tuus, & amicus tuus, & uxor tua aepravare volverit veritatem, sit manus tua super illos: For that these Heretics are not now called children or kinsfolk, therefore, as such, they cannot be made Inheritors by Ecclesiastical men; whereupon it is said in the law (of Deuteronomie) if thy brother and friend or wife will go about Deut. 13. to deprave the truth, let thy hand be upon them. And presently he citeth to the same effect, the authority of S Hierome, out of another Canon, in another place of the law, as presently we shall see. 56. So as first here we may behold that T. M. hath not put down this his quoted gloss as it is found in the true gloss itself, but left out both the beginning: 〈◊〉 isti Haeretici etc. which imported somewhat to the understanding of his meaning; as also he left out the reason alleged by the gloss out of Gods own words in Deuteronomy, to wit, the wilful corrupting of his truth. And thirdly he added these words: Vt fundas sanguinem ipsorum, which here (as you see) the Hier. contr. vigilant. eit. a 〈◊〉 caus. 23. q. 〈◊〉. c. legi. gloss hath not, but they are cited out of S. Hierome in another Canon and volume of the law, where 〈◊〉 Holy Father, excusing to his friend Riparius a Priest, his earnest zeal and desire to have Vigilantius the Heretic (against whom he had written) punished by his Bishop, allegeth divers examples of severity in like cases out of the Scripture, as of Phinees, Elias, Simon Cananeus, S. Peter, S. Paul, and lastly citeth also the foresaid words of God's ordinance in Deuteronomy: If thy brother, thy wife, thy friend etc. shall go about to pervert thee from God's true worship etc. hear him not, nor conceal him, but bring him forth to judgement, and let thy hand be upon him first, and then after the hand of all the people etc. which is to be understood according to the form of law appointed afterward in the 17. Chapter: That he be orderly brought forth to judgement, and then when sentence is 〈◊〉 against him, he which heard or saw him commit the sin, and is a witness against him, must cast the first stone at him, and the rest must follow. And this also doth the ordinary Commentary or gloss of Lyranus and others upon those texts of Scripture declare. 57 And now let the judicious Reader consider how many corruptions this crafty Minister hath used to bring forth to his purpose, this one little distracted text, for proof of professed bloody massacres intended by us against Protestants. For first he corrupteth the words of the gloss apparently, and that in divers points, leaving out that which the gloss saith, and adding that which the gloss hath not: then he corrupteth the meaning both of gloss and Canon, depraving A Catalogue of cor 〈◊〉. that to a wicked sense of bloody massacring without distinction of sex or kindred; which the Canon and Council of Carthage with S. Augustine meant only of civil punishment against Heretics, to wit that they could not be made heirs to Ecclesiastical men. Thirdly he perverteth in like manner S. Hieromes intent, which was that albeit he wished that Heretics should be punished also bodily, yet by order and form of law, and not that any one should kill another, & much less by bloody massacres, as this fellow setteth it down in his marginal note. And lastly he presumeth to pervert the very words of God himself in the law, by translating fundas sanguinem ipsorum, spill their blood, instead of shed their blood, as though God were a bloud-spiller, or commanded the same to be done unjustly by others: but all is strained by the Minister to make us odious, whereas himself indeed is thereby made ridiculous. And for that I have been somewhat longer in this example than I had purposed, as also for that by this one (if it were but one) you may guess of all the rest of his proceeding, I will here cease, referring the rest of this kind, to other more fit places and occasions afterwards. 58. And yet truly I cannot well pretermit, for ending this Chapter, one little note more of rare singularity in this man above others, which I scarce ever have observed in any one of his fellows, and this is, that the very first words of Scripture alleged by him in the first page of his book, for the poesy of his pamphlet are falsely alleged, corrupted and mangled, though they contain but one only verse of Isay the Prophet; and then may you imagine, what liberty he will take to himself afterward throughout his whole discourse. His sentence or poesy is this: Isay. 29. vers. 9 The very first text of Scripture alleged by him most corruptly. But stay yourselves and wonder, they are blind and make you blind, which he would have to be understood of us Catholics: but let any man read the place of Isay itself, and he shall find no such matter either in words or sense, but only the word wonder, to wit obstupescite & admiramini, fluctuate & vacillate, inebriamini, & non a vino, movemini, & non ab ebrietate: And according to this are the Greek and Hebrew texts also. So as what should move T. M. to set down so corruptly the very first sentence of his book, and cite the Chapter and verse wherein his fraud may be descried I know not, except he observed not the last clause of the Prophets' precept, movemini, & non ab ebrietate. And so much for this. HOW THIS TREATISE WAS LAID ASIDE By sickness of the Author, and some other causes. And why it was taken in hand again upon the sight of a Catholic Answer, and a new Reply of T. M. dedicated to his Majesty: with the Author's judgement of them both. CHAP. III. Having written hitherto and passed thus farforth in examination of the Ministers opprobrious libel of Discovery, I was partly forced by grievous sickness that continued for some months, & partly also induced (for that I understood that another Catholic man had answered the said libel) to lay that which I had written a side, as also for that the occasion of time, wherein this Treatise was begun, soon after the detection of the often forenamed powder-treason, seemed in great part to be past, and having once laid it out of my hands, had no great will afterward to go forward theriwth, as an argument of loathsome contention, against most odious imputations and calumniations: but yet after divers months again, seeing the said Catholic answer to appear (which before I had not viewed) together with a large Reply to the same by the Minister that first made and devised the libel; and that the said Minister had now resolved upon instance of the said Answerer to manifest his name, to wit of Thomas Morton, T. M. his new Reply. which before went ciphered with the letters only of T. M. that might aswell have signified Thomas Malmesbury or Montague or Mountebank, or any such like surname: and further that he presumed to dedicate the same unto the kings Majesty, by a special glozing Epistle, full of fond Ministerial malice against Catholics, intituling his said Reply: A full satisfaction concerning a double Romish iniquity, heinous Rebellion, and more than heathenish 〈◊〉. And further that he had increased his said work with two or three new Treatises, partly for justifying of Protestants in the case of Rebellion, and partly for confuting of a Treatise written in defence of Equivocation, I was moved aswell of myself, as by others exhortation, to resume the thing into my hands again, & to adjoin by the view of the whole that which was wanting to the full confutation of this Minister's iniquity, in laying such heinous Rebellion & heathenish Equivocation unto Catholics charge, who of all men living are most free from just reprehension in them both: and the Calvinian sect and sectaries convinced to be most guilty in the one, and consciencelesse in the other, as the judicious Reader (I doubt not) shall see evidently proved and confirmed in that which is to ensue. 2. It moved me also not a little to go forward somewhat with this confutation (though in as breiffe manner as might be) to see that this devise (though T. M. dareth and borroweth of S. Edward Cook. never so fond and false) of charging Catholic doctrine with Rebellion & Equivocation, was applauded not a little by some men of mark in our State; as namely by his majesties late Attorney General, aswell in his writing, as pleadings against Catholics, borrowing from this Ministers first Treatise divers large parcels, and passages of his calumnious imputations, about the forenamed two heads of Rebellion and Equivocation, & lending him again in lieu thereof for his second Reply sundry observations & collections of his own, concerning divers Kings of England, that seemed to him not so much to favour or acknowledge the Bishop of Rome his authority over the English Church, which yet now upon further search, is found to be contrary, and so set down and demonstrated at large by a late Answer published to the said Attorney his book of Reports, as I think in haste will not be answered. Whereupon, forsomuch as this new devised accusation, of Rebellious doctrine and Equivocation, is taken up by so many hands of those that be enemies to Catholic Religion; I thought it convenient to clear somewhat more this 〈◊〉; and as I had, before I laid aside this work, treated sufficiently, as it seemed to me, of the former point, concerning Rebellious doctrine, upon the sight only of T. M. his first pamphlet (as in the precedent two Chapters you have seen) yet now upon the appearance of this Minister Thomas Morton in his proper name and person, & of his new Reply that promiseth full satisfaction in all; it seemed necessary that I should go forward to finish my first intent, and to examine the second point or head of his accusation in like manner, appertaining to the doctrine of Equivocation, made no less odious now by continual clamours of sycophancy, than the other of Rebellion itself. 3. One other circumstance also stirred me greatly to proceed in this short work, which was, that together with these books sent out of England, advertisement was given, that this Minister Thomas Morton was Chaplain to my Lord of Canterbury, who being head of the spiritual Court of Arches, which is, or aught to be the supreme for matters of conscience in England, T. M. my Lord of Canterbury's Chaplain I was in hope to have some remedy against this his Lordship's Chaplain, if I should demonstrate, that he dealeth against all conscience, observing no law, either of truth or modesty towards Catholic men in this his Reply, nor any regard either to his own or masters honour, he behaving himself so fraudulently against his own knowledge and conscience, as in this writing he doth. And if I prove not this afterward, by multiplicity of manifest & manifold examples, as in part you have seen that I have done before, let me be thought to have done him injury (which willingly I would not do unto the worst man living) in which place I hold not him, though by his pen I must needs judge him to be bad enough. 4. Now then to the point itself of his Reply, which he calleth, as hath been said, A full satisfaction; it seemeth to me as full as 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; and so you shall see afterwards, that this his Reply is The Minister's manner of dealing. full of words without substance, of flourish without truth, of fraud without real dealing: for that lightly he scarcely allegeth any text of his adversaries writing, without some fort of sophistication both of words and sense, or other like knacks. And further so distracteth and dismembreth his adversaries thread of speech, citing one branch of it in one part of his Reply, another in another, one sentence first that should have been last, and another last that should have been first, thereby to confound the Readers memory; one period half divided, the other quartered, the third left out, the fourth disguised: so as it is evident that he sought rather to fly, to cover, shadow, and hide himself, then really and substantially to come to the combat, as examples ensuing shall make all manifest. 5. But here perhaps some will say, that this seemeth a marvel unto them, for that this man pretendeth to deal more distinctly and exactly then others, for that he setteth down severally, plainly, and clearly, first the words of his former pamphlet of Discovery, Fond flourishes of T. M. than the text of his adversary (the moderate answerer) and thirdly the full satisfaction of his faithful Reply. And furthermore he draweth every thing to divisions and subdivisions, distinctions & contrapositions, which make a jolly flourish in the Readers eye, being set down in logical rank. As for example, in his first reason, for setting Catholics and Protestants at debate, he saith he will prove it thus. By a threefold evidence from a Popish. 1. Definition of an Heretic. 2. Explication of a person excommunicate. 3. Application of Romish Censures to them both. And then the last member again is proved: By Popish. 1. Councils. 2. Bulls. 3. Doctors. 6. And is not this plain and clear saith one? Yes, to entertain Children by sound of words, or pleasing pictures. But when we come to the substance, & find that neither he allegeth his adversaries speech sincerely, nor answereth truly to the sense, but either dissembleth the same, or runneth a side, or confirmeth his said adversaries argument, by his feeble answers, what importeth this ostentation of bare and idle syllables? 7. But you will say that he seemeth to have seen and read much of our modern Catholic Authors, and to allege them more abundantly in his text and margin then commonly other writers of his coat & calling have hitherto done, for every where almost he quoteth Vasquez, Suarez, Tolet, Bellarmine, Cunerus, Azor, 〈◊〉 T. Alsonsus de Castro, Sayer, Gregorius de Valentia, Bannes, M. 〈◊〉 our Catholic Authors. and others, which I grant, that he hath seen and taken a view of them and others, if they be notes of his own gathering, but he hath considered of them, as Satan had considered of job, and his actions, when God said unto him: Numquid considerasti servum job 〈◊〉. meum job? and he signified, yea, but it was to belly and calumniate him; and so hath this fellow considered of our Catholic authors, not only to slander them what he may, but manifestly to falsify and corrupt them in many places both in words, meaning and whole drift of their discourses, as in part you have seen already, and shall more largely and particularly upon just occasions afterwards. 8. Nor hath this whole Reply of his, though big in bulk, any substantial point almost handled therein, either about the one or the other two parts of his subject proposed, to wit, Rebellion, and equivocation; whereby he would dissolve all friendly combination, and association between Catholic and Protestant people; for as concerning the first, he hath no more in effect, but that which before hath been touched in his ten devised and distended Reasons: That we hold Protestants for Heretics excommunicate, and subject to all the penalties of Ecclesiastical Canons made by the Church against ancient Heretics: That we ascribe power to the Bishop of Rome in certain cases, to censure, to excommunicate, to deprive Princes, whereof is inferred, that such and such dangers may ensue, which finally is nothing else, but may, so as the question being De futuris contingentibus, of 〈◊〉 lib. Prior. things contingent to come (whereof the Philosopher saith there is no science) all remaineth in uncertainty, but only the suspicion & hatred which he would raise against us: but what the Protestants doctrine hath done & doth at this day against lawful Princes in their Realms, the armies in the low countries, Hungary, Poland, Suetia and other places, do testify not only to our ears, as things absent, but as present also to our eyes, & then must I infer, that where we have so many examples of so manifest experience and present action, where we see and behold and feel with our senses what passeth, and what hath passed, and what is like to ensue daily by the notorious unquiet spirits of new gospellers, under any Prince whatsoever that contenteth not their humours. What shall we stand wrangling with this Minister, or any his like, about possibilities or conjectural probabilities? What may fall out in time against his Majesty, for example, 〈◊〉 Protestant Princes troubled by Popes in our days. of Great Brittany, who hath been a King, a Protestant King, almost forty years, and never received hurt or disquietness from any Pope, though divers have been in that Sea within the compass of this time, and many other Kings and Princes both in Denmark, Sueveland and Germany for more years without molestation received or offered from the said Sea, which I dare avouch no Catholic Prince, King or Emperor can say that he hath passed half so many years in quiet government over Protestant people, unto whom their doctrine giveth as great power over Princes in that case, as we ascribe to Popes and far greater; wherein I remit me, to that which hath been said and demonstrated in the precedent two Chapters. 9 And now to end about this first point of our Ministers Reply, that whereas in his former libel of ten reasons, entitled, A discovery of popish doctrine etc. He set down in his first reason, for proof of our insociability with protestants, that we hold them for excommunicate Heretics, & subject to all the penalties belonging to such men, whereof one among the rest is, that we must fly them, and avoid their conversation; the answerer of the pamphlet, for better milding and pacifying the distempered humour of this enraged Minister, told him that English Protestants were How Protestants were denied by the Answerer to be subject to the penalties of Heresy. not simply held in that account with us, to wit for excommunicate Heretics, in such degree as they were either to be avoided, or subject to the penalties appointed by holy Canons for ancient Heretics; understanding (as himself doth sufficiently insinuate) this to be in regard that they are not, nor any among them to his knowledge, expressly, and by name denounced and condemned for convict in that behalf, which circumstance of particular condemnation and denunciation, by most lawyers and Divines opinions is necessary, before the said punishments, especially external, can be inflicted, albeit the internal, to wit, the loss of grace, separation from the Church, excommunication, & the like be incurred ipso facto, by the holding and professing of any condemned Heresy whatsoever, as before in the precedent Chapter more largely we have declared. 10. But for the external punishments, as debarring from conversation and communication with them, loss of goods, honours, and dignities, deprivation of offices, inability to inherit, note of infamy, incapacity of Christian burial, and the like, there being two opinions between Catholic writers, the one more large and mild, that none of these punishments are to be actually incurred, but after particular denunciation and sentence given by a judge against the party, the other more severe, that in some cases, the notoriousness of the thing may be so great, as in some part they may thereby be incurred without sentence; the Of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the more moderate followed by the Answerer. just & moderate answerer (for so he entituleth his book, and in this point showeth it by effects) made choice rather of the more temperate, & mild opinion; which in like manner is the more universal among both canonists and Catholic Divines, he thinking it sufficient to cite only to that purpose, as in his answer Moderate Answer cap. 1. he did, the Council of Lateran, Cunerus, Navarre and others, but he might have cited many more: for in truth §. 〈◊〉. it is the more common opinion by much, as may be seen by the words of these learned men ensuing: Antoninus p. 3. tit. 25. cap. 3. Angelus verbo Excomunicat. 8. n. 3. Sotus. 4. dist. 22. q. 1. art. 1. Victor in summa de Sacram. tract. de excom. Armilla verbo Excomunicat. nu. 50. Rosel. excommunicate 6. nu. 44. Siluest. verb. Excommunicate. 5. q. 3. Caëtan. in summa. Ledes. 4. dist. q. 23. art. 1. and divers others. 11. But now this Minister finding that some Catholic Author did hold the other opinion in like manner, that in certain cases some of the forenamed punishments might be incurred before particular denunciation by an Ecclesiastical judge, triumpheth greatly, as though he had taken the said answerer at great advantage, and found plausible matter to entertain cavillation against him, and thereupon spendeth divers Chapters of his Reply in citing some of those Authors to his purpose, without telling his Reader, that it is a matter in dispute or question among Catholic writers; but as though all were clear and resolved Reply c. 4. 5. 6. etc. on his side, he citeth not only Panormitan, Bannes, and others, but the jesuit also Gregory de Valentia, in these words: If the guilt of Heresy be so notorious (saith he) as that by no evasion it can be concealed, the party doth incur the penalty, thus far, that his subjects may deny such a Lord all fealty, yea before the sentence of judgement. In alleging of which authority, though but short, as you see, he useth the same fraud which commonly you shall find in all the rest, or most part of his allegations, to wit, that somewhat is mangled, added, or left out of purpose to make the thing sound against us, as here the Latin text hath, Haeresis siuè Apostasiae à fide, of Heresy or Apostasy from the faith, and then paena praedicta incurritur ex part, the foresaid punishment is in part incurred: and lastly, Non tamen ita, ut teneantur (subditi) Domino Greg. de val. to. 3. disp. 1. q. 12. de Apostas. 〈◊〉. 2. para. 4. Haeretico aut Apostatae obsequium negare; but yet that subjects are not bound to deny obedience to their Lord that is an Heretic or Apostata; all with moderations our Minister cutteth of, and leaveth out, to the effect that you may imagine. But for that of these tricks we shall have afterward occasion to treat more particularly, I will intermit the same now, & return to speak a word or two more, of the foresaid moderate Answer made to the Ministers slanderous discovery, soon after the publication thereof in England; though not come to my hands in many months after. 12. And whereas the Answerer both in regard of the exasperation of times then running, and to perform the title of his book, which is, A just and moderate Answer, indeavoreth every where prudently to fly the occasion of more offence and exulceration, and to work the moderation that he might, without injury of the truth (for this seemeth to have been his purpose) especially in affirming, that no Protestants are held by us T. M. will needs prove Protestants to be held for Heretics. for excommunicate Heretics (meaning thereby, denounced by name, as before hath been decsared:) this other stickler and stirrer of coals will needs take upon him to prove at large, that Protestants are esteemed to be truly Heretics, excommunicate, and subject to all the Censures of the Church, which any ancient Heretic was in times past: and to this effect he bringeth in the definition of an Heretic, set down by Catholic writers, the explication of persons excommunicate, and the application of Ecclesiastical Censures against them both, which he proveth by three means, to wit, of General Councils, Pope's Decrees, and Doctors judgements; by all which he proveth Protestants to be esteemed Heretics, & held for guilty of all the pains and penalties thereof, both internal and external, spiritual and temporal, in the sight, sense and opinion of all the universal Catholic Church, for many ages together; And is not he worthy of a good fee think you for pleading for Protestants in this manner? 13. But whatsoever he may deserve in this (which I leave to other men's judgements) I must needs say, that in two or three other points, he hath deserved little of the Protestant cause, and so I think will his T. M a bad Proctor for Protestants. Lord and Master say, when he shall make true reflection upon the case; for first he hath brought in a needless comparison between the stirring humours of Protestant & Catholic people, in matter of obedience to their Princes, which must needs fall out to the great disgrace of the Protestant party, as by the afore alleged examples and other proofs may appear and be seen by the eye. 14. Secondly he taketh upon him yet more fond in the second part of this his Reply, to make a public justification of all Protestants for rebelling against their Princes, in any country whatsoever, but more particularly and especially in England, & therein doth so justify Cranmer, Ridley, Sir Tho. Wyatt, & others that conspired against Q. Mary in England, Knox, Buchanan, Goodman, and like Ministers in Scotland, turning upside down that State against their Sovereigns, the Rebellions raised in Suetia, Polonia, Germany, Switzerland, France, and other countries, as his justification is a more plain condemnation of them, and their spirits and doctrine in that behalf, then if he had said nothing at all, as partly shall afterwards appear, by some instances that we shall allege thereof. 15. Thirdly he doth with as little discretion bring in that accusation before mentioned of hard words used by some of our Authors against his party that followeth Calvin's doctrine: as namely; That they believe no one article truly of the Christian Creed; That they are Heretics, & therein far worse and in more damnable state than Turks, jews or Infidels; That their doctrine leadeth by consequence to turcism and Infidelity etc. for by this occasion both the Author of the moderate Answer hath alleged many clear authorities of principal Protestants themselves, that are of the same opinion, and we have added many The imputation 〈◊〉 Heresy unto Protestants 〈◊〉 brought in by T. M more thereunto, in the precedent Chapter of this book, whereby is made manifest, that the profession of Calvin's doctrine is no less held for Heresy, Apostasy, and infidelity by all other sorts of Protestants of our days, then by Catholic men themselves; and much more may be added for justification of that point which needed not to have been brought in, but upon this occasion, to show that English Protestants are held for Heretics, not only by the Catholic Church whose judgement most importeth, but by the chief pillars also of the Protestants profession in other countries. And when I do name Heresy and Heretics, the prudent Reader will remember that I do name the most heinous and damnable thing that any Christian cogitation can comprehend, no matter of jest or dispute, but of terror and tears. 16. Fourthly I can as little commend the Minister's wit for drawing into the field again a new disputation, and special Treatise of his, adjoined in the end of this his Reply, about Equivocation or doubtful speeches, sometimes lawful to be used for good and pious ends, and for avoiding sin and other hurts both spiritual & temporal, wherein though the lawfulness and necessity thereof both by law of nature, divine and human, have been made evident, upon divers occasions in England these later years, since this T. M. an example of Equivocation. calumniation was raised against virtuous and learned men about the same; yet one proof we shall add more here in this place, which before I have not seen set down at any length, which is that not only Protestants themselves do both use and abuse the same, as the Answerer declareth; but that this very Author our Minister that inveigheth so sharply & ignorantly against the manner of speech, which he calleth Equivocation, is forced in almost infinite places of his Reply, either to grant that he doth Equivocate, or else that he lieth flatly. And for this also I remit myself to the proofs that after shall ensue. 17. And so to conclude this Chapter, concerning my judgement about the Answer and Reply to the foresaid Discovery of Rebellion and Equivocation, I must needs say, that the Answerer hath endeavoured to effectuate so much as he promised in the title of his book, which was, of a just and moderate Answer, and in performance thereof, hath not only borne on matters temperately, as before hath been showed, but spared also his Adversary in many points, and namely in passing over his allegations without note or check, having not perhaps either time or commodity of books to examine the same, or persuading himself, that in so small a pamphlet, and palpable matter, a The Author's Censure both of the Answerer & replier. Minister would not adventure to use so many falsifications; but he was deceived, not knowing so well this generation of men, who finding their cause devoid of truth, are forced to hold up the credit thereof by sleights of falsehood. In the rest, the Answerer quitteth himself learnedly, and showeth much reading in particular, as by the multiplicity of Authors by him alleged doth well appear. But the Replier is so far of from performing his promise, of a full satufaction concerning double Romish Iniquity, as he hath scarce satisfied fully or meanly any one argument or authority alleged by his adversary, who though I may presume he will best declare himself by his Rejoinder to this Reply, if he think him worthy of so much labour (as in truth I do not, especially at this time, when so grievous punishments are procured in England by him & his like for such as do presume to answer their books:) yet mean I also briefly in this Treatise, by some examples to make it manifest, leaving the rest to himself to be treated, and refuted by him more largely & abundantly, when he shall think it best convenient; my purpose being only to lay forth in general the injuries which this Minister doth offer unto all Catholic people, by slandering them in the foresaid two odious accusations of Rebellion & Equivocation, whereof having treated sufficiently about the first in the two foregoing Chapters (and shall do more in two other that ensue) we mean by Gods help to pass thence to the other general head of Equivocation, & to handle the same with no less evidency of truth, equity and piety of Catholic doctrine therein, then hath been declared in the other before concerning our innocency, wherein I remit me willingly to the indifferent Readers judgement & censure. WHAT THE MINISTER THOMAS MORTON DOTH IN THIS REPLY and full satisfaction answer CONCERNING The former point of charge against Protestants, for Rebellion, Conspiracies, and Disobedience; the effect whereof is drawn to three principal Questions. CHAP. four ANd now after judgement given of this Ministers Reply in general, it shall be needful that we descend somewhat to particulars for proof thereof. And whereas he, by so many The Ministers sleights. sleights and turnings of divisions and subdivisions, numbers & members of things to be handled, or rather huddled, as also by transmutation from due places, alteration of order, clipping and culling of words and sentences, endeavoureth so to entangle the sight and understanding of his Reader (especially the more unlearned) as he may not easily find where he walketh, nor when he answereth to purpose and when not, when he leaveth out and when he putteth in all, when he dealeth plainly and when fraudulently, and by consequence after much reading, can scarce be able to make any firm conclusion at all about the matter in controversy: Our course shall be quite contrary, endeavouring to bring all to brevity, perspicuity, and certainty, so much as in us lieth, for so we think it necessary for the Readers true satisfaction, after the small satisfaction he can receive by the full satisfaction promised by this Minister. 2. Wherefore to reduce all that before hath been said by him, or his Answerer, or myself, concerning the charge of sedition and Rebellion, unto some perspicuous order and method, three points seem unto me most important to be considered in this matter, as comprehending the sum & substance of all that hath been said, answered, or replied upon. The first concerning Heresy; the second, seditious doctrine tending to Rebellion, and the third, the practice and exercise thereof: wherein as in all other points of argument, & discourse, when the objection and solution is once heard, and well considered, no great difficulty remaineth for a discreet man to make the conclusion, and to settle his mind therein. The first Question about Heretics and Heresy. §. 1. FIrst than there hath been a great contention and is between us, as in the second Chapter of this Treatise you have heard, about the name, nature, and application of Heresy and Heretics; this Minister maketh it a principal ground in the very beginning of his first discovery, why Catholics and English Protestants may not live together in one Commonwealth, without continual fears of treason to be practised from the said Catholics, for that they held Protestants to be Heretics: and hereupon doth he bring in that long list and rabblement of losses and penalties, both temporal and spiritual adjudged by ancient Councils, and Canons Ecclesiastical, to be incident, and due to all sorts of Heretics, rising up against the Church from the beginning: whereunto his moderate Answerer giveth that moderate satisfaction, which in the precedent Chapter we have signified, to wit, that concerning the execution of those penalties (especially the external) it is not due against any until lawful and judicial denunciation have passed; and that forsomuch as appertained to the imputation of Heresy unto them that are of Calvin's Religion professed in England, not only Catholics, but divers sorts also of the most renowned Protestants did stand therein most resolutely holding them to be true and properly Heretics. And for this he cited many instances, authorities and examples; and we have added more in the said second Chapter that goeth before. 4. Now than it is to be considered maturely without passion or heat of contention, whether this be so or not, and how T. M. doth answer these instances of his first adversary (for mine hitherto he hath not seen:) for if this be true, that indeed they are held for Heretics by learned and grave men of their own profession, who are no less opposite to us than they; then falleth first the ground of his bitter exclamation against us for reputing them so, & secondly followeth it also, that as great probabilities of treasons and conspiracies may be suspected from those of the other sects, that hold them for such, (if that opinion be the cause of treasons) as Lutherans, zwinglians, Puritans, and Mark these consequences the like. And lastly ensueth a weighty consideration, that if by all sides they be held for Heretics, how deeply the grave or rather grievous assertion of S. Augustine before alleged is to be held in memory, & pondered with terror. Firmissimè tene & nullatenus dubites, Aug. de fide Cathol. citat. apud Grat. tit. 7. de Haereticis c. 2 omnem Haereticum vel Schismaticum cum Diabolo & Angelis 〈◊〉 aeterni ignis incendio participandum: Hold for most certain and no way make any doubt, but that every Heticke or Schismatic, of what sort soever, shall be partaker of the flames of eternal fire, together with the devil and his Angels; which is a dreadful sentence, especially if we remember both his and all other Holy Father's uniform definition of an Heretic, to consist principally in this, that he hold with obstinacy any one article contrary to the belief of the universal visible and known Church, for that out of these two mayor and minor propositions, the conclusion is easily made who is an Heretic, and First charge of Heresy laid upon Protestantesby men of their own profession. thereby also in the danger denounced by S. Augustine. 5. The first proof then which the Answerer allegeth against the discovery of T. M. in this behalf, is the authority, censure and judgement of the Dean & College of the famous Lutheran University in Germany, named Tubinga, set down by the said deane and Common Reader of that University named Philippus Nicolaus in a large book with this title: Fundamentorum Moderate Answer. pag. 14. Caluinianae sectae cum veteribus Arrianis & Nestorianis communium detectio: A discovery of the fundamentes of the Calvinian sect, which are common to them with the ancient Arrians & Nestorians: & he proveth through In praefat. & cap. 1. 2 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9 10. 11. etc. many Chapters together, that Caluinists are no less Heretics than the other, and they agree with him at least in seventeen or eighteen principal articles, alleging also 〈◊〉 authority to the same effect. 6. This is the charge. What doth the Minister now Reply upon large and mature deliberation in this his full satisfaction? You shall hear it in his own words: Reply pag. 17. That which they did (saith he) in the spirit of opposition and contention is not much to be regarded: His sleight 〈◊〉 not satisfying the doubt. and this is all he saith to the purpose, for that presently he runneth a side to prove by other means, that Calvin did not hold with the Arrians and Nestorians; but this is to take a new contention in hand with the University of Tubinga, whether they censured well or no, and not to answer us, whether Caluinists be truly Heretics by the judgement of that Protestant University, which in effect he granteth, when he saith: That it is not much to be regarded what they did in the spirit of opposition & contention; so as they censure him, and he censured them: whereby is clear that in their judgement, both he and his are condemned, which is the point in question. 7. And by this and many other like authorities alleged by me to this purpose in the precedent second Chapter, is evident, that in the judgement and conscience of all Lutheran Protestants whatsoever, not only in the spirit of opposition and contention, as this man saith, but in their calmest spirit (if ever they be in calm) all calvinists are held by them for damnable Heretics, yea, deploratissimi Haeretici, most desperate Stanc l. de Trinit. & medi. Lut. li. contr. Sacra. & epist. ad Marchio. Pruss. Heretics saith Franciscus Stancarus a chief superintendant in Polonia: Alieni ab Ecclesia Dei, & satanae membra, saith Luther himself: cut of from the Church of God and thereby made true members of Satan; which censure being laid upon them by men of their own profession is a very considerable point to be marked by him that feareth the eternal fire before mentioned by S. Augustine. For as if so many learned Physicians should tell us that we were in a dangerous consumption, or so many skilful Lawyers should admonish us that we were by law in a case of extreme temporal danger of death, we would look about us: so much more ought we in this case. 8. I pass over the testimony of Conradus before mentioned, who affirmeth calvinists to believe and teach rightly no one article of the Creed: that also of Heshusius, that saith, their association is a most blasphemous & sacrilegious sect: that of Hunnius, it is most damnable and the right way to hell: that of Schutzius, calling it the sink of all wicked Heresies: that of Modestus, that maketh Caluinists as bad as jews and mahometans: that of Mathias, Graverus, and others, that affirm all Protestants that follow Calvin's doctrine processed enemies of jesus Christ: all which being Ministers, and zealous professors of Luther's new Gospel, cannot be imagined by Protestants to have been so much abandoned by the Holy Ghost, as to give this deliberate Censure of their brethren in profession, if it were false, or else must we think, that they had never the true spirit of God in them, whereof which soever our Minister granteth, he is in the brakes: And thus much of Lutheran Protestants. 9 Next to this where the danger without comparison Answerer pag 15 The second charge of Heresy from Puritans. is far greater, the Answerer objecteth to our Minister, the opinion of the Puritans, to wit, the more zealous part of the Calvinian profession itself, who affirm in the name of all their brethren (whom they Admonit. 2. to the Par. pa. 25. & suppl. vers. 36. say to be thousands) that the ordinary Protestants of England are not only in error and Heresy, but are plain Infidels; and that it is infidelity to go to their Churches; and that it was a damnable sin in the Parliament, yea more heinous than that of Sodom and Gomorrha to confirm such an erroneous Religion. And the same and other like censures of theirs are related in my Lord of Canterbury his book of Dangerous positions: and the occasion and foundation of this censure and judgement is set down of late very clearly in the preface to the answer to Sir Edward Cooks Reports, where is showed why (supposing the grounds of both Religions and differences, especially in the origen of Ecclesiastical power which giveth essence to the true Church) they cannot be but as heathens, publicans and Infidels the one to the other. 9 Now then how do you think that T. M. shifteth of this charge? No otherwise then the former, by granting the matter; but inveigheth against the men: How T. M. doth shift of the Censure of the Puritans. This writer and you (saith he) may join fellowship: you dedicate your book to the King, he to the Parliament; he pretendeth the consent of a thousand; you of a thousand thousands; he for all his consent is not many, and you (for aught you will pretend) but one etc. So he. But what is all this to the purpose? He granteth the point in question, that English Protestants are held for Heretics, in the science & conscience of Puritans: so as, both by enemies and friends, they are thought to be in an evil case. And truly this is much plainer dealing in confessing a truth (that they be in deed at such debate among themselves in the very substance and essence of their Religion) The notable shifting of Deane Sutcliffe. then that of Deane Sutcliffe, who having taken upon him these years past to return A full and round answer (for so he entituleth his book) to the Warn-word of N. D. (even as now T. M. doth his A full satisfaction) when he came to the purpose, he was so far from being full & round, as to four whole Chapters which the other had made of this matter, to show the dissension of Protestants among themselves, & the condemnation of calvinists by all other Protestant sects of our time, he answered not twice four lines to all the said discourses, testimonies, examples, and demonstrations, but dissembling all, as though no such thing had been written by his adversary, at last in the Sutcliffe in his full answer, part. 1. C. 1. pag. 14. end of a Chapter, broke forth into the denial of any such different names or sects at all, saying: Neither do we acknowledge the names of Lutherans, calvinists, zwinglians or Puritans, but only do call ourselves Christians etc. We say further, that the Churches of Germany, France and England agree, albeit private men hold private opinions. 10. Thus Deane Sutcliffe: and by this audacity you may know the Dean, for that no man else I think could without blushing have denied the notice of so notorious names and differences, or so boldly have affirmed that all the Protestant Churches of Geneva, France and England did agree, notwithstanding that private men held private opinions; so as belike Churches may agree without men, to wit, in their walls and windows: but these are escapes fit for M. Sutcliffe, and so to him I leave them. 11. But yet the moderate Answerer goeth one step A third charge of Heresy against Protestants by one of their own. nearer unto T. M. and telleth him that a great learned man of his own side, a rare linguist, a long traveler, trained much in Geneva and other Cities of Germany, highly commended by M. Willet in his printed works, and admired by others; to wit, M. Hugh Broughton having considered well of our ordinary Protestants Moderate Religion, condemned the same of infinite errors & Answer. pag. 14. Heresies, in a certain advertisement published in M. Hugh Broughton. print, upon the year of Christ 1604. giving grievous curses of Anathema Maranatha to the same, & to divers Bishops in particular, as namely to M. Whitgift, late Archbishop of Canterbury, and to M. Bilson yet Bishop of Winchester, affirming further that their Bible, after their translation, and by their corrupt notes thereunto, is made worse and more dangerous than the Turks Koran, and causeth many millions to run to eternal flames: that he hath found the text of the old Testament only, perverted in eight hundred and eight and forty several places, and other like points; whereunto I find T. M. to answer nothing in effect touching the matter itself in question, either by denial of the thing, or otherwise, but only ascribing it to passion and lack of judgement in him, which the other perhaps will return to him again. But let us hear our Ministers words to his adversary. 12. What modesty (saith he) can this be in you to object unto us a man whom you know to be sequestered from us, rather by Reply c. 7. impotency of passion, then by any difference of Religion: And is not this a very substantial answer? Is not this a full satisfaction, according to the title of his book? and was not the censure of the Puritans cast of a little before in regard of like passion? And all the Lutheran Protestants of Tubinga before that again upon pretence T. M. cannot defend his Religion from Heresy against his own people. of like passion, as writing in the spirit of contradiction and contention? What trial, what witness can have place if this kind of answering may be admitted? But it is sufficient to me that by confession of our Minister himself their Religion is held for error, Heresy, and infidelity, not only by Catholics or Papists, as they call them, but also by Protestants themselves, both Lutherans and Puritans, and some learned also of their own proper sect, which is a pitiful confession if we consider of it well, and no less dishonourable & prejudicial unto them, to have the name of Heretic ascribed & laid upon them, aswell by friends as enemies, as it is honourable and comfortable unto us to be called Catholics, according to S. Augustine's observation, Aug. l. de vera Relig. cap. 7. not only by friends but also by our enemies. And thus much of the first Question. The second Question about seditious Doctrine. §. 2. 13. ALl our contention hitherto in this point having been, whether truly & really the doctrine of Catholics or Protestants be more peaceable, or seditious in itself, or more dangerous or secure to Princes, concerning the obedience or Rebellion of their subjects, whatsoever hath been objected by the accusation or calumniation of our Minister, in his former discovery against Catholics, hath not been any direct The equity of our doctrine tried by the effects doctrine, teaching or insinuating, much less inciting subjects to disobedience or Rebellion, as before hath been declared, but only by a certain consequence or inference, that for so much as in certain urgent and exorbitant cases, we ascribe to the Christian Commonwealth and supreme Pastor thereof, authority to restrain & punish supreme Magistrates in such cases; that therefore our doctrine is seditious, and tending, indirectly at least & à longè, to Rebellion; though the visible experience of so many great Kingdoms round about us, living for so many years, and sometimes ages also, in quiet security, notwithstanding this doctrine, doth convince this to be a calumniation. 14. But our Adversaries do not only teach this, The contrary effects of Protestant doctrine. That every Christian Commonwealth upon mature deliberation and with general consent hath such authority, but further also, that particular men and Common people have the same, and are not only taught, but urged in like manner, & exhorted to use it, when soever they suppose their Prince to offer them injury or hard measure, especially in matters of Religion; whereof the moderate Answerer objecteth many examples and proofs against T. M. taken out of their own books, words and writings, as also by the testimonies of other principal Protestant-writers, whereunto though T. M. would make a show to answer somewhat now in this his Reply, and thereupon hath framed a second several part of his book for justification of Protestants in that behalf: yet is it so far of from A full satisfaction (the title of his whole work) as in The vanity of this Reply. effect he confesseth all that his Adversary opposeth, no less than you have heard in the former question, though somewhat he will seem sometimes to wrangle, and to wipe of the hatred of their assertion by comments of his own devise. 15. And indeed what other answer can be framed to most plain assertions out of their own words and writings, as of Calvin, Beza, Hottoman, and so many other French calvinists, as I have mentioned in the first Chapter of this Treatise? Goodman also, Gilby, Whittingham, Knox, Buchanan, and others nearer home unto us? All the forenamed Collections in like manner of him that is now Archbishop of Canterbury, of Doctor Sutcliffe and others, in the books entitled, Dangerous positions, Survey of the pretended Disciplinary Doctrine, and the like, wherein their positions are most clearly set down, concerning this matter. And albeit this Minister T. M. in his Reply, doth use all the art possible to dissemble the same, by telling a piece of his adversaries allegations in one place, and another piece in another, altering all order both of Chapters matter and method, set down by the Answerer, so as never hare when she 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 adversaries book:) yet are his answerers such, where he doth answer (for to sundry chief points he saith nothing at all) as do easily show that in substance he confesseth all and cannot deny what is objected. And where he seeketh to deny any thing, there he entangleth himself more than if flatly he confessed the same. Some few examples I shall allege whereby conjecture may be made of the rest. 16. The Answerer allegeth, first the words of Mother. Answerer cap 4. Goodman, in his book against Queen Mary, wherein he writeth expressly, that it is lawful by Gods law and man's to kill both Kings and Queens, when just The doctrine of Goodman and other English protestāns of Geneva cause is offered, and herself in particular, for that she was an enemy to God, and that all Magistrates and Princes transgressing Gods laws, might by the people be punished, condemned, deprived & put to death, aswell as private transgressors; and much other such doctrine to this effect, cited out of the said Goodman. Goodman pa. 94. 119. 203. etc. All which the Bishop of Canterbury his second book of Dangerous positions hath much more largely, both of this Goodman and many other English Protestants, Cap. 1. chief Doctors of their Primitive Church, residing at that time in Geneva. And what doth T. M. reply now to this? You shall hear it in his own words. If I should justify this Goodman saith he (though your Full satisfaction, part 2. pa. 103. examples might excuse him) yet my heart shall condemn myself: But what do you profess to prove, all Protestants teach positions Rebellious? Prove it. here is one Goodman, who in his public book doth maintain him: I have no other means to avoid these straits which you object, by the example of one, to conclude all Protestants in England Rebellious; then by the example of all the rest to answer, there is but one. So he. 17. And this is his full satisfaction and faithful Reply, as he calleth his book; but how poor satisfaction this giveth, and how many points there be here of no faith or credit at all, is quickly seen by him that will examine them. For first how do the 〈◊〉 alleged against this Goodman by the Moderate Answerer excuse him, as here is said, seeing the words he allegeth against him out of his own book are intolerable, and my Lord of Canterbury allegeth far worse? As for example, that it is most lawful to kill wicked Kings when they fall to Tyranny, but namely Queens, and thereupon that Queen Mary aught to have been put to death as a Tyrant, Monster, and cruèll beast; alleging for confirmation thereof divers examples out of Holy Scripture, as that the Subjects did lawfully kill the Dang. posit. l. 2. c. 1. Queen's Highness Athalia, and that the worthy Captain jehu killed the Queen's Majesty jesabel, and that Elias, though no Magistrate, killed the Queen's highness Chaplains, the Priests of Baal; and that these examples are left for our instruction etc. And now, tell me, how may these examples excuse M. Goodman, as our Minister Morton avoucheth? 18. Secondly it is both false and fond to affirm that the moderate Answerer took upon him to prove either that all Protestants in these our days, do teach such Rebellious positions, or that all Protestants in England are Rebellious, as here is affirmed; for that this were to deal as injuriously with them, as they and he do with us, by imputing this last Rebellious fact of a few in England, to the whole sort of Catholics and to their doctrine. It was sufficient for the Answerers' purpose to show that both Goodman and many others, principal pillars of the English new Gospel in those days, did hold, believe, and practise those positions out of the true spirit of the said Gospel. And hereupon thirdly it followeth, that it is a notorious impudence to avouch with such resolution, A shameless assertion of T. M. denying a manifest truth. as this man doth, that there is but this one of that opinion, and that one dram of dross (as he saith) proveth not the whole mass to be no gold. For who knoweth not first, that Whittingam, afterward Deane of Durham, approved and made a preface to Goodman's book, commending highly the said doctrine? Gilby also another of that primitive Genevian Church, who is thought by some to have been the Author of the famous seditious book, entitled, Of Obedience (he should have said Of Rebellion saith my Lord of Canterbury) which book approveth and commendeth the same doctrine most highly, as the said Lord testifieth at large, by setting down their positions, and then addeth as followeth about the consent of others. 19 Goodman (saith he) for his conclusion is most earnest with all English subjects, that they would The B. of Cant. his testimony of the primitive English Genevians. dan. posit. pag. 218. 219. 220. 221. put his doctrine in practice, assuring them that in so doing, if they be cast into prison with joseph, to wild beasts with Daniel, into the sea with 〈◊〉, into the dungeon with jeremy, into the fiery furnace with Sydrach, Mysaach, and Abdenago: yet they shallbe comforted. Whereas if they will not, in seeking to save their lives, they shall lose them; they shall be cast out of the favour of God; their consciences shallbe wounded with hell-like torments; they shall despair and seek to hang themselves with judas; to murder themselves with Franciscus Spira; drown themselves with judge Hales; or else fall mad with justice Morgan etc. At Geneva etc. 20. This doctrine, saith Whittingham, was approved In his preface to Goodman's book. by the best learned in these parts, meaning Calvin & the rest of the Genevians. The English men of name there at that time besides Goodman and Whittingham, were (as I take it) Antony Gilby, Miles Coverdale, David Whitehead, and sundry others, who liking the said doctrine also exceedingly, were very earnest to have the same printed for the benefit, as they said, of their Brethren in England. Whittingham made a preface to Goodman's book, wherein he greatly commendeth this doctrine, and writeth thus in the name as it seemeth of all his fellows there: We desire that you (meaning all in England and elsewhere) that love to know the truth and follow it, should be persuaded in this truth (to wit of deposing Princes that follow not their Gospel.) And yet further: here thou dost hear the eternal speaking of his Minister etc. quickly give ear and obey etc. And again: If thou wish for Christian liberty come and see how it may easily be had etc. From Geneva etc. So he. 21. Whereby may be seen that there was more than one dram of dross in that golden mass, if every one of these first Genevian gospellers weighed a dram; and by this may be seen also, what credit may be given to these Ministers asseverations, that so guilefully do affirm or deny what maketh for their purposes, without scruple of lying, even then when they speak against Equivocation. For it was impossible, but that T. M. knew this to be so, when he avouched the contrary, that Goodman was alone in this case; and how then could he write and print it, except either by secret Equivocation, or manifest lying? 22. Nor is it much to the purpose, to say, that English An evasion taken away. Protestants do not now profess those positions of Goodman and the rest of those ancient days for that the times and state of things be changed and bettered with them; for they are not under Princes that press them to matters against their wills. But yet we must imagine, that those who had Primitias Spiritus, the very first fruits and greatest fervour of that new Ghospelling-spirit, did speak and write more properly out of the force and instinct of that spirit, according to the nature and essence thereof, than these later, who accommodate themselves to the condition of states and times; and that these now would fall to that also, if they were in their case. 23. For proof whereof the moderate answerer citeth divers like Rebellious assertions, set down by Their seditious doctrine against Q. Elizabeth. such as esteem themselves the purer sort of Protestants, against Queen Elizabeth also, though a Protestant Princess, when she pressed them in matters concerning their Religion; in which positions they affirm: That she was worse and less tolerable than her sister Dan. posit pag. 18. 133 〈◊〉. suppl. to the governor of Wales p. 16. 36. 37. 38. Queen Mary, and not to be obeyed in her procedings against them; yea openly they moved divers Magistrates to take arms against her, and namely in the marches of Wales, as appeareth yet by their supplications to the Governor of that country. He objecteth in like manner the public positions, and printed doctrine Mod. ans. cap. 4. of Buchanan, Knox, and other chief Ministers and preachers of Scotland, about the very same times, who publicly Positions of Scottish ministers. and resolutely give authority to the people, to pull down, punish, & deprive Princes, aswell of their Crowns, as also of their lives when they think them worthy; yea, do allow public rewards to be proposed Knox in Hist. p. 372 item to Engl. and Scotland f 78 Buechanan de jure Reg. p. 13. 25. 40. 58. 61. to such as kill evil Princes, no less then to them that destroy noisome beasts, as ravenous wolves, bears, and the like. He addeth moreover out of the very notes of our modern Protestants upon the Bible, even by the judgement and interpretation of his Majesty himself, in the late conference with the Puritans, that deposing and killing of Princes is allowed, out of their exposition of Scriptures, for lawful in such cases, as they go against Religion; which censure Cap. 2. §. Contrariwise. to be conform to the judgement and writings both of Luther, Zuinglius and Calvin, he showeth by quoting their words and works in sundry places, which for brevity I pretermit. 24. And what doth T.M. answer to all this think you? You shall hear part by part according as before How fully T. M. answereth matters & giveth satisfaction. the objections have been set down. To the first about Puritans, I find no answer at all, so as in this, I see not how his satisfaction may be called full, for somuch as it is quite nothing: To Knox & Bucchanan their assertions, he answereth thus: You might have added, that there was in Scotland an act of Parliament to call in that Reply 〈◊〉. 107. Chronicle of Buchanan, censuring all such contempts and innovations, and then citeth in the margin anno 1584. To the objection about Knox & Buchanans' doctrine. which was almost thirty years after the said doctrine had been taught, preached, and practised in that Kingdom, by those first gospellers. And is not this A full satisfaction trow you? What if the Chronicle of Buchanan were called in, that recounted with approbation and insolent triumph the attempts made upon their lawful Princes, by incitation of this doctrine? Doth this take away the doctrine itself? Or doth it prove that those first gospellers held it not? What became of the other books of Knox, and namely his Chronicle (for he wrote also a Chronicle of the same matters, and of his own acts therein, as Caesar did his Commentaries) were they abolished hereby? Or do not the same things remain in Holinshed, Hooker, Harison, Thine, and other writers aswell English as Scottish? Or doth all this prove that this was not their doctrine? See then how full or rather fond this satisfaction is. 25. As for the judgement and testimony of his Majesty, about the notes of English Ministers upon the Reply pa. 103. Bible, allowing it for lawful in certain cases to depose To theobiection of his majesties judgement about the English Ministers notes 〈◊〉 the Bible. and kill Princes, he answereth thus: It will be requisite without prejudice to the most learned and Religious judgement of his Majesty to satisfy for two places related from that conference etc. And then he passeth on to discourse at large of the meaning of those places, and under the colour of the foresaid honourable preface, he taketh licence to dissent from his Majesty, signifying in effect that either the conference was not well related, or his Majesty mistook their meaning in those notes; and yet is the matter clear by his own confession, that their said notes upon the second book of Chronicles, and 15. Chapter vers. 16. do not only allow the depofing of the Queen Maacha by her son King Asa, for Idolatry, but further do reprehend him also sharply for that he had not put her to death by fire, saying thus in their note: That whether she were Mother or Grandmother, yet herein the King showed that he lacked zeal; for she ought to have been burnt by the covenant, as vers. 13. appeareth, & by the law of God Deuteronomy 13. but he gave place to foolish pity, and would also seem after a sort to satisfy the law. So they in their note. 26. But who will look upon the two texts of Scripture by them here cited, shall find no mention of burning, but only of putting to death, and in Deut. of stoning only. But how doth he now defend this note of our English Ministers, allowing the deposition and putting to death of Princes? You shall hear his shift (for he is much troubled with his majesties Mark his poor shift. observation:) What shall we say then? (saith he) is the Sovereignty of Kings disabled? God forbid; but it is rather established thereby, for the King is made the deposer, yea even of whosoever. Do you see his poor flattering shift? If the Queen Maacha might be deposed according to their note, and that ex Augusto Imperio, from her Imperial 2. Par. 15. government, as the text of Scripture hath, yea and that she aught according to the law of God to have been put to death, as now hath been said, for her Idolatry, then is it a poor shift to say that Kings cannot be deposed, for that they must be the deposers, seeing that in Deut. where the Commission is given, there is no mention of Kings at all, but God's speech & commission there is unto the people: Sitibi volverit persuadere frater 〈◊〉 etc. If thy brother, or wife, or friend will persuade thee to leave God let thy hand be upon him, and after thee the hand of all the people; which Not only Kings by Gods law appointed deposers as the Minister T. M. saith. notwithstanding is to be understood as before in the second Chapter we have noted, both out of the 13. & 17. Chapters of Deut. and the gloss thereupon, according to the order there set down, to wit, after the cause examined & sentenced by lawful judges. And at this time when this law was ordained, there were no Kings in Israel, nor in many years after, and consequently this commission could not be given to Kings only. 27. So then for so much as English Protestant-Ministers that made these notes, do authorize by this place of Deut. the deposing and killing of that Imperial Queen; his majesties censure was judicious, & true, that thereby they allowed that lawful Princes might be in certaines cases deposed and put to death. And the first shift of T. M. in this place is ridiculous, whereby he would seem to make secure all Kings from danger of deposition, for that themselves by Gods word (which yet he proveth not) must be the deposers, and then he presumeth they will not depose themselves; but for Queens he leaveth them to shift as they may: Which doctrine I suppose he would not have set forth in print in the late Queen's days. But their assertions are according to times and places: and so this shall be sufficient for the second Question. The third Question concerning practice of Rebellion. §. 3. 28. ANd now having been longer in the former two Questions, then in the beginning was purposed, I shall endeavour to be shorter, if it may be, in this last, though the multitude of examples, partly set down by us before in the first Chapter of this Treatise, and partly to be read in Histories and observed by experience of Protestants continual tumultuation against Catholic Princes, would require a larger discussion, then both the other two Questions put together: albeit on the other side again the matters are so clear as they need no discussion at all, but only narration. For what can our Minister answer in reason or truth, to all that multitude of instances of Protestants Rebellions, in the foresaid first Chapter set down, and for the most part objected before (as now I perceive) by his adversary, the moderate Answerer? We shall briefly run over some few examples. 29. To the instances in England of continual conspiracies Reply pag. 101. and insurrections against Queen Mary, he setteth down first this bold and shameless provocation. After the proclamation of her title (saith he) show us what Protestant ever resisted? what Minister of the Gospel in To the Rebellions against Q. Mary what he answereth. all that fiery trial did kindle the least spark of sedition among her people? In which words is to be observed, first that he saith, after the Proclamation of her title, to excuse thereby the Dukes of Northumberland and Suffolk, the Marquis of Northampton, and others that took arms against her, before she was proclaimed in Londen, though in Norfolk she had proclaimed herself presently upon the death of her brother King Edward: as also to excuse Cranmer, Ridley, Sands, Latimer, Rogers, jewel, and other Ministers that had preached most bitterly against her title. But what, is the residue true, that here so boldly he avoucheth, that never any Protestant resisted, nor Minister kindled the least spark of sedition among her people after her title proclaimed? Is this true I say? Is this justifiable (for he calleth this Treatise a justification of Protestants?) Is this any way to be maintained by any show or shift whatsoever? What then will he say to the new conspiracy and iterated Rebellion Stow, Holinshead, & others in their Chronicles of the Duke of Suffolk, & of his brother the Lord john Grey, not only after the said Queen's title proclaimed, but after she was in possession, and had pardoned them both of their former Rebellion? What will he say to the Rebellion of Sir Peter Carew, Sir Gavin Carew, Sir Thomas Denny, & other Protestant Gentlemen, that took arms in Devonshire within six days (saith Stow) after the arraignment of the Duke of Northumberland? What will he say to the conspiracy of Sir james a Croftes & others in Wales, discovered (saith the same Many clear examples to convince T. M. Author) about the five and twentieth day of january next ensuing? What will he say to the Rebellion of Sir Thomas Wyatt and his confederates in Kent ensuing about the same time? Were they not Protestants that were authors thereof? Or was not Queen Mary's title yet proclaimed? Will our Minister face out this? What will he say to the conspiracies ensuing after this again, from Sir Edward Courtney Earl of Devonshire, Stow. an. 1554. May 18. Sir Nicolas Throckmorton, & others? what to the conspiracy of William Thomas, who having determined and plotted the murder of the said Queen, and convicted thereof, professed (saith Stow) at his death at Tyburn, that he died for his country? 30. I pass over other conspiracies and Rebellions, as that of Udall Throckmorton, john Daniel, Stanton, Cleber, the three Lincoln's, and after them Thomas Stafford, and others, that coming out of France with instructions of the brethren of Geneva, surprised Scarborough Castle, 〈◊〉 other insurrections. made proclamations against the Queen, that she was justly deposed, and other such like attempts by that sort of people, who all professed themselves to be Protestants, and to have entered into those affairs principally for their Religion: And with what face or forehead than doth T. M. say in this place? Show us what Protestant ever resisted? etc. 31. But much more impudent is the second part of his assertion about Ministers, saying: That no Minister of the Gospel did ever kindle the least spark of sedition against Queen Mary: Whereas his adversary objecteth many by name, as Cranmer, Ridley, Rogers, and jewel before mentioned, 〈◊〉 & conspiracies by Ministers. who as is evident by Fox his story in his Acts and Monuments, both dealt, preached & stirred people against her, all that lay in their power. And as for Cranmer, it is evident he was condemned for the same treason in Parliament: Ridley preached openly at Paul's Cross against her title: Rogers at Gloucester: and jewel was appointed to preach in Oxford, had he not been prevented by the sudden and unexpected proclaiming of the said Queen there by Sir john William's & others. 32. The instances also that we have alleged of Goodman, Whittingham, Gilby, Coverdale, Witehead, & sundry others testified by my Lord of Canterbury, to have taught and practised sedition against the said Queen in those days, do they not convince this Minister Thomas Morton of rare & singular impudence? will any man ever believe him hereafter what he saith or affirmeth, denieth or shifteth of, seeing him to avouch so manifest untruths, as these are, with so shameless asseveration? 33. But yet to convince him somewhat more, I think good to set down some of the particular words and phrases of two or three of the principal forenamed pillars of the Protestant primitive Church in More examples of Ministers treasons against 〈◊〉. Mary. our Island (omitted for brevities sake by the moderate Answerer) to the end you may see their spirit, & judge of this man's forehead in standing so resolutely in the denial taken in hand. For first john Knox, in a book written & printed at Geneva 1558. which was the last of her reign; wherein after he had said, That is is not birth only or propinquity of blood that 〈◊〉 a King lawful to reign above the people professing jesus Christ etc. He goeth forward, saying thus: I fear not to affirm Knok in his 〈◊〉. to the Nobility fol. 63. & 77. that it had been the duty of the Nobility, judges, Rulers and people of England, not only to have resisted and withstood Mary that jezabel, whom they called their Queen; but also to have punished her to death, with all the sort of her Idolatrous Priests, together with all such as should have assisted her etc. Do you see here his evangelical spirit? Do you see the essence of his doctrine? Do you hear this new Prophet declare himself clearly? But let us give audience to another of like vocation and spirit. 34. The second is his dear brother Christophor Goodman, who in a book of his printed also at Geneva the Goodman in his book, how Superiors ought to be obeyed. c. 〈◊〉. fol. 54. same year 1558. the title whereof was, How Superiors ought to be obeyed, writeth thus: I know you of England will say that the Crown is not entailed to heire-males, but appertaineth aswell to the daughters, & therefore by the laws of the Realm ye could do no otherwise then admit her, but if this be true, yet miserable is the answer of such as had so long time professed the Gospel, and the lively word of God. For Princes to be deposed by the lively word of God. if it had been done by Pagans and heathens, which knew not God by his word, it might better have been borne with all, but among them that bear the name of Gods people, with whom his laws should have chief authority, this answer is not tolerable. If she had been no bastard but the kings daughter, as lawfully begotten, as was her sister, that Godly Lady and meek lamb; yet at the death of our lawful Prince King Edward, that should not have been your first counsel or question, who should be your Queen, but first and principally who had been most meet among your Brethren to have had the government over you. For a woman to reign Gods law forbiddeth, whose reign was never accounted lawful by the word of God etc. So he. And behold here now whether these men's word of God did not serve them to all turns, even to bar lawful succession, to depose the possessor, and whatsoever themselves listed. 35. The third Doctor of this learning was M. Whittingham, Deane afterwards (for his good merits) of Durham, who made a preface to the foresaid book of Goodman, allowing and commending the same highly, as a thing consulted, examined & approved by Calvin, and the rest of the most learned gospellers of Geneva, M. Whittingham in his preface to Goodman's book. for thus he writeth: M. Christophor Goodman conferred his articles and chief propositions of his book with the best learned in these parts, who approving the same, he consented to enlarge the said work, and so to print it as a token of his duty and good affection towards the Church of God: and then if it were thought good in the judgement of the Godly to translate the same into other languages, that the profit thereof might be more universal. So Whittingham; with whom concurred in judgement Whithead, Coverdale, Gilby in Admon. pag. 69. Gilby, and others then living in Geneva, which Gilby wrote also of the like argument a special admonition to the Realms of England and Scotland, to call them to repentance by all likelihood, for that they had admitted, tolerated, and not put to death Q. Mary of England, and not yet deposed, as after they did, Q. Mary of Scotland both Mother and daughter; and the book was printed the same year by the same Crispin in Geneva: wherein besides that which he uttereth against this Queen Mary as a Catholic Princess, or rather no Princess in his opinion, he hath these words also of King Henry her Father, even after his fall from Catholic Religion: The boar was busy rooting & Gilby's immodest speech against K. Henry and the supremacy. digging in the earth with all his pigs that followed him, but they sought only for the pleasant fruits that they wound with their long snowtes, and for their own bellies sake etc. This monstrous boar for all this, must needs be called head of the Church under pain of treason, displacing Christ our only head, who alone ought to have this title. So Gilby. And for that all this was spoken, written, and printed divers years after Q. Mary was proclaimed, and installed Queen, and all tending evidently to sedition as you see; (besides the flat denial both of King, and Queen's supremacy) it convinceth plainly that which our Minister T. M. before denied. And so with this conviction in the sight of all his Brethren we leave him. But yet let us hear what he saith to some other particulars before by us objected. 36. To that then of Sir Thomas Wyatt, the Duke of 〈◊〉, and others he answereth diversly. First the History relateth (saith he) the pretence of Wyatt thus: A proclamation against the Queen's marriage desiring all Englishmen to join for defence of the Realm etc. then that in Queen Mary's oration against Wyatt, there is not to be fond (saith he,) any scruple concerning the cause of Religion: thirdly that no Minister of the Gospel was brought in question as a Commotioner in that cause: Lastly, if intent might answer for Protestants accused in that name; then is it plain, that it was not Religion: If for Wyatt and his fellows; it is plain it was not against the Queen or State, but for both. So he. In all which different clauses of his answer, consider if any one be in itself true, for as for the first and second, though Wyatt pretendeth in his proclamation the said marriage with Spain to be the chief cause; yet not alone, but that the Queen and Counsel (saith Fox) would Fox in an. 1554. pag. 1289. also by this marriage as he affirmed bring upon the Realm miserable servitude, and establish Popish Religion. 37. And the same Fox relateth Queen Mary's words in her oration thus: That the matter of the marriage is but a Spanish cloak (saith she) to cover their protensed purpose against our Religion. So as in these two points the Minister lieth openly, but more in the last, that Wyat's The 〈◊〉 of Sir Tho. Wyatt. attempt was not against Queen Mary or the state, but for both, for that Queen Mary in the same oration, as both Fox and Holinshead do jointly relate, affirmed Wyat's answer to have been to Sir Edward hastings, and Sir Thomas Corn-wallis sent from her unto them, which he also at his arraignment confessed, that he and his would have the governance of her person, the keeping of the Tower, and the placing of her counsellors. And as for the other point, whether any Ministers were called in question as Commotioners in that attempt, importeth little, for so much as no man can doubt but that the Commotion being so general and for Religion, as Fox affirmeth, all Ministers hearts and tongues were therein in secret, and their hands in like manner so far forth 〈◊〉. l. 2 de Schis. p. 332. as they durst; which being well known to Queen Mary & her Counsel, caused them to proceed against the principal soon after in matter of Religion, preferring therein the injury done to God before the injuries offered to herself: though Doctor Sanders do affirm that divers chief of the new Clergy, & among them Doctor Cranmer, were convinced to have conspired in that Rebellion. And by this we see how well the Minister hath justified his Protestants in this point: It is even as good as their justification by only faith, which maketh them less justifiable than before. Let us pass to some other examples and see what he saith to the Rebellion of Protestants in other countries. 38. To that which hath been proposed of Scotland, both by the moderate Answerer and by myself also in my first Chapter of this Treatise, of so great and intolerable insolencies used in Scotland by Protestant-Ministers Reply 〈◊〉. 107. and their Disciples against Grandmother, Mother, Father and son, all lawful Princes violated by them, he yieldeth no other answer or satisfaction, but that which before hath been recited, that in a Parliament upon the year 1584. the Chronicle of Buchanan was called in by the said Parliament (the kings highness then being about eighteen years old.) But what is this to the purpose? Did this alter their doctrine or manner of Rebellious proceeding No substantial answering to any thing. thereupon, which they had used both against his Majesty in the time of his minority and against his Mother and Grandmother before him, and against him after this Statute published? No truly, but they were more earnest in their sedition afterward then before, for that the very next year after, they caused that notorious surprise to be made upon his Royal person at Striueling before mentioned in the first Chapter of this Treatise. 39 james Gibson also one of the chief Ministers being Dang. posit. l. 1. c. 6. called before his Majesty and privy Counsel upon the one and twentieth of December 1585. used intolerable speech unto his highness, calling him Persecutor, and comparing him to jeroboam, threating his rooting out and the like, which his Majesty can best remember: So as such doctrine, and such practice being held by them & their new gospeling Brethren of Scotland in those days, it is a simple satisfaction for our Minister to come forth now with a revocation of Buchanans' Chronicle, as though that did remedy the matter, or as though that revocation had been made by them (I mean the Ministers repentant for their former doctrine) and not rather by the Civil Magistrate, impugned and resisted by the other. And this for the present of Scotland. 40. To the examples of France alleged by the Answerer of infinite rebellions made by the Protestants, To the examples of France. for many years together against sundry Crowned Princes of that Realm, of which attempts many were so barbarous, as without horror they cannot be uttered: And one French writer affirmeth that within the compass of one year, which was 1562. two and Vide Lodovicum Richome in expost. apolog. ca 94. forty thousand Priests, Religious, and Ecclesiastical persons were most desperately murdered, above twenty thousand Churches cast on the ground, and within the compass of ten years by the witness of a Protestant writer Colignius, two millions of men were slain, two thousand Monasteries overthrown, nine hundred hospitals destroyed, & above two hundred Cities & Castles ruined under one only K. Henry the third. To all this (I say) he answereth that according to the Historical Collections, which he hath seen of French affairs, the fault of all this, is to be laid upon the house of Guise, who being strangers, sought to suppress the natural Princes of the blood Royal in France, A vain shift. as also to oppress the gospellers: But suppose this were true, which I hold to be most false & slanderous yet could not this particular passion of the house of Guise make lawful the Protestants Rebellion against their natural & lawful Kings, no more than if now in England the Catholics or Puritans should rebel against his Majesty, for that some noble man or men of the Counsel were known to be their enemies. 41. To the examples of Calvin and Beza in Geneva, To the examples of Geneva both for doctrine and practise, he answereth first for doctrine, granting Calvin's sentence to be: That when a King usurpeth God's throne he looseth hu Royalty. And again: If the King exalt himself to Gods throne and commandeth Reply pa. 116. any thing contra Deum against God, then to pull him down. Moreover he granteth that Calvin useth this phrase; That when a King doth so behave himself, we must spit in his face, which is spoken, saith our Minister, comparatively, and not Rebelliously: He expoundeth also those words of Calvin; Abdicant se potestate, that such Kings are bereaved of Ibid. pag. 119. authority; meaning only (saith he) in that case of contradiction against God. But let the Minister tell us, who shall be judge of this, who shall determine the case? To whom shall it belong to give sentence, when a King doth contradict God, when he usurpeth God's throne, when he commandeth any thing against God, and consequently, when his face must be spitten on, when he must be pulled down, & when he must be deprived of all regal authority? Did Thomas Morton ever find in any Catholic writer such words, or sense in prejudice of Princes? And yet the fond Minister, as though he had played worthily his Master-prize vaunteth in these words: Thus is Calvin justified concerning his doctrine, and in him also Beza: because Beza (say you) his Successor in place succeeded him also both in opinion and practice. True Sir: they are both justified in your manner of justification, & they are fit justified Saints for your Calendar. 42. And having said thus, he passeth yet further, adding a second provocation about practice in these words: We have heard of their opinion (to wit of Calvin Reply pa. 19 and Beza) have you any thing to except against their practice: And this demand he made, when he knew and had seen his Adversaries many and most grievous accusations Mod. Answer. c. 9 against them in that kind, not only for moving that people of Geneva to open Rebellion against their Lord and Prince the Bishop; but also the people of France, against their King and Sovereign, citing good authorities for the same, saying: Calvin and Bezae armed the subjects against their Prince of Geneva, and (as Calvin himself, Doctor Sutcliffe, & the Bishop of Canterbury be witnesses) deposed their Sovereign from his temporal right, and ever after continued in that state of Rebellion; They celebrated also a Council, wherein was concluded that King Francis the second, than King of France, his wife the Queen, his Children, Queen Mother etc. should be destroyed: And his quotations for these things are: Beza l. de iure Magistrate; Sutcliffe answ. to suppl. and Survey, Calvin in epist. Pet. Far. orat. cont. Sectar. defence. Reg. & Relig. etc. All which being seen by our Minister, he demandeth Great hypocrisy in the demand of T. M. notwithstanding as you have heard with this hypocrisy, have you any thing to except against their practice? As though there were nothing at all, not only not to be accused or reprehended in them, but not so much as to be excepted against: And is not this notable dissimulation in a matter so clear and evident? Who can believe this Minister at his word hereafter? But let us now see how he will answer the matter itself objected, and then will you admire his impudence much more. 43. For better understanding whereof you must know, that besides all that which is alleged for proof of this accusation out of Calvin & Farellus their own Lords, and my Lord of Canterbury his book of Dangerous positions, Doctor Sutcliffe doth of purpose, and at large prove the same in two whole Chapters, to wit the second and third of his Survey against the pretended discipline; showing out of divers authors, and namely Franciscus Boninardus, that wrote the History of Geneva Bishop of Geneva was Lord 〈◊〉 also of the City. (as he saith) by Calvin's direction, Symlerus and Bodinus; that for above five hundred years gone the Bishop of Geneva was not only spiritual, but temporal Lord also of that City, and the same confirmed unto him by the Emperor Frederick the first, upon the year of Christ 1124. and, as Calvin himself confesseth in his writings to Cardinal Sadoletus, had Ius gladij & alias civilis Calvin to Sadolet. p. 171. jurisdictionis parts, the power of life and death and other parts of civil jurisdiction; and that this Prince and Bishop was cast out by the people upon the preachings and practices of Farellus, Calvin, and other Protestant Ministers: Quo eiecto (saith Bodinus,) Genevates Bodinus l. de Repub. pag 353. Monarchiam in popularem statum commutârunt: who being cast out, the Genevians did change their Monarchy into a popular State. 44. And finally after many proofs Doctor Sutcliffe Sutcliffe in Suric. pag. 14. setteth down his opinion in these words: I doubt not but that I may presume, without any man's just offence, to speak my opinion as touching the divinity which was pretended by the said Ministers of Geneva against their Bishop; for indeed I do dislike it. If such dealings were simply to be urged by the word of God, they might reach further than would be convenient. I never thought it agreeable to divinity, for Ministers to cast of their Rulers at their own pleasures; one of them writeth thus: That the light of the Gospel had restored to the City that principality which the Bishop had before; But all the learned divines in Germany at their D Sutclifs testimony of Protestants doctrine for deposing of Princes conferences with the Emperor, were of a contrary opinion etc. I am not the man that will either justify mine own discretion, or impugn any thing which may be brought for the civil proceeding of that State, or any other, so as they carry no false grounds of divinity with them, which may prove dangerous to our own, such as have been since published for the authorizing of subjects in many cases to depose their Princes. So he. 45. And now by this large discourse, you see fully his mind, first that the Bishop of Geneva was Lord, and Prince of that City for divers ages, confirmed also by the Emperor: secondly that he was unjustly deprived by the people, upon the preaching and false grounds of divinity of Farellus, Calvin, Beza, and other Protestant preachers: thirdly we see the reason why he thinketh thus; lest their doctrine might reach further than would be convenient, and be dangerous in England: So as he also (as you see) doth accommodate his doctrine and grounds of divinity, to the commodity of his cause. 46. But now let us see how this Minister Sutcliffe, and our Minister Morton have agreed together, upon a far different manner of answering this matter at this time, and you will perceive thereby what people they are who change their answers as time and wether walketh. For after that Morton had read all this in Sutcliffe, & yet made the matter so strange, as by his former demand you have heard, when he said: & have you any thing to except against their practice? Now here he answereth after another fashion thus: The book (saith he) of Doctor Sutcliffe, I could not find, and I Full satisfaction pag. 119. needed not seek it, for I have conferred with the Master, who answered me, that the book De iure Magistratus he never thought to be Beza his work, and concerning the State of Geneva, and Bishop thereof, he was never their Prince, but the State of the town was a free State of itself: and now to make a question whether I should believe him, or you, is to doubt whether he that hath been at Geneva, or he that never saw it can better report the state thereof, the conclusion will be that you may rather prove those Bishops to have been injuriously ambitious, than the City Rebellious. So he. 47. This is his faithful reply and full satisfaction, according to the title of his book. And now consider good Reader what honest men these two Ministers are, that so contradict the one the other, and that A 〈◊〉 conference be tween Sutcliffe & Morton. upon conference together for thy deceit and cozenage: for even now you heard Doctor Sutcliffe to affirm that the Bishop of Geneva had been temporal Prince for many hundred years, and that upon the preaching of Farellus, Calvin and others, they changed their Monarchy into a popular State, and that himself misliked the same, according to the grounds of divinity; and how then doth he say here to his fellow Minister Morton, that the Bishop of Geneva was never there Prince, and that the state of the town was a free State of itself? Can these things stand together? Morton saith moreover he could not find sutcliffe's The absurd false dealing of two Ministers together. book, which truly is a thing very strange, there being so many thousands printed of them in England; but more strange it is, that Deane Sutcliffe should so soon forget his own book, and what he wrote therein, & so egregiously cousin his Brother-Minister in their private conference, as to make him believe, and utter now in print quid pro quo, and chalk for cheese as he doth. But it cannot seem probable that Morton believed it himself, but rather would make the simple Reader believe the same, and so dazzle his eyes for his deceit: & this is their manner of dealing in most matters, where fraud may be used. 48. It were over long to look into all other examples objected by the moderate answerer, how they are replied unto by T. M. As for example the known revoltes and Rebellions of Flanders, and of those States Sundry other Rebellions of protestāns. against their lawful Princes, and so many outrages committed therein for almost now forty years, if not more; the bloody tumults in Germany and Switzerland upon Luther and Zuinglius their doctrine, wherein Zuinglius himself the head stirrer was slain; the like in Denmark for expelling Catholic Religion, and bringing in of Lutheranisme; the manifest Rebellion, intrusion, and oppression of Duke Charles in Sweveland against his Nephew the King of Polonia, lawful Inheritor of those States, enduring unto these days; as also the open wars of Boscaine, and his fellows in Hungary against the Emperor, in favour of Protestant Religion, and of the Turk himself, whose Confederates they confess themselves to be. 49. Into these & other examples as I said, time will not permit us to enter with any length, nor will it be to any purpose; for that we shall find them as sleightely answered or shifted of, as the rest before. For unto the first and last, of Flanders and Hungary, the Minister answereth in effect nothing at all; and I marvel Seely answers or rather shift of. not, if he answered this with silence, seeing he answered all the tumults of Scotland for so many years continued, by saying only as you have heard: That Buchanans' Chronicle was recalled by an act of Parliament. 50. To the other of Germany and Luther's seditious proceedings both in words, writings and deeds, wherein it is objected among many other things that he censured both K. Henry of England, and many other Princes with intolerable, insolent, and vile speeches, affirming them unworthy of all government; that Protestants hands must be imbrued with blood, & that thereupon ensued most bloody wars throughout Germany and almost all Christendom besides, Munster's Rebellions also in the same countries, who preached, that Rebellion against Catholic Princes for Religion was to be called The war of God, and that he had 〈◊〉 commandment from God to that effect; whereupon ensued the slaughter of a hundred & thirty thousand men in three months etc. To the first of Luther, he answereth very sagely in these words: Luther's literal censure of words will be partly confessed, but Reply pa. 124. the other of sword, which drew blood can never be proved. You see upon what points of desperate denial he standeth, and you may remember how clearly the matter hath been proved before, and what is extant in most writers of our time about the same. 51. The other of Munster he rejecteth, as not being of his Religion, & yet no man can deny, but that he was of Luther's school, and sprung out of the first seed and spirit of that new Gospel; but hard it is to discern who be brethren, and who be not, when it standeth for their commodity to acknowledge or deny one the other. here you see he denieth Munster, & acknowledgeth Luther to be of their Gospel and fraternity; and yet no man doth reject them more contemptuosly, or condemneth them more seriously for Heretics than Luther himself, as before out of his own words you have heard. To the stirs in Switzerland raised by Zuinglius, who was slain also in the field, he saith in like manner nothing; and little more to Denmark, but that now all is quiet there, and Lutheran Religion in full possession, but he telleth us not by what stirs and tumults the same was brought in. 52. To that of Sueveland, and the open Rebellion of those Kingdoms, he findeth only this shift to put of the matter. It was (saith he) the demand of the whole state, for defence of their country privileges, liberties, and fruition of Religion; can any Papist call this Rebellion? No truly Sir in your sense, who do call the state whatsoever multitude of people doth rebel against their Princes, for the liberty of your Gospel, for so you called the party Protestant of Scotland (if you remember) the Lords of the Congregation, and the state of the Realm: and the other party that stood with the Queen, was called a faction, and so likewise in France and Flanders, Germany and Sueveland, those that took exceptions first, and then arms against their Princes, are called the State, or States, united Provinces, those of the Religion, and by other like titles of honour: and the other part or rather body itself, hath the name of Enemies, Persecutors, Tyrants, Papists, and other odious appellations. But I would make this demand, how came 〈◊〉 particular men to be States, & to be called the Commonwealth? were they not first subjects? And did they not first withdraw themselves from the obedience of their lawful Princes, by sleights, dissimulations, pretence of greivances, liberty of Gospel, and the like devices, until at last they fell to open arms? May not any number of rebels make themselves a state in this sense? But I will urge you no further, for that I well see you cannot answer, & to drive you beyond the wall is to small purpose, I have compassion of you. A BRIEF CENSURE IS GIVEN OF A NEW TREATISE set forth by T.M. ENTITLED, A Confutation of the Pope's Supremacy, as supreme head of Rebellion etc. Annexed to his former justification of Protestant-Princes, for matters of Rebellion. CHAP. V. THis Minister Thomas Morton not content, after the pretended confirmation of his first discovery and reasons thereof, to have added a second Treatise, containing (as he saith) A justification of Protestants against imputations of disobedience and Rebellion against temporal Princes, either in doctrine or practice (both which you have heard now how substantially he hath performed) he thought good also to add a third Treatise (though nothing needful to the argument in hand) which he entituleth, A confutation of the principles of Romish doctrine in two points, first, concerning The title of T. M. his 〈◊〉 Treatise. the Pope supreme head of Rebellion, and secondly, the impious conceit of Equivocation. And forasmuch as of the second point, which is Equivocation, we are to treat more largely in the ensuing Chapters, and that the first seemed to me impertinent to be treated again severally in this place, the substance thereof having been touched sufficiently, forasmuch as belongeth to this affair, in the former Chapters, especially the second; I had purposed once to pass it over without any answer at all, as indeed not deserving any, it being only The cause of this several Chapter. a certain disorderly huddling together of pieces and parcels of other men's collections about that matter, better handled by themselves: But yet considering afterward the special manner of this man's treating the same matters, both in regard of fraud and simplicity, though contrary the one to the other; I judged it not amiss to give the Reader some taste thereof in this one Chapter, whereby he may be able to frame a judgement of the rest, and of the exorbitant vein of this man's writing. 2. First then he beginneth the very first lines of his Confut. pag. 1. first Chapter with these words: This pretended predominance (saith he) of the Pope in temporal causes, whether directly or indirectly considered (in which division of governing the Romish school is at this day extremely divided) if it be from To his first cavillation. God, it will sure plead Scriptum est etc. By which sole entrance you may take a scantling of the man's discretion; for it cannot be denied I think (except we deny the Gospel) but that Scriptum est was pleaded also by Math. 4. the devil, and not only by God, as in like manner it hath been by all Heretics, the devils chief Chaplains, since that time; and consequently it was no good exordium to build all upon this foundation. 3. Secondly it is not true, that the Romish school is so extremely divided in this division of governing directly To his second cavillation. or indirectly, as the Minister would make it: for the question is not at all of governing, but how the right to govern in temporal causes, was delivered by Christ to S. Peter and his Successors, whether directly, together with the spiritual government over souls, or else indirectly and by a certain consequence, when the said spiritual government is letted and impugned, as before hath been declared. In which difference of opinions there is no such extremity of division among Catholics, as this man would have men think: for that all do agree in the substance of the thing itself, that the Pope hath this authority from God jure divino, in certain cases, whether directly or indirectly that little importeth to this our controversy with the Protestants, who deny both the one and the other. And so much for that. 4. The next sentence or objection after the former preface (which is the very first of his discourse) is framed by him, but yet in our name, under the title of the Roman pretence in these words: The high Priests in Pag. 2. the old Testament (saith he) were supreme in civil causes, ergo they ought to be so also in the new: for which he citeth, one Carerius, a Lawyer, that wrote of late in Padua De Carerius li. 2. Rom. Pontif. ca 18. & Saunder. in visib. monarch. potestate Romani Pontificis, defending the former opinion of canonists for direct dominion, & citeth his words in Latin thus: Dico Pontificem in veteri Testamento fuisse Rege maiorem: And Englisheth the same as before you have heard, that the high Priest was supreme, in civil causes; which words, of civil causes, he putteth in of his own, and if you mark them, do mar the whole market: for that Carerius hath them not either in words or sense, but teacheth the plain contrary in all his discourse, to wit, that he meaneth in matters appertaining to Religion and priesthood, and not of temporal principality, which this Author granteth to have been greater in the old Testament in dealing with Ecclesiastical men & matters, then in the new; & to that effect is he cited presently after by the Minister himself, contrary to that which here he feigneth him to say. But let us hear the words of Carerius. Tertiò dico (saith he) etiam in Testamento veteri fuisse Pontificem Rege maiorem: quod quidem probatur etc. Thirdly I say that the high Priest was greater also in the old Testament than the King, which is proved first out of the 27. Chapter of Numbers, where it is appointed by God, that joshua and all the people should be directed by the word of the high Priest Eleazar, saying, when any thing is to be done, let Eleazar the high Priest consult with God, and at his word aswell joshua, as all the children The dignity of Priesthood proved to be more than Regal. of Israel, and whole multitude shall go forth and come in etc. And secondly the same is proved out of the fourth of Leviticus, where four kind of Sacrifices being ordained, according to the dignity of the persons, the first two are of a calf for the high Priest & commonwealth, the third and fourth of a he and shee-goat for the Prince and private persons: Whereby Carerius inferreth a most certain dignity and pre-eminence of the priests state, above the temporal Prince, though he say not in civil causes, as this Minister doth belly him. 5. And whereas Carerius had said in two former Answers, first that in the old Testament, Ecclesiastical and secular jurisdiction were not so distinct, but that both might be in some cases in the King, and secondly that in the new law, the spiritual power was more eminent then in the old; he cometh thirdly to say False dealing against 〈◊〉. that in the old law the High Priest in some respects was greater also than the King, which cannot be understood of civil power, except the Author will be contrary to himself. And therefore that clause was very falsely and perfidiously thrust in by the Minister, and this with so much the less shame, for that in the end of the same Chapter he citeth the same Author to the 〈◊〉. p. 2. Carer. l. 2. c. 1. plain contrary sense, saying: In veteri lege Regnum erat substantiwm & sacerdotium adiectiwm etc. That in the old law the Kingdom was the substantive, that stood of itself, and priesthood was the adjective, that leaned thereon, but contrariwise in the new law, priesthood and spiritual jurisdiction is the substantive or principal in government, and temporal principality is the adjective depending thereof, for direction, and assistance, the one both by nature and Gods law being subordinate to the other, to wit the temporal to the spiritual. And thus much concerning this guile by flat falsehood. Now to a trick or two of other sorts of shifting by him used for deluding the Reader. 6. It followeth in the same place, as a second Romish pretence: That the old Testament was a figure of the new in Christ, and therefore that in the new, the spiritual power (as the Popedom, saith he) must be the chief or substantive etc. Which short sentence he patcheth out of two different Authors, Salmeron and Carerius, part of one, & Salmeron Disp. 12. in 〈◊〉 Paul. Carer. l. 2. 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 part of another, and then frameth this grave answer thereunto: In this objection (saith he) there is more childhood than manhood, babish grammar, then sound divinity. So he. And will you hear his manhood in sound divinity? It followeth immediately. The old Testament indeed (saith he) in his earthly elements was a figure of this spiritual and heavenly; but of the truly heavenly, the day of that eternal sabbath, and the Celestial Jerusalem, the Mother-Citty of the Hebr. 4. Saints of God. Behold his manhood in sound divinity. How the old Testament was a figure of the new. Let it be so, that the old Testament was in many things a figure of the heavenly sabbath and Celestial Jerusalem, but what (Sir) will you conclude of this by your sound divinity? Was it not a figure also of many things upon earth, which should be fulfilled in the new Testament? Were not their Ceremonies and Sacrifices a figure of our Sacraments & Sacrifice? their Manna of our Eucharist? their circumcisions and washings, figures of our Baptism? doth not S. Paul in the ninth and tenth of his first Epistle to 1. Cor. 9 the Corinthians set down many examples to this effect? As that of Deuteronomy: Non 〈◊〉 os bovi trituranti, thou Deut. 25. shalt not bind up the month of the ox that laboureth, unto our preachers of the new Testament? as also the passing of the Red-sea by the Israelites? their being baptised in the cloud? their food of the Manna? their drinking out of the rock, which 〈◊〉 Christ? and divers other things, whereof he saith: 〈◊〉 autem in figura facta sunt nostri; these things were done 1. Cor. 10. in figure of our present State. And again: Haec autem omnia in figura contingebant illis; all these things did happen to the jews in figure, but were to be fulfilled truly and really according to the spiritual meaning in the new Testament? Is not all this so? were not these things to be fulfilled aswell upon earth as in heaven? how then doth our Minister put that adversitive clause: but of the truly heavenly; as though the old Testament in her earthly Elements had 〈◊〉 nothing to be fulfilled but only in heaven. Is this sound divinity? Is this manhood? Nay is it not rather babish childhood, that seemeth not to know the very first Elements of true divinity? 7. I let pass the shameless corruption which he useth in translating the very words cited by him out of Salmeron, for proof of his objection, made in our behalf, and I call it shameless for that every child which understandeth Latin, may see the Ministers shift therein. The Author's words are these as this man here recounteth them: Et hoc Regnum terrenum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 3. tamen suit spiritualis regiminis in Ecclesia Christiana: and yet this earthly Kingdom (of the jews) was a shadow of the spiritual government, that was to be in the Christian Church: meaning thereby that the most excellent spiritual power and government over souls, which Christ was to institute in his Church, at his coming in flesh, to wit, the power of absolving from sins upon earth, the assistance given by the Sacraments, and the like, were shadowed in a certain manner by the earthly Kingdom among the jews: And how doth T. M. now translate these words, & frame our objection out of them: The old Testament (saith he) was a figure of the new in Christ, therefore in the new the Popedom is the substantive etc. here are two short propositions you see, the antecedent and consequent, & both framed with falsehood; for that the antecedent set down out of Salmeron, is not that which he affirmeth in his Latin words, as already we have showed, though otherwise in itself the proposition be true; nor (will I think) T. M. can deny, but that the old Testament was a figure of the new in Christ. There followeth then the consequent which is no less corruptly 〈◊〉 of T. M. inferred in our name, than was the antecedent affirmed, for that we do not infer, nor yet the Author Carerius in the said second proposition or consequence by him 〈◊〉, that for somuch as the old Testament is a figure of the new, therefore in the new the Pope's spiritual authority is the substantive etc. for that this were a weak inference, as every man seeth; nay Carerius maketh no inference at all in the place by him alleged, but only useth that similitude, which before you have heard of the substantive and adjective: so as this inference is only a fiction of the Minister to make himself and other men merry, and to give occasion to play upon his Adversary, with the reproach of childhood and babish grammar, as now he hath done. But indeed the true consequence that may be made upon the Catholic Authors words, which hitherto he hath alleged, is only this; that forasmuch as the Kingdom and government among the jews even in Ecclesiastical things was but earthly, and a figure or shadow in respect of that which was to be over souls in the Christian Church, it followeth that this in respect of spirituality, was to be much more eminent than the other, as the thing figured, than the figure or shadow itself. And what inconvenience hath this doctrine that it should be called childhood and babish grammar. 8. But now shall you hear a new strange devise of his, never heard of (I think) in the world before, & such a manhood in sound divinity, that showeth him scarce to be arrived to childhood in true Theology; for that to exalt temporal principality of a Kingdom and depress Priesthood, he seeketh to abase the High Priesthood of Christ himself; for so he vaunteth that he will return the foresaid argument upon the Romish. Christ (saith he) being King and Priest, was shadowed Conf. par. 3. pag. 3. by the types of the old Testament; but in Christ his Kingdom had the pre-eminence of Priesthood, because he is a Priest only for us, but he is King over us. Secondly as Priest he is suppliant to the Father; as King he is predominant over all powers and principalities equally with the Father, Ergo, this order inherent in Christ ought to hold as convenient among Christians. An argument demonstrative. So he. 9 Whereby you may see, first how good a Logician he is, who avoucheth this for an argument demonstrative, which is indeed a very Elench & Sophism, A Sophistical fallacy in steed of a demonstrative argument. and manifest fallacy, for that he changeth his subject from sense to sense, making one proposition of his argument in the one, and the other in another sense. For when he talketh of Christ's Priesthood comparing it with his being a King, he meant (and so he ought to do) as he was man, and inferior to his Father; and when he speaketh of the other, of his being a King, he understandeth it, as he was God and equal to his Father; and so taking the one in one meaning, and the other in the other, his principal meaning is to deceive his Reader with a sophistical argument instead of a demonstrative; & yet doth the good man so confide in his logical science, as in one place he triumpheth over his Adversary, that did but once name Logic in these words: Dare you (saith he) appeal to Logic? this is the art of all arts, and the high tribunal Reply par. 3. pag. 54. of reason and truth itself; which no man in any matter, whether it be case of humanity or divinity, can justly refuse: which is so ridiculous a simplicity, as no man can read without laughter. For what high tribunal (I pray you) hath logic in divinity? Or who gave her this tribunal? was there no divinity before Logic was invented by the Philosophers? Logic is not a science, according to Aristotle, but only modus sciendi, a manner or mean how to come to science, and it ministereth not matter, but form of argument, as armour to the Logician, whereby to impugn falsehood and ignorance in every science, even as the Cutler's shop doth yield weapons to soldiers that go to war, and yet cannot the Cutler's shop be justly called the high tribunal of all matters belonging to Chievalry and feats of warfare, and consequently this was a vain flourish & ostentation. 10. But now to return to the principal point, we have seen that this argument is so far from being demonstrative, as it is no argument at all, in regard of the Equivocation and fallacy therein contained. Let us then consider the same in respect of the matter & substance itself. First I say that it containeth a manifest, fond and impious paradox, that Christ's Kingdom (as he was both King and Priest) had the pre-eminence Whether Christ's Priesthood or Kingly power were greater upon earth. of his Priesthood; and I call it a paradox, for that I think no Christian man of learning ever held it before, and much less any sound divine. Secondly I call it fond, in respect of his ridiculous reasons alleged for the same, which presently we shall examine: And thirdly I call it impious, for that it is both against the Scriptures, and prejudicial to Christ's highest dignity of Priesthood upon earth: Whereby also followeth that this Minister's inference or conclusion (Ergo this order inherent in Christ ought to be held as convenient among Christians) must be censured by the same censures, for that it concludeth a general pre-eminence and excellency of Kingly State, before Priesthood, which is the quite opposite assertion to that which all ancient Fathers, and namely S. Chrysostome out of all their common sense, doth maintain in his books De Sacerdotio, affirming, that the office and dignity of a Priest, doth so far exceed that of a King, as gold doth silver, heaven earth, and the soul the body: Regno Sacerdotium (saith he) tanto est excellentius, quantum carnis & Spiritus interuallum 〈◊〉. l. 3. de Sacerdotio subinitio. esse potest; Priesthood is somuch more excellent than Kingly authority, as there can be difference imagined between flesh and spirit. And in another place the same Father: Sacerdotium est principatus ipso Chrys. ho. 5. de verb. Isaiae. etiam Regno venerabilior & maior: Priesthood is a Princedom more venerable & great then is Kingly authority. And then again: Ne mihi narras purpuram etc. do not tell me of purple or diadem, of sceptre or golden apparel of Kings, for these are but shadows, and more vain than May-flowers: Si vis videre discrimen Ibid. quantum absit Rex a Sacerdote, expend modum potestatis utrique traditae etc. If you will see indeed the true difference between them, and how much the King is inferior to a 〈◊〉, consider the measure of power given to them both, & you shall see the priests tribunal much higher than that of the King. So he. Whereunto agreeth that of S. Gregory Nazienzen spoken to Naz. orat. ad cives timore 〈◊〉. the Emperor himself: The law of Christ (saith he) hath made you subject to my power, and to my tribunal, for we (Bishops) have an Empire also, and that more excellent and perfect than yours, except you will say the spirit is inferior to the flesh, and heavenly things to earthly. 11. So he. And much more to this effect, which you may read cited out of divers Fathers, in a book set forth this last year, in answer to Sir Edward Cooks Reports by a Catholic divine, who handleth this point more largely and particularly in the second and fourth Chapters of the said answer. And this is sufficient to show the inference or conclusion of T. M. to be false, touching the power and dignity of Priesthood, and of Kingly principality among men. Now let us return to the consideration thereof in Christ himself, which is the principal question, though in effect it be decided by that which now we have showed, for that the dignity and pre-eminence above Kingly dignity, of Priesthood in man, which the foresaid Fathers do so resolutely affirm, inferreth also the pre-eminence of Priesthood in Christ, for somuch as from that descendeth this other; but yet I think it not amiss to handle the same somewhat more distinctly, the Minister's paradox therein being so profane and irreligious as hath been said. 12. First then as Christ is acknowledged both by them and us to have been both Priest and King, according as he was prefigured in Melchisedech, who had both these dignities in himself, so the one and the other excellency of Priestly and Kingly pre-eminence, were in him according as he was man, and under his Father, which for so much as appertained to his Priesthood is granted here by T. M. and the matter is evident in itself; for that Christ as God could not offer Sacrifice, nor make intercession to his Father for us (which are the chief offices of Priesthood) for that this belongeth to an inferior, according to that saying of S. Ambrose: Sacerdos idem & hostia Sacerdotium, tamen humanae 〈◊〉. l. 3. de fid. c. 5. conditionis officium est: Christ was both Priest and Sacrifice, yet was his Priesthood the office of human condition. S. Augustine also talking of both dignities Aug. l. 1. de consensu 〈◊〉. cap. 3. saith: Secundum hominem Christus, & Rex & Sacerdos effectus est: Christ was made both King and Priest according as he was man. And the same is plain by Scripture, in which every where is acknowledged that Christ's Kingdom was given him by his Father: Ego autem constitutus Rex ab eo super Sion montem Sanctum eius, saith Psal. 2. Christ in the Psalms: I am appointed King by him upon his holy hill of Zion, ergo he was King by gift and appointment of his Father. And in the same Psalm God the Father saith unto him: Postula à me & dabo tibi Ibid. & Hebr. 1. gentes haereditatem tuam & possessionem tuam terminos terrae: Ask of me, and I will give unto thee the Gentiles for thy inheritance, and the confines of all the earth for thy possession: so as in this Kingdom, God the Father required an acknowledgement. And yet further the Prophet speaking to the said Father of this Kingdom of Christ in flesh said: Constituisti eum super 〈◊〉 Psal. 8. manunm tuarum, & omnia subiecisti sub pedibus eius: thou hast appointed him for Lord and King over the works of thy hands, that is to say, over all thy creatures, and thou hast subjecteth all things under his feet: which point S. Paul doth prosecute most excellently in the first two Chapters of his Epistle to the Hebrews; and there can be no doubt in this matter, for Christ himself speaketh most plainly: Data est mihi omnis 〈◊〉. 28. 〈◊〉 in caelo & in terra: All power is given unto me both in heaven and earth, so as he acknowledgeth it to be given, which cannot stand with his divinity, in that he is God, and equal with his Father: in which regard all was his own without gift, according to those words of S. Paul to the Philippians: Non rapinam Phil. 〈◊〉. arbitratus est esse se aequalem Deo; He did not think it Usurpation to be equal to God his Father according to his divinity. Wherefore it must needs appear great ignorance in our Minister, to assign him this his temporal Kingdom as he was God and equal to his Father. 13. But now to the principal proposition Whether Christ his Kingdom had the pre-eminence of his Priesthood, or his Priesthood of his Kingdom; though in part the matter be made clear by that which is already spoken; yet shall we add two or three words more. And first the matter is manifest by the narration itself in Scripture, when the figure of his Priesthood and Kingdom is declared in Genesis, in the person of Melchisedech: for thus Gen. 14. saith the text: Melchisedech King of Salem bringing forth bread and wine (for he was the Priest of God most high) gave his benediction to Abraham, and took tithes of him for all that he had. In which example is greatly to be noted the reflection itself and emphasis which the Scripture maketh upon his Priestoood: Erat enim sacerdos Dei altissimi: For he was the Priest of the most high God, as who should say, that otherwise he could never have offered up in sacrifice that bread and wine (the highest action of all other upon earth) as King, except he had been Priest: nor yet have blessed Abraham, and much less have taken tithes of him: Which point S. Paul doth ponder very deeply and seriously in his Epistle to the Hebrews, repeating often Hebr. 7. times for the greater glory of Christ and his powerful Priesthood this example of Melchisedech: Assimilatus 〈◊〉 Dei (saith he) manet sacerdos in perpetuum; intuemini autem quantus sit hic, cui & decimas dedit de praecipuis Abraham Patriarcha: This Melchisedech bearing a likeness of the Son of God, remained a Priest perpetually: Neque initium dierum neque finem vitae habens: having neither beginning of his days, nor end of his life: consider then how great a man this was, to whom the Patriarch gave tithes of all the principal things he had. 14. This is S. Paul's contemplation of the matter, who in his said Epistle to the Hebrews, laying this foundation of the figure of Melchisedech for the Priesthood and Kingdom of Christ (though more specially as you see for his Priesthood) doth presently after the consideration of those words, Filius meus es tu, ego hody genui 〈◊〉; thou art my Son, I have this day begotten thee (whereby he proveth Christ to have been not the adopted but natural Son of God) after this, I say, he doth insist, for demonstration of his highest 〈◊〉 and dignity, upon those words of God the Father for his Priesthood: Tu es facerdoes in aeternum secundum 〈◊〉. 109. ordinem Melchisedech: Thou art a Priest forever according to the order of Melchisedech; out of which words of highest dignity and commission, S. Paul doth make many inferences, as that in the second Chapter: Nusquam Hebr. 2. Angelos apprehendit, sed 〈◊〉 Abrahae etc. ut misericors fieret & fidelis Pontifex ad Deum. God took not Angels but the seed of Abraham to frame Christ, to the 〈◊〉 he might be both a merciful and faithful High Priest for us with God, for propitiation of our sins. And again in the third Chapter: Behold you Holy brethren who are partakers of this our heavenly vocation, Consider Hebr. 3. our Apostle and High Priest of this our confession jesus. And in the fourth Chapter having spoken much of the Sabbath day, that he is to give us in the next life, he adjoineth this exhortation: Habentes ergo Pontificem magnum Hebr. 4. The dignity of Priesthood in Christ above his Kingly authority. etc. we having therefore a great high Priest that hath pierced the heavens, jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession, for we have not a Priest that cannot take compassion of our infirmities etc. And again in the fifth Chapter having said first: 〈◊〉 Pontifex etc. Every High Priest chosen out of men, is appointed for men in those things that appertain unto God, that he offer gifts and Sacrifices for sin etc. after this (I say) S. Paul doth immediately infer this conclusion about the supreme honour & dignity of Christ his Priesthood: Nec quisquam sumit sibi honorem etc. Neither may any man take the honour of Priesthood unto him, but he that is called by God, as Aaron was, and so Christ (though he were the true Son of God) did not advance himself to this honour of being high Priest, but that he who said unto him filius meus es tu, thou art my Son, said unto him also tu es sacerdos in aeternum, thou art a Priest for ever, appellatus à Deo Pontifex, being called by God to be high Priest, according to the order of Melchisedech, of whom there remaineth to us a great speech to utter, and such a one as needeth exposition, whereof you as yet for your weakness are not capable. So S. Paul. 15. And then in the other two sequent Chapters to wit the seventh and eight, he doth prosecute the same argument of the high dignity of Christ's Priesthood Hebr. 7. much more largely. Among the jews (saith he) there were many Priests made, for that they were letted by death to remain, but this our high Priest remaineth for ever: his Priesthood is eternal, whereof it ensueth that he can for ever save us, interposing himself with God for us by himself, and ever living to make intercession for us, for such a high Priest was it convenient that we should have, holy, innocent, unspotted, separated from sinners, and more excellent than the heavens themselves. And again in the next Chapter: Such a high Priest we have, as sitteth on the right hand of the seat of majesty in heaven, and there he is Minister of the Saints and true Tabernacle. 16. All this & much more hath S. Paul in that Epistle of the eminency of Christ's Priesthood, thereby to set forth the most admirable excellency of his power and glory thereby given him from his Father for our salvation; but of the glory of his temporal Kingdom The ancient Father's inference about Priesthood. in this life, he saith little or nothing. And had not then the foresaid Fathers and holy Bishops S. Chrysostome, S. Gregory Nazienzen, S. Ambrose and others, great cause by contemplation of this supereminent worthiness of Christ's Priesthood, to infer the great pre-eminence in general of the Christian Priesthood, before Kingly dignity of earthly principality? But let us yet consider one reason more. 17. The office of high Priesthood, as partly hath appeared by that we have said, and is evident by the discourse of S. Paul, appointing him for a means or mediator Two principal parts of Priesthood. between God and man, consisteth principally in two things or parts: first in respect of that which he is to perform towards God, as to his Superior: secondly in the functions that he is to use towards the people, as inferiors and subjects. The first consisteth in offering sacrifice, oblations, prayers and intercession for the sins of the people, as already touching Christ our Saviour out of the Apostle we have declared. The second consisteth in the spiritual power, dignity, authority and functions thereof, which our said high Priest Christ jesus, as head & high Priest of his Church, purchased with the sacrifice of his own blood, hath, and may exercise upon the said Church for ever, for unto him as our high Priest it appertaineth not only to make intercession for his said Church, but to govern the same also, and to direct it by convenient means unto the end of their salvation, which he hath designed, and for this to make laws, prescribe orders, appoint Sacraments, ordain Christ a spiritual King by his Priesthood but not a temporal. spiritual tribunals of judgement, give sentence of separation of the good from the bad, forgive and retain sins, which spiritual government of souls belonging to the office of high Priesthood, is a different thing from the civil government of temporal principality, and yet is a Kingdom also in itself, but a spiritual Kingdom over souls and not over bodies. And this had Christ our Saviour together with his high Priesthood, according to the prediction and vision of Daniel: Aspiciebam & ecce quasi filius hominis etc. I did Dan. 7. look and behold there appeared as it were the Son of man, and God gave unto him power and honour, and a Kingdom, his power is an eternal power, and his Kingdom shall never be corrupted. And so in the second Psalm, after he had said, I am made King by him upon his holy Hill of Zion, he addeth presently to show that it was a spiritual Kingdom: Praedicans praeceptum eius, my office is to preach his commandment, and many other authorities may be alleged to prove that Christ in that he was high Priest had supreme spiritual Kingly authority in like manner for governing of souls. 18. But now for the temporal Kingdom of Christ in this life, to wit, whether besides this spiritual and Of Christ's temporal Kingdom. Royal government of our souls, he had Kingly Dominion also upon our bodies and goods, and upon all the Kingdoms of the earth, so as he might justly have exercised all actions of that temporal jurisdiction, as casting into prison, appointing new officers, Kings and monarchs; yea whether their power, and authority, and interest to their States did cease when he came, as the right of Priestly authority did: in this (I say) and other points depending hereof, there are two disputable opinions between Catholic Divines; Almain. l. de potest. Eccl. c. 8. the one holding the affirmative, that Christ was Lord & King temporal, as here is set down, which Turrecr. l. 2. sum. c. 116. Nau. in c. Nou. de iudic. * D. Tho. l. 1. de reg. Prin. c. 11. D. Anton. 3. par. ti. 3. cap. 2. divers learned men both of old and our time do defend; the other affirming that albeit Christ together with his high Kingly dignity of spiritual power, was Lord also consequently over our bodies, & shall reign over the same most gloriously for all eternity in the life to come; yet that he renounced the use of all that Dominion in this life, and that in this sense, he fled when they would have made him King, and refused Luc. 12. to divide the inheritance between the two Brethren when he was demanded; and finally said to Pilate, My Kingdom is not of this world, confessing himself to be a 〈◊〉. 18. true temporal King also, according to pilate's meaning; but yet that the use and exercise thereof was not for this world, but only for the next, whereof also the good thief understood when he said on the Cross: Be mindful of me when thou shalt come into thy Kingdom. Luc. 25. And finally they allege for proof of this the words of Zachary the Prophet: Ecce Rex 〈◊〉 venit tibi justus & Zach. 9 salvator & ipse pauper: Behold (Zion) thy King cometh unto thee as a just and saving King, but he is poor; as though he had said, he is thy true King, but hath renounced the use and privilege of the same, and chosen poverty in this world. And with this second opinion which is the more * Ita tenet Abulensis. q. 30. in Math. 21. general, do concur also the Protestants of our age, that Christ took upon him no temporal Kingly power in this life, lest if Waldens'. l. 2. de doctrina. ca 76. & 77. they held the contrary, it should be inferred thereof, that he left the same authority both of temporal and spiritual unto S. Peter his Successor; which yet the Victoria velect. 1. de potest. Catholics that hold this opinion, explicate otherwise, saying: that albeit Christ had no direct Dominion Eccl. q. 5. Sotus l. 4. de justitia q. 4. art. 1. in this life upon temporal things, yet indirectly for preservation of his spiritual Dominion he had, and might have used the same, and in that sense he left Armacan. l. 4. contr. it to his said Successor. 19 Of all which is inferred first the pre-eminence 〈◊〉. c. 12 Burgensis in Scrutinio 〈◊〉 P. 1. dist. 7. of high Priesthood in Christ before his temporal Kingly principality, for that as we have said, the actions and functions of Christ's Priesthood, have not only more high & eminent dignity, both in that they treat with men for governing their souls, than Christ's temporal Kingdom for governing of bodies; but moreover that the dignity of Priesthood in Christ, containeth in itself a much more high spiritual Kingly power, then is the temporal. 20. Secondly is inferred, that the reasons here alleged by T. M. for his paradox, in preferring Christ's Inferences upon the premises about the pre-eminence of Priesthood above temporal Kingly authority. being a King, before his Priesthood, are vain & foolish. The first whereof is this. Christ's Kingdom (saith he) had the pre-eminence of Priesthood, because he is Priest only for us, but he is King over us. But I would ask him, Is not Christ Priest over us aswell as for us? hath he not a spiritual and Priestly jurisdiction over our souls? doth not he bind and loose our sins? doth not he prescribe us Sacraments? appoint us laws of living, and the like? or do not these actions appertain unto him as high Priest over his Church? And again I would ask him, about the second member, as Christ in flesh was King, was he not made King aswell for us, that is for our good, as over us? doth not this man know that the difference between a good and bad government, a true King and a Tyrant, consisteth in this, that the one reigneth for his own good, the other for the good of his subjects? What impiety were it to affirm this defect to be in Christ's Kingly government, and consequently what folly is it to bring in such reasons? But let us see what he saith further. 21. Christ (saith he) as Priest is suppliant to his Father, & Pag. 〈◊〉. as King he is predominant over all powers and principalities, equally with his Father: But now we have showed before that there be two parts or functions of Priesthood, the one towards God, to be suppliant by sacrifice and intercession, the other to be predominant over men by spiritual government upon their souls, The folly of T. M. his discourse. and that both these do agree to Christ, in respect of his high Priesthood, and as he is man, and much more the other of his temporal Kingdom: so as to make him equal to his Father in this, as T. M. doth, is an impious absurdity; for that under his Father's universal Kingdom Christ himself is also contained as a subject, according to those words of graduation in S. Paul: Omnia vestra sunt etc. vos autem Christi, Christus autem 1. Cor. 3. Dei. All things are yours, life, death, the world, things past, things to come, and you are of Christ & Christ of God; that is to say, all things for Christ are subject to you, so you are and aught to be subject to Christ, and Christ to God his Father. Now then see how wisely this man frameth his foresaid main Conclusion, that as in Christ, his Kingdom had the pre-eminence of his Priesthood (which is false as we have showed) so must it hold also among men that Kingly power be preferred before Priestly, temporal before spiritual. Of which opinion S. Chrysostome doth think that no man, but mad or furious, can be. Equidem (saith he) neminem existere talem dixerim, nisi si Chrys. l. 3. de 〈◊〉. quis furiarum aestu percitus sit: I cannot think any man to be of this opinion (to prefer temporal authority before spiritual) except a man should become mad with the rage of furies. And so to S. Chrysostome I leave our Minister to be charmed from these kind of Heretical furies. THE SECOND PART OF THIS CHAPTER, CONTAINING Three particular kinds of proofs, alleged by T. M. against the Pope's Supremacy, to wit: Of the new, and old Testament, and from reason itself. ALl this that hitherto hath been treated by our Adversary, hath been by way, as it were, of preamble or preface, for abasing Priesthood, as you have seen, even in Christ himself, thereby to subject the same in Christians to temporal authority; but about this point, I wish the Reader to look over the forenamed two Chapters of the late Answer to Sir Edward Cook (I mean the second and fourth) and I suppose he will remain satisfied in the pre-eminency of the one above the other. Now notwithstanding for the second part of this Chapter we shall bring into a short view the principal points handled by T. M. in this his confutation of the Pope's Supremacy. And albeit you may easily make a conjecture of what substance it is like to be, by that which already you have seen discussed; yet shall we descend to some principal particulars, for that he reduceth in effect all his proofs to three chief heads: the first concerning the state of the Synagogue under the jews, the second of the Christian Church under the new Testament, the third by reason common to them both. From the State of the old Testament. §. 1. 23. FOr the first he setteth down as arguments of ours, for licensing Popes to kill Princes, a large list of Kings and Princes deposed, murdered, or molested A list of Kings and Princes deposed or slain, impertinently brought in by T.M. under the old Testament, as though we did found our doctrine thereon; for which cause he giveth the title of Romish pretence to the said list, alleging therein fourteen several examples; as Saul deposed by the Prophet Samuel: Roboam by the Prophet Achia; the Queen Athalia by the chief Priest jehoida; King Antiochus resisted and driven out of his Dominion over jury by the Priest Mathathias and the Maccabees his children: the Priests of Baal, and other Ministers of the King slain by the Prophets Elias & Elizeus: the great Captain Holofernes by judith: King Eglon by Ahod: Sisera by jabel: Queen jezabel by jehu at the appointment of the Prophet Elizeus, with seventy children of King Achab: the death of King Achab who was slain also miserably himself by Gods appointment, & the Prophets' prediction: King Amon slain by his own servants 4. Reg. 19 for his wickedness; to whom we may add the death of King Agag by the commandment of Samuel 1. Reg. 15. 4. Reg. 12. the Prophet; the slaughter of King joas by his own servants: And lastly King Ozias for exercising the priests office and function, was by the high Priest deprived of his Kingdom. 24. And when he had set down all this rank of these unfortunate Princes their deaths and depositions, as though we had delighted therein or proposed all that here is said to be imitated, he saith: here we hear nothing but fight, dispossessing, and killing of Kings, & Conf. P. 4. 5. those chiefly by Priests and Prophets of God in the old Testament propounded to the Prelates of the new, to teach them to erect their Mitres above Crowns. Do you see the malice of the man? If himself hath gathered together this Catalogue of Princes that came to ill ends, & were slain or deposed, is it marvel though he hear nothing but that himself liketh to lay forth? 25. The difference and comparison of Mitres and Crowns is fond and ridiculous, and brought in only How miters are above Crowns. to make the matter itself odious; for the true comparison is only between spiritual and temporal authority, the one appertaining to souls, the other to bodies, the one called heavenly, the other earthly, the one proper to Priests, the other to civil Princes as before you have heard declared out of ancient Fathers, who notwithstanding were never reprehended nor called into envy for erecting Mitres above Crowns in that sense, as this profane Calumniator doth here urge: and exaggerate. 26. And as for this whole matter of the examples out of the old Testament, our principal question being only as before we have declared: Whether God hath left any lawful means for restraining evil Princes, in certain cases The true State of the Question. of extreme danger, and whether Priests also and Prelates in Christian Religion, but especially the highest Priest, may deal therein: These examples are fraudulently heaped and huddled together by T. M. as though all were equally stood upon by Catholic writers, and this to the end that he may give himself matter to answer afterward, as he doth by distinguishing that all do not prove the self same thing, nor were equally lawful, nor done by equal authority or approbation, nor appertain equally to the matter we have in hand, which Catholic writers also do say, and have taught him to say, though he dissemble it, whereof we may read both Cunerus, Carerius, Salmeron, Barkleius, Reginaldus and Boucherus, here by him cited out of whom he hath taken the most part of that he writeth in this affair. 27. Whereas then we must confess with the Philosopher and with reason itself, that Quidlibet ex quolibet non est consequens, every thing followeth not of whatsoever, it seemeth that two points only of any moment, concerning the controversy in hand, may truly Two principal points to be considered in these examples of Kings punished. and sincerely be deduced out of this number of examples now alleged: the first that as temporal authority of Princes is from God, and he will have it respected and obeyed as from himself; so one way or other he faileth not to punish them grievously, and to bring them oftentimes to great affliction and desolation, when they govern not well, and this either by ordinary or extraordinary means, as himself liketh best. To which end is that severe admonition in the second Psalm: Et nunc Reges intelligite, & erudimini qui iudicatis terram: seruite Domino in timore, & exultate ei cum tremore. Apprehendite disciplinam, nequando irascatur Dominus, & pereatis etc. And now you Kings understand, and you that govern the earth be instructed: serve almighty God in fear, and rejoice unto him with trembling. Admit discipline, lest he fall into wrath against you, & you perish etc. And this is the best & most pious meditation which a Christian man can draw or lay before Princes, out of those disastrous events as fell to divers by Gods own appointment or permission under the old Testament, and not the comparison of miters and Crowns which this Minister ridiculously bringeth in. 28. Secondly may be noted, that in the execution of Gods justice & designment in this behalf, he used The true controversy. also oftentimes the help & concurrence of both Priests and Prophets, & other holy men, who notwithstanding may be presumed out of their said holy disposition to have abhorred such effusion of blood, war, and other calamities, which by fulfilling Gods ordinance made unto them, either by secret inspiration or open commandment, were to ensue and follow, and consequently that all Priests were not debarred from dealing in such affairs, when God required their cooperation therein. 29. All the question than is how, and when, and where, and by whom, and for what causes, and in what cases, & with what circumstances, this restraint of Princes may be used, wherein I have showed abundantly before, that the moderation prescribed by Catholics is far greater, without comparison, then is that of the Protestants, whether we respect either their doctrine or practice, of which both kinds we Supr. c. 1. 4 have before produced sufficient examples: and in this place the Authors most alleged by T. M. about this controversy, against violence towards Princes, are Catholic, as namely Cunerus, a learned Bishop of the low Countries, in his book, De Officio Principis Christiani; Cuner. ep. Leovard. and Barkleius a Reader of Law in Lorraine, in six books written by him, De Regno & Regali potestate adversus Monarchomacoes, Of Kingdom and Kingly power against impugners of Princes, the first writing against the Rebellions and violent attempts of the subjects of Holland and Zealand, and other Provinces thereunto annexed, and by that occasion treating in general, how unlawful a thing it is for subjects to take that course, upon any discontentment whatsoever, handleth the matter very learnedly though briefly. 30. But the other Doctor Barkley, taking upon him to treat the same matter much more largely, directeth his pen principally against the books of certain Protestants of our time, as Hottoman, Brute, Buchanan, and others before mentioned, for so he saith in his preface: D. Barkley Prefac. ad Henr. 4. Non contentus Satanas tis, qui parens ille malorum & mendaciorum Lutherus etc. Satan being not contented with those Gall. Reg. wicked doctrines which Luther the Father of all wickedness and lies, and other slanderous Railers, that came out of his kitchen, had with infamous mouths and intolerable audacity vomited out against Princes, he sent forth also into the world, to fly before men's catholics principal writers for the safety of Princes. eyes other most seditious books, Hottomani FrancoGalliam, Bruti vindicias Tyrannorum, Bucchanani Dialogum de iure Regni; the book of Hottoman (dwelling in Geneva) entitled, Free-France, or the Freedom of France (to wit, of the Protestants against their Kings and Princes,) that other also of Brutus (a man of the same place and crew) entitled, The revenge that subjects ought to take of their Princes if they become Tyrants; the third of Buchanan, (schoolmaster in times passed to our kings Majesty) entitled, A Dialogue of the right of Kingly power, subjecting the same to the people, yea and to every private person thereof, when it shall seem unto him necessary for the commonwealth, or expedient for Gods glory, as before you have heard. Against all which this Doctor Barkley, a Catholic man writeth his six books; so as in this point for Prince's security we are far more forward than Protestants. 31. And albeit this said Doctor doth include in like manner Doctor Boucher a French Catholic D. Boucher. writer, reprehending divers things uttered by the said Boucher in his book De justa abdicatione, against the late King Henry the third of France; yet in the principal point; whether private men, either for private or public causes, may use violence against their lawful Prince, not lawfully denounced for a public enemy by the whole state and commonwealth; in this point (I say) the said Boucher is absolutely against the same, & so protesteth and proveth it by divers arguments, See Boucher l. 3. c. 16. showing himself therein to be quite contrary, and to abhor not only the doctrine of Wickliff and Husse condemned in the Council of Constance about that Sess. 15. matter, but also of the foresaid Protestant writers Hottoman, Brute, Bucchanan, Knox, Goodman, Gilby, Whittingham and the like: among whom also I may include john Fox, who in his history of john Husse, alloweth that proposition of his; Prelates and Princes lose their authority Warnword Encounter 2. ca 3. n. 〈◊〉 4. when they fall into mortal sin; as the Author of the Warn-word proveth more largely out of Fox himself. 32. And thus much for the first point, about examples drawn from the times of the old Testament, out of which, little can be urged to the proof or disproof of this question, besides the two general points by The comparison of Priesthood and Kingly authority in the old law. us noted before. For to bring into disputation, whether Priesthood or Kingly principality had the upper hand in that law, is to small purpose, the matter being clear, that as the Kings (and so likewise their Captains, judges, and Governors before they had Kings) had the pre-eminence in all temporal affairs, so in spiritual: and such as concerned God immediately, the were referred principally to Priests, and the temporal Magistrate commanded to hear them, to take the law of them, & consequently also the interpretation thereof, to repair unto them in consultation of doubts, and to stand to their judgement and definition; that Priests and Prophets should consult immediately with God, and the Prince follow their word and direction. 33. And albeit God did sometimes use for external guiding and direction of Priests and Priestly affairs, the authority of good Kings in those days, especially when they were Prophets also, as David & Solomon, in the correcting and removing of some Priests; yet this was extraordinary, and proveth not, that simply and absolutely Kingly dignity and authority was above Priesthood in that law, albeit also it be most true, which the Authors by this man here alleged Salmeron, Cunerus, Carerius and the rest do note, that the Priesthood of the old Testament was nothing comparable to that of the new, this descending directly from the person and office of Christ himself, and endued with far higher and more powerful spiritual authority for guiding of souls, than had the Priests of the old law, which was but a figure of the new; & therefore to argue from that to this, is a plain fallacy, and abusing of the Reader. 34. Wherefore leaving this of the comparison between Kings and Priests, of the old and new Testament, I will end this first point, with the very same conclusion (concerning the safety of Princes from violence of their subjects) which our Adversary himself allegeth out of our Catholic Author Cunerus Conf. p. 13 in these words: We are taught (saith he) from the example of the people of God, as your Cunerus teacheth, with great patience to endure the tyranny of mortal Kings, yea when we have power to resist, 〈◊〉. de of. Princ. c. 7. and because they be next under God in earth, in all their injuries, to commend their revenge unto God; nay he teacheth Kings another excellent rule of policy, fitting for the preservation of all States, which is; that he who succeed a King violently murdered of any, though of Godly zeal; yet ought he to revenge his Predecessors death by the death of the malefactors. So T.M. And now followeth that of the Gospel Ex ore tuo te indigo serve 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉: for first I would ask him, is not this Catholic doctrine? Is it not ours? doth he not here call the Author thereof Cunerus, ours? how then doth he affirm every where, that our doctrine teacheth killing of Princes? Let him show us any of his Authors, that ever of this argument hath written so moderately. 35. And yet further I must ask him whether he will stand to the judgement of this our Cunerus, when he cometh to the point indeed, How incorrigible Princes in some cases may lawfully be restrained, as also deprived by the Commonwealth, and consent of the supreme Pastor? will he stand to this (I say) or rather fleet back again to the doctrine of the Scottish, Genevian, French, & Flemish Ministers, when the King should mislike him, and especially for his Religion? whereof I make little doubt, what ever he saith here, finding himself and his at good ease. And finally I would ask him seriously, whether he would have his Majesty of England to practise that excellent rule of policy which he so highly commendeth out of our 〈◊〉 (who notwithstanding saith not a word thereof by way of rule or observation, but only affirmeth that Amasias did 4. Reg. 14. justly put to death those servants of King joas, that 2. Par. 24. upon zeal had slain him in his bed:) I would ask him (I say) whether indeed he would wish his Majesty of England to put the same rule, and so highly commended policy in use, against such as violently A 〈◊〉 made 〈◊〉 T.M. murdered, abetted or procured the same, against not only his Predecessors, but parents and immediate progenitors, Father, Mother, and Grandmother? And then we know how many Ministers, and their friends would enter into that dance; but these men frame their tongues according to times & fit occasions. And with this he endeth his proofs out of the old Testament. Out of the new Testament. §. 2. 36. ANd then coming to the second part, he beginneth his discourse with this title: The former Pag. 14. question disputed according to the state of the new Testament, and presently in our manner he giveth the onset with this proposition: The Pope hath all absolute and direct power and dominion temporal over all Kings and Kingdoms of the world etc. And for proof thereof citeth Carerius and Bozius in the margin, and beginneth to lay forth their proofs; and then against these two that hold the opinion of canonists (whereof before we have treated, to wit, that Christ was the immediate Lord of all temporalties, and consequently also is his substitute) he opposeth Franciscus de Victoria, Bellarmine, Sanders, and others that hold the other opinion, to wit that the Pope hath not directly, but indirectly only such authority to deal with Princes in temporal affairs: and so not informing his Reader that these are different opinions of the manner how the Pope hath this authority, but yet that both do agree in the thing itself that he hath it; he playeth pleasantly upon the matter, and would make men think that he taketh us at great advantage, as contrary or rather contradictory among ourselves: which indeed is no more contradiction, then if two Lawyers agreeing that such a noble man, had such an office or authority over such An example expressing the state of the question. a Lordship, by succession from the Crown, should differ only in this, whether the said office were given by the Prince, severally and expressly by particular gift and writings, or were given by a certain consequence included in the gift of the said Lordship: The difference were nothing in the thing or certainty of authority, but in the manner of having it, and so is it here; and yet out of this difference of these two opinions, doth our Minister furnish himself with good probability of argmentes on the one side, as though they were his own, who otherwise would appear very poor & pitiful therein. And this trick he played before with the moderate Answerer, when he served himself of the two different opinions of some Divines and canonists about the question: Whether Heretics before personal denunciation, and sentence given, be subject to See before cap. 2. external penalties appointed by the Canons: And generally he runneth to this shift, more than any other commonly of his fellow-writers which I have seen in these our days, to wit, that wheresoever he findeth any difference of opinions in disputable matters between our Catholic writers (which S. Augustine Aug. l. 1. contr. 〈◊〉. cap. 2. saith may stand with integrity of faith) there he setteth down any one of these opinions for ours, and argueth against it with the arguments of the other, or bringeth in the others authority & words against the same, which maketh some show or muster of matter on his side, whereas in deed and substance he hath nothing at all. 37. It were over long to examine in this place all the objections which he putteth down on our behalf, under the second head of our proofs, concerning the time of the new Testament, calling them Romish pretences, and the fond resolutions he giveth unto 〈◊〉. pag. 15. them; as first that we do found the Pope's temporal sword upon the keys given by Christ to S. Peter and that it is a strange art to make a sword of a pair of keys, which seemeth to him a fine jest, & then cometh That keys may 〈◊〉 authority both spiritual and temporal. he out with this vanut: Neither can any show me one Doctor, but of reasonable antiquity (peto vel ex millibus unum) who by keys understand civil power: But Sir what needeth antiquity of Doctors in this behalf? will not your own modern Protestant Doctors grant, that when the keys of any City, Town, or Fort are given to a Prince, civil power over that Fort is meant thereby? who will deny this? 38. And secondly whereas he allegeth Franciscus à Victoria to say that the keys given to S Peter imported spiritual authority of remitting and retaining sins, ergo no way temporal, is a fond illation: for that albeit Victoria saith that those keys did principally import spiritual authority; yet they include also supreme temporal indirectly, when the defence of the spiritual doth require it. Whereupon he frameth this conclusion in the same place: Our eight proposition is (saith he) that the Pope (by authority of the foresaid keys) hath most ample temporal power over all Princes and Kings, and the Emperor himself, in order to a spiritual end, which he proveth there by many arguments. And this of the first jest about sword to be made of keys. 39 The second jest also is as wise and witty as this former, that when we found the same temporal sword or authority of S. Peter, and his successors upon the words of Christ: Feed my sheep, he doth infer that Princes also must be fed, and dietted corporally at the Pope's discretion, and other such toys, he not understanding, as it seemeth, or rather dissembling the force of Catholic arguments drawn from those and other like Scriptures, both by later Doctors, and ancient Fathers, which this fellow turneth into scoffs and contempt, or wicked railing, for that presently he falleth into these rages: O arrogant Glossers! O impudent Conf. p. 17 Glosers, and perverters of the sacred Oracles of God! And why is all this heat of exclamations? Forsooth for that in some Pope's Bulls (though corruptly & fraudulently alleged) some mention is made of the great authority that was given to Elias, Elizeus, jeremy, and other Prophets, and especially to Christ himself, upon earth to plant, destroy, pull up, or punish where need should be; and that this authority by allusion unto the same words of Scripture, is applied to Christ's Successor upon earth, & affirmed to be left in the Christian Church, to be used when need shall require: and is this so great an impiety think you? 40. But he goeth on and saith: That next to this he will examine the antiquity of pretended Papal power from the Apostles time downward, and then produceth this assertion of ours: The Priests (saith the Romish pretence) of the new Testament in the Priesthood of Christ have more authority than that of the old law over Kings to depose them, whereunto he adjoineth presently his own spruce Ministerial answer in these words: This is not probable except you can show some footinges either of Christ or his blessed Apostles, or their Holy Successors in the purer periods of times. And is not this answered as from a man of his coat? Mark the phrase Of footings in purer periods, I will for footinges in this matter refer him to the large demonstrations which out of Scriptures, Doctors, Fathers, Councils, and Ecclesiastical Histories, the Authors by him here often alleged Carerius, Bozius, Bellarmine, Sanders, Salmeron, and others do abundantly and substantially allege; & when he shall have overthrown or supplanted those footinges of theirs, which they 〈◊〉 fix throughout all periods of times from the beginning The poor footings of Protestants in periods of antiquity. of Christian Religion unto our days, and general practice thereof, then may the poor man get to have some little footing for himself and his cause, which hitherto he hath none at all, as to any man whosoever, with any indifferency of judgement, shall read over and examine his book, will evidently appear; yea though he compare but only that which himself allegeth here both in the text and margin, which seldom agree in true sense if you mark it well. But if you would examine the Latin authorities cited in the said margin, with the originals of the Authors themselves, you shall scarce ever find them sincerely to agree, but that one fraud or other is used in their allegation, by chopping, changing, infarcing, leaving out, and other such sleights and deceipts, which though the brevity of this Treatise permit me not to examine, and lay forth at large in this place; yet some we have touched before, and some others shall we have occasion to note afterwards, and the Reader himself may upon this warning make some little trial. 41. And as for the succession of times, which this Author T. M. pretendeth to bring down from the Apostles days, (not to ours) but for a thousand years only after Christ, wherein he saith; that no Pope can be showed ever to have had any temporal jurisdiction over any Emperor, King, or temporal Prince; though Catholics do hold the later six hundred years also, to be of no less force for precedent of examples in the Church of God than the former thousand, yet are the instances so many and evident, which may be alleged against his former prescription of the said thousand years, as do manifestly convince him of folly in that assertion, wherein I refer me to the collections and demonstrations thereof by the foresaid Authors Carerius, Bozius, Carer 〈◊〉. 2. depotestate Pont c. 19 & 20. Bellarmine, Sanders, and others in the places here quoted in the margin, but especially to the three that are not Jesuits, & to the first for all, to wit Carerius, that Bell. 〈◊〉. de Rom. Pon. Sande. l. 7. de Monar. Bozius l. 5 de temporali Eccl. Mon. etc. in divers things wrote against the jesuits, who in his second book allegeth 10. or 12. examples out of antiquity for proving his purpose. I remit me also to the many learned writings, set forth of late about the cause of the Venetians, by Penia, Baronius, Bovius, Eugenius, Nardus & others, showing the most evident right, which the Pope had, and hath to command them, as high Pastor of the Church, to recall certain civil laws made by them in prejudice of the said Church, and Ecclesiastical State; which Commandment we The cause of the Venetians. doubt not but God will move that most excellent Commonwealth finally to * Now they have obeyed. obey, they being known to be so good and sound Catholics, as they are, though for some time in regard of some temporal respects they have deferred to do the same. 42. Many more points might be examined in this descent of his throughout periods of times; but it would be overlong, and my intention is to give a taste only or short view: for to examine the places cited out of Fathers of divers ages, for proof of his pretence, were time wholly lost. For that in effect they say nothing else, but that we grant, which is that temporal Princes are to be respected and obeyed by Ecclesiastical men also, but in temporal affairs. And as for his examples of some English Kings that seemed not to respect much the Pope's authority in some occasions, which he hath borrowed out of Sir Edward Cooks Reports, he may see the answer to that book, and so I think remain satisfied. Wherefore this shall suffice for the second head of arguments throughout the new Testament, though after also in the examination of some falsifications we shall have occasion to say more. Arguments from Reason. §. 3. 43. Wherefore to pass no further in the second point of arguments under the new Testament, we shall say a word or two only of the third, to wit of proofs affirmed to be deduced by us from force of reason, for so he entituleth them; to wit, Popish Arguments from reason. And to the end you may see his talon therein, we shall examine only the third reason in this place which he declareth in these words: Except, saith the Romish pretence, there were a way of deposing Pag. 14. Apostata Princes', God had not provided sufficiently for his Church; Extravag. communium de maiorit. & obed. §. unam Sanctam. & for this he citeth the Constitution Extravagant of Pope Bonifacius, and saith; This objection is in your Extravagantes, and so it may be called, because it rangeth extra, that is without the bonds of Gods ordinance etc. But as in all his other citations generally, he is never lightly true and sincere in all points, no not thrice (I think verily) throughout all this lying book of his; so neither here: and it would require a great volume alone to examine only some part of his leaves about this point of his shifts and corruptions; they are so many, and thick and craftily huddled up together. As for example here, first this sentence is not in the Pope's Extravagant at all, The Extravagant of Bonifacius ●. falsely alleged. but only in a certain addition to the ordinary gloss or Commentary of john Picard, which addition was made by Petrus Bertrandus a late writer. Secondly this Commentary saith nothing of deposing Apostata Princes', but only affirming the foresaid opinion of canonists to be true; that Christ was Lord absolutely in this life over all, not only in spiritual authority, but in temporal also; he inferreth thereby Christ should not have sufficiently provided for the government of his Church, & Kingdom upon earth, Nisi unicum post se talem Vicarium reliquisset Addit. ad comen. qui haec omnia posset, except he had left some such one substitute or Vicar after him, as should be able to Extravag. de maior. in c. 1. ad finem. perform all these things, to wit, as belong both to spiritual and temporal power, according as necessity shall require: which later clause you see, that T. M. cut of, as he added the other about Apostata Princes And thus much for his variety of corruptions in this little sentence, now to the thing itself. 44. The reason if we consider it without passion, is strong and weighty, and founded upon the providence, wisdom, and goodness of almighty God, who having provided diligently, and admirably for the preservation of all other things, and Communities by The great force of the former 〈◊〉. him created or ordained, should leave the Christian Commonwealth unfurnished of all remedy for the greatest evil of all others, that possibly can fall out, which is the corruption of the head, that may destroy the whole body whereof he is head, if it be not redressed. As if (for examples sake) the Prince would extirpate Christian Religion, bring in Mahometisme, or other such abomination, overthrow all good laws, plant and establish vice, dissolution, Atheism, or commit some other such exorbitant wickedness, as were not tolerable, whereunto notwithstanding man's frailty, without the help of Gods grace, is, or may be subject: In this case (saith the objection) some remedy must have been left by Christ, or else his divine wisdom and providence had not provided sufficiently for the preservation of his Kingdom, as by light of nature he left remedy to the body of every Commonwealth Pla. Dial. 1. de repu. Aristot. 2. Polit. under the Gentiles before his coming, which is evident both by Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, & others that wrote of commonwealths in those days, and did Cicer. 3. de leg. Bart. lib. de Tyrannide. always presume, that the said commonwealths had sufficient authority by law of nature to restrain exorbitant Princes, when they were perilous to the public: and the same have held all other learned men that ever wrote of that argument afterward. 45. But as for our Catholic learned men, both Divines and Lawyers, though they affirm (as out of T. M. his frequent allegations of them in this his Treatise is evident) that all obedience both external and internal, in conscience and works, is by Gods ordinance due unto them; yet that in such public perils of the Church & Commonwealth as before are mentioned, when they fall out, Christ our Saviour hath not left his Church wholly remediless, but rather, The Catholic opinion & moderation about restraining evil Princes. that besides the natural right which each Kingdom hath to defend themselves, in certain cases, he left also supreme power in his high Priest and immediate substitute, to direct and moderate that power, and to add also of his own, when extraordinary need requireth, though with great deliberation, consultation, weighty motives, lawful means, and other like circumstances. 46. This, I say, is Catholic doctrine, but what Protestants doctrine is, were hard to set down: for that they speak therein as time and occasion serveth them, having no rule or Canon at all whereto they are bound. For what was both their doctrine and practice, 〈◊〉 uncertainties. when, and where they were discontented with their Princes, both in England, Scotland, Flanders, Geneva and France, is evident by that which before we have alleged in the first & fourth Chapters of this book: now this man telleth us another tale for the time present, but what he would say or do, if he were in the discontented occasion of those his fellow-Authors, that wrote so sharply and violently, no man can tell: but let us see now at length, how substantially he doth satisfy this objection, for he giveth three or four several solutions thereunto; you shall hear what ones they are. 47. The first is from Gods ordinance (saith he) for by the word of God, as your Cunerus Devinely reasoneth, 〈◊〉. pag. 35. which is not partial, nor by the self pleasing The first answer. fancy of sensual affection, must this question be determined; though therefore it may seem to us a decree of nature, for every one to defend himself and the things he doth enjoy; yet the Law of God doth forbid to do this by taking arms against the higher powers etc. So T. M. out of our Cunerus. And it is well that he alloweth this Catholic writer to reason divinely, so far forth as he may seem to make for him, though in truth in the conclusion of his discourse, B Cunerus drift 〈◊〉 T. M. 〈◊〉 allegeth him. he is wholly against him. For as first his whole speech in this seventh Chapter by him cited, is expressly against the Hollanders, that under divers pretences, both of Religion, and Scriptures for the same liberty of their country, and the like, took arms against their true natural King; which he reproveth, and condemneth very piously, and learnedly throughout this whole Chapter, and in the next ensuing, whose title is, Quid in Tyrannide subdit is agendum sit, What subjects ought to do in case of tyranny, he showeth two sorts of Tyranny and Tyrants, the one that invadeth unjustly another man's dominions against the will & Two 〈◊〉 of tyranny and tyrants. authority of his King and Prince, the other that leaving the office of a King and good Prince in protecting his people, and Religion & justice among them, turneth himself wholly to their affliction and oppression: and that in the former case, the people are taught by many examples of Scriptures, to resist by arms where they can; but in the second much more moderation is to be used, all means of humble suit, entreaty, intercession, prayer to God, amendment of life and Cuner. l. de officio Principis cap. 8. pacification to be used; Quod si haec non iwent (saith he) & Superiorem in temporalibus, uti Reges, Princeps non agnoscit, tunc supremus Ecclesiae Pastor interpellandus occurrit, qui bonis & aequis subditorum querelis audit is, plura Deo cooperant ratione & auctoritate praestare poterit quam unquam 〈◊〉 armis impetrabit; but if these means do not help, saith Cunerus, and that the Prince do acknowledge no Superior in temporal causes, as Kings do not, then is the Supreme Pastor of the Church to be called upon, who having heard the just & good complaints of the Subjects, God assisting him, shall be able to effectuate more by reason and authority with their Prince, then ever the people themselves should have obtained by force of arms. Thus he. 48. And now, will T. M. allow this also for divinely spoken? If he do, than we differ not in opinion: If he do not, why doth he so often, and continually cull out, and cut of sentences of Authors, that write directly against him, as this Bishop Cunerus, the Lawyer Carerius, the Divine Bozius, the Jesuits Bellarmine, Salmeron, Azor, and others? And yet I must admonish the Reader here again, that if he compare the text itself of Cunerus with that which here T. M. setteth down in Latin, and then the Latin with that he Englisheth, he shall find such mangling upon mangling, by cutting of, leaving out, & altering whole sentences, as he will see that this man can scarce deal truly in any thing. And thus much for his first answer out of Cunerus, making much more against him, then for him, as you have seen. 49. And I leave to discuss the Authority of S. Augustine which out of Cunerus he also allegeth (for otherwise then out of our Author's books he hath little or Great fraud and corruption in mangling Authors. nothing in any matter) it being no less mangled by this man, then is the text of Cunerus itself, as every one will find that shall read Cunerus; not so much as one note of [etc.] being left any where lightly, to signify that somewhat is cut of, but all running together, as if it were continual speech in the Author; whereas in deed they be but pieces & scraps joined together, and those also commonly with much corruption: whereof I dare avouch that the Author shall find above a hundred examples in this fraudulent Reply, which is wholly patched up out of the distracted sentences of our own Authors by this art. 50. But now to his second answer to the former The second answer. objection, that God's providence must needs have lefed some remedy for the danger that may occur by evil government of Princes etc. The second is (saith he) the consideration of examples of the primitive Church, when for the space of three hundred years it was in grievous persecution, there was found no power on earth to restrain that earthly power, was therefore God wanting to his Church? God forbid. Nay rather he was not wanting, for it is written: Virtue is perfected in infirmity. Rom. 11. And again: As gold is purged in the fire; so by affliction 1. Cor. 12. etc. Because when the outward man suffereth, the inward 2. Cor. 12. Dan. 3. man is renewed, and when I am weak, then am I strong. So he. And do you see how patient and meek this man is become now, when there is nothing to suffer? did his Protestant-Authors before mentioned write or teach this doctrine when they were pressed by their Catholic Princes to be quiet? Or if this should be Great hypocrisy. preached now at this day in Holland, Zealand, Frizeland, Hungary, Polonia, Zweveland & Transiluania, where actually Protestants are in arms against their natural and lawful Princes, would it be received as currant and evangelical? Would the examples of primitive martyrs, when there was scarce any temporal commonwealth extant among Christians, be sufficient to prescribe a form of patience & sufferance to these men? Why do they not then put it in practice? And why cease they not, according to this man's doctrine from so notorious tumultuations against their lawful Princes? Why is not this doctrine of the Scripture of perfecting their virtue by bearing and suffering admitted by them? I confess it ought to be so with all particular men in their afflictions, oppressions, and tribulations, and so teach our Doctors, as before you have heard; though when the hurt and danger concerneth a common wealth established in Christian Religion, there be other considerations to be had, as before hath been set down. 51. But Protestants observe neither the one, nor the other, but both in particular and common, break forth when they are strained or discontented, into the uttermost violence they can: and their Doctores are ready presently to defend them; yea and to go to the field with them if need be against their Princes, as experience hath taught us both in Switzerland, Scotland, France, and other places. Wherefore this pretended preaching of patience and sufferance of T. M. in this place both in his outward and inward man, is to small purpose. 52. Wherefore his third answer is to the former objection The third answer. Confut. p. 35. & 36. The view (as he saith) of our Popish principles, whereby we teach, that the Pope may not be judged by any person upon earth, whether secular, or Ecclesiastical, nor by a General Council, though he should do something contrary to the universal State of the Church, neglect the Canons, spare offenderes, oppress innocentes and the like: For which he citeth both Bellarmine, Carerius and Azor: and then addeth, that Bellar. 2. de Rom. the Pope cannot be deposed for any of these, no not Pont. c. 26 Carer. l. 1. de potest. though (saith he to use the words of your Pope himself, one placed in the kalends of your martyrs) he should carry many people with himself to hell; yet no mortal Pont. c. 〈◊〉. Azor Inst. l. 5. c. 14. creature may presume to say, why do you so. Thus he. 53. Whereunto I answer first, that all which Bellarmine, Carerius, Azorius, and other Catholic writers do affirm of the Pope's pre-eminency of authority immediately under Christ, so as he hath no Superior judge between Christ and him, that may sit in judgement over him, or give sentence upon him for matters of ill life, tendeth only to show, that as he receiveth Fraudulent dealing in T. M by concealment. his supreme charge immediately from Christ, so by him must he be judged, & not by man, though the same Authors in the same places (which this man of purpose omitteth and concealeth) do expressly affirm, that for the Crimes of Apostasy or heresy he may and must be deposed, or rather is ipso facto deprived of his office and dignity, and so may be declared by the Church in that case, to wit, aswell by Princes and Potentates both Ecclesiastical and temporal, as by all Christian people, who in that case are bound to The 〈◊〉 may and must be deposed for heresy. concur to his expulsion and deprivation. And albeit in the other of lesser vices or infirmities of life, he have no humane Superior to judge him: yet is that of Christ himself so much the more severe, & dreadful, and his holy providence hath been ever and willbe such, as these personal defects in his supreme Pastor, shall not so much prejudicate his office, but that always he shall teach his flock that which may help them to their salvation, howsoever he live himself. Math. 23. And of this he having forewarned us with express premonition, the performance lieth upon his charge whose power is omnipotent, and fidelity such, as in his promises cannot possibly fail. And this to the first point. 54. Now to the second wherein he saith, that one of our Popes, placed also in the Calends of our Martyrs, doth affirm that though a Pope should carry many people with himself to hell, no mortal man may presume to say, why do you so? I do greatly marvel with what conscience, or if not conscience, with what forehead at least these men can write and print, and reiterate so often in their books, things that they know, or may know to be merely false and forged! Is not this a sign of obstinate wilfulness, and that neither God, nor truth is sought for by them, but only to maintain a part or faction, with what sleight or falsehood soever? I find this very objection set forth in print not many years gone by 〈◊〉 Francis Hastings in his Watchword and Defence thereof, and the same avouched stoutly after him for a time by Matthew Sutcliffe the Minister, Advocate & Proctor of that defence; but afterward I find the same so confuted at large by the Warn-word, and so many lies, falsehoods, and evident frauds discovered therein, as Shameless facing of untruths. the said M. Sutcliffe in his Reply entitled A full and round answer, thought good roundly to let this pass, without any answer at all, which I can find in his said book, though I have used some diligence in search thereof; which I do add, for that he changeth the whole order of answering from the method of his Adversary, to the end not to be found, & so answereth nothing in order or place, as it is set down by him whom he pretendeth to answer, but rather taking a new, vast and wild discourse to himself, snatcheth here a word, and there a word, to carp at, not as they A note of M. Sutolifs manner of answering. lie in his adversaries book, but as it pleaseth him to admit them, now from the end of the book, then from the beginning, then from the middle: and with this substantial method, he taketh upon him to answer all books that come in his way; for so he hath answered of late the book also of Three Conversions of England, and may do easily all that is written by Catholics, if carping only and scolding be answering. 55. Wherefore to this instance here resumed by T. M. though I must remit him, or rather the Reader for larger satisfaction to the said Catholic Treatise, entitled Warn-word, Encounter 2. c. 13. num. 18. 19 20. etc. The Warn-word; yet here briefly I am to tell him first, that he erreth grossly in the affirming in this place, the Author of this Canon cited by him Si Papa, to have been a Pope, for that the said Canon was gathered by Gratian out of the sayings of S. Boniface martyr, as in the title of the said Canon is expressed, which Boniface was never Pope, but a virtuous learned English man, that lived above 850. years gone, The error about S. 〈◊〉 the English martyr. and was the first Archbishop of Mentz or Moguntia in Germany; of which people and country he is called by all ancient writers The Apostle, for that he first publicly converted that nation, erected that Primate sea, and suffered glorious martyrdom by the Gentiles for the faith of Christ. Wherefore the scoff of T. M. calling him our Pope placed in the kalends of our martyrs, besides the ignorance, tasteth also of much profane malice and impiety. 56. Secondly I say that these words of his are corruptly set down, as ever commonly elsewhere, and that both in Latin and English. In Latin, for that he leaveth out the beginning of the Canon, which showeth the 〈◊〉 thereof, whose title is: Damnatur Apostolicus qui suae & fraternae salutis est negligens: The Pope is damned which is negligent in the affair of his own salvation and of his brethren; and then beginneth the Canon Si Papa suae & fraternae salutis negligens etc. Showing that albeit the Pope have no Superior judge in this world, which may by authority check him unless he fall into heresy; yet shall his damnation be greater than of other sinners, for that by reason of his high dignity, he draweth more after him to perdition, than any other. Whereby we may perceive that this Canon was not written to flatter the Pope, as Protestants would have it seem, but to warn him rather of his peril, together with his high authority. 57 After this the better to cover this pious meaning of S. Boniface T. M. alleging two lines of the same in Latin, he cutteth of presently a third line, that immediately ensueth, to wit: Cum ipso plagis multis in aeternum vapulatur us, that the Pope is to suffer eternal punishments, and to be scourged with many stripes, together with the devil himself, if by his evil, or A heap of 〈◊〉. negligent life, he be the cause of others perdition; which threat this man having cut of, he joineth presently again with the antecedent words, these as following immediately in the Canon; Huius culpas redarguere praesumet nemo mortalium; this man's faults (to wit the Pope) no mortal man shall or may presume to reprehend, and there endeth. In which short phrase are many frauds: for first he leaveth out istic here in this life, and then for praesumit in the present tense, that no man doth presume to check him in respect of the greatness of his dignity, this man saith praesumet, in the future tense, that is no man shall presume, or as himself translateth it may presume to control him, which is a malicious falsehood. And lastly he leaveth out all that immediately followeth containing a reason of all that is said: Quia cunctos ipse iudicaturus, à nemine est iudicandus, nisi deprehendatur à fide devius etc. For that whereas he is judge of all other men, he cannot himself be judged by any, except he be found to serve from the true faith. here than is nothing but fraudulent citing, and abusing of Authors. 58. But now thirdly remaineth the greatest corruption & abuse of all in his English translation, which is that which most importeth his simple Reader that looketh not into the Latin, and this is, that he translateth the former sentence of the Canon thus as before you have heard: Though he should carry many people with him to hell; yet no mortal creature may presume to say why do you so? But in the Latin neither here, nor in the Canon itself is there any such interrogation at all, Great impudence. as why do you so? And therefore I may ask T. M. why do you lie so? Or why do you delude your Reader so? Or why do you corrupt your Author so? Or why do you translate in English for the abusing of your Reader, that which neither yourself do set down in your Latin text, nor the Canon itself by you cited hath it at all? Is not this wilful, and malicious fraud? Wherein when you shall answer me directly and sincerely, it shall be a great discharge of your credit with those, who in the mean space will justly hold you for a deceiver. 59 His fourth answer to the former argument of God's providence, is the difference (he saith) of Kings His fourth answer. and Popes in this point, for that the Papal power (saith he) which will be thought spiritual if it be evil, may be the Confut. p. 3. & 36. bane of souls; the power of Princes is but corporal, therefore fear them not because they can go no further than the body. Thus he. And did ever man hear so wise a reason? And cannot evil Kings and Princes be the cause of corrupting souls also if they should live wickedly, & permit or induce others to do the same? And what if they should be of an evil Religion as you will say Q. Mary, and K. Henry were, and all Kings upward for many hundred years together, who by Statutes and Impertinent reasons. laws forced men to follow the Religion of that time, did all this touch nothing the soul? who would say it but T. M? But he goeth forward in his application, for that bodily Tyranny (saith he) worketh in the Godly patience, but the spiritual Tyranny doth captivate the inward soul. This now is as good as the former, and is a difference without diversity, so far as concerneth our affair, that a man may with patience, if he will, resist both the one and the other. And even now we have seen that when any Pope shall decline from the common received faith of Christendom, he cannot captivate other men, but is deposed himself. Wherefore this man's conclusion is very simple, saying: Therefore here is need, according to God's providence, of power to depose so Math. 5. desperate a spiritual evil, whereof it is written, if the salt want his saltenesse, it is good for nothing, but to be cast upon the dunghill. Mark then that concerning the spiritual, that God Rom. 13. hath ordained eiiciatur foras, let it be cast out; but concerning the temporal, resist not the power. 60. Lo here, and do not these men find Scriptures for all purposes? This fellow hath found a text, that all spiritual power, when it misliketh them, must be cast to the dunghill, and no temporal must be resisted; and yet he that shall read the first place by him alleged out of S. Matthew shall find that the lack of saltenesse is expressly meant of the want of good life and edification, especially in Priests and Preachers; and yet is it no precept, as this man would have it, to cast them all to the dunghill: but that salt losing his taste, is fit for nothing but to that use. S. Paul in like manner to the Romans doth not more forbid resisting of temporal authority, then of spiritual: but commandeth to obey both the one and the other; which this man applieth only to temporal, which he would have exalted, obeyed, and respected, and the other contemned, and cast to the dunghill. Oh that he had been worthy to have been the scholar of S. Chrysostome, S. Gregory Nazianzen, or S. Ambrose before cited, who so highly preferred spiritual authority before temporal, how would they have rated him, if he would not have been better instructed, or more piously affected? No doubt eiecissent foras, they would have cast him forth to the dunghill in deed, and there have left him, and so do we in this matter, not meaning to follow him any further, except he reasoned more groundedly, or dealt more sincerely. 61. Yet in one word to answer his comparison, we say, that both temporal, & spiritual Magistrates may do hurt both to body and soul: for as the temporal may prejudice also the soul, as now hath been said; so may the spiritual afflict in like manner the body, as Much less dangerous to have one Pope without all Superior, than many Princes. when the Pope or Bishops do burn Heretics: so as in this respect, this distinction of T. M. is to no purpose; yet do we also say, that when spiritual authority is abused, it is more pernicious, & prejudicial than the other: Quia corruptio optimi est pessima: The best things become worst, when they are perverted: and spiritual diseases, especially belonging to faith, be more pernicious than corporal: for which cause God had so much care to provide for the prevention thereof in his Christian Church, for the conservation of true faith, by the authority, union, visibility, & succession of the said Church, and diligence of Doctores, Teachers, Synods, Counsels, and other means therein used, and by his assistance of infallibility to the head thereof: which head though in respect of his eminent authority, he have no Superiors to judge or chastise him, except in case of heresy, as hath been said; yet hath he many and effectual means whereby to be admonished, informed, stirred up, and moved: so as he being but one in the world, and furnished with these helps, bringeth far less danger, and inconvenience, then if all temporal Princes (who are many) had the like privilege and immunity. And this every reasonable man out of reason itself will easily see & consider. 62. As also this other point of no small or mean importance, to wit, that English Protestants pretending temporal Princes to be supreme, and without judge or Superior in matters of Religion, as well as civil and secular, they incur a far greater inconvenience thereby, than they would seem to lay upon us. For that if any temporal Prince as Supreme in both causes, would take upon him the approbation, or admission of any sect or heresy whatsoever, they have no remedy at all according to the principles of their doctrine; whereas we say, the Pope in this case may and must be deposed by force of his subjects, & all Christian Princes joined together against him: so as in place of one general Pope, which in this case is under authority, they make so many particular Popes, as are particular Kings & temporal Princes throughout all Christendom, that are absolute, and consequently without all remedy for offences temporal or spiritual in manners or faith. 63. And now let us imagine what variety of sects and schisms would have been at this day in Christianity, if for a thousand and six hundred years, which Christian Religion hath endured, this doctrine of liberty and immunity of temporal Princes to believe, hold, and defend what they list, had been received and practised for good and currant unto this time. From which singular inconvenience, danger, and desperate desolation, the doctrine & belief of the only Bishop of Rome his Supreme authority, and exercise thereof, hath chiefly delivered us, as to all men is evident. And this only reason were sufficient in all reason to refute this man's idle confutation of that Supremacy here pretended; which confutation standing upon so feeble and ridiculous grounds, as now in part you have seen, & supported principally by certain new shifts, and iugglinges scarcely used by any before, by casting out shadows of our Catholic Authors sayings and sentences, as making for him; though I mean to pass no further in impugning his said grondes, which are of so small weight as you have seen: yet do I not think it amiss to add another several Chapter for better discovering of the said iugglinges used by him in this short Treatise, not containing much above twenty 〈◊〉 in all. For by this little you may gather what a volume might be framed of his false dealings, if we would dwell any longer therein. A BRIEF VIEW OF CERTAIN NOTORIOUS, FALSE AND FRAUDULENT DEALINGS, USED BY T.M. In this his short several Treatise against the Pope's Supremacy: As also sundry examples of the like proceeding in the former Part of his deceitful Reply. CHAP. VI IT is the saying both of Philosophers and Divines, Bonum nisi bene fiat, bonum non esse, A good thing except it be well & rightly done, is not good: As for example if a man would relieve the necessity of poor and distressed people with alms gotten by stealth or robbery; albeit giving of alms of itself be a good thing; yet for that it is not here lawfully performed, in this case it is not good nor lawful: So M. Thomas The fraud of T. M. Morton taking upon him to confute the Pope's Supremacy over Kings and Princes, thought no doubt to do a good work therein, at leastwise bonum utile, a profitable good thing for himself, in regard of some favour or benevolence which he might hope to gain with some Prince thereby to his preferment; but not performing the same by lawful means of truth, but of sleights (not withstanding to his Majesty he termeth himself the Minister of simple truth) though it should prove utile, yet not honestum; that is, for his gain, but not for his credit or conscience, and consequently deserveth rather disgrace then estimation, even with those whom most he desired to gratify in that affair. 2. For demonstration whereof, though I suppose to have said sufficient before, both in the second, fourth, and fifth Chapters by occasion of matters that occurred in discussion between us; yet now having determined with myself, to pass on no further in the particular refutation of this his Treatise, as a thing not worth the time to be lost therein, and handled far better by divers of his own side before him, namely by M. jewel, M. Horn, D. john Reinoldes, M. Bilson and some others The vanity of T. M. his vaunt of truth. in their books of this subject; I thought good notwithstanding for some kind of recompense of this my brevity in answering so simple and idle a Treatise, to add some few examples more in this place of other corruptions and falsifications practised by him in this his confutation: not of all, for that alone would require a great book, but of some competent number, whereby the Reader may guess at the rest; & his Majesty take some proof of the extraordinary vanity of that vaunt, wherewith he presented himself to his Highness, in the very first entrance of his Epistle dedicatory, in so constant assurance of an upright conscience (to use his own words) as that he would willingly remit that just advantage against his adversary, which the difference between a Minister of simple truth, and a professed Equivocator did offer unto him. Now then let us enter to the examination itself. 3. Wherein only the Reader is to be advertised, that whereas this man by a new devise of his own, doth pretend to put down the sayings of our Catholic A 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 devise of T. M. 〈◊〉 braggeth. writers for his purpose, and that both in Latin and English, the one in the text, and the other in the margin, pretending thereby to make them speak contrary one to the other, A course (saith he to the kings Majesty) which I profess in all disputes; he dealeth so perfidiously therein to bring them to debate, as commonly the simple fellow committeth three several sorts of frauds and falsehood in most of his allegations. First in corrupting the meaning of the Authors, alleging them quite against their own whole drift, and intended discourse, and conclusion thereof. Secondly in setting down fraudulently the Latin text, by piecing & patching their sentences together that stand far a sunder in the Authors themselves, & by dismembering others that were coherent before, as often now we have complained. Thirdly in translating the same by like fraud into English, using manifest violence to the words and sense itself, to get thereby some show of advantage, or at least- wise to say somewhat. All which sorts and kinds of shifts you shall see expressed in the examples that are to ensue. 4. In the second page of his pretended confutation; The first example. he hath these words; In the old Testament the Jesuits are forced to allow, that the King was supreme over Pag. 2. the Priests in spiritual affairs and ordering Priests. For proof whereof he citeth in the margin Salmeron a jesuit, a very learned man, that hath left written in our days many volumes upon the gospels, Epistles of S. Paul, and other parts of Scriptures, and was one of the first ten, that joined themselves with the famous holy man Ignatius de Loyola, for the beginning of that Religious order; in which citation divers notable corruptions are to be seen. First, for Salmer. disp. 12. in Epistolas Pauli in gen. §. sed contra. that Salmeron proveth the quite contrary in the place by this man quoted, to wit, that never Kings were head of the Church or above Priests by their ordinary Kingly authority in Ecclesiastical matters, in the new or old Testament, and having proved the same largely, he cometh at length to set down objections to the contrary, and to solve & answer them, saying: Sed contra hanc solidam veritatem etc. But now against this sound truth by me hitherto confirmed, I know that many things may be objected, which we are diligently to confute. First then may be objected that Kings in the old Testament did sometimes prescribe unto Priests what they were to do in sacred things, as also did put some negligent Priests from the execution of their office. To which is answered: Vbi id evenisset, mirum esse non debere; If it had so fallen out, it had been no marvel: for that the Synagogue of the jews, albeit it contained some just men, yet was it called rather an earthly, than a heavenly Kingdom, August. l. 19 contr. 〈◊〉. e. 31. in princ. insomuch as S. Augustine doth doubt, whether in the old Testament, the Kingdom of heaven was ever so much as named, and much less promised for reward; and therefore those things that were then done among them, foreshowed only or prefigured divine things that were to succeed under the new Testament, the other being not divine but human and earthly. So Salmeron. 5. here then are sundry important corruptions, & 2. Corruption about the meaning. frauds uttered by T.M. the one that the Jesuits, and namely Salmeron, are enforced to allow the temporal King to have been Supreme over the high Priest in spiritual matters, under the old law; whereas he doth expressly affirm and prove the contrary, both out * Disp. 12. pag. 324. & 325. of the Scripture itself, by the sacrifice appointed more worthy for the Priest, than the Prince, & many other testimonies, as that he must take the law & interpretation Leuit. 4. thereof at the priests hands, that he must ingredi & egredi ad verbum Sacerdotis, go in and out, and 〈◊〉. 17. proceed in his affairs by the word and direction of Num. 27. the Priest, and the like; as also by the testimony of Philo and joseph, two learned jews, and other reasons Philo l. de victimis par. 2. circa medium joseph. 3. Antiquit. cap. 〈◊〉 c. handled at large in this very disputation, and in the self same place from whence this objection is taken. And this is the first falsification concerning the Authors meaning and principal drift. 6. The second corruption is in the words, as they lie in the Latin copy, & as they are by me before mentioned: Vbi id evenisset mirum esse non debere, If any such thing had fallen out, as was objected, to wit that Kings 2. Corruption about the words. sometimes had prescribed to the Priests what they should do in Ecclesiastical things, deposed some etc. it had been no marvel, for somuch as their Ecclesiastical Kingdom or Synagogue was an earthly and imperfect thing, but yet this proveth not that it was so, but only it is spoken upon a supposition: which supposition this Minister that he might the more cunningly shift of and avoid, left cut of purpose the most essential words thereof Vbi id evenisset if that had happened etc. as also for the same cause to make things more obscure, after those words of Salmeron that stand in his text: Synagoga judeorum dicebatur terrenum potius quam caeleste regnum; The Synagogue or Ecclesiastical government of the jews, was called rather an earthly than a heavenly Kingdom (whereas contrariwise the Ecclesiastical power in the Christian Church is every where called Celestial) after those words (I say) this man cutteth of again many lines that followed, together with S. Augustine's judgement before touched, which served to make the Author's meaning more plain, and yet left no sign of (etc.) whereby his Reader might understand that somewhat was omitted, but 〈◊〉 again presently, as though it had immediately followed, 〈◊〉 cum populus Dei constet corpore Sundry 〈◊〉. & animo, carnalis pars in veteri populo primas tenebat: Whereas Gods people doth consist of body and mind, the carnal or bodily part did chiefly prevail among the jews, and herewith endeth, as though nothing more had ensued of that matter, thrustnig out these words that immediately followed, and made the thing clear which are, Et ad spiritualia significanda constituebaiur, and that kind of earthly power was appointed to signify the spiritual that was to be in the new Testament: whereby is evidently seen that Salmeron understood not by carnalis pars and regnum terrenum, the temporal Kingdom of jury, as this Minister doth insinuate to make the matter odious; but the Ecclesiastical government of the Synagogue under the old law, in respect of the Ecclesiastical power in the new, whereof the other was but an earthly figure or signification. 7. But now the third corruption, & most egregious of all, is in his English translation out of the Latin words of Salmeron: for thus he translateth them in our 3. Corruption about the translation. name: In the Synagogue of the jews (saith Salmeron) was a State rather earthly then heavenly; so that in that people (which was as in the body of a man, consisting of body and soul) the carnal Confut. pag. 2. part was more eminent, meaning the temporal to have been supreme. In which translation are many several shifts and frauds. For whereas Salmeron saith Synagoga judeorum dicebatur potius terrenum quam caeleste regnum, the Synagogue or Ecclesiastical power among the jews was called rather an earthly, than a heavenly Kingdom; he translateth it, the Synagogue of the jews was a State rather earthly, then heavenly; and this to the end he might apply the word of earth to the temporal Prince, and heavenly to the judaical Priests, which is quite from Salmerons' meaning. Secondly those other words of Salmeron being cum populus Dei constet ex corpore & Malicious interpretations to make us odious. animo, whereas the people of God do consist of body and mind, meaning thereby aswell Christians as jews, and that the jews are as the bodily or carnal part of the man, and the Christians the spiritual, and consequently their Ecclesiastical authority earthly, and ours heavenly; this fellow to deceive his Reader, putteth out first the word Dei, the people of God and then translateth it, in that people (to wit the jews) the carnal part was the more eminent, meaning (saith he) the temporal; which is false, for he speaketh expressly of the Ecclesiastical power among the jews, which he calleth carnal and terrene, in respect of the spiritual Ecclesiastical among the Christians, and not the temporal or Kingly power under the old Testament, as this man to make us odious to temporal Princes, as debasing their authority, would have it thought. And Salmerons' contraposition or antithesis is not between the temporal and Ecclesiastical government among the jews; but between their Ecclesiastical government and ours, that of the Synagogue, and this of the Christian Church, whereof the one he saith to be terrene & earthly, the other spiritual and heavenly, the one infirm, the other powerful over souls etc. So as all these sorts and kinds of corruptions being seen in this one little authority, you may imagine what will be found in the whole book, if a man had so much patience and time to lose, as to discuss the same exactly through. 8. A little after this again, he bringeth in an example The second example pag. 7. of the King of Israel Ozias, who for presuming to exercise the Priest's office in offering of incense, being first reprehended, and resistest for the same by Azarias the high Priest, and fourscore other Priests with 4. Reg. 15. 2. Par. 26. him in the Temple, was for his presumption presently and publicly in all their sights punished by God, and strooken with a leprosy, and thereupon removed by the authority of the said high Priest, first from the A contention about the expulsion of K. Ozias. Temple, and common conversation of men, and then also from the government or administration of his Kingdom, the same being committed to his son joathan all the days of his Father's life: about which example, M. Morton first of all bringeth in Doctor Barkley dissenting from Doctor Boucher in this matter, about the deposition of this King, the one holding that he was deposed, the other not, but only that as a sick man was debarred of the administration. Doctor butchers words are these cited by D. Barkley: Sic Oziam Azarias Barkleius l. 5. c. 11. de Templo primùm, mox etiant de Regno eiecit. So Azarias the high Priest did cast out King Ozias, first from the Temple, and then from his Kingdom. Which the other will not have to be understood that the title and interest of his Kingdom was taken from him, but only the administration, which in effect is no great difference of opinions; for that Bellarmine also talking of this matter saith: cum regni administratione privatus fuerit, whereas he was deprived of the administration of the Kingdom, which after in other words he expressing, saith, Regnandi authoritate, he was deprived of the authority Bell. l. 5. de summo Ponti. c. 8. of actual reigning, or exercising that authority: whereunto the words of the Scripture seen plainly to agree, which are these: Festinatò expulerunt etc. Azarias and the rest of the Priests did hastily drive him out of the Temple, and he himself being terrified with that which he felt to be the punishment of God, made haste to go forth. Wherefore 2. Par. 26. this King Ozias remaining a leper unto the day of his death, did dwell in a separate house, and he was full of leprosy, for the which he was cast forth of the house of our Lord: so as his son joathan did govern the house of the King, & judge the people of the land. 9 Out of which words of Scripture as also out of the Book of Leviticus, where the law saith, That whosoever Leuit. 13. shallbe spotted with leprosy, and is separated at the appointment of the Priest, shall dwell alone without the tents, Bellarmine doth gather that this separation of King Ozias was not voluntary but by prescript order of the said high Priest Azarias, and that consequently he was deprived also by the same sentence and authority, of his government and administration of the Kingdom; against which T. M. bringeth in a great tempestuous storm of words, and war of the foresaid Doctor Barkley Scottishman, against Cardinal Bellarmine, as though he had refuted him with some contumely and contempt; whereas Doctor Barkley neither nameth nor meaneth Bellarmine, but only Boucher upon his words before recited, against whom he being, according to his custom, somewhat vehement in speech (the difference in substance being little or nothing as you have seen) T. M. endeavoureth by his sleights to increase or aggravate the same. For whereas Doctor Barkley presuming Boucher to understand by those his words De regno eiecit, that Azarias had taken from K. Ozias the name and right of Kingdom, saith unto him; Magna sanè imprudentia vel impudentia est, ea scriptis mandare, quae manifestis scripturae testimoniis redarguuntur: It is truly a great imprudence or impudence, to commit those things to writing which are controlled by manifest Dealings of a makebate. testimonies of Scripture; There our Minister blotteth out in his Latin text the word imprudentia, and will have only to stand impudentia to set them further out than they be, which me thinks was some impudence also in him; and again when the said Barkley writeth immediately after the former words; Malo te negligentiae quam nequitiae reum facere, I had rather accuse you of negligence then of malice; these words also not without some malice T. M. striketh out, and pitifully mangleth the whole discourse, putting in and putting out at his pleasure, and yet all set down in his book as the continual speech of the Author. 10. here than you see how many wilful corruptions there be, first to bring in Doctor Barkley rating of Cardinal Bellarmine with magna sanè impudentia est etc. Whereas he talketh not against Bellarmine at all, nor indeed is Bellarmine's manner of speech contrary to that Enumeration of falsities. which Barkley will have to be the meaning of the History; for that Barkley doth not so much stand upon the thing in controversy for priests authority, but upon the manner of proof by the examples alleged by D. Boucher of jeroboam, Ozias, Athalia, and some other Princes, in whose punishment God used Priests for Ibid. c. 11. means and instruments. Non ignoro (saith he) Ius esse Ecclesiae in Reges & Principes Christianos, nec quale ius sit ignoro, sed id tam alienis argument is ostendi prorsus ignoro; imò non ostendi planè scio: I am not ignorant, saith Doctor Barkley, that the Church hath right over Christian Kings & Princes, nor am I ignorant what manner of right it is; yet do I not see how the same may be proved by such impertinent arguments; nay I know rather that it cannot be so proved. Which words going but very few lines before those that T. M. allegeth, he could not but see, and yet left them out, and then beginneth against us his English text thus: Your own Doctor calleth this your assertion most false, and contrary to the direct History of the Bible, to wit, that Ozias was deposed of his Kingdom by Azarias the high Priest. 11. But now you have seen that howsoever it may be called, either deposition, deprivation, restraint, sequestration or inhibition; certain it is, that he was separated from the administration of the government by 〈◊〉 the high Priest, and whether his son during his life were truly King or only regent or Governor under his Father, or whether he were bound to consult with his said Father in his greatest affairs, & take his approbation and commission, that point, which is most important, Doctor Barkley proveth not, but only that Ozias notwithstanding his separation was called King during his life, which letted not, but Ozias how he was separated by the high Priest. that his son might be truly King also, during his Father's days: for otherwise D. Barkley might aswell say, that his Majesty now of England (for example) was not King of Scotland, whiles his Mother the Queen lived in her exile, which yet I think he will not say; and therefore to use the words impudentia, nequitia, and falsissimum in a matter so doubtful, might perhaps have been omitted; but much more ought to have been the multiplicity of falsities used by T. M. in relating the same, & namely in bringing in Cardinal Bellarmine with such ardent desire to have him contradicted & disgraced, as he not only applieth to him that which was spoken against another, but reciting also two lines of his speech, besides other manglinges, shufleth in falsely two or three words, that overthrow the whole controversy, to wit separatus extra Regnum, that King Ozias was separated by Azarias the Priest forth of the Kingdom: whereas Bellarmine hath not these words extra Regnum at all, but only that he was separated from the City extra urbem in domo solitaria forth of the City in a solitary house, which thing the Scripture itself before related doth testify; whereby you see what botching there is to bring matters to his purpose; and yet will he needs style himself The Minister of simple truth. 12. It followeth in the 16. page thus: Your devise (saith he) of exemption of Priests (from the jurisdiction of temporal The third example pag. 16. Princes in certain cases) is to crude to be digested by any reasonable Divine, for (as your Victoria saith) Priests, besides that they are Ministers of the Church, they are likewise members of the Commonwealth, and a King is aswell a King of the Clergy, as of the laity, therefore the Clergy is subject unto the civil authority in temporal things, for such matter is not ruled by any power spiritual: A plain demonstration. So he. And I say the same, that indeed it is a plain demonstration of his egregious falsehood, and abusing his Reader. First in making him believe, that the learned man Franciscus de Victoria doth favour him or his in this matter of the exemption of Priests, whereas in this very place here cited by T. M. his first proposition 〈◊〉. de Victoria relect. 1. of all in this matter is this: Ecclesiastici iure sunt exempti etc. I do affirm that Ecclesiastical men are by Law exempted, and freed from civil power, so as they may not be convented de potest. Ecclesiae Sect. 4. before a secular judge, either in criminal or civil causes, & the contrary doctrine to this is condemned for Heretical, among the articles of john Wickliff in the Council of Constance. So he. And now see whether Victoria make for him or no, or whether he digested well this crude doctrine of priests exemption, as this Minister's phrase is. 13. Secondly if we consider, either the English translation here set down out of the words of Victoria, Variety of corruptions or his Latin text, for ostentation sake put in the margin, we shall find so many and monstrous foul corruptions, intercisions, geldings and mutilations, as is a shame to behold; and I beseech the learned Reader to have patience to confer but this one place only with the Author, and he will rest instructed in the man's spirit for the rest: but he must find them as I hàue cited them here in the margin, and not as T. M. Victoria his propositions about exemption of Clergy men, and T. M his corruptions therein. erroneously quoteth them, if not of purpose to escape the examine. For that Victoria having set down his precedent general proposition, for the exemption of Clergy men, that they were exempted jure by Law, he passeth on to examine in his second proposition Quo iure, by what Law, divine or human they are exempted; and in his third, he holdeth that Aliqua exemptio Clericorum est de iure Divino: That some kind of exemptions of Clergy men from civil power, is by divine Law, and not human only, and four he cometh to this which here is set down by T. M. but not as he setteth it down. Our fourth proposition (saith Victoria) is, that the persons of Clergy men are not absolutely, and in all things exempted from civil power either by divine or human law; which is evident by that Clergy men are bound to obey the temporal laws of the City, or Commonwealth wherein they live, in those things that do appertain to the temporal government, and administration thereof, and do not let or hinder Ecclesiastical government. 14. These are the words of Victoria as they lie together in him, and then after some arguments interposed, for his said conclusion, he addeth also this proof: That for so much as Clergy men besides this, that they are Ministers of the Church, are Citizens also of the Commonwealth, they are bound to obey the temporal laws of that Commonwealth or Prince in temporal affairs; and then ensueth the last reason (here set down in English by T. M.) in these words: Moreover (saith Victoria) for that a King is King not only of lay-men, but of Clergymen also, therefore aliquo modo subiiciuntur ei, in some sort they are subject unto him: Which words aliquo modo in some sort, the Minister leaveth out; and than it followeth immediately in Victoria: And for that Clergymen are not governed in temporal matters by Ecclesiastical power, therefore they have their temporal Prince, unto whom they are bound to yield obedience in temporal affairs. 15. And this is all that Victoria hath in this matter, & in these very words. And let any man consider the patching, which T. M. useth both in English and Latin in this place, to make some show for his feigned demonstration out of Victoria, and he will see how poor and miserable a man he is, and how miserable a cause he defendeth. And in particular, let the very last proposition be noted which he citeth, and Englisheth as out of Victoria, to wit, the Clergy is subject unto the civil authority in temporal things, for such matter is not ruled by any power spiritual, whereby he would have his Reader to imagine, that no spiritual power may have authority to govern temporal matters; whereas the words of Changing of nominative cases. Victoria are: Clerici quantum ad temporalia non administrantur potestate Ecclesiastica, that Clergy men, for so much as appertaineth to temporal affairs, are not governed by Ecclesiastical power, but by the temporal which there beareth rule: So as this fellow by a subtle sleight changing the nominative case from Clerici non administrantur to temporalia non administrantur, frameth his plain demonstration out of plain cozenage and forgery. And is this naked innocency? 16. From the page 18. unto 27. he handleth together many sentences and authorities of ancient Fathers, The 4. example pag. 18. 19 20. alleged by Catholic Authors Cunerus, Tolosanus, and especially Barkleius, to show that the Apostles and their successors, and those Fathers amongst the rest, did not take arms against their Princes either Infidels or Christians, but did rather suffer injuries, then seek by force to revenge the same; which being our conclusion in like manner, and held and defended by Frauds used out of the ancient Fathers and Cath. writers. our Catholic writers as you see, and that for the most part, by name against Protestant writers & practisers, both in Scotland, France, Flanders, & other places, you may perceive how corruptly this is brought in against us, as though our common belief and exercise were the contrary, & this may be called falsification and sophistication of our meaning. 17. But yet if we would examine the particular authorities that be alleged about this matter, though nothing making against us as hath been said, & consider how many false shifts are used by T. M. therein; you would say he were a Doctor in deed in that science, for that a several Treatise will scarce contain them. I will touch only two for examples sake. He citeth Doctor Barkley, bringing in the authority of S. Ambrose, that he resisted not by force his Arrian Emperor, pag. 24. when he would take a Church from him for the Arrians, but he setteth not down what answer of his Doctor Barkley doth allege in the very self same Barkleus l. 3. cap. 5. place, which is: Allegatur Imperatori licere omnia etc. It is alleged that it is lawful for the Emperor to do all things, for that all things are his (and consequently that he may assign a Church to the Arrians:) Whereto I answer saith S. Ambrose; trouble not yourself O Emperor, nor think that you have Imperial right over those things that are divine; do not exalt yourself, but if you will reign long, be subject to God, for it is written Ambros. l. 5. Ep. 33. that those things that belong to God must be given to God, and to Cesar only those things that belong to Cesar; Palaces appertain to the Emperor, A clear authority of S. Ambrose embezzled by T. M. but Churches to the Priest, the right of defending public walls is committed to you, but not of sacred things. Thus Doctor Barkley out of S. Ambrose in the very place cited by T. M. which he thought good wholly to pretermit, and cut of, as not making for his purpose; and so had he done more wisely, if he had left out also the other authority of Pope Leo, which he reciteth in the eight place of authorities, out of ancient Fathers in these words. 18. The eighth Father (saith he) is Pope Leo, writing The fifth example. to a true Catholic Emperor, saying: You may not be ignorant that your Princely power is given unto you, not Pag. 26. only in worldly regiment, but also spiritual, for the preservation of the Church: as if he said not only in cases temporal but also in spiritual, so far as it belongeth to the outward preservation, not to the personal administration of them, and this is the substance of our English oath: And further neither do our Kings of England challenge, nor subjects condescend unto. In which words you see two things are contained, first what authority S. Leo the Pope above eleven hundred years gone ascribed unto Leo the Emperor in matters spiritual and Ecclesiastical. The second, by this man's assertion, that neither our Kings of England challenge, nor do the subjects condescend unto any more in the oath of the Supremacy that is proposed unto them; which if it be so, I see no cause why all English Catholics may not take the same in like manner, so far forth as S. Leo alloweth spiritual authority to the Emperor of his time. Wherefore it behoveth that the Reader stand attended to the deciding of this question, for if this be true which here he saith, our controversy about the Supremacy is at an end. 19 First then about the former point, let us consider how many ways T. M. hath corrupted the foresaid Many falsehoods. authority of S. Leo, partly by fraudulent allegation in Latin, and partly by false translation into English. For that in Latin it goeth thus, as himself putteth it down in the margin: Debes incunctanter advertere, Regiam potestatem non solùm ad mundi regimen, sed maximè ad Ecclesiae praesidium esse collatam. You ought (o Emperor) resolutely to consider, that your Kingly power is not only given unto you for government of the world, or worldly affairs, but especially for defence of the Church: and then do ensue immediately these other words also in S. Leo, suppressed fraudulently by the Minister, for that they explicate the meaning of the Author: Vt ausus nefarios comprimendo, & quae bene sunt statuta Leo ep. 75. ad Leonem Augustum. defendas, & veram pacem his quae sunt turbata restituas: To the end that you may by repressing audacious attempts both defend those things that are well ordained and decreed, (as namely in the late general Council of Chalcedon) and restore peace where matters are troubled, as in the City and Sea of Alexandria, where the Patriarch Proterius being slain and murdered by the conspiracy of the Dioscorian Heretics, lately condemned in the said Council, all things are in most violent garboils, which require your imperial power to remedy, compose, and compress the same. 20. This is the true meaning of S. Leo his speech to the good and Religious Emperor of the same name, as appear throughout the whole Epistle here cited Ibid. c. 5. and divers others. Nun perspicuum est (saith he) quibus pietas vestra succurrere, & quibus obuiare, ne Alexandrina Ecclesia etc. Is it not evident whom your Imperial piety ought to assist and succour, and whom you ought to resist and repress, to the end the Church of Alexandria, that hitherto hath been the house of prayer, become not a den of thieves? Surely it is most manifest that by this late barbarous and most furious cruelty (in murdering that Patriarch) all the light of heavenly Sacraments is there extinguished; Intercepta est The Christian sacrifice ceased in Alexandria. Sacrificij oblatio, defecit chrismatis sanctificatio etc. The oblation of sacrifice is intermitted, the hallowing of Chrism is ceased, and all divine mysteries of our Religion have withdrawn themselves from those parricidial hands of those Heretics, that have murdered their own Father and Patriarch Proterius, burned his body, and cast the ashes into the air. 21. This than was the cause and occasion wherein the holy Pope Leo did implore the help and secular arm of Leo the Emperor, for chastising those turbulent Heretics, to which effect he saith that his Kingly power was not only given him for the government of the world, but also for the defence of the Church, which our Minister doth absurdly translate not only in Notable corruption of S. Leo his meaning. worldly regiment, but also spiritual for the preservation of the Church, turning ad into in, and praesidium into preservation; and then maketh the commentary which before we have set down: As if he had said (quoth he) not only in causes temporal, but also in spiritual, so far as it belongeth to outward preservation, not to the personal administration of them. 22. And here now he showeth himself entangled, not only about the assertion of Imperial power in About Ecclesiastical supremacy in temporal Princes. spiritual matters, by that S. Leo saith it is given ad praesidium Ecclesiae, to the defence of the Church, which proveth nothing at all for him, but against him rather as you see, and much more in the explication thereof, to wit, what is meant by this authority, & how far it stretcheth itself: wherein truly I never found Protestant yet that could clearly set down the same, so as he could make it a distinct doctrine from ours, and give it that limits which his fellows would agree unto, or themselves make probable. 23. About which matter M. Morton here as you see (who seemeth no small man amongst them, and his book must be presumed to have come forth with the approbation and allowance of his Lord and Master the Archbishop at least) saith as you have heard, that it is no more, but such as S. Leo allowed in the Emperor ad Ecclesiae praesidium to the defence of the Church, and Church matters and men, and for punishing Heretics that troubled the same. And further more T. Pag. 26. M. expoundeth the matter saying: That this Imperial & Kingly authority in spiritual causes reacheth no further, but as it belongeth to outward preservation, not to the personal administration of them. And do not we grant also the same? Or do not we teach that temporal Prince's power ought principally, as S. Leo saith, to extend itself to the defence ad preservation of the Church? In this then we agree and have no difference. 24. There followeth in T. M. his assertion here: But not in the personal administration of them (to wit of spiritual causes, & this now is a shift dissembling the T. M. his conceit of the oath of 〈◊〉 in England. difficulty, and true State of the question) which is in whom consisteth the supreme power, to treat, judge, and determine in spiritual causes; which this man flying, as not able to resolve, telleth us only, that he cannot personally administer the same; which yet I would ask him why? For as a Bishop may personally perform all the actions, that he hath given authority to inferior Priests to do in their functions, and a temporal Prince may execute in his own person, if he list, any inferior authority that he hath given to others in temporal affairs; so, if he have supreme authority spiritual also, why may he not in like manner execute the same by himself, if he please? But of this is sufficiently written of late in the foresaid book of Answer to Sir Edward Cook, where also is showed, Answer to Sir Edward Cook c. 2. & 3. that a far greater authority spiritual was given to King Henry the eight by Parliament, than this that T. M. alloweth his Majesty now for outward preservation of the Church, to wit To be head thereof, in as ample manner, as ever the Pope was, or could be held before him, over Statut. 〈◊〉 26 Hen. 8. cap. 1. ann. 〈◊〉 1535. England: and to King Edward, though then but of ten years old was granted also by Parliament, That he had originally in himself by his Crown and Sceptre all Episcopal authority; so as the Bishops and Archbishops had no other power, or spiritual authority than was derived from him: & to Queen Statut. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 6. 〈◊〉 1547. Elizabeth by like grant of Parliament, was also given as great authority spiritual and Ecclesiastical over the Church and Clergy of England, as ever any person had, or could exercise before, which was and is another thing then this Stat. 1. outward preservation which T. M. now assigneth, Eliza. 〈◊〉. 1559. having pared the same in minced words to his purpose, to make it seem little or nothing, but dareth not stand to it, if he be called to the trial. 25. Wherefore this matter being of so great importance and consequence as you see, I do here take hold of this his public assertion, and require that it may be made good, to wit, that this is the substance & meaning only of the English oath, and that neither our Kings of England do challenge more, nor subjects required to condescend to more than to grant to their authority for outward preservation, or ad Ecclesiae praesidium, as S. Leo his words Hold taken on the offer of T. M. about the oath of Supremacy. and meaning are, and I dare assure him, that all Catholics in England will presently take the oath, and so for this point there will be an atonement. Me thinks that such public doctrine should not be so publicly printed, and set forth, without public allowance and intention to perform and make it good. If this be really meant, we may easily be accorded; if not then will the Reader see, what credit may be given to any thing they publish; notwithstanding this book cometh forth with this special commendation of Published by authority etc. 26. And for conclusion of all, it may be noted that there hath been not only lack of truth and fidelity in S. Leo 〈◊〉 ep. 34. 46. 62. 81. 87. Serm. 1. de nata. citing Pope Leo for Ecclesiastical Supremacy in Emperors above Popes, but want of modesty & discretion also; for so much as no one ancient Father doth more often and earnestly inculcate the contrary, for Apostolorum Petri & Pauli. the pre-eminence of the Sea of Rome, then doth S. Leo; in so much that john Calvin, not being able otherwise to answer him, saith, that he was tooto desirous of glory & 〈◊〉. l. 4. instit. c. 7. §. 11. dominion, and so shifteth him of that way; and therefore he was no fit instance for T. M. to bring here in proof of spiritual supremacy in temporal Princes. 27. But yet in the very next page after, he useth a far greater immodesty, or rather perfidy in my opinion in calumniation of Cardinal Bellarmine, whom he abuseth The sixth example of Cardinal Bellarmine. notably both in allegation, exposition, translation, application, and vain insultation; for thus he citeth in his text out of him. Ancient general Councils (saith the Romish pretence) were not gathered without the cost of good and Christian Emperors, and were made by their consents, for in those days the Popes did make supplication to the Emperor, that by his authority he would gather Synods, but after those times all causes were changed, because the Pope who is head in spiritual matters cannot be subject in temporal. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Concil. cap. 13. §. Habemus ergo. 28. And having alleged this resolution of Bellarmine, the Minister insulteth over him in these words: Who would think this man could be a Papist, much less a jesuit, how much less a Cardinal, who thus disableth the title of the Pope, granting to us in these words: after these times (that is after six hundred years) the truth of purer antiquities challenging Popes to be subject unto Christian Emperors? And yet who but a Papist would (as it were in despite of antiquity) defend the degenerate state, saying, after those times Popes might not be subject A childish insultation of T. M. over Cardinal Bellarmine. in temporal matters? As if he should have said: Then gracious favour of ancient Christian Emperors, then sound judgement of ancient reverend Fathers, then devout subjection of ancient holy Popes; in sum then ancient purity and pure antiquity adieu. But we may not so bastardly reject the depositum and doctrine of humble subjection, which we have received from our Fathers of the first six hundred years; and not so only, but which (as your Barkley witnesseth) the universal Christian world embraced, with common consent for a full thousand years. So he. 29. And do you see how this Minister triumpheth? Who would think that men of conscience or credit could make such ostentation upon mere lies devised by themselves, as now we shall show all this brag to be? And as for D. Barkley alleged in the last lines, Barkleius l. 6. adverse. Monarch. c. 26 let any man read him in the book and Chapter cited, and he will wonder at the impudence of this vaunter; for he speaketh no one word of gathering councils, or comparison of spiritual authority between the Pope and Emperor, concerning their gathering of Councils or Synods; but of a quite different subject, of taking arms by subjects against their lawful temporal Princes. And what will our Minister then answer to this manifest calumniation so apparently convinced out of Doctor Barkley? But let us pass to the view of that which toucheth Cardinal Bellarmine, against whom all this tempest is raised. 30. First then we shall set down his words in Latin according as T. M. citeth him in his margin. Tunc Concilia generalia fiebant (saith he) non sine Imperatorum sumptibus, & eo tempore Pontifex subiiciebat se Imperatoribus Bellar. l. 1. de Conciliis ca 13. §. habemus ergo. in temporalibus, & ideo non poterant invito Imperatore aliquid agere: id●irco Pontifex supplicabat Imperatori ut iuberet convocari Synodum. At post illa tempora, omnes causae mutatae sunt, quia Pontifex qui est caput in spiritualibus, non est subiectus in temporalibus. Then in those days general Councils were made not without the charges of Emperors, & in that time the Pope did subject himself unto Emperors in temporal affairs, and therefore they could do nothing against the emperors will, for which cause the Pope did make supplication to the Emperor, that he would command Synods to be gathered; but after those times all causes were changed, for that the Pope who is head in spiritual matters, is not subject in temporal affairs. So he. 31. And here let us consider the variety of sleights & shifts of this our Minister, not only in citing Beauties words falsely, and against his meaning and drift in Latin, whereof we shall speak presently; but in perverting this Latin that he hath so corruptly set divers sorts of corruption. down in his former English translation. For first having said according to the Latin, that general Councils in those days were not gathered without the cost of Emperors, he addeth presently of his own, and were made by their consents, which is not in the Latin: and then he cutteth of the other words immediately ensuing, which contain the cause; to wit for that the Pope's subjecting themselves in those days touching temporalities unto the Emperors (as having no temporal States or dominion yet of their own) could do nothing without them, and therefore did make supplication to the said Emperors that they would command Synods to be gathered: which T. M. translateth that they would gather Synods, as though Bellarmine did affirm, that it lay in the Emperors, by right, to do it: but after those times omnes causae mutatae sunt, all causes were changed, but he should have said, are changed, as Beauties true words are, omnes istae causae, all these causes are changed, to wit four sorts of causes, which he setteth down, why general councils could not be well gathered in those days without the emperors help and authority, which words are guilefully cut of by this deceiver, as in like manner the last words put down here by himself, Pontifex non est subiectus in temporalibus, are falsely translated, cannot be subject in temporal, and again afterward, Popes might not be subject in temporal matters, which is to make Bellarmine contrary to himself, who saith a little before that the Popes did subject themselves for many years, whereby is proved, that they could do it; but Beauties' meaning is that in right by the pre-eminence of their spiritual dignity, they were exempted, & not bound thereunto. 32. And thus much now for the corruptions used in the words here set down both in Latin & English. But if we would go to Bellarmine himself and see his whole discourse, and how brokenly and perfidiously these lines are cut out of him, and here patched together as one entire context contrary to his drift and meaning, we shall marvel more at the insolency of Thomas Morton, triumphing over his own The sum of Cardinal Bellarmine's discourse 〈◊〉 by T. M. lie, as before hath been said; for that Bellarmine having proved at large, and by many sorts of arguments and demonstrations, throughout divers Chapters together, that the right of gathering general Councils belongeth only to the Bishop of Rome, and having answered all objections that could be made against the same in the behalf of Emperors, or other temporal Princes, granting only that for certain causes in those first ages, the same could not be done (in respect of temporal difficulties) without the help & assistance of the said Emperors, that were Lords of the world; he cometh to make this conclusion which here is cited by T. M. but in far other words and meaning then here he is cited. You shall hear how he setteth it down, & thereupon consider of the truth of this Minister. Habemus ergo (saith he) prima illa Concilia etc. We Bellar. l. de Concil. cap 13. have then by all this disputation seen, how those first Christian Councils were commanded by Emperors §. Habemus ergo. to be gathered, but by the sentence and consent of Popes, and why the Pope alone in those days did not call Councils, as afterward hath been accustomed; the reason was, not for that Councils gathered without the emperors consent are not lawful, as our Adversaries would have it, for against that is the express authority of S. Athanasius saying: Quando Athan. in ep. ad solitar. vitam agentes. unquam judicium Ecclesiae ab Imperatore authoritatem habuit? When was it ever seen that the judgement of the Church did take authority from the Emperor? but for many other most just causes was the emperors consent required therein etc. So Bellarmine. 33. And here now you see, that Beauties' drift is wholly against M. morton's assertion: for that he denieth four causes why Emperors consents were necessary for gathering of councils in old time. that ever the Emperors had any spiritual authority for calling of councils; but only that they could not well in those days be made without them, and that for four several causes; whereof the first was, for that the old Imperial laws made by Gentiles were yet in use, whereby all great meetings of people were forbidden, for fear of sedition, except by the emperors knowledge & licence: the second for that emperors being temporal Lords of the whole world, the councils could be made in no City of theirs without See ff. de Coll. ill. & l. convent. de Episc. & Presbyteris. their leave: the third for that general Councils being made in those days, by the public charges & contributions of Cities, and especially of Christian Emperors themselves, as appeareth by Eusebius, Theodoretus, & other writers, it was necessary to have their consent and approbation in so public an action, as Euseb. l. 3. de vita Constant. Theodor. l. 1. Histor. cap. 16. that was. 34. The fourth and last cause was (saith Bellarmine) for that in those days, albeit the Bishop of Rome where head in spiritual matters over the Emperors themselves; yet in temporal affairs he did subject himself unto them, as having no temporal State of his own, and therefore acknowledging them to be his temporal Lords, he did make supplication unto them to command Synods to be gathered by their authority and licence: At post illa tempora istae omnes causae mutatae sunt; but since those days all these four causes are changed & ipse in suis Provinciis est Princeps Supremus temporalis, sicut sunt Reges & Principes alij; and the Pope himself now in his temporal Provinces is supreme temporal Lord also, as other Kings & Princes are, which was brought to pass by Gods providence (saith Bellarmine) to the end that he might with more freedom, liberty, and reputation exercise his office of general Pastorship. 35. And this is all that Bellarmine hath of this matter. And now may we consider the vanity of this morton's triumph over him before, and how falsely he dealeth with him, alleging him against his own drift and meaning, leaving out also 〈◊〉 four causes by me recited, and then cutting of 〈◊〉 the particle istae, these causes are now changed, which includeth reference to these four, aid furthermore speaking indefinitely, as though all causes and matters were now changed, seeketh thereby to deceive his Reader, and to extort from Bellarmine, that confession of 〈◊〉 on his side which he never meant, and much less uttered in his writings. What dealing, what conscience, what truth is this? 36. In the very next page after he talking of the great and famous contention that passed between Pope Gregory the seventh called Hildebrand, and Henry the The 7. example out of Otho Frisingensis. fourth Emperor of that name, about the year 1070. he citeth the Historiographer Otto Frisingensis, with this ordinary title of our Otto for that he writeth, that he found not any Emperor actually excommunicated or deprived of his Kingdom by any Pope before that time, except (saith he) that may be esteemed for an excommunication which was done to Philippe the Emperor by the Bishop of Rome, almost 1400. years gone, when for a short time, he was Inter paenitentes collocatus, placed by the said Pope among those that did penance, as that also of the Emperor Theodosius, who was sequestered from entering into the Church by S. Ambrose, for that he had commanded a certain cruel slaughter to be committed in the City of 〈◊〉: both which exceptions this Minister of simple truth leaveth out of purpose, which is no simplicity as you see, but yet no great matter with him in respect of the other that ensueth, which is, that he allegeth this Frisin. l. 6. hist. c. 32. Frisingensis quite contrary to his own meaning, as though he had 〈◊〉 Pope Gregory the seventh for it, whereas he condemneth that cause of the Emperor, Otho Frisingensis abused. and commendeth highly the Pope for his constancy in punishing the notorious intolerable faults of the said Henry. 〈◊〉 (saith he) semper in Ecclesiastico rigore constantissimus fuit: Hildebrand was ever the most constant in 〈◊〉 the rigour of Ecclesiastical 〈◊〉. l. 6. c. 36. discipline. And 〈◊〉 in this very Chapter here alleged by T. M. Inter onnes Sacerdotes & Romanos 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 zeli & authoritatis fuit: he was among all the Priests and Pops that had been of the Roman Sea of most principal zeal and authority. How different is this judgement of Frisingensis from the censure of T. M. who now after five hundred years past, compareth the cause of Pope Gregory, to that of Pirates, thieves, and murderers, and so citeth our 〈◊〉 Frisingensis as though he had favoured him in this impious assertion. Can any thing be more fraudently alleged? Is this the assurance 〈◊〉 his upright conscience, whereof he braggeth to his Majesty? 37. But the next fraud or impudence or rather impudent impiety is that which ensueth within four The 8. example of Lamb. Scafnaburgensis. lines after in these words: Pope Gregory the seventh (saith your Chronographer) was excommunicate of the Bishops of Italy, for that he had defamed the Apostolic Sea by Simony, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 itall crimes, & then citeth for proof her of Lambertus Schafnaburg. anno 〈◊〉. As if this our Chronographer had related this as a thing of truth, or that it were approved by him, and not rather as a slanderous objection cast out by his Adversaries that followed the part of Henry the Emperor. Let any man read the place, and year here cited, and if he be a modest man, he will blush at such shameless dealing. For that no Author of that time doth more earnestly defend the cause & virtuous life of Pope Hildebrand, than this man, whose words are: Sed apud omnes sanum aliquid sapientes luce clarius constabat falsa esse quae dicebantur: Nam & Papa tam 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. in histor. Germaniaes an. 1077. sub finem. eximiè tamque 〈◊〉 vitam instituebat etc. But with all men of sound wisdom it was more clear than the sun, that the things which were spoken against Pope Hildebrand were false, for that the Pope did lead such an excellent and Apostolic life, as the sublimity of his conversation did admit no least spot of wicked rumour against him, he living in that great City and open concourse of men, it could not have been hidden, if he had committed any unlawful thing in his life: and moreover the signs and miracles, which by his prayers were often times done, and his most fervent zeal for God in defence of Ecclesiastical laws, did sufficiently defend him against the poisoned tongues of his detractors. And again: Hildebrandi constantia, & invictus adversus avaritiam animus omnia excludebat argumenta humanae fallaciae: the constancy of Pope Hildebrand, and his invincible mind against the corruption of avarice, did exclude all arguments of human fallacy and deceit. So Lambertus. 38. And now let the Reader consider with what conscience and fidelity T. M. hath cited him for condemnation of Pope Hildebrand. He relateth indeed, what certain Noble men, Captains and others, that The submission of the Emperor Henry the fourth to Pope Hildebrand at 〈◊〉. came with the Emperor to the Castle of Canusium, and would not have had him made peace with the Pope in that place, said in their rage afterwards, for that against their Counsel he had submitted himself unto the said Pope, & when a certain Bishop named Eppo, was sent to their Camp by the Pope, and Emperor to inform them of the agreement and submission made: Fremere omnes (saith this Story) & saevire verbis, & manibus caeperunt, Apostolicae legationi irrisoriis 〈◊〉 ubi 〈◊〉. exclamationibus obstrepere, convitia & maledicta turpissima quaecunque furor suggessisset irrogare. All of them began to fret and wax fierce, both in words and casting their hands, and with scornful outcries to contradict this Apostolical legation sent unto them, and to cast upon the Pope all the most foul reproaches and maledictions that fury could suggest unto them. Thus saith Lambertus: and then setteth down the particular slanderous reproaches here cited by T. M. which he approveth not, but condemneth as you have heard, & highly commendeth not only the virtue but sanctity also of the Pope. And will ever any man credit T. M. any more in any thing that he allegeth, when this conscienceles falsification is once discovered in him? yea though it were but once throughout his whole book, it were sufficient to prove that he dealeth not out of any faith or conscience at all. 39 If an enemy would discredit both Christ and Christian Religion, and say your own Evangelists do recount foul things against him (as here this Minister saith our Historiographer doth of Pope Gregory) A comparison expressing the fraud of T.M. and namely that he was accused by the Scribes and pharisees for casting out devils in the power of Belzebub; for deceiving the people; for denying tribute of the paid to Cesar; for moving sedition, and other like crimes, which our Evangelists do recount indeed, but do condemn them also as false and calumnious; were not this as good and faithful a manner of reasoning, as this other of Thomas Morton out of Lambertus and Frisingensis against Pope Hildebrand, who is by them both most highly commended as you have heard, and his Adversaries condemned? Truly, if any man can show me out of all the Catholic writers that be extant, English or other, that ever any one of them used this shameful fraud in writing, where no excuse can free them from malicious and witting falsehood, then will I grant that it is not proper to the Protestant spirit alone. Hitherto I must confess that I never found it in any, and if I should, though it were but once, I should hold it for a sufficient argument not to believe him ever after. And this shall suffice for a taste only of M. morton's manner of proceeding. For that to prosecute all particulars would require a whole volume, and by these few you may guess at the man's vain and spirit in writing. THE SECOND PART OF THIS CHAPTER, REPRESENTING Some of the falsifications which are uttered in the former Part of M. morton's Reply, Which came to our hands after our Answer made before in our second Chapter against his ten Reasons. ANd now albeit these false and fraudulent dealings laid open in the precedent Part of this Chapter, be sufficient or rather superabundant to descry this Minister and his naked innocency, who in his Epistle to his Majesty, as before hath been touched calleth himself A Minister of simple truth and upright conscience; yet for more perfect complement of the same, I have thought good to adjoin also a second Part to this Chapter, and therein to draw to light some number of his notorious untruths, corruptions, sleights, falsifications and calumniations uttered in the former Part of his Reply to the moderate Reader, which Part not coming to my hands until I had made the answer which before I have set down in the second Chapter of this Treatise against his Discovery, I could not conveniently discuss the same particularly therein: but now by that which here you shall see produced, you may easily guess how worthy a piece of work it is, and what credit the man deserveth that made it. And albeit the brevity purposed by me in this place, permitteth not the examine of all, or of the greater part; yet verbum sapienti sat est, the discreet Reader by a few examples which demonstrate that the writer wanteth remorse of conscience in his asseverations, will easily see how far he is to be credited in all his writings. Wherefore to the examine itself. 41. In the third page of his said Reply, he beginning to talk of the nature of heresy, hath these words: The first example of corruptions. We may not be ignorant, first that seeing the nature of heresy is such, that it is a vice proper to the mind, it may denominate the subject whatsoever an Heretic, without obstinacy, which is only a perverse 〈◊〉 of the will, and therefore a man may be an Heretic though he be not obstinate: And for proof of Vasq. disp. 126. c. 3. this false doctrine, he citeth in his margin Vasquez jesuita, whose words are: Malitia huius 〈◊〉 intellectu, non in voluntate consummatur, the malice of this sin of In 1 tomo. heresy, is perfected or made consummate in the understanding, and not in the will, which our Minister About the nature of heresy and pertinacy. understanding not, and yet desirous, as in his preface to the kings Majesty he insinuateth, to divide our tongues, & to make our writers seem contrary the one to the other, hath fond slandered the learned man Vasquez in this place, by making him seem to be patron of this his absurd doctrine, that heresy may bewithout obstinacy; whereas Vasquez in the very same disputation here by him cited, expressly doth impugn this doctrine and establisheth the contrary, defining heresy thus: Haeresis nihil aliud est quam error in rebus 〈◊〉 cum pertinacia, Heresy is Ibid. c. 1. nothing else, but an error in matters of faith with obstinacy. 42. Which another learned man of the same school, by somewhat a more ample definition declareth thus: Heresy (saith he) is an error contrary to the Catholic faith, Valentia in 2. 2. qu. 〈◊〉. punct. 1 〈◊〉. 4. summa par 2. c. 1. & Doctores omnes 4 d. 13. & D. Tho. 2, 2 art. 2. Vide etiam Clar. 24. q. 3. Can. dixit Apostolus, & Can. Qui in Ecclesia. whereunto a man that hath professed the said faith in his baptism, doth adhere with an obstinate mind: Which definition he proveth ex communi mente Doctorum by the common consent of school Doctors. And finally not to stand upon a thing so clear among us S. Thomas for decision hereof hath these words: De ratione Haeresis sunt duo, electio privatae disciplinae, & pertinacia: Two things are of the essence and intrinsical nature of heresy, without which Heresy cannot be, the one the choice or election of a particular doctrine, discipline, or opinion, contrary to the doctrine of the universal Church; the other pertinacy or obstinacy in defending the same, though the party know that it be against the doctrine of the Church, without which knowledge and obstinacy there can be no Heresy. 43. This is our Catholic doctrine about the nature of Heresy, to wit, that it cannot be without obstinacy, which is so common and trivial, as it is now come into an ordinary proverb, to say: Well I may be in Obstinacy necessary to heresy. error, but Heretic I will never be, for that I will hold nothing obstinately. And as for the words of Vasquez: that the malice of Heresy is consummated in the understanding, and not in the will; if our Minister had read the other words immediately going before, he might perhaps have understood Vasquez meaning, for they are these: Vt aliquis sit verè reus Haeresis etc. To make a man be truly guilty of Heresy, it is not necessary that he be Vasquez his discourse about pertinacy. carried directly in his affection or will against the authority of the Church, that is to say, it is not needful that he have an express will and purpose to disobey or contradict the Church, but it is enough that he do contradict the same re ipsa, indeed, knowing that opinion which he defendeth to be against the authority of the said universal Church, albeit he be not induced to this belief with a direct will to impugn the Church, but either by desire of glory, or other inducement: so as indeed the malice of this sin is consummated in the understanding and not in the will. 44. This is the discourse and doctrine of Vasquez in this place about the nature and essence of Heresy, wherein he doth not exclude either the understanding, or will, but includeth them both expressly: for that as there must be knowledge, which appertaineth to the mind or understanding, so must there be choice with obstinacy, which belongeth to the will and affection; but his scholastical consideration is, in which of these two powers of our soul this sin of Heresy receiveth her consummation. For better explication thereof, let us use this example: If a man should hold or believe an erroneous proposition contrary to the doctrine of the Catholic Church, as for example, that there were but one nature in Christ, not knowing it to be against the Catholic Church, it were How 〈◊〉 is consummated in the understanding and not in the will. false in itself, and an error in his understanding, but not Heresy, except also by act of his will he should choose to hold it with resolution and obstinacy, even after that he knoweth the same to be against the doctrine of the said Church, for then this knowledge (saith Vasquez) that it is against the Church, maketh it perfect and consummate Heresy, albeit the matter pass not to a further act of will, to wit. that he chooseth expressly to contradict the authority of the Church therein, which should be a greater sin, but yet is not necessary, for that the perfect nature of Heresy is consummated, by knowing that it is against the Church; and for that this notice or knowledge belongeth to the understanding, therefore Vasquez holdeth, that the last perfection or consummation of this sin, is in the understanding, and not in the will, not meaning to exclude thereby obstinacy of the will (as ignorantly T.M. doth, when he saith we may not be ignorant:) but to show in what power of the mind, the last perfection & consummation of this heinous sin consisteth, to wit, that a man may be a perfect and consummate Heretic, by holding obstinately any opinion against the doctrine of the Church, after we once know it to be against the said Churches doctrine, though we have not that further malice also of express will, and purpose, to contradict thereby the said Church, but only we hold the same, for that the opinion pleaseth us, or is profitable, or honourable to us, or thereby to contradict another, or some such like inducement, according Aug. l. de util. credend. ad honour. to those words of S. Augustine to Honoratus: Haereticus est qui alicuius temporalis commodi, & maximè gloriae principatusque sui gratia, falsas ac novas opiniones, vel gignit vel sequitur: An Heretic is he, who in respect of some temporal commodity, but especially for his own glory and pre-eminence, doth beget or follow false and new opinions. 45. The same S. Augustine also against the Donatists Aug. l. 4. contr. Donat. c. 16. proposeth this example: Constituamus (saith he) aliquem sentire de Christo quod Photinus etc. Let us imagine one to think of Christ, as Photinus the Heretic did, persuading himself, that it is the Catholic faith etc. istum nondum Haereticum dico (saith he) nisi manifestata sibi doctrina Catholicae fidei resistere maluerit & illud quod tenebat elegerit. I do not yet say that this man is an 〈◊〉, S. Augustine's explication of the whole matter. until after that the doctrine of the Catholic faith being opened unto him, he shall choose notwithstanding to resist, and to hold by choice, that which before he held by error. In which words S. Augustine doth evidently declare, how necessary both knowledge & will are unto Heresy, and consequently how absurd and ridiculous the assertion of M. Morton is, that Heresy being a vice proper to the understanding, may denominate the subject whatsoever an Heretic, without obstinacy of will. For 〈◊〉 we grant with all Divines, that Heresy is in the understanding as in her subject (and so is faith also that is her opposite) and further that her last perfection and consummation is from the foresaid knowledge in the understanding, as Vasquez doth explain it: yet doth not Vasquez or any Divine else exclude the necessity of pertinacity also, and election in the will, & consequently both his words and meaning have been evidently falsified, and calumniated by T. M. and so much of this first charge, whereby you may see what books might be made against him, if we would follow his steps in all his fraudulent traces. But yet let us see somewhat more in this very leaf and page. 46. For within few lines after he beginneth his 2. Example about true Religion. third Chapter with these words: That is only true Religion (say your Romish Doctors) which is taught in the Romish Church, & therefore whosoever maintaineth any doctrine condemned in that Church, must be accounted an obstinate Heretic. And in the Cuner de office Princip. cap. 13. margin he citeth Cunerus, alleging his Latin words thus: Haec est Religionis sola ratio, ut omnes intelligant, sic simpliciter esse credendum atque loquendum, quemadmodum Romana Ecclesia credendum esse docet ac praedicat: Which words if they were truly alleged out of the Author, yet were they not truly translated: for if by only true Religion (a corrupt translation of Religionis solaratio) be applied to particular positions and articles of Religion; then S. August. in Psa. 54. in verba Psalm. In multis 〈◊〉 mecum, & Epist. 48. we grant that such true Religion may be also among Heretics, & not only taught in the Roman Church, for that, as S. Augustine well noteth, Heretics also hold many articles of true Catholic Religion: but here the corruption and falsification goeth yet further, and it is worthy the noting, for that Cunerus having 〈◊〉 largely against the insurrections and Rebellions of those of Holland and Zealand for cause of Religion, and other pretences against their lawful King, taketh upon him in his thirteenth Chapter, to lay down some means how in his opinion those dissensions may be compounded, giving this title to the said Chapter: Quae sit vera componendi dissidij 〈◊〉, what is the true way of composing this dissension, and then after some discourse setteth down this conclusion: Haec igitur in Religione concordiae sola est ratio, ut omnes pio ac simplici animo, purè & integrè sic sapiant, vivant, loquantur, ac praedicent, 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 egregiously perverted. quemadmodum sancta Catholica Romana Ecclesia, quae Dei providentia magistra veritatis Orbi praeposita est, docet, loquitur, & praedicat: This therefore in Religion is the only way of concord, that all men with a pious & simple mind, do wholly and purely conceive, live, speak, & preach as the holy Catholic Roman Church, which God by his providence hath given for a teacher of truth unto the whole world, doth teach, speak, and preach. 47. And now consider you this dealing, that whereas B. Cunerus saith haec est in Religione cocordiae sola ratio, this is the only way of concord in Religion, this man allegeth it in his margin, haec est Religionis sola ratio, this is the only way of Religion, as though concord and Religion were all one; & then by another trick of crafty translation in his English text that is only true Religion, as though true Religion and the way or means to come to true Religion were not different; and then for all the rest how it is mangled, and how many words and sentences are put in by this Minister, which are none of Cunerus, and how many of his altered, and put out, is easy for the Reader to see by comparing the 〈◊〉 o Latin texts before alleged and thereby to consider how facile a matter it is for this fellow to divide In his Epistle to the King. our tongues: A course (saith he) which I profess in all disputes, when he divideth and separateth the words from their Authors, and the sense from the words, and the whole drift from them both: a very fine course, and fit for a man of his profession. But let us proceed. 48. In the very next page, he going about to make 3. example us odious by our severe censuring of Heretics, putteth pag. 4. down first these words of Alphonsus de Castro: He that understanding any opinion to be expressly condemned by the De justa pun. Haer. l. 1. c. 10. Church, shall hold the same, is to be accounted an obstinate Heretic: Whereupon M. Morton playeth his pageant thus: What obstinate? It may be, some do but doubtingly defend it, what will you judge of these? whereunto he answereth out of Azor: If he doubt thereof willingly he is certainly an Heretic: But by our Ministers leave Azor addeth more; Quoties quis voluntariè & pertinaciter de fide dubitat eò ipso est Azor corrupted. haereticus, as often as a man doth doubt willingly and obstinately of his faith he is thereby an Heretic, for that faith is a sure and certain assert of mind unto those things that are to be believed; and he that willingly & obstinately doubteth of the truth thereof, cannot have this firm and perfect assent, & consequently hath no faith during the time of this wilful & obstinate doubting. And that you may understand of what importance this word pertinaciter is, that this man cunningly so cutteth out of Azor his words, you must know that he in the very same Chapter holdeth, that if a man doubt without pertinacity, being ready to submit his judgement when he shallbe instructed in the truth, incurreth not Heresy at all. So as here the most substantial word is left out, & craftily conveyed away by our divider of tongues, whereby the Author is made to say the quite opposite to that he saith and protesteth. 49. It followeth presently in the same text of T. M. 4. example continuing his pleasant vain of playing with us: But it may be (saith he) that he which doubteth is ignorant; will no ignorance excuse him? whereunto he frameth of himself this answer citing Tolet in the margin, affected ignorance doth argue him an obstinate Heretic: Which if you mark, doth not answer the demand, for he demandeth whether no ignorance at all doth excuse him, & he answereth that affected ignorance doth not excuse him, but doth rather argue him an Heretic. Now those that be learned do know, that there be divers sorts of ignorance, Tolet abused. and of divers degrees, whereof affected is the most culpable, so as this is very impertinent, for that albeit affected ignorance do not excuse him; yet some other less faulty may do it. And this for the sense, but if we look upon the words themselves of Tolet, cited by this man in the margin we shall discover much more impertinency or impudence rather: for they are these: Ignorantia crassa non excusat aliquen a pertinacia, gross Lib. 1. just. Sacer. c. 19 ignorance doth not excuse a man from pertinacy. Now gross ignorance and affected ignorance are two different things, which may be understood by this example, that one may be ignorant of Catholic Religion by gross ignorance, in that attending to worldly affairs, he doth not care to inform himself, but he is ignorant by affected ignorance, that doth purposely fly to be informed; so as here still our ignorant Minister either ex ignorantia crassa or affectata, telleth us quid pro quo, in translating affected ignorance, for gross ignorance, & then again in Englishing non excusat aliquem a pertinacia, doth argue him an obstinate Heretic, for that it is one thing to argue, and an other not to excuse. And whereas before T. M. held that pertinacy appertained not at all to the nature of Heresy, here contrariwise he translateth pertinacia, an obstinate Heretic, making it to signify both substantive, and adjective, substance and quality. But yet further than this you must note that in citing this sentence out of Tolet he cunningly dissembleth the Author's assertion set down clearly not six lines before these words: pertinacia necessaria est ad constituendum hominem Haereticum: Pertinacy is necessary to make a man an Heretic, being the quite contrary proposition to that of this man before set down in the first example of his corruptions in this former Part of his Reply. 50. But the greatest corruption in this page (and it is notable indeed) is of the words sense and meaning of our learned Countryman Sayer, of whom T. M. writeth thus: In brief our Countryman upon this case of conscience saith; an obstinate Heretic is aswell he that is presumed so to be, as he that is manifest, and again in 〈◊〉. example the same page: seeing therefore that (as your great Casuist hath said) every one presumed to be an Heretic, is taken for an obstinate, who can be free from your censures? etc. And then citeth in the margin these words of Sayer: Contumax Sayer. in casib. cons. l. 1. c. 9 §. 30. Haereticus est tam praesumptus quam manifestus: An obstinate Heretic is aswell he that is presumed to be so, as he that is manifest or known for such, which may seem to be a great injustice in our doctrine. But if I do not show this devise to be one of the most manifest A notable falsificatio of Sayer. and faithless deceipts and corruptions that ever any honest man put in paper against his adversary, then let me be censured for to sharp a Reprehender. 51. For first Sayer hath no such matter at all concerning obstinacy in Heresy, his whole purpose being only to declare who may be excommunicated by a judge for contumacy in not appearing (which is a different thing from obstinacy or pertinacy) and this whether he be either Heretic or Catholic; nay he speaketh either only or principally of Catholics, who do show contumacy in any Court or tribunal, in not appearing or answering, according as they are cited and summoned by a lawful judge, and so he defineth contumacy in these words: Contumacia (saith The definition of contumacy. he) nihil aliud est quam inobedientia quaedam, qua ius dicenti non paretur: Contumacy is nothing else but a certain disobedience, whereby he is not obeyed that sitteth in judgement. So as here is no mention or meaning of obstinacy in Heresy: and further he putteth down two sorts of contumacy thus: Contumax duobus modis esse potest, nimirum, manifestus & praesumptus; man may be contumacious in two sorts or manners, either manifest or by presumption, and he giveth divers examples of both, as namely, if a man cited do refuse openly to appear, or obey his judge, this man's contumacy or disobedience is public, and manifest: but if he do not refuse, but by idle dilations or shifts putteth of or deludeth the Court, he is presumed to be contumacious, and so may excommunication (if it be a spiritual Court) proceed against him, as if his contumacy were manifest. 52. Now than what hath all this to do with Contumax Haereticus tam praesumptus quam manifestus? Hath Sayer any such word or sentence? No truly, or shall we think Thomas Morton to be so simple both in grammar, law, & divinity, as that he doth not know what difference The difference between contumacy and pertinacy. there is between contumax and 〈◊〉 whereof the one is a fault in obedience towards our Superiors, as now hath been showed; the other in tenacity of opinion as before we have declared. Or if Thomas Morton will not confess this ignorance, but that he know the difference of the words, and of their significations, sense, and applications here used by the Authors, then must he confess wilful deceit in using one for the other, and much more in twice translating the words contumax Haereticus in this one page, for an obstinate Heretic, and much more yet in foisting in the word Haereticus, which Sayer hath not; and most of all in making his Reader believe that contumax, praesumptus and manifestus doth signify in Sayer one that upon presumption only is judged to be as obstinate an Heretic, as if he were manifest, whereof Sayer neither spoke nor meant; but in a quite different sense (not appertaining to Heresy at all) saith, that a man may Manyfalse shifts. be condemned as contumacious by presumption, if he appear not, or useth sleights, diverticles, or delays, as well as if openly he refused to appear. Now then consider what a Minister of truth this is, and of what naked innocency, thus perfidiously to delude his Reader, & yet to come forth after all with this dissembled Hypocrisy: Now let me be beholding unto you (saith he) for an Pag. 4. answer. And so I think he is, but if not sharp enough for so shameful an abuse, it may be amended and augmented hereafter upon like occasions, which every where are offered throughout his whole book; and there were no end if I would answer him to all. 53. And this now is only in one sole leaf, and no less may be said about another, that within some pages 6. example after ensueth, if we would stand thereon, to wit, where he taketh upon him to defend john Calvin from the imputation of arianism, objected by the moderate Answerer, not only out of our Catholic writers, but from chief Protestant Authors themselves: about which point, for that I shall be enforced to make a particular Treatise in the third Part of this Chapter, I will here let the most Part of that matter pass and examine only a piece thereof, to wit, how Calvin doth deny the Son of God to be Deum 〈◊〉 Deo, lumen de lumine, God of God, and light of light, as the first general Council of Niece did decree against the Arrians, Pag. 20. whereof T. M. writeth thus: Your jesuit Bellarmine reckoneth up Calvin and Beza to be of this opinion, and Whether Calvin denied Christ to be God of God. I think he saith truly etc. But now this doctrine being examined with the eye, not overcast with the web of prejudice, doth in the judgement of your said famous Bellarmine seem Catholical, because they deny not the Son to be from the Father but they deny the essence of the Godhead to have any generation, this likewise is not the Part of common modesty, to blindfold yourself, and strike you know not whom. 54. And who would not think here upon this asseveration of T. M. but that Cardinal Bellarmine were contrary to himself in accusing Calvin, and yet justifying his doctrine: you shall see then how many sleights here are used for deceiving the Reader. First Bellarmine Bellar. l. 2 de Christo cap. 19 beginneth his Treatise of this matter thus in the place cited by T. M. Est nova quaedam Haeresis etc. There is a new kind of Heresy sprung up in our days, which I know not whether it consist in the thing itself, or in words only: Genebrard doth of purpose confute the same in his books of the blessed Trinity, calling it the Heresy of Autotheans, that is to say, of such as do hold Christ to be God of himself, and not of his Father, and both he and Bishop Lindan and Petrus Canisius do ascribe the same unto Calvin, of which error doth manifestly follow, that either the Son is not distinguished personally from the Father, which is the Heresy of Sabellius, or that he is distinguished in nature, which goeth near to the heresy of the manichees. So Bellarmine. Who as you see holdeth the proposition to be Heretical, that Christ is God of himself, being understood simply as the ancient Church understood it, and namely the Council of Niece, when they set down the contrary doctrine as true and necessary to salvation, to believe that Christ is God of God, and light of light. 55. But now Calvin and Beza, (as also M. Willet, and Doctor Fulke their scholars) in a particular sense (saith our Minister) do deny Christ to be God of God, to wit, that the essence of his Godhead hath no generation, though as he is Son, and the second person in Trinity, he is by generation from his Father; which doctrine he saith our Bellarmine doth hold for Catholical, whose words he allegeth in the margin thus: Beauties wor des fraudulently alleged. Dum rem ipsam excutio, non facilè audeo pronunciare illos in errore fuisse, while I do examine well the thing itself, I dare not presume to pronounce them to have been in error, to wit Calvin and Beza; whereas Beauties words are, dum rem ipsam excutio, & calvini sententias diligenter considero, non facilè audeo pronunciare illum in hoc errore fuisse, while I examine the matter itself, and diligently consider Caluins opinions, I do not easily presume to pronounce him to have been in this error, to wit in the particular error or heresy of Autotheans, set down and confuted by Genebrard, and in his sense condemned expressly by the ancient Catholic Church, for denying Christ to be, and to have his essence from the Father; but yet though in some sense it seemeth to Bellarmine, that Calvin may be excused in this private & particular meaning of his, yet not absolutely, as T. M. would make his Reader to think, by striking out cunningly the particle hoc (this error) and leaving the word error in common, as though Bellarmine had excused him from all kind of error, which is most false, for that presently after he both impugneth of purpose and confuteth by many arguments his manner of speech, as Heretical in this behalf. 56. Restat (saith he) ut modum loquendi calvini qui dicit 〈◊〉 à se habere essentiam simpliciter esse repudiandum, & contrario Calvin's manner of speech 〈◊〉 by Bellarmine. modo loquendum esse demonstremus etc. It remaineth that we do demonstrate Calvin's manner of speech, that saith the Son to have his essence of himself, is simply to be rejected, and that we must speak in a quite contrary manner, to wit, that the Son hath not only his person, but essence also from the Father, and so is God of God and light of light, as the Council of Niece declared; and this he proveth by four ways: first, Quia pugnat cum verbo Dei, for that Caluins manner of speech is opposite to the word of God etc. Pugnat secundò cum Conciliis, and secondly it is repugnant to the manner of speech of ancient councils, as the Nicene & others: Pugnat tertiò cum doctrina Patrum, thirdly it is contrary to the doctrine of the old Fathers: four it agreeth with the speech of the old Arrians, and other such proofs, which Bellarmine doth prosecute at large, confirming each one of these members by divers examples and instances, & that Calvin spoke Heretically in favour of the Arrians in this behalf. 57 So as the cozenage here of striking out (hoc) out of Beauties' words, making him to say non audeo pronunciare illos in errore fuisse, instead of illum in hoc 〈◊〉 fuisse, though it be small in sound of words: yet in substance is it much: for that thereby T. M. would make his Reader believe, that Bellarmine cleareth Calvin and Beza from all sorts of error in this point, & for that purpose turneth illum into illos, and hoc errore, into errore that is to say him into them and this error into any error at all: whereas Bellarmine though in one sense he excuse him; yet absolutely doth he condemn him, as you have heard; and no man can deny but that his Latin words were here fraudulently and perfidiously alleged and mangled by T. M. for that he could not do it but wittingly, and of purpose; and yet forsooth this man will not Equivocate, as he saith, for a world, though lie he will manifestly for much less as you see. And so much of this until we come to examine the matter more largely afterward in the third Part of this Chapter. 58. And here I will pass over many things that 7. example might be noted out of the sequent pages mamely 30. 31. 34. where he doth so pervert, and abuse both the Pag. 30. 31. 34. words, discourse, and sense of divers Authors alleged by him, as is not credible to him, that doth not compare them with the books themselves, from whence they are taken. As for example Royardus the Franciscane Friar is brought in with commendation of an honest Friar, for that he saith, that a King when 〈◊〉. Serm. 1. in Domin. 1. Aduent. he is made by the people, can not be deposed by them again at their pleasure, which is the same doctrine that all other Catholics do hold, so long as he containeth himself within the nature of a King, for that Royard. Serm. 2. in Domin. 23 post Pentecost. otherwise (which is the question in controversy) Royard himself saith parendum 〈◊〉 non esse, that he is not to be obeyed, but this is not to be judged by the people, and their mutiny, as Protestant Doctors teach. 59 And to like effect he citeth a discourse, though most brokenly alleged out of Bishop Cunerus, writing against the Rebels of Flanders, and testifying that it lieth not in the people's hand to reject their Prince at their pleasure, as those Protestant subjects did; and Royardus & Cune nerus abused. then M. Morton, as though he had achieved some great victory, triumpheth exceedingly, saying: That forsomuch as Friars in our councils have no voice, but only Bishops, he hath brought forth a Bishop against us, whom for that the moderate Answerer had named a little before, this man scornfully telleth him Caesarem appellasti, ad Caesarem 〈◊〉. 25. ibis, you have appealed to Cunerus, and now he shallbe your judge against you. And is not this great folly and insolency? for that Cunerus in all that his book saith nothing against us, but altogether for us, to repress the Rebellion in Flanders, as hath been signified. And secondly notwithstanding all this exact obedience, which both he and we prescribe, and require at subjects hands towards their lawful Princes, he hath a special Chapter which is the third after this alleged Cap. 〈◊〉. here by T. M. wherein he doth expressly, & largely prove that in some cases when Princes fall into intolerable disorders, there is authority left in the commonwealth, and Church of Christ to restrain, and remove them. What falsehood is this then to allege Authors thus directly against their own sense, meaning, and whole drift? doth this become a Minister of simple truth? Is this for a man that somuch abhorreth Equivocation? 60. I let pass as trifles in this very place (but yet such as show a guilty mind and meaning,) that he 〈◊〉. example citing the book of Alexander Carerius, a Doctor of the Canon law in Padua, which he wrote of late de Potestate Romani 〈◊〉, putteth in of his own contra huius temporis Haereticos against the Heretics of this time, which are not in the title of that book; and than whereas the said Author naming or citing many other writers to be of his opinion, doth say nuperrimè verò Celsus Mancinus in tract. de juribus Principatuum etc. and last of all Celsus Mancinus doth hold the same in a certain Treatise of the rights of principalities; this man to frame unto himself some matter of insultation, turneth Pag. 14. verò into verè, and then playeth ridiculously upon his own fiction in these words: Carerius citeth another called Celsus, by interpretation high or lofty, and therefore insignes him with verè Celsus, as truly so named, and so truly he may be if we judge him by the loftiness of his stile, and conclusion. So he. And do you see this folly? Or will you think it rather folly than falsehood, that could not discern between verò and verè? Or not be able to judge by the contexture of Carerius his speech itself, that it could not by apt construction be verè if he had lighted upon Carerius corrupted a corrupt copy, as he could not; for that there is but one, and that hath very plainly verò, and consequently all this Commentary of Thomas 〈◊〉 is out of his own invention. And where now is the assurance of his upright conscience protested to his Majesty in his Epistle dedicatory? where is his simplicity in Christ jesus? where his naked innocency? Can this be ignorance? can this be done but of purpose, and consequently by a guilty conscience? what may the hearer believe of all he saith, when every where he is found entangled with such foolish treachery? But let us proceed. 61. There followeth within two leaves after a heap not only of falsehoods, but also of impudencies. 9 example For whereas his Adversary the moderate Answerer had said, that not only Kings, but Popes also for Heresy, by the Canon laws were to be deposed, he Answereth Pag. 38. thus: The Authors of the doctrine of deposing Kings in case of Heresy, do profess concerning Popes, that they cannot possibly be Heretics, as Popes; and Bellar l. 4 de Rom. Pont. c. 2. Carer. l. 1. cap 〈◊〉. consequently cannot be deposed; Not saith Bellarmine, by any power Ecclesiastical or temporal, no not by all Bishops assembled in a Council: Not, saith Carerius though he should do any thing prejudicial to the universal Azor. 〈◊〉. 5. cap. 14. State of the Church: Not saith Azorius, though he should neglect the Canons Ecclesiastical, or pervert the Laws of Kings: Not saith Gratian'ss gloss, though Gratian. Canon Si Papa. dist. 40. he should carry infinite multitudes of souls with him to hell: and these forenamed Authors do avouch for the confirmation of this doctrine, the universal consent of Romish Divines and canonists, for the space of an hundred years. So he. And in these words are as many notorious and shameless lies, as there are assertions, and Authors named by him for the same. 62. For first the four writers which he mentioneth there in the text, to wit, Bellarmine, Carerius Azorius and Gratian, do expressly, clearly, and resolutely hold the contrary to that he affirmeth out of them, for that they teach and prove by many arguments, that Popes that Popes may fall into Heresy & be deposed for the same. both may fall into Heresies, and for the same be deposed by the Church, or rather are ipso facto deposed, and may be so declared by the Church, and their words here guilfully alleged by T. M. as sounding to the contrary, are manifestly spoken, and meant of manners only, and not of faith, that is to say, if they should be of naughty life, yet have they no Superiors to depose them for that (being immediately under Christ) but for Heresy they may be deposed, which in steed of all the rest, you may read largely handled in Bellarmine, in his second book de Pontific. cap. 30. where among other proofs he citeth this very Canon of Gratian here mentioned by T. M. saying: Haereticum Papam posse judicari, expressè habetur Canon. Si Papadist. 40. It is expressly determined in the Canon Si Papa, that a Pope falling into Heresy may be judged, and deposed by the Church; and more, that in the eight general Council, and seventh Session, Pope Honorius was deposed for Heresy. So Bellarmine. And the same doctrine hold the other two cited by our Minister: so as here be four notorious lies together, that by no shift or tergiversation can be avoided, for that T. M. could not but manifestly see, that he alleged these four Authors quite contrary to their express words, drift and meaning, what then will you say of this fellow, and his manner of writing? shall he be credited hereafter? 63. But yet not contented with this he citeth other four or five Authors besides in the margin, to wit Gregor. de Val. analys. l. 8. c. 3 Salm. come. in Gal. 2. disp 24. Gregorius de Valentia, Salmeron, Canus, Stapleton and Costerus, all which in the very places by him cited, are expressly against him. And is not this strange dealing? Let Canus that goeth in the midst, speak for all, who having proved first at large the opposite Canus l. 6 Loc. Theo c. 8. proposition to T. M. to wit, that Popes may fall into Heresy, and be deposed for the same, concludeth thus Stap. doct. Princ. l. 6. initio. his discourse; Non est igitur negandum (saith he) quin Summus Pontifex Haereticus esse possit: It cannot therefore be denied, Coster. de Pontif. in Enchirid cap. 3. but that the Pope may be an Heretic, adding presently: Whereof one or two examples may be given, but none at all, that ever Pope though he fell into Heresy, did decree the same for the whole Church; by which last words of Canus is discovered the ridiculous fallacy of T. M. alleging here out of our foresaid writers, that Popes cannot possibly be Heretics, as Popes, and consequently cannot be Though Popes may fall into Heresy yet shall they not be permitted to decree it. deposed: Whereof they say the flat contrary, as you have heard, that Popes may be Heretics as Popes, & consequently may be deposed; but yet that God, as Popes, will never permit them to decree any Heretical doctrine to be held by the Church. 64. Consider then I pray you what a fellow this Minister is in abusing thus so many Authors so manifestly; but especially do you note the impudence of his conclusion: And these forenamed Authors (saith he) do Pag. 38. avouch for confirmation of this doctrine, the universal consent of Romish Divines and canonists for the space of an hundred years. So he. But I would ask him of what doctrine? that Popes cannot be Heretics, or be deposed for the same? you have heard them now protest the contrary, and you may read it in the places here cited, out of all the nine several writers before mentioned, who by their express contrary doctrine do prove Thomas Morton to have made nine several lies against them in this his assertion, and now the tenth & most Ten lies made at one time. notorious of all, is this his conclusion; That they do avouch for confirmation of that which he objecteth the universal consent of Romish Divines and canonists for the space of an hundred years; which besides the manifest falsity thereof, seen in their own words, and works here by me cited, it containeth also great folly, and simplicity to say, that they avouch the consent of Romish Divines and canonists for an hundred years; for that their proofs are much elder, and Bellarmine among the rest, for deposition of Pops doth cite the eight general Council ununder Pope Adrian the second, for above six hundred years gone, and the Canon Si Papa, out of our Countryman S. Boniface Archbishop of Mentz & Martyr, above seven hundred years gone, and collected by Gratian, and confirmed by Popes, as Part of the Canon law above four hundred years gone: So as to say that now they avouch Authors of an hundred years old against that which for so many hundred years before was held & established, is mere folly or rather foolish malice. 65. And albeit I have not yet passed over the first half of the first Part of this first Treatise of his, and in 〈◊〉. Example. this also have pretermitted willingly many other examples that might have been alleged, yet finding myself weary, to prosecute any further so large a labyrinth of these intricate juggling tricks, used by this Minister in his whole corpses of citations, with do consist principally thereof; I mean to draw to an end adding only one example more in this place, about a matter more nearly concerning our argument, which is of reconciliation of Protestants with Catholics in points of Religion, which T. M. willing to accuse Pag. 55. Jesuits, as the only hinderers thereof writeth thus: Only by the insolency (saith he) of jesuits all such hope of reconciliation is debarred, as is plain by Bellarmine; for whereas Bellar. l. de Laicis cap. 19 that most grave and learned Cassander honoured of two Emperors for his singular learning and piety, did teach that Emperors should endeavour a reconciliation betwixt Cassand. l. de 〈◊〉 pij viri. Papists and Protestants, because (saith he) Protestants hold the articles of the Creed, & are true members of the Church, although they descent from us in some particular opinions; the grand jesuit doth answer, that this judgement of Cassander is false, for that Catholics cannot be reconciled with Heretics, Heretically meaning Protestants. So he. 66. But here I would ask him why he had not uttered also that which immediately followeth in Bellarmine, that john Calvin had written a book against this error of Cassander, and that among Catholic writers johannes à Lovanio had done the same, and showed that it was an old Heresy of Appelles, as Eusebius testifieth, & of other Heretics afterward under Zeno the Emperors, named Pacifiers, as Euagrius testifieth, Euseb. 5. Hist. c. 13. evagr. l. 3. Hist. c. 14. & 30. who held that Catholics and Heretics might be composed together: why (I say) did T. M. conceal this? As also the many, great, and strong arguments, that Bellarmine allegeth to prove his assertion? And why would he lay all the fault of not agreeing, upon the insolency of Jesuits, seeing johannes à Lovanio was no jesuit, nor Calvin neither. 67. But to leave this, & to come to the thing itself, and to take some more particular view of the false behaviour of Thomas 〈◊〉 in citing this authority: It is strange that in so small a matter, he would show so great want of truth, or true meaning as here he doth. For first, to pretermit that he goeth about to deceive his Reader, by the opinion of gravity and learning in George Cassander of Bruges, who was but a Grammarian in his days; & that he was a Catholic, who is censured for an Heretic primae classis in the Index of prohibited books, and not only for Heresies of this time, but also, quod dicit spiritum sanctum minùs advocandum, & adorandum esse; for that he saith that the holy Cassander what manner of man he was. Ghost is less to be called upon or adored etc. as the Index expurgatorius testifieth; besides all this (I say) he corrupteth manifestly in the sentence before alleged, the words, & plain meaning of his Author, to wit, Index expurg. in 〈◊〉. Cassand. Bellarmine, from whom he citeth Cassander's judgement: for thus they lie in him: Tertius error (saith he) est Georgij De officio pij viri. fol. 314. Cassandris in libro De officio pij viri, ubi docet debere Principes invenire rationem pacis inter Catholicos, Lutheranos etc. Sed interim dum non inveniunt, debere 〈◊〉 unicuique suam fidem, modò omnes recipiant Scripturam & Symbolum Bellar. l. de laicis cap. 19 Apostolicum: Sic enim omnes sunt vera Ecclesiae membra, licèt in particularibus dogmatibus dissentiant. 68 The third error is of George Cassander in the book Of the office of a pious man where he teacheth that Princes ought to seek out some means of peace, betwixt Catholics, Lutherans, calvinists, and other sects of our time, but in the mean space, whiles they find no such means, they ought to permit every one to follow his own particular faith, so as all do receive the Scripture, and common Creed of the Apostles, for so all are true members of the Church, albeit they disagree among themselves in particular doctrines. These are Beauties words. Now let us see how they are mangled by M. Morton, both in Latin and English, as by him that hath the notablest talon therein, notwithstanding his solemn protestations to the contrary, that ever I read in my life. 69. He putteth down first the Latin words in his margin thus: Debent Principes invenire rationem pacis inter Catholicos, Lutheranos, 〈◊〉; qui omnes dum Symbolum tenent Apostolicum, vera sunt membra Ecclesiae, licèt à nobis in particularibus dissentiant. Prince's ought to seek a means of peace between Catholics, Lutherans, calvinists; all which, for so much as they hold the Apostolic Creed, are true members of the Church, albeit they descent from us in some particular opinions. And here now you see first to be omitted cunningly and wilfully by this crafty Minister the words of much moment, that whiles Princes do not find a fit mean of peace, they ought to permit all to live according to their particular faith, which sentence of his grave and learned Cassander, not seeming to himself allowable in our English State, or to his own Brethren the English calvinists, that now having gotten the Cassander's judgement not allowed by English protestāns. government, will suffer no other Religion but their own, thought best to suppress and cut them quite out: Secondly in steed of the condicional speech used by Cassander, modò omnes recipiant Scripturam etc. So all 〈◊〉 receive the Scripture and Apostolical Creed, he putteth it down with a causative clause, Qui omnes dum Symbolum tenent etc. All which sects because they do hold the Articles of the Creed, are true members of the Church, leaving out the word Scripture, as you see and perverting the other wholly in sense. For who will not hold it absurd, that Catholics, Lutherans, calvinists, and other sects of our time, though in words they do admit both Scripture & Apostolical Creed, yet differing in sense, and so many doctrines as they do, are all to be held notwithstanding for true members of one, and the self same Church? Can any thing be more ridiculous than this? 70. Thirdly he doth most notably cog in thrusting in the words à nobis, from us, which are not in the original, meaning thereby to make Cassander to seem a Catholic, & to speak in the behalf of Catholics, which is plain cozenage: and to this end also he leaveth out dogmatibus; & finally you see that he shapeth every thing to his own purpose, and by making Cassander, as a Catholic, seem to wish and endeavour this union, and Bellarmine to reject it; he would confirm his former calumniation, that only by the insolency of Jesuits all such hope is debarred. 71. And thus much for the corruption of the Latin text: but his English hath other corruptions also, according The 〈◊〉 tes of his English 〈◊〉. to his ordinary custom. For first he translateth Debent Principes, that Emperors should endeavour a reconciliation, to confirm thereby his former vanity, that Cassander was so great a man with Emperors, as he talketh not but to Emperors: Secondly he translateth Catholicos, Lutheranos, Caluinistas etc. which words & 〈◊〉 comprehend all other sects of our time, as anabaptists, Arrians, Trinitarians, Hussites, Picardians and the like, he translateth them (I say,) Papists and Protestants, as though all those sects of our time were to be comprehended under the name of Protestants of the English faith, or as though Cassander if he were a Catholic, as here he is pretended, would call us 〈◊〉 Thirdly whereas in his own Latin here set down he saith; Qui omnes dum Symbolum 〈◊〉 etc. All which, to wit Catholics, Lutherans, calvinists, & other Sectaries, whiles they hold the Apostolical Creed, are true members of the Church, he doth English it thus, because Protestants hold the Articles of the Creed, and are true members of the Church, excluding Catholics from believing the said Articles, or being true members, which in his own Latin (and that of Bellarmine's) also are included: and four is the corruption before mentioned, although they descent from us in some particular opinions; which in Bellarmine is, although they descent among themselves in particular doctrines: and finally the words by him cited of Beauties' judgement, which he controlleth, to wit, falsa est haec sententia Cassandris; non 〈◊〉 enim Catholici reconciliari cum Haereticis, Bellarmine's opinion falsified. are not so in Bellarmine, but these, potest facilè refelli 〈◊〉 (Cassandris) sententia: primum enim non possunt Catholici, Lutherani, & Caluinistae eo modo conciliari etc. This sentence (of Cassander) may easily be refelled; first for that Catholics, Lutherans, and calvinists (for example) can not so be reconciled as Cassander appointeth, to wit, by admitting only the words of the Creed, for that we differ in the sense, and sometimes in the articles themselves, as in that descendit ad inferos, he descended into hell; and in like manner, we agree not about the sense of those other articles, I believe the Catholic Church and Communion of saints, remission of sins etc. So Bellarmine. All which this fellow omitteth. 72. And so you see there is no truth or sincerity with him in any thing: neither can these escapes be ascribed The conclusion. any way to oversight, error, mistaking, or forgetfulness, but must needs be attributed to wilful fraud, & malicious meaning, purposely to deceive, as the things themselves do evidently declare, for which cause, I shall leave him to be censured by his own Brethren, but especially by his Lord and Master, for so notable discrediting their cause by so manifest false manner of proceeding; and yet for that there is one example more, that remaineth within the compass of these few Pages by us examined, that draweth a longer sequel after it, then is fit to weary the Reader withal, without some breathing, we shall reserve the same to a third Part of this Chapter which now ensueth. THE THIRD PART OF THIS CHAPTER, CONTAINING A CONTROVERSY: Whether Calvin did favour arianism, or no? With divers sleights of Tho. Morton about the same. ANd now albeit these examples before rehearsed, do sufficiently declare the man's humour against whom we deal, who professing extraordinary sincerity in all points, performeth the same scarcely in any (I profess, saith he, that simplicity in Christ, as never either in word, or writing to Equivocate:) yet for an upshot of this Chapter, I have thought good, to lay forth one example more, to prove worse matter than Equivocation against him, as in the former Parts of this Chapter we have already done, to wit, plain falsehood, and faithless dealing. But here now is a particular controversy fallen out, by occasion of certain sleights, used by him in defence of john Calvin, against the imputation of arianism laid upon him, not only by our doctors, but much more by sundry learned Protestant-writers of Germany, alleged in part by the moderate Answerer in this place, and shifted of slightly by T. M. And albeit we have treated somewhat of this matter before, in the second Chapter of this book, yet the thing coming again in question now by reason of certain corruptions used by T. M. thereabout, I have thought it expedient to handle the same more largely as a point of no small importance, which by the sequel you will see. 74. First then T. M. taking upon him to answer the objection of his Adversary, That Calvin was accused Pag. 17. of arianism, by the writings of divers most learned Protestants of the Lutheran and other sects in Germany, & having given this feeble answer only, which before we have touched in our said second Chapter, and is here repeated again, That it is not much to be regarded, what those Protestant-writers in the spirit of opposition and contention did say of Calvin: especially (saith he) seeing as it may seem by their objections, their judgement hath been depraved by your maliguant Doctors. 75. After (I say) this general, but simple evasion (for if this kind of answering may be admitted, that things are spoken or written out of the spirit of Contradiction, what may not be answered?) he taketh upon him for some show of probability in this shift to set down the justification following. First (saith he) Tolet. come. in joan. 14 & Mald. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 locum. concerning arianism, Calvin as your jesuits affirm, doth plainly teach the same, saying; That the Father is by a kind of excellency God, whereas both the speech & sense is most orthodoxal, and agreeing with the tenure of holy writ, as your learned Jesuits confess: for the words of our Saviour are plain joan. 14. My Father is greater than I, in the true sense, Is (say your Jesuits, and truly) the Father greater, not in substance and being, but by reason of birth and begetting; For their authority they produce an inquest of Fathers to free Calvin in this point, who was so far from arianism, that your own Bellarmine doth acknowledge that Calvin did impugn the doctrine of the Arrians. 76. This is his defence, wherein you shall see how many subtleties, and shifts there be used to defend Calvin from this impiety, who yet, as will appear, is not defensible in this respect. For first where he saith, That our Jesuits do affirm john Calvin to teach arianism, in that he holdeth that the Father is by a kind of excellency God, citing for the same among others in the margin both Bellarmine, and Gregorius de Valentia, his first corruption therein is, that he citeth not the words of their accusations, as they lie in the Authors, Bell. praef. 〈◊〉. de Christo §. Sed iam. & l. de notis Eccles. c. 9 & de Chri sto media. c. 3. & 8. which in Bellarmine are these: Non veretur Valentino concedere, nomen Dei KATHERINE ' HYPEROCHEN, id est, per excellentiam quandam, soli Patri attribui; Calvin seared not to grant to Valentinus Gentilis (the Arrian Heretic) that the name of God was attributed only to the Father by a certain excellency. And the same objecteth * Greg. de Valent. l. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 unit. & trinit. c. 9 Gregory de Valentia in the same words: out of which you see, that T. M. leaveth out soli, to the Father alone, wherein consisteth the chiefest force of the charge against Calvin: this than is the first trick. The second is, that he would make his Reader believe, that for this only speech of Calvin our Doctors, Bellarmine, Valentia, and others, had condemned him of arianism, whereas they not only for this, but for many other wicked speeches, as blasphemous as this, do ascribe that crime unto him. 77. As for example, for that he writeth Deum Patrem divers At 〈◊〉 speeches of Calvin. genuisse quia voluit, that God the Father did beget his Son for that he would, whereof ensueth evidently that if Christ's eternal generation was voluntary in respect of his Father, than was it not necessary, and natural, and consequently he could not be God at all, nor equal to his Father, of whose will his essence depended: Calvin. l. x Gentilem in Conf. 10. proth. and again, That Christ as he is the second person of the Trinity, cannot properly be called Creator of heaven and earth, and consequently not God, nor equal to his Father. And yet further, Filium Dei subiectum esse Patri etiam ratione divinitatis, that the Son of God is subject to his Father, even according to his divine nature. And Calu. l. 2. yet more impiously, That Christ was a mediator between Instit. c. 14 God and Angels before the sin of Adam, and before his incarnation, and that also according to his divinity: Out of which for that a mediator must needs be inferior to him, to whom he useth mediation, all learned men infer that Calvin in effect taught the doctrine of Arrius, who denied the equality of the Son with the Father, & all this is objected by our Doctors in the places quoted by T. M. himself. Whereby it is manifest that he did not of ignorance or forgetfulness leave out these other accusations, mentioning only the first, but of plain deceit, & wilful falsehood, for that he thought himself to have a shift for answering the first, but not the other. 78. Yet Gregory de Valentia goeth somewhat further, the charge of Gregory de Valentia against Calvin. adding moreover to these assertions of Calvin divers other; as namely that he did seek to enervate, and make void, together with the Arrians, certain excellent places of Scripture, which the ancient Catholic Fathers did urge against them, as that of joan. 10. S. john; Ego & Pater unum sumus, I and my Father are one, which Calvin saith is to be understood, of the unity of Calvin. l. 2. Institut. cap. 14. consent and agreement, not of substance: whereupon one George Blandrata a Trinitarian, founding himself (saith Valentia) did in a certain public disputation against the Disp. Alban. actio. 2. 2. dici. Catholics, at Alba julia in Transiluania, allow and confirm this Arrian interpretation of Calvin, saying: We do remit our hearers to only john Calvin in this behalf who doth every where reprehend the old writers, for that they wrested these words, Ego & Pater unum sumus, to the unity of essence or substance. He noteth also these words in Calvin, Impropriam esse atque duram orationem illam Symboli Niceni, Deus de Deo: that, that speech of the Creed of the Council of Nice, is an improper and hard speech, God of God: Which speech notwithstanding S. Athanasius did greatly urge (saith he) in his days against the Arrians, whereof we have treated somewhat before. 79. Now then may we see how fraudulently Thomas Morton hath dealt in this matter, by putting down slily one reason only, for which our malignant Doctors (as he calleth them) do condemn Calvin for arianism, and it is as if a malefactor being condemned for many crimes, his Advocate would give out, that he had been accused only of one, and then by diminishing that also make it none, and so proclaim him quit in all. But for so much as he calleth our said Doctors malignant (from which crime I dare avouch them of all others most free) & doth say, That the judgement of the Lutheran Doctors, alleged by his Adversary the moderate Answerer against him (namely of Doctor Philippus Nicolaus, and of the Dean and university of Tubinga, who condemned Calvin for the same crime of arianism,) hath been depraved, (as may seem, saith he, by their objections) by our said malignant Doctors; We shall here with as much brevity as may be, bring forth the judgement of another renowned Protestant-Doctor, concurring with the foresaid, he being a public Reader of divinity in another famous University of Germany, namely Wittenberg, where Martin Luther himself once held the chair, as Calvin did in Geneva; and this Doctor whose name is AEgidius Hunnius in a D. Aegidius Hunnius his book of Calvin. several Treatise set forth about a dozen years gone, entitled by him calvinus judaizans, & dedicated unto one David Pareus a principal Calvinian Doctor, setteth down the argument of his book thus, in the An. 1593. Wittenberg. apud viduam Mathaei Welaci. first front thereof. This book is to show (saith he) that john Calvin hath most detestably presumed to corrupt (in favour of jews and Arrians) the most clear places, and testimonies of Scripture concerning the glorious Trinity, deity of Christ, of the Holy Ghost, and above all, the predictions of Prophets for the coming of the Messias, his nativity, passion, ascension, & sitting at the right hand of God etc. with a clear confutation of his false corruptions therein etc. 80. This is the title and argument of the book, which he doth prosecute for almost two hundred pages together, dividing the same into two parts, the first wherein he showeth, how john Calvin most wickedly, and maliciously under pretence of interpreting the Scripture in different sense from the ancient Fathers, did go about covertly to weaken, infringe, or take from the Christians all the strongest arguments which they had, or have out of the Scriptures for the Godhead of Christ, and his equality and consubstantiality with the Father. And in the second Part, that he useth the same fraud, and malice by overthrowing all the predictions, & foretellinges of Prophets about Christ as he was man. Out of the old Testament. §. 1. 81. ANd for the first Part of perverting Scriptures, 1. example he giveth these examples out of the old Testament, Gen. 1. first, that whereas Moses saith in 〈◊〉, Creavit Deus coelum & terram, God created heaven and earth, the word in the Hebrew is ELOIM, Gods, in the plural number, out of which D. Hunnius proveth, that the Hunn. in Calu. judaiz. pa. 9 ancient Fathers, and most learned also of later times in the Hebrew tongue, do gather Moses to have signified the plurality of persons in the Bl. Trinity, but Calvin to take from Christians this comfort, saith: Colligere solent hic in Deo notari tres personas etc. here Christians are wont (by this plural number ELOIM) to gather, that three persons are signified in God; but for so much as to me it seemeth a weak proof of so great a matter, the Readers are to be advertised to beware of such violent glosses. Thus Calvin. And with 2. example like spirit of presumption & arrogancy, if not worse, he goeth forward in all the rest, as namely that of Genesis the 19 about raining of brimstone over Sodom Gen. 19 and Gomorrha, where the words are Pluit jehova a jehova (saith Hunnius according to the Hebrew text) and is applied by Christian writers, against the jews for Christ's divinity, Calvin most insolently rejecteth the same saying: Quod veteres Christi Divinitatem etc. whereas ancient writers endeavoured by this testimony, to prove the Divinity of Christ, it is but a weak argument, and in my judgement they brabble much without cause, that so sharply urge the jews with this place. 82. In Genesis also Chap. 35. where jacob built an Altar 3. example to God, and called the place Bethel, for that ELOIM Gen 35. the Gods had appeared unto him there, using the plural number not only in the substantive, but also in the verb itself, Calvin without all probability of reason, will needs have it meant, that not God, but Angels only appeared, which Hunnius refuteth, for that Hun. p. 17. the apparition of Angels was not a sufficient reason to name the place Bethel, as jacob did, that is to say, the house of God, or to build an Altar to God, for that Angels only, and not God had appeared to him. 83. But that which much more importeth, Calvin taketh from the Christians that other excellent place also of the second Psalm, wherein is proved the Divinity 4 example of Christ by those words, 〈◊〉 me us es tu, Ego hody Psal. 2. genui te, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee, whereby S. Paul himself Act. 13. and the Author Heb. 1. & 5 (saith Hunnius) of the Epistle to the Hebrues (for that Lutherans do not admit that Epistle to be S. Paul's) and all ancient Fathers after them, do allege these words for proof of Christ's divinity; but Calvin doth overthrow it by interpreting it to be understood literally of David himself, as Hunnius at large proveth, Pag. 21. 22 & exactly refuteth, as also his impiety, in taking away that other place of the 33. Psalm in like manner, 5. example Psalm. 33. Verbo Domini coeli firmati sunt, & spiritu oris eius omnis virtus eorum: The heavens were established by the word of God, and all their power by his holy spirit. Out of which the ancient Fathers proved not only the divinity of Christ, the second person in trinity, but of the holy Ghost also, and consequently the blessed Trinity, which Calvin endeavouring to overthrow writeth Hun. p. 25. in this manner: Subtiliùs veteres hoc elogio usi sunt etc. The ancient Fathers did more subtilely use this place of Scripture, against the Sabellian Heretics, to prove the eternal Godhead of the holy Ghost; but I would not dare to urge Sabellius with this testimony to prove the deity of the said holy Ghost. And again in another place lib. 1. Institut. cap. 13. sect. 15. it seemed (saith he) a plausible thing unto them, to cite out of David the words now rehearsed, verbo Domini coeli firmati sunt etc. to prove that the Creation of the world was no less the work of the holy Ghost, then of the Son the second person in Trinity: Sed infirma illa ratio fuit, Pag. 28. but that proof was weak. So Calvin, very piously as you see. 84. From this Doctor Hunnius passeth to examine 6. example these words of the 45. Psalm as spoken of the Son Psalm 45. of God, Thronus tuus ô Deus, in seculum seculi etc. propterea unxit te Deus, Deus tuus etc. Thy throne o Lord is to endure Hebr. 1. for ever, and therefore hath God, even thy God anointed thee with the oil of joyfulness above thy fellows: which the Author of the Epistle to the Hebrues (saith Hunnius) doth expressly apply unto the eternal Divinity of Christ; but Calvin overthroweth the same, by applying the meaning to have been of K. Solomon only. The simple and natural sense of this place (saith Calvin) is that Solomon did not govern Tyrannically, as other Kings, but with right and equal laws, and therefore his Kingly seat should be stable for ever. See how base a conceit this man had of divine things: but yet hear him further, for in another place he writeth thus: Faciendum Calvin. in come. in c. 1. ad Hebr. est etc. We must confess that this Psalm was made of Solomon, as a bridesong of his marriage with the King of Egypt's daughter. Do you see the profanity of this man's spirit? But yet let us produce a far greater audacity of his. 85. The Apostle S. Paul in the 4. to the Ephesians doth 7. example urge much for proof of Christ's divinity the words Psalm. 67. of the Psalm 67. Ascendens in altum captivam duxit captivitatem, dona dedit hominibus etc. He ascending up to heaven, did carry with him our Captivity as captive, & distributed gifts to men upon earth: which thing S. Paul doth urge, as a point of singular moment for proof of Christ's divinity. But what saith Calvin? you shall hear what he writeth both of the thing, and of his Censure of S. Paul's simplicity, in so applying Pag. 35. the same. Quia locum hunc Paulus (saith he) subtiliùs ad Christum deflexit Ephes. 4. videndum est, quam bene cum mente Davidis convenit: For so much as Paul did more subtilely wrest this place to Christ, it is to be considered how well he agreeth therein with the mind or meaning of David, showing in deed by divers reasons, that his exposition and application doth not agree with David's intention in that Psalm, which is a most impious insolency if it be well considered. 86. After this the said Doctor passeth on to cite that 8. example famous place of Esay the sixth, Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus, Dominus Esa. 6. Exercituum, as a testimony for the blessed Trinity, Pag. 42. by the witness and allegation of all ancient writers, whereas Calvin of purpose calleth the same into doubt, saying in favour of the Arrians: Whereas ancient writers have used this testimony of Esay, when they would prove the Trinity of persons in the essence of one God, I do not reject their sentence; but yet if I should have to do with Heretics, I would rather use more strong testimonies, ne Haereticis ridiculi simus, lest we be ridiculous unto Heretics, and in truth the Prophet by this triple repetition (holy, holy, holy) doth rather note a restless assiduity, or continuance of Angelical melody, in the praises of God etc. And do you not see (saith Hunnius,) how this arrogant fellow, doth * Seni'em & venerandam canitiem petulanter vellicat. saucily pull by the locks old venerable antiquity (making the same 〈◊〉) and how he instructeth the Arrians to illude, or shift of this sacred testimony for the blessed Trinity? Could the Arrians do more for themselves, or their own cause? So he. Showing also the like boldness, and impiety in that he goeth about to weaken the Authority of Michaeas the Prophet, used by all ancient Fathers for the proof of Christ's Godhead, 9 example Mich. 5. where he saith, Et egressus eius ab initio à diebus aeternitatis, and his going forth is from the beginning from the days of eternity; which words Calvin, though he cannot but grant for the evidency thereof, to appertain to the divinity of Christ, yet doth he divert the Prophets' meaning to a far different sense, and saith: Hic est simplex sensus, scio quosdam insistere pertinaciùs, quod hic loquatur Propheta de aeterna essentia Christi etc. This is the simple sense and meaning of the Prophet, albeit I know that some do more obstinately contend, that the Prophet speaketh here of the eternal essence of Christ: and for my part, though I do willingly acknowledge, that the divinity of Christ is here proved; yet for that we shall never get the jews to confess it, I would rather simply take the words of the Prophet as they sound. So he. And note here his good reason (saith Hunnius) for that because the jews will not be brought to confess the truth of this text, Calvin himself will dissemble it also, and pervert the Scriptures to another meaning to please them. Is not this wickedly to betray the cause of Christians? And is not this secretly to collude with the adversaries? Is not this by dissimulation to weaken our own forces in favour of the enemies? But hereof you shall see more in that which ensueth. Out of the new Testament. §. 2. 87. ANd with these places and some other the said Doctor endeth his discourse for corrupting of the Scriptures of the old Testament, in favour of jews and Arrians, & passeth to the new, showing 〈◊〉 no less to favour them both therein, then in the other, but rather much more. And first he allegeth 10. Example. that most excellent place of S. john's Gospel before mentioned, Ego & Pater unum sumus, I and my Father 〈◊〉. 10. are one, which testimony all ancient Fathers, without exception, did urge against the Arrians, as an invincible bulwark to prove the unity of Godhead in Christ with his Father; But what saith Calvin? Ego (saith he) & Pater unum sumus, abusi sunt hoc loco veteres, ut probarent Christum esse Patri Homusion neque enim Christus de unitate substantiae disputat, sed de consensu, quem cum Patre habet etc. The ancient writers did abuse this place, to prove 〈◊〉 that Christ was of the same nature and substance with his Father, for that Christ did not dispute here of the unity of substance, but of the unity only of consent between him, and his Father: which was the very answer and shift of Arrius himself and of the old Arrians, and is at this day (saith Hunnius) of the new Arrians in Transiluania and else where, to wit of Franciscus, David, Blandrata, and others. 88 And so in like manner where in the 10. and 14. of S. john, Christ our Saviour repeateth oftentimes 11. Example. Ego 〈◊〉 in Patre, & Pater in me, I am in my Father, and joan. 10. & 14. my Father in me, which was another great bulwark of ancient Christianity against Arrians, Calvin overthroweth it thus: Non hic (saith he) de essentiae unitate sermo Hun. p. 53. habetur etc. here is not any speech of unity of 〈◊〉 between the Father and the Son, but only of the manifestation of God's power in the person of Christ. And again in another place: Non ad divinam Comm. in c. 14. joan. Christi essentiam refero, sed ad modum revelationis: I do not refer those words to the divine nature of Christ, but to the manner of revelation, which were also the Answers of old Arrians, and are at this day of the new. 89. And finally not to be tedious, I pass over many other examples, as that joan. 17. in Christ's speech to 12. Example his Father: That my disciples may be one, as we are one. And joan. 17. again: That all may be one as thou Father art in me, and I in thee, which ancient Doctors did interpret to signify the natural unity of Christ in Godhead with his Father. But what saith Calvin? Multi ex Patribus (saith Pag. 45. he) interpretati sunt Christum unum esse cum Patre etc. Many of the Fathers have so interpreted these words, as though they proved that Christ is one with his Father for that he is eternal God, but their contention with the Arrians drew them violently to this, that they should wrest broken sentences to a wrong sense. The like he writeth of that excellent place of S. john in his first Epistle: Tres sunt qui testimonium dant in coelo etc. There 13. Example. 1. joan. 5. are three in heaven that give testimony, the Father, the word, and the holy Ghost, and these three are one, which Catholic Divines have ever understood of the natural unity of the three persons in the blessed Trinity, against the Arrians. But what saith 〈◊〉 on their side? Quod dicit tres esse unum, ad essentiam non refertur, sed ad consensum potius: In that S. john saith these three to be one, is not referred to their unity of nature and essence, but rather to the unity of their will, or consent. And will you say now that Calvin is not worthy to have his fee of the Arrians? Or will Thomas Morton say still that our malignant Doctors do wrongfully accuse him? Quis non videt (saith Hunnius) diabolum per acutum suum instrumentum Pag. 59 etc. Who doth not see that the devil by this sharp instrument of his, doth go about to disarm Christians, and arm the enemies of the blessed Trinity? For if these should ask us, what testimonies we have, what proof of Christ's unity in Godhead with his Father, we have none left, universa per aleatoriam istam quiduis eludendi 〈◊〉 è manibus 〈◊〉: All are strooken out of our hands by this dicing-deceipt of deluding any thing that is in Scripture for that purpose. But D. Hunnius goeth forward. 90. The like Comment maketh Calvin upon those words of S. Paul to the Colossians cap. 1. where the Apostle calleth Christ Imaginem Dei invisibilis, the image 14 Example. of God invisible, and those other to the Hebrews c. 1. Colos. 1. Qui est splendour gloriae, & expressa imago substantiae illius: Pag. 61. Who is the splendour of his glory, and the express image of his substance, where manifestly the Apostle Hebr. 1. doth affirm the deity of Christ, and the ancient Fathers out of the same words after him against the Arrians, and namely S. Chrysostome at large, what evasion think you will john Calvin teach the Arrians here? You shall hear him in his own words: Scio (saith Pag. 62. 63. he) qualiter veteres exponere soleant, quia enim certamen habebant cum Arrianis etc. I know how the ancient Fathers are wont to expound these words, for that they having combat with the Arrians, do urge the equality, and consubstantiality of God the Son with his Father, out of these places; but in the mean space they hold their peace in that which is the principal, to wit, how God the Father doth exhibit himself to be known to us in Christ. And as for Chrysostome, who placeth all his ground in the word Image, while he striveth to prove thereby that a creature can not be the image of God the Creator, it is tooto weak etc. So he. 91. And now (saith Doctor Hunnius) what way can be more effectual than this to overthrow Christian Religion, and bring in arianism? Or what place or text of Scripture remaineth now in force against the jews, and Arrians for defence of Christ's divinity, if Caluins censure be admitted against all those that have been cited? It is evident (saith he) hoc genus eludendi Scripturas Pag. 〈◊〉 quo calvinus utitur, exoptatissimum diabolo adminiculum esse etc. that this kind of eluding Scriptures used by Calvin, is the most desired help for the devil, that can be wished, to shake the credit of one authority after another in men's hearts, until, before they be aware, they become Arrians. Thus Hunnius, who both for that he is a learned man, a Reader of divinity, a Protestant, & proveth all that he saith out of Caluins own words, ought (me thinks) to be of great force against him, or at leastwise with all others, to look well about them, how they believe either him or his. About corrupting and eluding of prophesies. §. 3. 92. ANd this is now for the first Part of his book Pag. 6. but in this second about the predictions and Prophecies of Christ and Christian Religion, he saith he hath much more to produce against Calvin for his foul corruptions, Quibus illustrissima vaticima Prophetarum de Messia 〈◊〉 is perversionibus involuit, whereby he hath with his judaical perversities obscured the most notorious and clear predictions of Prophets about the Messias, or Saviour of the world. In which expositions or rather corruptions of his non modò (saith he) Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum veterum & recentiorum pias interpretationes altissimè despexit & irrisit; sed in nonnullis ipsorummet Euangelistarum 〈◊〉 Sacrosanctas explicationes nequiter illudere non est 〈◊〉, quod nisi ad oculum demonstravero, praesertim ubi ad illa vaticinia Prophetarum devenero, nolim ego nuhi ulla unquam in re postea fidem adhiberi. He doth not only most haughtely despise the Godly interpretations of all ancient and modern Ecclesiastical writers, but in divers things also he was not a afraid wickedly to elude the holy explications of the Evangelists and Apostles themselves, which except I shall demonstrate unto the eye, especially when I come to examine the predictions of Prophets, I will never have any man to give me credit afterward. So confidently speaketh Doctor Hunnius of Calvin's wickedness in this behalf, so to weaken and enervate the testimonies of Scripture that make for Christ, ut omnem ad probandum vim atque valorem amittant penitus, saith he, that thereby they wholly lose all their force & value to prove any thing. And what can be more impious & perilous than this? 93. It would be to long to run over the Prophecies by him alleged as perverted by Calvin, though it were with the same brevity that we have perused the testimonies of Scripture before mentioned (for I must remember that all must go within a part of one Chapter:) yet some few lines I must bestow therein for examples sake, thereby to leave a guess to the Reader for the rest which I must omit. First then in the very first promise of all made Gen. 3. for coming of the Messias, 15. Example. Gen. 3. where God said to the serpent: I shall put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed, she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lay wait at her heel, which all Christian writers from the beginning, yea the Apostles and Prophets before them, did understand of the enmity to be between the devil and Christ the woman's seed; but this doth Calvin wholly evacuate, & calvinus Com. in c. 3. Genesis. turn to a mere mockery, interpreting it to be meant only of the natural hatred that is between men and serpents, and that as serpents seek to sting men, so men endeavour every where to kill serpents; by which interpretation, is eluded (saith Doctor Hunnius) the first foundation of all Christian faith, whereby the Fathers of the old Testament did sustain themselves. And then he turneth himself to S. Paul, showing how Calvin Pag. 71. doth condemn his exposition of absurdity, about the said seed of the woman mentioned both here, & in the other promise to Abraham, In thy seed all nations shallbe blessed, in which places Calvin (saith Hunnius) expressly Cal. Com. in 3. ad Galatas. against S. Paul to the Galat. will have it understood seeds in the plural number, and not seed: Miror hominis proiectam confidentiam: Vbi frons 〈◊〉 id quod affirmat Pag. 74. Paulus: etc. I do wonder at the desperate presumption of this man; where is Calvin's forehead, in denying that which S. Paul doth affirm, and affirming that which S Paul doth so earnestly refute? 94. Then passeth he to another prophecy out of jeremy 16. Example concerning Christ's nativity, where is said; God Hier. 31. shall create a new thing upon the earth, a woman shall enclose a man, which being understood by all ancient writers (saith Hunnius) of the blessed virgin Mary, and her sacred fruit of the womb, that in respect of the perfection, which he had by his deity, even in the womb, was a perfect man: but Calvin scoffeth thereat. Christiani (saith he) ferè uno consensu etc. Christians almost with one consent have interpreted this Prophecy of Mary the virgin, and they were moved thereunto by the name of a miracle, and thereupon perhaps they snatched too greedily at those things that might seem to make for the mystery of our salvation, saying, that Christ was both an infant and a man, for that he was full of divine fortitude in his Mother's womb, albeit according to his flesh he did grow in stature, in wisdom, and virtue; Meritò hoc ridetur a judaeis, but Pag. 75. this is worthily laughed at by the jews, and further, saith he, the true meaning of the Prophet is only that in the wars between the Chaldees and the jews, the jewish women shallbe stronger than the Chaldean men, and bring them into straits, redigent faeminae viros in angustias, saith he, women shall drive men into straights. And is not this a good jewish Advocate? Could any Infidel speak more contemptuously of our proofs? 95. From this he steppeth to the fourth Prophecy of Aggeus about the coming of Christ; Movebo omnes gentes, 17. Example. & veniet desideratus cunctis gentibus, & implebo domum Agg. 2. istam gloria etc. I will move all nations, and the desired of all nations shall come, and I shall replenish this house with glory; which Prophecy being so clear, & so generally received by all Christians as signifying the glory of Christ, and of the Christian Church that Calvin could not for shame deny it; yet shall you see Pag. 81. how he doth seek to enervate, and make void the same. This Prophecy (saith he) of the desired of all Nations may be understood two ways: first that all Nations shall come and bring with them whatsoever precious things they have: Nam Hebraei desiderium vocant quicquid habetur in precio, ut 〈◊〉, honores etc. For that the Hebrews do call desire or desired, whatsoever is much esteemed, as riches, honour and the like; Sed possumus etiam intelligere de Christo etc. But yet we may also vuderstand it of Christ etc. Sed simplicior sensus est ille quem iam retuli, but the more simple, plain, or natural sense, is that which I have now related, that Nations shall come with all their riches etc. And here also doth not Calvin play well his part? By this you may know him in all the rest, and yet shall we set down one example more and so end. 96. And this shall be that famous and most excellent Prophecy of Christ's Forerunner S. john Baptist most 18 Example. perspicuously uttered by the Prophet Esay in his fortieth Isa 40. Chapter, and in these words: Vox clamantis in deserto parate viam Domini etc. A voice of a Crier in the desert, prepare the way of our Lord, make right the paths of our God: which words both S. Matthew, S. Mark, and S. Luke, at large do expound to have been understood of S. john Baptist preaching in the desert of jury and warning the jews to prepare the way of the Messias: all which this miserable man, in favour of the jews, endeavoureth to elude and evacuate, applying the same wholly to another profane purpose, affirming, first that by the voice of a Crier, is not understood any particular man as S. john Baptist, but all Prophets in general: and then by the desert, he understandeth not that desert of jury wherein S. john did preach, but metaphorically the desert of desolation to have been meant by Esay, when the people were in the captivity of Babylon; and thirdly more fully to overthrow the whole Prophecy, he asketh this question: Quos compellat ista vox, an fideles? minimè. Sed Cyrum, Persas & Medos. To whom doth this voice of the Crier in the desert speak, unto faithful people? No, not at all. But only unto King Cyrus, and to the Persians & Medes, that held the people of Israel in captivity. So he. And how greatly then were deceived the three Evangelists before mentioned, that so earnestly set forth unto us the comfort of this Prophecy, fulfilled in S. john Baptist, which 〈◊〉 now hath endeavoured to take from us, Pag. 91. whereupon Doctor Hunnius inferreth these words: 〈◊〉 piae mentis haec legens & audience temperare sibi potest etc. What man of pious mind that shall read or hear these things, can so over rule himself, as not to hate with a perfect hatred, as the Prophet speaketh, yea and detest this architect of jewish deceits, that is not afraid to hold up his finger against the interpretations of the Sacred Evangelists themselves. So he. 97. But to come to an end, I will leave nineteen or twenty more Prophecies undiscussed, to wit three that remain of this first point about the coming and nativity The corruption of 〈◊〉. Prophecies more omitted for brevities sake. of Christ, eight that did foretell his sacred passion and particulars thereof, four of his resurrection, and four or five more of his miraculous ascension, & sitting on the right hand of God; all which doth john Calvin with metaphorical and malicious interpretations weaken, elude overthrow, & take from us; yea though the Evangelists & Apostles themselves have expressly expounded them literally to appertain to Christ; which this Doctor Hunnius doth notably & substantially prove out of Caluins own words throughout this brief, but judicious book of his, making many exclamations against Calvin's impiety therein, especially in one place, where seeing the man endeavoureth to take from us that whole Psalm, Deus Deus meus, Psal. 22. which setteth down most of the particulars of Christ's passion, as the piercing of his feet and hands, dividing of his garments, & other such points, which the Evangelists and 〈◊〉 themselves do apply literally to our Saviour, and this man only in a metaphorical sense to King David; yea saying further that the Evangelists did 〈◊〉 things intempestiuè ad praesentem Pag. 135. causam, out of season to the present cause of Christ, Et quòd dum negligunt sensum metaphoricum a nativo sensu 〈◊〉, And whiles they did neglect Caluins metaphorical sense, they departed from the true natural sense of the Prophet: Doctor Hunnius (I say) upon Pag. 136. these & other like insolences, breaketh out into these words, that he cannot sufficiently detest extremam calvini impietatem, cum intolerabili fastu coniunctam, quo se super sanctissimos Dei servos, Euangelistas, & Apostolos, quasi illorum censor effert, that extreme impiety of Calvin, joined The extreme impiety and pride of Calvin according to D. Hunn. with intolerable pride, whereby he setteth himself above the most holy servants of God, the Evangelists, and Apostles, as their Censurer: and therefore after he had demonstrated this pride and impiety in all the rest of the Prophecies by him perverted, drawing towards the end, he concludeth thus: Quapropter ut receptui canam, detectum satis superque judico Angelum illum Pag. 184. tenebrarum johannem Caluinum etc. 98. Wherefore that I may now (saith he) retire myself, I do judge that Angel of darkness john Calvin to be sufficiently, and more than sufficiently discovered, who being raised from the pit of hell, to the perverting of mankind, hath partly by his detestable desire of wresting Scriptures, and overthrowing the Bulwarks of Christian Religion, which it hath against jews and Arrians; partly also by his impious pen a 'gainst the holy and sacred Majesty of jesus Nazarenus now exalted in heaven; partly also by his perverse doctrine of the Sacrament, and horrible monstrous paradoxes of his absolute predestination; By all these means (I say) he hath 〈◊〉 in these our later days, no small part of the light and sun of Gods truth, & drawn with him a great number of stars, as the apocalypse saith, into the bottomless pit of eternal damnation. God everlasting out of his mercy, sign D. Hunnius protestation and prayer against calvinists. his servants that they be not corrupted with this pestilent plague of Calvinian seducement, and bring back again unto jesus Christ, the true Pastor of their souls, those that are seduced by them, that they perish not in their error, but be saved eternally with all those that faithfully love God Amen. And this I had (saith he) to admonish the Church of God, of the most wicked deceipts of john Calvin. And if Doctor 〈◊〉 will answer any thing to this, let him not entertain himself in general speech only, as his people are wont to do, but come to particulars etc. So Hunnius. 99 And now M. Morton, will you say that all this also, which Doctor Hunnius hath brought against Calvin about furthering of judaism and arianism is out of the spirit only of opposition and contradiction, as you shifted of the Dean and College of Tubinga, alleged before by your Adversary? Will you answer in like manner, it is not much to be regarded what he saith, seeing he bringeth so many great and substantial proofs for the same out of M. Calvin's confessed works and writings? Or will you say, as you said before, The conclusion to M. Morton. that their judgement hath been depraved by our malignant Doctors? seeing that you have heard this your own Doctor Hunnius speak in his own language and sense so resolutely and earnestly against Calvin and calvinists? If you dare not say this again enough, then was it but a shift and dissimulation before: and if you should say it again now, you would be laughed at by all men. And though you do not; yet every wise man will consider, with what truth or ground you said it before, to wit, for a mere shift, not understanding or thinking, as you speak. And conform to that will they esteem of the rest, which you say or write, without further ground of real substance, but only that you must say somewhat, and that it serveth for your purpose to speak it for the present. But now shall we return to the place & page of your Reply, from whence we went forth in this digression about Calvin. 100 You complain in the said place, as before hath been showed, of the charge of arianism laid The Return to the Reply. falsely upon Calvin, by our Jesuits, as you say, and this for one only speech of his where he saith; That the Father is by a kind of excellency God, which you say both Pag. 17. in speech and sense, is most orthodoxal, and agreeing with the tenor of holy writ, and judgement of all ancient Fathers, as our own learned Jesuits confess, and do produce (say you) for their authority an inquest of Fathers to free Calvin in this point, which Fathers upon those words of S. john's Gospel, my Father is great than I, do affirm that the Father is greater, not in substance and being, but by reason of birth and begetting, for which you allege Cardinal Tolet & Maldonate, both Jesuits, in their commentaries upon S. john's Gospel. 101. But this Sir by your leave, supposing all were so, In what sense ancient Fathers do understand the words My Father is greater than I to be understood also in a certain sort as Christ was God, and the second person in Trinity. doth not free Calvin in this point of arianism: for that he is otherwise manifoldly convinced, as now you have heard. And secondly, for this sole point or sentence here mentioned, albeit the two forenamed Jesuits do cite divers ancient Fathers, that do hold those words of Christ, My Father is greater than I, are true, not only in respect of his humanity, but also in a certain sort, as he is God, to wit, that between those personal relations of Father and Son, Begetter and Begotten, in the blessed Trinity, there ariseth a more honourable respect out of the former, then of the later; yet doth not this make that in the Godhead itself, the Father is more excellent than the Son, or that by excellency he is God, or that the name of God by a certain excellency doth only belong unto him, as Calvin is accused to say, which in all sensible construction must import, that the Son is inferior unto him in substance of Godhead, which is a chief point of Arrianisine whereon the old Arrians did principally stand, in all their disputes against Catholics. 102. And whereas T. M. for his last defence of Calvin saith, that he was so far of from arianism, that our own Bellarmine doth acknowledge that Calvin did impugn the doctrine of the Arrians, in this also, as in all the rest, he useth great fraud. For first Bellarmine hath not this affirmative proposition, as here is set down, How and whether Calvin did impugn the Arrians. Calvin did impugn the doctrine of the Arrians; but only he confesseth that Calvin and other Sectaries, who out of their wicked doctrine consenting with the old Arrians have given occasion to the offspring of new Arrians in our days, do notwithstanding write books against them, as 〈◊〉 did; which thing may arise upon divers occasions, concerning either their persons or sect. Beauties' words are these: Albeit Luther, Melanchthon, 〈◊〉 de notis Ecclesiae c. 9 Calvin and their 〈◊〉 do 〈◊〉 Arrius for an Heretic; yet can they not deny but that themselves in their writings did sow the seeds of this error, from whence afterwards sprung up these new Arrians, which they themselves impugn: So as Bellarmine doth not speak in this place particularly of Caluins impugning all the doctrine of Arrians, as here this man would seem to impose upon him, citing falsely this sentence out of him: Arrianos calvinus impugnavit, and no more; but that he and other Sectaries of our days would seem in some things to impugn them, whereas in other things they held with them. For so presently in the very next words doth Bellarmine expressly declare himself, where having reduced the Heresies of Arrius to two heads, saith, that the former sort are held publicly by the new Arrians of our days, whereof the seeds were sown by Calvin and others: but the second sort are held expressly by Calvin and other modern Sectaries, Alterum 〈◊〉 Arrianorum docent omnes huius temporis Haeretici saith he. So as in this also there is notable fraudulent dealing of T. M. as you see; yea nothing almost cometh from him without fraud. 103. But as for this brag of his & his fellows that Calvin did write divers books against the new Arrians, and Trinitarians of our time, as namely against servetus, Gentilis, Alciatus, Blandrata and others, Doctor Hunnius that Pag. 187. hath read their works & his, can best make answer, D. Hunn. opinion about Calvin's writing against Arrians. & decide the matter, who saith: Pridem & hoc inclaruit in orb Christiano, quibus ex Scholis & Ecclesiis ipsa illa 〈◊〉 portenta prodierint. It is now well known in the Christian world, out of what schools and Churches those foul monsters (the new Arrians & Trinitarians) have proceeded, that is to say, from the calvinists etc. And whereas (saith he) it is vaunted that Calvin did write against these Heretics, we deny not but that therein he did well, albeit in truth he gave occasion to the devil by his manner of dealing, to raise up no small Pag. 190. number of enemies against the blessed Trinity, and consequently he did no otherwise, then if one having holpen some to set fire on a house, should after the flame thereof waxeth boisterous, help other men also for extinguishing or restraining the same. So Hunnius: who finally concludeth with this prayer: Dominus jesus Satanam sub pedes nostros conterat citò, & a lue Caluinistica Pag. 193. clementer liberet Ecclesiam suam. Amen. Our Lord jesus crush Satan quickly under our feet, and of his clemency deliver his Church from the infection of calvinists. Thus he, and with this prayer he endeth his book. 104. And now if this man had been a Papist, great exceptions no doubt would be taken against him; but being a brother of the same Gospel, & one of those oath, promise, or other band of conscience. As if an unjust judge or Magistrate should ask us things that are without his jurisdiction, to the prejudice of ourselves, or of others, as by inquiring after secrets that Cases concerning secrecy. do not appertain to him: Or if a jealous husband should ask his wife whether she had ever committed falsehood against him, proposing the present pain of death, except she answered directly thereunto, and many other such like cases, which I purposely pretermit. And it seemeth that Thomas Morton hath not studied them, but Catholic writers, both Divines, Scholastical and Positive, as also Lawyers both Canon and civil among us do discuss how men may bear themselves therein, without sin or offence to God, when they fall out, and this with more severity against lying, than any Protestant Author is seen to do, as in the sequent Consideration will appear. 24. And here I ask Thomas Morton further what he will say to all the stratagems in war, for so much as there may be aswell lying in facts, as in words, according as our S. Thomas and other Divines do hold; how will T. M. excuse these stratagems, that is to say policies, deceipts, and dissimulations of enemies in wars, from lies? Will he condemn all such stratagems as sinful, as heathenish, as hellish, as impious? Why then do his Protestant Captains & Leaders use them? why do his Protestant Ministers that live with them allow thereof? Nay that which is much more, why doth S. Augustine approve the same, whose sentence is: cum justum bellum quis susceperit, utrum aperta pugna vel insidiis vincat nihil ad justitiam interest: When a man taketh Aug. l. qu. 6. qu. 10. upon him a just war, it importeth nothing to the justice of the cause, whether he overcome by open war Gratian. in causa 23. q. 2. §. Dominus. or sleights: which sentence is so well liked by our Popes, lawyers and Divines, as it is put into the corpse of the Canon law. And what will T. M. then say to all this, yea to many express examples in Scripture itself? 25. And namely what will he say to the fact of joshua jof. 〈◊〉. that going about to take the City of Hai, gave order to his Captains: Ponite insidias post Civitatem, nos terga vertemus etc. Lay an ambush behind the City by night, and we shall follow with an army in the norning, and when those of Hai shall come forth to assail us, we will seem to flee, simulantes metum, feigning to The stratagem of joshua. be afraid: What will he say to this stratagem? will he deny it to be a dissimulation, and consequently also an Equivocation in fact? The matter is evident to the contrary by the text itself: will he call it a scar of infirmity of the old Testament (to use his own Ministerial or rather Manichean phrase) and think to escape thereby? But against this is the express order, and commandment of God himself: Pone insidias urbi post eam, lay an ambush behind the City, ergo stratagems in war though they contain deceipts, dissimulations, and Equivocations, may be used in some cases, and that lawfully without the sin of lying. 26. Another example most manifest is in the fourth 4. Reg. 6. book of the Kings, where the King of Syria sending certain Captains with forces to apprehend the Prophet The stratagem of Elizeus. Elizeus in the City of Dothaim, he going forth of the City, and meeting with the said Captains, they not knowing him, said unto them: Non est haec via, neque ista est Civitas; sequimini me, & ostendam virum quem quaeritis: This is not the way (to Dothaim) nor is this that City, but do you follow me, and I will show unto you the man whom you seek for, and so they did, and he lead them into the midst of Samaria where the King of Israel his army might and would have destroyed them, if the said Prophet had permitted: So as this stratagem also, containing the exterior show: of a great untruth, and falsehood, cannot be denied to have been lawful in this Prophet, as appeareth by the concurrence of God with divers miracles in the same. 27. The like may be showed out of the example of judith 11. judith, who by the instinct of Almighty God, and his plain ordinance, as the Scripture saith, was sent to Holofornes, who told him a long narration of many The stratagem of judith. things that in event and outward show were not true, as that he should get not only 〈◊〉, but Jerusalem also, and conquer the whole nation of the jews, adding thereunto this asseveration, Et misit me Dominus haec nunciare tibi, and our Lord hath sent me to tell you these things, by which stratagem (as you know) she delivered her whole country from the forces of the said Holofernes, which otherwise had been like to have destroyed them 28. And thus much in this place for stratagems in war: but for other examples great numbers might be alleged, wherein some Equivocations must needs be admitted, though no lie; as that of the Angel appearing Tob. 〈◊〉. to Toby the elder, who being taken by him to be a man, and demanded of what family or tribe he Other examples of Scriptures concerning Equivocations. was, he said, ego sum Azarias Ananiae Magni silius, I am Azarias the Son of the Great Ananias, whereunto Toby answered, Ex magno genere tu es, you are of a great stock indeed; which yet was not so in the understanding of the speaker, and consequently here must be confessed an evident Equivocation, or amphibology of speech, whereby the hearer was deceived. And not unlike to this is that speech of our Saviour, when standing in the temple, he used to the jews demanding a miracle: Do you dissolve this Temple, and I will build joan. 2. it up again in three days, meaning the Temple of his body, but his hearers understood him of the material Temple of Jerusalem, and so to their sense it seemed Math. 27. that he speak, for 〈◊〉 cause they accused him afterward very solemnly thereof at this passion, and insulted against him for the same upon the cross, ergo Equivocation may not always be condemned for lying, as our Minister avoucheth. 29. I pretermit divers other speeches of our Saviour of like quality, as that when he said to his brethren: joan. 7. Ego non ascendam ad diem festum istum. I will not go up to Jerusalem to this feast, and yet he meant to go up, and so went, but not in public, and therein stood the: Equivocation of his 〈◊〉; but his brethren understood not his meaning, for if they had, no doubt they would not have gone up without him, ergo one sense was understood by the speaker, and another by the hearer, which we shall afterward show to be properly Equivocation, and yet no lie can be enforced thereon, but with singular impiety. 30. These words also of S. Paul to the Hebrews: Melchisedech Hebr. 7. King of Salem etc. which was without Father, without Mother, without genealogy, neither having beginning of his days, nor end of his life, must needs be confessed to have an Equivocation or amphibology in them, and somewhat to be reserved by the speaker for their understanding: for as they lie, they seem impossible to be true, that a man could be without Father, Mother, genealogy, beginning or ending, & yet is there no more expressed by the Apostle, but his meaning was that nothing is set down in Scripture of those particularities. 31. And finally the same Apostle S. Paul, seeing himself pressed at a certain time in judgement by his enemies, Some Equinocations used by S. Paul in his answer to the unjust jew. and considering that they were of two factions, pharisees and Saducees, whereof the one sort confesseth resurrection of the dead, and the other not, he protested openly that the cause whereof he was accused, was about the said resurrection of the dead, which Act. 〈◊〉 though in his sense was true, for that his chief trouble was for defending the resurrection of Christ, and our hope of resurrection by him: yet was it not so then in the understanding of the hearers, who upon this, dividing themselves, let him go, yea the pharisees began to excuse & defend him in that Council, who otherwise were the greatest enemies of his Religion and profession. By all which is seen that sometimes of necessity we must admit some use of Equivocation without lying, for otherwise many places of the Scriptures themselves and of other holy men's writings & doings cannot be well understood, or defended, as afterwards more at large shall be showed. 32. But now to pass no further in the recital of more arguments to this purpose, we may conclude with that common doctrine of Schoolmen taken August. in Psal. 5. 22. quaest. 2. out of S. Augustine and other Fathers, that albeit a lie is lawful in no case; yet often may it be lawful to conceal a truth, for that he handling those words of the Psalm, Thou shalt destroy all those which speak lies. he Psal. 5. saith: Aliud est mentiri, aliud verum occultare; aliud est falsum dicere, aliud verum tacere. It is a different thing to lie & to conceal a truth; one thing to speak that which is false, another thing to hold our peace in that which is true. And then concludeth: Non est ergo culpandum aliquando verum tacere etc. It is not therefore to be reprehended if a man sometimes do not utter a truth; which hardly can be performed in sundry cases without some amphibology or Equivocation of speech, & consequently that this may be without lying. And hereof one example may serve for all, taken out of Hieremy the Prophet, who having had a long conference in secret with Sedechias the King in Jerusalem, & told him many things of the will of God about his voluntary yielding to the Chaldeans and army of Nabuchodonosor, King Sedechias in conclusion said thus unto him: Nullus sciat verba haec etc. Let no man know those 〈◊〉. 38. words that thou hast spoken unto me, and thou shalt not die, & if the Princes or Noble men of my Kingdom shall hear that thou hast spoken with me, and shall come unto thee and say, tell us what thou hast talked with the King, and the King with thee, and see thou hide nothing from us, thou shalt say unto them etc. And the said Princes came to Hieremy, and examined him, and he spoke unto them according to all the words which the King had commanded him, and so they left him. 33. Thus far the Scripture, and no man can probably imagine but that in this recapitulation made by Hieremy unto the Princes, of so long a conference had with the King in secret, but that for covering of those things which the King would not have to be uttered, and the Noble men were greedy to know, in such a dangerous and suspicious time of siege as that was, Hieremy himself being held for more than half a traitor to his country, for that he persuaded men to yield themselves to the common enemy; no doubt (I say) but that in so straight an examination as they would make about that matter, in whose power his life and death (as the Scripture signifieth) did lie, divers Equivocations of speeches must necessarily be used by him, though always with a true sense in his meaning, which is the difference between Equivocation and lying, as after more particularly shall be showed, if first we set down one other consideration for better declaring the difference in these two things, and how far those are from approbation of lying who in some cases do admit Equivocation in our doctrine. The fifth Consideration. §. 5. 34. IN the fifth place it may be considered about this matter, how far the teachers or allowers of 5. How far the allowers of Equivocation are from approving of lies. Equivocation are from teaching or allowing of lies, which is the ordinary calumniation of this malicious Minister throughout his whole seditious book; which if it be proved to be a false charge, then falleth all his accusation to the ground, or rather upon his own head. Wherefore we must stand somewhat more long upon this point, then upon the former, to the end it may appear how 〈◊〉 a Minister of Satan this is, whose principal exercise hath ever been to calumniate from the beginning: and we shall talk especially of the Catholic writers of these last four hundred years by him mentioned, and of the Popes of the same time, that have approved the same doctrine; for that of this principal accusation, that they made no difference between lying and Equivocating, but expressly rather patronized the one as much as the other. 35. First then for battery of this wicked slander, we will begin our confutation from the received authority of the famous learned doctor S. Thomas of Aquin, D. Tho. 2. 2 quaest. 110 art. 1. 3. 4. that lived and died above three hundred years gone. He proposeth this question in his most excellent Sum of divinity, Whether all kind of lying be always a sin, and consequently unlawful for any cause? And he holdeth affirmatively, that it is so, alleging many proofs and reasons for the same. And the very same severity of doctrine in that point do hold all other Reply par. 3. Pag. 62. Vasq. disp. 53. 〈◊〉. 22. Schoolmen, aswell after him, as before him, and our Minister himself citeth Vasquez the jesuit late Reader of divinity in Spain, in certain disputations of his upon S. Thomas, affirming: Mendacium esse malum tam: intrinsecè, ut bonum reddi nulla ratione posset. That a lie is so intrinsically evil of his own nature, as that by no means it may be made good or lawful. And the like D. Tho. 2. 2 quaest. 111. art. 〈◊〉. & 4. rigour of doctrine teacheth the said S. Thomas in the next question after, against dissimulation and Hypocrisy, which he saith to be a kind of lie in fact, deceiving a man by exterior signs or acts, as the other sort of lies doth by words: against both which kinds or sorts of lies or untruths he holdeth this conclusion, The severity of S. Thomas against lying and dissimulation. That neither of them in any case is dispensable from sin, though in some cases one may be a less sin than another; and if this be so, how then can Equivocation be permitted by him, if he held it to be a lie, as our Minister would have it. For if, as Vasquez said, no sort of lie can be made lawful by any circumstance; then must M. Morton grant, that it followeth by the same reason, that either Equivocation is no lie, or else that Vasquez the jesuit, and his fellows do not allow Equivocation in any case whatsoever, & consequently that Jesuits are falsely accused by this fellow for admitting Equivocation. But let us go forward, and show his folly out of other Authors of no less antiquity. 36. Before S. Thomas, the Master of the Sentences Peter Lombard, in his third book, and 38. and 39 distinction, Mag. Sent. 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. dist. 38. & 39 holdeth the same severity against all sorts of lies, and falsities, dividing them into three sorts, to wit, perniciosum, officiosum, & iocosum, the first pernicious, or malicious that intendeth hurt without good, the second that intendeth the good of some without hurt to any, the third in jest; all which notwithstanding are condemned for sinful, and no ways to be practised or tolerated for any cause whatsoever, though the second The Master of the Sentences doctrine 〈◊〉 lying. two sorts may be oftentimes venial sins only; but: yet of such nature, and so intrinsically evil of themselves, as neither for saving our own lives, or the life of another man they ought wittingly to be committed, as out of S. Augustine also, by him and other Schoolmen alleged is confirmed: yea they allege eight several kinds, sorts, or degrees of lies out of the same S. Augustine, some far less than others, but yet none allowable, and so they conclude with this sentence of the said Doctor: Quisquis verò aliquod genus esse mendacij, quod peccatum non sit, putaverit, decipit seipsum 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 Aug lib. de mend. ad cons. c. 14. 〈◊〉 se deceptorem aliorum arbitretur. Whosoever shall think that there is any kind of lie, which is not sin, he 〈◊〉 deceiveth himself by thinking that he may be an honest deceiver of other men. 37. This is the doctrine of the Master of Sentences, for four hundred years past, and of other School Doctors ensuing after him, unto our time, wherein you see how rigorous they are in condemning lying, whereon this Minister Thomas Morton either by chance, or his good hap stumbling, found store of matter to wrangle with us in this controversy, and to make a show of some reading of different Authors, wherein otherwise he must have been very brief and dry. For whatsoever he hath of ostentation in this behalf against Equivocation, is stolen 〈◊〉 of the said Master of Sentences, and Fathers by him alleged, spoken, and meant by them against lying, and not Equivocation. And is not this a goodly manhood trow you? deserveth Thomas morton's toys. he not a laurel for this conquest? Our Authors detest lying, and admit in some cases Equivocation, he applieth their detestation to Equivocation, or their admittance to lies, and saith, that he divideth our tongues, & turneth our own Authors against us: what a ridiculous toy and foolery is this? But let us see yet somewhat further. 38. The same School Doctors stay not here, but do pass on to many other particularities for showing their detestation against the foresaid kind of lying, for favouring whereof they are brought into question by this Minister. As for example, whereas they write that God is omnipotent, and can do all things, and use his creatures to what end and use it shall please him; yet cannot he neither by his ordinary, nor absolute power, either by himself, or by another concur to the making of a lie fraudulently to deceive the understanding of man or Angel, or induce another so to deceive the same, with intention indeed of deceit or fallacy. Of which point of doctrine the said Schooledoctors Read in 2. 2 quaest. 1. art. 3. Gregor. de Valent. Duran. in 3. dist. 24. quaest. 2. and others after them do dispute largely upon the third article of S. Thomas his second Part, and first question of his Sum of divinity, demanding this doubt: Whether any kind of deceit or falsity by any means, mediately, or immediately, may proceed from God; which they hold negatively, that it is impossible, he being truth itself, and the fountain of all truth and sincerity in others. 〈◊〉. in 3. q. 14. And albeit there be many and great arguments: Canus l. 2. de locis cap. 3. alleged out of Scriptures, which in show do prove the contrary, to wit, that God not only can by his absolute power, but hath also oftentimes in effect deceived Greg Arim. in 1. dist. 42. q. 2. & alios. others, by means of wicked spirits, as S. Augustine also holdeth, and is evident by many places of Scripture, as 2. Reg. 22. where to deceive Achab, it is said: Dedit Dominus spiritum mendacem in ore omnium Prophetarum. 〈◊〉. 83. q.q. ultima. God gave a lying spirit in the mouth of all his false Prophets. And Esay 63. Ezech. 14. job 12. Rom. 1. it is said expressly, that God delivereth men into a reprobate God cannot deceive or cooperate to an untruth. sense, which is the worst sort of deceiving a man's understanding that may be: yet to all this they answer out of the ancient Fathers, and Scripture itself, that God doth only permit men to be deceived, and to believe untruth, but doth not concur actually or effectually to the same by any cooperation of his to any falsehood or untruth whatsoever, nor can he do it by any power of his, for that he should impugn himself which is truth. And this is the greatest and highest detestation of lying used by our Doctors that possibly can be imagined: and yet will the lying Minister say that they are 〈◊〉, Fathers, and patrons of lying. But let us see more of our Schooledoctors in this behalf. 39 Our learned countryman also Alexander of Hales, living before S. Thomas, and as some say was his Master, being held for one of the most learned of all Schoolmen that ever were before or after him, doth handle divers questions very learnedly and piously about Alex. Halens. 2. p. sum Theolog. q. 122. this point for detestation of lying, as namely one, Why theft and manslaughter may be lawfully permitted in some cases and lying never. Also how it cometh to pass, that the least degree of lying that is to wit an officious, or 〈◊〉, which in ordinary imperfect men is only a venial sin, may come to be in men of perfection a mortal and damnable sin, concluding thus: Quod sicut de Adam dicitur, quòd ratione status sui peccavit mortaliter, ita & iste ratione status in hoc genere peccat mortaliter. As it is said of Adam, that by reason of his high state of innocency he sinned mortally (in eating an apple by disobedience) so this man professing perfection of life in a religious state, by any sort of voluntary lying, sinneth mortally; for which he allegeth divers authorities Aug super illud 〈◊〉. 1. Bene ergo fecit etc. of S. Augustine, as namely this; Sanctus vir etc. A holy man that doth perfectly cleave to God, which is truth itself, is forbidden either purposely, or rashly to utter untruth, and for that the Scripture saith, He that lieth killeth his own soul, and again, Thou shalt destroy all those that speak lies, perfect men do fly with all care these kinds also of least lies in such sort, as no man's life may be defended thereby, lest they hurt their own souls, while they go about to profit another man's flesh. 40. Again the said Father in another place: Tam sibi clausum deputat ad subveniendum hominem per mendacium, Aug. lib. contra mend. cap. 20. quam si per stuprum transire cogatur. A good and perfect man doth think the way so shut unto him from helping another man by any kind of lie, (though never so officious) as if it were required at his hand to help him by committing rape or incest: nay yet Halensis goeth further proposing this question; Whether if a man did certainly know, that by any least kind of lying on his behalf, he might convert an Infidel to Christianity, and not otherwise, whether he might do it, or no, and then concludeth that he may not in any case, alleging this reason out of S Augustine, that as it The rigorous sentence of Halensis against lying. is not lawful for me to procure another man's chastity by my own sin of carnality; so much less is it lawful to bring another man to the knowledge of truth, by my corrupting of truth. So this holy Religion's Countryman of ours, whose conscience let the indifferent Reader compare with that of this irreligious Minister, who not only in jest, or officious lying to any man's good, either in body or soul, but in malicious lying, in prejudice of both, is every where taken most manifestly, as before you have seen, and shall again after upon sundry occasions. 41. Well then this severity of doctrine is taught by our Catholic Divines, against the sin of simple lying. But if we talk of lying in an oath, which is perjury, every man may imagine how much more earnestly the same is detested by them, in so much as the famous Doctor Navarre before mentioned, who is held Nau. come. 2. in come. in cap. humanae 〈◊〉 res. 22. q. 5. p. 453. to be one of the most liberal, and largest in admitting Equivocations both in words and oaths, with the due circumstances, and hath written three whole Treatises about the same: yet is he so severe and rigorous against lying and perjury, as he teacheth, that it is a mortal and damnable sin to swear falsely, even in jest. And others yet go further, avouching that it is damnable to swear 〈◊〉 by evil custom, Ludovic. Lopez in Instructorio consc. c. 42. de juramento: §. quanquam. Caetan. Comm. in 2. 2. q. 791. art. 3. yea sometimes also though the thing in itself be true which he sweareth: the reason whereof they allege to be this, for that the act of swearing being actus latriae, as Divines call it, that is to say, an act of highest honour to God, for that he is cited and alleged in an oath, as an infallible witness, the man that accustometh to swear rashly putteth himself in manifest danger to swear also falsely, & thereby sinneth mortally, albeit, for that time he sweareth the thing that is true, but as easily would he have done it, though A man may sin mortally in 〈◊〉 truth. it had been false, in respect of his ill custom of swearing rashly, and consequently, no less dishonour and contempt doth he use towards the Majesty of Almighty God therein, then if he had sworn false, which is an important note for rash swearers to consider of and remember. 42. Well now all this being so, will our Minister still stand in his obstinate calumniation, that we are lovers of lies, patrons of perjury, defenders & allowers of falsehood, Doctors of deceiving, and the like? will he still defend, Conf. p. 48 that there is nothing but lying in Rome? and that the Sea apostolic granteth out full privilege of lying, as before you have heard him avouch? how than if I show that all this, and much more against lying which you have heard out of the Schoolmen, and ancient Fathers, is not only allowed & admitted by the Sea of Rome, but translated also by the Popes thereof into the corpse of All the for mer 〈◊〉 against lying and perjury approved by Popes. their Canon law, and so not only approved, but commended and commanded also to be observed? Can any thing convince more our Minister's Calumniation then this? Let any man look then upon the second Part of Gratian his Decretals throughout the two and twentieth Cause for five whole questions together, there he shall find not only the substance of all this, that here I have said, but much more cited out of all the ancient Fathers, Popes, & Counsels to this effect. 43. For there he shall find set down out of S. Augustine, and Canonised, the foresaid distinction of eight sorts or degrees of lying, with a reprobation of them Cansa 22. q 2. c. 8. §. Primum est. all, where having cited those words of S. Augustine; Non est igitur mentiendum in doctrina pietatis, quia magnum scelus est, & primum genus detestabilis mendacij; we must not lie concerning doctrine of piety, or martyrs touching our faith, for that it is a heinous sin, and the first kind of detestable lying: he passeth downward by all the rest, excluding them one by one, and concluding: Quòd neque pro 〈◊〉 temporali commodo ac salute veritas corrumpenda est, neque ad sempiternam salutem ullus ducendus est opitulante mendacio: Neither is truth to be corrupted for any man's temporal commodity, nor is any man to be brought to eternal salvation by the help of a lie; So S. Augustine: And so Gratian that allegeth him above four hundred years gone; and so all the Popes that have Canonised this saying of his, & determined it for Canonical law ever since to our days. And with what impudence then saith this Minister, from whence shall a man except privilege of lying, then from that place, where (as your own learned Bishop saith) there is nothing but Conf. p. 48 lying; which in deed is lying upon lying, for that Espencaeus whom he 〈◊〉 in the margin saith not so, there is nothing but lying, as in another place shall be showed; and if he did, yet the thing itself is evidently proved to be false by this, that we have alleged out of the Pope's Canons, affirming all sorts of lies whatsoever to be indispensible. Let any man than believe these fellows that will be deceived. 44. But the Pope's Canons go yet further, and do decree, & determine out of the authority of the same Cap 9 Ex Aug. de verbis Apostoli serm. 31. Father S. Augustine and other Fathers, sundry points of greater perfection against the sin of lying, as this for example: Quod non licet alicui humilitatis causa mentiri: It is not lawful for any man to lie out of humility, saying less of a man's self then truth permitteth. And Cap. 10. ex Aug. tract. in ●oa. 43. again in another Canon: Non licet mentiri, ut arrogan●ia vitetur, it is not lawful to lie, that arrogancy thereby may be avoided. 45. And as for perjury which is a lie confirmed with an oath, the said Canons are so severe, as they do not only detest the same, both in him that forsweareth, & in him that induceth another thereunto, but do also appoint grievous penitential punishments for the same. As for example: Qui compulsus à Domino sciens peierat (saith one Canon) utrique sunt periuri, & Dominus & miles: Dominus quia praecepit, miles quia plus Dominum, quam animam dilexit: si liber est quadragint a dies in pane & aqua Caus. 22. q. 5 cap. 1. paeniteat, & septem sequentes annos. If any man compelled by his Lord, shall w●ittingly forswear himself, both of them are perjured, as well the Lord as the servant: the Lord for commanding, and the servant, for that he hath loved his Lord more than his own soul: let him do penance by fasting in bread and water forty days, and seven years afterward. Et nunquam sit Ibid. c. 4. sine paenitentia, saith another Canon, let him never cease to repent, and do some penance for this grievous sin, so long as he liveth. And here is to be noted, that S. Anselm doth cite this punishment out of the penitential decrees of our ancient Theodorus Archbishop of Canterbury, whereby it appertaineth the more to my Lord that now is of that Sea, to look to this his Chaplain, or miles Morton, and finding him guilty of lying against his own often oaths and solemn protestations, as we have discovered him in this our answer, to cast some little aspersion at least of penitential satisfactions upon him. And if forty days in bread & water may seem to much, let him fast some four with contrition, and that perhaps may do him more good than any books or writing against him. But to return to Gratian. He reciteth divers other Canons out of sundry ancient Counsels, Fathers, and Pope's decrees, as out of S. Augustine: Homicidam vincit, qui Causa 22. q. 5. c. 5. Ex Aug. ser. 11. de sanctis. sciens ad periurium hominem provocat, he passeth a murderer in wickedness, that wittingly doth provoke another man to perjury: and the reason hereof is added in the Canon; for that a murderer killeth but the body, this the soul; nay two souls, both his that forsweareth, & his own that provoketh. So that Canon; which me thinketh were seriously to be considered, by them that force others to swear against their consciences, knowing or presuming probably that the swearers consciences are opposite to that which they are forced to swear: and consequently, according to this rule of S. Augustine do murder eternally both their own souls, and those of them that do urge them thereunto. Neither shall it be needful to add any more in this place seeing the said Canons are extant to be read and seen by all, and allowed, authorized, and set forth for sacred and authentical by all Popes whatsoever. 46. My conclusion therefore upon this fifth consideration is, that for so much as Romish Catholic doctrine The Conclusion of this consideration. doth teach and prescribe all this rigour, and severity against lying and perjury, which in Protestants books, touching cases of conscience, we have not hitherto seen expressed; it may well be inferred, that if Equivocation were held for lying; it would in no case be allowed by the same doctrine, as lying is not. And that if the Sea of Rome did give out privileges for lying and perjury she would not authorize such severe penitential Canons against the same, and that if nothing but lying were there, as Morton saith there is not, then were this lying also that she doth acknowledge these Canons, which yet is proved by the printed books that are extant thereof: and to these inferences I do not see what can be answered, or brought to the contrary, except only our Minister would say, that all our Doctors are deceived, in distinguishing between lying and Equivocation, which 〈◊〉 he say, he doth first quit us from lying wittingly, & consequently from lying at all, for that according to S. Augustine & all other Doctors, he that lieth thinking that he doth not lie, lieth not at all, quia non 〈◊〉 linguam ream, nisi Aug. in Enchirid. cap. 18. & cont mend, cap. 5. mens rea, nothing maketh the tongue guilty of lying, but a guilty mind, and consequently T. M. having accused us so often and 〈◊〉 of wilful lying, hath wilfully slandered us, and here unwittingly cleareth us. And as for the second, whether our Doctors do well and rightly distinguish between lying and Equivocation, shall now presently be 〈◊〉 in the sequent Chapters of this Treatise. THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CAUSE IS ENTERED INTO; And it is discussed, What Equivocation, what truth, what falsity, and lying is: And some other points to this effect. CHAP. VIII. ANd forasmuch as all the Considerations laid forth in the former Chapter, have been set down only by way of preamble, for better understanding the true state of the controversy; it shall be now expedient, that we draw near to the substance of the matter and issue itself, especially being called thereunto by the 〈◊〉 provocation of our Adversary, who having made that vainglorious entrance to his Treatise of confutation, which before we touched; to wit, I am now to encounter this new-bred-hydra and Conf. p. 〈◊〉 ugly monster etc. And I shall prove this Equivocation and approbation thereof to be lying, and that no one jota in all Scripture, no one example in all antiquity, no one shadow of reason in the natural wit of man, can be brought for any proof or colour thereof: After these brags (I say) he passeth to another solemn vaunt saying: Now must we come into the lists of Pag. 50. this conflict, and enter upon our Equivocatour to convince him a gross liar, whereby you see his great confidence in the cause, which I cannot ascribe to any thing, more than to ignorance. For if he had understood well, or weighed the points before laid down, or these other which presently we are to adjoin, I do not see how he could have spoken so confidently in so bad a cause. 2. For what? will he hold that all kind of Equivocation is lying? If he do, he forgetteth himself, for he granted in the very next precedent page, that one sort of Equivocation (which afterward we shall prove to be the only) is no lie. For that having set down, as it were, for a principle or foundation of all his Treatise, Conf. p. 48 what we do hold in this behalf, he saith, that we do teach a double Equivocation, the one mental when any thing is reserved in mind, differing from that which outwardly is expressed, as when a Catholic being demanded, whether he have any Priest in his Two sorts of Equivocation. house, may answer by Equivocation that he hath none, reserving in his mind that he hath none whom he is bound to utter or discover: the other kind is verbal, when one word (he should have said also speech) shall import two or more significations, as if a man should say you go to fast, or you may not lie in my house, the word fast, may signify either fasting or hasty going, and lying may signify either remaining, or telling untruth. And the like example may be taken out of Aristotle himself, Arist. 1. of the word Dog; as if one should say, I am afraid of a Elench. c. 3 Dog, the speech is doubtful and equivocal, for that the word Dog hath a triple signification, to wit a domestical dog, a dog fish in the sea, or a sign in the heavenly sphere, wherein when the sun hath his course we call them dog days, of which some man being afraid for his health, may say, I fear the Dog etc. 3. Now than these two sorts of Equivocations being set down, T. M. is forced presently to grant, that the later sort, whether it be in word or speech, is no lie of itself; for who would say, that a man lieth in using the different significations of any word or speech? Who will affirm that he saith an untruth, if Verbal Equivocation no lie. for example, he being of a hot & sickly complexion, and fearing the Canicular-days, should say, I fear the dog, meaning the dangerous influence of that celestial sign, or of those Canicular-days: so as now by his own confession, (for in effect he confesseth it in this place, and can do no other) this second part or member of Equivocation, is no lie; notwithstanding perhaps the hearer should be deceived, & understand the speaker to mean of a domestical dog, when he meaneth the celestial. And of this more examples shallbe given afterwards out of the Scripture itself. 4. But here is to be noted that 〈◊〉, whom M. Morton styleth by the title of Oracle of all Logicians, setteh down three sorts or degrees of Equivocation: the first in word or speech, when it hath divers significations: the second in custom of phrase: the third in composition of single parts together. Of the first he giveth the example before mentioned of a dog, that hath different significations, of the second, though he name no example, yet this may be one, if I should say: I esteem him a wise man that can hold his peace, Three sorts of Equivocation out of Aristotle. it would be understood in English for him that can govern his tongue, & this in respect of our English phrase or custom of speech, but in any other language it would rather be understood for him that can live in peace, or maintain the peace he hath made with his Adversary; so as the Equivocation or multiplicity of sense, riseth here out of our English custom of phrase as you see. 5. Of the third sort he allegeth many examples, and among other this: Possibile est sedentem ambulare, & non scribentem scribere: That one sitting may walk, and one not writing may write, in which sentences the words being taken separately and a part out of composition, they have but simple and plain significations, but being compounded in this manner as they lie, have manifest Equivocation and amphibology in them, by reason of composition. For if we understand that a man sitting, while he sitteth, can walk, or while he writeth not, can write, which is, as Logicians say, in sensu composito, it is not possible: but if we understand it in sensu diviso that he that sitteth now may walk afterward, or he that writeth not now, hath power to write afterward, no man will deny it; and yet are neither of those things falsities or lies but only Equivocal or amphibological propositions, that may be true in divers senses, and yet deceive the Reader or hearer if he stand not attended. 6. But now whether T. M. will admit our former reserved proposition, which is partly 〈◊〉 and partly verbal, under any of these three sorts of Logical Equivocations, I know not: but if he do, then must T. M. maketh his oracle to err in Logic. he confess the said proposition to be no lie, which is contrary to his asseveration in this place, saying that 〈◊〉 such Equivocation is a gross lie: and if he do not, then must he acknowledge his Oracle of Logicians to have erred grossly in making an insufficient division, which comprehendeth not all the parts of the thing divided. For if the said mixed proposition be an Equivocation, then must it have place amongst some of these three kinds, or else the division should be insufficient: Quia latius pateret divisum, quam 〈◊〉 dividentes. 7. But howsoever this be, yet M. Morton who every where pretendeth great skill in Logic, and therein also to be a cunning Aristotelian, calling the first (as you have heard) the art of arts, and high tribunal of reason, and the second the Oracle, showing also some disdain, when his Adversary doth but so much as name Logic Pag. 53. in his behalf; this man (I say) committeth here one of the most childish absurdities, against both Aristotle and Logic, that commonly can be committed by one that knoweth the first principles thereof: for he maketh Aristotle to define the whole by the definition of a part, as if one should define a man by the definition of the body, or the body by the definition of one leg, or the whole science of Physic, by the skill of the herbal, or of the pulse, or insight in waters, which are but several parts of Physic: even so doth M. Morton, taking upon him to set down the definition of Equivocation, thereby to impugn our foresaid mental proposition, saith thus: Equivocation in word or speech (saith the Oracle of all Logicians) is when one word, or one speech doth equally signify divers things, as when one shall say, I am Conf. p. 54 afraid of a dog etc. which how wisely he applieth to his purpose to overthrow our proposition thereby, & to prove it no proposition at all, shall afterward appear; now only is to be noted that these words are not the words of Aristotle in defining, but in dividing Equivocation, and the very first thereof to wit, Equivocation Homonymia ' estìn etc. is etc. are fisted in by Morton himself, as also the Greek thereof set down by him for ostentations sake in his margin, for that Aristotle there making a division of three sorts of Equivocation before mentioned, Arist. l. 1. describeth only the first sort thereof in these words: Elench. c. 3 There are three sorts or manners of speech according to Equivocation, and amphibology, the one, when a speech or word ‛ Eisì dè trêis trópois tôn 〈◊〉 tèn homonymian, kaì tèn ' amphibolian. hêis mèn etc. doth principally signify many things, as an Eagle, or Dog etc. so as here besides the sleight or falsehood which is familiar unto our adversary, he is convinced either to have abused greatly his Oracle, in making him to err grossly in setting down a division of three parts of Equivocation, whereas there is but one, or in defining the whole by a part only, as before hath been declared, whereof would follow that his definition non convertitur cum definito, the greatest absurdity that in Logic can be committed. Or lastly (which I easiest believe) that he understood not Aristotle, though he would make a flourish thereof, & so following the bat in flying hastily without light, hath broken his head on the walls before he was a ware. 8. But to return to consider somewhat further of the nature of Equivocation, you will ask me (perhaps) what is the proper definition of Equivocation, and how is the former mixed proposition partly mental and partly verbal, truly called Equivocal or Equivocation, for so much as it seemeth by that which hitherto hath been said, that of the double kind set down in the beginning, to wit mental and verbal, the second only may properly be called Equivocation, that is to say, when a speech or word signifieth divers things equally, which I grant also to be true, if we consider the proper nature of Equivocation treated by Aristotle, and his particular 〈◊〉 and reasons which he had in treating thereof, which ends by his Expositors are said to be two. 9 The first as it serveth to discern captious and sophistical syllogisms, from demonstrative and dialectical; to which end he allegeth six several kinds Arist. l. 1. of the said captious speeches in his first book of Elenches; 〈◊〉. c. 3 and Equivocation is the first, amphibology the second: which Equivocation is divided (as you have heard,) into three degrees before specified, to wit, into Equivocation of speech or words that have divers significations; into Equivocation by custom ction of the dead, whereof we shall have better occasion to set down afterward many examples, which no ways can be avoided from untruth, but only by some kind of mental reservation in the speaker; though Thomas Morton strive and struggle never so much to fly the same: but the more he struggleth, the more he entangleth himself like a fox in a net. 12. His second conclusion also (for two only he maketh containing the whole subject of his 〈◊〉 reatise) T M his 2 conclusion. seemeth to me very fond, simple, and untrue, where he saith: Our second conclusion is this, that every Equivocation, whether it be mental or verbal, if it be uttered in an oath, though it be no lie, yet is it an abominable profanation of that sacred institution of God; and I would ask him why? for that whatsoever may be truly said may be truly sworn also, and without profanation, so it be done with Equivocation both mental & verbal showed out of Scripture. the due circumstances of truth, justice, and reverence; an oath being nothing else, as Divines do define it, but the calling of God to witness in any thing that is affirmed or denied. And as for mental reservation, I would ask T. M. whether a man may not aswell swear, as say the foresaid sentence of the Prophet, wicked men shall not rise in judgement? And for verbal Equivocation, I would demand him, whether a man may not swear that which Christ our Saviour saith and affirmeth to be true, as for example, Elias iam venit. Math. 17. Marc 11. Elias is come; and again of S. john Baptist, Ipse est Elias, Math. 11. he is Elias himself, where the word Elias hath plain Equivocation in it, for that it signifieth both the person and spirit of Elias, and in S. john was the one and not the other. And again that saying of our Saviour, joan. 2. Dissolve this Temple, and in three days I will raise it up again, the word Temple hath an evident verbal Equivocation, for it signifieth both the material Temple, and Math. 26. Christ's body, and thereby deceived even the wisest Marc. 14. hearers, who understanding the one sense, which was the more common, objected the same to our Saviour both in his judgement, and upon the Cross; and yet was there neither lie, falsehood, nor profanation in this speech, though Equivocal; no if our Saviour had sworn it, for his word was of more truth and reverent respect to God his Father, than our oath can be. And hereby may our Minister see his wit in setting down so resolute a conclusion. 13. But there be many more examples as evident as this, as, Et ego si exaltatus fuero à terra omnia traham ad meipsum; joan. 12. when I shall be exalted from the earth I will draw all things unto myself, where the word Exaltation Ambiguous and Equivocal speeches of our Saviour. may have many senses, as to be exalted to heaven, or to glory, which most men would understand, rather than an exaltation upon a Cross, which Christ understood, and consequently his speech was mixed with amphibology and Equivocation; as were also the words omnia traham, which may have sundry senses, and some in appearance not true. And in like manner when he said of Lazarus sickness, Infirmitas haec joan. 11. non est ad mortem, this sickness it not to death; and yet he died, and consequently there was a further sense reserved. And in the same place, Lazarus amicus noster dormit, our friend Lazarus sleepeth; the word dormit signifieth Equivocally either to sleep or be dead, Christ understood of the second, his Disciples of the first: & will you say that he did abuse or deceive them, or use profane speech in this Equivocation? And yet further the same Equivocation our Saviour useth in Luc. 12. those words, Ignem veni mittere in terram, & quid volo, nisi ut ardeat, I came to cast fire into the earth, and what would I else, but that it burn? The word fire signifieth both natural fire, and zeal or fervour of spirit, and burning hath the like ambiguity; and is this also profanation, if it were to be sworn, as Christ did speak it? of phrase; and into Equivocation by composition of single, and simple parts together. His second intention was to treat thereof in regard of placing each thing in due order, in his rank of ten Predicaments, or show their relation thereunto; and for this cause in his first Treatise upon the said Predicaments, he maketh that notorious division of words, so well known unto Homónyma légetai, hôn ' ónoma mónon koinon, hò dè katà t'óunoma lógos tês ' ousias, héteros etc. Logicians into Aequivoca, Vnivoca & Denominativa, saying those things are Equivocal which do agree only in name, but are different in nature and 〈◊〉, according to that name, as a living and painted man do agree only in the name of a man, but not in nature, essence, substance or definition; and the like may be said in the word dog ge before mentioned. 10. Now than whereas our proposition before mentioned with mental reservation, tendeth not directly to any of these two purposes intended by Aristotle; and further hath no doubtful sense of speech or words by nature of the words themselves, or their double or doubtful significations, but only that it uttereth not all the whole sense of the speaker; it cannot properly Of Equivocation and amphibology how they differ. be called Equivocal according to Aristotle's meaning and definition; but rather in a more large & ample signification, as Equivocal may signify an amphibological, doubtful, or double-sensed proposition, in respect of the speaker and hearer, whereof the one sometime understandeth the same in one sense, and the other in another. For which cause the most ancient Schooledoctors, Fathers, and other Authors do use in deed rather the word Amphibology than Equivocation in expressing like kind of speeches as our proposition is; which of later years only hath been accustomed to be used in this sense, but the other is most ordinary with antiquity, not only among Philosophers, but also (and that especially) among Orators and rhetoricians, in which science it is held for lawful & most commendable in divers occasions, wheror both 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 maketh mention, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 lib. in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. l. 7. c. 9 〈◊〉 a whole Chapter The cause then why the answering by such a reserved proposition, as before hath been mentioned, is called by some Equivocation, is 〈◊〉 by a certain similitude, them propriety of speech, to wit that even as Equivocation properly by community of name in things of different natures by variety of significations in the self same words or speech, by 〈◊〉 of phrase, and composition of sundry sorts 〈◊〉 make different and doubtful senses, & meanings to the hearer; so in this case by mental reservation of some part of the foresaid mixed proposition, the like effect of doubtfulness is bred in the hearers 〈◊〉, and thereby consequently is named Equivocation, although improperly as Equivocation is taken for any doubtful word or speech that may have diversity of senses or understandings. 11. But now to infer hereof as T. M. doth in his first 〈◊〉 of this his wise dispute, that every such 〈◊〉 by mental reservation is a gross lie, Pag. 49. is not only a gross presumption, but a 〈◊〉 ignorance also in my opinion, not to call it a gross impiety; for by T. M. first conclusion. this means he might condemn of gross lying a great number of speeches of the holy Ghost, both in the old and new Testament, where divers propositions are set 〈◊〉 and uttered with imperfect sense, somewhat being reserved which necessarily must be supplied, to save the said speech from untruth. As for Psal. 1. example, where the Prophet saith Non resurgunt impij in judicio: Wicked men do not rise again in iugdment: if the Prophet reserved not somewhat in his mind unuttered, for the complement of this speech, as namely that they shall not rise to glory, as S. Paul expoundeth 1. Cor. 15. it to the Corinthians it would seem an Heresy, & contrary to the article of our creed, I believe the resurrection spirit or life in ner, 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 of marvel of that she saw; And again the same holy Ghost talking of the immensity of Salomon's wealth, said: Tantamque copiam praebuit argenti in Jerusalem, quasi lapidum, and Solomon made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as stones in Jerusalem, may a man swear this without untruth or profanation? what say you M. Morton? may a man swear this in your lords Court of the Arches? & the same I demand of those last words of S. john's Gospel; There are many other things which jesus did, which if they should be particularly written, I do not think that the world itself would hold the books that should be written thereof. 18. How can this be true M. Morton in plain and literail sense, and without some amphibology or Equivocation? and yet I think you will not say it is a lie, being part of the Gospel, or that it may not be sworn without abominable profanation. How then will you, or can you defend it? Truly by no other way, but by the licence of a Rhetorical figure called Quint. l. 〈◊〉. inst. orat. cap. 6. HYPERBOLE, which Quintilian defining saith, it is Ementiens superiectio, a lying exaggeration; and yet will no true Divine call it a lie indeed, & much less perjury or profanation, if any man should swear it: whereby is made manifest, and apparent the childish vanity of our Adversary in his former conclusion that every verbal Equivocation is an abominable profanation. And so much of this second kind of Equivocation, which you see how lawful and usual it is, even in the Scriptures themselves, and in the speeches of our Saviour which is truth itself; whereby having repressed somewhat the insolency and ignorance of this our vaunting Minister, we shall return now again to the first kind of Equivocation by mental reservation, about which is our principal controversy. And for that our Minister affirmeth two points about the same, the first, that it is no proposition at all according to the true nature of a proposition; and 〈◊〉 second that it is untrue morally, & a gross lie: we shall handle and discuss these two points severally in the two Paragraphes that do ensue. 14. In these other words in like manner, Hoc est corpus meum (about which there is so great a do now throughout Christendom) the Protestants for defending their opinion about the Sacrament, must needs grant a verbal Equivocation, trope, figure, & amphibology, whereby they have a double sense, and one far different from that natural plain and common signification, which all Catholics hold throughout About the words hoc est cor pus 〈◊〉 whether they contain Equivocation or not. the world, which is the sense or senses which they & theirs do frame of these words, whereby doth follow in their sense and interpretation that they are Equivocal, according to the definition of Aristotle; and yet did Christ use them in a more sacred institution of the Sacrament, than was that of an oath; and yet I think the impiety of Thomas Morton will not reach so far, as to condemn Christ of an abominable profanation in that his sacred institution; and consequently he may see that his second general conclusion was but an inconsiderate, bold, unlearned, and untrue assertion. 15. And thus much of this second kind of verbal Equivocation, set down and censured by T. M. which indeed is only true and proper Equivocation, as before hath been noted (for that mental in rigour is none) and agreeth only to the definition of Equivocation, delivered not only by Philosophers, but Orators also, Cum pluribus rebus aut etiam hominibus (saith Quint. l. 7. inst. orat. cap. 1. Quintilian) eadem appellatio est HOMONYMIA, ut Gallus etc. When one name agreeth to many things or men, it is called Equivocation, as the word Gallus signifieth both a French man, or a Cock, & some other things; by which definition as also by these other descriptions alleged out of Aristotle before, is evidently seen that the first kind of Equivocation by mental reservation, cannot properly be called Equivocation but AMPHIBOLOGIA, ambiguity of speech, which stretcheth larger than doth Equivocation, and is Genus unto it, as Quintilian in the same place affirmeth; and that the second kind, which consisteth principally in the diversity of significations in words or speech (such as before we have alleged out of our saviours speeches) is properly Equivocation, & consequently he an Equivocatour in this kind, which Thomas Morton saith, that his soul doth so much abhor and detest. 16. I might moreover to this purpose for further battering of this fond conclusion of Thomas Morton, allege the use of all Rhetorical tropes, and figures, and ask him whether, as they may lawfully be used in speech, so likewise in an oath? As for examples when Christ our Saviour calleth Heretics & evil Pastors lupos rapaces, ravening wolves, which is a trope called a Metaphor, may a man swear it is true? for that in nature they are men and no wolves. And so likewise 1. Cor. 4. when S. Paul wrote to the Corinthians using a figure called EIRONEIA: jam saturati estis, iam divites facti estis, sine nobis regnatis etc. Now you are full, now you are rich, now you reign without us, you are wise, we are fools, you are strong, we are infirm, you Ironical speech a kind of Equivocation. are noble, we are base etc. might S. Paul have sworn this which he writeth without an abominable profanation of that sacred institution of an oath? I think he might, for that often he was accustomed to swear, that is to say, to call God to witness, that he spoke the truth, and yet here he cannot be presumed to think as he spoke, or as the words literally do import: where then is Thomas Morton in this his conclusion? 17. Again I would demand of him whether a man might swear, without profanation, that speech of the holy Ghost, concerning the Queen of Saba, when 〈◊〉. Paral. 9 she saw the wisdom, riches, & greatness of Solomon, Non erat ultra in ea spiritus prae stupore, she had no longer THE SECOND PART OF THIS CHAPTER, Whether a mixed proposition, partly uttered, and partly reserved in mind, may be a true Logical Proposition, and Enunciation. §. 1. Having showed hitherto aswell what Equivocation and amphibology is; as also that all Equivocation is not lying, or rather that none is properly or can be lying so long as it remaineth within the nature of Equivocation (which yet afterward shall better be discussed) and moreover that simple & verbal Equivocation either in words or speech, may be lawfully used by any good man, to a good end; yea & sworn also with due circumstances, if need 〈◊〉 without perjury or profanation; and that our Saviour Christ upon sundry occasions did use the same: Now we must restrain our talk to the former part of ambiguity, or supposed Equivocation only, which is by mental reservation, to wit (not to depart from our adversaries example) I am no Priest, so as I am bound to tell it to you; the first part thereof being uttered, and the later reserved in mind, which so much displeaseth M. Morton as he would annihilate the same, saying first, that it is not a hidden truth, but a gross lie, as before you have heard in his first proposition, and then, that it is no 〈◊〉 at all, if we respect the laws of Logic, which he uttering in the vehement heat of his spirit, hath these words: Consult (saith he) with the Ancient logicians, Pag. 54. and prove (mark what scope I yield unto you) that from the beginning of the world, in the whole Current of so many thousand generations of mankind, till within the compass of these last four hundred years, and less; that ever any Logician, whether Infidel or believer, did allow your mixed proposition (which is partly mental and partly verbal) or think it a proposition, and I will be (which my soul utterly detesteth) an Equivocator. So he. And we must consider of this last point first, and afterward of the rest; for they are all pregnant as you see. 20. And first to begin with Thomas morton's soul, I know not what it doth, or may detest in Equivocation, but only perhaps the bare name, thereby to seem to contradict us, seeing it is so frequent in Scripture, as Thomas morton's soul detesteth Equivocation, but not lying. now hath been said, and after shall be more amply proved: but sure I am that, that soul of his detesteth not lying, as by manifold examples hath appeared, and consequently it were sin to admit him for an Fquivocator, for he would infame the lawful use thereof; for that Equivocation can not stand with lying, as in the ensuing Paragraph shall manifestly be proved. 21. Secondly is to be considered in these his words the large scope which he giveth us, to prove from the beginning of the world, in the whole Current of so many thousand generations of mankind, that any Logician held our mixed proposition for a proposition etc. Wherein I would ask him first, what he meaneth by the Cnrrent of so many thousand generations of mankind, or how many thousands he thinketh them to be since Logic was first invented, or brought into art, which before Aristotle's time was either Arist. l. 2. little, or imperfect, though he confesseth in his Elenches Elench. c. 8 that Tisias after those that went before him, & Thrasimachus after Tisias, and after him again Theodorus had collected some observations; but how many thousand T. M. his erroneous account of generations. generations will Thomas Morton have passed from that time to ours? S. Matthew in the beginning of his Gospel recounting the whole current of generations that had run from Abraham unto Christ, which Math. 1. were more than from Aristotle's time to ours, saith they were but forty and two in all, to wit, fourteen from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the transmigration of Babylon, & fourteen from thence to Christ; and where then are so many thousand generations of Thomas Morton? Is not this a very childish overlashing? 22. But there followeth another simplicity much more notorious: Consult (saith he) from the beginning of the world, till within the compass of these late four hundred years, and less, that ever any Logician, whether Infidel, or believe did allow your mixed proposition, or think it a proposition, and I will be an Equivocater; By which words you see that he excepteth against the judgement of all the Logicians that have lived within the compass of these last four hundred years for trial, whether this sort of mixed proposition be a true jawfull proposition or no, according to the rules of Logic; which if you consider it well, is one of the most solemn fooleries that ever man of learning could utter. For if he had excepted only against them, and their judgement in genere moris that is to say, for trial, whether the proposition before mentioned be true morally, or in moral truth, as it is opposite to lying; though it had been presumption to prefer therein his own weak judgement before so many great and learned Divines, and Philosophers as have lived, and written in the time by him assigned: yet had it been less marvel, as The foolish insolency of T. Morton. proceeding from the ordinary pride of an Heretical humour, exalting itself above all in such affairs; but to reject them all in the art of Logic, as not able to judge whether a mixed proposition be a true Logical proposition, according to the rules of that science, wherein they were most exact, and eminent, and are known to have been the chief, & almost only commentators and expositors upon Aristotle in that behalf; this (I say) is supereminent folly. For what? Did Albertus Magnus, S. Thomas of Aquin, and so many others of that rank know logic? Or to omit extern writers, did our famous Countrymen, Alexander of Hales, Scotus, Burley, Middleton, Occam and others know Logic? If they did, why doth Thomus Morton except against them all in this science? If they did not, how did they write so many large and learned Treatises thereof? And for proof I refer him to the last named William Occam his famous Logic entitled: Summa totius Logicae Magistri Gulielmi Occhami Anglici, Logicorum argutissimi etc. And he shall find therein more Logic than he understandeth, and more judgement than he can conceive. 23. But to leave this, and to examine the matter about this proposition out of his Oracle of Logicians Arist. l. 1. himself, the said Oracle in his first book of Resolutions, Prior resolute. c. 1. intending to set down the laws of a good syllogism, whereof propositions are the parts, defineth a proposition Prótasis mèn ' estì lógos kataphatikòs, ' è ' apophatikòs, tinòs katá tinos. thus: Proposit to est Oratio affirmativa, vel negativa alicuius de alique: A proposition is a speech which doth affirm, or deny any thing of another. As for example (not to depart from the argument of M. morton's speech) I have a Priest at home, or I have no Priest at home, the one is a proposition affirmative, the other negative, of which sort of propositions Aristotle according to the matter, or subject he handleth, assigneth divers divisions, as here in this place, he first divideth it into Universal, Particular, and Indefinite; and then again into Syllogistical, Demonstrative, and dialectical, and in his Topickes Lib. 1. Topicor. c. 12. into Moral, Natural & Rational; but for so much as appertaineth to our matter in hand, it shall be sufficient to note this division following, that some propositions Diversdivisions of propositions. be mental only, that is to say, conceived only in our mind, and affirming, or denying any thing therein, as if they were uttered: and so according to all Divines there may be mental Heresy, when a man in his mind doth affirm, or give consent to any Heresy in his heart, for the which he may be damned everlastingly, A mental proposition. if he repent not, though he should never utter the same in word or writing to any. And in like Math. 5. sort Christ our Saviour saith in the Gospel, that there may be mental adultery, when a man giveth consent of mind to his concupiscence, though he commit not the external act thereof. 24. And now that this mental proposition, is a true proposition in the nature of a proposition (though not altogether such as Aristotle treateth of in ordine ad 〈◊〉, in order to make a syllogism, as after shall be declared) is evident; for that it affirmeth or denieth, consenteth or dissenteth to somewhat in the mind: Arist. l. de interpretat. cap. 1. nor can any man doubt with reason, but that there is a mental speech, aswell as verbal. And Aristotle himself affirmeth it, when he saith: Ea quae sunt in voce, earum quae sunt in anima passionum notae, & ea quae scribuntur, eorum ‛ Estì mèn tà ' en tê, phoonê. tôn ' en tê, psychê, pathemátoon symbola kaì aà graphómena tôn ' en tê phoonê. quae sunt in voce, those things which are uttered in: speech are notes and signs of those things which are in the mind, as those things that are written are notes of that which is spoken. So that according to Aristotle, as the external writing representeth unto us a man's speech, so the external speech representeth unto us the internal speech, affection, or asseveration of the mind. Wherefore of this there can be no controversy, but that there is a true internal speech of the mind, affirming or denying, approving or rejecting, consenting or repugning aswell as in external speech, and consequently are there true mental propositions to be granted and allowed. And in this I think M. Morton will not stand with us, though we confess as I have said, that Aristotle's end and purpose being in his Logic to teach us to dispute by discourse of Enthimemes and syllogisms, for attaining of sciences, he had no use of these mental propositions, as neither of propositions by signs, or mixed of divers sorts; but only nameth the other two that consist in voice or writing, as only making for his purpose. But yet we must not imagine that he denied the other, which are clearly proved out of nature, reason, and use of humane life and conversation. 25. Wherefore the second member of this our division is, that besides the foresaid inward mental propositions, there are external also uttered in divers four sorts of external propositions. manners, some by voice, some by writing, some by signs, some mixed or compound of divers sorts, as to give example only of this last (for that the former are clear of themselves:) If a man lying on his death bed, should say before witness, I give and bequeath unto Thomas Morton etc. And then his voice failing him 〈◊〉 call for a pen, and write a thousand etc. and then a palsy taking also his hand he should point towards an Angel of gold, showing by signs that he meant a thousand such golden angels, I doubt not, but in this case Sir Thomas being a clerk would say in conscience (and so he might in justice) that all this were but one divers 〈◊〉: 〈◊〉 of mixed propositions. simple affirmative proposition, as if the sick man had said, I give and bequeath to Thomas Morton a thousand angels of gold, though it were uttered by him in three several sorts of propositions, vocal, literal & by signs, as hath been showed. 26. And if 〈◊〉 be granted (as needs it must) then why should he cry out, as he doth, against that other mixed proposition, that is partly mental, and partly vocal? why should he deny it to be a true proposition? If he answer for that Aristotle did not handle any such mixed reserved propositions, he saith nothing. For that Aristotle's purpose being (as is said) to treat of propositions in order only to syllogisms, and argument, it was wholly from his purpose to handle any, but such as served to that end, and so Aristotle handled no sort of mixed propositions at all, either reserved or not reserved: and yet you see by the former example of him that bequeathed in his Testament partly in one, and partly in another, that in the common use, trade, and conversation of man's life (whereof we treat) there may be use thereof, as in like manner, there is of In moral: matters there may be mixed Propositions. talking by signs, as deafe-men do, who utter truly their minds by signs equivalent to true propositions, affirmative or negative, and so are understood: and yet Aristotle treateth of no such, not for that they are not, but for that they appertained not to his purpose: of framing syllogisms for attaining of science as hath been said; for which cause also he professeth to exclude Lib. Periher. c. 4. deprecatoriam orationem, all deprecatory speech, and all Rhetorical, and Poetical tropes and figures, which yet, as we see, are fitly sometimes used not only in the common conversation of men, but even in Scripture itself, though they be not to the purpose of syllogistical propositions which must be simple, clear, & plain in their natural signification without translation, figure, ambiguity, or Equivocation, and consequently it is no good argument to say, that Aristotle handled not such propositions, and therefore they are no propositions at all. For that Aristotle (as hath been said) respected his particular end of syllogisms, we ours of common conversation. But our adversary urgeth yet further, and it is the whole force of all he An objection answered. saith, that this mixed proposition partly vocal, and partly mental, to wit, I am no Priest, with reservation of the other part, so as I am bound to utter the same to you, can be no true logical proposition: for that according to Aristotle, Every proposition is enunciative, that is to Conf. p. 56 say, it is ordained for signification to express some thing, but no mental or inward conceit of the mind is ordained by God (saith he) as a sign to express, or signify as words, and writings do etc. 27. Whereto I answer, granting that every proposition must be Enuntiative, that is to say (as before hath been out of Aristotle declared) it must affirm or deny Lib. de interp. c. 4. & prior. lib. 〈◊〉. c. 1. somewhat, true or false; but this is not done only by external voice or writing (though Aristotle for the causes above mentioned, do only name those two ways) but by signs in like manner as hath been declared, Lógos ' apophantikòs ' en hô, tò aleetheúein' eè pseúdest hai hypárchei. and much more by internal actions and operations of the mind, which according to all Philosophers are three, the first simple apprehension of any thing; the second affirmation or negation of the same; the third discourse, when one thing is inferred of an other, as in arguing or disputing, as this is so, ergo the other is, or is not so. And to the first of these three inward operations of the mind and understanding, do answer outwardly three external effects, as to the Three internal operations of the mind. first simple words, or speech, without affirming or denying, as in definitions without the verb for examples sake, animal rationale mortale etc. all which is nothing else but simple apprehension of the thing, without division, composition or discourse. To the second operation do answer composition and division, to wit affirmations and negations: and to the third Enthimemes and syllogisms, that by discourse do infer one thing of another; so as in our mind there passeth no less than in our outward speech, voice, writing or signs, but rather more, for that as Aristotle before saith, these outward actions, are but signs of that which 1. Perihermen. cap. 1. passeth within. So as albeit the one part of a reserved mixed proposition, doth not 〈◊〉 aliquid ad extra, express any thing outwardly to the hearer; yet it doth inwardly to the speaker. And if it be urged that it must be vox, according to Aristotle, I answer, that as there is a voice in writing as well as in speaking, according to Aristotle himself, so is there an internal voice, as well as an external, and an internal speech as well as an external, which speaketh, affirmeth, or denieth to the inward ears as well or better than the voice, or letter to the outward; which is sufficient to correspond to the Logical definition of a proposition, even according to Aristotle's rule, though (as hath been said) he defined properly external voices only, and propositions consisting in speech or writing. 28. But our Minister will insist that it is not enuntiative or significant to the hearer: Whereto I answer, That a mixed 〈◊〉 ve proposition is 〈◊〉. that the definition of a proposition or enuntiation nameth not the hearer, but that it be of his own nature enunciative, affirming some thing true or false, whether the hearer understand it or no. For when a man talketh to himself, though those that stand by understand him not; yet is his speech enunciative, for that it affirmeth or denieth somewhat true or false of his own nature, though no man hear, as when a man speaketh to God, or with himself, or with men also if one should utter a proposition in Greek or Hebrew, which the hearer understandeth not, shall not the proposition be enunciative, or a true proposition for that the Auditor understandeth it not? When Christ our Saviour spoke many high things of his divinity, humanity, passion, resurrection, and other Mysteries which the Scripture saith that his disciples understood Luc. 〈◊〉. not, shall we say that his speech was not enuntiative, or his propositions no true propositions in Logic? What will T. M. say to that prediction against the obstinate jews, They 〈◊〉 hear 〈◊〉 their 〈◊〉, and shall not understand etc. Meaning principally of the Math. 13. preachings of the Apostles, will you lay the fault that Ibid cap. 16 & 17. the Apostles speech was not 〈◊〉 or significant, for Marc 4. & 6. that the jews did not understand the same. Hence then appeareth, that it dependeth not of the hearer to Luc. 2. & 8. & 18. make the speech 〈◊〉, or not, but it is 〈◊〉 that it be so of itself, and of his own nature. 29. And so now to apply all this to our own purpose in hand, this proposition whereof part is uttered in voice, and part reserved in mind, being but one simple proposition, denying, that I am a 〈◊〉, with obligation to utter the same, is truly enuntiative of itself, though the hearer understand not all, but one part thereof only, and consequently it is truly and properly a proposition, even according to the rules of Logic, for that Aristotle's definition agreeth thereunto which our Minister before so confidently denied. 30. But now here lastly he may seem perhaps to make some doubt whether this mixed proposition partly uttered, and partly reserved be one 〈◊〉 proposition, or no, whereof yet in reason there can be no doubt; for that here is but only one single enunciation in Whether a mixed proposition be one only proposition. the mind of the speaker, to wit, that he is no Priest with obligation to utter the same; here is but one only simple negative enuntiation depending of one only verb and negation that denieth me to be a Priest with that obligation, which is the thing appointed by Aristotle to make a perfect enuntiation or proposition, which may be proved also by this example: If I should utter those words of the Scripture; Pater meus 〈◊〉 me joan. 10. est, My Father is greater than I, reserving in my mind those other that I affirm them according to the sense and meaning that Arrius had, I should incur, Heresy and be damned for this proposition, but not 〈◊〉 the former part, for that they are words of Scripture, nor for the later alone that are reserved, for that they affirm or deny nothing of themselves, as having no verb; and therefore they 〈◊〉 condemn me as part of the former, and consequently all maketh but one single proposition. For that for the first operation of our mind only, which is simple apprehension without affirmation, or negation, God condemneth no man, there being no consent at all therein, and consequently no merit nor demerit, but only in the second and third operations before specified. 31. And to this effect that the two parts of these and like propositions, the one partly uttered and partly reserved do make but one single and simple proposition, we might allege many other proofs, both by reasons, and examples. By reasons, for that they answer Proved by logical reason to be one proposition. but to one only conceit of the speakers mind that they contain but one only negative 〈◊〉, to wit, that I am no such Priest, as I mean, and finally that they have but one subiectum, one copula, and one praedicatum (Logicians know what I mean:) for the subiectum whereof all is affirmed is I, the copula that joineth together is the verb am, and all the rest is the praedicatum, wherefore it cannot be divers but one only proposition. 32. By examples the same may be confirmed divers ways, I mean both by profane, and divine. As first, if one should make an interrogation, & the other answer, all in effect is but one proposition: as if one should say to a servant, Is your master at home? And 〈◊〉 answer, no it were in effect but one only proposition equivalent to this, my master is not at home; yea though the one part were uttered in signs only and the other in voice, or writing; as if the servant should answer only by a shrug of the shoulders, or by 〈◊〉: king his head, as in Italy they are wont, to express a negative. 33. But this is somewhat more perspicuous if the answer be ambiguous, as when Cicero was demanded by his adversary in the cause of Clodius slain by Milo, whom he defended, what time of the day Clodius was slain, to wit before noon or after, thinking thereby to entrap Milo, Tully answered serò, which word signifying both towards the Evening as also to late, Cicero Two doubtful answers of Cicero. meant in the second sense, to wit, that he was slain to late, having deserved to have been slain sooner, so as this only word serò containeth the force of a whole proposition in the sense of the speaker, though not of the hearer. 34. And the like answer was that of the same Orator to a base fellow that having been a cook came See Quint. l. 6. Instit. Orat. c. 4, & Donat. in comment. in Adelphos Ter. after by riches to pretend an office in the commonwealth, and asked of Cicero whether he also among others that were to give their voices would favour him therein? whereunto he answered, Immò, Ego quoque tibi iure favebo, which answer having two senses by reason of the words quoque and iure, the hearer took it in the better sense, that he also would of right favour him; but Ego Coque tibi iure favebo. the speaker meant, that he would show him favour due to ae cook with a mess of pottage, and yet did not this reserved sense make it two propositions but one. 35. And finally I might allege all the examples that Orators do use and prescribe under the figure called by Cicero, Reticentia, and by the Grecians APOSIÓPESIS, as Quid plura? What shall I say more, or what shall I complain more? which verbs say, complain, or the like were reserved in mind by the speaker, and yet is it but one proposition; so that of Virgil, Quos Ego; sed motos praestat etc. Whom I, if I had Virgil 〈◊〉. 1 them in my hands, would etc. All which later part is reserved in the mind of the speaker, and yet it maketh but one proposition with the rest that is expressed. And thus much of profane examples. 36. But if we would allege all the divine that might be cited out of the Scriptures, there would be Divine examples. no end, as that among other before mentioned out of the Psalm: Impij non resurgent in judicio, wicked men Psal. 1. shall not rise again in judgement, which though it seem a whole proposition; yet is it in deed but a part, and the other part was reserved in the Prophet's mind, and expounded afterward by S. Paul to the Corinthians saying: Omnes resurgemus, sed non omnes immutabimur: We 1. Cor. 15. shall all rise again, but all shall not be changed into glory, and how do I know that these later words were reserved in the Prophet's mind? for that otherwise his other words that were uttered should contain an Heresy against the article of our Creed, I believe the resurrection of the dead, whereof is inferred that those words uttered, with the other reserved, made but one only simple and single proposition. 37. In like manner when our Saviour said to those negligent virgins that came to late, Non novi vos, I Math. 〈◊〉. know you not, it made but one negative proposition, with other words reserved in his mind, to wit, ut saluem vos etc. I know you not amongst mine to save you, or the like. And how know we that these or like words were reserved in Christ's mind? For that the other alone had been imperfect and false, for he knew them better, than they knew themselves, but he knew them not as his, and so was all but one proposition, or enunciation negative. And to deny that this was a true enunciative proposition, for that one part was reserved in the mind, and another uttered, is against all truth and reason, as now we have declared, and might further by infinite examples, but that a few do show the force of the rest, and divers of these examples out of Scriptures will come more fitly to have their place in the sequent Paragraphe. 38. Wherefore to end that which now we have in hand, we see with what confident ignorance, or ignorant The conclusion of this paragraph. confidence Thomas Morton did so resolutely before tell, and promise us, that if throughout so many thousand generations of mankind any Logician whether infidel, or believer did allow a mixed proposition partly mental, and partly verbal, he would against the detestation of his own soul to the contrary, be an Equivocator: which if it be now proved a simple Hypocrisy, then may that sinful soul of his begin rather to detest lying than Equivocating, which may stand with truth, as now more largely we are to 〈◊〉 THE THIRD PART OF THIS CHAPTER, Whether the former mixed proposition partly uttered, and partly reserved be a lie, or no? no 2. NOw come we to the chief point of this controversy to discuss whether the foresaid reserved proposition be truly, and properly a lie, or no. Hitherto we have handled that which less imported, whether it be properly Equivocation, and properly a true and logical proposition, and therein discovered the small substance and vain cavillations of our Adversary: but now we must examine that which is of chief importance, whether it be a lie, perjury, deceit, falsehood; and finally whether it be sin or no, to use the same in any case, or for any cause whatsoever, for that our Adversary Thomas Morton his conclusion is both arrogant, and universal, as before you have heard. Our first conclusion (saith he) is, that every Equivocation Pag. 49. by mental reservation is not a hidden truth, but a gross lie: Now with what rigour and severity our Catholic doctrine doth condemn and detest lying, even in the least degree thereof, we have declared partly in the former Chapter, and for clearing the matter more in this place, it will be necessary to set down briefly both the definitions of truth, falsity, lying, perjury, deceit, and the like, & then to consider, whether our former proposition do incur any of the foresaid imputations, or no? 40. And first of all this word Truth is defined in different manner by divers Philosophers, as also ancient The definition of truth. Fathers, and namely by S. Augustine, S. Anselm, S. Hilary and others, who have written of this matter. And S. Augustine in divers places of his works, and namely in Aug. lib. 5. & deinceps c. 36. his books De soliloquiis, & de vera religione. S. Anselm also hath written a special book De veritate, and it is a question, as you know, that Pilate proposed unto our Saviour in his judgement, but had so little care of the joan. 13. resolution thereof, as he would not stand to expect the answer; wherefore S. Thomas gathereth out of the said D. Tho. 1. quaest. 16. art. 1. Authors divers definitions, and before him again our learned Countryman Halensis gathereth eight, and holdeth that every one of them is true in a several Halens. 1. part. 〈◊〉 q. 15. par. 3. sense, some as they respect God, the first truth & measure of truth; some as they respect man's understanding; some the things themselves; of all which number of definitions, two seem to me most clear, and effectual, one of S. Augustine, Veritas est qua ostenditur id quod est; Truth is that, whereby is showed that which is in deed, to wit in the understanding, as S. Thomas interpreteth, saying, that Veritas principaliter est in intellectu, secundariò verò in rebus: Truth consisteth principally in the mind and understanding, and secondarily in the things themselves, for which cause he approveth well this other definition set down by a Philosopher, Veritas est adaequatio rei, & intellectus; Truth is an equalling of the thing itself with man's understanding, that is to say, when a man understandeth a thing as it is in itself, and the thing in itself is in deed as it is understood, then is it truth, and when this is not observed riseth falsity. 41. For better understanding whereof we must consider 〈◊〉. Sorts or degrees of Tiuth. three sorts or degrees, as it were, of truth, and consequently as many of falsity; for that as the Philosopher saith Contrariorum eadem est disciplina, the self Arist l. 1. topicor. c. 8 same discipline or methood is to be held in contraries, let us treat then of truth and falsity, as it is uttered in speech, for this is to our purpose, for examining of truth or falsity in our foresaid mixed proposition. 42. The first sort or kind of truth is when that which is spoken is conform to the thing itself, though not to the mind of the speaker; as if one should say my Father is dead, if he be dead, though the speaker think not so, then is this speech conform to the thing, and it is truth in this first kind. 43. The second sort of truth is, when our speech is conform to our understanding, though not to the thing itself; as If I thinking that my Father is dead, should say so, though he be not dead in deed, yet is it truth in respect of my understanding, though in respect of the thing itself it be not so; and in this sort: may a man speak false without a lie. 44. The third sort is when our speech agreeth both with the one, and the other, and is conform both to our understanding and the thing itself; as when I say, that my Father is dead, and do think so, and it is so in deed; and this is the most perfect kind of truth in speech, when there is an adequation of the speakers understanding with the thing spoken, as the former definition prescribed. 45. And in contrary manner, there are three sorts 3. Sorts of 〈◊〉. of falsity, correspondent to these three sorts of truth, the first called materia, material only, when our speech is not conform to the thing spoken, though it be agreeable to the understanding of the speaker. The second, a formal falsity, when the speech agreeth not with the mind or meaning of the speaker, though it do with the thing meant or spoken. The third is when the speech agreeth neither with the understanding of the speaker nor with the thing itself, & this is a complete falsity, as if my Father not being dead, nor I thinking him to be dead, should say notwithstanding he is dead, and these two last kinds of falsity, or either of them do make a lie, and not the first: kind alone, for that the essence and formality of a lie requireth that the speech do disagree from the mind and understanding of the speaker: in which sense S. Augustine saith, Non facit linguam ream nisi mens rea, Nothing Aug. ser. 28. de ver. Apostoli. maketh the tongue guilty of a lie, but a guilty mind, meaning one thing and speaking another. 46. And this same distinction of truth and falsity is ser down by S. Anselm in other words, thus: Sicut est veritas triplex, rei, cognitionis, & signationis, sic etiam est falsitas Ansel. in dialogo de veritate cap. 2. triplex, rei, cognitionis & signationis, seu enunciationis: As there are three kinds of truth, one of the thing itself, another of the inward understanding, and a third of outward signification, so is there like wise a triple falsity of the thing itself, of the knowledge or understanding, and of signification or enunciation. The first is in the things, the second is in our mind, the third in the voice or sign that uttereth: whereof he that will see more, let him read our foresaid learned Countryman Alexander of Hales in the first Part of his Theological Sum in his sixteen question of falsity, and first member. 47. And hereby it appeareth that mendacium, a lie, is a particular species or kind of falsity, in so much as every speech that is false, is no lie, but only that which hath the essential point before mentioned of dissenting from the mind and understanding of the speaker. For if I thinking, as hath been said, that my Father is dead, should say so, though he were not dead, yet I make no lie, but only materially, which may be without any sin at all, and hereupon are there divers definitions, and descriptions set down by Doctors, and holy Fathers of lies, and lying: first S. Augustine defineth thus a lie: Mendacium est falsa vocis significatio, cum intention Aug. l. de mend. c. 4. & l. cont. mend. c. 12 fallendi: A lie is a false signification of speech, with intention to deceive. In which definition or description rather Thomas Morton doth interpret, that by the word vox, as the most usual and principal sign, 2. 2. q. 110. art. 1. whereby man's mind is uttered, S. Augnstine doth mean all kinds of signs, or signification whatsoever, either by word, writing, signs, or actions: for that a man may lie also in facts, as he proveth out of the Philosopher, in his morals, and S. Ambrose words are Arist. 4. clear: Non solùm in salsis verbis, sed etiam in simulatis operibus Eth. c. 7. mendacium est: A lie consisteth not only in false Ambr servant de Abrah. words but also in feigned works; though this in rigour be not so much to be called a lie, as dissimulation. And to the imitation of this definition of S. Augustine, do Schooledoctors frame divers definitions Lib. 3. dist. 38. to the same effect, as the Master of the Sentences first out of S. Augustine: Mentiri est contra mentem ire, to lie is to go against a man's own mind and understanding: and then again of himself: Mentiri est loqui The essence of a lie. contra hoc quod animo quis sentit, sive illud verum sit, sive non; To lie is to speak against that which a man thinketh in his mind, whether it be true, or false: For albeit he should spoke a truth thinking that it is false, he should lie, as on the contrary side, he that should speak that which is false, thinking it to be true, should not lie, saith S. Augustine, nor be a deceiver, but deceived: so as Aug. li. de mend. c. 5. the very essence of a lie consisteth in this that the speaker do utter wittingly that which he knoweth to be untrue, and not in deed meant by him. 48. And as for the other clause cum 〈◊〉 fallendi, with intention to deceive, S. Thomas doth note that it is D. Tho. 2. 2 q. 110. ar. 1 an effect of lying which is not necessary absolutely to the nature of a lie, but rather as an effect, to the full complement and perfection thereof. For that a lie is essentially made by that as hath been said, when a man wittingly & willingly uttereth for truth, that which he knoweth to be false, though he should have no express intention to deceive; which deceit is defined by divers thus: Decipere est falsam existimationem in alterius What deceit, guile, fraud, and fallacy is. animum inducere, diversum ab eo, quem habet is qui loquitur; To deceive is to engender in another's man's mind a false existimation, judgement, or opinion of a thing different from the understanding of the speaker, which deception if it be in words or signs only, it is called dolus or fallacia, guile or fallacy; but if it be in work, Aug. li. 2. de doctrina Christiana c. 3. D. Tho. 2. 2 q. 55. art. 4 or deeds, as is buying, selling, and the like, it is called fraus, fraudulent dealing, whereof S. Augustine is to be seen in his second book De doctrina Christiana, and S. Thomas in the second Part of his Sum, where he handleth this matter at large. 49. And now the nature of a lie being thus defined, Aug. li. de mend. c. 14 & in verba Psal. 5. Perdes Omnes qui loquuntur mendacia. it is divided also according to the said S. Augustine, and Schoolmen after him into three kinds or sorts; The: one made out of maglignity to do some hurt, and no good, and it is called a pernicious lie; the second to do: some man good, and no man hurt, and it is called an officious lie; the third that meaneth neither hurt nor good, but is made in jest, and is only a merry lie. And albeit one of these kinds be much more grievous than the other, as namely the first, which of his own nature is a mortal sin, & the other two often venial; yet are all three ever sins, and never willingly to be committted, or permitted in speech or oath for any respect whatsoever, nor for any man's good temporal or spiritual, according to the received sentence of the said Doctors, as in the former Chapter hath been declared. 50. Wherefore to pass on; An oath is when any thing is affirmed with calling God to witness thereunto, What an oath is. which when it is false, and falsely sworn, is a grievous sin, named perjury, for the contempt used therein towards the Majesty of God, whose testimony See Tolet. l. 4. 〈◊〉. ca 〈◊〉. 21. is alleged for the confirmation thereof. For avoiding of which heinous sin, three conditions are required by school-divines, as necessary to be observed according to the admonition of Hieremy the Prophet, jer. 4. to wit, truth, justice and necessity, which latter includeth due circumspection and reverence. 51. Now then to apply all this to our present purpose, about the former proposition, I am no Priest reserving The application of the former definitions to our proposition. in mind the other clause, So as I am bound to utter it unto you: school-divines do easily show that such a proposition, according to the definitions before set down, of truth, falsity, deceit, lying, and perjury may be in certain cases, and with due circumstances truly avouched, and sworn without incurring any sin at all; and I say in some cases, and with due circumstances, for that hereupon dependeth much the lawfulness of the thing. For that if a Priest (for example) should be asked this question by his lawful Superior or judge, to whom the conusans of the thing demanded, did lawfully appertain, and that the said judge demanded lawfully, that is say, according to: order of law and justice; then were he bound under pain of mortal sin to answer truly and directly,: although it were with evident danger of his own Of this see S. 〈◊〉. 2. 2. q. 69. Siluest. verbo accusatio cap. 13. & verbo confessio cri minis q. 1 Sotus l. 〈◊〉. de just. q. 6 art. 1. & 2. Gabr. in 4. dist. 15. q. 6 art. 2. life, or of others. And this is the common sentence, and judgement of all Catholic School Doctors without exception, unless sometimes the smallness of the matter itself should in some cases make it venial, but of his own nature it is damnable, because it is against the Majesty of almighty God, whose substitute every lawful Magistrate and judge is, and against public justice and the common good of each State and Kingdom, as also against charity towards our neighbour, and obligation unto truth itself. Whereby it followeth, that albeit a man's present life or death stood upon it, and that by denying a truth Angelus verbo confessio secreti. without swearing he might save the same; yet is it not lawful to do it. And this is our severity in that behalf. 52. But on the other side, if the judge be not lawful Navar. in manuale c. 18. n. 57 etc. 25. n. 36. or competent, or have not jurisdiction in that matter which he demandeth: as if a lay Magistrate in a Catholic country would inquire of matters not Bannes, Arragon & Salon comentar. in. S. Tho. 2. 2. q. 69. & many others. belonging to his jurisdiction, as for example, sacred or secret; or that he should offer injury against law to the Respondent, in the manner of his proceedings, whereby he should be disobliged in conscience to answer to his meaning or interrogatories, yea somtims rather obliged not to answer thereunto, when it concerneth other men's hurt: then may he * This do hold all the foresaid Authors and others related by Petr Nau. l. 2. de restit. cap. 4. part. 2. answer, as though he were alone, and no man by; for that he hath no necessary reference to him at all, nor to his demands, questions, or speech, but that he may frame to himself any proposition that is true in itself, and in his own sense & meaning, though the other that heareth understand it in a different sense and meaning, & be thereby deceived. 53. Neither is this to deceive another, but to permit him that offereth me injury, and is no Superior of Mich. Sal. 2. 2. q. 69. art. 2. controu. 11. Petrus de Arragon & Petrus Bannes upon the same place & others, as the common consent of al. mine in that cause, to be deceived by my doubtful speech, and by concealing that which I am not bound to utter unto him: which kind of deceit or dissimulation is lawful, as in the precedent Chapter hath been showed, by the example of stratagems in war, whereby though many be slain, and 〈◊〉 hurts done; yet nihil homo justus (saith S. Augustine) praetereà cogitare debet in his rebus, nisi ut bellum justum suscipiat, quod cum susceperit, utrum aperta pugna vel ex 〈◊〉 vicerit, nihil ad 〈◊〉 interest. A 〈◊〉 man in war ought to think 〈◊〉 nothing, but that the war be just, that he taketh Aug. q. 10. in joshua. in hand, which being certain, it importeth nothing in respect of justice, whether he get the victory by sleights, or by open war. And this he speaketh by occasion of the direction of God unto joshua, when he joshua 8. taught him what snares and wiles he should use to entrap the inhabitants of the City of Hai, as he did, to their ruin and destruction: and thereby * See Henriq. quodl. 15. q. 16. Adrian. in 4. de restit. all Divines do infer, that such dissimulations & stratagems are lawful in just war, which yet S. Thomas doth limit out of S. Ambrose to be true, when the parties have not given their word and promise to the §. Sed nunc. Victor. relect. de iure belli. nu. 37. and others. contrary: but yet both he, and all other Divines do hold that these stratagems are no lies. 54. This same point also, that it is lawful in this sense to deceive, that is to say, to permit another man to be deceived by our speech or doings, so we utter D. Tho. 2. 2. q. 4. art. 3. no lie, is made most manifest by the example of God himself, who though, as before hath been said, he cannot Ambros. li. de office cap. 29. possibly deceive, or make a lie, no not by the omnipotency of all his power; yet are there manifold places in Scriptures to show, that at least he permitteth Though God deceive not yet permitteth to be deceived. men to be deceived by words, & facts of his, & of so many holy patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, and other Saints governed by his spirit; yea of his own Son that is the most exact rule of all truth, for otherwise how could so many Heresies arise, which are all commonly founded upon the evil understanding of some words or sentences of our said Saviour, and his Apostles, or of the Prophets and patriarchs before them, which yet Christ & the holy Ghost did foresee, together with the infinite errores, and hurts that would ensue thereof; and yet did not they prevent that deceit, nor cease to utter those speeches by which they knew that so many would be deceived: nay as in the former Paragraph hath been declared, Christ our Saviour spoke 〈◊〉 things doubtful, ambiguous & Equivocal in themselves, that had or might have different meanings and interpretations; & yet I presume Thomas 〈◊〉 will not go about to bring our saviours said speeches within the compass of this clause of the 〈◊〉 of a lie, cum mentione fallendi etc. 55. Wherefore to return to the application of both clauses of this definition of lying to our proposition, I say, that neither of them do agree thereunto, and much less both. Not the former, for that the speech The first clause of a definition of a lie excluded from our proposition. agreeth to the mind, and meaning of the speaker, for that I do truly and really mean that I am no Priest, in the sense that I speak it, which may be any that pleaseth me, or that I list to 〈◊〉 to myself, seeing I have no obligation to respect any thing what the demander speaketh or asketh, for so much as he demandeth me against law and equity, so as I may mean that I am no Priest, such as I should be, such as I desire to be, such as is worthy of so great an office, and sacred a 〈◊〉, such as he ought to be that occupieth the place of God in governing of souls, I am no Priest subject to the demander, or obliged to answer his demands, or the like: and as if I were alone I might make to myself this proposition, I am no such Priest, and it were true, and not false, for that it agreeth as well with my meaning, as with the thing itself: so also now is it truly meant and spoken in my sense, though not in the hearers, and consequently the definition of truth before mentioned agreeth thereunto, for that there is here adaequatio rei & intellectus, an agreement between the thing, and the speakers understanding, and so much for the first clause of this definition of lying. For as touching examples to prove the verity of like speeches out of holy Scripture they shall be alleged more abundantly afterward. 56. The second clause also which is intentio fallendi, intention to deceive, is easily excluded from this our The exclusion of the second clause in like manner. proposition, both by that I have said before of the lawfulness of stratagems, when injuries are offered, and by the form of Christ's own speeches; as also by that notorious distinction of S. Augustine to this purpose alleged, and averred by S. Thomas and other Schoolmen, August. in Psal. 5. v. perdes omnes etc. & li. 22. contra Faust. c. 33. & 36. & quaest. 26. in Genes. Grat. cause 22. q. 2. and related into the Canon law itself by Gratian, to wit: Aliud est celare veritatem, aliud falsum dicere: It is one thing to conceal a truth, another to speak an untruth. And again: Manifestum est (saith the same Father) non esse culpandum aliquando verum tacere: It is manifest, that it is not reprehensible sometimes to conceal the truth. And yet further speaking of the fact of Abraham, that desired his wife to say she was his sister, veritatem (saith he) voluit celari, non mendacium dici, his meaning was to have the truth hidden (to Gen. 12. wit, that she was his wife) but not a lie to be spoken, for that according to the phrase of Scripture she might also be called his sister, for that she was his brother's daughter, whereupon S. Thomas determineth the matter D. Tho. 2. 2. q. 111. art. 1 thus: Verbo mentitur aliquis quando significat quod non est, non autem quando tacet quod est, quod aliquando licet: He lieth in word who signifieth a thing that is not so (to wit in his mind) but he lieth not, that concealeth somewhat that is, which sometimes is lawful. And again in another place: It is not lawful (saith he) to make a lie for D. Tho. 2. 2 q. 110. art. 3. ad 4. Aug. li, de mend. c. 10 delivering another man from any kind of peril or hurt whatsoever, but to conceal prudently a truth by some dissimulation is lawful, as S. Augustine in his book against lying doth testify. So S. Thomas. 57 Now then in this our Case we do affirm, that there is no lie or untruth avouched at all, but only a concealing of that truth-which I am not bound to utter unto him, that demandeth it unjustly. For as if Auraham had been demanded, whether Sarai were his 〈◊〉, he might for concealing that truth which he would not have known, have answered yea, & this truly, & without a lie, according to S. Augustine, though in another sense then the demander meant: So in our case, for that I deny my self only to be a Priest in that sense, which in my understanding & meaning is true, and I affirm nothing false, or that is not so, but only do conceal some certain truth which, as hath been said, I am not bound to utter to him that demandeth, for that I am not his subject in this cause, nor he my lawful judge; nor if he were, yet doth he not lawfully demand me, for that the matter in right appertaineth not to his jurisdiction, as hath been said: in this case (I say) my answer is lawful and allowable by all the Catholic Divines, Lawyers, and canonists that write of like cases, as after in a several Chapter shall more particularly be declared. 58. There remaineth then only in this place to be considered whether I in this case do deceive or no, or have intention to deceive according to the second Whether in our pro position there be intention to deceive clause of the definition of a lie cum intentione sallendi, wherein according to that which before hath been set down, it is evident that my intention is not to deceive in this proposition, but to defend myself against the captious, and injurious demands of an unlawful judge, I speaking a truth in itself according to my meaning, though he taking it otherwise is deceived thereby, but without any fault of mine. For as in the examples before mentioned, when our Saviour said to his Disciples of Lazarus, Lazarus sleepeth, and they joan. 11. deceived therewith, answered, If he sleep he is safe, Christ deceived them not, but they themselves upon his doubtful words. And when the jews were deceived with those other word s of Christ, Dissolve this Temple and I will build it up again in three days, the Son joan. 2. of God cannot be truly said to have deceived them, for that he spoke that which was truth in his own sense, and permitted only the other to be deceived: so in the proposed case, the unjust examiners are only permitted to be deceived, for that the Priest his principal intent is not intentio fallendi, intention of deceiving, as the definition of lying prescribeth, or as S. Augustine in another place saith fallendi cupiditas, a desire of deceiving, but rather evadendi desiderium, a desire to escape, and defend himself. And therefore, as if he should go to one of himself without necessity, and tell him that he is no Priest, he being a Priest, might be argued of lying, for that his principal intent may be supposed to have been cupiditas fallendi, an appetite of deceiving; so here the thing being evident that primaria respondent is intentio, the first and principal intention of the answerer is not to hurt or impugn others, but to defend and cover himself unlawfully pressed, as he presumeth, that his defence is by speaking a truth in his own meaning (which meaning and understanding of the speaker is the chief rule and measure of truth, as before you have heard:) it followeth evidently, that it can be no lie, nor deception on his part, though by his manner of answering they deceive themselves, which is not to be imputed to any fault of his. And thus much of this matter in this place; the rest shall be more fully explained in the Chapter that ensueth. THE TRUTH BEFORE SET DOWN IS FURTHER DEBATED and proved by the assertion of Schooledoctors, Divines, Lawyers, both Canon and Civil, Reasons, Practise of the Adversaries; and by the very instinct of nature itself. CHAP. IX. THat which briefly hath been avouched in the later end of the precedent Chapter, about the lawfulness of the former proposition, might be greatly enlarged many ways, if we would stand thereon, or handle the same to the satisfaction of learned men; but for that the compass of this short Treatise beareth it not, and I must have a care aswell of the capacity of the vulgar Reader as of the more learned: I shall only add to that which hath been said, some few more particulars, in sundry kinds of proof, fit for the confirmation of our purpose; and in the ensuing Chapter lay forth some special and principal cases, wherein the said ambiguous Proposition or Equivocation may be used, whereby I doubt not but that the whole controversy will remain clear and manifest. The first Point about school-divines, Doctors and lawyers. §. 1. 2. You have heard in the precedent Chapter, how Thomas Morton challenging us to prove out of Logicians, that our former reserved proposition, I am no Priest, with obligation to tell it unto you, is a true Logical proposition; he excepted presently against all Logicians for these last four hundred years, wherein Logic most flourished, and yet he calleth it, a new-bred-hydra (to wit of four hundred years old by his own confession,) and addeth further, Mark what scope I yield unto you: which if you mark it well, is a very markable point indeed, for that after Aristotle (by whose rules the said proposition is proved) he can show I suppose A large folly. very few Authors that have written of that science, until within the said four hundred years: wherefore to except those, and yet to call it so large a scope, is a large folly in my opinion. 3. And the same I say of Divines, which have written within the said four hundred years, commonly called school-divines and Schooledoctors, against whom he excepteth in like manner, notwithstanding they be those to whom it belongeth principally to discuss, examine, and determine this matter, as afterwards shall be showed. And yet as though he had made no such exception, but admitted all kind of writers throughout all times in this matter, he maketh this new ridiculous vaunt: Show us (saith he) for your mental reservation, but one Father, whether Greek or Pag. 71. Latin, one Pope whether Catholic or Antichristian, one Author whether learned or unlearned, who did ever so fancy etc. 4. Whereunto I may answer, that if the maker of this vaunt had had but one dram of discretion, he would never have set down so many ones, to confound himself: for that presently we shall show so many Fathers, Greek and Latin to have allowed of the foresaid speech, as had occasions to handle such Scriptures, as contain like propositions; and so many Popes to have approved the same, as have allowed the said Father's sentences, or have lived since the collecting of the Canon Laws, wherein the said Father's An idle fantasy. sentences are abundantly cited and set down: and that so many learned, grave & pious Authors have been of this fancy (if it be a fancy) as have been consulted in cases of most moment, that comprehend this controversy. So as for this Minister to except against four hundred years together (which in effect containeth a grant of all the learned of that time) and yet to challenge one Father, one Pope, one Author learned or unlearned, showeth a broken fantasy of an idle brain indeed. 5. But now to lay before the Readers eyes some brief consideration what is rejected in the exclusion of these last four hundred years, about our point in controversy, it is to be noted, that the science of divinity, called by the Greeks Theology, for that it is properly & immediately about God, & matter belonging unto God, hath grown from time to time, according to the growth of mankind and to the most ordinate and excellent providence of almighty God, as S. Paul divinely 〈◊〉 in divers parts of his Epistles, which we shall here endeavour to declare by this particular deduction, that from the beginning of the world unto the deluge, there passing above a thousand and six: hundred years, to wit more than from Christ to this time, set down in Scripture under the lives only of ten men, there was no other Theology in all that time, but only by speech and tradition, of Father to son, friend to friend, master to scholar, & predecessor to successor: and from this again unto the time of Abraham, which was upon the point of three hundred: years, the same was observed: and from him to Moses, The deduction of divinity from age to age. which was above other four hundred years, no: book is extant that was written, though in these last four hundred years from Abraham to Moses God had his several people, as is known, which were governed without any written word at all. 6. But Moses having written the five first books of the Bible, commonly called the Pentateuch so many ages after the beginning of the world, and sundry other holy men divers books and Treatises after him again, until the coming of Christ; albeit the science and study of divinity was much enlarged thereby; yet was it barren in a certain sort, in respect of that: which ensued after under Christ, in the writings of the Apostles and Apostolic men, and large Commentaries and expositions written thereon by succeeding Christian ages, which in time growing to be so many and great volumes, partly of the said expositions and explanations of Scriptures, partly of Treatises, books, and dogmatical discourses, partly of Ecclesiastical Histories, partly of discussions and determinations The increase of Christian divinity. of Councils, both General, national, & Provincial, and partly finally of resolutions & decrees of Bishops & chief Pastors, for direction of their flocks, especially of the highest that held the Chair for governing and moderating of all the rest. 7. These things (I say) growing at length to so great a bulk, & manifold multitude of books, Treatises, tomes, and volumes, as many men had not time to read them over, and much less leisure and judgement to digest or conceive them, with that distinction, order and perspicuity, which was necessary; it pleased almighty God, out of his continual providence, for his said Church, to inspire certain men 〈◊〉 four hundred years past, to reduce the said vast corpses of divinity, to a clear method, by drawing The beginning of Schoole-devinity. all to certain common places and heads, and by handling and discussing the same so punctually, distinctly, and perspicuously, as any good wit in small time may come to comprehend the whole, without reading over the other so many huge volumes as before was necessary. And this method was called afterwards Schoole-devinity, for that it did principally consist in disputation and discussion of matters exactly, by descending into particulars, and dissolving all doubts; whereas the other manner of 〈◊〉 of Positive divinity. Scriptures, Fathers, Doctors, Histories, and councils, severally remained with the name of positive: divinity, as contenting itself only with assertive doctrine, without disputation or further discussion. 8. The first and principal Authors of this method, or methodical study is accounted to be Petrus Lombardus Bishop of Paris, above four hundred & fifty years Master of the sentences. past, who for that he gathered into the foresaid method of general heads, all that any way appertained to divinity, out of the sayings and sentences of Scriptures and Fathers, dividing the same into four books, and every book into several distinctions, he was called afterwards the Master of the sentences, and many learned men in ensuing times wrote Commentaries thereon, enlarging with great variety of matter, the said method which he had invented. Others also made several Sums of Theology, different in name, but in effect to the same imitation, whereof may be accounted one of the first, our often named learned Countryman Alexander of Hales in Suffolk, and after him S. Thomas of Aquine, upon whom many other learned men, since that time have, and do unto this day write large Commentaries. divers also considering that this methodical study hath two parts, the one speculative, which is handled principally by the exercise Speculative and moral divinity. of our understanding in dispute, the other moral, that appertaineth to manners and action of life; sundry learned men do betake themselves principally to this later, as more necessary to practise of Christian life, and cases therein to be resolved in Conscience. 9 And about the very same time, or little before, it came to pass by the like providence of almighty God, that the same method was thought upon, for reducing the Decrees and Constitutions of Counsels, Fathers, Bishops, and Popes, appertaining to Ecclesiastical government (which grew now to be many) unto like general heads, books, causes, questions and Chapters, 〈◊〉 more facility of comprehending and remembering the same, the chief Author thereof being Gratian Collector of the Canon law. Gratian, a learned Monk of S. benedict's Order: which laborious and methodical compilation approved by Popes at that time, and from time to time afterwards, and expounded by the writings and Commentaries of many skilful men in that science, is called the 〈◊〉 Canon law as the other part appertaining to civil affairs, deduced from the ancient Imperial Roman Civil law. Laws, is called the Civill-law; and both of them concurring together, in this our cause, with the foresaid Schoole-devinity, and flourishing more within thes last four hundred years then ever before, as you have heard; the exception made against them all by this our Minister, must needs be judged for light, vain and impertinent. 10. For he that will cast his eyes upon the face of Christendom, for these last four hundred years, & consider with himself that in all these ages, the most eminent renowned men for learning, conscience, and virtue in all those three sciences, or faculties now A consideration of moment. mentioned, and unto whom for all doubts, and difficulties appertaining unto justice, equity and truth, recourse was made, as unto Oracles of their days, for the high esteem they were held in among all men, he (I say) that shall consider this, and with what integrity they dealt in this affair, and must be presumed to have dealt according to their skill, for that they were not interessed therein for any temporal respect whatsoever; he that shall but think of this, & weigh their uniform and grave resolutions upon this point, that a man pressed unlawfully to answer by unjust manner of proceeding, may delude his demander, & not answer to his intention but to his own, will easily see, what difference there is to be made between these men's judgements, and the clamours of a few unlearned Ministers in this behalf, that understand not the grounds whereon the other, or themselves do speak. 11. And to name some few examples; who were accounted more learned School- Divines in their days in France, Germany, and Flanders, than the forenamed Petrus Learned men of France & Flanders that defend Equivocation. Lombardus Bishop of Paris, Master of the sentences? john Gerson Chancellor of that University? Petrus Paludanus Patriarch afterward of Jerusalem? Henricus de Gandavo Archdeacon of Tornay? Gabriel Biel a very Religious learned man? Adrianus that was Master to the Emperor Charles the fifth, and after that Cardinal and Governor of Spain for Philip the first, & finally Pope by the name of Adrian the sixth? I might name also jansenius Bishop of Gaunt in these days, and others of our times, but of these their learned works are extant, and upon divers occasions they favour & defend the lawfulness of Equivocation in sundry cases, as in the next Chapter shall be more particularly declared. 12. In Italy & Sicily also many might be named both for School- divinity, Canon, and Civil law, but I In Italy & Sicily. shall be contented with them only, whose works I have had time to look upon for this point, as Gratian with his Commentaries, Pope Innocentius, S. Thomas of Aquin, Cardinal Caietan, Astonsis in his Sum written almost three hundred years since, Angelus de Clavatio, famous Silvester, Cosmus Filiarcus Cannon of Florence, Abbot and Archbishop Panormitan, Bartolus & Baldus most famous Lawyers. 13. But of the Spanish Nation many more, as Didacus' Couarruuias Precedent or Chancellor of Spain, Martinus In Spain and the Kingdoms thereof. Navarrus his Master, both excellent Lawyers; Dominicus Sotus Confessor to the Emperor Charles the fifth, Cardinal Tolet, Emanuel Roderiquez, Ludovicus Lopez, Antonius de Corduba, Petrus Navarra, Dominicus Ban public Reader of divinity in Salamanca, Michael Salon Doctor and Professor of the Devinity-chaire in Valentia, Petrus de Arragon public Professor of the same science in the foresaid University of Salamanca, Gregorius de Valentia, and joannes Azorius public Readers in Rome, all renowned men for learning, science, & conscience, and through whose hands great matters have passed for direction of justice and equity both in foro fori, and foro poli, as Schoolmen speak, both for divine and human proceedings; and yet do none of all these condemn or deny absolutely the use of Equivocation in certain cases, but do rather approve and confirm the same, I mean both lawyers and divines, when they treat upon these heads following, de seruando secreto, of concealing secrets, both known in the Sacrament of Confession and otherwise: de mendacio of lying: de iureiurandis, of swearing: de fraterna correptione & restituenda fama, of brotherly admonition and restitution of another man's fame wrongfully The titles under which Equivocation is ordinarily handled. taken away: de judice, de Reo, de accusatore, de testibus: of a judge and his office, of the defendant, accuser, witnesses and the like, what they may do or answer lawfully in cases that may occur. 14. Neither are these Authors to be accounted as single and separate from the rest of the learned men of their ages in this point which we handle, but rather are conjoined wholly with them, both in judgement and practice; so as what these men did define to be lawful, that did others in like manner both maintain & put in ure in just occasions, especially if they were of the self same order and rank: So as when for example we cite Silvester, Dominicus Sotus Caiëtan, Paludanus, Lopez and Bannes, of the order of S. Dominick to have taught this doctrine without reprehension of others of the same order, we may infer probably that all or most learned men of that Order throughout Christendom are of the same opinion. And the like we may infer of those of S. Francis order in respect of Angelus de Clavatio, Astensis, Antonius de Corduba, here cited. And the same of S. Augustine's order, by Petrus de Arragon and Michael Salon. And of the most ancient and venerable Order of S. Benedict containing many thousands of learned men, by that which Abbot Panormitan, and Gregorius Sayer our learned Countryman Different orders of religious men concurring all in one. have written upon this matter, and the later more largely than many others. And the like may be inferred of the order of jesuits, by that which is extant written by Cardinal Tolet, Gregorius de Valentia, Emanuel Sà, Francisius Suarez, joannes Azorius, Ludovicus Molina and others. So as by these few witnesses we may take a notice of the whole body and corpses of learned men throughout Christendom; for that Lawyers also both Civil and Canon, that have written of the foresaid heads have conformed themselves to the same doctrine, as lawful in equity and conscience. And if any have dissented, it hath been in particular cases only, as before in the seventh Chapter and third Consideration hath been noted. 15. As for example joannes Genesius Sepulueda Historiographer of Charles the fifth Emperor, whose authority Thomas Morton doth often times allege against joan Gen. 〈◊〉 us, though in the principal he make fully with us in his book entitled Theophilus; De ratione dicendi testimonium in causis occultorum criminum; how a man may bear witness in causes of secret crimes; yet in some cases he dissenteth from the foresaid Authors, holding singular opinions by himself, but yet upon such grounds as do indeed confirm the common sentence of the rest, as afterward in due place shallbe declared. 16. Wherefore to end this Paragraph about the Consideration of School- Divines and Lawyers, it shall be sufficient to have named these few, and though I had purposed once to have set down in particular the several places of their works, where they handle this matter, and show their opinions in approbation thereof; yet finally not to trouble the Reader with so many quotations, I judged it best to defer these unto the next Chapter, where I mean to lay forth some particular cases in which their several sentences are to be alleged, and so we shall pass on now to the other points of his Chapter that do remain: only advertising by the way, that if our few English Ministers that do contradict this common received doctrine (for I do not think all to be so rash or senseless) should be put in a pair of balance, for learning, piety, and discretion, with these Authors here named, and that a man were to adventure his soul with one party, I do not doubt, but that the discreet Reader will easily see where it were reason to make his chose. And so much of this. THE SECOND POINT touching Scriptures and Fathers, For mixed and reserved propositions. §. 2. 17. ANd first of all I have thought best for more brevity, to join Scriptures and Fathers together, in this Point of mixed and reserved Propositions, for that the exposition of the 〈◊〉 going with the text of Scripture, doth evidently show both their senses therein, and conjoin both their testimonies. For if we can show that the holy Ghost in Scriptures doth use such doubtful and ambiguous propositions as is that, I am no Priest, with some mental reservation, equal unto this of ours, with obligation to reveal etc.) and that by ordinary sound and signification of the words uttered, the hearer may be deceived, and take it in one sense, and the speaker by the part reserved in his mind may truly understand it in another, and that the ancient Fathers do by their expositions confirm the same, then do we prove directly our purpose, both out of Scriptures and out of Fathers in like manner, notwithstanding Thomas morton's vain assertion, that not one jota in all Scriptures, Pag. 48. not one example in all Catholic antiquity etc. And albeit I have showed divers examples already in the two precedent Chapters, that do convince most evidently that which we are to prove; yet for that we have not urged before the exposition of Fathers upon those places, we mean here out of the abundance that we have, to adjoin sundry other testimonies, to the end the matter may remain undoubted. 18. And we shall begin with an example so clear, as it shall be like to that of ours in all points, if we change only the names of the persons, and conditions of 〈◊〉 that spoke and heard. As that example of S. A clear example out of S. john Baptist his answer. john 〈◊〉, who being examined and demanded by them that were sent unto him from the jews, whether he were a Prophet or no, he denied it. Propheta es tu? Et respondit non: Are you a Prophet? and he answered no; and yet he meant not absolutely to deny himself joan. 1. to be a Prophet, for that it had been false both in respect of that his Father Zacharias had prophesied of him in his nativity, Et tu puer Propheta Altissimi vocaberis Luc. 1. etc. And thou child shalt be called the Prophet of the Highest, for that thou shalt go before his face to prepare his ways; as also for that the testimony of Christ himself in S. Mathewes Gospel is clear, Quid 〈◊〉 videre? Prophetam? etiam dico vobis & plus quam Prophetam: Math. 11. What went you forth to see in the desert? A Prophet? yea I say unto you, and more than a Prophet. Whereunto our said Saviour in S. Luke's Gospel addeth, 〈◊〉 inter natos multerum Propheta johann Baptista 〈◊〉 7. nemo est, there is no greater Prophet among the children of women than john Baptist. 19 here than you see a proposition uttered by the holy Ghost, that of itself is ambiguous and of a doubtful sense, and according to the ordinary sound and sense of the words uttered, seemeth false, no less than our proposition I am no Priest. For as this may be refuted by them that know me to be a Priest, and as Thomas Morton still urgeth (though fond,) is contrary to my knowledge and conscience, that know myself to be a Priest: so here S. john's denial, that he is a Prophet, may be refuted by Scripture, and must needs be contrary to his own knowledge & conscience also, S. john had a men tall reservation. after morton's manner of urging, 〈◊〉 that he could not but know himself to be a Prophet, & is no less subject to the calumniation of lying, than our speech of denying myself to be a Priest, except it be saved by some mental reservation, which he uttered not in words. 20. But now what this reservation was, is not so clear among ancient Fathers, though all do agree that there was some, & consequently do stand with us against Morton, that some such reservation may be Chrys. ho. 5. yr l. 1. in o. c. 14. Orig. tom. 7. Theoph. Euthim. & 〈◊〉 in Graeca 〈◊〉. used. And first S. Chrisostome, S. Cyrill, Origen, Theophilactus, Euthimius, Apollinarius, and other Greek writers do think this 〈◊〉 to have been in S. john's speech, that he was not that great Prophet promised in deuteronomy to come at the time of the Messias, of whom Moses said: Thy Lord shall raise up unto thee a Prophet out of thy own Nation, and among thy own Brethren, as he hath raised me, and him shalt thou hear, meaning of Christ Deut. 〈◊〉. himself. And their proof for this is, for that in Greek, the article (ho) is joined with PROPHETS, which signifieth commonly an excellency, eminency or singularity of the thing when it is added: so as these Fathers will have S. john's meaning to be, I am not that eminent and singular Prophet mentioned by Moses, which indeed as hath been said was Christ himself. 21. But other Fathers, as S. Augustine and S. Gregory do understand another reservation to have been in S. john's Aug. tract. 4. in joan. Gregor. homil. 1. mind, to wit that he was not only a Prophet, but more than a Prophet as Christ said of him, & therefore denied himself to be a Prophet: As if a Bishop should deny himself to be a Priest, for that he is more than a Priest. But Rupertus and some others do interpret Rupertus in hunc locum. this reservation of S. john to have been that he was no Prophet, by ordinary office to foretell Christ as other Prophets did; but only that he was a Prophet in spirit and virtue, to show Christ present: So as here are divers reservations discovered by these Fathers, which do make the proposition true, that otherwise would be false, and consequently all these Fathers do agree, Exposition of Fathers for mental. reservation. that there may be a true mixed proposition, partly uttered and partly reserved, and thereby true in one sense and false in another, and one way understood by the hearer, and another way meant by the speaker, which is properly the Equivocation that we spoke of in this place, and is foolishly condemned by Thomas Morton for gross lying. 22. And albeit I mean to make a several Chapter afterward of his wise arguments that he allegeth to prove his purpose; yet will I not pretermit in this place, to touch one solemn foolery of his used to convince (as he saith) the former answer I am no Priest, with the referuation, to tell you, of a manifest lie. And to perform this, he will needs leave for a time the School of Aristotle, and his form of disputing, and fall to Socratical demands and interrogations. Suffer Pag. 52. me (saith he) Socratically to debate this point with you, and answer me friendly to these demands. Quest. when being asked whether you are a Priest, you 〈◊〉 no, what signification hath this word no? Answ. It doth signify directly I am no Priest. Quest. And yet Socratical demands of T. 〈◊〉. you think you are a Priest? Answ. Yea I know it. Quest. Wherewith do you know it? Answ. By my inward mind and understanding, my conscience testifying this unto me. Quest. Can conscience bear witness, then can it also speak? Answ. It speaketh as verily to my inward soul, as my tongue speaketh sensibly to your ears etc. Quest. Then will this be as true, that when your conscience affirmeth that which your tongue denieth, that your tongue speaketh against your conscience, and this is that which we have proved to be flat lying: a Conclusion that no art of Equivocation can possibly avoid. Lo here the victory of Thomas Morton, which he might take against S. john Baptist, for denying himself to be a Prophet, as much as against an English Priest, for answering in such a case, I am no Priest. 23. For let us suppose it had been as punishable in jury to have been a Prophet in S. john's time, as it is now to be a Priest in England, and that he had been demanded, as he was by those Priests and Scribes, whether he were a Prophet or no, & he answering no, I would argue by interrogations, as Morton doth, what signification hath this word no? And then S. john must answer, as Thomas Morton answereth for him I am no Prophet, which had been a direct lie in morton's doctrine, for that his tongue denieth the thing which his conscience The comparison of S. john's answer with the answer of a Priest. testifieth, knowing that he is a Prophet: and will Morton stand to this his impious process against S. john, or will he have me to tell him his error, to deliver S. john and our Priest also from his calumniation? Let him know then, that this negative no, when he saith, I am no Priest, doth not fall only upon the words uttered, according to the sense of the hearer; but upon the whole proposition, as it is in the speakers mind, and meaning: so as when being asked whether I be a Priest, I answer no, the word no serveth to my signification, that I am no such Priest, as I am bound to utter. And so in S. john's answer, he being demanded whether morton's error discovered. he were a Prophet, and answering no, his meaning was, that he was no such or such Prophet; so as this negative did not signify directly he was no Prophet, as Morton would have it, whereby is fallen to the ground all his Socratical science in arguing by interrogatories. It may be he desired to give a taste thereby of his fitness to have some office of an Examiner against Catholics, for his sharp manner of concluding, which now men will see that he little deserveth, but in defect of a better. 24. I might 〈◊〉 here to this effect and purpose, that ambiguous and equivocal answer of the said S. john about Elias, Elias es tu? (said the pharisees) he answered joan. 1. Non sum: Are 〈◊〉 Elias? he answered, I am not, and yet Christ our Saviour, that is truth itself, saith of the same S. john: Si vultis illum recipere, ipse est Elias qui venturus Math. 11. est: If you will receive him, he is Elias that is to come; and the later words make the sense more hard, for that it seemeth that he describeth the true Elias in deed that was to come. But all the fore-alleged Fathers, and others do agree, that S. john's negation was true in his reserved sense, to wit that he was not Elias in person, as the demaunders took him to be, and Christ's words also were true in his reserved sense, to wit, that he was Elias in spirit, though not in person, without which two reservations, neither of their speeches can be verified, & with them they are made doubtful, ambiguous, and equivocal to the hearer, but not false. So as now in one and the self same thing, we have both Christ and S. john Baptist, for manifest witnesses of amphibology and Equivocation; & consequently it is likely that the thing is not so hellish, heathenish, heinous and monstrous, as Morton maketh it; nor is Pag. 48. & 49. it such gross lying, as his first lying and unlearned conclusion avoucheth it to be. But let us go forward. 25. The next place shall be out of our saviours words to the pharisees in S. john's Gospel, where he joan. 8. saith, Ego non judico quemquam, I do not judge any man, which proposition without some reservation cannot stand, for that it should be contrary to many other places of Scripture, as that Pater omne judicium dedit filio, joan. 5. the Father hath given all judgement to his son: and again in the Acts of the Apostles, S. Peter avoucheth Act. 10. in his Oration to Cornelius, and those that were with him, that God had commanded him and the rest of the Apostles to testify to the whole world, Quia ipse est qui constitutus est à Deo judex vivorum & mortuorum, that Christ is appointed by God, judge both of the living and the dead, which S. Paul confirmeth aswell to Rom. 14. 2 Cor. 5. the Romans, as to the Corinthians, that we must all stand before the tribunal of Christ to be judged by him. 26. So as if we take this proposition as it lieth written without any mental reservation, it is false. For if any man should ask of me whether jesus Christ be our judge or no, if I should answer no, I should speak How Christ is our judge and how he is not. both falsely and impiously; and how then may this negative be made true (which as uttered by Christ cannot be false?) Surely by no way, but by a mental reservation of the speaker Christ our Saviour, which reservation the ancient Fathers do seek after, and lay forth unto us in divers manners. For that S. Augustine, S. Bede, and Rupertus in their explication of this place, do affirm, that the reservation was secundum carnem according to the flesh; so as the whole proposition was, I do judge no man according to flesh and blood, as you pharisees do, for that the words of Christ immediately going before were these to the pharisees; You judge according to the flesh, but I judge no man; but other Greek Fathers S. Chrysostome, Leontius, Theophilact and In bune locum. Euthymius do think that this cannot stand, in respect of the words immediately following: Et si judico ego, judicium joan. 〈◊〉. meum verum est, and if I do judge any man, my judgement is true, which seemeth should not be so, if he should judge according to flesh and blood as the pharisees did. 27. Wherefore these Fathers do propose another mental reservation of Christ in this matter to wit in hac vita in this life, meaning that albeit he hath full authority divers reservations sought out by the Fathers. and power of judging all; yet that he came not into the world to exercise that power in this life, but only to instruct, comfort, and save men, reserving his exercise of judgement unto the last day, and in the next world, according to his own speech in another place, God hath not sent his Son into the world to judge the joan. 3. world, but that the world should be saved by him. And yet other Greek writers as S. Gregory Nazienzen and Elias Cretensis say, the reservation to have been, as Christ was; man only, and of himself he had not power to judge, but from his Father, according to that his saying; All power is given me in heaven & in earth where he acknowledgeth Marc. ult. to have received all in gift from his Father. And others do propose other interpretations and reservations, but all do agree in one conformity as you see, that this proposition of our Saviour cannot be verified, but only by some mental reservation, containing more than is uttered. And therefore these Fathers do acknowledge the use of mixed reserved propositions, even in the Son of God himself, and consequently also of amphibology or Equivocation, when need requireth. 28. But let us see some more examples: when our Saviour was called to raise from death the Prince or Archsinagoge his daughter, as in S. Matthew, S. Mark & Math. 9 Marc. 5. S. Luke's Gospel is recorded, and he coming to the Luc. 8. house, found the people in tumult, weeping, and lamenting for her death, he repressed them saying: Recedite, The exam ple of Christ raising the Archsynagogues daughter. non est enim mortua puella, fed dormit; depart, for that the maid is not dead, but sleepeth; & yet is it certain that naturally she was dead, by separation of her soul from her body, which is proved both for that the people did know her to be dead, and therefore scoffed at Christ, for saying she was not dead, but a sleep; as also for that otherwise it had been no miracle to raise her again. So as if this proposition be taken 〈◊〉 as it lieth, without any mental reservation by our 〈◊〉, it cannot be true, neither in itself nor in the sense of the hearers, no more than in our proposition, I am no Priest. For if our Saviour had been asked, Is this maid dead? and he had answered no: this word no in the force of Thomas morton's Socratical argumentation must needs be the negative of that which is demanded, and so, to use his words, directly to have signified 〈◊〉 she was not dead, which had been directly false, if it had not been extended to a further reserved meaning of Christ according to our doctrine, and thereby the said answer made true. 29. Which mental reservation in our Saviour, according to S. Augustine's explication, and of other expositors was, that albeit she was dead in their sight, and unto human power: yet unto him, and unto his divine power and will to raise her again, she was not dead, but only in a sleep. Verum dixit Dominus, (saith S. Augustine) non est mortua puella, sed dormit; sed illi, à quo poterat Aug. serm. de verb. Domi. 44. excitari. Christ said truly the maid is not dead, but sleepeth, to wit unto him, that was able to raise her again. So as by this reservation, S. Augustine defendeth Christ his answer conferred with ours. Christ's proposition from falsity, & consequently acknowledgeth such Equivocation in our saviours speech as we treat of. For as Christ being asked whether the maid were dead, and he answering no, saith no untruth, for that the negative no fell not upon the: words uttered only, but upon his whole meaning, partly uttered, and partly reserved, to wit that she was not dead in respect of his power and will to raise her again: even so our no to that demand, whether I be a Priest or no, falleth not only upon the words uttered or question of the demander (for so it should be false) but upon the whole proposition, as hath been said, and so it is true. 30. I might allege almost innumerable places to this effect, as that of Christ in S. john's Gospel 〈◊〉 of the eating of his flesh: If any shall at of this 〈◊〉. 6. bread, he shall live forever. And again a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood hath life everlasting: and yet S. Paul saith to the contrary, whosoever shall eat this bread or drink the cup of our Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of our Lord; And further, he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, doth eat and drink his own judgement, or condemnation, for that he discerneth not the body 〈◊〉 our Lord By which words of S. Paul, it is made manifest, first, that the former words of Christ cannot absolutely be true, without some mental reservation or restriction in his understanding, for that all eaters of his flesh, & drinkers of his blood have not life everlasting thereby, but some rather damnation; & secondly is discovered, what this reservation was, to wit dignè, worthily: as if he had said he that shall eat: worthily my flesh and drink worthily my blood, shall have life everlasting thereby, which yet Christ uttered not but reserved the same in his mind, as you see, and thereby left the proposition ambiguous and equivocal. 31. And in very like manner those other speeches of our Saviour, If you shall ask any thing of my Father in job 16. my name, he will give it to you: and yet we see by experience, that many do ask and receive not, wherefore somewhat is reserved in Christ's mind and meaning; which reservation S. james uttereth in these words: jac. 4. Petitis & non accipitis, eò quòd malè petatis; you ask & receive not, for that you ask not as you should do; this mental reservation than was in Christ's words, when he uttered the foresaid general proposition, to wit, that he which should ask, as he ought to ask, should receive etc. And so again those words in S. Marc. 16. Marks Gospel; He that shall believe and be baptised shallbe saved, the reservation is, if he believe according to: Other examples. Christ's commandments, as after both Christ himself in the end of S. Mathewes Gospel, and S. john in Math. 28. his Epistles do expound the same: according to which Io. epist. 〈◊〉. sense also, those words of the Prophet joel: Whosoever jocl. 2. shall call upon the name of our Lord, shall be saved, are expounded by Christ himself, when he saith: Not every one Math. 7. that saith, Lord, Lord, shall enter into heaven, but he that doth the will of my Father, that is in heaven; which reservation was not uttered, but kept in mind by the Prophet. And all these being mixed propositions, partly of words uttered, and partly of further hidden sense reserved, making the part that is uttered doubtful, ambiguous, and equivocal, as you see; they do all determine our controversy most clearly, and confound morton's vanity most apparently, that saith, and avoucheth No one jota to be found in all Scripture, no one example in all antiquity, for the just proof or colour of any such Equivocation or mixed proposition. 32. I should utterly weary my Reader, if I would follow all, or the greatest Part of that which may be said in this behalf, for that always commonly all Prophecies that are minatory and do threaten punishment, have still some secret-reseruation, if they repent not: as that of Isay to King Ezechias: Haec dicit Dominus, Isa. 38. dispone Domui tuae, quia morieris tu & non vives: This 〈◊〉 our Lord, dispose of thy household, for thou shall die, and shalt not live, and yet he lived 〈◊〉 years after. If therefore the Prophet had been demanded; shall not Ezechias live any longer? & he had answered no, upon what had fallen the negative no? If only upon the words uttered, it had been false, for he lived longer, but if upon that together with the reservation in the meaning of the holy Ghost, it was true. And the like may be said of the Prophecy of jonas: Adhuc quadraginta dies, & Ninive subverietur; There remain but forty days before Ninive shall be destroyed, & so infinite other places. Wherefore in this Th. 〈◊〉 was greatly overseen in making of confident a challenge, as before you have heard. THE THIRD POINT OF THIS CHAPTER CONCERNING Other Scriptures alleged, And pretended to be answered by Thomas Morton. §. 3. 33. But now we must come to a greater conflict, which is to examine how our adversary hath answered certain examples out of Scripture, alleged as he saith, (for I have not yet seen the writing itself) by a Catholic Treatise in written-hand intercepted, whereby the lawfulness of this kind of Equivocation is avouched, & by his answer to those that are cited by himself, we may imagine what he will be able to say to these other which have been here produced by us, and innumerable others that might be alleged. Examples out of the old Testament. First then out of the old Testament, he produceth two examples only, the one of jacob, that told his Father Two 〈◊〉 out of she old 〈◊〉. that he was his eldest son Esau, which in deed he was not, and consequently we must grant that either he spoke false, & lied (which the ancient Fathers, S. Ambrose, S. Augustine and others do piously deny) or else that he had some reserved further sense in his mind, whereby his said speech might be verified, and consequently his proposition be ambiguous, and Equivocal. 34. But hereunto T.M. answereth first, that Cardinal Caëtan, and divers other learned men do hold, that jacob is inexcusable from some sort of 〈◊〉 in this his speech; and for this he allegeth the testimony of Pererius a jesuit in his Commentaries upon Genesis; Perer. in c. 27. Gen. dis. 4. & 5. who disputing this matter at large in five several disputations, whether jacob did lie, or sin at all in this speech, saith, that the said Caïétan with some other modern writers do hold, that it may be granted that the said Whether jacob did lie or no in saying he was Esau. Patriarch did commit some venial sin, by making an officious lie in that behalf. But what? doth 〈◊〉 himself agree to that opinion? No truly? But maketh this title of his last disputation thereabout. The common sentence of Divines (saith he) is declared, and defended, which doth excuse and free jacob from all manner of lying in his foresaid speech, and then beginning with S. Augustine, who Aug. q. 74. in Genes. & l. 16 de Civit. Dei. c. 37. & l. contra mend. c. 10 in divers parts of his works doth most earnestly defend the Patriarch jacob in this behalf, by many and manifold reasons, and authorities both from all lie and sin, doth show and declare that his speech was figurative, and not deceitful, containing mysterium, non mendacium, a mystery, and not a lie. To which effect one place out of his book against lying shall serve for all: Non est mendacium (saith he) quando silendo absconditur verum, sed cum loquendo promitur falsum: jacob autem quòd matre fecit auctore, ut patrem fallere videretur, si diligenter, & fideliter attendatur, non est mendacium, sed mysterium etc. It is no lie, when a truth is concealed by silence but when a falsity by speech is uttered: that which jacob did by the persuasion of his mother, as though he would deceive his Father, if it be diligently and faithfully considered, was no lie, but a mystery. 35. And then a little after in the same Chapter talking of such mysterious speeches, that seem to say one thing, and yet do mean another, he saith thus: That mysterious speeches are Equivocal. Vera non falsa dicuntur, quoniam vera non falsa significantur, seu verbo seu facto, quae significantur enim utique ipsa dicuntur, putantur autem mendacia, quoniam non ea quae vera significantur, dicta intelliguntur sed ea quae falsa sunt dicta esse creduntur. In a mysterious speech true things, and not false are spoken, for that true things and not false are signified either by the word, or fact that hath a mystery in it, for that in deed those things are spoken which are mysteriously signified by the speech, but they seem to be lies, for that all men understand not those things that are truly signified by the speech, but rather those things that are false are thought to be spoken. So S. Augustine. Whereby is evident, what he meaneth by a mysterious speech, to wit, when one sense is gathered by the words, & another sense truly signified, which the natural signification of the words do not bear, and thereby a mysterious proposition must be called also Equivocal in the sense that now we handle, and consequently also S. Augustine must needs be granted to admit this kind of Equivocation without lying, Hier. in c. 2. ad Gal. Chrys. ho. 53. in Gen. Greg. ho. 6. in Ezec. & lib. 17. Mor. whereby he so earnestly defendeth this Patriarch from all kind of lie whatsoever. 36. And with S. Augustine do concur in this defence of holy jacob both S. Hierome, S. Chrysostome, S. Gregory, Theodoret, S. Ambrose, S. Isidorus, S. Bede; and of later writers, Rupertus, Gratian, Alexander Halensis, Petrus Lombardus, Theod. q. 80. in Goe Ambr. lib. de Patria. jacob. Isid. Beda. & Ruper. in 27. Gen. S. Thomas and almost infinite others; so as for Th. Morton to creep out now under the shadow of Caïentan, and two or three other modern Authors more, against the whole stream, and torrent of so many ancient Fathers, and Catholic Divines, is a ridiculous evasion, and worthy of Thomas morton's defence, and full satisfaction. 37. His second example out of the old Testament, is Grat. cau. 22. q. 2. c. that of Hieremy the Prophet, set down by me before Quaeritur. Hal. 2. part q. 139. in my seventh Chapter and fourth Consideration thereof, which this Minister the better not to be understood relateth only in these few obscure words, Mag. in 3. d. 38. out of his adversaries answer: Such Equivocation (saith he) did the Prophet jeremy use. jer. 38. when he took advise of D. Tho. 2. 2 q. 110. ar. 3 the King. This relation is brief, abrupt, and dark as you see, but we have declared the matter with the The second example. circumstances in the former place, to wit, how jeremy being urged to make a repetition to the Captains, & Princes of King Sedechias, that were tempted against Num. 32. him, of that conference which had passed in secret between Conf. p. 70 him and the said King, of things that the King would not have the said Princes to know, it seemeth The mode rate Ans. cap. 10. by the text of Scripture, that albeit so great and holy a Prophet, sanctified in his mother's womb, may be presumed not to have lied; yet that in so large a repetition wherein divers truths at the kings request were to be concealed, there must in all probality, pass divers ambiguous, and Equivocal speeches, for covering those truths that were not to be uttered, and that so it may be gathered out of Jeremy's own narration in the text; and therefore all Equivocation is not lying, nor heathenish, or abominable profanation, as Thomas Morton would have it. 38. This is the force of the argument: what answereth he thereunto? First, he saith, that our own ancient expositor Lyranus in his Commentary, holdeth that jeremy did not lie, but what of this? So we say also, for that otherwise, we should grant the Prophet to have sinned, and Equivocation to be lying, both which we utterly deny. Secondly than he leaving quickly this first hold, steepeth to another, more liked T. M. his answer refuted. by him and his, who would have all men liars with themselves, and this is, that jeremy did lie in deed, in that his relation to the Princes of Sedechias, if we judge (saith he) Pag. 71. the outward speech of jeremy, was false; yet is it not written for our imitation etc. And to this he applieth the words 1. Cor. 10. of S. Paul to the Corinthians: Let him that standeth take 〈◊〉 lest he fall, that is to say into lying, as jeremy did: and herewith also he giveth a general note out of S. August. Aug. l. cont. mend. c. 9 who saith, that all examples of the old Testament, wherein there may be any scars of infirmities, (to use the words of T. M.) are not to be imitated, which is true in S. Augustine's meaning, who allegeth the example of Lot, in prostitution of his daughters, and of David that swore rashly that he would kill Naball, & the like: but it was far from S. Augustine's meaning hereby to touch any such holy Prophet, Patriarch, or Saint, as jeremy was, or to condemn them of voluntary lying: therefore here Thomas Morton showeth less piety than folly in shifting of thus this place of Scripture. 39 And if it were a scar of infirmity in Hieremy, to cover sometimes a truth by Equivocation, or amphibology of some speech for a good and necessary end; T. M. his scars of infirmity. yet I hope he will not say so of Christ himself, nor lay his scars also upon him, though you have heard now already by many examples, how frequent that manner of speech was with him, upon sundry occasions, and you shall hear more presently, for that now we pass to the examples which he citeth, as alleged by his adversary out of the new Testament, and we shall see whether he will answer them better than he hath already done these two of the old. And if you stand attended, you shall see him confirm our part as clearly, as if he had written for us, and against himself. Out of the new Testament. 40. THe first place which he taketh upon him to The first place of the new Testament. satisfy out of the new Testament as objected by his Adversaries, is that our saviours saying in S. john's Gospel: All things whatsoever I heard of my Father, have I made known unto you; & yet in the very next ensuing joan. 15. Chapter, Christ saith, that he had many things to say unto joan. 16. them, but that they were not able to bear them away then; Whereof is inferred that Christ's former speech had some mental restriction, or reservation in it, as that he had told them all that he had received from his Father, that is to say, all whatsoever he thought convenient for them to hear at that time, or 〈◊〉 fit to bear away, or to make their profit by, or the like, which yet was not expressed in words in the former proposition, but reserved in Christ's meaning, & consequently that proposition was mixed, and Equivocal in sense by this mental reservation; what will Thomas Morton say to this? For if a jesuit should come to him, and relate him some case from another, with this asseveration in the end, that he had told him all whatsoever he had heard from the other, and yet the next A comparison expressing the case. day after should say that he had many points more to tell him from the same party, but it was not time to tell them now, I doubt not but that he would have cried out, that the jesuit had lied the day before, for the evil conceit he hath of Jesuits in that behalf: but if, on the contrary side he had held a good opinion of that jesuit his integrity in his point, and that for no worldly respect he would make a lie, great or small, (as according to our former doctrine he should not) than must M. Morton imagine at least, that that 〈◊〉 did Equivocate without a lie, and so consequently lying & Equivocation should be two distinct things. 41. Well then now I expect what he will answer to this speech of Christ, whom he will not grant I am sure to have Equivocated, lest he speak against himself and authorize thereby Equivocation, nor dareth he (I presume) 〈◊〉 say, that he lied, lest he cast upon him so soul a scar of infirmirty: I expect (I say) to see how he will shift of this matter, for that the case seemeth to be very like, or rather the same in both examples, setting a side the main difference of the persons. You shall hear what full satisfaction he will Pag. 72. give in this behalf. I answer (saith he) with S. Augustine, now man's infirmity playeth her part, but know you that no Aug. l. cont. mend. c. 19 man learneth of Chastity to be adulterous, or of godliness to be 〈◊〉, and shall we learn of truth to be liars, and perjurious? God forbid. Thus he out of S. Augustine as he pretendeth, but in deed so brokenly & corruptly alleged, if you look upon the place itself, as it may scarcely be called S. Augustine's speech. But as for the sense it appertaineth nothing to our purpose, for S. Augustine saith, we my not learn of the truth to be liars, as the priscillianists endeavoured to do by confirming the unlawfulness of lying out of the words of Christ, which we do not, nor do we affirm that our Saviour when he said, All things whatsoever I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you, did lie, or utter any falsity at all, but reserved somewhat in his mind not uttered, which joined with his words made the proposition most true, and how then is the sentence of S. Augustine brought in against us for an answer to the difficulty proposed? By this 〈◊〉 you may see what full satisfaction he is like ●o give to these places of Scripture. But let us hear the rest. 42. Touching this text (saith he) your own Bishop Pag. 〈◊〉. jansenius answering this objection saith, that these kind of speeches, and all such are to be expounded according to the circumstances either of state, place, time or condition of the persons speaking, or to whom they were spoken, as namely, that whatsoever you ask my Father in my name he will give you. What any thing absolutely? Nay but upon condition if it be expedient for you. So here Christ saying I have manifested all things, it is expounded by the circumstances of the present state, signifying all that appertaineth unto you to be known; so than 〈◊〉 is no concealed sense to deceive the hearer etc. 43. Do you see what an inference he maketh, that because jansenius doth show the way how to seek out the reservation, or concealed sense in such ambiguous propositions, therefore there is no such mental reservation, or concealed sense at all? Can the Reader tolerate The confutation of his answ. such an impertinent writer? Nay doth not all this speech of jansenius make wholly against Morton? For if he do set down these circumstances of place, time, state, and condition, whereby to seek out the hidden sense of such dubious propositions, may not we well, and justly infer quite contrary to morton's inference, Ergo there is some such hidden sense, more than is expressed in the words, which we call reservation, whereby the hearer may conceive a wrong sense if he hit not upon the said true reservation, which being not manifest to every one, but rather a contrary sense appearing in the words uttered, maketh the proposition ambiguous, doubtful and Equivocal; for that it may have divers senses, one Circumstances to find out mental reservations. in the understanding of the hearer, & another in the meaning of the speaker. And for that the whole importance dependeth of the later to wit of the speaker, especially in the speeches uttered by the holy Ghost that cannot be false, the ancient Fathers do labour by examination of the circumstances, set down here by jansenius, & 〈◊〉 such like, to find out what the speakers true meaning was, when the speech of itself is doubtful according to the words uttered. 44. Nor is the matter so easy to every man to find this out by consideration of circumstances, as Thomas Morton would have men to think, that there is no doubt or difficulty at all: for as in the places before alleged you have heard sundry Fathers of sundry opinions, and judgements about the points that were reserved by our Saviour: so here in this place upon those words, Omnia quaecunque etc. all things whatsoever Leont. Chrysost. Theoph. Euthim. in hunc locum. I have heard of my Father etc. divers Authors as Leontius. and others make the reservation to be this, whatsoever I heard of my Father, with order to tell you, that I have uttered unto you; but S. Chrysostome, Theophilact, Euthimius, and other Greek writers expound it thus, that whatsoever I heard of my Father convenient for you to know, that I have revealed unto you. S. Augustine, and S. Bede Aug. tract. in c. 15. 10. & Ep. 57 & lib. de Agon. do think Christ's meaning to be, that he had revealed all to his disciples, except such things as were reserved for the holy Ghost to reveal, and utter unto them, as in the precedent Chapter he promised: so as albeit here divers Christ. c. 9 learned Fathers by examining the circumstances Beda in hunc locum. before mentioned, do guess at divers mental reservations as you see; yet all do agree that there were some not uttered in the words, and not so easy to be joan. 14. determined, which doth utterly overthrow our Ministers divers reservations in Christ his speech idle imagination to the contrary, that the matter is evident for every man to understand by circumstance of speech. And yet he concludeth his answer in these confident words, Whereby (saith he) you may Pag. 73. perceive that not that infallible verity, but your own infirmity and vanity hath deceived you in so perverting the truth, to patronize a lie. Would you not think that the man had spoken somewhat to the purpose, that thus concludeth? Surely not a jot more than you have heard, wherein he hath confirmed evidently our part, and overthrown his own; and yet he braggeth like a Conqueror, as you see: but let us leave him in his vanity, and pass to a second place, or example alleged. 45. The second place is taken out of the Gospel of S. Mark, where our Saviour speaking of the day of About the day of judgement. Marc. 13. Math. 24. judgement, said, that de die autem 〈◊〉, vel hora nemo scit, neque Angeli in coelo, neque filius, nisi Pater: Of that day, or hour no man knoweth, neither the Angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father: which is repeated again in effect by S. Matthew, who hath Nemo scit nisi solus Pater, No man knoweth thereof but only the Father: & yet doth the whole course of Scripture run to the contrary, showing that Christ must be judge in Supra point 2. that day, as before hath been showed, and consequently must needs be presumed to know thereof, S. Paul saith also expressly to the Colossians, that all the treasures Colos. 2. of wisdom, and knowledge were hidden in Christ, ergo it is evident that the former proposition of Christ had some reservation of mind in it, for that otherwise it had been false. And for more perspicuities sake, let us frame the case more plain: If those disciples to whom our Saviour spoke those words, had demanded him, if he knew any thing of the day of judgement, and he had answered, no, what would that no have signified according to Thomas morton's 〈◊〉 argumentation? Would it not have directly signified (as his words be) that he had not known thereof in deed? and would not his hearers have taken it so? and yet had it been false, and they deceived. Why? For that he had some further reservation in his mind, whereon that (no) did reflect, which his words did not utter. 46. Well then compare Thomas morton's case which he objecteth against us and is this: A Catholic having a Priest in his house, and demanded whether he know where such a Priest is, he answereth no, reserving in his mind a further true meaning, whereon that no in his intention doth fall, to wit, that he knoweth it not so, as it is convenient to utter it unto them that Pag. 49. ask him, Sir Thomas crieth out, that this not a hidden truth but a gross lie. But I would ask him why? And further entreat him, to set down the difference between these two answers of Christ, and a Catholic in the manner of speech, and nature of a reserved proposition. 47. If he would say that there is no reservation in our saviours speech, but that the sense is clear according to the words as they sound, it would be ridiculous, both in regard of the opposite authorities before alleged out of Scriptures; as also of the great variety of expositions, which the ancient Fathers did leave unto us, for finding out the true reservation. And first of all condemning for Heretics, as S. Damascene Dam. l. de Haeresib. haer. Agnoetae. testifieth, under the name of 〈◊〉, or Agnoetae, all those that following the literal apparent sense of those words of our Saviour, did hold him to be ignorant in deed of the day of judgement, which being decreed and established by the Church, each Father endeavoured to find out the true reserved meaning, of our Saviour, as hath been said; which by experience they proved to be so hard, and therewith all to defend the same against the Arrians, who urged strongly the literal signification of the words, against Christ's Divinity, as some of them held this text to be corrupted, as appeared by the testimony both of S. Hierome upon this place, and S. Ambrose in his books de fide: Amb. l. 5. de fide c. 8. whereupon even at this day in S. Matthewes Gospel, where Christ useth the same speech, the word neque filius, neither the Son knoweth, is not read either in Greek or Latin, & yet was it found in divers Copies of both languages in old time, as may appear by Origen, and S. Chrysostome in Greek, and S. Hilary, and S. Augustine in Latin, who did read it in their days in their Copies of S. Mathews Gospel, as we do now in S. Mark, and thereupon, as hath been said, endeavoured each one to find out Christ's hidden meaning, and mental reservation therein. 48. As for example Origen & S. Epiphanius do think Orig. tra. in Mat. 24 Epiph. haeres. 69. Chrys. 〈◊〉 de trin. Christ's reservation to have been, that he knew not the day of judgement in this life, but in the next; and others, that he knew it not, quoad experientiam, by experience, for that he had not yet experienced the same; nor doth S. Chrysostome seem in one place altogether to mislike this interpretation. Other Fathers in great number do think Christ's meaning and reservation Atha. ser. 4. 〈◊〉 Aria Am. 〈◊〉. 5. de fide 4. 8 Naz. Orat. 4. 〈◊〉 Theo. Cyr. l. 〈◊〉. de thesau cap. 4. Theod. An. cont. Cyr. to have been, that he knew not of the certain day of judgement, as he was man, that is to say, by virtue of his humanity alone, without his divinity, for though as he was man and God he knew it; yet not by force or power of his humanity. And of this opinion are S Athanasius, S. Ambrose, S. Gregory Nazianzen, S. Cyril, Theodoret and others. 49. Many Fathers also, yea the greatest number of all, have an other exposition expressing the very same reservation in Christ's words, which we talked of in Aug. l. 8. q. 6. & l. 〈◊〉. de trin. c. 1. & l. de Gen. contr. Manicheos c. 23. Chrys. hom 78. S. Greg. li. 8. Regist. cap. 42. our former proposition, affirming that Christ's meaning was, when he said he knew not the day of judgement, that he knew it not so, as he might discover it unto them, or make them know it. And so doth hold S. Augustine in many places of his works, S. Chrysostome also in his homilies upon S. Matthew and S. Mark, S. Gregory in his Register, S. Hierome and S. Bede in their exposition upon this place, with whom do concur Theophilact, and divers others. 50. Now than we have here, that there are three or four sorts of reservations at least, sought out by the foresaid circumstances touched in the former example, all which do prove unto us, that in the proposition of Christ, the Son of man knoweth not of the day or hour of judgement, is an amphibological and Equivocal mixed proposition, containing a mental reservation of our Saviour, not expressed in his words, which overthroweth and utterly undoth Th. morton's whole Th. Morton brought to great straits. Treatise: and how do you think will he play the man here to avoid all this battery? You shall hear it presently, and see him brought to miserable straits: for thus he beginneth to answer the matter, having confessed first out of his adversaries Treatise of Equivocation, that Augustine, Ambrose, Chrysostome, Basil and Theophilact do expound it so, as lastly hath been said, that Christ knew not the day of judgement to utter it to his disciples, whereunto he answereth thus. 51. It will not (saith he) be pertinent to oppose the other exposition of Fathers, who as your Maldonate saith, were many, expounding this text thus, that Christ as he was man knew not the day and hour. This is his first struggle, and if it be impertinent, as himself confesseth, why doth he allege it, but for lack of better defence, and that it is impertinent in deed, is evident; for that this exposition of some Fathers alleged by him, doth rather prove that there were divers reservations in Christ's words, then that there was none at all, which he should prove. Wherefore it falleth out to Thomas Morton in this case, as when playing a bad game at Tables that is past recovery, he should say, this game is lost which way soever I play it, and yet will I play it out with what shame soever, rather than give it up. Let us see then what play he maketh. 52. He followeth on immediately after his former S. Augustine's authority alleged by F. Garnet examined. speech thus: But the question is (saith he) whether the former exposition of S. Augustine and others doth imply any mental Equivocation, and because Garnet at his arraignment did select only S. Augustine of all the Fathers, we will appeal to S. Augustine for answer to them all, by whose testimony it doth appear, that when our Saviour said, I know not the day, signifying ut dicam vobis, to tell unto you, this clause whereby he meant to conceal the time, was not concealed from them, who though they were by the sense of the speech held in ignorance not to know the day; yet were they not ignorant of the sense of the speech, which was, I may not let you know it. So he. And do you understand him? or doth he not labour as much to hold you in ignorance of his meaning, as Christ did his Disciples of the day of judgement; but let us draw him out of this affected darkness. 53. First he saith the question is, (and he saith well) whether the former exposition of S. Augustine, & other Fathers do imply any mental Equivocation or rather mental reservation, which maketh Equivocation or doubtfulness of meaning; and I see not how The definition of Equivocation as here it is understood. he can deny it, sor that the proposition, Christ knoweth not of the day of judgement is false, without some reservation, but with the reservation gathered upon S. Augustine's exposition, to wit, that he knew it not to make them know it, that is to say, to utter it unto them, it is true, ergo S. Augustine's exposition doth imply and declare unto us a manifest mental reservation, and consequently also an Equivocation. For that as before we have defined the matter, Equivocation or amphibology in this our controversy, is nothing else, but when a speech is partly uttered in words, and partly reserved in mind, by which reservation the sense of the proposition may be divers. 54. Secondly whereas Thomas Morton saith, that Father Garnet at his arraignment did select only S. Augustine, of all other Fathers to depend upon, concerning the former exposition of Christ's words, and therefore that he also will appeal to S. Augustine for answer to them all, it is a shift, thereby to avoid the authority of all the other Fathers, both in this and the other expositions before mentioned, all which do conclude against him, as hath been said, that there is a mental reservation in Christ's words, without which understood, F. Garnets' alleging S. August. at his arraignment. the proposition is false. Neither did Father Garnet so select S. Augustine's authority at his arraignment to stand upon, as that he left any way the other Fathers, but being pressed to be brief, he named him for all, and no small marvel it is that at such an arraignment he had leisure, or list to name any Father, or other proof at all, knowing how unequally the same would be heard after the hideous clamours of so many Ministers out of books, speeches, & pulpits against that doctrine: but sure I am, that if Henry Garnet, and Thomas Morton had met together at any equal bar out of arraignment, to plead and dispute this matter, there would have been as little cause for Thomas to have triumphed of that disputation, as there is like to be now of this his writing; and therefore he might have spared him here if he had pleased. 55. But his third act of manhood in his defence is most notorious, where having fled all other Fathers, as you see, to stick to S. Augustine, he bringeth in S. Augustine wholly against himself, as now you shall see, though he endeavour by some, obscure words to dazzle the sense of his hearer. For in the words of Saint Augustine by him alleged he saith thus: Nescientem se esse Aug. ubi suprà. dixit, quia illos nescientes occultando faciebat. Christ said he was ignorant of the day of judgement, for that he made them ignorant thereof, by hiding the same from them. And in another place: Hoc nescit filius quod nescientes facit, hoc est, quod non ita sciebat, ut tunc discipulis indicaret: the Son of God is said not to know that, which he maketh other men not to know, that is to say, that he knoweth it not so, as he would utter it at that time to his Disciples. And for proof of this exposition S. Augustine allegeth that place of S. Paul to the Corinthians: neque enim iudicavi me scire aliquid inter vos, nisi jesum 1. Cor. 2. Christum, & hunc Crucisixum: Neither did I esteem my S. August. authority wholly against T. M. that allegeth the same. self to know any thing among you, but only jesus Christ, and him crucified, where S. Paul saith he knew no more of that thing, for that he thought it not time to utter unto them any more: which is so plain for our purpose, as Thomas Morton would never have alleged it, but upon plain despair of the game lost in deed. For what is more conform than this to our answer objected by him, I am no Priest to utter it unto you: I know not where such a Priest is, that is, I make you not to know it by concealing the same, for that I am not bound, nor is it expedient to utter it. 56. Now then here you see Thomas Morton in the dust, as one fight against himself. For to cavil, & quarrel, as he doth afterward, that the Apostles are to be presumed to have understood this reserved meaning, aswell as S. Augustine, S. Ambrose, and other Fathers Shifts confuted. did, and that if they did, than it was no Equivocation: and further that it were blasphemy to say that Christ did Equivocate with his Apostles; all these shifts (I say) are but ridiculous. For first it importeth not to our question, whether the Apostles understood the secret meaning of Christ in this denial, or not, but rather whether there were any reservation, & whether the speech of itself were ambiguous, and Equivocal to the hearers (who were many besides the Apostles) by reason of this reservation, and all Christians have been and shall be to the worlds end. And then if this so, it is no blasphemy to say, that Christ did Equivocate, that is to say, speak doubtfully, but rather it is blasphemy by excluding all Equivocation, to condemn the same for lying, as Morton is forced to do, or to say nothing. 57 And lastly where he concludeth the whole matter Of Doctor Genesius, Sepulueda by the testimony of our Doctor Genesius as he calleth him, I have told before how he is ours, and how in some sort he may in this controversy be called his, though he detested his Religion, as by his works appeareth. Ours he is, as in all other points of Religion, so in the substantial and principal point of this question, for that he defendeth the use of Equivocation in concealing some secrets, but denieth it in others, wherein he favoureth somewhat the adverse party, with small ground, as in the next Chapter shall be declared. But what saith this Doctor Genesius? He will tell Genes. Sepulu. you (saith Morton) that this sense (of this text of Scripture) l. de rat. dicend. testim. c. 3. which you conceal, is not only contrary to the sentence of all Fathers, but also against all common sense. And is this possible? Will Sepulueda deny all those Fathers alleged by me before for our interpretation to be Fathers? will he say that their exposition is contrary to all common sense? Doth not Genesius himself in the very Chapter here cited allege both S. Hierome and S. Augustine for this interpretation, and alloweth the same? What shameless dealing then is this of our Minister to charge Genesius with such folly or impiety which he never thought of? For Genesius denieth not either the sense, or interpretation of the place, and much less saith, that it is contrary to the sentence of the Fathers, and least of all to common sense, but denieth only the application thereof for use and practice to certain cases, wherein he admitteth not Equivocation, and saith, that upon this interpretation, to bring in such a new law were greatly inconvenient (wherein afterward notwithstanding we shall show him to have been greatly deceived) and his Latin words are: Contra non modò veterum & gravissimorum doctorum, sed communem hominem sensum, quasi legem inducere: to bring in, as it were, a law not only against the judgement of ancient, and most grave School- Doctors (for of them only he speaketh in that place) but also against the common sense or opinion of men. This is Genesius his speech, wherein though his judgement 〈◊〉 rejected by other Schoolmen as singular and paradoxical in this point, as after shall be declared; yet is he egregiously abused by Morton, who first maketh him Genesius much abused by T.M. to say of the interpretation, and sense of this place of Scripture, that which he speaketh only of the application thereof, to use and practice in tribunalles. And secondly he maketh him to discredit the Fathers which himself allegeth: them he Englisheth ancient Fathers for ancient Schooledoctors: and last of all addeth consensum of his own, leaving out hominum, to make it sound common sense, and other such abuses, which any man may see by conferring the place. And these are other manner of sins, then simple Equivocation, if the art of falsifying or forgery be any sin with him at all, and so much for this place of Scripture. 58. The third place alleged, and pretended to be answered by this man, is that of S. Luke's Gospel, when our Saviour drawing towards the Castle of How Christ did feign or dissemble. Emaus, with his two disciples, Ipse se finxit longius ire, saith the text; himself feigned that he would go further: whereupon they forced him to stay with them, Luc. ult. ver. 28. and hereof is inferred, that Christ used at that time some doubtful action or words, importing a different external signification to his disciples, from his inward meaning, which may truly be called ambiguity, amphibology, or Equivocation in fact, for that Equivocation as hath been said, may be used either in facts or speech, and consequently that our Saviour did here Equivocate with his disciples making them believe a different thing from that he meant, for he meant to go no further, but to stay there with them, as is gathered out of the text itself, for that otherwise the Evangelist would not have said, and he feigned to go further; nor may it without impiety be called 〈◊〉 lie, of what sort soever, as S. Augustine expressly doth Cap. 9 prove in divers parts of his works: how then will Thomas 〈◊〉 deliver himself from this labyrinth? He hathno probable escape at all, as you shall see in the sequent point about feigning or deceiving, for that this place doth more properly appertain to that matter and subject, this being no 〈◊〉 proposition, but rather a dissimulation, or fiction in act, as is presumed, as that our Saviour went further than the place, or made show that he would do so, or the like, and consequently we shall differre the larger declaration of this place unto the ensuing point or paragraph, which is the fourth and last of this Chapter. 59 The fourth and last place then, which our Minister hath alleged out of the foresaid Catholic Treatise of Equivocation, with pretence to answer About our saviours denial to ascend to the festival day. the same, is the speech of our Saviour to his brethren or kinsmen in S. john's Gospel, who exhorting him to go up to jerusalem to celebrate the feast of Tabernacles, and thereby to be known to the world, he answered with showing first a great difference between his state and theirs, and how the world hated him, but not them, and why, and then said, go you up to this festival joan. 7. day, I do not go up to this feast, for that my time is not yet accomplished; but yet after they being gone up, he ascended also. Out of which speech and fact is gathered, that Christ when he said to his brethren, I do not ascend, or will not ascend to this feast, he had some further mental reservation, which his brethren understood not, for that otherwise they would not have gone up without him, so as here is a plain Equivocal proposition, that hath one meaning according to the words in the hearers understanding, and another in the sense of the speaker, whereby the hearers were deceived: and yet was this no lie. What then will Thomas Morton say to this? You shall see him bestir himself for some evasion, but with as good success as the goodwife that was early up, & never the near, which example I use to temperate somewhat his intemperate Ministerial speech of loving and embracing queans in the very beginning of his answer: for thus he writeth: 60 You have (saith he) bestowed many lines in Pag. 78. commencing upon this text, to evince from hence your reserved conceit: let me borrow a little leave to plead as well for truth, as you do for a lie, and show Wanton and undecent speech of T. M. you, how expounding this place, you blinded with the love of your Thais, had rather snatch at any meaning, then take that which is meant: for those words, I will not go up, in the Greek are, I will not go up yet: But your Helena the Latin vulgar text must be embraced etc. Do you see what manner of accusation he bringeth in against us, and in what light & lascivious words, in so grave and sacred a subject as is the text of holy writ? Hath he no honester comparisons to bring in then the blind love of Thais, and embracing of Helena? you may judge of the man's spirit by his words. 61. But what doth he accuse us of in effect? forsooth that we have left the 〈◊〉 text, which hath ' 〈◊〉 nondum, not yet, & do follow the vulgar Latin, which hath only ' ou, that is non, not, the difference of which word maketh a main diversity in the matter if you mark it well, for if the true text be nondum, I will not yet joan. 7. go up, then is there no doubt or difficulty at all of the sense, for that Christ had said plainly that he would not go up then, and so his going up afterward had been no contradiction any way to his former speech of not going up, as here our Maldonate cited by Morton doth confess: but on the other side if the matter were so plain by reading nondum in the Greek, why do the ancient Father's labour so much to find out the secret meaning, and reserved sense of our Saviour in Cap. 9 divers expositions of the Fathers about Christ's mental reservation. this sentence and seeming contradiction of his? For S. Augustine and S. Bede after much search, do think his meaning to have been, that he would not ascend to that feast with a human spirit, to procure worldly honour, name or fame, as his brethren exhorted him by making himself known, and admired to the world by working of miracles etc. Strabus & other expositors do interpret, that he would not ascend to suffer, or exhibit his passion in jerusalem at this feast of tabernacles, but reserve it for the pasch, or feast of Easter, according to the appointment of his Father, and to this effect said, tempus meum nondum advenit, my time is not yet come. Eucherius in his questions upon this 〈◊〉, thinketh that our Saviour meant that he would not ascend up to the first day of the feast, (which was properly called the festival day,) but some day after, for it lasted seven days, as appeareth Exod. 25. Leuit. 23. Deut. 16. And this exposition is approved in like manner both by S. Cyril, S. Augustine and Ammonius and others in respect of those words of the Evangelist vers. 14. jam autem die festo mediant ascendit jesus in templum; Christ ascended to the Temple the feast being half ended: albeit this being spoken of his going up to the Temple, other think that he went up to the city after his brethren, before the first day, but not into the Temple to celebrate the feast. 62. Wherefore seeing these and other Fathers do labour so much to find out the meaning of Christ in A clear argument. this sentence, it is not like, that the matter was so clear as T. M. would make it, by the clause nondum: for if that word had been in all Greek books, and so held for the true text, there had been no question, or controversy as expositors confess: yet we grant with Maldonate alleged by Th. Morton, that very many Greek copies had it so in former times, & have it at this day; neither doth our vulgar translation deny or dissemble the same, for albeit it have non, & not nondum; yet doth it expressly signify in the margin, that divers manuscriptes have nondum, and so doth set it down for varia lectio, yea the Rheims English Testament itself doth express that translation also in the margin, I will not go up yet: so as morton's scoff of our Thais and Helena is a mere calumniation as you see, and worthy of a man of his profession. 63. Nor do we reject the Greek text any where, when with more probability of truth it may be admitted, as here in this place they are our expositors & not his, that have taught him to talk of ' óupoo, nondum to wit, jansenius, Tolet and Maldonate. And the two The Catholics 〈◊〉 not the Greek text where it 〈◊〉 more probably be followed. former for more facility of explication do follow the same, and the sense thereof in their commentaries: we also in our vulgar Latin translation, which Morton calleth our Helena, do go nearer many times to the Greek then Protestants, as here our said Latin text saith, Ego non ascendo in the present tense according to the Greek, I do not ascend, whereas Thomas Morton translateth, I will not ascend in the future, which the Greek hath not. And again divers Greek texts have not at all these words, I do not ascend to this feast, according to Maldonate and Tolet, and divers other Greek texts have the word nyn (nunc) added, that is, I will not ascend now, both which notwithstanding are rejected by the Protestants themselves: all which being so, you may consider of the wise speech of T. M. in this place: We will not (saith he) so strictly challenge Pag. 79. our right in this equity approved by all antiquity, which is, that as in discerning pure water, rather to examine it by the fountain 〈◊〉 vain vaunt of T. M. than the river, so we judge of the truth of texts by the 〈◊〉 rather than the translation 64. And do you so Sir? And do we contradict this? Your very next immediate words do clear us from this your calumniation, for it followeth in your speech: Your Latin text (say you) doth sufficiently betoken the same sense of the Greek, (not yet) and so do two of the óuk 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 principal Doctors of your Church, Tolet, and jansenius paraphrase. And is it so? how then are we so blinded with the love of our Thais, as rather to snatch at any meaning, then take that which is meant? how say you that our Helena, the Latin translation, is embraced by us before the Greek, if our Latin do not only betoken the same sense of the Greek, as here you confess, but setteth it down so as varia lectio in the margin, as before hath been showed; yea and that two of our principal Doctors do follow the same in their paraphrases? Is not this to accuse and defend, affirm and deny, and to speak contraries with one and the same breath? 65. But to draw to an end, and conclude the principal point of this controversy, you see how Thomas Morton seeketh to avoid the force of this place, where Christ denied that he would go up to the festival day, and yet afterward went up, by this only evasion, that very many Greek copies have the word nondum: and for this he allegeth the testimony of our Maldonate in his Commentary upon that place. But what? did Maldonate say, that all Greek copies had it so? or divers 〈◊〉 to prove that ' oupoo 〈◊〉 was not in the more ancient 〈◊〉 truer Greek copies. that the most ancient, and purest did so read? or that he himself was of that opinion? No truly: but the quite contrary, for he proveth by divers strong arguments, that this word ' óupoo, nondum was not in the old copy in S. Hieromes time, and before, when our vulgar Latin translation was set forth. First, for that it is like that the said Latin translation would aswell have expressed it, as betoken it, to use morton's own phrase, and put it in the margin, especially for so much as the sense, and difficulty of Christ's meaning, should have been made 〈◊〉 easy thereby. Secondly for that divers Greek Fathers as Cyril, Euthymius, and others do not read ' oupoo but ' ou, non and not nondum, which is a token that those Greek texts of the Gospel, which they used in their days had it as our Latin hath now. Thirdly for that Beda, Strabus, Rupertus and all other Latin Authors whatsoever, not any one excepted in maldonat's judgement do read non and not nondum, who notwithstanding did confer with the Greek Copies of their time, and especially S. Hierome most learned in all languages, who is held for the principal Author of this our Latin vulgar translation. 66. Fourthly all the Ancient Fathers before named both Greek and Latin, that laboured to find out the true meaning of Christ in this his doubtful speech, Two strong arguments. did not know this evasion in their days by the word nondum, for that it had been folly to take so much pains to discover a meaning or reservation that was clear of itself. Fifthly we do read in S. Hierome that Porphyrius the Apostata in his most spiteful invectives against our Saviour, did object this as a principal 〈◊〉 2. contra Pel. place to discredit him withal, that he saying he would not go up to that feast, did notwithstanding go up afterward, which he being a most learned Grecian, and using all the Greek texts of that time, for his The impiety of Porphyr. purpose, as having been a Christian before, it may be presumed, that if any of them had then read ' óupoo, whereby his objection had been answered, he would never have upbraided the same, especially against such learned Christian Doctors of the Greek Church that lived with him, and wrote against him, as Origen, Ammonius, Dionysius Alexandrinus and others, all within three hundred years after Christ, who no doubt would have answered Porphyrius as Thomas Morton doth now answer us, with ' óupoo, if there had been any such thing in the Greek text in their days. 67. And finally if Christ our Saviour had answered his brethren, I will not yet go up, they would have asked him again, when he would go, & would have stayed for him, and of likelihood would not have departed without him; All which reasons, and considerations Thomas Morton passeth over and dissembleth, & is full glad that he hath a hole to slip out any way. And yet to show one point of manhood in this his flight, he taketh upon him to answer one of these six T. M. his manhood in his flight. arguments alleged against him, which is the fourth concerning the ancient Fathers that laboured to seek out 〈◊〉 reserved meaning, and you shall see how full satisfaction he giveth according to the title of his book: What shall we then say (saith he) to the other expositions Pag. 80. (of Fathers) objected? Only this; that whatsoever exposition they understand, they did think that the same was as well understood of the Apostles as of themselves. here be two points insinuated, if you consider them attentive, the first, that the ancient Fathers did suppose, that whatsoever Christ's meaning was in these words to his brethren (whom Mortö calleth here the Apostles) they did (the said kinsmen of our Saviour) understand the same aswell then, to wit before the gospel was written, and before the holy ghost was given, as the said Christian Fathers and learned Doctors did afterward by the learning, and light they had from the spirit and tradition of the Church: which proposition if he were put to prove in the presence of learned men, I doubt not but that he would quickly be in a poor and pitiful plight. 68 The second thing which by this his answer he would have us understand is, that if these brethren or kinsmen of Christ, did any way conceive our saviours meaning, than was there no reservation at all, for that as he saith, our joined reservation is always supposed to Pag. 〈◊〉 be a clause concealed, and not understood. But this is a greater foolery than the first, for that there may be a reservation in the speakers mind, though understood to some of the hears. As for example in our proposition being demanded, whether I be a priest, and I say no, reserving to myself, as often before hath been declared, that I am no such, or such priest, as I ought to utter A reserved proposition may be understood by the 〈◊〉rers and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. the same to you, though some of the examiners should guess at my reservation, or know the same certainly, for that otherwise they know I am a priest, this doth not make that this proposition in itself, & in my meaning is not a reserved or equivocal proposition, for that they understand it. And yet as though the poor man had played his prize well, he concludeth 〈◊〉 in these words: Therefore 〈◊〉 all these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, there 〈◊〉 not the least hair of your fox 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉: Scriptures forsake you, or rather you them, now will you have recourse unto Fathers? 69. But whether Scriptures have forsaken him, or us in this conflict, or whether the Father's expositions have stood with his, or our cause, the reader I suppose hath sufficiently seen: nor is it needful for us, to make any further recourse unto Fathers, having showed them to stand fully for us in allowing reserved mixed propositions, which of necessity do make ambiguity, and equivocation even in Christ's own speeches, as hath been declared: Which if morton's uncircumcised mouth will call also fox-tayles we may well be contented to bear such a Ministerial scoff in so good a cause and company. And finally what this man esteemeth of holy Fathers when they make against him, is easily seen by that he saith in the next Chapter after, where having cited out of the former Catholic Treatise, the saying of S. Gregory the Greg li. 26. 〈◊〉. c. 7. The abuse of S. Gregory by T. M. Great, that we ought not to respect so much the words of any speech, as the will & intent of the speaker, 〈◊〉 non debet intentio verbis deseruire, sed verba intentioni; for that the intention of the speaker ought not to serve to his words, but his words to his intention; after a soffe or two against the said Father, that if an Author must be sought for a lie, it was most likely he should be a Pope, he maketh this conclusion: I dare boldly conclude (saith he) Pag. 82. that though S. Gregory, or a thousand of Saints; yea 〈◊〉 celestial Gabriel, or any Angel from heaven should teach, and authorize such a Doctrine as this, we may from the word of God pronounce him Anathema. So he. 70. And he concludeth boldly in deed, but who more bold than blind Bayard (as the proverb saith) he may as well pronounce Anathema and curse, not only upon Saints and Angels, but upon the Son of God himself, as by this time his discreet Reader hath seen and considered. And can there be any more blind boldness then this? Is he not ashamed of this so shameful oversight? doth he not remember what he Pag. 48. said before, not one iota in all Scripture, not one example in all antiquity, not one shadow of reason in all the wit of man can be brought for any colour of Equivocation? I will not pretermitt his very last words immediately following, wherewith he concludeth his twelfth Chapter, for that Pag. 82. they contain a full upshot of his folly. Now (saith he) that we have wrested your weapons out of your hands (by answering Scriptures and Fathers as before he hath answered) it willbe easy to pierce you even with 〈◊〉, the bluntest kind of arguments that are: And then he followeth on in the next Chapter to pierce us with signs, coins, Gyges' rings, and other like toys: but we, as you have seen have pierced him in the mean pace with substantial arguments of truth herself, out of both Scriptures and Fathers, and shall do yet more in the ensuing paragraph, leaving him now to his similitudes, signs, coins, Gyges' rings, and other such like juggling words, and instruments fit for a man of his disposition. THE FOURTH AND LAST POINT OF THIS CHAPTER About Scriptures, and Fathers That defended Equivocation from the name and nature of Deceit and fallacy: WITH Some other proofs out of common Reason etc. §. 4. 71. I May be very breifin this, for that I have handled the same argument in the later end of the former Chapter, and in this I have been longer than 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. I had purposed, & therefore I will only adjoin in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 55. place some few examples more, for justifying of that which there we touched in few words. For whereas according to S. Augustine's definition before set down, two things are to be required to a lie, first to utter that with is false and disagreeing from the understanding of the speaker; the other that there be intention to deceive; the first, of falsity, hath been largely proved not to be found in our reserved proposition, I am no priest, for that the speaker hath a true meaning in his sense: Now must we handle the second about deceit, of which we have said 〈◊〉, that neither this clause of the definition of lying is found in the said proposition, for that the Answerers first & principal intent is not to deceive the demander to his hurt, but to deliver himself by concealing a truth only, which truth he is not bound to utter, & this in effect is to permit the other to be deceived, and not properly to deceive, or to have intention or cupidity of deceiving, as S. Augustine's words are. 72. And for that I promised in the former paragraph About the fiction of our Saviour at the Castle of Emaus. Luc. 24. 〈◊〉. 28. to handle more largely in this place, the dissimulation or fiction of our Saviour related in the end of S. Luke's Gospel, when he went with his two disciples to the Castle of Emaus, which by the Evangelist it set down in these words: jesus autem finxit se longiùs ire, je Prosepoiêito 〈◊〉 éroo poréuesthai. sus did feign that he would go further, or as the Greek hath it, Prosepoiêito, he did make show or pretend as though he would go further; I shall here relate somewhat largely the words of a learned Bishop of our time, upon that place to wit jansenius oftentimes cited by Thomas Morton himself. 73. Est mendacium (saith he) secundum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 jansenius comment, in 〈◊〉. evang. c. 146. nem etc. Aly according to S. Augustine's definition, is a false signification, with a will to deceive; wherefore as it is no lie or fallacy at all, when a man speaketh that which in his own sense is true, though it be false in the sense which the hearer conceiveth, so that the speaker do not utter those ambiguous words with intention to deceive another, but only to conceal The discourse of B. jansen. about Christ's fiction. profitably some truth; even so fiction and simulation which is in facts, is not unlawful, but profitable and wholesome, wherewith a man doth something by which he knoweth that another man will conceive a false opinion of that he saith, so that he doth not this with intention to engender this false opinion in him, but for some other profitable end. As for example S. Paul in a certain manner, did feign himself to be an observer of the jewish Law, when he did circumcise Tymothy, and did bear himself as a jew with 〈◊〉. 16. the jews, and under the Law with them that were under the Law, and he did know that by keeping the ceremonies of the Law, the jews would think him to live under the law; but yet he deceived them not, for that he did not observe those ceremonies of the Law, to the end to deceive them, but rather that by concealing his own opinion for a time, he might gain them, or at leastwise not alienate them from Christ: and so now Christ our Saviour did feign himself to go further, composing his gestures & motions of body, as though he would go beyond that Castle; by doing whereof he knew, that his disciples would think, that he had a purpose to go further; but yet he did not compose his gestures and motions, to make them think so, but his end was by this means to stir up in them their love towards him, and the virtue of hospitality, whereby they might be made apt, and worthy to have their eyes opened to know him. 74. This is the discourse of this learned Bishop, for defending our saviours deed from reprehensible fiction and dissimulation; to wit, that his first and principal intention was not (as neither that of S. Paul) to deceive his hearers, albeit that did follow consequently upon their facts, that is to say, that the other were deceived. And the very same falleth out in our case, Application of our case with this of our Saviour. yea with one principal circumstance more of justification, then is expressed in the former examples, which is, that in our case (as before hath been showed) violence and injury is offered by the demander, meaning to punish the party examined unjustly, or to draw secrets from him, which he is not bound to utter, but rather is bound sometimes not to utter to his own & other men's prejudice, hurt, and damage: by which circumstance of injuries offered, we have recorded before that 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉 are made lawful, by S. Augustine, and all other Devynes judgement. And to Supra. c. 7. 〈◊〉 more Father's sentences in proof of this were wholly needles, forsomuch as the practice thereof throughout all Christendom for all ages, amongst what Religions or Sects soever, is admitted and put in ure without any doubt or contradiction. 75. It remaineth then most certain among devynes, Permitting an other to be deceived is not to deceive. and most 〈◊〉 by Scripture itself, that the clause of S. Augustine in the definition of lying, animus fallendi, intention to deceive, doth not include 〈◊〉, when one permitteth another to be deceived; nor yet the clause set down by divers Authors in the definition Tolet. li. de sept. peccat. c. 46. of deceit, which is to engender a false opinion in the hearers mind, different from that of the speaker, includeth the said permission, when I suffer another Maldonat. comment. in cap. 24. man to gather a false conceit or opinion upon any fact or speech of mine that is true, and lawful in my sense. For if we should condemn this, we should Luc. v. 28. condemn God himself of injustice and iniquity, which were blasphemy. 76. And for proof of this do our devynes cite many places, and examples out of holy writ, besides those already alleged, whereby is showed, that Almighty God, of whom otherwise all Catholics hold, as an article of faith, that he is not able by any power of his D. Thom. 2. 2. q. 1. ar. 3. Bannes Valentia & alij in eumden locum. to deceive any man: yet that in this kind of permissive deceit he may do it, and hath done it, and doth it daily, according to that of the Psalm talking of wicked men and their prosperity in this life, by which they are deceived and overthrown, not knowing to use them well, the Prophet saith to almighty God; Veruntamen propter dolos posuisti eye; Thou hast given Psalm. 72. them (these riches) for snares to intamngle them, that is to say, thou hast permitted them to be entangled, and snared in them to their damnation, by taking away thy light of grace from them. 77. Yea oftentimes God goeth so far in this permission, and the Scripture 〈◊〉 the same in such effectual words, as it may seem at the first sight, that God doth not only permit men to be blinded, and mistake, & be deceived; but rather that he doth it actively & positively himself, to which effect sound those words of the Gospel: Tenebantar oculi 〈◊〉, ne 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. eum 〈◊〉; There eyes were held to the end they should not know him. And that of job speaking of Almighty God, Qui immutat cor Principum 〈◊〉 terrae, & job. 12. decipit eos, ut frustrà incedant, & errare eos facit quasi 〈◊〉: he doth change the hearts of Princes of the earth, and deceiveth them to make them walk in vain & doth cause them to err, as if they were drunk. Who would not think that this were more than only permission? We read also in the third Book of Kings, that God appearing unto 〈◊〉 the Prophet, sitting Cap. 22. upon his state of Majesty, with an army of heaven about him, said, who shall deceive King Achab, to make him go up and make war in Ramoth-Galad, and be overthrown there; and when divers had spoken diversly, a lying spirit stepped forth and said that he would deceive him, and God answered, egredere & fac ita, go forth and do so; whereupon Micheas inferreth presently dedit Dominus spiritum mendacij in ore omnium Prophetarum, God gave a lying spirit in the mouth of all the false 〈◊〉 God concurreth to deceit 〈◊〉 permission. Prophets, which seemeth may infer, that God did actually cooperate to that deceit, and not only permit the same, and so have divers heretics taken it: but the Catholic Church hath never understood the same further, then as a permission, as that speech of our Saviour to judas, quod 〈◊〉 fac citiùs, that which 〈◊〉. 13. thou art to do, do it quickly, which was no commandment, but a permission, and so the other fac ita, to the lying spirit. 78. And the very same is to be understood in many other places of Scripture, as that of Isay; Quare errare 〈◊〉 Isay 63. nos Domine de viis tuis? why hast thou made us: (o Lord) to err from thy ways? And that of Ezechiel, Ezechiel. 14. where God saith of himself: Propheta cum erraverit, ego Dominus aecepi Prophetam illum; when any Prophet doth err, I the lord, have deceived that prophet. And S. Paul to the Romans, speaking of the old heathen Philosophers; Tradidit illos Deus in reprobum sensum, ut faciant ea quae Rom. 1. non 〈◊〉: God hath delivered them over into a reprobate sense, that they may do these things that are not convenient. All which places, according to the interpretations of holy * See S. Hier. epist. ad Helio. quaest. 10. S. Gregor. li. 13. moral. cap. 16. Fathers, and Doctors of the Catholic Church (which were over long to recite in this place) are to be understood that God doth permit men to be deceived, and to be delivered over into a reprobate sense for their sins, and so, as a great Divine of our time doth observe, it is not only Damascen. li. 4. Theolog. cap. 14. a simple permission of Almighty-God, but conjoined: also with his divine ordination that ordaineth out of his justice such a permission for punishment of their D. Tho. li. 3. contrae gentes c. 162. & lib. 12. quaest. 79. sins, that are so blinded or deceived, which he proveth out of the words and reason of the last recited sentence of S. Paul, concerning the old Philosophers, saying, propter quod tradidit illos Deus in reprobum sensum, for which God delivered them over into a reprobate Dominicus Bannes. in 2. 2. q. 1. ar. 3. dub 2. ad 7. sense: what meaneth this causative, for which, saith this divine? S. Paul himself doth expound it, when he saith a little before, Quia cum 〈◊〉 Deum, non sicut Deum glorificaverunt, for that whereas they knew him to be God, they did not glorify him as God: this then (saith God's ordination joined 〈◊〉 with his permission. he) is more than a simple permission in respect of their demerit, that God is said to have blinded them, which is not said in the fall of the Angel, nor of Adam that God did blind them, though he suffered them to fall. So this learned Doctor. 79. Out of which observation is made evident, that the more fault the party deceived is in, the more justly he is permitted to be blinded, & deceived, and if it be lawful for a good end to suffer any to err or be deceived so we utter no lie or falsehood of our part, but rather speak a truth in our own meaning (as out of the former Doctrine of jansenius, which is the common Doctrine of all Catholics, and out of divers sayings of Christ himself, and his Apostles hath been declared:) how much more is it lawful for a man's own necessary defence to use the same; when iviustice, violence, or injury is offered as before hath been declared? 80. And truly this matter is so clear even by the instinct of nature itself, that God hath left some refuge in reason for a man to decline lawfully such an assault, when it falleth upon him, as to deny this, is to deny common sense and feeling of all men. For who is there of any mean wit or capacity, that being asked of a secret which he would not utter, and pressed so as he must either incur great inconvenience by uttering, or make a lie by denying (which lie every good mind by nature hateth, as both Aristotle and Arist. li. 4 Ethicor. cap. 7. S. Augustine do confess:) who is there (I say) that naturally doth not seek out some evasion, by answering August. li. cont. mendac. cap. 15. & in Enchirid. c. 22. Equivocation by 〈◊〉 & instinct of nature. doubtfully, but yet endeavouring to retain some true sense in his own meaning? Do not all sorts of men even by the instinct of nature itself use and practise this, without any instruction at all? they being commonly the best minds and most timorous consciences, that do seek to use these 〈◊〉 by amphibologies, & equivocal speeches, whereas the other of worse minds, make no scruple to lie at all? 81. And I would in this point ask my Adversary Thomas Morton this case, that if a great man in England whose favour he much desireth and esteemeth, and yet would be loath to lend him money for that he knew him to spend much, and not to hold payment of his debts to be necessary to salvation, if: this great man (I say) demanded him whether he had five hundred pounds to lend him, & supposing that A peculiar case proposed to Thomas Morton. he had them, but loath to lend or lose them, what would he do or answer in this case, if there be no other means, but either to confess that he hath them, and thereby lose them by lending, or deny that he hath them, & thereby incur a lie and lose his soul? Is there no mean between these two extremes? Hath God and nature left no lawful manner of evasion, by force of wit and reason whereby a man may deliver himself from such an encumbrance? If not, it may seem that God hath provided worse for man's Stratagems of unreasonable creatures. defence in this case, than he hath done for many unreasonable creatures, to whom he hath given such sharpness of sense in this behalf for their lawful defence, Plini. li. 9 cap. 42. Solin. cap. 38. as the stratagems are very strange which Pliny, Solinus, Cicero, and many other Authors do recount of them, as the Hare and Fox, by leaps, turnings, and Cicero li. 1. de natura 〈◊〉. windings, and going back again in the same trace they come, thereby to deceive the dogs: the Heronshaw and other fowls for deluding the falcon; and other creatures in like occasions of defence. 82. And for somuch as the use of reason and wit is the chief armour and weapon of mankind, there can be no doubt, but that a man may even by Law of nature itself, extend the same to all ways of defence: that may be, without offence of God's law, and therefore seeing that we have showed before, that doubtful or amphibological speech that hath a true meaning in the speakers understanding and is used by him not to deceive or hurt, but to defend himself, is noly, or: falsehood at all, and consequently is lawful; it cannot be reprehensible in just occasions to use the same. And I say in just occasions, according to the explications thereof before set down, which afterwards in like Wherein equivocations may not be used. manner, shall more particularly be declared; for that without just cause, as in confession of our faith, common conversation, mutual traffic, and the like where prejudice thereby may grow to any man, or to the common credit of dealing there may they not be used, as often hath been said. 83. Now then to return to our example of Thomas Morton and his five hundred pounds, I do not doubt but that he would answer the Noble man, that he had them not, though they lay in his chest, understanding by force of equivocation (though never somuch detested by his soul as he saith) that he had them not to lend him, or not in his purse, or not so, as he could spare them, or some other like reservation, which we say that without a lie he might use. And I doubt not but that either with a lie or without a lie he would practise it, if I be not deceived in my opinion of his wisdom, and conscience in that behalf. 84. The like case might be proposed of his wife (if he have any) or of any other married woman who being demanded by her jealous husband, whether another case proposed. she had been false unto him or no, if she say yea, and confess the truth, there goeth her honour and temporal life therein; but if she say no, & make a lie, there goeth the spiritual death of her soul: what would you M. Morton counsel her to do in this case, if you 〈◊〉 her Ghostly Father? to lie you may not advise her, according to S. Augustine before recited; no not for the saving of her own life, or of any other: to destroy or disgrace herself by her own confession, when the crime is secret, nor any witness or other proofs extant, were hard to counsel her, and against equity: if then without making a lie she might escape and deliver herself by using some equivocation of words, will you call it heathenish, 〈◊〉, & a monstrous hydra? But I do hope by this time that you are somewhat calmed in your former heats against this doctrine, and therefore I will urge no further your outrageous terms against the same, but now shall pass to set down the particular cases, wherein our Doctors do hold that some equivocation or amphibology of words may be lawfully used without lie or other offence. OF CERTAIN PARTICULER CASES, AND OCCASIONS, Wherein it may be lawful to use the manner of Equivocation, or Amphybology before set down, either in speech or oath: With the reasons thereof. CHAP. X. Hitherto have we treated of amphibology, and Equivocation in general, to wit, what their nature is, how different from lying, & consequently that in some causes, and occurrent occasions they may be lawful, and used by good men without sin, or offence, and so have been by 〈◊〉 & holy persons, yea often by the holy Ghost himself, as before largely hath been declared. Now then for more perspicuity it remaineth that we lay forth briefly some particular, and principal cases, wherein the said use of amphibology or Equivocation by learned Catholic Devynes is admitted and allowed; which we shall do with the greatest brevity, and perspicuity that we may, considering the great variety of Authors, matters, and opinions, that upon such Cases do arise: the several explication whereof would require a great volume. But it shall be sufficient for the judicious Reader to understand, that as in all other humane, and moral matters, there may be and is commonly difference of opinions, how this or that aught to be done or practised, though they agree in the Doctrine: so here also when and how, and in what words, and what form os speech a man may justly use amphibology or Equivocation, for covering of Secrets that are not convenient to be uttered, all do not agree, but have their different judgements, though in the principal they do all concur that in some cases the said amphibology or equivocation may be lawfully used without lying, or other sin: of which Cases we shall here recite some principal. The first case about the secret of Confession. §. 1. 2. THE first and most general case, wherein * D Thom. in 4. d. 21. q. 3. & 2. 2. q. 70. art. 1. ad 2. Caiet. ibi. in 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 ib. concls. 5. Arag. ib. in solut. ad arg. 2. S. T. Palu. 4. d. 21. q. 3. ar. 1 〈◊〉. 1. & ar. 3. concls. 1 Scot ibi. 2. all School Doctors without exception do agree that such Equivocation may be used, is in matters appertaining to the seal of Sacramental Confession, to wit, if a Confessor or Priest that hath heard an other man's confession, should be demanded whether such a one had confessed such a sin unto him or not, though no ways, nor upon any consideration whatsoever he may tell a lie, according to our former Doctrine; yet may he not only say, nescio, I know nothing, but answer directly, that he hath not confessed any such thing unto him, albeit he had so done; and that the said Confessor may not say, but swear also this answer of his, understanding & reserving in his mind, that the penitent hath not confessed the same unto him so as he may utter it. The reason of which answer, §. de ista qu. concls. 1. & 2. Ant. p. 2. ti. l. c. 19 §. 7. in fi. Sot. li. 5 de just. q. 7 ar. 1. ad 1. & in rel. de tegen. secreto. albeit divers Authors do diversly explicate, as that this was confessed to him, not as to man, but unto God, or as to God's substitute in the tribunal of Confession, and the like: wherein I remit the Reader to Dominicus Sotus, a learned Divine, and to Doctor Navarre no less renowned lawyer, who handle the matter at large in several Treatises; yet both they, and all other Divines and lawyers, as hath been said, do hold that in this case 〈◊〉. 1. q. 2. Syl. verb. Testis. of Confession, the obligation of secrecy is so great, as for no respect whatsoever, nor to what person soever, though he be never so lawful a judge, Prince, Prelate q. 8. versu Secundun. Nau. in m. c. 18. n. 51. & 52. & in caput interverb. 11. q. 3. conc. 6. 〈◊〉. 64. num. 707. & alij omn. or Superior, nor for saving of a whole Kingdom or common wealth, and much less the lives of any particular men, or women, or of the confessor himself, no nor of the whole world together if it were possible, or to work never so much good thereby, nor though the said Confessor were put in never so great torments, imò si mill mortes 〈◊〉 essent, if a thousand deaths (saith * lib. 5. c. 66. Tolet) were to be suffered by him, yet might he not utter the same. And further if the Case should fall out that he could not confess his own sins, without giving some particular, and personal suspicion of the other unto his confessor, he were bound under sin to pretermit his own confession, until he found another Confessor, unto whom without this peril he might be confessed. 3. Which sacred and inviolable seal of this Sacramental secrecy being considered, and that amphibological and Equivocal speech with a true reservation of mind is no lie at all, as in the precedent Chapters hath been largely proved, it is inferred that a Confessor in this case, is not only allowed to use the same prudently, when need is, for covering of the said secrecy, but is bound also in conscience thereunto, under grievous sin, when by no other means of silence, diversion, or evasion the said secrecy can be concealed. 4. And in this all Schole-devines whatsoever do agree, as hath been said, and namely all those whom before we have mentioned in the precedent Chapter, and first point thereof; and among other M. morton's Genesius in like manner is with us, & against him, whom he hath picked out as singular and single among all Catholic writers in this behalf, denying the lawfulness of Equivocation in sundry other Cases, but in this granting and avouching the same with great asseveration Genes Sepulueda de rat. dicendi testim in causis occultorum 〈◊〉 cap. 3. in these words: Deus & Ecclesia, ipsaque ratio naturalis arcanum sacrae confessionis, quod multis scriptis legibus nominatim est sancitum, tam sanctum esse volverunt, ut in nulla (prudenti modò, & coacta) sic cognitorum peccatorum inficiatione possit esse vel periurium, vel mandacium, propter Sacramenti huius maiestatem, & maximam publicamque Religionis Christianae perturbationem. God and the 〈◊〉, and natural reason itself, would have this secret of holy Confession to be so inviolable, which is established also by many written laws (of the Church) as by no denial of sins so known in confession (so it be prudently done, and upon compulsion) can there be either perjury, or lying, both in regard of the Majesty Genesius against T. M. of this Sacrament of Confession, and of the great and public perturbation of Christian Religion, which would otherwise ensue if matters revealed in confession, might at any time, upon any occasion, be uttered again. So he. Holding as you see, that no denial of matters heard or known by confession, in what sort soever, can be a lie, or perjury: the reason thereof being not only that which here Sepulueda doth touch; but 〈◊〉 for that which before hath 〈◊〉 insynuated, that things known in Almighty God's Court and tribunal, and as uttered unto himself, may truly be denied to be known in a humane tribunal, and as the priest is a private man, and not a public minister of God. 5. One only Case there is, wherein all the said Divines agree that a Confessor may utter any Crime Tolet. lib. 3. de instruct. confessed unto him. unus est solus casus (saith Tolet) in quo Confessarius potest alteri manifestare peccatum Confessionis. etc. One only case there is, in which the Confessor Sacerdot. cap. 〈◊〉. may manifest a sin heard in Confession unto an other, Navar. comment. in cap. human: aures 22. to wit, by licence and Commission of the penitent himself, which thing Doctor Navarre doth prove at large by the common opinion of S. Thomas, & other School Divines, with the concurrence, and consent q. 〈◊〉. & de penitent. dist. 6. cap. Sacerdos. nu. 〈◊〉. of the Canon law, and lawyes cited by him And then must he reveal it also, but to him alone for whom he hath licence, & qui 〈◊〉 casu revelat, gravissimè peccat 〈◊〉 (saith Tolet:) and whosoever in any other case Tolet ibid. 〈◊〉. cap. 〈◊〉. doth reveal it he doth sin a most grievous mortal sin, and 〈◊〉 also the punishment assigned by the church in the Canon law, for so heinous a crime: And if further (saith he) any wicked judge should compel him to reveal the same under an oath, he may 〈◊〉, that he knoweth no such sin, though he know it indeed, but yet knoweth it not so as he may reveal it. And this is the common Doctrine of all, disputed more at large by the Reverend and learned man Dominicus Sotus the Emperor Charles his Confessor, in a special Treatise called, * 〈◊〉 omnis utriusque sexus de 〈◊〉. & rem ssione. Relectio de tegendo 〈◊〉: A Relection about covering secrets; wherein he showeth how far a man may disclose them, and what obligation he hath of conscience to conceal them, in every sort or kind. And thus much briefly for this first case. The second case about Secrets of the Common wealth. §. 2. 6. THE second Case that for obligation of secrecy cometh next to this first, though in a different degree, is, when Magistrates, and such as have government in the Common wealth, as Senators, councillors, Governors Secretaries, Notaries, and 〈◊〉 like, and con equently do know the secrets thereof, 〈◊〉 pressed to utter them, which they may not do in matters of moment, and that may turn to the prejudice of the said 〈◊〉 wealth, or of any particular man, if the business be of great weight, and handled secretly by the Common wealth, for any cause or peril whatsoever; yea though their lives should go therein, for that they are more bound by reason of their offices to the reservation of public secrets, both by law of nature, human & divine, then private men are: though as Dominicus Sotus in his foresaid book. De tegendo Secreto Sotus relect. de tegendo secreto memb. 〈◊〉. 9 4 Conclus. 6. doth show, that a private man also coming to know any secrets of the Common wealth, is bound under mortal sin to conceal them, and rather to suffer death then to disclose the same, especially to enemies, as the Civil law also declareth; but much L. omne delictum ff. de re militari. more those that are in public office, whereof Sotus giveth this example among other. If a judge which heareth a weighty cause, should be assailed by one party, ut merita causae prodat, to utter the merits or secrets of the cause, debet potius gladio succumbere, quam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: He ought rather to suffer himself to be slain by the sword, then to break his faith by uttering that secret: but much greater, & more grievous sin it should be to utter the same for money or bribery, hatred, malice, or other like cause. Et idem crediderim (saith he) de Scribis, quorum fidei causae graves committuntur: and the same I would think of notaries, Scribes, or Secretaries, to whose faith weighty matters are committed. 7. And finally the said Author having handled in the first part of his said learned book, the great obligation that man hath by law, both of faith, justice, equity, and charity to conceal secrets, he putteth these degrees thereof: In primo gradu (saith he) est secretum Sot relect. mem. 1. q. 1. &. 2. Confessionis; in secundo secretum publicum etc. In the first degree is the secret of Confession, whereof we have handled before; in the second degree, is the secret of the Common wealth out of Confession; in the third Sot. ibid. memb. 1. q. 2. conclus. 4. degree, is the secret of private persons, and that in different sort, all which we are bound to conceal ordinarily, under the pain of mortal sin, except the smallness of the cause do sometimes excuse the same, and make it venial. So this learned man; and it is the common opinion of other school-divines in like manner. 8. Wherefore seeing the obligation not only of concealing How a man may use equivocation or amphibology for defence of public secrets. secrets heard in Confession, but of those also that be secular out of Confession, is so great, especially of those that be public and appertain to the common wealth; it followeth that when a man shall be unjustly pressed to utter the same, he may not only deny to utter them, which he must do upon pain of damnation as you have heard; but also dissemble to know them by any way of lawful speech, that may have a true sense in his meaning, though in his that presseth to know them, it be otherwise: whereof besides that which in the precedent Chapters hath been said, we shall have occasion to treat more in the next case ensuing, which is more general. For if it be lawful for any private man that is called in question touching matters concerning himself, and is wrongfully urged to utter his secrets, to make evasion by any kind of lawful amphibology, or Equivocation, as presently shall be proved, then much more in defence of the public secret, that concerneth the good of the Common wealth, may the said Magistrate, or public officers when they are injustly demanded, or urged contrary to the form of law, use the benefit of like evasion so they speak no lie (which always is presupposed to be forbidden as unlawful for what cause soever:) and so much the more, for that being public persons, and as such, knowing the said secrets of the common wealth, they may as 〈◊〉 persons deny to know the same, with this or like true reservation of mind, so as they are bound, or may utter the same unto him, that unlawfully demandeth. etc. 9 And for that this case as hath been said, is for the most part included, & handled again in that which ensueth, we shall here treat the same no further, nor cite more Authors about the determination thereof, for that those arguments and authorities that determine the one, do decide also the other. The third case about any Party accused or called in Question. §. 3. 10. THE third Case considerable in this place, is de Reo, of the party accused, or called in question in judgement, what or how he is bound to answer unto crimes laid against him, or to interrogatoryes proposed. About which point, first all the foresaid * See D. 〈◊〉. 2. 2 q. 69 in corp 〈◊〉. i. id. 〈◊〉 2. ration. Set. de tegen secr. 〈◊〉 2 q. 2. & latius 〈◊〉. 7. q. 1. & 2 & 5. lib. de 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. 6 art. 2. 〈◊〉. 2. Cordu. lib. 1 q. 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 du 3 Nau 〈◊〉. 25. Sum lat n. 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 scip in d ca interverb. n. 725. Et revera ita tenet & n. 814. & nu. 822. Covar. in 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. 23. n. 5 Ga. br. in 4 d 15 g. 6 a. 2 con. 6 R sel. v. 〈◊〉. paragr. 1. Palud. in 4. d. 19 q. 4. n. 7. Henriq. guodl. 1 q. 33. ex juri 〈◊〉. Grego. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 7. tit. 29. l. 4. At 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 quod dicitur 〈◊〉 q 2 〈◊〉 inl. Marcel lus. ff. de actionib. rerum amotatum 〈◊〉. de paenitentib. parag. 7. 〈◊〉. 19 Roder. Suar. l. 〈◊〉. ti. 12. de las iuras. lib. 2 〈◊〉 'em. Ant. Gom. to. 3. var. re sol c. 12 n. 15 Bernat. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 6. 118. 〈◊〉. in sum. lib. 1 6. 14. nu. 35 Schoole-devine, lawyers, and others do agree with one consent, that every such party is bound under pain of mortal sin, to answer directly, truly, and plainly, according to the mind, and intention of the demander, and not to his own, and to confess the truth without art, evasion, Equivocation, or other shift or declination, when soever the demander is his lawful judge in that matter, and proceedeth lawfully, that is to say, according to form of law, and equity therein. And if the said accused, or defendant either by wilful holding his peace, or by denying the truth, or by deluding the judge do refuge to do this, he sinneth grievously therein. Neither may his ghostly Father absolve him in confession from this, or any other sins, until he yield to perform his duty in this behalf, though it should be to the evident peril, and loss of his life by confessing the Crime. And this do the foresaid Authors S. Thomas, and others prove clearly, first out of the Scriptures, as where it is said Eccles. 4. Pro anima tua ne confundaris dicere verum, be not ashamed to speak the truth though thy life lie thereon, (which is to be understood, when a lawful judge or Superior doth lawfully demand it:) and joshua also Cap. 7. when by God's direction he 〈◊〉 Achan the son of Charmi, about the things he had 〈◊〉, used this phrase, Dagloriam Deo, & confitere, give the glory to God, & confess the truth, whereby is inferred that he taketh God's glory from him, and: sinneth grievously that refuseth to confess the truth to a lawful Magistrate, proceeding lawfully against him, for that the Magistrate is in the place of Almighty God, and he that resisteth him in his lawful office, resisteth God's power and ordination, & incurreth damnation thereby, as S. Paul Rom. 〈◊〉. avoucheth. And for so much as the enquiring out, and punishing of malefactors is one of the chief, and principal parts of the Magistrates office, for conservation of the Common wealth, both temporal and spiritual, to resist, deceive, delude, or contemn the judge, or Magistrates authority in this so principal a point thereof, must needs be a great and grievous mortal sin, except as some Doctors do note, the smallness or lightness of the matter objected should be such as might mitigate the grievousness of the same. And this is the severity of Catholic Doctrine for answering directly, obediently, and truly to lawful judges proceeding lawfully. 11. But now when the judge is not lawful, or not competent at least in that cause, or proceedeth not lawfully; then all these foresaid obligations do cease in the defendant. As for example, if in France, Spain, or Italy, a great man that is no judge, nor hath authority from the Prince, Prelate, or common wealth, should take upon him to examine any party of crimes without commission, or other power, or being a lay judge should examine priests of Ecclesiastical matters, who both by divine and human law according to Catholic Doctrine are exempted from lay men's jurisdiction, (as largely hath been proved of late in an Answer against Sir Edward Cooks fifth Part of Reports, Cap. 2. nn. 37. & 38. which I would wish the Reader to peruse:) or if his jurisdiction were sufficient in that matter, yet if that Extra. de accusationibus. cap. aequaliter & cap. inquisitionis. he proceeded not iuridicè, lawfully, or according to form of law in that cause, indiciis, vel infamiâ, vel semi-plenâ saltem probatione non praecedentibus, that is to say, that neither signs, or tokens, or common fame, or some one substantial witness at least be extant against When a man is not bound to answer him, (which circumstances of lawful proceeding are handled by lawyers in that case:) when this (I say) or any of this falleth out, then hold the former Doctors that all the foresaid obligations of true answering unto him do no more bind, for that he is no more a judge: in that cause, but rather an enemy, for that he proceedeth contrary to justice, and form of law, by which he should judge; and consequently that in this case the defendant may either deny to answer, or appeal from him, if it may avail him, or except against the form of proceeding, or deny all that is proposed in the form, as it is proposed, or use any other lawful declination saith S. Thomas, but yet so, as he do not lie, D. Th. 2, 2. q. 69. ar. 1. or utter any falsity. Potest vel per appellationem (saith he) vel aliter licitè subterfugere; mendacium tamen dicere non licet. He may either by appellation, or otherwise lawfully seek some evasion; but yet so as he utter no lie. 12. And hitherto now in this point all the former Authors do agree without discrepancy, that the defendant being thus uninstly pressed, may use all lawful means to avoid the injury offered him: and Dominicus Sotus that is the most scrupulous in this matter, Sot. lib. 5. de jur. justit. q. 6. ar. 2. saith: Possunt & debent sic contra ius requisiti, quacunque uti amphibologia, quam usitatus sermo citra mendacium ferre possit: they that are so required to answer against law, may and aught to use whatsoever amphibology, or equivocation the usual speech of men doth, or may bear, without a lie. 13. And thus far also doth concur Genesius Sepulueda, whom Thomas Morton hath chosen out for some help in this matter; who though in some particular points, he descent from the rest, as presently shall be showed; yet in this he agreeth. For thus he writeth: 〈◊〉 Theologi ac Iurisperiti consentiunt, neque reum in sua, nec Genes. Dialog de rat. dicen. testim. cap. 17. testem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 causa de occulto crimine rogatum, teneri ut veritatem confiteatur, aut testificetur, 〈◊〉 si dederit quidem 〈◊〉 andum se vera responsurum: Both Divines and lawyers do generally agree in this point, that neither the defendant in his own cause, nor a witness in another man's, being examined of a secret crime, is bound to confess or testify the truth, no, though they have taken an oath first to utter the truth. So he of the General eonsent How 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concurreth with the rest. of all Divines, and lawyers, adding his own opinion more particular in the same Chapter, and telling us first, when the judge demandeth unjustly, to wit, when he demandeth of secrets, or matters not belonging to his jurisdiction, as before hath been said. In which Case he writeth thus: Itaque urgente judice iniustè ut neget, aut confiteatur, sine culpa 〈◊〉 potest 〈◊〉 judicem appellare, & 〈◊〉 alia quacunque ratione, modò sit honesta defugere, nulla adhibita fraud, nullo dolo qui vim obtineat mendacij. When a judge doth unjustly urge the defendant to deny, or confess, he may without any fault either appeal to a Superior judge (if it be permitted) or by any other honest means decline the force and violence that is offered unto him, so it be done without any such fraud, or guile, as may include the nature of ally: so as in this all do agree, first, that for no cause a lie may be admitted, or committed; & secondly that any manner of evasion either by amphibology, or equivocation may be used, which is not a lie. And this in general. 14. But now in particular what manner, or form of words may be used by the defendant for avoiding the injury offered him, and deluding the unjust judge, is not so generally agreed of among all men. For this 〈◊〉 same Sepulueda holdeth that, 〈◊〉 inficiatio veri, as his words are, that is to say, all manner of deny all of the thing that is true, except of matters in confession, hath the force of a lie, or falsehood, and consequently cannot be admitted. But this is commonly refuted by all, and that with great reason, as afterward shallbe showed, for that otherwise in the examples before alleged, neither S. john could truly have denied himself to be a Prophet, nor Christ himself to be our judge in the sense they did; for that they were truly both Prophet and judge in their meaning, and yet did they 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. truly deny them both. 〈◊〉 Sotus also, though he go further, and do confess that the defendant in such a Case being injustly pressed by the 〈◊〉, may lawfully answer, nescio, I know nothing thereof; yet dareth he not, as he saith to allow that he may say absolutely non feci, I have not done it, as the priest may say of matters confessed unto him non audivi, I have not heard any such thing, for that in his judgement, as also in that of Sepulueda there is a great difference in the cases, which though in some respects it be granted 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉. also by others; yet in this point which is the only & principal, whether it be a lie or no, all the rest do hold that this negative answer of the defendant is no less free from the nature of a lie, than the other of the priest, the one and the other being freed therefrom by the due, and just reservation in the speakers mind, whereby the sense is made true, not only in the meaning or understanding of the speaker, but in the sight of Almighty God the highest, and supreme judge of all, unto whom it is lawful to appeal in heart and word, when any man is unjustly oppressed by human iniquity. 15. To begin then with the Authors of this common opinion, that the defendant may say, I have not done it, understanding, so as by right and law I am bound to utter it unto you; first of all the famous Doctor Navarre that was schoolfellow with Sepulueda and lived together with Sotus, discusseth the matter at large in divers parts of his works; but especially in a particular large Commentary upon a Canon of the law, taken out of S Gregory's words that beginneth, Humanae aures, where he proveth that the said defendant being so pressed unjustly to answer, when he hath no other way left to defend himself, may truly, and without any lie at all, say, he did it not, with the foresaid reservation of mind, that he did it not in some such sense, as in his own meaning, and in the ears of Almighty God, is true; though the unjust judge taking it in another sense, be deceived thereby, which falleth out justly unto him, for that he proceedeth injustly against law. And the said Doctor proveth this his assertion by many arguments taken both out of Scriptures, Canon law, and reason itself, maruailling at the scrupulosity of Sotus in this behalf, and alleging Psal. 51 against him that of the psalm: Trepidavit timore ubi non erat timor, he trembled with fear, where there was no fear, to wit, of sin or lying in this case. And moreover refuteth his fellow-scholler 〈◊〉, by telling Coment 〈◊〉 aures 〈◊〉. nu. 9 him, that he was greatly deceived in saying, that no Schoole-devine until Gabriel had held this opinion; whereas saith he both S. Hierome, S. Gregory, and S. Thomas have in effect expressed the same; but more clearly Scotus, Richardus, Henricus Gandavensis, Paludanus, 〈◊〉, Io. Maior, Silvester, Angelus de Perusio, joannes ab Anania, whose places he citeth out of their works, & addeth the Ordinary Gloss, ab omnibus nostris recepta, received (saith he) by all our Canonists in cap. Ne quis 22. quaest. 2. in locis infra q. 2. nu. 10. & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. citat is: This writeth that renowned Doctor Navarre, who was held for no less scrupulous, tender and timorous of Conscience, than any other writer commonly in his days, as his austere manner of life did well testify. And after him have written and defended the same opinion, the most learned men for Scholastical divinity in our age, as a Lib. 3. c. 58. instruct. Franciscus Toletus, b comment. in 2. 2. q. 69. art. 2. Michael Salon, c Ibidem. Dominicus 〈◊〉, d 〈◊〉. 3. disput. 5. q. 13. 〈◊〉. 3. Gregorius de 〈◊〉, e lib. 11. inst moral. 〈◊〉. 4. joannes Azorius, f li. 12. c. 17. Clau. reg. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, g Relatus à Bannes Franciseus 〈◊〉, h li. 8. de matrim. disput 25. nu. 15. Tho. Sanchez, all public Readers of divinity, and others, which for brevities sake I do omit, and shall pass to set down briefly the proofs of this their opinion. The arguments and grounds of this common opinion. §. 4. 16. 〈◊〉 first is taken out of that we have set down before about the nature, & definition of truth and lying, that whensoever any speech, is conform in a true sense to the meaning of the speaker it is true, and not a lie; though the hearer should understand it otherwise, especially when there is no obligation at all of satisfiying the said hearer, or demander as here is presumed not to be, and consequently saith Valentia, a man may utter any true proposition to The first reason given by Gregory de Valentia. himself, though never so impertinent to the demand proposed by the unjust judge, as if there were no man present, or as if no such demand had been made at all: as for example, if a man that hath stolen, should say to 〈◊〉 alone, or to God truly & sincerely, I have not stolen of malice or hatred to the person, but of need, or necessity, or I have not stolen of my own inclination, but by induction of others, or I have not stolen, so as I am bound to confess it publicly, for that there is no witness, proof or presumption against me, or the like: in all these speeches the proposition were true, I have not stolen, though he reserved the other points in his mind unuttered. It were true (I say) in itself, and in the sight and ears of Almighty God, and consequently no lie, whatsoever the unjust judges do conceive thereof, whose presence, or demands in this case are nothing to be respected, but that the defendant may answer and speak as though he (the said judge) or other hearers that have no authority to examine him were not there, so he utter no falsity in itself. 17. And for confirmation of this is alleged the Authority of S. 〈◊〉 in his book contra 〈◊〉, S. 〈◊〉 authority. Li. contr. 〈◊〉, cap. 10. cited by me before, about the nature of a mysterious speech, that uttereth one thing in words, an another in sense, and yet is 〈◊〉 by S. Augustine to be no lie. Quae significantur (saith he) utique 〈◊〉 dicuntur. etc. Those things that are signified in a mysterious speech are indeed truly spoken, but they are thought to be lies, for that not the true things which are signified by that speech are understood to be spoken, but those that are false. So S. Augustine, whereby is evident that in his judgement the nature of a lie consists not in that it be held for a lie by others, or that the hearer be deceived, but only that it agree not with the judgement, and meaning of the speaker, as before hath been discussed. 18. But the authority of S. Greg. urged by Doctor 〈◊〉 S. 〈◊〉 his authority. is more clear, who in his books of Morals taking upon him to defend the truth of certain words of holy job against Heliu, that calumniated the same saith: Quid 〈◊〉, si à rectitudine 〈◊〉 humano judicio verba 〈◊〉 S. Greg. li. 26. 〈◊〉 ral. cap. 〈◊〉 superficie tenus discrepent, quando in cordis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concordent? etc. What importeth it, if our words in outward show do seem to disagree from the rectitude of truth in man's judgement, if in the hinge of our heart, our said words be compact together, and agree thereunto? Man's ears do judge of our words as they sound outwardly, but God's judgement is according as he seeth them come truly from our heart: he knoweth that albeit man's will, and intention may be declared or uttered in sundry forms of words; yet that we ought not so much to consider words as the said will, and intention of the speaker. So S. Gregory: whereby he showeth evidently, that God considereth the heart, and intention of the speaker, and that when he hath a true sense, and meaning in the intention of his heart, though the same words seem false unto man, yet is it no lie in itself, or in the ears of almighty God, who judgeth things as they be in themselves, and not as they are taken by man. 19 another foundation of the lawfulness of this doctrine, A rule for justification of Equivocal propositions with due circumstances. is grounded upon this rule, that when in any proposition that seemerh imperfect in sense, there may be supplied other particles, or causes for the perfect sense thereof, out of the circumstances of place, time, and persons, both of the speaker, and hearer, (which clauses for just reasons the speaker is not always bound to express in words to the hearer) it is as much for the truth of the proposition, as if the said clauses were expressed; and it is the rule of Doctor Bannes, Salon, Azorius, and others, and it was touched Bannes & Salon come. in 2. 2. q. 69. art. 3. before by jansenius in the precedent Chapter, as a mean whereby to supply the unperfect sense of many speeches of our Saviour, as those, I do not judge any man: I do not ascend to this feast: The son of man knoweth Navarre li. 11. cap. 4. jans. c. 9 punct. 3. not the day, and hour of judgement, and the like: which speeches though in outward show of words they seem false; yet are they verified by the supplement of certain reserved clauses not depending upon every man's private imagination and will, but such as may be gathered and truly applied according to the said circumstances of time, place, persons, etc. as clauses agreeable thereunto. 20. As here, when the defendant that is guilty saith, non feci, non vidi, non occidi, etc. I have not done it, I have not seen him, I have not killed him; if we consider only these bare words, and the judges demand to whom it seemeth the defendant maketh these answers (though indeed he doth not but speaketh as if the other were not present at all) they are untruths, he having done it: but if we consider the circumstances first of the person, that is injuriously demanded, and thereby is not bound to answer at all to the others intention, but to his own; and secondly the judge that presseth, and demandeth unlawfully, and thereby deserveth to be deluded; and thirdly the time and place of judgement, wherein the defendant contrary to law is urged, either to accuse himself, or to escape by having some other meaning in his words, then is set down: these circumstances, I say, do easily defend the said speech from the nature of a lie, agreeable to the matter, time and circumstances, showing that somewhat is necessarily understood, or reserved in mind, which maketh the said proposition to be true in the speakers meaning, as hath been showed by many examples of Scriptures, and Fathers in the foregoing Chapters. 21. Wherefore all these Authors do conclude, that in How and with what circumstances the accused may deny to have done that which he is not bound to utter. the foresaid case, when injury is offered against law, and when no appellation or other refuge is permitted, nor any doubtfulness of amphibology or words can take place, then is the oppressed defendant to turn himself to almighty God the righteous judge of all, and framing to himself some true reserved sense, may say, I have not done it, I have not seen him, I have not killed him and the like, understanding that he hath not done it so, as the examination or punishment thereof is subject to that tribunal, or he subject to their jurisdiction, whereby he is bound to utter the same unto him. 22. Neither is this to deny a truth, or to lie, but to conceal some truth, which the defendant is not bound to utter at that time, and to that man, and to utter another, which is different from that. As for example he denieth not, that he hath done the thing that he is demanded, but not being bound to answer to that demand, he saith, that he hath not done it in this or that manner, which is a truth not demanded: neither is this to lie, for that a lie is when the: speaker uttereth a thing which he knoweth to be Supra cap. 8. false, as before we have largely showed, which in this case happeneth not, for that he knoweth that he speaketh a truth in his own meaning, and in the sight of God, which always he must do when he useth this evasion, for that otherwise he should lie, & commit sin, if he had not some true sense reserved in his mind, conformable to the matter, time, and place, and not feigned at random as some fond do imagine. 23. Nor is this doctrine prejudicial to the common conversation of man's life, as Sepulueda & some other have objected, for that this manner of Equivocation as Valentia, Sayer, and other learned men have noted, is Use of 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 to common 〈◊〉. not to be used without necessity, or urgent causes, as particularly in judgement, when the 〈◊〉 is injustly pressed to answer, and when he hath right duty, band, or obligation to conceal the secret which the judge would know: but in common conversation, though it should not be properly the sin of lying, for the reasons aforesaid, nor against the negative precept of truth; yet should it be an other sin against the public good of civil society, and consequently against the affirmative precept of truth, binding every man to speak truth with his neighbour, according to the intention of the hearer, and demander, except he should demand somewhat in prejudice of us, and we had right to conceal the same. And thus much of this third case, whereby all the rest may in a sort be determined. The fourth case about Witnesses. §. 5. 24. IN the fourth place ensueth the consideration of witnesses, who do testify in another man's cause, as the defendant doth in his own; and consequently D. Tho. 2. 2. q. 70. art. 1. 〈◊〉. Salon. Petrus de Arragon, Bannes in 〈◊〉 locum. Halens. part. 3. q. 43. memb. 1. S. Antonin. p. 2. tit. 1. c. 19 Sotus l. 1. de justitia cap. 7. & alij. many things of those which before we have touched concerning the said defendant, do appertain also to witnesses. For first the common opinion and consent of Divines is, that when any man is called to bear witness against another, before a lawful judge, who proceedeth rightfully, and according to form of law doth demand the truth of him, he is bound to utter the same sincerely, and wholly under pain of mortal sin, for the same reasons which we have alleged before, concerning the defendant; to wit, that the judge being in the place of almighty God, & of the Common wealth, & demanding him justly, he is bound by the law of justice, subordination, and obedience, to reveal unto him the sincere truth of all that he is demanded, and knoweth in that behalf. 25. Yea & further than this, he doth not only sin mortally, as hath been said, in denying, or concealing the truth or any part thereof necessary to be uttered: but is also bound in conscience to make restitution to the party endamaged by his concealment of all those losses either in fame, estimation, goods or otherwise which he hath suffered, and might have avoided, if the other had confessed the truth. So hold Sylvester, Navarre, Sotus, Salon, Bannes, Valentia, and commonly all Obligation of witnesses to speak the truth. the rest. And this is the severity of Catholic Doctrine, about obligation of witnesses for telling the truth, when they are called, and examined by a rightful judge, extant in all our Authors, as hath been said; and I would gladly know of T. Morton what his divinity doth define, and prescribe in this case, and what his Authors have written thereof for the practice; yea what the practice itself is there daily with him, in all men's sight: which point I think rather expedient to leave to every man's particular knowledge, and conscience, to think & consider, than here to set down, what fruits their new Gospel hath brought forth in this matter about unconscionable witnesses. 26. But on the other side our Doctors say, that when the judge is not lawful, or that he inquireth of secrets, which appertain not to his jurisdiction, nor that form of law doth permit him so to inquire, than the same Authors are of opinion, that he may refuse to answer, for that the judge hath no Authority to demand him; yea although first he hath sworn to answer directly, for that, that oath did presuppose that he should answer directly to that which the other should justly demand of him, and therefore in this case he may use the same kinds of refuge, which before have been touched in the case of the defendant, that is to say, he may hold his peace, How witnesses may deny or 〈◊〉 answering. or refuse to answer, or appeal from him or deny all in form, as it lieth, or use doubtful, or Equivocal words, and other such manner of ordinary evasions, which if they prevail not, then say these Doctors, that he may deny, and say, nihil scio, nihil vidi, nihil audivi, I know nothing, I have seen nothing, I have heard nothing, reserving in his mind the other part, that he knoweth nothing, hath seen nothing nor heard nothing, which in that injust examination he is bound to utter, as being demanded against law, and justice. And this shall be sufficient for this case. The fifth case about Equivocation in swearing. §. 6. 27. THE fifth case that we mean to handle at this time is about Equivocation in swearing, which act of swearing comprehending as before we have said a calling of God to witness in that we affirm, as it is honourable to God when it is done See supra cap. 7. & 8. with the foresaid due circumstances of Truth, justice, and Reverence: so is it a grievous sin when any of those points do want, and especially when truth, and justice faileth therein, it is the heinous sin, & crime of perjury, so greatly detested in Catholic Doctrine as before hath been declared in the seventh and eight Chapters. Now only is to be considered, whether amphibology or Equivocation may be used in an oath, or no, and how far without deceit, and whether he that sweareth, be always bound to swear to the intention of him to whom the Oath is made, or that sometimes, and in some cases, he may without falsehood, or perjury, swear to his own true intention, keeping the same secret from him that exacteth the oath. 28. About which point they do determine first, that who soever offereth himself voluntarily to swear, that is to say, of his own free- will and choice, he is bound under pain of mortal sin to swear truly, and directly * See about this matter Alex. Halen. p. 3. q. 31. m. 〈◊〉. Navar. in man ca 12 nu 8. Sot. lib. 8. de just. q. 〈◊〉. art. 7. D. Tho. 2. 2. q. 〈◊〉. art. 7. ad 4. Caie. & Arragon ibi. Sylu. v. juramen. 3. q. 2. Cos. Philiar. de office Sacerd. p. 2 lib. 〈◊〉. c. 14. Pedrazza in explic. 2. praecepti § 〈◊〉. Tolet. insum. li. 4. ca 21. & others. according to the intention & meaning of him to whom he sweareth: the reason whereof is, for that he swearing freely, and without compulsion, is bound to utter the truth, and to follow the common use of swearing, which is to swear to the intention of him that exacteth the oath. And the same they determine, when any man is called, and commanded to swear by his lawful judge, and Superior, and in a lawful cause: and he that doth otherwise, though it were to the saving of his own, or another man's life, doth commit perjury. 29. But if the judge that exacteth the oath be not a lawful judge, or proceedeth not lawfully in exacting the same, then hath he that sweareth, no obligation to swear to his intention at all, but may swear to his own, so he make no lie, but have some true meaning and sense in his oath, according to the circumstances of the place, times, matters, and persons before mentioned. Of which point I think good to allege here the words of a great Schoole-devine, that hath written in our age, called by Morton the Great Moralist, who proposing divers rules concerning the subject of taking an oath, setteth down his second rule thus: Secunda regula (faith he) est, si 〈◊〉 à judice Azor. li. 11 〈◊〉. c. 4. contra, vel praeter ius rogetur de crimine occultò patrato, etc. The second rule is that if the defendant should be demanded an oath by the judge about a secret crime committed by him, and this contrary or besides the order of law, he may with a secure conscience answer, The discourse of Azor, about Equi vocation in an oath and swear that he hath not committed that crime, nor knoweth any thing of it: the reason of which rule is, not that which some men do give, that it is lawful for us, when we swear, to take words in our sense at our pleasure, or as we feign them ourselves, otherwise then the hearers understand them; but this only is the true reason, that when our words may have an ambiguous signification, we may take them in what sense we will, when we are urged against law, though the hearers take them in another sense. And whereas the ambiguity of our words may arise from divers heads, aswell of their significations, of the circumstances of time, place, persons, manner of proceeding, and the like before mentioned; we may out of these verify our speech. As for example, when a priest denieth to any judge that he knoweth of any Crime in Confession, which is a divine judgement and tribunal, it is understood by the circumstance of his office, that no such crimes are to be inquired of in that human court or judgement. And so when the defendant denieth that he hath done this, or that secret crime, though he seem to deny it absolutely; yet the circumstance of the place, action, and persons may easily declare, if a man look into them, that his true meaning may be, that he hath done no such thing, as aught to be inquired in that manner or uttered publicly in that tribunal. 30. So he in this and all other like cases: about which this general foundation is held by the foresaid Divines; and related by our Countryman Sayer in his Sayer lib. 5. Clau. Reg. ca 4. nu. 〈◊〉. Cases of conscience in these words. Interrogatus à judice incompetente. etc. He that is examined by an incompetent judge, or if he be competent and lawful, yet doth he not proceed lawfully, & according to form The discourse of Sayer to the same effect. of law, as examining him of secret 〈◊〉, or matters, or circumstances impertinent to the cause, then in that case is he not obliged to swear according to the intention of the said judge, that offereth the oath; nor on the other side may he lie, or swear against his own intention, or true meaning, for that he should sin deeply, and incur perjury; but he may when he is thus pressed, and cannot otherwise avoid the violence, and iniuty offered unto him, so accommodate his words, as they may be true according to his own intention, and in the sight of God, though they be false according to the intention of him that doth injustly exact the oath; and in so answering he lieth not, nor incurreth perjury, though the said judge be deceived. For that S. Thomas well noteth the formal, and essential reason of a lie consisteth not in the intention of the speaker, to leave the hearer deceived, for that otherwise he should lie whosoever should use doubtful and equivocal words to hide a truth (which both S. Thomas, S. Augustine and other Divines do deny) but it consisteth in this, that a thing is otherwise spoken then is in the mind of the speaker, unde mentiri, est contra montem ire, to lie, is to go against a man's own mind, as * Supra cap. 8. before hath sufficiently been declared. Thus Sayer. divers other Cases in particular. §. 7. 31. AND now in the last place shall we lay together some few several cases, which upon these and like rules, reasons, and principles, 〈◊〉 do resolve. And the first shallbe that case, which our Minister Morton so often proposeth, and odiously doth exaggerate about Coventry, saying: That our English Equivocators do teach, that if a man come from Tho. morton's case of Coventry. Coventry, which town is held to be infected with the plague, himself dwelling in a part of that City which is free from infection, and being asked at London-gates, whether he came from Coventry, they intending to ask him concerning a place infected, he may answer no, for that herein he deceiveth not the mind of the questioner, but answereth directly to his intention. So propoundeth he the case, as he pretendeth out of the Catholic treatise of Equivocation, which hitherto I have not seen, and consequently cannot affirm how truly or falsely the same is related: but he having so uttered the said case, doth in opposition 〈◊〉 city the foresaid jesuit Azor his sentece against Azor. lib. 11. inst. c. 4 §. Primo quidem. this, as though he said that if we admit this case: Nihil tam falsum esse posse, quod non que at ab omni mendacio liberari: nothing is so false, but that it may be freed from a lie; which words are indeed in Azor, but not applied by him to this case, but to another, saying: That if it were lawful for us, to feign what words we would in an oath without regard to the circumstances of time, place, and persons before mentioned, than nothing were so false in deed, that might not be freed from all lying: but this case of ours goeth not conjoined with these words of Azor, as Morton hath perfidiously here tied them together, but Azor speaking twice of this our case in one page, first in the name of others by way of objection, and again in his own Azo. ib. §. 〈◊〉 regula. name by way of resolution; he saith: Libenter concedimus de eo, qui ad portas 〈◊〉 rogatur, etc. we do willingly grant the example of him who coming to the gates of a City, and being asked whether he came from a certain place, which by error is thought to be infected with the plague, and is not; tuto citra 〈◊〉 jurare potest, se ex eo loco non venire, he may securely swear without lying, that he cometh not from that place; so as, he understand that he cometh not from any place infected with plague, nor that himself is infected. This is Azor his judgement and resolution. And before him this case was so resolved by Doctor Sylvester, Syl. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. q. 2. 〈◊〉. in ma 〈◊〉. c. 12. 〈◊〉. 19 Navarre, Tolet, Roderiquez, Cosmus Philiarchus, and divers other learned men, as after him also by our often-named Countryman Gregorius Sayer: and the reason of the lawfulness of this answer is, for that the answerer being sure, that either the place is not infected Tolet in Instruct. Sacer. c. 21 lib. 4. Roder in sum map. 〈◊〉. ca 〈◊〉. concls.: 4. Cosmus Phil. p. 2. lib. 3. c. 14. Sayer lib. 5. c. 4. nu. 22. from whence he came, or that himself hath brought no infection about him (for otherwise he should be perjured) it were great injury unto him to be stayed at the Gate without cause, and therefore for declining this injury and 〈◊〉, it is lawful for him to answer to the final end, and intention of the keeper, and of the City or Commonwealth (whose intention only is to exclude infected people) and not to their immediate words about the particular place. 32. And now all this being so, consider 〈◊〉 pray you, the shameless forehead of this deceiving Minister, in citing Azor quite against himself, and his own sense and meaning, and tying his words together that were spoken separately to another end: & yet as though he had played no such juggling trick, but had gotten some victory over us, hear his insolent speech about this answer set down by so many learned men as you have heard named: An answer (saith he) so grossly false, that a jesuit of high esteem in your Church (to wit Azor) writing against this spiritual juggling of his subtilelying-brethrens doth confess, that if this kind of answer concerning Egregious impudence of T. M. a place infected with the plague, etc. be not false, then there is no speech so false, but it may be freed from falsehood, by whom your Equivocators (saith he) may learn that if the man you fancied came not from a place infected with bodily pestilence, yet this your Equivocating proceedeth from minds spiritually infected with the contagion of pestilent lying. So he. 33. And I do willingly remit myself to the indifferent Reader, where this contagion of pestiling lying reigneth, either in these grave learned men, that have decided this question without lying, & against lying, or in Morton, that hath multiplied so many lies together in this place, as is a shame to number them? For besides all that I have noted already, he corrupteth also here the very text of Azor, which himself allegeth in his margin, by translating it falsely into English, whereas Azor saith in the Case proposed, Sivenit diverse gross untruths of T. M. ex loco aliquo pest minimè infecto, qui falsò habetur pro infecto, he Englisheth the same by leaving out the words minimè and falsò, saying; If he come from a place infected, which altereth the whole case. For if either the place, or himself be infected, he cannot swear without perjury as hath been said. Secondly he saith that Azor the jesuit doth write against the spiritual juggling of his 〈◊〉- lying-brethrens, and yet are neither the principal Authors of this answer and resolution Jesuits, as by their names you have heard, nor writeth Azor against them, but with them, and for them in this case, conforming his judgement as you see, to theirs, that a man coming from such a place, may justly swear in the form that been said. Nor is their answer 〈◊〉 as the minister slandereth, but plain, & real dealing, yielding their resolution together with the reason thereof, as hath been declared. And all the juggling is on morton's side, who declaiming against lying, doth nothing but lie: and yet finally concludeth most ridiculously his speech thus: Therefore be you exhorted for the love of God, who is truth, to recant your doctrine of Equivocating, the Metropolis of lies. Whereunto my answer is, that in my opinion Thomas Morton is well worthy to be Metropolitan of that Metropolis. For if ever man honest T. M. Metropolitan of his lying Metropolis. or unhonest, lay or Clergy, learned or unlearned, (to use his manner of exaggerations) did tell so many lies together and in print, & within the compass of so few lines, as Morton here hath done, I am much deceived. For yet he hath not done, but presently after the former lies, uttered against Azor he proceedeth to do the same with others also, and namely against Dominicus Sotus in these words. 34. Behold (saith he) one Doctor among you so Pag. 59 subtle, that for that faculty, he hath by figure of excellency been called, The subtle Doctor, who doth conclude all your Equivocators for liars, saying; to say that I did not that which I know I have done, although I speak it with this limitation, or reservation of mind, ut tibi significem, it is not Equivocation but a lie. And then he quoteth Sotus in his books Deiure justitia, Sotus li. 〈◊〉. de 〈◊〉. q. 6. art. 2. setting down also in the margèt the latin words conform to this. But all is treachery, falsehood, and lying in this impertinent impugner of Equivocation. For first by the Subtle Doctor, according to the phrase of Catholic Schools, every Child knoweth to be meant joannes Scotus & not Dominicus Sotus which lived more than 200. years after the other, and was of the Order of S. Dominicke, the other being of S. Francis; so Sotus falsely abused by T. M. as this is foolish and ridiculous error, if it be error: but the other is clearly false, and malicious, that these words as here they are cited are in Sotus, which Morton will never be able to show, for saving his honesty in this point; and much less will he be able to prove, that Sotus doth conclude all Equivocators for liars, which is an other incredible impudence in him to affirm, for that Sotus in this very book, question, and article by him cited doth teach & prove largely the plain contrary, to wit, that to Equivocate is lawful in divers cases, to which effect we have cited him before, when he saith in general: Possunt & debent sic contra ius 〈◊〉 quacunque uti amphibologia. They which are unlawfully required to speak or swear as we have declared, may and aught to use any kind of amphibology, or Equivocation. 35. This is his general assertion, but afterward in particular he putteth many examples to prove the same. And first he setteth down this proposition, dum testis de alieno actu interrogatur, potest ritè respondere se nesoire; when a witness is (unlawfully) demanded of an other man's action which he knoweth, he may justly answer he knoweth nothing. The reason whereof he saith is this; Quia oratio illa nescio, recipere hunc sensum citra mendacium potest, nescio, ut tibi modò dicam: for that the answer I know nothing thereof, may without falsity admit this sense, I know it not to tell it you at this time, sicut filius hominis nescit 〈◊〉 judicij, ut dicat, as Christ knew not the Mar. 13. day of judgement to tell, or utter it to his disciples. And doth it seem to you that Sotus in this place doth go about to conclude all Equivocators for liars, as Morton affirmeth? If he did, he concludeth our Saviour Christ also in his sense. What extreme impudence is this in a Minister? But let us hear Sotus yet further in this matter. 36. In his book detegendo secreto, his third member, and Sotus 〈◊〉 impugneth T. M. third question, he repeateth again the very same conclusion here mentioned, that a witness being unjustly Lib. de tegen. secreto m. 3. q. 3. Conclus. 4. demanded whether he knoweth such and such a thing of an other, may answer he knoweth nothing, though he secretly know it: and then going further, he demandeth, whether I having seen Peter kill john, & being afterward examined upon the same injustly, whether I may say I know nothing thereof? To which he giveth this answer: Respondetur quod iure possum respondere nescio, quia iure intelligitur nescio, ut dicam, aut nescio eo modo quo iure debeam dicere. I affirm (saith he) that I may rightly answer, I know nothing thereof, for that by law it is understood that I know it not to tell it, or I know it not in such manner, as by law I ought to utter the same. And presently he refuteth Tho. morton's Doctor Genesius refuted by Sotus. Tho. morton's Doctor Genesius Sepulueda, that calleth this pulchrum commentum, a fair gloss, and putting him in number of iuniores quidam, certain younger fellows, that would reprehend that which they understood not, saith: Hi aut non capiunt, aut dissimulant vim argumenti: these (younglings) either do not understand, or do dissemble the force of the argument for this our doctrine. And this note given to 〈◊〉 morton's Doctor 〈◊〉 by so grave a man as Sotus was, may easily wipe out his authority about this matter of Equivocation, if in some things he descent from the rest, that were far more learned Divines then himself: about whom notwithstanding I cannot but marvel why 〈◊〉 Morton, in citing him, doth adorn him with this 〈◊〉 title your Divine of 〈◊〉, for so much as we read not, that ever he was at Colen, but was borne at Corduba in Spain, and there died, though for many years he lived in Italy: but whether he did ever look upon Colen or no I know not, & consequently I would gladly know Thomas morton's mystery 〈◊〉 naming him so confidently our Divine of Colen. But whatsoever his mystery might be in this, sure it is, that his Misery was and is apparent in being taken in so many lives, about Sotus and Azor, as here he hath been. 37. And now for that we have been over long in this one example, drawn out by the multiplicity of 〈◊〉 manifold untruths, we shall briefly touch an example or two more and so make an end. A wife being demanded by her husband, that is no competent judge, and compelled to swear, whether she be an adulteress, or no, may lawfully swear, if the sin The case of secret 〈◊〉. be secret, (say our Doctors) that she is not, understanding, VT TIBI REVELEM, that I am bound to reveal it unto you, and thereby avoid the danger that otherwise she were like to incur. In which resolution, though Sotus do somewhat differ from the rest, as also about the answer of a defendant in his own act, whether he may say absolutely, he hath not done it, or no, as before in the third Case hath been debated; yet doth Doctor Navarre at large prove that she may answer truly so, as a priest may answer also in matters of Confession by Sotus own rule, though the Cases be different in other points. And with a Navarre come. in 〈◊〉. humanae aures. q. 2. nu. 9 Navarre do concur in this b v. iuram. q. 2. Sylvester, c p. 1. c. 42. Lopez d de offiic. p. 2. li. 3. cap. 14. Cosmus Philiarchus e v. 〈◊〉. 4. distin. 1. Angelus de Clavatio f in expli. praecep. 2. §. 3. Pedrazza, g li. 4. 〈◊〉. c. 21. notab. 2. Tolet h li. 10. instit. c. 4. Azor, and others. 38. another Case is that a man having borrowed an hundred ponds of another, and paid him again, but being not able to prove the said payment in judgement, and thereupon forced by the judges to swear that he will pay an hundred pounds by such a day, he is not 〈◊〉 if he pay him not, or have no intention to pay him: for that in his oath, Soluam, I will pay him, is understood by law, and by the very circumstance of the thing itself, that I will pay him: so much as I owe him, for that this also must be presumed to have been the true intention of the judge, according to right and law, though otherwise by his external actual judgement he bound him to pay it absolutely. 39 Many more such like cases and examples might be added, but it were over long. The substance of Schoole-doctrine in this point, & of Canon-lawyers is, That when a man is offered injury, or injustly urged to utter a secret, that without his hurt or loss, or public damage he may not do; then is it lawful for him without lying or perjury, to answer either in The conclusion of all this Chapter. word or oath, according to his own intention and meaning, so it be true, though the hearer be deceived therewith: But wheresoever this injury is not offered, nor violence used, or that he hath liberty to swear or not swear as in common conversation and traffic it falleth out, there is he always bound to swear according to the intention of him to whom he sweareth, and this under pain of perjury, and much more, where the Equivocation may turn to the hurt of others that offer him no injury, nor cannot force him to swear against his will. This is the resolution of Catholike-schooleDoctors, upon the grounds which before you have heard, both of reason, equity, Scriptures and Fathers against the unlearned clamours of a few English ministers, that out of emulation and ignorance do impugn the same without proof at all. And this shall suffice for this Chapter. THE ARGUMENTS AND REASONS OF THO. morton's BOOK are examined, and answered: AND His notorious errors, follies, and falsifications therein discovered. CHAP. XI. ALBEIT whatsoever hath hitherto been said, and written by us about this subject of Equivocation, hath been in reproof of Thomas morton's reasons and arguments against the same; yet have I not thought it amiss in this place, to look over his book again, and to bring again into the Readers sight by way as it were of methodical repetition, whatsoever substance he pretendeth to have in this affair: which though it be so small that it is scarce worth the repetition; yet may the review thereof make some impression, what 〈◊〉 of people they are, that take upon them to write books at this day in England against Catholiekes, and to be Masters and directors of others, that are so ignorant, and far out of the way themselves. 2. First then to pretermit the 〈◊〉 exaggerations, used by him in the beginning of this book, which upon some occasions I have touched before, intituling Confut. pag 1. the same, Against more than heathenish Equivocation, and in another place, Against the doctrine of sacrilegious Equivocation: and yet further, Against the impious conceit of Equivocation; Pag. 97. and lastly, Against the wicked doctrine of Equivocation, Pag. 47. against the new-bred-hydra, and ugly monster; a piece of the black art, the mystery of iniquity, and the like: we shall briefly go to the substance of the matter, for now already you have seen how vain, and childish these Childish railing. terms are, and much more that asseveration, That no iota in all Scripture, no one èxample in all antiquity, no one reason in all the natural wit of man is to be found for proof, or colour of any luwfull use of Equivocation. You have seen (I say) how light and vain these words of his are, and have pitied (I think) the poor man's oversight in uttering them, forasmuch as so many Scriptures, so many Fathers, so many Doctors, and grave learned men, both in Law and divinity, so many evident reasons and arguments, have been alleged for the just use thereof, in due occasions, times, matters, and places, as no modesty can maintain the former fond and childish vaunts to the contrary. 3. To hasten then to the matter, I am first to admonish the reader, that whereas this Minister doth take upon him to confute a certain Catholic manuscript Treatise, made in defence of Equivocation, and intercepted (as it seemeth) by them, I could never yet come to the sight thereof, and therefore must be forced to admit, what he saith out of it, without controlment, here a piece, & there a piece; though there be divers conjectures, 〈◊〉 he, as in other matters, so in this, dealeth very unfaithfully: partly for that such pieces as here are alleged, do not seem well to hang together, or to have any due connexion: and partly also for that I having taken Thomas Morton in so many falsifications, of things alleged by him, as before you have seen, and that the law saith, Whosoever is once evil, is presumed to be evil still, until he prove the contrary: I must in a manner assure myself, that the minister hath used notable legter-de mains, in citing the sentences, and texts of this Catholic Treatise, which I have hope to see ere it belong, and if it come in time, I may chance by some appendix, to give you more notice of the particulars. 4. This then presupposed, we come to the 〈◊〉 points of his whole Treatise, which 〈◊〉 as you have heard of two conclusions. The first, that every Equivocation by a mental reservation, is not a hidden truth but Pag. 49. Two propositions the grounds of his book. a gross lie: The second, that every Equivocation whether mental or verbal, if it be used in an oath, though it be no lie, yet is it an abominable profanation of that sacred institution of God etc. And for proof of these two conclusions, he allegeth several arguments, which here we shall discuss in order, to wit, seven for the first, and four for the later. His arguments for the first are these. 1. The definition of a lie. 2. The definition of Equivocation. 3. The description of lying. 4. The nature of perjury. 5. Truth God, lying the Devil. 6. Scriptures Fathers Pagans. 7. Sign, interpretations, coin, Gyges' ring. And for the second conclusion he bringeth 4. arguments. 1. The form of an oath. 2. The end of an oath. 3. A minore from the less to the more. 4. A paribus, or from things equal. And now shall you see one by one, how equally vain, and of no force all these arguments be. The first argument from the definition of a lie. §. 1. 5. NOw must we come (saith he) into the lists Pag 50. of this conflict, and enter upon our Equivocator, to convince him a gross liar, by manifest arguments. Maior. Whosoever useth any signification of speech against his conscience, is properly a liar: Minor. But our Equivocator doth use signification of speech directly against his conscience, Ergo he is directly a liar. The Minor is not only the confession, but also the profession of our Equivocator, who saith, that if a Catholic being demanded before a Magistrate, upon his oath whether a priest be in his house, he may contrary to his perfect knowledge, answer no; and can any man of conscience deny this conclusion? Yet because we have to deal against Consciences daw bed up with mortar untempered, we add a consirmation of the former argument. So he. 6. And I have thought good to let him play his part somewhat largely in this first argument, to the end you may know him the better in the rest. You see how he entereth with menacing words, and then how he maketh a syllogism, & when he should prove his Minor proposition, that we deny, to wit, that every His first argument 〈◊〉. one that 〈◊〉 Equivocation doth use a signification of speech directly against his conscience, he saith, that we do not only confess, but profess the same. And how doth he prove this? Forsooth for that we hold that a Catholic being examined whether he have a priest in his house, he may answer no, though he know he be there. But now this simple fellow doth know before this time, if he hath read that which in the precedent Chapters we have written, that the 〈◊〉, no, in this answer doth not fall only upon those words uttered, but upon my whole meaning, and reserved proposition, and consequently doth not signify, that I know no priest to be there, but, that I do not know him so to be there as I am bound to utter him, as S. john's, no, to the pharisees did not signify that he was no Prophet at all, but that he was no such Prophet as they imagined. 7. 〈◊〉 it is great folly for him here to say, that we both confess and profess, that when we use 〈◊〉 speech in a reserved proposition, we speak against our knowledge, & conscience. For we speak as we think, and as we think truly both in our meaning and in the sight of God, though the hearer by his own default, as proceeding unjustly, be permitted to be deceived: so as, when I say, I have no priest in my house reserving in mind this other clause, which I ought and am bound to utter unto you, is a true proposition, and truly meant by me, and not contrary, but conform to my knowledge, & conscience: which being understood, all the daubing with mortar which the minister Morton bringeth in here out of our own Authors (for other (poor man) he hath none) to 〈◊〉 up his contradiction withal, dissolveth of itself, and falleth to the ground, as mere daubing in deed. For first we grant the definition of lying, alleged out of the Master of 〈◊〉, which is: Lying is when a man speaketh Lib. 〈◊〉. dis. stinct. 38. any thing, contrary to that which he thinketh in his mind: for in this proposition of ours I think as I speak, for I think and know that I have no priest in my house, which I ought to discover. Secondly we admit also the definition of S. Thomas of Aquin: A lie is when a man 2. 2. q. 111. art. 1. will signify in outward words, another thing then that which he hath in his mind, which in our case we do not. We admit also the saying of S. Augustine here alleged, Lib. de mend. c. 5. & ser 28. de verb. Apost. & abud D. 〈◊〉. 2. 2. q. 98. art. 1. that the former property of perjury is to swear that, which I think is false. 8. And now Thomas Morton having alleged these authorities out of our own Doctors, as you see, and making nothing for him, but altogether for us, he passeth on to urge us with his wise 〈◊〉 interrogatoryes, whereof we have made mention * Supra Cap. 9 Pag. 51. before, and maketh this preface thereunto. 9 Now must we examine (saith he) whether that we have not by this proof so entrapped the Fox Equivocator, that he cannot find any hole whereby to escape. Suffer me Socratically to debate this point with you & answer me friendly to these demands etc. Which childish trifling, for that we have answered sufficiently before, we shall say no more in this place. And this is all he hath of any substance in this argument. His second argument from the definition of Equivocation. §. 2. 10. INTO this argument also he entereth with like vaunt, as 〈◊〉 the former; That if ever 〈◊〉 Logician, whether Infidel, or believer did allow a mixed proposition partly Pag 54. mental, and partly verbal, I will (saith he) which my soul utterly detesteth, be an Equivocator But to this folly hath been answered sufficiently before in the eight Chapter, where his gross oversight is discovered in this childish vaunt. 〈◊〉 he goeth forward saying: But I must not now expect impossibilities from you, to try what you would prove, but show herein what I can disprove. Your proposition, I am no priest, mixed with your mental reservation, to reveal it unto you, if it be true, it is either in his simple signification, or by virtue of 〈◊〉: but it is true in his simple signification: This you grant. Neither can it be true by virtue of Equivocation: This I prove. 11. Well Sir, we shall see presently your proof for this second point, but in the mean space we deny the former, which you say we grant, but do allege His second answer confuted. no proof for it. For who is so simple, as to grant that this whole proposition, I am no priest bound to reveal it unto you, or no priest subject unto your jurisdiction, is not a true proposition in his own simple signification? For it signifieth to me simply, and plainly, that I am not a priest subject to secular men's examination, according to Canonical and Ecclesiastical laws: how then do we grant that the proposition is not true, in his simple signification, or where is that grant registered? Is not this great simplicity, to presume a grant and to plead that grant in print, whereas the thing is evidently denied? Who would argue thus but Thomas Morton? But let us see your proof in the second, seeing you fail so much in the first. . Equivocation say you) in word or speech, according Ibidem. Arist Elench. li. 1. cap. 4. to Aristotle the Oracle of Logicians, is when one word or one speech, doth equally signify divers things, as when one shall say, I am afraid of a dog, this word dog hath a triple signification, etc. This hath been examined before in the seventh Chapter, where it is showed, how you abuse Aristotle in this place, by making him to define Equivocation in general by a part; that is to say the definition of one, among three manners or degrees of Equivocation there by him set down, whereby also you destroy unawares your own cause: for that if this be the definition of Equivocation in general, then cannot our reserved proposition have any equivocation in it at all, for that the words and speech have no double, but simple signification of themselves, and consequently you do accuse us unjustly of equivocating, in using this answer, whereof also yourself say presently after: But your mixed and patched proposition is not one word or speech, signifying equally divers things, but contrarily divers parts of speech, one in the mind, and another in the mouth, which whosoever shall call equivocal, may Pag. 55. be justly suspected to be button with the highest dog, the proposition is so absurd, and unreasonable. 13. And now (good Sir) what will you prove by all this? That our mixed reserved propositions are not ambiguous, doubtful, and equivocal? And why then (I pray you) do you call us Equivocators? yea hellish T M impugneth himself. and heathenish Equivocators for using the same? Who is like rather to be bitten of the highest dog, either we or you that cannot tell what you say or prove, either for you, or against yourself? We have stood hithertoto defend those mixed propositions against your imputations of hellish, heathenish, impious, and sacrilegious Equivocations; and now you take upon you to prove, that they are not equivocal at all, and that they are bitten with the highest dog, that say so: and you are 〈◊〉 earnestly set to prove it, as you dare adventure to corrupt Aristotle's own text, to make some show thereof, not only in choice of the definition before mentioned; but in the very words also of his Greek text Homonymia ' estìn hótan ho lógoes e'e t'óunoma kyrioos seemainei pleioo. here cited, where you say that Equivocation is in any one word, or one speech that doth equally signify divers things, and by urging these ones, you exclude our mixed propositions, for that they are not one word, nor one speech as you say, but divers parts of speech, whereas Aristotle hath neither of these ones in his text, as the Greek words alleged in the margin do show, but are foisted in by Morton to overthrow himself. And is not this like to be the bytting of a doggish influence indeed? 14. Wherefore to conclude, this argument is against himself, who understandeth not the state of his own question, and therefore for instruction of the Reader, I say, that albeit these mixed reserved propositions be not properly equivocal, in the sense that Aristotle did Arist, lib. Elenc. c. 4. define his three degrees of Equivocation, by words, custom or construction (which * Cap 〈◊〉. before we have related) for that they do not of themselves, nor their own natures, signify equally divers things, but being understood wholly have a single and simple signification in the mind, and understanding of the How reserved propositions are equivocal & how not. speaker: yet for that the hearer conceiving but one part thereof, apprehendeth a different sense from the speaker, they may ab effectu be called ambiguous, amphibological, and equivocal after a large, and improper manner of equivocation, for that they leave a different sense in the hearer, and speaker, albeit of themselves, as I have said, they be plain, clear, and true to them that hear them out, or do conceive the mental reservation, as God, and the speaker do. And this shall suffice for the second argument. His third argument from the description of lying. §. 3. 15. YOU have seen his first argument to have been deduced from the definition of a lie, and now this his third is from the description of lying: what great difference do you imagine there may be between lie and lying; why had he not drawn one argument at least from the definition of truth, as we have done divers before against him? But let us hear ‛ Suprà cap. 8. the method of his arguing, thus it goeth. Maior. No man doubteth (saith S. Augustine) but that he lieth, Aug. li. de mendacio c. 〈◊〉. & 5. which speaketh any thing which is false with intent to deceive another. Minor. But our Equivocators profess by a false speech to delude Protestant examiners, etc. Ergo, by their art of equivocating have they obtained a perfection of lying. What can you answer? So he. 16. And my answer is, that I would gladly have this great disputer to prove his Minor proposition, and His third argument confuted. not to suppose it, and say we profess it, as he did in his first argument, whereas we deny it, or that in our foresaid proposition we speak false with intent to deceive, for we speak a truth, as often before hath been declared; nor is our intent to deceive, but to defend ourselves, when injury is offered, and to permit Suprà c. 8. & 9 the injust examiner to be deceived. And so for that this hath been amply proved, and declared before, and this poor Caviller bringeth nothing at all of new, to prove the said Minor proposition, but fond supposeth us to grant it, which we utterly deny as false: we shall say no more of this argument, but take pity of the disputer, who calling upon us so freshly for our answer, is brought with one simple denial to an evident Nonplus. For as for his impertinent running into the example of Coventry infected, and one that cometh from thence, the case hath been handled so sufficiently in the precedent Chapter, and our Adversary convinced of so many notable untruths 〈◊〉 the 6. Case. therein, as there needeth no more to be spoken of that matter, wherefore we pass to the fourth argument. His fourth argument is taken à specie, or from a particular kind of lying, which is Perjury. §. 4. 17. THIS man as you see cannot yet get out of lying and perjury, and by naming them only as impugned by him, he thinketh to credit his own cause, and discredit ours, whereas in deed by practising either one or both in this his very impugnation, he honoureth our cause, and overthroweth his own. Let us hear his formal argument. Maior: Perjury, as Jesuits do confess, is a lie made in an oath: Minor: But mental equivocating in an oath is perjury: Ergo, Simply in itself without an oath it is a lie. here again I would desire our disputer to prove his Minor proposition, that every speech mixed with a mental reservation is petiuryif it be sworn: the folly and impiety of which assertion is sufficiently detected before, Supr. 〈◊〉. 9 for that it being a most certain principle, as well in reason, as in divinity, that what a man may truly say, he may truly also swear, And that it is evident, that many such mixed and reserved propositions were uttered by Christ, and his Saints, as holy Scripture testifieth, and we have given many examples in the ninth Chapter going before: as it were impiety to say that those propositions were lies out of an oath; so were it The confutation of his 4. argument. more impiety to conceive that they should be perjuries in an oath if they had been sworn. And what will Thomas Morton now say to this? or what scrap of proof can he bring for his Minor proposition, that every mental reserved speech or other equivocal proposition is perjury in an oath? He allegeth first those words in Exodus; Thou shalt not bear false witness, Exod. 20. jerem. 4. expounded by our Azor (as he saith) that we must swear in truth, and for the confirmation of truth; but is this any thing against us? And do we not say, that all such reserved propositions are true in themselves in the ears of God, and mind of the speaker? How impertinent then is this proof? 18. But hearken further, for he will bring another more strange than this. Your great Moralist Azor (saith he) doth condemn all Equivocators herein (to wit for mental Equivocation in an oath) as perjured Pag. 60. & 61. liars, or otherwise (saith he) there is nothing in an oath that may not be affirmed, and denied without a lie. Thus he. And I would demand him about this matter, whether he will swear this to be true which he saith of Azor? For if Ministers and priests go Azor notably belied by T. Morton. in equal rank in England, a Minister's word ought to be equal to an oath, as a priest's word, laying his hand on his breast, is with us: and then must I needs conclude Tho. Morton for a perjured liar in deed, who hath so perfidiously belied Azor in this place, and that in so many points. For first Azor handling in the book and Chapter by him cited, De jure iurando, cui videtur lib. 11. c. 4. §. Quintò 〈◊〉. veritas aliquo modo deesse: Of an oath which may seem in some sort to want truth, he doth put down divers examples (8. or. 9 at least) wherein the swearer may swear truly in his own sense, though false in the sense of him that exacteth the oath, all which are so many plain approbations of swearing Equivocal propositions without perjury, and so many public contradictions and confutations of Tho. morton's notorious slander avouched here against him, that he condemneth all Equivocators for liars. Of which cases here determined by Azor against Morton, the first is, Si Sacerdosrogetur etc. If a priest be asked any thing which he hath heard in confession, he may answer, se nihil scire, nihil audivisse, that he knoweth nothing, he hath heard nothing. And how then doth this great Moralist condemn all Equivocators herein as perjured liars? Is not this public lying in Tho. Morton, and that in print? And were not this formal perjury, if he did swear it in any court whatsoever? as namely in his Lord's Court of the Arches? And should he not be punished in that Court as a perjured person, if it were proved against him? And how then dareth he to commit the same so publicly without blushing? But let us leave him to his Lord's correction in this behalf; and so pass on to an other point. 19 Secondly then, not only the sense and drift but the words themselves set down by T. M. out of Azor Azor. lib. 11. c. 4. §. Primo 〈◊〉 are most fraudulently and falsely alleged: Quidam putavit (saith he) fas esse cuiquam, ut vitam suam conseruet, hosti jurare, tantummodo eo sensu, quem mente intus concipit, possemus enim hac ratione quiduis negare, & nihil non absque mendacio dicere. Some have thought it lawful (saith he) to every man, for the conservation of his life, to swear to his enemy only in that sense, which he conceiveth inwardly in his own mind, which if it should be granted, then might we by this means deny any thing, and speak what we will without a lie. 20. These are 〈◊〉 for Azor his words, and in deed the most of them are in Azor, but not together as they lie here, but some in one place, and some in another, spoken to 〈◊〉 purposes, & in different sense from that T. M. allegeth them corruptly in this place. And for proof hereof, and of the egregious Wilful and perfidious dealing. cozenage of this lying Minister, it shall be sufficient to let you know that this special example alleged here as out of Azor, and as rejected by him of one that swore to his enemy, for saving his life in another sense then his words did sound, is not rejected but allowed, and approved by Azor. For that he having proposed the case first, under other learned men's names, much after the sense as here is set down by Morton, he cometh at length to resolve, and approve the same in his own name saying: Quare libenter concedimus id quod paulò antè dicebatur de co, qui ut se saluum tueatur 〈◊〉 latroni, tyranno aut hosti daturum se illi pecunia quantitatem etc. Wherefore we do willingly grant that, which before was proposed of him that by oath doth promise unto a these, a tyrant, or his enemy for saving his life, to give him a certain quantity of money, which yet notwithstanding in his 〈◊〉 he hath no purpose to do, swearing with this reservation, dabo, si debeo, I will give it if I owe it. Now then consider good reader the honesty and truth of Tho. Morton, that bringeth in Azor to condemn that as lying perjury which he doth not only allow, as truth, and no lie, but proveth also the lawfulness thereof by many examples; and especially by this of him that sweareth by Equivocation, which example Morton bringeth in as condemned by Azor, for perjurious lying: what will you say? or what will you do with such men? And do you note also that in the former words of Azor, he cutteth of Latroni & Tyranno, and this to preveut a case resolved against him afterward by Cicero, praedonibus & piratis, to thieves and pirates perjury 〈◊〉 not committed; what then (I say) is to be thought, or said, or done with such men? Himself setteth down a rule out of Tully in his Epistle to the King, 〈◊〉 such as are taken once in lying may never after be credited again, which he applieth against the Catholics, but 〈◊〉 justly it ought to be practised in him, and his fellows, that are taken at every turn in such notorious wilful lying, is evident to the discreet Reader. His fifth argument, Truth God, lying the devil. §. 5. 21. IF a man had time to lose in discussing this two-membred argument, it might be some recreation to see the disputers folly, & weakness in that he taketh in hand. For first he setteth down the words of S. Paul unto the Hebrews, That it is impossible Heb. 6. Supra Cap. 7. for God to lie, which we grant, as you know, and have proved it largely before, and this, neque de 〈◊〉 ordinaria neque absoluta; & then he inferreth out of that, that it is as unlawful for God to Equivocate, for that otherwise (saith he) the elect of God should not have any strong consolation, for that they may still doubt, that God doth Equivocate with them: and so when his spirit doth witness to the spirits of his elect, that Rom. 〈◊〉. they are the sons of God, and that they shall not perish; yet might they suspect (saith he) that it is spoken with some secret reserved clause of delusion, which Pag. 62. blasphemy (saith he) be far from the hearts of his regenerate. 22. Whereto I answer first, that having set down that which we have before, about the different nature of falsity and Equivocation, every child will laugh at Thomas morton's inference: God cannot lie, or utter a false proposition, Ergo, he cannot utter a doubtful or Equivocal proposition, that may have one sense in the hearers understanding, and another in the speakers, such as that was of Christ our Saviour, when he said, dissolve this temple, and I will build up the same again in three days, which the Pharisees, and all other hearers commonly understood of the material temple, wherein he stood, when he spoke the words, but they were deceived, for himself meant the holy temple of his sacred body, Ergo, in this he did Equivocate according to the definition of Equivocation now agreed upon between us: yea Aristotle's definition also agreeth to this speech of Christ, for that the word temple here doth equally signify two things, and consequently either Morton must deny Christ to be God, or affirm that God can Equivocate, though he cannot lie. And the many examples which we have alleged before in the 9 Chapter, and shall do afterward in this, to the next argument, must needs put this Minister in a sack & stop his mouth in this behalf. 23. His second inference also, that if God could Equivocate, the consolation of the elect could not be strong, is idle in like manner. For if God could lie, this inference might have place, but an Equivocal How reserved propositions are true and certain in themselves. proposition in the sense we talk of, that is to say, where some part is uttered, and some other reserved in the mind, is as true and certain in the understanding of the speaker, as any other proposit on is, or can be; and in matters of religion it belongeth to the faith of the hearer so to believe, and to seek out the speakers reservation for his better assurance, as in the examples before alleged, when God said by the Prophet, jocl. 2. That whosoever calleth upon the name of our Lord shallbe saved: and the hearer on the other side seeth all heretics and Sectaries whatsoever to call upon the same name, and yet shall not be saved; yea he heareth also those words of Christ: Not every one that saith unto me Matth. 7. Lord, Lord, shall enter into the Kingdom of heaven, etc. Yet is he bound under pain of Infidelity to believe that the former general proposition of joel the Prophet, which hath a further reserved mental meaning then in words is uttered, is true and infallible, and consequently he must seek out the true reservation, or clause not expressed, whereby the whole proposition is made true, which otherwise, as it lieth, and soundeth, is false; for that to speak generally without reservation, That every one that calleth upon the name of God, shallbe saved, cannot universally be true, for so much as the contrary thereof is evident, that many who call upon that name, are not saved but damned. And almost infinite other places like to this are found in Scripture, as he that believeth and is baptised shallbe saved; he that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath life everlasting; and such other, which cannot be verified in the general 〈◊〉 of the words, without some reservation not expressed. 24. And as for that he would not have his new elect Protestants, to want of their strong consolation, or to stand in doubt of some reservation (as he saith) when God's spirit witnesseth to their spirits, that they are the sons of God, & that they shall not perish (which reservation he wickedly calleth A clause of delusion) he might more truly term that their fond presumption, delusion, whereby they will needs apply unto themselves that thing absolutely, which God speaketh always with due reservation, and condition, as now hath been showed in the examples alleged, that not every one absolutely shall be saved, that calleth upon the name of our Lord, or believeth and is baptised, or eateth his flesh, and drinketh his blood, but they only that call upon his name rightfully, and as they ought to do, and as Christ himself expoundeth it, to wit they that call upon him, and jointly do perform the will of his Father in keeping his commandments; and the like in those that believe & are baptised, and live well, and those that eat his flesh and drink his blood worthily: which conditions and reservations must necessarily be understood also in the speech of that spirit that speaketh to protestants, if it be from Incerteinty of salvation not on God's part but on ours. Matt ult. 〈◊〉. Ep. 〈◊〉. cap. 2. 3, 4. God, as both S. john and Christ himself expoundeth, and this is not blasphemy as Tho. 〈◊〉 imagineth, but true humility, for here the doubtfulness is not of the assurance of God's promise, but of our performance, that is to say, whether we do perform 〈◊〉 necessary conditions which always are to be understood in God's promises towards us for keeping his commandments. And thus much of the first part of his argument appertaining to God. 25. But now for the other part, concerning the His argument 〈◊〉 from the Devil. devil, it is much more childish, for thus he argueth. MAYOR: That doctrine cannot be true, which stopped a man's mouth from giving the devil the lie. MINOR: But if Equivocation be admitted, all mankind is silenced from giving the 〈◊〉 his due title of liar. ERGO Equivocating is no doctrine of truth, etc. 〈◊〉 for proof of his Minor, he allegeth only the 〈◊〉 of Eve in paradise, demanding of us, whether when the devil said to her: Though 〈◊〉. 3. you eat, you shall not die, she might have said to him, thou liest For if we deny that she may, then do we tie her tongue from calling the devil a liar, and if we grant that she may say so, then would the devil escape by saying to her, that he did not lie but only Equivocate. 26. And is not this goodly stuff? fit for a book? fit for a print? fit for a Chaplyn of my Lord of Canterbury? Are these things suffered to pass without controlment in England? If the devil be father of lies, and consequently of them that do lie, of what kindred will he prove to be 〈◊〉 this Minister that hath been taken now with so many notorious witting and wilful lies as before hath been showed? which how they are Equivocations also in a worse sense shall be showed in the chapter following, and consequently that T. Morton is an egregious Equivocator in that sort and kind, which Satan himself did use to deceive our Grandam Eue. His fixed argument entitled, from examples of dissimulation condemned by Scriptures, Fathers, Pagans. §. 6. 27. HERE you see how he tieth together Scriptures, Fathers, and Pagans, & all do prove indeed his purpose alike; for that he bringeth nothing to the purpose out of any of them. And first you see that he flieth the word Equivocation, and nameth only Dissimulation, Supra cap. 8 which Equivocation we have proved lately before to be a different thing from Dissimulation, for that Equivocation What dissimulation is unlawful and what not. hath a true sense and meaning in the mind of the speaker, conform to the matter and circumstance that is handled, and most evidently used by Christ himself and divers holy men, as largely before hath been declared, which yet without impiety cannot be called or tearned Dissimulation, in such a sense as Tho. Morton would have it, to wit, as Dissimulation importeth Aug. lib. contra mendacium c. 12. in fine. deceit or fraud, for otherwise S. Augustine himself writing contramendacium, against lying, doth confess that in a good sense Christ did dissemble, when he said: 〈◊〉 tetigit, who touched me, when Marc. 5. he knew well enough 〈◊〉 it was; and of Lazarus, Vbi joan. 11. posuistis eum? where have you buried him? Per hoc, nescire se finxit, saith S. Augustine: Christ by this kind of speech did feign that he knew not. And again in the same book, neither that which jacob did to obtain Gen. 27. Gen. 42. the benediction of his Father, nor that which 1. Regum 〈◊〉. joseph did to delude his brethren, nor that which David did when he feigned himself to be mad, Neque Supra Cap. 7. caetera huiusmodi mendacia iudicanda sunt, neither other such like dissimulations as these are, may be judged for lies: Before also we have heard his opinion for allowing all dissimulation in stratagems, so the war be just. And thus much for the title of his argument, now to the substance. 28. First to begin with his examples out of Scriptures, I say that he might better have said Example in the singular number: for whereas we of our part have alleged so many, and so great variety of examples in our former discourse to the contrary, he (poor man) out of all the body of the whole Bible, hath alleged but one, and that nothing to his purpose, as presently shall appear. His example is out of the Acts of the Apostles, where it is recounted how The fact of Ananias and Saphyra discussed. Ananias and Saphira his wife, having sold a certain field of theirs, and bringing a part of the price, and laying it at the feet of the Apostle, as though it had been the whole price, were miraculously punished by Saint Peter for defrauding the Community of that Acto. 5. which they had promised, or would pretend to give; Pag. 64. An Act (saith T. Morton) proper to the infancy of the Church, to bring their substance, and tender it to the Apostles for the common good of the Saints. By which words if he allow that fact, as a form of perfection in that purity and integrity of the Christian Churches beginning, why then now is the imitation thereof in religious men of our days impugned by the Protestants? And if by the word infancy he mean weakness or imperfection in the sense of S. Paul, saying: cum essem paruulus, etc. When I was a child or infant, I speak as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I came to the years of a man, I cast of those things that belonged to a child: If this (I say) be Thomas morton's meaning to note the act of imperfection, the ancient * Chrys. 〈◊〉. 12. in Acta Apostolorun Hier. epist. 8. ad Demet. August. ser. 27. de verbis Apost. Fulgentius epist. de debito coniugali c. 8. Grego lib. 1. epist. 33. 〈◊〉. Oecum enius Arator, Rabanus, Lyra, & alij in hunc locum. Fathers do stand wholly against him, and do allow it rather for great perfection, and that it was a vow of voluntary poverty to live in common, which those first Christians had made by counsel of the Apostles, and consequently do interpret those words, Nun manens tibi manebat, etc. Did it not remain in your power to give it, or not to give it? to have been meant by S. Peter before their vow, which if it be true and that S. Peter did give so dreadful a sentence upon the first vowbreakers of voluntary poverty, even for detaining somewhat of their own, how much may Thomas Morton, and some friends of his fear the like sentence, for teaching it to be lawful to take away that from a Religious community, which themselves never gave. 29. But let us come to the application of this example against Equivocation, which he hath chosen to Pag. 65. use principally about the woman's speech. The woman is asked (saith he:) Sold you the land for so much? Her answer is; yea, for so much, meaning but one half, & concealing the other, in which dissimulation it is impossible, but that your reserved clause must have come into her mind, to think but so much to give in common, or to signify unto you. Thus Thomas The woman's examination by S. Peter. Morton teacheth that poor woman to equivocate, after his manner of Equivocation, that is to say, to lie: for that now I suppose he hath learned, by that which hath been set down in our precedent Chapter, that to speak an untruth, or to conceal a truth, or to use any Equivocation when we are justly demanded by our lawful Superior, and when no injury, or violence is used unto us, is a grievous mortal sin in our Catholic Doctrine, and consequently she being lawfully demanded by S. Peter in a lawful cause, touching her own vow & promise, no clause os reservation could save her speech from lying, as our Minister doth foolishly imagine. 30. Wherefore S. Peter as most lawful judge and governor of the universal Church under Christ, & the holy Ghost in him, did worthily punish that dissimulation and lying both in her and her husband, for example of others in that beginning, and for manifesting the great and special assistance of the holy Ghost, that assisted him, and should be in his Successors to the worlds end in that their government, to the terror of wicked men that should impugn it, or otherwise deserve by their demerits to be punished by the same. And thus much of his examples out of Scriptures, which is but one as you see, and that much against himself and his own cause if I be not deceived, for that it proveth all equivocation is not lawful, as 〈◊〉 will needs suppose us to hold. 31. In the Fathers he is more copious, for he hath two examples, but of as small moment to the purpose as this. The first out of S. Augustine in his book against Lib. cont. mend. c. 18. lying, where he proposeth a certain Case, that if a sick Father having a son upon the point of death, whom he loveth so tenderly, that if he should know he were dead, it would endanger also his own life, S. Augustine's case about the sick man. what might his friend answer unto him, who coming from his son, and knowing him to be dead, should be demanded by the said Father, whether he were dead or no: S. Augustine's resolution is, that which Supra. c. 7. before we have also set down in our general Doctrine to be true, that for saving any man's temporal life, a lie is not to be made: But he will reply perhaps, that S. Augustine saith, he could not say, nescio, I know not whether he be dead, or alive, which is allowed by us in some Equivocations, as in the precedent Chapter hath been said. But to this I answer, that this case is not like those, for that here is no 〈◊〉 demand, no force, no compulsion, no injury offered, and consequently no right of using such evasion foriust defence, for so much as this is in common conversation, from which we have exempted before the use of Equivocations, albeit we have heard also out of the same S. Augustine himself, Aliud est mentiri, aliud Supra c. 7. & 8. veritatem celare. It is one thing to lie, and another thing to cover a truth without lying. S. Augustine speaketh against the first, and so do we, and consequently this example proveth nothing. 32. His second is out of the same Father in another The second case of S. Augustine about B. 〈◊〉 who would neither lie nor betray. work of like argument, where he putteth the example of a certain Bishop of Tagaste in Africa, named Firmus, who in time of the Pagan Emperors having hidden a man that fled to his refuge, answered the emperors officers that came to seek him, nec prodam, nec mentiar, I will neither bewray him, neither will I Aug. li. de mend. cap. 13. make a lie, and so was content rather to suffer torments, than he would do either: for which S. Augugustine greatly commendeth him, and so was he worthy, for it was indeed an heroical act. And if therein he did more resolutely than he was bound, as many priests in England have done, that presently upon their apprehension have confessed themselves to be priests, it inferreth no law, that all men are bound to do the like. For as the law itself saith: Cuique licet de iure suo cedere: It is lawful for every man to yield of his own right what he please, as S. Paul, though in one place he saith, that it is lawful for him that serveth 〈◊〉. Cor. 15. the Altar to live by the Altar, and that he which soweth spiritual things, may well reap temporal: yet of himself he saith that he did it not, nor would do it, and that he would rather die then loose this glory, to wit, of not 1. Cor. 9 having used his right therein. This was perfection in that glorious Apostle, but not obligation: and though it edify all, yet it bindeth not any to the necessary imitation thereof, but he that will; and the like we may say of the renowned fact of Bishop Firmus. His third example of Pagan writers he setteth down in these words out of Cicero. §. 7. 33. THERE was a man (saith he) who together with mine other prisoners, being dismissed Pag. 90. out of the prison of Carthage upon his oath, that he within a prefixed time should return again: As soon as he was out of prison he returned as though he had forgot something, and by & by departeth home to Rome, where he stayed beyond the time appointed, The case set down by Cicero of prisoners let forth upon their oath by Hannibal. answering that he was freed from his oath: but see now the opinion of his own Countryman (Cicero) concerning this Equivocation of return. This was not well done, saith Tully, for that craft in an oath, doth not lessen, but make the perjury more heinous. Wherefore the grave Senators of Rome sent this Coseming Lib. 3. mate back again to the prison of Hannibal their Officio. §. Regulus. enemy, from whom he had escaped. etc. 34. Thus relateth Morton the case, and then maketh this malicious conclusion against us: This was the honesty of the ancient heathenish Rome, which must rise up in judgement against this present Rome to condemn it, which hath changed that faithful Roman faith, in fidem Punicam, into Carthaginian faith, which now by custom of speech is taken for perfidiousness itself. And would not you think that Morton did hold himself very free from this perfidiousness, that objecteth the same so freely against us? And not only against us, but to the whole Church of Rome itself, and to the universal Catholic Religion conjoined therewith? Mark then the deportment of this man in this one point, and if you knew him not before learn to know him by this. 35. First then I would have some Grammerscholler Cic. lib. 3. Offic. §. Regulus & §. 〈◊〉 si. that studieth Tully's Offices, to turn to the places here quoted, and comparing them with that which this Minister setteth down in English, consider how they hang together, and how he picketh out one sentence in one place, & another in another, & leapeth forth and back to make some coherence of speech, contrary to the Author's order, sense, and method, as is ridiculous to behold, and fit for the Cozening mate of whom he talketh in his text. And secondly after this, is to be noted, that he setteth down the narration itself of ten men delivered upon their oath by Hannibal, not as Cicero doth out of two historio graphers Polybius and Accilius, and in particular against the faith of both their histories, and Tully's asseveration, which saith that those ten were dismissed by Hannibal out of his camp, post Cannensem pugnam, after the famous battle of Canna in Apulia, Morton ignorantly saith they were dismissed out of the prison of Carthage, whereas they of all likelihood had never seen Carthage in their lives. 36. But the most notorious Cozenage is, that he perverteth all Cicero his meaning, words, sense, and discourse in this matter, alleging them quite contrary to himself, as before you have heard him do many other Authors, so as he belieth and corrupteth them T. M. much pressed with Punica fides, about falsification. all, both profane and divine: And if in this one point he can deliver himself from Punica fides, I will say he playeth the man indeed. For first Cicero whom here he would seem to bring against us, doth fully agree with us, for that we say in the case of those ten Romans delivered by Hannibal upon their oath to return again, if they should not obtain that which they were sent for, (which was to persuade the Senate to redeem divers thousands of other Roman soldiers whom Hannibal had taken in the said victory at Canna) we hold I say first that if they swore absolutely to return again if they obtained not their suit they were bound truly to perform the same, and secondly, that they being now justly by law of arms prisoners of Hannibal, they were bound to swear sincerely to his intention, and not to any other reserved meaning of their own as in the former chapter hath been declared. And this very same doctrine also 〈◊〉 Cicero by light of nature in these words perfidiously cut of, and left out by this Minister Morton in the very same place, out of which he taketh the rest. 37. Est autem (saith he) ius etiam bellicum fidesque iurisiurandi saepe hosti servanda, quod enim ita iuratum est, ut mens conciperet fieri oportere, id seruandum est: quod aliter, id si non feceris, nullum periurium est. There is 〈◊〉 a law of arms (saith he) and a faith in our swearing to be observed oftentimes, even unto our enemy, for that which is so sworn by us, as our mind doth conceive that it must be done, that is to be observed: but if it be otherwise sworn, that is no perjury, if he perform it not. Behold here the very same distinction which Catholic Divines put down of swearing according Cicero most plain against T. M. and for Catho like Doctrine. to the intention, and understanding of the swearer, or of him to whom it is sworn, and that the former is that bindeth, and maketh perjury, if it be not performed, and not always the second, to wit, when any violence or force is used, which Cicero doth express in the very next immediate words by the self same example that Azor used 〈◊〉: Si praedonibus pactum pro capite pretium non attuleris, nulla fraus est, ne si iuratus quidem id non feceris, etc. non enim falsum jurare peierare est: Sed si ex animi tui sententia iuraveris sicut verbis concipitur more nostro, id non facere periurium est. Scitè enim 〈◊〉: juravi lingua, mentem iniuratam gero. If you should not pay the price or ransom unto public thieves, which was agreed between you for saving of your life, it is no deceit, no though you had sworn to perform it, for that perjury is not to swear false in any sort: But if you swear a thing which you determine in your mind, and do utter it in words according to the common custom of speech and do not perform it, this is perjury. For well and fitly to the purpose saith the Poet Euripides, I have sworn with my tongue, but my mind hath not sworn. So he. 38. And consider now here (I pray you) the Punica fides of our Minister against our Roman faith. He T Morton convinced of egregious cozenage. saith that Cicero, and other heathenish Romans shall rise up against us at the day of judgement, for that they condemn all 〈◊〉 or doubtful sense in an Oath, and do condemn it for perjury: whereas Cicero affirmeth that there is neither perjury, nor fraud therein. And the same Philosopher alloweth the very same example of swearing with a reserved intention to a public thief, without either meaning or obligation to perform it, which Morton objecteth to Azor in the precedent Chapter (though craftily, leaving out the words Latroni & Tyranno, for avoiding the force of this place, as before is noted) saying, that Azor did condemn for lyiug all such Equivocation against his subtle brethren, whereas he both affirmeth and proveth the same, no less than Cicero doth here in this place, as before hath been showed. Who then shall rise in judgement against Thomas Morton, for all this wilful lying? No doubt but Satan himself, that is the Father of liars in this life, and shall be their tormentor in the next. And so much about his sixth argument. His seventh argument taken from a sign, an interpreter, a coin, and Giges-ring. §. 8. 39 AT this argument I presume you laugh before you begin to read it, seeing it is only of comparisons, and similitudes: yet doth he enter into the same with this insulting preface. Now (saith he) that Pag. 〈◊〉. we have wrested your weapons out of your hands it will be easy to pierce you, even with similitudes, the bluntest kind of arguments. And then he beginneth to lay about him with these blunt weapons, saying out of his first comparison or similitude of signs: That where as voices and writings are by our confession signs, and instruments to express a proposition, and that every sign which is contrary to the signification is a lying sign, as an juy-bush at a Baker's door is a lying sign, idols in visible forms are lying vanities, miracles not proceeding from omnipotent power above nature, are lying wonders, the action of the stage-player lifting up his hand to heaven, and looking down with 〈◊〉 O earth, is a lying gesture: so is the voice of a priest, that saith, I am no priest, a lying voice, and the pen that defendeth this doctrine, a lying pen. This is all The first sign 〈◊〉 against himself. the force of this argument, which proving nothing as you see in itself, may be justly rejected, & answered with this other comparison not in similitude only, but substance of truth, that for a Minister to be taken in so many apparent lies, as before hath been 〈◊〉 down must needs be no lying, but a true sign of a false & lying spirit in that kind of men. And so much for this. 40. His second, third and fourth similitudes are yet more blunt. For in the scoend he saith: That as if the Pope should send his Nuntio with an Interpreter to congratulate our King, wishing him all health, & reserving in his mind, admodum exiguam very small health: and in the the third; That as clipping and impairing Three vain signs taken for arguments by T. M. the kings coin is high treason: so Equivocators by clipping of some words of their speech, which is the Image of God, are guilty of higher than highest treason. And in the fourth, that as Giges-ring when the pale was kept on the back side of his hand he was visible, but being turned to the palm of his hand, he was invisible: so (saith he) our Equivocator, when he shall happily turn his equivocating clause outward to manifest it in speech, he lieth openly and is easily known for a disloyal subject: but when he keepeth it close in his mind he is emboldened to practice against his King. So he. 41. And I think every man would condemn me of folly, if I should go about to spend time or more words in confuting so vain, and idle conceits, cast out only to entertain the Reader for lack of better matter, without ground or proof. Wherefore leaving to treat of these his blunt weapons any further, and of this first conclusion, which you see how bluntly he hath proved, or rather improved against himself; we shall pass to his second conclusion, which yet is more improbable, and absurd then the first, as by treating thereof will manifestly appear. Of his second conclusion and proofs thereof. §. 9 42. HAVING been longer about this first conclusion of T. M. then was intended at the beginning, we shall now endeavour to be much breifer about the second. Our second conclusion (saith he) is, that no manner of Equivocation, whether meant all or verbal, can be used in an oath without sacrilegious profanation: and then presently, as it were, forgetting himself what he had Pag. 85. said, he beginneth his Treatise with this plain contradiction to his own conclusion: We deny not (saith he) but ambiguous words may sometimes be used in common speech, for so we read of Athanasius, who flying Socrates, Sozomen, & alij. by ship the malice of the persecutor, and being overtaken was asked, did not 〈◊〉 pass this way? who answered, yea, he is a little before, if you make haste you may overtake him, whereupon the persecutor imagining that a little before must signify some other ship that went before, passed by and pursued a butterfly. 43. This is his narration, and the silly disputer (for in that name he seemeth to delight) hath not the discretion to see that this example overthroweth fully his former proposition. For if it were lawful for Saint Athanasius to use this Equivocation in speech and fact for deluding his persecutors; then had it been lawful also to swear the same without sacrilegious profanation, if they had urged him unto it. For as all Divines hold, that which may lawfully be said may also lawfully be sworn, what will T. M. answer tò this? what will he answer to that evasion of S. Paul mentioned by us before, when for escaping the hands of the jews, that pursued him in judgement, he used an apparent equivocal speech, saying; That his trouble Act. 23. was about the hope and resurrection of the dead. Paul knowing (saith the text) that one part of them that pursued him were of the Saducees, that denied the resurrection of the dead, and the other of pharisees that held the contrary, he cried out in the iudgement-place, saying: De spe & resurrectione mortuorum ego iudicor, I am called to judgement about the hope and resurrection of the dead, which was true in one sense, but false in another; whereby the pharisees being deceived, took his part, Et facta est contentio (saith the text) inter Pharisaeos & Saducaeos, & soluta est multitudo, and upon this equivocal speech there arose a dissension between the pharisees and Saducees, one interpreting it in one sense, and another in another, and so the people departing the judgement broke up. And what will Thomas Morton now answer to this? did S. Paul lie in this Equivocation? or was his dissimulation impious, for that one part was deceived? or had he committed 〈◊〉 profanation if he had sworn it? I demand him also of that equivocal oath of the Patriarch joseph, who in one conference with his brethren, did twice Gen. 42. swear unto them 〈◊〉 Equivocation, that is to say, with a reserved sense different from that he uttered to them in words, the Scripture saying: When his brethren T. M. 〈◊〉 to answer to 〈◊〉 equivocation used in an oath. had adored him, & he knowing them to be his brethren, spoke sharply unto them as to strangers, saying, you are spies sent to discover the strength of this land, I swear by the health of King Pharaoh, you shall not go hence, etc. And again: Per salutem Pharaonis, etc. I swear by the health of Pharaoh that you are spies, when notwithstanding he knew them not to be spies, & so thought of them in his mind. And will T. M. say, that this was a lie or at least a sacrilegious profanation of an oath? But I must go yet a little further in prosecution of this folly against the Minister. 44. What then will he say to all those former examples of Equivocal propositions, which I have alleged out of holy Scripture, out of the new Testamént, and from the mouth of our Saviour himself, especially such as have verbal equivocation in them: As, Dissolve this temple, and I will build it up again in three 〈◊〉. 2. days, where the word temple, hath evidently two significations, and was taken in the one by Christ our Saviour, & in the other by the jews. And the other, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth And again, The maid is not joan. 〈◊〉. deed, but sleepeth; where the word sleepeth is equivocal, 〈◊〉. 5. and hath two significations, the one of death, the other of natural sleep, and Christ understood it in the one, and his hearers in the other. And so the like 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉. where Christ said unto the jews: Abraham vidit diem meum, & gavisus est: Abraham did see my day, and did rejoice, the word see is equivocal, and signifieth either seeing in flesh, or seeing in spirit, and the jews being deceived with the equivocation of the word, understood it in one sense, and Christ in another, whereupon they said unto him: Thou hast not yet fifty years of age, and hast thou seen Abraham? And thereupon took stones to cast at him. 45. And the very like example is of our saviours 〈◊〉. 4. speech unto the Samaritan at Jacob's well, by the City of Sychar. If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me water, thou wouldst ask of him, and he would give thee living water, where the word water being equivocal, signifieth both the element of water, and heavenly grace, which is the water of life everlasting: which Equivocation the woman not 〈◊〉 ex 〈◊〉 of scripture that allow as well verbal as mental equivocation. understanding, took it in the common sense of natural water, and asked him how he could give her water, for so much as he had no bucket to draw it up in: but Christ our Saviour addeth an other equivocal speech to her, saying, That he which shall drink of the water, which I will give him, shall never thirst more, where not only the word water, but the word thirst also is equivocal, & hath two different senses, whereby the woman deceived, said, Give me (I pray) of this water that I may thirst no more, nor come hither to draw, understanding still of material water. 46. Now I would demand, that for so much as all these speeches were manifestly equivocal, and had double senses, and significations, and that 〈◊〉 each one of them the hearers were deceived, conceiving another sense then that which Christ mentally reserved to himself, I would demand (I say) whether notwithstanding this, they were not true of themselves, and whether Christ might not as well swear them as speak them. And if Thomas Morton will have many examples together, wherein Christ our Saviour after his manner of swearing (which is Amen amen dico vobis) doth swear or avouch by oath, sundry equivocal propositions; let him look upon the later part of the sixth Chapter of S. john; where Christ doth put the Antithesis between himself and Moses, and between the bread that Moses gave from heaven, & that which he was to give, being his own flesh, and between the life that Manna gave, and that which his flesh was to give, and he shall find many equivocal propositions, both verbal, and mental, avouched by our Saviour under this kind of oath, repeated at least three or four times in that matter. One example of each kind shall suffice. 47. When he saith Amen amen dico vobis, qui credit in me babet vitam aeternam, Truly, truly, I say unto you, that he who believeth in me hath life everlasting, this is a mental reserved proposition, as before hath been showed, for that it is not true generally that every one that believeth in Christ hath life everlasting, but he that believeth accordingly, which was reserved in Christ's mind; and then the words immediately following, Ego sum panis vitae, I am the bread of life, have a Examples of equivocation sworn by our Saviour. verbal equivocation, signifying of bread that gave temporal life or spiritual life, as also the other words that ensue: Your Fathers did eat manna in the desert and are dead, but he that shall eat of this bread, shall not die. Dying here signifieth either the death of the body, or the death of the soul, and Christ meant of the later 〈◊〉 the jews of the first. Nay which is more to be observed, as Euthymius noteth and some other, Christ himself without explicating his own meaning, in one part of the sentence, meant of the one sort of death, and in the other part, of the other. For where he saith, Your Fathers in the desert did eat Manna and are dead, he meaneth there of the temporal death of the body, and in the other clause of the Antithesis, But he that shall eat of this bread shall not die, he meant of the eternal death of the soul, though others also refer it to the eternal life of the body, after resurrection. 48. In like manner that sentence of our Saviour to the young man in S. Matthwes' Gospel; dimit mortuos Matth. 〈◊〉. sepelire mortuos, Suffer the dead to bury the dead, hath a plain equivocation; Christ understanding in the former those that were dead in spirit, and in the second dead in body, and yet was this no Cozenage nor deceit in our Saviour, nor had it been sacrilegious impiety to swear it. All which being so, & we having tantam nubem testium, as S. Paul saith, so great a cloud of witnesses, and these omni exceptione maiores, without exception for their credit, and the absurdity and folly of this second proposition appearing so manifest in itself, as it doth: what should we stand to examine the arguments and reasons that may be brought for it by so fond a disputer, as now Tho. Morton is proved to be? For so much as no reason can serve for upholding a paradox so ridiculous as this is, even to common sense. And yet for that he putteth down four arguments, or reasons for the same as before hath been said, let us see briefly what they are. 49. His first argument for this conclusion is drawn from the form of an oath, set down by us before, and here again alleged by him out of Tolet and other Authors of ours (for of his own he seemeth to have 〈◊〉:) That an oath is a religious invocation of God, either Tolet lib. 4. Instruc. cap. 20. expressly, or by impluation for witness of our speech, and the words 〈◊〉 or implicitè are added, for that when we swear by creatures we swear by them in respect of the truth of God that is in them, and so by God himself implicitè. 50. Now then out of this principle T. M. taketh upon him to prove this proposition; That whensoever, or to whom 〈◊〉 we swear, we are bound in conscience to answer A false principle and general proposition. directly, that is to say, to swear to his intention, to whom we swear, which we have proved before by general consent of Divines & lawyers to be false, and Cicero himself hath so determined the case in like manner, as you have heard, when a man should be compelled to swear to thieves: but yet let us hear how Tho. Morton will prove this his new and strange divinity. His syllogism is this in his own words. The competency of God (saith he) by whom we Pag. 〈◊〉. swear, maketh every one competent judges, and The absurd 〈◊〉 of T. M. neither true in form nor 〈◊〉. hearers to whom we swear. But by swearing by God wheme we cannot deceive, we Religiously protest that in swearing we intent not to deceive. Ergo, Our deceipfull Equivocating is a profanation of the Religious worship of God. 51. This syllogism I leave to be discussed by Cambridge Logicians, where I hear say the man learned his logic (if he have any) for here he showeth very little or none at all, no boy being among us of four months standing in Logic or Sophistry which will not hiss at this argument, both for form and matter. For as for form, it is toto ridiculous, the syllogism having no medium terminum, at all, nor the conclusion any coherence with the premises nor with his chiefest purpose that he would prove: nay, which is most absurd, whereas according to Aristotle (whom as you have heard T. M. termeth the Oracle of Logicians) a good Syllogism hath only three terminos, whereof the one is called Mayor extremus, the other Minor Arist. lib. 1. Prior. extremus, and the third Medius terminus; this syllogism resolute. of his hath six terminos, and whereas the Medius 〈◊〉. 1. terminus should be repeated in the Mayor and Minor propositions, & the conclusion should consist only of the extremes, as if a man should say: Every man is a living Creature: Peter is a man; Ergo, Peter is a living Creature. here the word man is medius terminus, and so repeated in the Mayor and Minor proposition; Peter, and living creature are the two extremes, whereof is framed the third proposition or conclusion by connexion of the said extremes by virtue of the medius terminus that hath part in them both. 52. But now Thomas morton's syllogism hath no such medius terminus, nor any such connexion of his propositions together, but every one of them hath his extremes, The faults of 〈◊〉. morton's syllogism to wit, his 〈◊〉 and praedicatum separately, not one depending of the other, and consequently it is no syllogism or argument at all, concluding any thing in form, no more than this syllogism. Every man is a living Creature: Every ox is a fourfooted beast; Ergo, Every Ass hath two long ears. Where you see that there be six termini, as in Tho. morton's syllogism, without connexion, or dependence one of the other. And as much concludeth this as that. And now compare this his skill (I pray you) with that brag of his in the beginning of this his Treatise against Equivocation, when he said to his adversary: Pag. 53. Dare you appeal to Logic? This is the art of arts, and the high tribunal of reason and truth itself, which no man in any matter, whether it be case of humanity, or divinity, can justly refuse, who would not think but that the man were very skilful in that art, wherein he presumeth to give such a Censure? 53. But now let us help him out to make his foresaid syllogism in form. It should have gone thus, if he would have said any thing in true form. The competency of God by whom we swear maketh every one competent judges to whom we swear: But in every oath we swear by God, either expressly or implicatively: Ergo in every Oath they are competent judges to whom we swear. And then by an other inference again he might The syllogism of T. M. brought into form have argued, that unto every competent and lawful judge we have confessed before, that a man is bound to answer directly, and to swear to his intention, and not only to his own, Ergo, in no oath to whomsoever, may a man Equivocate, which is his principal proposition. And thus had his form of reasoning been good, according to the rules of Logic, though in matter it had ●yn false, as now also it is. For that his first Mayor proposition can never be proved, to wit, That the competency of God by whom we swear maketh every one competent judges to whom we swear, that is to say, for so much as God by whom we swear is competent judge of all, this maketh every one to whom we swear by God, to be our competent and lawful judge, which is most absurd, even in common sense. For that a man may swear (for example) to a thief or murderer by God, for saving of his life, as also to a common quean, yea, and to the devil himself, and yet this maketh not the murderer, the quean, or the devil to be his competent, and lawful judge, or giveth lawful jurisdiction, so as he is bound to answer directly to whatsoever they demand, or swear to their intention if he should be compelled by them. And the like in other such examples whereof every man may frame infinite store unto himself, at his pleasure: and the reason of this is, that albeit in every oath God be lawful and supreme judge, to discern whether I have a true meaning of mine Oath in my mind: yet this doth not make the other to whom I swear my lawful judge, except otherwise he hath jurisdiction over me, for that this absurdity, among infinite others would follow, that if a King should swear to his Kitchin-boy by God, he should thereby make his said Kitchin-boy his lawful and competent judge, and to have jurisdiction over him, both to examine and command him, and bind him in conscience under sin to answer him directly: which how great a folly and absurdity it is, each man that hath reason will easily of himself consider. Wherefore having showed this, let us now hear and comtemplate (if you please) how Tho. Mor. himself will prove his said Mayor proposition, for it is like he will do it substantially, it being the foundation of all his whole drift. 54. The Mayor (saith he) is true, for that our Saviour in avouching truth, held Pilate a competent judge, though he did not proceed 〈◊〉, but falsely. S. Paul in his cause appealed to Caesar's tribunall-seate, who was a Pagan. jacob did covenant with Laban an idolater: and the maid to whom S. Peter swore, was competent enough to hear a true oath, if he had been as ready to swear truly: and yet neither the maid, nor that judge did proceed iuridicè, for she was no lawful examiner, and he was a partial judge. So he. And this is his wise discourse, wherein the man descryeth himself fully what is in him, and that in truth, he doth not understand the very terms in the subject, whereof he treateth For we mean by a competent judge, or hearer, and so do all Devynes and Lawyers, that understand what they speak, a judge that hath lawful Who is a lawful judge 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with authority. jurisdiction over him that sweareth, & may compel him to swear, and to utter the truth sincerely under mortal sin. And when we say, that he must proceed iuridicè, it is understood, that he must proceed according to form of law, prescribed by Ecclesiastical Canons or Civil Decrees. Now then according to this explication, to say that Pilate was lawful judge upon Christ, so as he was bound in conscience to answer all his demands, I marvel how Thomas Morton will prove it: and yet were it nothing to the purpose, for that Christ is not read to have sworn to Pilate. And as for S. Paul's appealing to Cesar, which at that time was Nero, & Jacob's covenant with Laban an idolater, what doth it make to our purpose, for that here is no swearing mentioned, nor do we deny, but that an Infidel, or Pagan may be a lawful judge over faithful people in secular causes, if otherwise they have lawful temporal jurisdiction. 55. But of all other jests, is most pleasant his conceit of the Maid, to whom S. Peter swore, or rather forswore his master, that she was his competent judge, or hearer therein, if he had been ready to swear truly, though presently he contradicteth himself saying, that she was no lawful examiner, which is false, if she were a competent hearer or judge, which he seemeth to grant, though he say she proceeded not iuridicè, that is according to form of law, with S. Peter in his examination; whereof ensueth that she had lawful jurisdiction over him, though the execution thereof were not juridical: & can any thing be more ridiculous than this? 56. And yet all this notwithstanding having set down so vain and childish a discourse as this is, he assumeth unto himself the person of a very grave wise man against us, using these contemptuous words in the next paragraph ensuing: These our Equivocators Pag 〈◊〉. (saith he) do by their new subtilities foolefy the honest simplicity of their ancient School, the two eyes whereof Lombard and Lomb. 3. d. 39 lit. K D. Th. 2. 2. q. 69. ar. 1. Aquinas saw 〈◊〉 in this kind of swearing an horrible profanation of the sacred name of Almighty God. here you hear him talk of foolefying, let us see then his wisdom. First I ask him wherein we foolefy the simplicity of our ancient School. He allegeth some sentences out of Peter Lombard, as also out of some others, to show that fraud and deceit is not to be used in an oath, as also Isidor. 2. de summo bonoca. 13. out of S. Isidore, alleged by Lombard, and the like out of S. Hierome to show that fraud, deceit or subtlety Hier. in. 7. is not to be used in swearing, which is plainly to be Ezech. understood when the judge is competent, and proceedeth competently, for unto a thief, murderer, pirate, or tyrant you have heard before how 〈◊〉 hath determined that it is not fraus; and in this very S. Tho. alleged by Tho. M. against himself. place of S. Thomas by Thomas Morton alleged, the said Doctors words are: That if a judge, though otherwise lawful, should require any thing which by order of law he cannot, the party accused is not bound to answer at all (and much less directly to his meaning) meaning) but may either by appeal, or other means, deliver himself by evasion, though he may not speak a lie. So S. Thomas. And what wise man doth not see, but that this maketh quite against Thomas Morton. First if it be lawful unto the defendant not to answer at all, even to a competent and lawful judge, when he proceedeth not according to form of law, then much less is he bound to answer or swear directly to his intention in that case, but may use any lawful evasion by doubtful speech or otherwise, which is directly against our adversaries conclusion, so little doth he discern when he allegeth authorities flatly against himself. 57 And now by the full discussion of this first proof of his conclusion, we may imagine what might be said, if with like diligence we would examine the other three that remain, to wit from the end of an oath, à maiori, & à paribus, for as for the end of an oath, To his other 3. arguments for his second conclusion. which is to put an end to contention, it is not hindered by the use of Equivocation, where law permitteth the same, and I do not doubt but that T. Morton hath egregiously abused both in this and other places, the Catholic manuscript Treatise against which he writeth, by setting down certain palpable absurdities, which is impossible to be there in the manner that he setteth them down. And for that I find him to belie all kind of Authors commonly, which he citeth, I must presume the same of this until we find the contrary by viewing the Treatise itself which I shortly hope for. 58. But now to his third argument à minore: That jesuitical Pag. 59 〈◊〉 is less honest than the doctrine of Infidels and Pagans, proceedeth of less wit, I suppose, than malice, Eman. Sà in Aphor. tit, suramentum. seeing that for proof thereof he citeth only this sentence of Emanuel Sà the jesuit: jurans redire in carcerem, etc. He that sweareth to return into his prison (except he were injustly detained) is bound even with the peril of his life to return to the same prison, yea, and some are of opinion that albeit he were injustly imprisoned, yet ought he to return, except his oath were released by the Bishop. Mark this authority, whether it do prove the doctrine of Jesuits to be worse than that of Infidels and Pagans': the ministers malice in citing this determination of Emanuel Sà jesuit alludeth to the place of Cicero before mentioned, and is alleged by him immediately after in this place: but you have heard that Cicero is quite against him; and fully maketh with us, first that a man Cic. 3. office 〈◊〉 sup. being justly detained in prison, as those ten Romans are presumed to have been that were let forth upon their oath by Hannibal (to return if they could not effectuate their business) is bound in conscience to return again, which is the first part of this speech of Emanuel Sà. 59 Secondly, that if he be injustly detained, & made prisoner as by thieves, pirates, tyrants, or the like, Cicero saith, he is not bound to return, albeit he had sworn it. Sà the jesuit saith, that some are of opinion, that he ought notwithstanding to return, except his oath be dispensed by the Bishop. here than we agree fully with Cicero the pagan, adding also some further restraint as you see, and now then is Morton so shameless as to say and put in print upon this authority of Sà, that jesuitical doctrine in this matter, is less honest than the doctrine of Infidels or Pagans? Is this honesty in a Minister? but especially in him, that professeth himself a Minister of simple truth? but such is his truth, and such is his simplicity, as in his Ministry. Let us draw to an end. 60. His last argument à paribus whereby he compareth To his last argument. us to the heretic Arius, and unto his dissimulation in Religion, may better fall upon himself and his fellows who more nearly do follow the spirit and steps of that and other ancient heretics, and principally in this one point of varying one from an other and among themselves, and changing their opinions so often and frequently, as that which is noted by Tertullian in the heresies of his days, That every year Tertul. li. de praese. cont. haereses. brought forth a new faith. And this may be seen in the number of sects, that have risen in this age from Lutber downward, which are come to be so many in effect, as scarcely they can be numbered, and a hard matter it is to bring them to any certainty of sentence, when they are pressed, but do dissemble, equivocate, and lie with such facility, as scarcely any thing can be proved against them, whereof among many others before mentioned, we have had a good example of Tho. Morton himself in this and the precedent Chapters, and shall have of some more of his fellows in the next. Thomas morton's conclusion and Apostolical defence by protestations against lying. 61. And yet as though he were a great, and sincere lover of truth, he entitleth the last paragraph of his Treatise thus: This our Apostolical defence of Protestants I will conclude with the protestations of the Apostle, I say the truth, & lie not my conscience bearing me witness etc. And again: God the Father of our Lord jesus Christ knoweth that I lie not. Rom. 9 And yet further to his scholar Timothy: I speak the truth 2. Cor. 11. and lie not. And finally to the Galathians; This that I write 1. Tim. 2. unto you, behold I witness before God, and lie not. Galat. 1. 62. And now consider here I pray you, Thomas morton's Apostolical defence by protestations, which more truly perhaps may be called Apostatical, for that he who shall read the monstrous multitude of his malicious and wilful lies, which have been discovered, and laid open through out his book, and especially in the second, sixth, and this Chapter, and withal hear him make these solemn protestations against lying, must needs think that rather the spirit of Apostasy than Apostleship doth possess his tongue, pen, and heart, that speaketh, writeth, and protesteth so desperately, and directly against his deeds, knowledge and Conscience: which thing that you may the better understand, I am content to adjoin also this next ensuing chapter for better proof, and confirmation thereof. OF TWO SORTS OF EQVIVOCATION. The one true and lawful; the other false, and sinful. And that Catholics only use the first in certain cases, and with due circumstances, and limitations: But T. M. and his fellows impugning the first, do use ordinarily the second, which is false & lying Equivocation indeed. CHAP. XII. HITHERTO we have declared, and made manifest (as I suppose) that all Equivocation is not lying, both for that the definition of a lie agreeth not there unto, & for that Christ himself, and many of his servants both in the old and new Testament have upon just occasions used the same, and the common consent of Catholic Devynes and Lawyers have allowed, and confirmed the lawfulness thereof in certain Cases, with due and just circumstances, and considerations. 2. But now must we further distinguish the same into two different sorts or kinds, the one proper, according to the true nature of Equivocation before defined, which though it may seem to have falsity in it, and sometimes also hath in deed, in respect of the words only or understanding of the hearer: yet always hath it truth in respect of the speakers meaning. The other sort is improperly called Equivocation, for that no way it is true, & therefore his proper name in deed is a lie, though after a large & improper manner, it may be called also Equivocation for the reason which after we shall declare. 3. Now then both of those kinds of Equivocation Two 〈◊〉 of Equivocations 〈◊〉 their 〈◊〉. are subdivided again each one into two sorts, for that true Equivocation may be either verbal or mental, as before hath been showed. Verbal is that, when any word or speech hath either naturally, or by peculiar custom of particular language, two or more significations, as out of Aristotle hath 〈◊〉 declared. Mental Equivocation is, when any speech hath, or may have a double sense, not by any double signification, or composition of the words themselves, but only by some reservation of mind in the speaker, whereby his meaning is made different from that sense which the words that are uttered do bear, or yield without that reservation. And of both these sorts of Equivocations that they are lawful, and free from Cap. 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. falsity, and may be used without sin in certain cases before specified, we have now laid forth so many examples out of Scriptures and Fathers in the precedent Chapters, as it were a needles work to name them here again. 4. Wherefore all our speech in this place shall be about the second kind of Equivocation, which is false and lying, and thereby also ever unlawful; which False and lying Equivocation though not properly, yet in a general manner may be called Equivocation, as I have said, for that the hearer is always wrongfully deceived, or intended to be deceived by some falsity, which is known to be such by the speaker, and consequently is plain lying: and for that lying hath been showed also before to be divided into two sorts, the one a material lie, when the thing spoken is false in itself, but not so understood 〈◊〉 c. 7. by the speaker, the other a formal lie when the speaker doth know it, or think it to be false, and yet speaketh it. This kind of Equivocation which really is a lie, must have also the same subdivision, so as the one sort thereof may be called a material lying Equivocation, and the other a formal: and so much worse, as a formal lie is in itself (which always is sin) than a material (which oftentimes may be without sin of the speaker:) by so much is a formal lying Equivocation worse, than a material. We shall give examples of both that shall make all plain. 5. If one should say to me that my Father is dead, thinking in deed that he is dead, though he be a live, it were a material lie, as before hath been declared, for that in deed my Father is not dead, though he perhaps that made the lie may have said it without sin, for that he thought it so: and I say (perhaps) for that in some case ignorance could not excuse him, if it were a matter whereof he were bound to know the truth, & might with diligence have learned the same. But if he should say, my Father is dead, knowing in deed that he is not dead, and meaning to deceive me thereby, this is a formal lie and always sinful, either venial or mortal, according to the importance of the matter, wherein the lie is made. And conform to this may be the division also as is said of lying Equivocation. 6. Examples of the first may be these, and other like: An Arian delivereth to the people those words of joan. Christ, Pater meus maior me est, My Father is greater than I, understanding it heretically according to their Material false 〈◊〉. meaning of the very Godhead: this is an Equivocation, and in his sense is false, and consequently ally, for that the hearer is deceived, and yet because the speaker thinketh it to be true, the lie is but material in the Arian, and not formal, and in that respect less sin then if it were formal: but yet is it damnable by another way, for that this error, as hath been said, being wilfully defended against the Church is not excusable. The other sort of false Equivocation called formal, is when the hearer conceiveth any false thing upon the speech of another, which other knoweth it also a be false, and so uttereth a lie against his own knowledge, and conscience. As for example: If Formal false equivocation what it is. a preacher in England who in deed is no Protestant in heart, should preach Protestant doctrine that is false, and himself should think it also to be false (as divers perhaps do) this were to Equivocate both falsely and formally, which is the worst kind of lying Equivocation that may be, and this is that which I say that Thomas Morton and his fellows, who inveigh bitterly every where against true and lawful Equivocation, do use almost at every turn. 7. As for example when he saith, No one iota of Scripture, Formal lying equi 〈◊〉 in T. M. no one example in all antiquity, no one reason in the natural wit of man, no one Author Greek or Latin, no one Father, no any Pope Christian or Antichristian, doth make for Equivocation as we defend it, or any colour thereof: neither did they so much as fancy any such thing. here is first seen a notorious untruth of the assertion itself, & consequently it is a material lie, and material Equivocation; for that the matter delivered is untrue, and secondly it is most probable that Th. Morton must needs know it to be a lie; having seen so many Authors & reasons alleged for it by the Catholic Treatise, which he pretendeth to confute; whereof it followeth, that it was a formal lie also, and a formal lying Equivocation in the highest degree of deceit and falsehood. 8. And so in like manner in the former Chapter when he allegeth Azor, Dominicus Sotus, and Cicero directly against their own meaning, words and drift in the very same places, which he citeth, and taketh words out of them for his pretended purpose, he could not but see, and know that it was a lie, to city them to the contrary, and yet he thought best to do it, and tell his Reader that they were of a contrary opinion: this than is formally to lie and equivocate in the worst and superlative degree of false Equivocation. 9 About which point the Reader may be remitted to the second Chapter of this Treatise, and last paragraph thereof, where he shall see divers examples laid together; as among other, that which he reporteth of the death of our English Pope Adrian choked (as he saith) with a fly, and citeth Nauclerus for the same, who though he mention, yet refuteth expressly that fable, which T. M. concealed, where he is showed in like manner to corrupt notably a passage of Doctor Boucher, avouching him to say that which he expressly impugneth about the kill of a Tyrant by a private T. Mortons' talents in lying equi vocation. man, and private authority. And the like corruption he is convinced to have used in citing Gratian the Collector of the canon-laws, and his Glosses, perverting their words, and whole sense, as is there set down, with sundry other examples, which show that the man did not lie of error or oversight, but merely out of malice to deceive the simple and credulous Reader, knowing indeed, that he did lie. And the same is demonstrated by many examples most apparent, and evident throughout the whole sixth Chapter of this book, and other places: so as if we had no other proof of this spirit, but in Tho. Morton himself, it were sufficient to prove our purpose, for that of all other lightly of his coat, he profesleth most innocency, simplicity, and sincerity in this behalf, and by this doth principally prove our purpose, which is, that they equivocate and lie, both wittingly and willingly, and then most of all, when they make greatest protestation of truth. 10. As when T. M. talketh of his naked innocency in his epistle to the King's Majesty, of 〈◊〉 Equivocation from his soul, of styling himself A Minister of simple truth: and finally his usurping of those protestations of Saint Paul before mentioned, That in all things he spoke the truth, and lied not, which Thomas Morton, as we 〈◊〉 have proved before, could not choose but know to be a wilful lie in deed, having seen & read the Authors which so manifestly he belieth, as never in this he will be able to clear himself. And hereof we do finally infer that he and his do equivocate in the worst kind, which by us & ours is never used: and so while he declameth against lawful Equivocation, and practiseth unlawful, he showeth himself a plain prevaricator. And for that this matter is of so great importance for the Reader well to conceive in these days of controversies between us, I mean to stay myself somewhat in this Chapter upon this point, and to show that indeed it is a substantial sign, distinctive between all Sectaries & us, at this time, and that in matters of controversy our writers shall never be found guilty in these kinds of false lying & malicious equivocations, where not only untruth is uttered, but it is wittingly also uttered, the writer knowing that he writeth untruth, as often now hath been said. Which manner of dealing inferreth two points; the one that such a writer or speaker hath no conscience that uttereth things against his own knowledge, and which God seeth to be false, and falsely meant in his heart, and the other that his cause hath no ground of substantial truth, which cannot be defended without such wilful lies. 11. In this than if you please let us insist a while, and let Thomas Morton bring forth any Catholic Authors whatsoever, that wrote against protestāns since these heresies began, that hath been taken in this impiety, I mean, that hath set down in print any such falsity, as cannot be excused either by ignorance, oversight, negligence, error of print, translation, diversity of editions, or the like, but that it must needs be presumed that he knew the untruth, and yet would set it forth: of this kind (I say) let him show me but one example among all Catholic writers of our time, and I will in my conscience greatly mistrust, and discredit the Author, whether it be another, or myself: But if he show me two or three in any writer of this kind I shall never be able to believe him more. And whereas the number and variety of Catholic writers is so great as the world seeth, it were no great labour to show it in some, if that spirit did reign among them, as it doth in Protestant writers, out of whom great volumes might be framed of this one point, if a man would embrace them all throughout all nations: But I meaning to speak of Englishmen, and those very few in respect of the multitude, and not having all their works by meat this present, am forced only to use some few notes taken heretofore out of their books, which notwithstanding shall suffice for this short view, which we pretend. And for better method & memory, I have thought good to reduce my Notes at this time to three sorts of men, that have written against us. First Protestant Bishops; then Ministers, and lastly Lay-men, but of good sort, I mean, Knights; and of each one of these shall we make our several Paragraphes. The use of Equivocation in some Protestant English Bishops. §. 1. 12. AND first in this rank may we worthily put in the first and chief place, M. john jewel called afterwards Bishop of Salisbury, who being the first and chiefest man that in the beginning of Queen elizabeth's M. john jewel B. of Salisbury. reign, took upon him the public defence of Calvin's doctrine in England, and was named by many for that respect, The jewel and primrose of that Gospel, had primitias spiritus in that behalf, for cunning and artificial deluding of others by these kind of false, and deceiving Equivocations, as both by his words, works, preachings, and protestations, extant this day in print, is most manifest, and the conversion of many men, from Protestant to Catholic Religion, upon sight and consideration thereof, hath evidently covinced, whereof here we mean to give some brief taste for examples sake. 13. He then, as well in his Sermons at Paul cross, and the Court, set forth afterward in print, and answered as well by Doctor Harding, as other learned men of the Catholic party, did make such a general and universal challenge against all Catholics whatsoever, for proof of 28. several articles, framed out by himself, standing in controversy between us, as he made the world to wonder at him, and divers of his own side that were more learned and discreet, to murmur at his rashness therein; but many more with great disdain to condemn his hypocrisy. For thus he began. 14. O merciful God, who would think there Master jewels challenge and hypocritical apostrophe in his printed sermon. could be so much wilfulness in the heart of man! O Gregory, O Augustine, O Hierome, O Chrysostome, O Leo, O Dionyse, O 〈◊〉, O Sixtus, O Paul, O Christ! if we be deceived herein you are they that have deceived us: you have taught us these schisms & divisions; you have taught us these heresies. etc. and that you may Fol. 41. the more marvel at the wilfulness of such men, (the Papists) they stand this day against so many old Fathers, so many Doctors, so many examples of the primitive Church, so manifest Scriptures, and yet have they herein not one Father, not one Doctor, not one allowed example of the primitive Church, I speak not this in vehemency of spirit, or heat of talk, but even as before God by way of simplicity and truth, lest any of you should happily be deceived, and think there is more weight in the other side, then in conclusion there shallbe found, and therefore once again I say of all the words of the holy Scriptures, of all the examples of the Primitive Church, of all the old Fathers, of all the ancient Doctors in these causes, they have not one. Thus in that Sermon at Paul's cross, and in an other at the Court of the same subject, which was the occasion and beginning of all the Combat that ensued afterwards between Catholic men and him. 15. And in another Sermon to the same effect he useth this speech for confirmation of his former protestation. here (saith he) the matter itself that I have now in hand, putteth me in remembrance of certain things that I uttered unto you to the same purpose at my last being in this place, I remember I laid out then before you a number of things, that are now in Controversy, whereunto our adversaries will not yield; And I said perhaps boldly as it might then seem to some man, but as I myself, and the learned Singular 〈◊〉. of our Adversaries themselves do well know, sincerely and truly, that none of them all that stand this day against us, are able or * Yet afterwards he denieth divers Doctors that make against 〈◊〉. shall ever be able to prove against us, any one of all these points, either by Scriptures, or by example of the primitive Church, or by the old Doctors, or by the ancient general councils etc. 16. And again. Loath I am to trouble you with rehearsal of such things, as I have spoken before, and yet because the case so requireth, I shall desire you, that have already heard me, to bear with me in this behalf, better it were to trouble your ears with twice hearing of one thing, then to betray the truth of God. The words I then spoke, as near as I can call them to mind were these; that if any learned man of all our Adversaries, or if all the learned men that be alive be All the learned men alive cannot bring one sentence. able to bring any one sufficient sentence out of any old Catholic Doctor, or Father out of any one old General Council, out of the holy Scriptures of God, or any one example of the primitive Church, whereby any of these ensuing articles, of private Mass real presence, Primacy of the Bishop of Rome, setting up and honouring of Images, Common prayer in a strange language, offering up Christ in sacrifice etc. may be proved, I am content to yield and subscribe etc. 17. And again in an other place: My offer was this In his first answer to Doctor Coles letter fol. 4. (in my sermon at the Court:) that if any of all those things that I then rehearsed could be proved by your side, by any sufficient authority, either of Scriptures, Counsels, or by any one allowed example etc. I would yield: now it standeth upon you to prove but one example to the contrary. In his second answer to D Cole fol. 13. And yet further in an other place in my Sermon (saith he) at Paul's, and else where, I required you to bring forth on your part, either some Scripture, or some old Doctor, or some ancient Council, etc. and if you of your part would vouchsafe to bring but two Ibid. fol. 〈◊〉. lines, the whole matter were concluded. And yet further, I protest before God, bring me but one sufficient Ibid. fol. 26. authority, or one old Doctor, on your side, and I In his reply to D. Coles last letter fol. 44. will yield etc. At least you should have alleged Augustine, Ambrose, Chrysostome, Hierome, etc. I have offered you oftentimes bring me but two lines of your side, Ibid. fol. 65. and the field is yours etc. O M. Doctor deal simply in God's cause, and say you have Doctors when you Ibid. fol. 112. have them indeed. 18. This and much more hath he to this effect, all tending to show his rare confidence in the Protestant cause, which he defended: but yet that he did not speak as he thought, in these matters, and that his judgement did not concur with his tongue and pen, and consequently, that he did Equivocate in this worse sort of Equivocation, many arguments do mightily persuade me, and especially these half dozen that follow. sixth arguments of Master jewel his hypocrisy in this case. §. 2. 19 FIRST for that he cannot be presumed to have been so ignorant, but that how soever he might The first reason. think of the Scriptures, that by his private interpretations he could shift them of, and deliver himself from their Authority: yet that the Fathers could not so easily be dispached, whereof he had seen the proof but few years before, in the disputation held in Oxford with B. Cranmer, Ridley, and Latymer, upon the 16. 17. and 18. days of April in the year of Christ 1554. in which disputation, M. jewel as Fox saith, was Notary among others, and saw so many most evident testimonies, of ancient Fathers, both Greek and Latyn alleged there, and urged against them, as they could no ways answer, or handsomely shift of, as you may see in Fox himself, though never so partially related, but much more orderly & fully in a special See in the end of the second part of the examen of Fox his Calendar parag. 5. Treatise, written of late of that matter entitled, A Review of ten public disputations, about Religion, under the reigns of K. Edward and Queen Marie: which evidency of testimony did work so greatly with M. jewel himself, as after these disputations ended, he subscribed publicly in S. Mary-Church of Oxford to the Roman Catholic doctrine in that behalf, as M. Doctor Harding then present writeth to himself, in a special Epistle prefixed before his Rejoinder: which being so, with what conscience, could he say now so soon after; Show me one only Father, one Doctor, one place, one sentence, two lines and the like? for so much as lately before he had heard and registered so great a multitude of Father's sentences, that are yet extant in those disputations; wherefore this must needs be Equivocation of the worst kind, which could not be true, neither in the meaning of the speaker himself. 20. The second reason is, that M. jewel could not be The second reason. ignorant, that divers ancient Fathers within the time by him limited, had not only many sentences for the Catholic part in these heads of controversies alleged by him, and others, but whole discourses also, homilies, sermons, chapters, and treatises, if not books thereof. As for example about the real presence, if he had read the Fathers he could not be ignorant of the main multitude of large authorities, alleged in these our days aswell by Bishop Claudius de Saints, as Bellarmin and others about that matter, not out of See Bellarm. lib. 2. de Eucharisti●. single, or doubtful sentences, but of whole discourses, as hath been said, and those as effectually written by the Authors for the truth of the real presence, as we can do in a manner now, as namely S. Cyprian, S. Hilary, both Cyril's, S. Ambrose, S. Basil, three Gregory's, Saint Chrysostome, S. Hierome, and others downward. And the like multitude, or more, is alleged for the Mass or daily sacrifice of the Catholic Church by the same Author. And further no man can deny, but that S. Augustine for example, hath many large discourses, treatises, or Books directly tending to the proof of divers points now in controversy, between Protestants and us, as De cura pro mortuis habenda. De libero arbitrio. De fide & operibus. De nuptiis & concupiscentia, & many others, where he doth largely, and of purpose impugn divers Protestant opinions, and confirm ours both about the valour of the Mass, or daily sacrifice for quick and dead, merit of works and the like, not only approving, but proving also the same by great variety of Scriptures. And the like doth S. Hierome against jovinian and Vigilantius, and S. Epiphanius against Aërius, and other heretics that held the same proposition that Protestants do now. All which authorities, if M. jewel had read or heard of them (as may be presumed he had) how then could he say with any conscience at all, Bring me one Author, one Father, one Doctor, one sentence, one place, or two lines, and the like, which he could not do without notable Equivocation as you see, himself knowing that he spoke falsely in that behalf. 21. The third reason is that M. jewel could not The third reason. but have seen and considered the small account which other Protestant writers more elder than himself had made, and did make of the ancient Fathers, when in any thing they were against their opinions, nay their rejecting of them with contempt, doth evidently show that they held them for their adversaries. As for example M. jewel beginneth his challenge, as you remember: O Gregory! O Augustine! O Hierome! O Chrysostome! O Leo! O Dionyse! etc. Now as for S. Gregory, Calvin Calvin ad c. 2. Habac. giveth this general sentence of him: Gregorius homo multis erroribus imbutus, Gregory a man corrupted with many errors: and Martin Luther the Father of Protestants writeth of him: Gregorius admodum leviter agnovit Luther. ad c. 49. Gen. Christum, & verbum evangelii; Gregory did know Christ and his gospel very slightly: and then talking of S. Gregory's famous works and writing, so greatly esteemed by learned, and holy men, he saith of his sermons: Luth. in 〈◊〉 Germ. fol. 499. Gregorij conciones ne teruncium quidem valent; Gregory's sermons are not worth a halfpenny. And then speaking of an other part of his works, or books called his Dialogues, saith: 〈◊〉 eum in Dialogo suo crassè decepit: The devil did grossly deceive him in his Dialogue: and thus of him. 22. And as for S. Augustine, who is the second in rank of his Apostrophe, albeit they do not reject him with so great contempt as S. Gregory, yet when he maketh against Luth. cont. lib. Reg. H 8. de 〈◊〉. them, they esteem him little. Quisest Augustinus? (saith Luther against King Henry of England) quis nos coget illi credere? Who is Augustine? or who shall compel us to believe him? but S. Hierome whom next M. jewel Luth. add c. 22. Gen. adjoineth they handle much more spitefully. Quinte Hieronyme (saith Luther) conculcamus cum tua Bethlem, cuculla, & deserto: Know thou Hierome that we do tread thee under our feet with thy Bethlem, thy hood, and they desert. And again in an other place. What can be more carnally spoken, more wickedly, sacrilegiously, and Lib. de servo arbitrio. blasphemously, then that of Hierome, Virginitas caelum, coniugium terram replet? Virginity doth fill heaven, & marriage filleth the earth. And yet further, I know no man In colloq. convival. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Theol. (saith he) to whom I am so much an enemy as to Hierome, for that he writeth nothing but of fasting, choice of meats, and of virginity, and in truth Hierome should not be 〈◊〉 Calu. adc, 4. loan. v. 14. among the Doctors of the Church for that he was an heretic, etc. And Calvin saith of the same Doctor; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 natura fuit cavillator: Hierome was by nature a wrangler. But Beza worse than all, calleth him blasphemous, Beza adc. 13. Act. wicked, and impious, and injurious to the Apostle. 23. Of S. 〈◊〉 whom M. jewel calleth upon Luth. in colloq. con 〈◊〉. c. de Patribus. in the fourth place, Luther writeth thus: Chrysostomum nullo loco habeo; non est nisi loquaculus: I hold Chrysostome in no account at all, for that he is a brabbling fellow. And the Magdeburgians in their history say of him contemptuously, Magd. 〈◊〉. 5. cap. 1. that he was, bonorum operum Encomiastes, & liberi arbitrij patronum agebat, a praiser of good works, and an advocate for free-will. So that you see, that the cause of their rejection, and contempt is for that they are contrary in their doctrine. As for S. Leo named by M. jewel in the fifth place of Fathers, it is easy to imagine of what credit he was among them, seeing that in the very controversy of the Pope's Supremacy here handled by him, both Calvin and Beza do note and condemn him of Ambition, for taking upon him, and defending that authority. Constat (saith Beza) Beza in confess. Geneven. c, 7. § 12. Leonem in epistolis Romanae Sedis antichristianae arrogantiam planè spirasse; It is manifest that Leo in his Epistles doth clearly breathe forth the arrogancy of that Antichristian Roman Sea, which in other words Calvin Calu. li. 4. also Beza his master, doth confirm: which being so instit. c. 7. §. 11. and all this known to M. jewel, I would ask, why he did call upon these Fathers so earnestly, saying, If we be deceived herein, you are they that have deceived us, as though he had taught nothing but that they taught, and that their authority had been his rule, as their all was Paul and Christ? Nay, why doth he himself afterward, expressly, and by name, reject S. Leo in some of these very articles for proof whereof he doth here call upon him? And namely about the Pope's Supremacy jewel in defence of the Apology pa. 111. and sacrifice of the Mass, saying: That there was no credit to be given unto him, etc. Is not this double dealing? Is not this pernicious Equivocation on one side to call upon him & on the other to reject him? 24. Nay why did he add further, O Dionyse, O Anacletus, O Sixtus, as though he had followed their doctrine also, or admitted their authority? whereas neither himself, nor other Protestants are known to admit any book or work of theirs now extant, but to reject, and rail against them all. Dionysius Areopagita, (saith Luther) nihil habet solidae eruditionis. Dionysius Areopagita Luth ad 〈◊〉. 7. Deut. hath no solid learning at all. Your counterfeit Anacletus (saith M. jewel to Doctor Harding) doth not claim all the Bishops throughout the world as belonging to his jewel Ibidem pag. 130. admission. And the like they say of the other, out of all with is evidently convinced, that this Apostrophe of M. jewel to these Fathers, O Gregory, O Augustine, O Hierome, O Chrysostome, O Leo, O Dionyse, etc. if we be deceived you have deceived us, was an hypocritical Equivocation to deceive the hearer, contrary to the knowledge, and conscience of himself, that uttered the words, for he could not be ignorant, but that they were against him, and his doctrine, for that otherwise they had never been so rejected and discredited by him, and his. 25. The fourth reason is, for that the said ancient The 4. reason. Protestants, Masters of M. jewel, and from whom he took his learning and spirit, did in sundry of the Articles here by him named, reject & contemn the ancient Fathers as contrary unto them, and their doctrine; and how then could M. jewel so confidently call upon them in the same. Let any man read Martin Luther in his book de Captivitate Babylonica, about the Sacrifice of the Mass, and he shall find, that he rejecteth all the Fathers in that controversy. Si nihil habetur Luth. de Capt. Babyl. c. 〈◊〉. (saith he) quod dicatur, tutius est omnia negare, quam Missae Sacrificium esse concedere. If there be nothing to answer to the authorities of the Fathers, it is more safe to deny all, then to grant that the Mass is a Sacrifice. And in an other book; Profiteor inprimis etc. I do in the very beginning make this profession, against Lib de abroganda missa initio. those that will cry out, that I teach against the use of the Church and decree of Fathers herein, that I respect none of these things. And yet further against King Henry of England: Dicta Patrum induxit Rex etc. Lib. contr. The King bringeth in the sayings of Fathers against Reg. Angl. me, for his massing Sacrifice, and scoffeth at my folly, that I would seem more wise than all they; but this is that which I said before, that these thomistical asses have nothing to bring forth, but a multitude of men. And then he goeth forward, saying: That if a thousand Augustine's, and a thousand Cyprians stand against him in this matter, he careth not. And finally in another book: Non moramur, si clamitent Papistae, Ecclesia, Libr. de 〈◊〉 privata. Ecclesia, Patres, Patres etc. We care nothing at all if Papists cry out against us, the Church, the Church, Fathers, Fathers, they are but the sayings or deeds of men, in so great a cause as this, we care nothing for them. And to the very same effect disputeth Calvin, though more cyvilly and cunningly about the same matter, saying: Non est cur ulla hominum authoritate, vel Calu. lib. 4. instit. 〈◊〉. 18. §. 12. annorum praescriptione, etc. There is no reason why we should suffer ourselves to be drawn a side from the doctrine we teach by any authority of men, or prescription of years. Where you see, that he granteth both antiquity of time, and authority of the ancient Fathers to be against him, in that controversy of the Mass, and Sacrifice. And as we have showed the same in this article; so might we in all the rest, if time and place did permit, but this is sufficient to prove, in my opinion, that the protestation of M. jewel before mentioned which so solemnly he made in the A strange kind of simplicity uttered with duplicity. presence of almighty God, was feigned, and hypocritical, when he saith, Not one father, not one Doctor etc. and then addeth for more asseveration, when I say not one, I speak not in vehemency of spirit or heat of talk, but even as before God, by the way of simplicity and truth. For if M. jewel did know that this his masters and elders, Luther and Calvin were forced to reject generally all the Fathers, or the most part of them, for that they were against him for the sacrifice of the Mass; then was it notable cozening Equivocation to swear & protest before God in simplicity, that no one did make for us, either in this or the rest of the articles. 26. The fifth reason is, for that we see by experience The fifth reason. that all other English Protestant writers, succeeding M. jewel, and being as it were his scholars, and participating of his spirit, sense, and meaning, began presently to reject, and cast of the Fathers, upon every occasion, wherein they were pressed, by their authority, as by the writings of Doctor Calshill, Doctor Humphrey, Fulke, Charke, whitaker's, and others is evident, whereof I will allege only one example out of the last named, in steed of all, who being pressed with the consent of Fathers in a 〈◊〉 controversy against D. whitaker's answer to D. Sanders demonstrat. him, answered in this wise. We repose no such confidence in the Father's writings, that we take any certain proof of Religion from them, because we place all our Faith and Religion, not in humane, but in pag. 21. divine Authority. If therefore you bring us what some one Father hath thought, or what the Fathers universally altogether have delivered, the same, except it be approved by testimonies of scriptures, availeth nothing, it gaineth nothing, it convinceth nothing. For the Fathers are such witnesses, as they also have need of the Scriptures to be their witnesses. If deceived by error they give forth their testimony disagreeing from Scriptures, albeit they may be pardoned, erring for want of wisdom; we cannot be pardoned if because they erred, we also will err with them. So Doctor whitaker's. Where you see what account he maketh of ancient Fathers, and Doctors. Patres etiam simul 〈◊〉, to use his own words, yea all Fathers put together without proof of Scripture to Authorise them, it 〈◊〉 nothing (saith he) gaineth nothing, it convinceth nothing. So as if M. jewel had dealt plainly he might only have called for Scripture at our hands, and not so often for Fathers, knowing by all probability, aswell as his scholars, that the Fathers were at least in many controversies against him; and what Equivocation then was this to call so often, and earnestly for ancient Fathers; yea some one place or sentence, some two lines, for winning of the field? was not this singular and extraordinary, yea hypocrisy, and lying Equivocation in the highest degree? 27. The sixth reason is the consideration of his earnest The 〈◊〉 reason. exhorting of Catholics to answer his Challenge. Now it standeth upon you (saith he) to prove but one affirmative jewel in his 2. answer to D. 〈◊〉. against me, and so to require my promise of subscribing. And again, If you of your part would vouchsafe to bring but two lines, the whole matter were concluded. And yet further, Me thinketh both reason, and humanity would, that you should answer somewhat, especially being so often and so openly required, etc. Why be you so loath, being so earnestly required to show 〈◊〉 desire of M. Iewell to have his writings answered. forth but one Doctor of your side, etc. What think you there is now judged of you, that being so long time required, yet cannot be won to bring forth one sentence in your defence? And yet again more earnestly. I protest before God bring me but one sufficient authority in the matters I have required, and afterward I will gently and quietly confer with you further at your pleasure. And therefore for as much as it is God's cause, if you mean simply, deal simply, betray not your right, if you may save it with one word: the people must needs muse at your silence, for think not that any wise man will be so much your friend, as in so weighty matters he will be satisfied with your said silence, etc. And not content with this, he concludeth in these words of earnest exhortation. Wherefore here I leave putting you eft-somes gently in remembrance, that being so often and so openly desired to show forth one Doctor, etc. You have brought nothing, and that if you stand so still it must needs be thought you do it conscientia imbecillitatis, for that there was nothing to be brought. And here once again I conclude, as before, putting you in remembrance that this long time I have desired you to bring forth some sufficient Authority for proof of your party. Thus far M. jewel. 28. And would you not think that this desire, this entreaty, this urging, and provocation did proceed from a great confidence in his cause? Truly if the confidence were not great, the craft and dissimulation was singular: but what ensued? M. Doctor Harding, and other learned men lying in Flanders being moved by zeal of Religion, and provoked by these insolent egging, began soon after to write books in answer of these challenges, and to lay open the untruths and The books so earnestly called for procured by M. jew ell to be forbidden. vanities thereof, which labours wrought so great effect with divers of the discreeter sort, both Catholics, & Protestants in England, as M. jewel thought it best to procure the public prohibition of those books by the Magistrate, for which he had so earnestly called before, whereupon there were diligent searches made to find out the same, both in the universities, towns, cities, & ports of the Realm, as * M. William Reynoldes. one that was then a searcher among others, and a Protestant preacher in Oxford, but converted afterward by these very reasons, and by the untruths found in M. jewel books, doth testify at large in an answer of his written to M. D. whitaker's, whose words I have thought good to set down in this place. For having refuted a speech of M. whitaker's who pretended to be very glad that the Rheims English Testament was abroad in many men's hands, M. Reynolds writeth thus: With like phrase (saith he) and character of shameless M. W. Reynoldes in the refut. vaunting, wrote M. jewel to Doctor Harding, saying: We never suppressed any of your books, M. Harding, as you of M. Whimbly take cap. rs. pag. 460. know, but are very well content to see them so common, that as now children may play with them in the streets. Thus his face served him co write then, when in the self same Defence, he by leaving out suppressed the very substance of that book, which he then pretended to answer, and when by help of his fellow superintendant, and other friends every corner of the Realm was searched for those books, when the ports were laid for them, Paul's Cross is witness of burning many of them, the Princess proclamation was procured against them in the universities by sovereign authority, Colleges, chambers, studies, closets, coffers and desks were ransacked for them, when not only children were forbid to play with them, but ancient men, and students of divinity were imprisoned for having of them, so that all this can be nought else, but a plain example of palpable dissimulation, and affected lying. 29. So this learned and virtuous man, who was so moved by the said dissimulation, as it wrought his conversion, and detestation of that doctrine, which could not be maintained but with such shifts, and cunning lyings as afterward more largely, and particularly you shall hear him relate of himself, for that conform to this general entrance by singular hypocrisy and equivocation as hath been declared, M. jewel behaved himself also in particular cases that did occur, making no 〈◊〉 to affirm or deny any thing that served for his purpose, though in his conscience he knew it to be never so false, whereof we shall hear touch some few examples proportionable to the 〈◊〉 of reasons before set down, if not more; in which is to be remembered by the Reader, that all the foresaid circumstances must be observed, to wit; that the falsehood cannot be excused by any probable error, mistaking, or oversight of the speaker, nor by any default of the Printer, edition, translation, or the like, but that it must needs proceed of a 〈◊〉 will to deceive wittingly, as before hath been said. And with this prevention, and admonition shall we pass to the examples themselves. Six Examples of Master jewels particular Equivocation. §. 3. 30. THE first example than shall be where M. jewel The first 〈◊〉. going about to prove in a certain sermon of his, that it was no sin to marry after vows made of Chastity, bringeth in this sentence of S. Augustine out of his book * Cap. 10. M. jewel 〈◊〉 his 〈◊〉 at S. Peter's in Oxford in obe Lent. the 〈◊〉 viduitatis, to prove the same in these words: Quapropter non possum dicere à proposito meliori 〈◊〉 si nupserint 〈◊〉 adulteria esse non coniugia: I cannot say that women which are fallen from a better purpose (of continency) if they marry, that their marriage is adultery and not marriage at all: and upon this authority so alleged, and so plainly seeming to make for the Protestants doctrine of Votaries marriages, you must imagine how M. jewel would exult, and make the Scholars of Oxford think that he had said much for his purpose; but he that shall read over that short book the 〈◊〉 viduitatis, of the good that is in wyddowhood, written to juliana a religious servant of God, as S. Augustine calleth her, shall find that the whole drift of this holy Father in that 〈◊〉, is directly against M. jewel, and his fellows, proving by many arguments, that 〈◊〉 marriage in them that have made a simple vow of Chastity, or (to use S. Austin's S. August. egregiously abused and falsified. words) that had a better purpose than marriage, be true marriage, and not adultery (except there come afterward a solemn vow, which maketh it no 〈◊〉:) yet doth S. Augustine plainly prove, that the sliding back from that good purpose and vow is damnable, not for that the marriage doth not hold, but 1. Tim. 5. for that they have broken their first faith made to Christ according to the words of S. Paul, which S. Augustine affirmeth to have been meant to this purpose. 31. So then here is great wilful falsity, to allege S. Augustine as though he favoured the marriages of Votaries, whereas throughout this whole book he doth purposely impugn the same, yea that which is more, in the very next immediate words that follow in the same sentence before alleged by M. jewel S. Augustine's express words do overthrow all that is alleged for Votaries. For whereas he writeth, I cannot affirm that women fallen from a better purpose if they marry, that their marriages are adultery, and not marriage, it followeth immediately: Sed plane non dubit auerim dicere lapsus & ruinas à castitate sanctiori, quae vovetur Deo adulteriis esse peiores: but I do not doubt at all to affirm (saith S. Augustine) that the ruins, and fallings of from holier chastity, which is vowed to God, are worse than adultery; which he proveth by many strong reasons, and arguments. And now let the Reader consider what Equivocation this might be in M. jewel, and whether it be possible to imagine that he was so occupied, and distracted, as he did read the one half of the sentence, and not the other, or that he was so simple as he did not understand, what was the whole drift, and argument of S. Augustine in that book: and if he did, and yet alleged him to the contrary, you see what ensueth. And thus much of this first example. 32. The second example is taken out of M. jewels defence The second example. of the Apology of England pag. 176. where taking again in hand to prove that priests and Votaries may marry (for he was very frequent and copious in that matter, it importing them much in that beginning to draw priests and friars unto them by this bait) he allegeth an example of a certain noble man called 〈◊〉 of Caesarea in Cappadocia taken out of Cassiodorus Cassiod. li. 〈◊〉. cap. 〈◊〉. the historiographer in these words. At that time they say that Eupsychius the Bishop of Caesarea died in martyrdom, having married a wife a little before, being as yet in manner a new married man etc. and he citeth for this in the margin Cassiodorus in the tripartite history. And in Hist. trip. an other place he allegeth the same example to the lib. 6 c. 14. same purpose, out of Nicephorus; but aswell these two Niceph. l. 10. hist. 〈◊〉. 10. authors, as Zozomenus are witnesses against him, of a notable wilful falsification in this behalf; for that Zozomen. l. 5. c. 11. neither of them do say that Eupsychius was a Bishop or priest, but only that he was Patritius Caesareae in Cappadocia that is to say a noble man, or Senators son of Caesarea in Cappadocia: and the falsification is so plain to him that shall read all the foresaid Authors, and places by him cited, as no modest man can but blush to see M. jewel allege, and urge this forged example twice Pag. 176. & 514. in one book of his with such apparent falsity: nor can any of the foresaid circumstances of ignorance, error, or negligence probably excuse or defend him. 33. The third example may be that of M jewels slanderous The third example. speech concerning the holy man Augustine sent by S. Gregory to convert our nation to the Christian faith, which Almighty God wrought by him so miraculously, as both the said S. 〈◊〉 and S. Bede after him, and all other ancient historiographers, as Malmesbury, 〈◊〉, and the rest do call him our English Apostle, of whose many, and great miracles wrought in that work, not only the said Authors, but S. Gregory himself Greg. l. 7. Epist. 30. indict. 1. doth write a special narration to Eulogius Archbishop of Alexandria: yea 〈◊〉 Fox himself in his Acts Fox act. & 〈◊〉. pag. 105. col. 2. 〈◊〉. and Monuments, albeit not a little imbued with M. jewels spirit, against this holy man, for that he planted Catholic Roman Religion in England, yet writing the story of the conversion of Ethelbert our first Christian English King, he hath these words at length. When the King had well considered the honest conversation of their life, and moved with their miracles wrought through God's hand by them, he heard them more gladly, and lastly by their wholesome exhortations, and example of Godly life, he was by them converted, and Christened in the year of Christ above said 596. and the six and thirtieth of his Reign. So Fox. Whereunto I may add a testimony of much greater credit, out of S. Bede, that lived near unto his time, & recordeth the very Epitaph remaining in his days written upon S. Augustine's tomb in these words. 34. here lieth Blessed Augustine the first Archbishop of Canterbury, S. August. Epitaph. who was sent hither, by S. Gregory Bishop of Rome, Beda lib 2 cap. 3 hist. and strengthened of God by working of miracles, who converted King Ethelbert, and his Realm from the worshipping of Idols Anglorun. to the faith of Christ. And thus much of the sanctity of this blessed man out of their testimony that lived with him, or not long after him. But now what writeth M. jewel of him, and with what truth and conscience? He was a man (saith he) as it was judged by them M. Tewlls railing against S. Augustine in his Reply pag. 〈◊〉. that saw him, and knew him, neither of Apostolic spirit, nor any way worthy to be called a Saint, but an Hypocrite, a supper stitious man cruel, bloody, and proud above measure, and for proof of all this, he citeth only in his margin 〈◊〉 of Monmouth, in his history of the Britan's, which jeffrey died in the days of King Henry the 2. very near 600. years after S. Augustine, and almost 500 after S. Bede, and writeth no such thing at all of S. Augustine as here is set down by M. jewel, but rather much in his commendation with note of the emulous dealing of the British Bishops against him, for the hatred they bore to the English nation, and their conversion. 35. So as here now M. jewels assertion is not only false, and impious against so venerable a man as Augustine was, but must needs be also against his own conscience, & this in divers points. For first he knew that there was no Author extant that wrote in his days, saw him, and knew him, but only S. Gregory, who writeth 〈◊〉 in his commendations, as you have heard. Secondly he knew that S. Bede who lived in the very next age after him, and all other English Authors succeeding for the space of eight or nine hundred years, till our time, did highly commend him in their works, and especially the forenamed Malmesbury & Huntingdon that lived with jeffrey Moumouth. And lastly he knew that this only witness, the said jeffrey, had no such thing. And what then will you say to this Equivocation? may not M. morton's Epithets of hellish, heathenish, impious, and sacrilegious, have place here? 36. The fourth example may be those words of The 4. example. M. jewel in the Apology of England, writing against the Pope. Let him in God's name (saith he) call to mind, let jewel in the Apol. 〈◊〉 part. him remember that they be of his own Canonists which have taught the people, that fornication between single folk is not sin, as though they had fetched that doctrine from 〈◊〉 in Terence, whose words are: It is no sin, believe me, for a young man to haunt harlotts. And for this he citeth in his margin Io. de Magistris li. de Temperantia. And who would not think but that this accusation were sure, for so much as it is so opprobriously urged and insulted upon? But now I pray you considerthe particulars, and therewithal what a conscience this man had. 37. First then Io. de Magistris was Martinus de Magistris, not a Canonist, but a School- divine, that wrote a Treatise De Temperantia & Luxuria, so as it seemeth Martinus de Magistris shamefully abused. that he that gave this charge either had not read the Author himself, which I suppose M. jewel will not confess, or else meant to dazzle the eyes of his Reader by naming john for Martin. Secondly this Author in his said Treatise, as the fashion of Schoolmen is, propoundeth this question: Vtrum simplex fornicatio sit peccatum mortale; whether simple fornication be a mortal sin; and according to use of Schools, saith: Arguitur quòd non. It is argued or reasoned for the negative part thus, and so 〈◊〉 down some arguments for that side by way of objections, which afterward he solveth, and cometh to conclude absolutely in the affirmative part by six conclusions, that simple fornication is not only sin, but mortal sin; for that it is forbidden by God's law, and excludeth from the Kingdom of heaven, as S. Paul affirmeth. And now 1. Cor. 6. let any man consider of the conscience of him, that avoucheth in print the other slander: Would Master Garnet or M. South-well, or any other Catholic man accused for lawful Equivocation, ever have made so notorious a lie against their own consciencies? Let our adversaries bring forth but two examples. 38. The fifth example shall be also out of his words The 5. example. in the same Apology, writing against the reading of Saint's lives in the Church: The old Council of Carthage (saith he) commandeth nothing to be read in Christ's congregation, but the Canonical Scriptures, but these men read such things in their Churches, as themselves know to be stark lies, and fond fables. So he. But now let us see, whether it be more probable, that we know to be lies those things which we read in our Churches or that he knew to be a lie that which here he relateth and printeth in his book. For if he read the Canon itself which he mentioned, which is the forty and seventh of the third Council of Carthage, wherein Saint Augustine was present, then must he needs know that he lieth indeed egregiously, for that the Canon beginneth thus: Item placuit, ut praeter Scripturas Canonicas nihil in Ecclesia legatur sub nomine divinarum Scripturarum; sunt autem Canonicae Scripturae, Genesis, Exodus etc. 〈◊〉, ludith, Hester, Machabaeorum libri duo, etc. It hath seemed good to this Council, that nothing be read in the Church under the name of divine Scripture, but only such as be Canonical Scriptures in deed, as are Genesis, Exodus, etc. The two books of the Maccabees, Tobias, judith, Esther, and the rest. Whereby we see that in alleging these words, that nothing be read in the Church but Canonical Scriptures, is guylfully cut of the other clause that expounded all, sub nomine divinarum Scripturarum, under the name of divine Scriptures. And secondly, that in relating which are divine Scriptures, the books of the Maccabees, Toby, judith, and others excluded by him and his, from that number, are set down for Canonical. And thirdly which maketh the falfification most notoriously wilful, is, that in the self same Canon there followeth these words: Liceat etiam legi passiones Martyrum cum 〈◊〉 dies eorum celebrantur: It is lawful also to read in the Church (besides Canonical Scriptures) the passions of Martyrs, when their yearly festival days are celebrated: which words do clearly decide the controversy, and prove M. jewel a wilful liar, and that he did know that he did lie, as nothing can be more clear or evident. And besides, they decide two several controversies against them as you see, the first, that the books of Maccabees were held for Canonical by this Council in S. Augustine's time: and the second that the festival days of Saints were celebrated 〈◊〉 year publicly in the Church, and the histories of their 〈◊〉 read in those days. 39 The sixth and last example in this place (for I The 6. example 〈◊〉 3. cases. have promised to pass no further) shall contain two or three cases together, the first out of Leo the great. Pope Leo saith M. jewel in the Apology) holdeth, that upon one day it is lawful to have but one massem one Church, Leo epist. 8. ad 〈◊〉. but these men say daily in one Church commonly ten masses 20. or 30. yea sometimes more. So M. jewel. But he that shall look upon the place itself in S. Leo, shall find the quite contrary decreed, and set down by that holy man, for thus he writeth unto the Archbishop or Patriarch of Alexandria: Vt in omnibus obseruantia nostra concordet, Leo epist. 81 ad Dioscorum 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉- pis. ca 2. illud quoque uloumus custodiri, etc. That our use or observance may agree in all points (as well in Alexandria as here) we will have this also to be kept, that when any more solemn sestivity shall call together a more abundant meeting of people, and that the multitude of the faithful shall be so great as the Church or chapel cannot hold them together, that then without doubt of further deliberation, the oblation of the sacrifice be iterated, or celebrated again, lest otherwise if they only which came first, should be admitted unto this devotion, they which came afterward might seem to be excluded, whereas it is conform both to piety and reason, that so often as the presence of new people do fill the Church wherein the solemnity is exhibited, so often also should the sacrifice be offered, for that otherwise it must necessarily fall out that some part of the people should be deprived of their devotion, if the custom of saying one mass only being retained, none could offer sacrifice but such as came in the first part of the day. 40. These are the words of S. Leo, by which you see that he doth determine & decree the plain contrary to that which M. jewel affirmeth, to wit that as 〈◊〉 as any multitude of people should come to the Church; so often the sacrifice of the mass should be reiterated for their devotion. In which words though among catholics there may be some question about S. 〈◊〉 his meaning, to wit, whether he meant of more than one chief or solemn mass, to be said in one Church or Chapel, or that one and the self same Priest in such cases might reiterate his own mass and sacrifice, if there were no other Priest present, as Strabo and Strabo de rebus Ecclesiasticis cap. 21. Dur and do interpret him: yet in this controversy there can be no doubt or question, but that he saith the quite contradictory to that which M. jewel affirmeth Durand. lib. 2. de ritibus Ec clesiasticis cap. 7. him to say, who telleth us, that Pope Leo saith, that it is not lawful to say upon one day mere then one mass in one Church; whereas S. 〈◊〉 saith, it is both lawful, expedient, and necessary to be done. What Equivocation then call you this in M. jewel? And furthermore S. Leo in this place as supreme Bishop, prescribeth and giveth order in Ecclesiastical rites as you see, to Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria, for offering and iterating the sacrifice of the Mass, whereby is evident, that in these two articles at the least of Supremacy & the Mass (which are of the first and principal that M. jewel setteth down) S. Leo was against him, and flatly for us: so as it may please him now to leave out of his Apostrophe, O Leo! if we be deceived, your have deceived us, etc. And this for the first case. 41. The second case may be that of M. jewel in the defence of the Apology pag 131. where talking of the most excellent man Pope Celestinus that sarte in the Sea before Leo, he saith of him thus: Pope Celestinus was a Nestorian heretic; but citeth no Author at all for it, and the assertion is so strange, and so contrary not only to truth and reason, but also probability, as of no man Pope Celestinus egregiously calumniated by. M. Iewell. he could have spoken it more falsely and absurdly: for that it was Celestinus that condemned Nestorius, and all his heresies: it was Celestinus, in whose place Cyrillus the Archbishop of Alexandria sat Precedent in the third general Council at Ephesus, where Nestorius was accursed, and condemned. Of this Celestinus the learned Bishop Prosper, who then 〈◊〉 writeth: Nestorianae impietati praecipua Alexandrini Episcopi industria & Papae Celestini repugnat authoritas: The special diligence of the Bishop of Alexandria, and the Authority of Pope Celestinus resisteth the impiety of Nestorius And yet is Pope Celestinus a Nestorian. Who would say so, but M. jewel, who careth not what he saith? 42. The third Case is somewhat more pleasant, though no less malicious, for whereas it had been objected unto M. jewel for the 〈◊〉 of S. Peter, in feeding & governing, that Christ had said to him alone: joan. 2. pasce oves meas, pasce agnos meos, feed my sheep, feed my lambs; M. jewel to 〈◊〉 this privilege, allegeth jewel defence of 〈◊〉 108. a sentence of Christ out of S. Marks 〈◊〉, quoted in the margin: Quod uni dico omnibus dico: What I say to one, I say to all, thereby inferring that the foresaid words of Christ to S. Peter, as a so the other, Thou art Peter or a rock, and upon this rock will I build my Church, and other such like speeches, were equally meant also of the rest, whereas in deed, Christ never used these words, Quod uni dico omnibus dico noris it to be 〈◊〉 Marc. 13. out of Scripture; but rather our Saviour having made in S. Marks Gospel a large Sermon about the day of judgement, and the terror thereof, and exhorted all sorts of people to be watchful, extended the same also unto those that were absent or should live in succeeding ages saying: Quod vobis dico, omnibus dico, vigilate. Christ's words egregiously abused by. M. Iewell. That which I say to you here present I speak to all both absent, & to come, be watchful: which last words M. jewel leaveth out of purpose, to cover and conceal the meaning of our Saviour, and addeth of himself, quod uni dico, which our Saviour hath not. And thirdly he perverteth wholly the meaning of Christ, which was to persuade attention, and watchfulness about the day of judgement, and applieth it against the pre-eminence of S. Peter his Authority, which he well knew to be far from our saviours meaning. And moreover there ensueth an other most gross absurdity, which is that our Saviour speaking to all & every one of them that were present, when he saith, vigilate be watchful, it followeth (I say) that in M. jewels sense, and application of his words, every one to whom the word vigilate appertaineth, which are all sorts and sexes of people both there 〈◊〉 and absent should have as great spiritual authority over the Church of God, as S. Peter; quia quod uni dico, omnibus dico, whatsoever I say to only Peter, to wit, that he must feed, that he is the rock, and the like, I say to all men. And now let any indifferent man consider with what conscience M. jewel could feign Christ to say as he allegeth. A dilemma about M jewels equivocation. For either he had read the place in S. Mark which he citeth, or had not. If not, it was great negligence, the matter, and subject being so weighty as it was: and if he did and yet alleged it quite otherwise then there it is found, what shall we say of this 〈◊〉 dealing. What of such lying, and perfidious Equivocation? who in this can excuse or defend him for a man of any conscience at all. 43. And yet was he (forsooth) the Father and chief master of all 〈◊〉 Calvinian doctrine in England, which was first established by Queen Elizabeth at her entering (for that Zuinglianisme had been only admitted in King Edward's days) & he was not only held for the chief preacher and teacher thereof; but for the public Champion also to defend it, and therefore as the doctrine was false; so must he have a more special eminent gift of cunning and falsehood to bear it out, than other men, for that others were to take 〈◊〉 eius, of his fullness in that science. And albeit he had divers brethren also at that time, that did participate with him of that spirit in their writings, as M. Horn Bishop of Winchester by name, and some others; yet were they esteemed far inferior to M. jewel in this M. horns equivocations. point, especially in the elegancy of conveyance, though in will and substance they might be equal. And so if you look upon six hundred fourscore and ten untruths, which Doctor Stapleton gathered out of one work of the said M. Horn written against Doctor Fecknam about the oath of the supremacy, you shall find as many, and gross lies, as any lightly, of M. jewel, but not so slightly 〈◊〉, nor smoothly faced out. 44. As for example where he avoucheth flatly that the conversion of our King 〈◊〉 of Brittany and of his whole Realm, & establishing thereof was done without M. Horn to 〈◊〉 pag. 9 any knowledge or consent of Pope Eleutherius is so gross ally, as it is refutable by all histories from that time to ours; yea by john Fox & Bale themselves, who were greatest enemies to all Popes: So as this matter was not handsomely carried. And again in the same work M. Horn pretending to allege some temporal lawyers to his purpose against the Pope's Ecclesiastical Horn pag. 89. pre-eminence in England, citeth one Broughton, as saying: That the king 〈◊〉 Supreme in his Kingdom, and saffereth Broughton. li. 1. cap. de Papa. Archiepis. & aliis Prelatis. no equal or superior; and other such points which are not denied when speech is of temporal men and affairs, and he leaveth out divers other passages in the very same Author, and place, which he citeth expressly, affirming that in spiritual, affairs the Pope & Bishops are to judge, & not temporal men, which is the very decision of the Controversy. 45. And in this kind I might allege an excefsive multitude, both out of the one, & the other Bishop's works, but that the repetition thereof would be over tedious; albeit it fell not out, without God's special providence in that beginning, that so notorious falsities should be uttered and published to the world by these chief ringleaders: for that sundry principal Protestants, that were curious to read these books in that 〈◊〉 entrance of heresy, were converted & made Catholic by this special and principal motive, that they 〈◊〉 so many notorious and inexcusable untruths uttered by these principal men in their writings at that day: whereof I myself knew sundry, & in some other place have named three; one in the university of 〈◊〉, M. William 〈◊〉, a learned and zealous preacher of the Protestant doctrine: the other in the court, Sir Thomas Copley (made afterward Lord by the King of France) a great follower of my Lord of 〈◊〉, and fervent in the new profession, as being extraordinarily well seen for a man of his calling in controversies himself: the third in London M. Doctor Stephen's Secretary to M. jewel and well seen at that time in divinity and the learned tongues: all which made change of their Religion, though to their great temporal losses upon the great aversion they took at the discovery of the wilful falsehood of these chief teachers of new Religion, whereupon the first of the above named three, maketh this marginal note in a book of his written against M. Doctor Whitaker: The M Will. 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉. of Whitak. pag. 475. incredible lying (saith he) and falsisication used by the 〈◊〉 writers of our time, are a great motive to the Catholic 〈◊〉. And then in the text he declareth the matter further in these words. 46. I know many (saith he) who having been brought 〈◊〉 not in Catholic Religion, but in heresy with M. 〈◊〉 and continuing a long time in the same, and 〈◊〉 it with all their hearts; yet coming afterwards to better judgement through the grace of God, upon consideration of such lying writers, as 〈◊〉 whitaker's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to wit, Master 〈◊〉, Master Horn, etc. have been so altered, as they have detested his gospel, even to hell gates, of which number I confess myself to be one. So he. 47. And surely if we consider the special learning and virtue of this man, and how he had read exactly all writhers that could be gotten of the Protestants side of what sort or sect soever, as by his writings doth well appear, as also with what singular patience, humility, and contentment of mind he lived for many years after in voluntary banishment, and poverty for love of the Catholic Religion, whereas by accommodating himself to the current of the time, he might have received great preferment in his country, and was in the way towards them when he left the same; he will say, that this motive of lying Equivocation in Protestant writers, had made deep and strong impression in him in deed. And thus much for the Bishops: now let us look into the like spirit of Ministers in this behalf. The use of Equivocating in English Protestant-Ministers. §. 4. 48. AS for this sort of men, though it might be sufficient which before we have noted and set down out of the writings of this one Minister T. M. for proof of our 〈◊〉; yet to show the conformity of spirit in others also of the same profession, & coat; we shall briefly here allege some few more examples, and those of the chiefest English Ministers (for to talk of foreign were infinite) that have written against Catholic Religion in these our days. 49. And with whom in this point may we better First example of john Fox. begin, then with john Fox himself (not unfitly called by some, the Father of lies) in his huge Volume of Acts and Monuments, who, as he was one of the first that took upon him, in our language to set abroad the praises of that Protestant Church by way of history, so did he by deeds leave a document what liberty the writers of that profession do take unto themselves in this kind of Equivocation, that avoucheth falsities, well known to be such to the utterer. For that not only throughout his whole work doth he use the same upon every occasion; but even in the very first lines, and title also of his book, promising to set down, The continuance, and succession of his said Church, from the beginning to our days: but indeed never meant to perform any part thereof, as well knowing that he could not, as by a special Treatise hath been these years The Treatise of 3. Conuers. of Engl. part. 2. c. 2. 3. 4. past most evidently made manifest, & that the said Fox towards the end of his said volume was enforced to begin his broken succession, & continued the same with notorious condemned heretics from Berengarius downward, as in that Treatise is largely declared; & manifold examples are laid forth of his voluntary falsehood in almost infinite points by him recorded against his own knowledge, and conscience, as may be seen in the Table or Index of that book under the word Fox. 50. And finally the same Author in the end of the third part of the said work, doth in one Chapter convince him of above an hundred and twenty wilful lies uttered by him in less than three leaves in his said Acts and Monuments, and those such, as no ways they may be excused, either by ignorance, error, or other such circumstance, which before we have touched, but must needs proceed of voluntary fraud and malice, himself knowing, that it was false which he related. One only example will I city here out of all the said 120. lies, whereby you may make a guess of all the rest. 51. The Papists do teach ( * Fox pag. 22. nu. 35. saith he) most wickedly, and horribly, saying, 〈◊〉 Christ suffered for Original sin, or sins See the ex amen of the last 6. months of his Calendar ca 19 n. 17. going before baptism, but the actual sins which follow after baeptisme must be done away by man's merits. And this assertion of ours he putteth down in a different letter, as though they were our own very words, and sense, which is most false, for that we hold them neither in words nor sense, so as the are rather two wicked, and horrible lies of his, than any wicked, or horrible doctrine of ours. 52. For first we say not, That Christ suffered only for Original sin, but for all sins, both original & actual, Confutation of john 〈◊〉 his lies. precedent and subsequent after our baptism. S. Thomas his words are clear for our common doctrinè in that behalf, part. 3. q. 1. art. 4. Certum est, etc. It is certain (saith he) that Christ came into the world to blot out not only original sin, but all sins, etc. And this is the common doctrine of all Devynes amongst us. The second point also, That actual sins after baptism cannot be done away by man's merit, but by the merits of Christ, and by the grace, and virtue of his said passion, is no less evident in all our writings, as you may see in S. Thomas for all 1. 2. q. 114. art. 7. where he saith: Nullus potest mereri sibi reparationem post lapsum, etc. That no man can merit his rising again after sin, but that it must needs proceed of the only grace of God, and merit of Christ. And the same teacheth the Council of Trent sess. 6. cap. 14. & 16. etc. So as these are two not orious lies, in re gravissima, in a matter of most moment, as you see, and cannot be imputed to error, or ignorance with any probability. And of the same kind are the other hundred and odd, which before we have mentioned, and are uttered, as hath been said, within the compass of three leaves and thereby we may take a scantling of john Fox his consciency in this kind of lying equivocation when it may make for his advantage. And this shall suffice for the first example. 53. The second example shall be out of an other 2. Example. D Calfhill. Minister, that lived jointly with john Fox, to 〈◊〉, Doctor Calfhill of Christ's Church in Oxford, who was a special great defender of M. jewels challenge in those days of the primitive English Protestant Church, to wit, That no one Doctor, no one Father, no one Council, no one Authority could be brought for our doctrine, etc. But when a little after there were certain ordinary 〈◊〉 appointed every Saturday in a several isle of the said Colledg-Church, for trial of Controversies, and for some 〈◊〉 of the Protestants confidence therein, those may remember that lived in the university at that time, that M. Bristol, and some other 〈◊〉 students in divinity, repairing thither to dispute, forced M. Calfhill that was the moderator, to deny or 〈◊〉 to shift of so many Fathers, Doctors and other ancient authorities, as most men langhed to hear it: and his own friends were ashamed at the matter. And when a little after he wrote a very irreligious, and profane answer to a certain Catholic Treatise written by M. martial of the Holy Cross of Christ; he was oftentimes driven to the same follies, either of open rejecting, or ridiculous shifting of the same Fathers: As for example when S. Ambrose writing S. Ambr. Serm. 55. of the necessity of 〈◊〉 sign among Christians, Calfhill 〈◊〉. 78. and especially in Church's 〈◊〉; That a Church cannot stand without a Cross, no more than a ship without a mast, etc. He answereth that it cannot stand without a 〈◊〉 beam, or cross 〈◊〉, or one piece of timber shut into another: And do you imagine that he did think as he said? 54. Again in the same book where it is objected Athan. li. 2. de 〈◊〉. out of S. Athanasius words against the Gentiles, That infinite miracles were wrought by the sign of the Cross, as casting out devils, and the like: yea, and that S. Athanasius did provoke the Gentiles to come and make proof thereof and Christians to use the same, saying: Vtatur signo, ut illi dicunt ridiculè, Crucis etc. Let him use against all enchantments the sign of the Cross which Pagans call ridiculous, and he shall see the Devils to be put to flight by 〈◊〉, soothsaying to cease, Magic and poisoning destroyed, etc. So 〈◊〉 Athanasius: Whereunto Calfhill answereth thus: If you gather (saith he) that the use Calf hill fol. 〈◊〉. of the Cross is commendable, because of miracles done; by the same reason the 〈◊〉 and thief may defend and maintain their unlawful doings, because as great or greater miracles be wrought by them. So he. And do you not think that he knew himself here to lie, and egregiously to Equivocate in the worst sense? And yet 〈◊〉 whereas the ancient Father S. Cyrill writing against julian the Apostata, that objected to Christians the use of making the sign of the Cross upon their foreheads, and setting up the same upon their doors, answered: That such speech of the Apostata proceeded of wicked thoughts and savoured so extreme ignorance, and that the said Salutare signum, healthful sign of the Cross (so are his reverend words) was made by the Christians in remembrance of Christ's benefits, exhibited in his sacred 〈◊〉, etc. M. 〈◊〉 teacheth his hearer, that this was spoken by S. Cyrill, to excuse the Christians and cover their fault, as though in deed S. Cyrill had been of the same mind Cyril. lib. 6. 〈◊〉. with julian the Apostata and had misliked the making 〈◊〉. Calf hill 〈◊〉. 172. of that sign as he did, which is manifestly false, and a great slander to the said holy Father. And what then will you say of this Ministers Equivocating spirit in the worst kind of 〈◊〉? 55. The third example we shall take out of the writings The 3. Example Meridith Hanmer & William 〈◊〉. of Meridith Hanmer, and M. William Charke, Ministers, who being charged with a certain pernicious doctrine 〈◊〉 Martin Luther whom they earnestly defended, and not being other wise able to escape, used both of them a notorious Equivocation in this kind of lying: The doctrine of Luther was this, That if any Luther sermone de matri. tom. 5. Wittenb. fol. 120. woman (saith he) cannot, or will not prove by order of law the insufficiency of her husband, let her request at his hands a divorce, or else by his consent let her privily lie with his brother, or with some other man. And this doctrine being objected Hanmer & Charke in their books against F. Campian. to these two ministers, Hanmer thought best (you may imagine by what Equivocation) utterly to deny the thing, as never written or spoken by Luther, inveighing greatly against Catholics for raising such a slander upon him: but Charke doubting lest he should be convinced with Luther's own book and Edition of Wittenberg, durst not stand to this Equivocation, but devised another far worse, to wit, that Luther gave this Counsel, when he was yet a Papist, and therefore, saith he, if any shame be in this doctrine it lighteth upon you and not upon us. 56. But two things do convince this of a notable wilful untruth. The first for that the time and year being considered wherein Luther wrote this Sermon, it appeareth evidently that he had left long before the Catholic union: though yet himself said in this place, that he remained still with some fear and dread of Antichrist, which he meant in respect that it was yet doubtful unto him, whether the Protection of the Duke of Saxony would be sufficient for his defence, against the Pope, Emperor, and other Catholic Princes that sought to have him punished: but when in Process of time he perceived in deed that he was secure, than he said he would give other counsel. Consilium Charke in his answ. to the Censure. tale iam tum impertij (saith he) cum adhuc me detineret pavor Antichristi; nunc verò secùs longè animus esset. I gave such Counsel, when I was yet under some fear of Antichrist; but now my mind should be to give far other counsel. And here William Charke breaketh of, and leaveth out the words of Luther that immediately follow, and do solve the case, which are these: Talique marito, qui adeò mulierem deludat dolis, vehementius * Lanificium is here much more modestly translated, than Luther's meaning seemeth to bear. lanificium, immissa manu, convellerem, etc. That laying my hands upon the locks of such a husband, that should so craftily deceive a woman, I would vehemently shake or pull him by the locks. So he. And what will you say now of the crafty Equivocation of these two Ministers? which of them had least conscience, either he that knowing it to be so, yet denied that Luther had any such words, or the other that confessing the words, wittingly perverted the sense, by cutting of that which should make all clear? 57 And I might city also an other like deceitful Equivocation of William Charke, not far from the Charke in his answ. to the Censure. art. 2. same place, where being pressed with sundry arguments that prove concupiscence in the regenerate, to be no sin, if consent be not given thereunto, and namely by the Authority of S. Augustine, saying: Concupiscentia Aug lib. 1. de nupt. & concup. cap. 23. non est peccatum, quando illi, ad illicita opera, non consentitur; Concupiscence is not sin, when consent is not given thereunto, for working things that be unlawful; he to avoid this authority of S. Augustine, forgeth a place of the same Doctor to the contrary, thus: S. Augustine's place (saith he) is expounded by himself afterward, where he saith, Concupiscence is not so forgiven in baptism, that it is not sin; but that it is not imputed as sin: and citeth for his proof the same book of S. Augustine De nuptiis & concupiscentia. Cap. 23. & 25. But if you look upon the places, you shall find that the Minister hath here of his own foisted in the chief word, that maketh or marreth all, to wit, peccatum, sin, for that S. Augustine's words are these: Ad haec respondetur, dimitti concupiscentiam carnis in baptismo, non ut non sit: sed ut in peccatum non imputetur, quamuis reatu suo iam soluto, maret tamen, etc. To this is answered (saith S. Augustine) that the Concupiscence of the flesh is forgiven in baptism, not so that it is not: (or remaineth not) but that it is not imputed unto sin, it remaineth still though the guilt thereof be taken away. So he. And was not this a subtle Equivocation to make in a trice S. Augustine to be contrary to himself. 58. The fourth example shall be of an other Minister The 4. example. William Perkins. William Perkins, who though he wrote since the other, yet in diver, points hath he outgone them, as well in this of false Equivocation, as in the deep humour of fantasy, by which he hath written and published many books with strange titles, some of them containing matter, that neither he, nor his reader (I 〈◊〉 say) do understand, as namely about the Concatenation or tying together of causes of man's prodestination or reprobation, and the like: but among other his prettiest fancy was, to write a book calling it, Areformed Catholic, which was in deed that which by Logicians is termed Implicatjoin adiecto, An implicancy or contradiction of the one word to the other, for that he which is a Catholic (if we speak of 〈◊〉 belonging to doctrine and belief, and not to manners) cannot be reform, the essence of Catholic Religion consisting in this, that all and every point of the received Christian faith be believed and nothing more, or less, so as if any point must be added, taken away, altered or reform, it is not Catholic, and consequently A reformed Catholic in matters of faith must needs be A deformed Catholic, such a What is properly Catholic, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉, as Perkins in deed describeth, that admitteth one, two, three, four more or less points of the common Catholic received Religion: and yet starteth from the fifth or sixth, as himself best liketh, and this calleth Perkins A reformed Catholic, when the believer chooseth to believe, or leave what points do please him best: which choice we say, is properly heresy, for that an Heretic is a Chooser, as the Greek word importeth: and this heresy or choice in matters of belief doth Perkins profess to teach his hearer, saying: That he will show them how near they may come unto the Roman faith, and yet not jump with it, which is a doctrine common to all heretics, and heresies that ever were, for that all have agreed with the Catholic faith in some points, for that otherwise it should be Apostasy and not heresy if they denied all: yea the Turks and Moors at this day do hold some points of Christian Religion with the Catholics; but for that neither they nor heretics do hold all, therefore they are no true Catholics, but such Reformed Catholics as William Perkins would teach his disciples to be, to wit, properly Heretics by their choice of religion. 59 And to the end we may see not only the man's Perkins in his 〈◊〉. folly in choosing his argument, but his falsehood also Cath. c. 1. in prosecuting the same, I shall lay forth one only example out of his very first Chapter that beginneth with his ordinary argument of the Whore of Babylon, and by this one example, let the reader judge, whether he be not a fit Chaplyn for that honest woman, iflying, cozenage, and calumniation be properties of her profession. For that having spent many impertinent words to show that the impieties prophesied by S. john of the said Whore of Babylon, and Saints of Apoc. 17. God to be slain by her; was not meant of the persecution of Rome under the Pagan Emperors, but of the Church of Rome now under the Christian bishops and Popes, he hath these words. 60. This exposition (saith he) of the apocalypse besides the Authority of the text, hath also the favour and defence of ancient and learned men: Bernard saith, They are the Ministers of Christ, but they serve Antichrist. And Serm. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 33. again, the beast spoken of in the apocalypse to which a mouth is Epist. 124. given to speak blasphemies, and to make war with the Saints of God, is now gotten into Peter's Chair as a lion prepared to his prey. It willbe said, that Bernard speaketh these later words of one that came to the Popedom by intrusion, or usurpation. It is true in deed, but wherefore was he an usurper. He rendereth a reason thereof in the same place: because the Antipope called Innocentius, was chosen by the Kings of Alemaine, France, England, Scotland, Spain, Jerusalem, with consent of the whole Clergy and people in these nations, and the other was not. And thus Bernard hath given his verdict, that not only this usurper, but all the Popes for this many years are the beast in the apocalypse, because now they are only chosen by the College of Cardinals, etc. Thus he. 61. And now how many 〈◊〉 decepts, and falsities there be in this little narration is easy for any man to see, admire, and detest that will but look upon the places of S. Bernard by himself quoted. For in divers falsifications of S. Bernard's words. the first place out of his 33. Sermon upon 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where he saith: They are the Ministers of Christ, but do serve Antichrist, he speaketh against the vices of the Clergy, especially of France where he lived in his days. And that it is not meant particularly of the pope, S. Bernard's own words do show in that ve y place, saying: They will be and are Prelates of Churches, Deans, Archdeacon's, bishops, & Archbishopps: so as this is falsely brought in to prove any special thing against Rome, or the Pope, and much more wickedly alleged to prove Perkins his exposition of the apocalypse, against Christian Rome to be true in S. Bernard's sense, which he never thought of, or by any least cogitation admitted, as by the whole course of his writings to the contrary is evident: no man more extolling the dignity of the Pope, and Sea of Rome, than he, even then, when most he reprehendeth evil life and manners. 62. But the other that followeth is much more fraudulenty alleged: For if S. Bernard complained greatly that in his time one Petrus Leonis, an usurper and Antipope, being chosen by the 〈◊〉 less number of Cardinal's voices, did by violence notwithstanding thrust himself into the Chair of Peter, and play therein the part of Antichrist, what was this in prejudice of the true Pope Innocentius the second, whom Saint Bernard doth call Bern. epis. 124. Christ's Vicar, and highly commendeth him as lawfully chosen by the mayor part of the College of Cardinals, and exhorteth all Christian Kings to obey and follow him, as their high and true lawful universal pastor? So as here 〈◊〉 Perkins maketh a notorious lie in saying, that Innocentius by S. Bernard's judgement was an Antipope, whereas he proved him expressly in the places here alleged to be the true Pope and Vicar of Christ, and Petrus 〈◊〉 to be the Antipope. Numquid (saith he) non omnes Principes cognoverunt, quia ipse est verè Dei electus? Francorum, Anglorum, Hispanorum, & postremò Vbi 〈◊〉. Romanorum Rex Innocentium in Papam suscipiunt & recognoscunt 〈◊〉 Episcopum animarum suarum? Do not all Princes know, that Innocentius is truly the elected of God? The Kings of France, England, Spain, and 〈◊〉 do receive Innocentius for Pope, and do acknowledge him to be the singular Bishop of their souls. 63. Secondly he lieth much more apparently, when he saith, that Innocentius was chosen by the said Kings of Alemaine, France, England, etc. whereas S. Bernard saith not that he was chosen by them, but that he was accepted, followed, & obeyed by them, as true Pope after his election: Alemaniae (saith he) Angliae, Franciae, Scotiae, Epist. 〈◊〉. ad 〈◊〉. Hispaniarum & 〈◊〉 Reges cum universo clero & populis favent, & adhaerent Domino Innocentio, tanquam filii Patri tanquam capiti membra. The Kings of Germany, France, England, Scotland, Spain, and Jerusalem together with their whole Clergy and people do favour, and adhere to Pope 〈◊〉 (he doth not say they choose him) as children to their Father, and as members to their head. 64. Thirdly, Perkins lieth most desperately of all in his last conclusion, 〈◊〉: And thus Bernard hath given his verdict, that not only this usurper, but that all the Popes for 〈◊〉 Perkins in reformed Cath. c. 8. many years are the beast in the 〈◊〉, because now they are only chosen by the College of Cardinals. This (I say) is a notorious lie; for that S. Bernard giveth no such verdict, but alloweth well the election of Innocentius by the said Cardinals, saying: Meritò autem illum 〈◊〉 Ecclesia, 〈◊〉. epist. 〈◊〉. cuius & opinio clarior, & electio sanior inventa est. nimirum 〈◊〉 & numero vincens, & merito: Worthily doth the Church admit him (to wit Innocentius) whose estimation is more renowned, & whose election is found to be more lawful as passing the others election both in number and merit of the choosers. And so in these few lines we see how many wilful lies, and falsifications this Minister hath used, which cannot be excused, either by oversight, ignorance, or error, but must needs be ascribed to wilful malice, and express purpose of deceiving his hearer. And so though I might allege divers other places to like effect, yet this shall 〈◊〉 for one example; yea for all them of that sort in this behalf. For albeit examples without number may be alleged out of these men's works: yet by these few, 〈◊〉 may be made of the rest. I shall therefore adjoin some three or four examples more of laymen, to show the conformity of their spirits to their spiritual guides, and so make an end. The use of Equivocation in Lay-men and Knights. §. 5. 65. OF this sort of men I will allege only three in this place that in these later days have written against Catholic Religion; but yet such as are more eminent among the rest, they being Knights all three, whose honourable condition, & state of calling, aught to have obliged them to defence of truth, and that also by true means, and not by sleights of this worst kind of Equivocation, as here you shall see them do. The first is Sir Francis Hastings that wrote the injurious Watchword some years past, against Catholics: The second is Sir Philip Mornay, Lord of Plessis, that hath written many works much respected by those of his partiality in Religion. The third is Sir Edward Cook late Attorney of his Majesty, now a judge, and writer against Catholics. And albeit the second be a Frenchman borne, yet for that he hath lived much in England, and wrote some of his books there, and all or most part of them are 〈◊〉 to be in the English language, I may well accompany him with English Knights in this behalf. 66. For the first then which is Sir Francis, I may be The 〈◊〉 of Sir Francis 〈◊〉. the briefer with him, for that his adversary, or Antagonist hath in his Answers to the said Watchword, and Apology thereof, often put him in mind of his 〈◊〉 against truth, even then, when himself must needs know it to be so, and consequently, that it was not only voluntary, but witting also and wilful 〈◊〉, whereof I might allege many particulars, but two or three shall be enough for a taste. 67. In his defence of the Watchword pag. 74. he treating against the abuse of pardons, avoucheth out of sundry Chronicles, as he saith, the story of the poisoning of King john by a Monk named Simon, and this upon dispensation first obtained of his Abbot to do the fact without sin, which history being taken by him out of john Fox his Acts and Monuments, who affirmeth that most of the ancient Historiographers A wilful untruth. of our Country do agree in this matter, both of them are convinced of wilful untruths, for that they could not be ignorant, but that of all the old Historiographers that lived in the time of King john, or within two hundred years after, no one did ever affirm the same, but rather the quite contrary, setting down other particular causes & occasions of King john's death. And further they could not but know, and have read john Stows Chronicle printed anno. 1592. who having made diligent search about this matter, out of all authors of antiquity, could find no such thing: and so he testifieth in these words. Thus (saith he) have I set john 〈◊〉 in his 〈◊〉 in the life of K. john. down the life and death (though much abbreviated) of King john, according to the writings of Roger 〈◊〉, Roger Hoveden, Rad. Niger, Rad. Cogshall, Matthew Paris, and others, who all lived when the King reigned, and wrote for that time what they saw or heard credibly reported etc. 68 Now than if this Chronicle of Stow was out, and in every man's hand some years before Sir Francis wrote his Watchword, and that hereby is evident according to all ancient writers, that the foresaid poisoning of King john by a monk, was neither written, nor reported by any in those days; with what Conscience could 〈◊〉 Francis and Fox allege the 〈◊〉 again 〈◊〉 a truth? Was not here wilful deceit, nay 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will and desire of deceiving? 69. The same is laid against Sir Francis in citing of sundry others as namely the Authority of S. Hierome, Defence of the 2. for proof of common prayer in a vulgar tongue, Tota Encount. pag 18. Ecclesia (saith S. Hierome) instar tonitruireboat Amen, The S. Hier. in proem. lib. 2. Comen. ad 〈◊〉. whole Church like a mighty thunder doth sound out 〈◊〉, inferring thereof that all by likelihood did understand the language wherein public service was then celebrated, for that otherwise they could not so answer: But mark the frauds that are in this allegation. First the Knight doth not explicate in particular what Church it was whereof S. Hierome spoke, nor upon what occasion, nor to whom, and secondly he doth conceal the words ' that immediately went before & followed after, for that they made all against him. For first S. Hierome spoke of the Church of Rome in particular, where the latin tongue being in use so commonly in his days, that it was, as it were, their natural language, no marvel though the common people could sound out Amen, they understanding for the most part the latin tongue: for we see also that in other Catholic Countries where the latin tongue is not so commonly in use, the common people by use and practice can, and do with common voice sound out Amen in Litanies, and other parts of latin service; wherefore this circumstance was fraudulently concealed. 70. As that other was in like manner, that S. Hierome wrote these words unto two vowed virgins, Paula, and Eustochium, to whom he dedicated his said second book of his Commentaries upon the Epistle to the Galathians, commending unto them the faith and devotion of the Church of Rome above other Churches, and yielding a reason why the Apostle S. Paul did so highly commend the Roman Christians in his time, both for their faith and obedience, saying of the first: I do give thanks to my God by jesus Christ for you all, sor that Rom. 〈◊〉. your faith is divulged throughout the whole world: and in the end of the same Epistle, he saith of their obedience in living according to their faith: Your obedience is divulged Rome 16. into every place of the world, wherefore I take joy in you, etc. Upon which testimony of the Apostle S. Hierome writeth thus: Romanae plebis laudatur 〈◊〉, etc. The faith of the Roman people is praised by the Apostle, for in what other place of the world is there such continual concourse unto Churches, and unto the sepulchres of Martyrs as in Rome? In what place do they so sound out the word Amen, to the likeness of a certain heavenly thunder? Not for that the Romans have any other faith, but that which all Christian Churches have, but only that there is greater devotion in them, and greater simplicity to believe. 71. These are S. hierom's words, which if Sir Francis had set down wholly and simply as the lie in him, he saw how they would make against him in divers points, and therefore he willingly and wittingly cut of both the beginning and ending, as you have heard, & applied the midst to a wrong sense, never thought of by the Author himself. And the same is proved 〈◊〉 in 〈◊〉. 99 warn. against him in the allegation of many other Authors, as of S. Augustine pag. 18. of S. Bede, and Arnobius pag. 34. Bed. & Arnob. ibib. Encont 2. fol. 14. &. 5. & 35. and of S. Chrysostome pag. 52. all to one end corruptly and fraudulently alleged for some show of proof that public service ought to be in vulgar tongues only: which yet being truly examined make Chrys. hom 13 in 2. ad Cor. warn. nothing for his purpose, but quite contrary. And thus much in this place for the first Knight. 72. As concerning the second Knight Sir Philip Mornay En ont. 1. 〈◊〉 63. his case is notorious, that having published a great book full of authorities against the Mass upon the En ont. 1. fol. 67. year 1599 seeming to show great learning therein, the same was fond afterward to be so full of deceits 〈◊〉 of Sir Philip Mornay. and wilful falsifications, as a very learned man Monsieur Peron then Bishop of Eureux, and now Cardinal made public offer to prove above five hundred such wilful falsifications to be in that book, requesting also, by humble suit, his Majesty of France to command public trial with his presence, as at length it was effectuated in the presence of the King and great part of his 〈◊〉, and other learned men on both Acts de la Conference tenue entre le Sieur Euesque d'Eureux, & le 〈◊〉 du Plessis, etc. a Fountain-bleau le 4. de May. 1600. sides, upon the year 1600. and 4. of May, as appeareth both by the Kings own letter extant in print, as also by the public Acts set forth by the approbation of the said King and his Counsel. 73. In this Conference of trial, five hundred wilful falsifications being objected, as I said, to this Knight, and when the time grew near, three score 〈◊〉 exhibited unto him by the said Bishop out of which to make his choice for the first days trial, the Imprimez chez Anthoine le Marié. said Sir Philip Mornay choice 19 of those, which he thought himself best able to defend or excuse, and of this number also he placed in the first rank such as seemed to him to be of least enormity, whereof notwithstanding, the straightness of time permitting only 9 to be handled, he was convinced publicly in all, and every one of them, and had sentence given against him, by the judges, as well Protestants chosen of his side, as the other that were of the Bishop's Religion: the sum whereof I shall briefly touch in this place. 74. The first was that he had falsified the Schole-Doctor In the french printed Acts fol. 34. joannes Scotus, alleging him as though he had doubted of the Reall-presence, for that having proposed the question, whether Christ were really in the Sacrament, under the forms of bread and wine, he did according to the fashion of Schools, make arguments to the contrary, saying: Videtur quòd non, it seemeth that he is not so there, for these and these reasons, which afterwards he solveth and holdeth the contrary position for true, and Catholic, to wit, that Christ's body is really there, whereupon the sentence of the judges was, that Monsieur Plessis in this matter had taken the objection Printed acts fol. 52. of Scotus for his resolution. 75. The second falsification whereof he was convinced was that he had alleged Bishop Durandus an other Scholastical Author very fraudulently about Act. fol. 46. the controversy of Transubstantiation, affirming him to say, and hold for his own position that which he citeth only as an objection out of an other, and answereth the same. The third and fourth falsifications were, that he had corrupted plainly S. Chrysostome in Act. fol. 52. & 58. two several places by him alleged about prayer for the dead, producing two particular testimonies out of him quite contrary to his own meaning, and express words. The fifth was out of S. Hierome about praying to Saints. The sixth out of S. Cyrill about honouring the holy Crosse. The seventh out of the Code or Imperial laws about painting or carving the sign of the said Crosse. The eight out of S. Bernard about honouring our blessed Lady. The ninth and last of an authority of Theodorete about Images. 76. All which places being diligently examined, and Sir Philipp Mornay suffered to say, and allege what he could for his defence or evasion, he was convinced manifestly by the said Bishop of Eureux, and sentenced by all the judges to have committed falfification, and untrue dealing in them all. And the like would the said Bishop have showed, & declared in all the rest to the number of five hundred, if the said Mornay could have been brought to have continued the combat, which he would not, as you may see in the said public Acts printed in French upon the year 1601. See in the 3. 〈◊〉. 3. p in the end of the first 6. more neths of Fox his 〈◊〉. with approbation of the King himself. And he that will see more particulars of this in the English tongue, may read a Treatise, or relation thereof set forth in the year 1604. taken out of the foresaid French public Acts of the said trial. And so this shall serve for this French Knight, whereby you may see the conformity of spirit in them all, when occasion is offered to Equivocate in the worst sense. 77. Our last example than shall be of S. Edward Cook Equivocatio 〈◊〉 Sir Edward Cook. lately the King's Attorney, who having taken upon him these years past to be both a sharp writer, and earnest actor against catholics, seemeth therewith to have drunk also of this spirit in such abundant measure, as he is like in time to overrun all the rest, if he go forward, as he hath begun. For that being admonished not long ago by one that answered his last book of Reports, of divers notorious his excesses committed in this kind, he is (men See the answer of the Cath. say) so far of from correcting, or amending the same, as he hath not only in a late large declamation against Catholics in a charge given by him at Norwich repeated Divine to the 1. p. of Sir Edw. and avouched again the same excesses, but hath 〈◊〉 others also thereunto of much more apparent Cook's Reports. falsity. As for example, he was admonished among cap ult. other points, that it was a notorious untruth, which he had written and printed, that for the first ten years of Queen Elizabeth's reign no one person of what religion, or sect so ever did refuse to go to the Protestants Church and service; which the Answerer confuteth so clearly, and by so many witnesses, as a man would have thought that the matter would never have been mentioned more for very shame; and yet now (they say) that the Attorney being made a judge, hath not only repeated the same, but avouched it also again with such asseveration in his foresaid Charge, as if it had never been controlled, or proved false. 78. Nay further they write, that he adjoined with like asseveration divers other things no less apparently false than this: as for example, that Pope Pius Quintus before he proceeded to any Ecclesiastical Censure against Q Elizabeth, wrote unto her a letter, offering to allow and ratify the English Service, Bible, and Communion-booke, as now it is in use in that Kingdom, if she would accept it as from him, which she refusing to do, he did excommunicate her; by which tale he acquitteth notwithstanding Catholics (if A notable fiction against Pius Quintus. you mark it) from procuring that excommunication for rebellion, which else where he often objecteth most odiously against them. For if upon this cause she were excommunicated, what part had Ca holicks therein? But yet I must needs say, that the siction is one of the most unlikely things. and the most impossible in moral reason, that any man can devise. For that Pope Pius Quintus, albeit some man would imagine him to be so good a fellow as to care for no religion (who is known to have been most zealous) yet had he adventured his Popedom by making such an offer, for he should have allowed of divers points in the Communion-booke, which are held by the Catholic Church for heresy, and so condemned by the Council Decret. p. 1. dist. 40. ca 6. Si Papa. of Trent, and other Counsels: and now you know it is a ground among us, that a Pope that should be an heretic, or approver of heresy, thereby ceaseth to be Pope; how improbable then is this of Pius Quintus his offer. And why had not this letter in so many years been published to the world for the credit of the English service, and discredit of the Popes? And yet the voice is, that the Lord Cook did so earnestly avouch this matter, as he pawned therein not only his credit & honesty bv express terms of protestation: but even his faith also to God and man: A great adventure no doubt. And for that I assure myself 〈◊〉 the greater part of the auditory being discreet men, did imagine it to be quite false, as I, and others in effect do know it to be; it must needs be a great blemish to my lords credit at the beginning of his judgeship, that in other things also he be not believed. 79. But I understand that the book of this speech, The Lo. Cook's charge against Catholics. or charge now printed is expected shortly together with some other appertaining to the same man, and then it may be that some body will examine matters more particularly (especially those that appertain to the injuring of Catholics) and afterward return with the aggrevances to the judge himself (seeing he is now a judge) to give sentence of his own oversightes: albeit I must confess that as well myself, as divers other men have lost great hope of his Lordship by this accident, for before we did think that his overlashing in speeches when he was Attorney did proceed in great part of the liberty of that office, and that when he came to be judge he would reform his conscience ratione status, in regard of his state of life; but now it seemeth that he is far worse, though this (I say) shallbe left by me to others to be discussed upon the sight of the foresaid printed books. 80. My speech at this time shall be only about that which passed in his book of Reports, while he was Attorney, and which hath been disputed these months passed between him, and a Catholic Divine of our party, in his answer to the said Reports, which answer is in England. And albeit thereby may easily be seen the talon which M. Attorney had while he was Attorney in this kind of worst Equivocation (notwithstanding his often declamations against the other sort, that with due circumstances we have proved to be lawful:) yet will I here adjoin one example more, but such a one as is worth the noting, & bearing away. And it is this. 81. That whereas in answering of divers laws, 〈◊〉 and ordinances which the Attorney alleged out of the reigns of sundry ancient Kings, to prove that they did exercise spiritual authority, and jurisdiction, the Divine sometimes not having the law-bookes by him, out of which the said laws or authorities were cited, supposing the allegations to be ordinarily true (for who would suspect lawyers to be The Divine deceived by the subtlety of the Lawyer. false in their cytations, that were wont to be accounted most exact in that point) did answer the same with that sincerity of truth and reason, as to a man of his profession appertained, though sometimes also he was forced to suspect some fraud, and thereupon requested such as had commodity in England to see the books, that they would peruse the places, and take them out verbatim, which some have done, and have found such store of Equivocations, and false dealing in the alleging thereof, as never could be imagined in a man of his calling. I shall only set down one example and it shall be the first that is cited by him in the whole book, to wit, of the Charter of King Kenulphus of the West-Saxons, unto the Abbey of Abindon in Barkeshyre, which Charter M. Attorney set down with this preface: To confirm (saith he) those that hold the truth, and to satisfy such as being not instructed know not the ancient, and modern laws, etc. these few demonstrative proofs shall serve. 82. And then beginneth he with the said Charter King Kenulphus his charter notably falsified by M. Attorney. Report. fol. 9 of King Kenulphus before the Conquest, meaning to prove thereby that the said King did give unto the said Abbey of Abindon spiritual jurisdiction, by virtue of his temporal Crown, exempting the same from all Authority of the Bishop, which in deed was done by the Pope, and so the Charter itself doth plainly express, if it had been truly related by M. Attorney. And for that the Case is not long, I shall set it down verbatim, as the Attorney hath it in his book pag. 9 only putting into English that which is recited by him in latin, and left without any translation to make the matter more obscure: and then shall we lay forth also the true case whereby will be seen how true a dealer M. Attorney is in those his writings, and protestations, which after we shall more largely consider of. Thus then beginneth the Charter. 83 Kenulphus Rex etc. per literas suas patentes, consilio, & consensu Episcoporum, & Senatorum gentis suae, largitus fuit The charter as M. Attorney allegeth it an. 755. Monasterio de Abindon in Comitatu Bark. & cuidam Ruchino tunc Abbati Monasterij etc. quandam ruris sui portionem, id est, quindecim mansias, in loco qui à ruricolis tunc nuncupabatur Culnam cum omnibus utilitatibus ad eandem pertinentibus-tam Stanford. lib. c. 9 fol. 1012. in magnis, quam in modic is rebus, in aeternam haereditatem. Et quod praedictus Kuchinus, etc. ab omni Episcopali iure in sempiternum esset quietus: ut inhabitatores eius nullius Episcopi, aut suorum officialium iugo inde deprimantur; sed in cunctis rerum eventibus & discussionibus causarum, Abbatis Monasterij praedicti decreto subijciantur, ita quod, etc. Thus goeth the Charter as M. Attorney allegeth it, which in English is as followeth. 84. King Kenulphus, etc. by his letters patents with the counsel, and consent of the Bishops, and counsellors of his nation, did give to the 〈◊〉 of Abindon in Berkshire, and to one Ruchinus Abbot of that Monastery, a certain portion of his land, to wit, fifteen Mansians, in a place called by the countrymen Culnam, with all profits, and commodities great and small, appertaining thereunto for everlasting inheritance. And that the foresaid Ruchinus, etc. should be quiet from all right of the Bishop for ever; so as the inhabitants of that place, shall not be depressed for the time to come by the yoke of any Bishop, or his officers, but that in all events of things and controversies of causes, they shall be subject to the decree of the Abbot of the said Monastery: so as, etc. And then Mark M. attorneys Inference upon his own falsification. doth M. Attorney continue his speech thus: This Charter was pleaded in 1. H. 7. and vouched by Stanford, as at large appeareth; which Charter granted above. 850. years sithence, was after confirmed per Eduinum Britaniae Anglorum Regem & Monarcham anno Domini. 955. by which appeareth, that the King by this Charter, made in Parliament, (for it appeareth to be made by the Counsel, and consent of his Bishops, & Senators of his Kingdom, which were assembled in * This is false. Parliament) did discharge and exempt the said Abbot from the jurisdiction of the Bishop etc. And by the same Charter did grant to the same Abbot Ecclesiastical jurisdiction within his said Abbey: which Ecclesiastical jurisdiction being * This also is false. derived from the Crown, continued until the dissolution of the said Abbey in the reign of King Henry the eight. So he. 85. And by this you may see what an important conclusion he doth infer of the kings supreme jurisdiction in spiritual affairs at that time. Whereunto the Divine coming to answer, and supposing that M. Attorney would not falsity or belie his Authors, M. attorneys so 〈◊〉 protestation falsified. having protested most solemnly fol. 40. of his his book, that he had cited truly the very words, and texts of the laws, resolutions, judgements, and acts of Parliament, all public, and in print, without any inference, argument, or amplification, Report. fol. 40. quoting particularly the books, years, leaves, Chapters, and other such like certain references, as every man at his pleasure may see and read them, etc. The answerer I say) hearing this formal protestation, and supposing besides that the man would have some respect to his credit and honour in this behalf, granting all as it lay, answered the same, as you may see in his book: but now upon better search, it falleth out, that this whole 〈◊〉 was falsely alleged by M. Attorney in the very point of the principal controversy in hand about the kings spiritual jurisdiction, for that whatsoever the Charter did ascribe expressly to the Pope, & his Authority, the Attorney suppressing the true words, relateth it, as proceeding from the King, & temporal authority of his Crown. For proof whereof I shall set down the very words of my learned friends letter out of England about this point, after view taken of the law-bookes themselves, and then let any man say how far M Attorney is to be credited in any thing he writeth, or speaketh against Catholics. 86. As concerning (saith he) the Charter of King The relation sent 〈◊〉 of England about the true charter of K. Kenulphus. Kenulphus for the Sanctuary of the Monastery of Abindon, you must know that M. Attorney hath egregiously abused his Reader in that and other points. For the Case standeth thus. That in the first year of King Henry the 7. Humphrey Stafford was attainted by Act of Parliament of high 〈◊〉, and took Sanctuary first in Colchester in Essex, & after fled to Culnam, and took Sanctuary in the Abbey of Abindon, and being taken from thence brought unto the Tower of London, & from thence brought unto the king's-bench, he pleaded, that he was drawn by force out of the said Sanctuary of Culnam, and prayed his Counsel to plead that point, which by all the judges of both benches was granted unto him. And so they pleaded in this manner 87. Idem Humphridus per Consilium suum dixit, quod Kenulphus Rex Merciorum, per litteras suas patentes, consilio & consensu Episcoporum & Senatorum gentis suae largitus fuit Monasterio de Abindon, ac cuidam Ruchino tunc Abbati Monasterij illius, quandam ruris sui portionem, id est, quindecim Mansias in loco qui a ruricolis tunc nuncupabatur Culnam, cum omnibus utilitatibus ad 〈◊〉 pertinentibus, tam in magnis quam in modicis rebus in aeternam haereditatem. Et quod praedictus Ruchinus ab omni Regis obstaculo, & Episcopali iure in sempiternum esset quietus, ut inhabitatores eius nullius Regis aut ministrorum suorum, Episcopive, aut suorum Officialium iugo inde deprimerentur, sed in cunctis rerum eventibus, & discussionibus causarum Abbatis Monasterij praedicti decreto subijcerentur. 〈◊〉 quod, etc. And here ceaseth M. Attorney leaving out as you see in his recital, the words that go before, ab omni Regis obstaculo, etc. that the monastery should be free from all obstacle of the King, as also these words, ut inhabitatores eius nullius Regis, aut 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 deprimantur, that the inhabitants be not oppressed with any yoke of any King or his ministers. whereby is evident that the King in his Charter did for his part give exemptions from temporal & royal power: but especially the fraud is seen by cutting of the words that do ensue, which decide the whole controversy, which are these: Et etiam allegavit ultra quod Leo tunc Papa concessit dicto Abbati dictas 〈◊〉, & 〈◊〉. Et quod Eduinus tunc Britaniae Anglorum Rex, & Monarchus concessit, quod praefatum Monasterium omnis terrenae servitutis esset liberum, quae 〈◊〉 praedecessoribus suis Catholicis, videlicet à dicto Sancto Leone Papa & dicto Rege Kenulpho etc. Et quod virtute litter arum & bullarum praedictarum, & tempore This decideth the whole Controversy and therefore was fraudulently cut of by M Attorney. confectionis earundem, eadem villa de Culnam fuit Sanctuarium, & locus privilegiatus etc. Which in English is thus. And moreover the said Humphrey Stafford by his Counsel alleged furthet for himself, that Pope Leo had granted unto the said Abbot the said immunities and privileges, & that K. Edwin then King & monarch over all the English in Brittany had granted that the said Monastery should be free from all earthly servitude, which by his Catholic predecessors, to wit, the said holy Pope 〈◊〉, & the said King Kenulphus, was granted; and that at the time of the making of the foresaid letters patents and Bulls, the said village or town of Culnam was a Sanctuary, and privileged place by virtue of the said patents and Bulls. 88 This is word for word the very plea of Humphrey Stafford for the Sanctuary of the Monastery of Abindon, as it was pleaded by his learned Counsel in law, even as it is recorded in the reports of the years of 1. Hen. 7. printed by Pinson & Brooke tit. Cor. pl. 129. King Henry the seventh, as they are printed by Pinson the law-printer in the time of King Henry the eight before the Protestant religion came up. And the Lord Brook in his Abridgement of the law, in the title of Corone, placito 129. doth accordingly set down the same case, with mentioning of the Bulls of Pope 〈◊〉 for the said immunities and privileges. But all the Protestant editions in the time of the late Queen A falsification of protestat printers. Elizabeth printed by Tottell and 〈◊〉- wert have committed a notable trick of falsification in leaving out altogeathcr these markable words: That Leo then Pope did grant the said immunities, and privileges, and also those words of King Edwin, which of his Catholic 〈◊〉 S. Leo & King Kenulphus were granted, etc. And again, By force of the letters, and Bulls aforesaid the said village of Culnam was a Sanctuary, and place privileged. 89. And hereby allois evident that the King did not by his Charter in Parliament (for it appeareth to be made by the Counsel and consent of his Bishops and Senators & not by Parliament, as M. Attorney doth misreport it) neither was there any Parliament held at that time in the land, or many hundred years after (for as it appeareth by holinshed's Chronicle pag. 34. When Parliaments began in England. the first use of Parliament in England was in the time of King Henry the first) it is clear (I say) that the King did not discharge and exempt the said Abbot from jurisdiction of the Bishop, nor did grant unto the said Abbot Ecclesiastical jurisdiction within the said Abbey, neither had that Abbot any Ecclesiastical jurisdiction derived from the Crown: But as it appeareth by the authentic report of the Case, the Pope and the King did both join in making the said Sanctuary, according unto their several powers & authorities. So that the exemption from Episcopal jurisdiction did proceed duly from the grant of Pope Leo; as likewise the exemption from all regal and temporal jurisdiction proceed from the Charter of King Kenulphus. Note also that King edwin's grant was only that the said Monastery should be free from all earthly servitude, and toucheth not any spiritual immunities, or jurisdiction at all. The conclusion of all. 90. Thus far my friend out of England. And by this now you may see how well M. Attorney hath observed his foresaid protestation, that he had cited the very words, and texts of the laws, without any inference, argument, or amplification at all. And this being my friend's advertisement from England, with like observation of many other places cited by M. Attorney, with like fidelity, I thought good to produce this one amongst many (being the first in order) for a taste in this place, reserving the rest to a fitter, or at leastwise to a second Edition of the foresaid answer of the Catholic divine, where every thing may be referred to his due place. And with this will I end both this Chapter and the whole Book. THE CONCLUSION OF THE WHOLE WORK, With a brief exhortation unto Catholics, not to use the liberty of Equivocation, even in lawful cases, but where some urgent occasion induceth them thereunto. CHAP. XIII. AND now, gentle reader, having brought this Treatise to an end, and justified (as I hope) our Catholic doctrine in the eyes and judgements of all indifferent men, from the two odious imputations of Rebellion and Equivocation, injuriously cast upon the same by the malice of Thomas Morton; there remaineth nothing, but that I conclude this our small labour, with an exhortation to all Catholic people, not only to abstain from the first, which is utterly unlawful (I mean the attempting of any thing contrary to their loyal duties in subjection, be their pressures never so great:) but also from the practice, and frequent use of the second, though in some cases most lawful as abundantly hath been 〈◊〉; except some urgent occasion, or obligation, either of defence of Lawful causes of the use of Equivocation. innocency, secrecy, right, justice, or the avoiding of open wrong, do force them to the contrary. For as the holy Apostle in two several places affirmeth to the Corinthians in cases not much unlike to this about matter of scandal: Omnia mihi licent, sed non omnia expediunt: 1. Cor. 6. All things are lawful unto me (touching meats, and other such things) but all are not expedient to be practised. And again: Omnia 〈◊〉 licent, sed non omnia 1. Cor. 10. edificant; All things are lawful unto me, but all things do not edify: So I say in this case, that albeit a man may without breach of truth, or offence of almighty God in certain cases, equivocate, or use a doubtful speech for a good and necessary end, either in oath, or out of oath, though the hearer do not always understand it, or be deceived therewith, and that many holy men have done the same, yea Christ himself, that is the example, and pattern of all holiness and truth in speech, as by many examples before at large hath been declared: yet considering the times, and condition thereof, wherein Catholics at this day live in England, the offence, and scandal which Protestants, and some others, that understand not the lawfulness thereof, or will not understand the same, do receive, or raise thereupon; my wish and counsel to Catholics should be to use the benefit of this liberty most sparingly even in lawful things, and never but upon great and urgent 〈◊〉, and occasions. 2. And the reasons of this my wish and counsel are The reasons why Catholics ought to use the liberty of Equivocation sparingly. principally the two already touched: The one the avoiding of scandal even with the Adversary himself: and that as Catholic Religion is the only true in doctrine, so the practice also thereof in conversation; should not only be in all truth, and sincerity re ipsa, in very deed; but in opinion likewise, and estimation of others, in so much as the word of a Catholic man ought to weigh more than the oath of an other, and the oath, or promise of a Catholic, more than any band, or obligation of an other, which for the most part I doubt not, but is so already taken in England. For that albeit by this doctrine before declared about Equivocation, men do know that Catholics in certain cases may use the same: yet know they also that the said cases are straightly limited with many exceptions, and that in common conversation, as in buying selling, traffic, and the like, Equivocation may not be * See of these things before & namely Cap. 7. Consid. 1. used to the 〈◊〉, or prejudice of any man: and that in judgements and tribunals, where most use thereof doth fall out, all lawyers, judges and Magistrates do know in Catholic Countries, wherein the 〈◊〉 may use Equivocation, & wherein not, and consequently truth & justice can suffer no wrong thereby. And moreover they know, as before hath been said, that the obligation of a Catholic man, is so great to avoid all kind of lies, whether venial, or mortal, as for the gaining of a world no one is wittingly and willingly to be committed: which account I doubt whether men of other sects and Religion do make or Noah. So as though already I persuade myself, that Catholic people stand in good conceit with all sorts of men, for their truth in concionable and upright dealing; even with those which endeavour most in this point to slander them: yet would I wish the same to be confirmed more daily by facts in respect of this new calumniation raised against them of the liberty of Equivocation. And this of the first reason. 3. My other reason is, as before hath been insinuated, in regard of the time present, which being a time of trial & persecution, requireth at Catholics hands, a more perfect Confession of their faith, and of all matters belonging thereunto, then at other times. And albeit in the former Treatise among the Cases reserved, wherein Equivocation may not be used, confession of faith be expressly and in the first place excepted, so as therein no doubleness or doubtfulness may be used: yet no man can deny but many facts and cases may fall out, concerning matters of Religion not tending to confession (〈◊〉 in time of persecution) wherein a man may or perhaps also must by obligation, if otherwise he cannot avoid the wrong & violence that How a Priest may sometimes yield of his right with more merit. is offered to himself or others, use Equivocal speeches, for concealing of that which in conscience he cannot utter. But wheresoever this obligation is not, there my wish is, as now I have said, that Catholic people, but especially Priests, whose example must instruct the rest, should yield also of their right for increase of their merit, and crown in heaven, and use all plainness, and sincerity in speech, and free discovering, not only of their religion, but also of their state, where it is hurtful to none, but to themselves: which yet I speak in that sense, and with that limitation, which the holy Apostle did, when he said: That he gave counsel 1. 〈◊〉. 7. of himself, but no precept of our Lord. And for that this whole Treatise of Equivocation hath proceeded upon that question so often before repeated, Whether a Priest being taken, may deny himself to be a Priest, or no, I shall 〈◊〉 down divers circumstances, and considerations of the Case, whereby also shall be made more plain, what my meaning is in this behalf. 4. When a Priest cometh first into England with full intent and resolution to offer his life if there be need, for the confession of Catholic Religion, and is taken afterward, & brought before the Magistrate, either he is taken in some man's house, of whose overthrow divers cases falling out in the examination of priests. he must be the cause if he confess that he is a priest, or be being taken forth of any house; yet hath he cause to suspect, and persuade himself, that it may be known afterward by confession of others, that are also taken, or may be taken, that he belongeth to such, or such a house; & in these two cases there is no doubt but that if he think, that his denying of himself to be a priest, may save them from hurt, he is bound to deny the same with some kind of lawful Equivocation, but without telling a lie, as * Supra cap. 7. 8. 9 10. before at large hath been declared. But if this priest should be taken in the port, as he entereth, or soon after in the high way or otherwise, and brought before a Magistrate, so as his confessing himself to be a priest could not prejudice any other, and presupposing that he is unlawfully demanded that question, against law, reason, and religion, here is he at his own liberty to deny or confess himself to be a priest, and no man can absolutely determine, what were best for him to answer, but the spirit of God that speaketh within him, to whom Christ hath promised to impart such wisdom, Luc. ●●. as is necessary for that time and action: yet if he were not a man of such great extraordinary talents, as by his loss or restraint, God's cause were to lose much, or that he were not sure by his denial to procure his liberty, or that he might justly doubt that he should quickly come to be known in prison, and thereby some scandal to arise to the simple, or ill affected by his denial; In all these Cases I would think it more meritorious and of greater perfection and edification divers considerations. to confess himself a priest without further denial, or declination, which I speak not to condemn them, or their doings that being taken have done, or shall do the contrary, for that they use but their own right, as hath been declared: but rather I speak it for information of others that may doubt of the Case. Nor do we intend here to prejudice the most holy doctrine of S. Athanasius, and other ancient Lib. de fuga sua. Fathers of the lawfulness of flight and escape in persecution, counseled by Christ our Saviour, and authorized Math. 10. by the example of the Apostles themselves, and Act. 9 namely of S. Paul, when he fled, and escaped out of a 2. Cor. 11. window, and at an other time deluded the envious pursuit of his enemies by an Equivocal speech to Act. 23. the pharisees, and Sadducees, as before hath been declared: but rather to show that clear confession is sometimes also most commendable, and that in such a time of trial, and of Crowns offered to Catholics, and especially to Priests for the said confession of the Catholic faith as now is; no lawful occasion is to be left for acquiring the same. 5. And this is so much as in this matter I had to advertise Catholics in the Conclusion of this my answer, not meaning to descend into further particulars of actions & obligations that may fall out, which here are hard to be determined; but only by the present circumstances of the time, place, and matter in hand, with regard and respect unto the two principal virtues that must govern us in these afayres, to wit, Truth, and justice. Truth, that all The two main virtues to be respected, Truth, and justice. manner of falsity and lying be utterly avoided: and justice, that no injury be done by us to God's cause, ourselves, or other men, which is the law of a just man, and true servant of God, to be observed, whatsoever temporal hurts, or damages may ensue thereof. 6. And whereas my Adversary Thomas Morton, doth conclude the very last lines of his book with a final Charge again renewed of our Antichristian doctrines of lying, and treason, and threatening us for the same, not fancied fire of Purgatory (saith he) as for wood Conf. pag. 103. and straw, but unquenchable hellfire, as for pitch, and tar, sulphur, and powder; we shall more charitably conclude with him, wishing that his offences of malice, 〈◊〉, and deceit discovered by us in this our Answer, may be wood and straw, and that the fire prepared by God's justice for punishing the same may be a purging fire, and not a consuming 〈◊〉, or rather a consuming fire, and not an unconsuming fire, as that is of hell, which he threateneth to us, but in deed purchaseth to himself, by the course he hitherto holdeth. 7. And to this wish and prayer for him, I doubt not but to draw not only all good, and pious Catholics that use it 〈◊〉 for their enemies, and persecutors, but the very Jesuits also, against whom he rageth most bitterly, even in the next precedent lines before his said conclusion, calling them the Theological Alchemists of our time, that can extract aurum ex carbone, and morton's scoffs against jesuits rejected. the Monopolists of all 〈◊〉 in whom notwithstanding he saith, no art to be singular, but that of Equivocation, and other such like intertaynments of his uncivil Urbanity, whereby he would seem to his Reader pleasant and ingenious; but in deed maketh himself ridiculous. For that all men know now, or at least wise his Reader will by this our Answer, that the doctrine of Equivocation in certain Cases, and with due circumstances, is not Alchemy of the Jesuits, but the ignorance of Morton, and his fellows, who ascribe that unto them, as the chief Authors, which was in use many hundred years before they were in the world. And as for the Monopoly of arts, if he understand thereby, their teaching above others of liberal Arts, and sciences in their schools throughout Christendom, it is true in a certain sort, that this kind of Monopoly, or pre-eminent labour may be granted unto their endeavours of their Godly instruction & institution of youth. And happy had it been for Tho. Morton, if he had been brought up under that Monopoly, for it is like he would have had, if not more grace, yet more wit at least and understanding, then to have objected unto them, as here he doth, that no art is singular in them but that of Equivocation, whereas the doctrine of Equivocation, as Catholics hold it, and we before expounded it, is no art, but a sound position in divinity, belonging to the direction of a good Conscience, against lying, whereof Morton and his fellows have so learned the art, and The facility of lying in T. M. by habit. confirmed the habit thereof by repetition, and multiplication of so many acts, as it floweth now from them with as great facility in every occasion, as the notes, and tunes of singing do from him, that hath made a long habit therein, or as the fingers of a musician, that without deliberation, or thinking of the player do run their stops and perform their particular motions by virtue of the habit before made and confirmed. 8. For proof of all this I refer myself to that which hath been set down in the former Chapters, and especially in the sixth, and so will here shut up all this Treatise, adding only some few lines of advise and admonition, as well unto mine Adversary, as also unto them whom he by his injurious and slanderous sycophancy, hath sought to draw into hatred and danger of the State; and so to him I say, let him remember what the justice of God doth menace, and threaten unto false accusers of their brethren, as have wrongfully traduced so many innocent persons, as this fellow hath, both in his Epistle to the King, and Preface to the Reader, and throughout all his virulent The 〈◊〉 behaviour 〈◊〉 T. M. and spiteful Treatises, being three or four in number against all sorts of Catholics, and the 〈◊〉 body thereof, accusing them of most heinous rebellions, and heathenish Equivocations, and for bloodthirsty men, and speakers of lies without conscience: and himself (forsooth) to be a Minister of simple truth, naked innocency, and to hate all lying and equivocating even from his very soul. But these things we have sufficiently I suppose laid open before throughout this work, and have showed him (if I be not deceived) to be one of the foulest, and most frequent liars, that ever (perhaps) set pen to paper in these our days. 9 And now at this very instant having written hitherto, cometh to my hands the Catholic Treatise The Catholic Treatise of Equivocation 〈◊〉 to sight. itself of Equivocation before mentioned, against which Morton frameth his answer, and promiseth A full satisfaction in the title of his book; of which Treatise not having been able to procure the sight until this time I find so much occasion of new matter given thereby against the shifting falsehood of this Minister, as I might dilate myself to the making of a new Treatise, if I would pursue the particulars of his said deceits and abuses therein offered. For whereas he professeth A full answer, and satisfaction, as hath by'r said, which importeth as much, as that he would answer it wholly and truly to the full satisfaction of every indifferent Reader, he is so far of from performing that, as he hath not touched, or so much as mentioned the tenth part thereof in his answer, albeit the whole 〈◊〉 itself be not large, nor containeth above 8. or 9 sheets of written paper: nay he doth not so much as name or mention divers whole Chapters therein, and those which he doth touch, he doth it with such art and subtlety, skipping hither, and thither, forth and back, at length, and crosswise, taking here a sentence, and there an other, as though his principal care had been not to be understood, or at leastwise not to be found out where he walketh, whereof I shall give here some short taste, or note, as it were, with the finger, whereby the rest may be conjectured. Stand attended then gentle Reader, and mark his manner of answering. 10. First then to begin his confutation pag. 48. he A note upon the Answer of T. M. to the Catholic Treatise of 〈◊〉. layeth hands on the first words or title of the Preface, alleging thereof six lines for his purpose, as for the ground of his whole workmanship, and then in the same page he steppeth from the Preface to the fifth Chapter of the Treatise, and taketh thence three lines: then pag. 53. he recoileth back to the second Chapter citing seven lines from thence: & pag. 55. he advanceth himself forward again to the third Chapter, and produceth an eleven lines: and then in the very next leaf in two several times he draweth from the same Chapter some 9 lines; and after some ten pages of silence, citeth 4. lines more from the said third Chapter of his Adversaries Treatise, from whence presently in the next leaf pag. 70. he giveth a large leap to fetch 3. lines out of the tenth Chapter, which is the last of all, and from thence in the next 〈◊〉 pag. 72. he runneth back again to the 4. Chapter, and allegeth but 7. lines only: & pag. 73. five lines more; & pag. 78. 7. lines more out of the said 4. Chapter: and then giving a strided to the 8. Chapter pag. 80. he bringeth thence 〈◊〉 3. lines to work upon; then pag 85. giveth a skipp back to the 4. and 7. Chapters and out of them both draweth some 6. or 7. lines towards his building; and from hence again pag. 88 he stretcheth himself to the tenth Chapter for some 3. or 4. lines to help himself withal; and pag. 93. and 99 for some 9 or 10. lines more, and with this endeth his whole answer. 11. And now consider prudent Reader what manner of full satisfaction this is, that in so little a Treatise leaveth out so principal parts unanswered, as that of A consideration upon morton's method of answering. ten Chapters he omitteth wholly three without mention thereof, which are the first, sixth, and ninth Chapters, and then in the other examineth the matter so slenderly, as that out of the whole fifth Chapter he handleth only three lines, & out of the 7 scarce other three, and out of the second, but seven, and none of all these Chapters are handled by him either in order or method as they lie, or as they have connexion together by designment of the Author; but with skipping and leaping hither and thither, as hath been showed. And the chief and principal points thereof, which are very learnedly handled by his Adversary, are either left out, and suppressed, or so weakly touched, the difficulties also so dissembled, and the reasons and authorities alleged by his Adversary so omitted or concealed, as a man may see that the Minister durst not in deed come within the lists of lawful combat, though as before you have heard he vaunted greatly that he would. 12. And by this you may take some scantling of Thomas morton's worth, what it is, without 〈◊〉 entrance into particulars of this Treatise, which are over long for this place. If he reply, we may then perhaps examine the matter more largely. Now I will conclude with him only with that admonition before mentioned, that he consider how odious a matter it is, both in the sight of God and man, to be so public a calumniator of his brethren, as he hath showed himself to be. 13. And as for the Catholics against whom his calumniations To the Catholics. are, small exhortation may serve to bear it patiently, and make their benefit of it, for so much as all the whole stream of holy Scriptures, & exhortations of the holy ghost doth run above all other points to this end to comfort godly men in this case, when lying lips, wicked tongues, slanderous pens opprobrious calumniations, and spiteful contumelyes do most insult against them. For than is properly that time, and occasion whereof the Apostle speaketh: cum 2. Cor. 4. id quod in praesenti est momentaneum, & leave tribulationis 〈◊〉, 〈◊〉 modum in sublimitate aeternum gloriae pondus operatur. When that which in this present mortal life, is but momentary and light tribulation (for what is more light and momentary than the darts of wicked tongues, that pass with the wind?) doth work notwithstanding (being patiently borne) an eternal weight of glory in heaven: Whereunto almighty God bring us all, and our enemies also, if it be his holy wil Faults escaped in the Printing. Page Line fault Correction. 25. 20. my his. 74. 13. prison poison: 82. 1. Reipublicae Respublica. 168. 4. our manner our name. 225. 18. assert assent. 252. 15. Faciendum Fatendum. 276. 30. deal way. 311. 28. fisted foisted. 317. 28. add dicitur. 385. 32. hominem hominum. 396. in titulo lege defend. 414. 25. refuge refuse. 436. 16. lives lies. 445. 4. is true is not true. 486. 16. able to be. 497. 29. aule rule. Other lesser faults, it may please the gentle Reader himself of courtesy to correct. A TABLE OF THE PARTICULAR MATTERS CONTAINED IN THIS BOOK. A ADRIAN the fourth Pope, an Englishman by birth, cap. 2. nu 46. Egregiously abused by Thom. Morton, ibid. Adultery when and how it may be concealed by 〈◊〉. cap. 20. nu. 37. Alexander Halensis his rigour against lying. cap. 7. nu. 40. S. Ambrose abused and his text embezzled by T.M. cap. 6. n. 17. Amphibology how it differeth from Equivocation. cap. 8. n. 10. Ananias and Saphyra their fact discussed. cap. 11. n. 28. & 29. S. Anselm his distinction between Truth and Falsity, cap. 8. num. 46. Approvers of Equivocation in certain cases, who they be? cap. 7. n. 12 & cap. 10. num. 15. Their qualities and holiness of life. ibid. n. 16. & 17. & cap. 9 n. 11. 12. 13. & deinceps. Archbishop of Canterbury 〈◊〉 testimony of the Primitive English Genevians, cap. 1. n. 19 Archisynagoges daughter raised by Christ, cap. 9 〈◊〉. 28. Aristotle his definition of Equivocation, ca 8. n. 4. 5. 6. & 7. Aristotle Thomas morton's Oracle of Logicians, cap. 8. n. 6. Abused by him afterward, ibid. n. 5. 6. 7. & deinceps in aliis. locis. arianism whether favoured by Calvin or no, cap. 6. part. 3. per totum. divers Arrian speeches used by Calvin, ibidem nu. 77. S. Augustine's definition of Catholicum, Prefat. n. 16. His moderation about Heretics, and their believers, cap. 2. n. 18. His severe sentence against them ibidem nu. 54. His explication about heresy consummated in the understanding and not in the will, cap. 6. n. 45. His definition of Truth, cap. 8. nu. 40. Item of a lie, ibid. n. 47. His authority alleged by F. Garnet at his arraignment for the lawfulness of Equivocation, cap. 9 n. 52. & 54. His further authority for Equivocation, cap. 10. n. 17. His case about a sickman, cap. 11. n. 31. Abused notably by M. Iewell, cap. 12. n. 30. & 31. & 34. Author's discourse against Cathol. without name or truth of argument, Prefat. n. 13. 14. & 15. Azor the Jesuit falsified and corrupted by Thom. Morton. cap. 6. n. 48. & cap. 11. n. 18. His discourse about Equivocation in an oath. cap. 10. n. 29. B D. BARKELEY his writings against Protestants cap. 5. nu. 30. Bellarmine notably abused by the Minister Morton. cap. 6. n. 27. 28. & 71. & alibi 〈◊〉. S. 〈◊〉 abused by Perkins cap. 12. n. 61. 62. & 63. Betulia delivered by the 〈◊〉 of judith, cap. 7. n. 27. Bishop of 〈◊〉 sometimes temporal Lord also of that City. cap. 4. n. 43. Books written by Protestants without name of Author or truth, Prefat. n. 13. 14. & 15. S. Boniface an Englishman, Author of the Canon Si Papa. cap. 5. n. 55. Falsified and abused by Tho. Morton, ibid. 43. D. Boucher calumniated and abused by T. Morton, cap. 2. n. 24. & 47. Buckanan & Knox their wicked doctrine & revel in Scotland, cap. 4. n. 24. C CALVIN whether he denied Christ to be God of God, cap. 6. n. 53. His manner of speech therein condemned by Bellarmine, ibidem, n. 56. 76. & 77. Whether he favoured arianism, or no? cap. 6. part. 3. 〈◊〉 totum. divers Arrian speeches used by him, ibidem n 77. His invective against the Ancient Fathers, cap. 12. n. 23. Calvinian doctrine about obedience to Princes, cap. 1. n. 10. 11. 12. & postea. The practise thereof by Protestants, ibidem. Carerius a Lawyer abused egregiously by Th. Morton. cap. 5. n. 5. 6. 7. & cap. 6. n. 90. Cassander the heretic his doctrine confuted, cap. 6. n. 67. Cases particular of Equivocation, cap. 20. per totum. Catholics tolerable in a Protestant state, cap. 1. per totum. Cause of setting forth this present book. cap. 3. per totum. Celestinus Pope abused by M. Iewell, cap. 12. n. 41. Censure of Thomas morton's writings, cap. 3. n. 17. Charge of the Lord Cook against Catholics at Norwich, cap. 12. n. 79. & 80. Charge of heresy against Protestants by their own side, cap. 4. n. 11. Charke and Hanmer their Equivocations, cap. 12. n. 55. & 56. & deinceps. Their Books against F. Campian, ibidem. Charter of K. Kenulphus falsified by the Lord Cook, cap. 12. n. 81. 82. & deinceps. Choice or election maketh heresy, cap. 2. n. 20. Christ his temporal Kingdom, cap. 5. n. 18. Christ how he is our judge, and how not, cap. 8. n. 26. How he did feign to go further than the castle of Emaus, cap. 9 n. n. 98. 72. & 73. His denial to ascend to the festival day, ibid. n. 59 Cicero his doubtful answers, cap. 9 n. 33. & 34. Commotion of Wales anno 1605. and for what cause, Pref. n. 7. & 8. Comparison between the disobedience of Catholics and Protestants, cap. r. n. 27. Conference between two shameless Ministers. cap. 4. n. 47. Confession and the secret thereof, cap. 10. n. 2. & 3. Equivocation lawful for not revealing matters heard in Confession, ibidem. Consent of emperors necessary for gathering of Counsels in oldtyme, & why, cap. 6. n. 33. Contention about the expulsion of K. Ozias of Israel, cap. 6. n. 8. 9 10. & 11. Contumacy defined by Sayer the Benedictine, cap. 6. nu. 51. Coventry case about the plague cap. 10. n. 31. B. Cunerus abused by Thomas Morton, cap. 6. n. 47. 59 D DAVID Q. Mary's Secrecary of Scotland murdered, cap. 1. n. 21. Definition of Contumacy, c. 6. n. 6 Definition of Truth by S. Augustine, cap. 8. n. 40. Item of a lie, ibidem nu. 47. Deposition of Princes by the lively word of God, cap. 4. n. 34 divinity deducted from age to age, cap. 9 n. 5. Increase thereof, ibidem nu. 6. Schoole-devinity & positive their beginnings, ibid. nu. 7. divinity speculative and moral. ibid. n. 8. Difference of contumacy and pertinacy, cap. 6. n. 52. Disagreement between Protestants & Caluinists, cap. 2. n. 13. Dignity of Priesthood above Regalty, cap. 5. n. 4. 5. & deinceps n. 10. 11. & 12. Discourse against Catholics without name of Author or truth. Prefat, n. 13. Disobedience compared between Catholics and protestāns, cap. 1. n. 27. Disputation of Plessis Mornay with the Bishop of Eureux, cap. 12. n. 53. & 54. Dissimulation when it is lawful and when not, cap. 11. n. 17. Doctrine and practice of rebellion whether more in Catholics than Protestants, cap. 1. n. 7. 8. 9 & deinceps. Dolman author of the Succession egregiously abused by Th. Morton, cap. 2 n. 23. 34. & 35. E ECCLESIASTICAL Supremacy in temporal causes, how it is to be understood, c. 6. n. 22. Sir Edward Cook his book of reports against Catholics, Pref. n. 9 & 10. His Paradox of English Kings, ibidem. His false and odious assertions against Catholics, Ibid. n. 11. His Equivocations, ca 12. n. 77. usque ad finem capitis. His notable fiction against Pius Quintus, ibid. n. 78. His Charge against Catholics at Norwich, ibid. n. 79. emperors consent necessary for gathering of Conncells in old time, and why, cap. 6. n. 33. England her pitiful state at this day Prefat. n. 2. Equity of Catholic doctrine tried by the effects, cap. 4. n. 13. Equivocation & the doctrine thereof, how and when it is lawful, cap. 7. 8. 9 10. 11. & 12. per totum. How the same is defended, ibi. cap. 7. n. 2. 3. 4. The use thereof received for 400. years. ibid. n. 8. 9 10. 11. & deinceps. The necessity thereof in certain cases, ibid. n. 20. 21. & deinceps. Equivocation used by S. Paul, cap. 7. n. 51, & alibi in diversis locis. Equivocation what it is, cap. 8. per totum. Equivocation of two sorts. ibi. num. 2. The definition thereof by Aristotle, ibid. n. 5. 6. & 7. How it differeth from Amphibology, ibid. n. 10. Equivocation mental & verbal, cap. 8. n. 3. & 12. Equivocation defended by all foreign Cath. writers, cap. 9 n. 11. 12. 13. & deinceps. & cap. 10. n. 15. Equivocation by reason and instinct of nature, cap. 9 n. 81. Equivocation prejudicial to common conversation, cap. 10. num 23. Equivocation in an oath, how and when it is lawful, cap. 10. n. 29. & 30. Equivocation in Protestants stark lying, cap. 12. per totum. Equivocal and ambiguous speeches of our Saviour, cap. 8. n. 13. & 14. & cap. 9 n. 26. 27. 28. & 61. Examples of false dealing of Thomas Morton, cap. 6. 7. 8. 9 10. 11. & 12. per totum. Exasperations in England what they cause. Prefat. per totam. The inconveniences that ensue thereby, ibidem. Exemption of Clergymen & Th. morton's notorious false dealing therein, cap. 6. n. 13. 14. 15. & deinceps. Experience of time a good proof, cap. 7. n. 9 Extravagant of Pope 〈◊〉 the eight falsified by Th. Morton, cap, 6. n. 43. F MY FATHER is Greater then I, how ancient Fathers do understand the same, cap. 6. n. 100 & 101. Footinges of Protestants in periods of antiquity, c. 5. n. 40. Fox his huge volume of Acts and Monuments. cap. 12. n. 48. How he is called the Father of lies, Ibid. The same confuted, Ibid. n. 50. & 52. Sir Francis hastings his Equivocations, cap. 12. n. 66. 67. 68 & deinceps. His wilful untruth about the poisoning of K. john. Ibid. His abuse of S. Hierome, Ibid. n. 69. Fraud and Fallacy what they be, cap. 8. n. 48. 49. & deinceps. Fraud and deceit of Thomas Morton in alleging all sorts of Authors, cap. 2. n. 23. & 24. & cap. 5. nu. 5. 6. 7. & 49. & 53. & per totum Caput Sextum, & deinceps per totum librum. G F. GARNET his alleging S. Augustine for the lawfulness of Equivocation, at his arraignment, cap. 9 n. 52. & 54. Genesius Sepulueda his opinion of Equivocation, cap. 9 n. 57 Abused notably by Tho. Morton. Ibidem. Giges-ringe one of Thomas morton's signs, cap. 11. n. 39 Gilby the Minister his doctrine and immodest speech of K. Henry the 8. cap. 4. n. 35. 〈◊〉 Cassander what he was and his doctrine. cap. 6. n. 69. The same condemned by English Protestants. Ibid. n. 69. & 70. God cannot deceive or cooperate to an untruth, cap. 7. n. 38. God how he permitteth men to be deceived, cap. 8. n. 54. & cap. 9 n. 77. God's Ordination oftentimes joined with his permissión, cap. 9 n. 78. Goodman, and other English Protestants of Geneva their doctrine, cap. 4. n. 16. 17. & 34. Gratian Collector of the Canon-law, cap. 9 n. 9 Gratians text corrupted and falfifyed by Thomas, Morton, cap. 2. n. 49. & 52. S. Gregory his authority for the lawfulness of Equivocation, cap. 10. n. 18. Gregory de Valentia his Charge against Calvin for arianism, cap. 6. n. 78. His authority for Equivocation, cap. 10. n. 16. H HAMMOND his book of the Commotion of Papists in Herefordshire an. 1605. Pref. n. 7. Hanmer and Charke their books against F. Campian, cap. 12. n. 55. Their Equivocations. Ibidem. n. 56. & 57 & deinceps. Hannibal's ten prisoners their case set down by Cicero, cap. 11. n. 33. Heap of falsities together committed by Thomas Morton. cap. 5. n. 57 & 58. Henry the fourth Emperor his submission to Pope Hildebrand at Canusium, cap. 6. n. 38. K. Henry the 8. of England his Supremacy impugned by divers Protestants, cap. 4. n. 35. Heresy what it is, cap. 2. n. 19 Who is an heretic, Ib. n. 20. Heresy consummated in the understanding and not in the will, cap. 6. n. 44. Heresy cannot be decreed in the Cath. Church by Popes, as Popes. cap. 6. n. 63. M. Horn his Equivocations. cap. 12. n. 43. D. Hunnius his book against Calvin, cap. 6. n. 78. 80. His protestation and prayer against calvinists, Ibid. n. 98. His opinion about 〈◊〉 writing against Arrians, Ibid. n. 103. I JACOB whether he lied or no in saying he was Esau, cap. 9 n. 34. B. jansenius his discourse about the feigning of our Saviour to go further than Emaus, cap. 9 nu. 73. jewel Bishop of Salisbury his notable lying-equivocation, cap. 12. nu. 12. 13. 14. & deinceps. His abusing & railing against S. Augustine, Ibid. n. 30. 31. & 34. His Apostrophe in his sermon at Paul's Cross, Ibid. n. 12. Impiety of Porphyrius the Apostata, cap. 9 n. 66. Incertainty of Salvation dependeth on our parts, cap. 11. n. 24. Inconveniences of exasperation and despair, cap. 1. nu. 3. Insolencies used towards K. 〈◊〉 of England by Protetestant-Ministers in Scotland, cap. 1. n. 24. Insurrections against lawful Princes by New-Ghospellers in our days, cap. 1. n. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. & deinceps. Intention to deceive, a principal clause in a lie, cap. 8. nu. 47. & 56. S. john Baptist his mental Reservation, cap. 9 n. 18. 19 20. & 21. His answer compared to the answer of a priest in England, cap. 9 n. 23. & 24. john Calvin whether he favoured 〈◊〉 or no? cap. 6. part. 3. per totum. His divers Arrian speeches, Ibid. n. 77. Whether he denied Christ to be God of God, Ibid. n. 53. His manner of speech condemned by Bellarmine, Ibid. n. 56. 76. & 77. His extreme pride and impiety, cap. 6. n. 97. Whether, and how he impugned the Arrians, cap. 6. n. 102. joshua his stratagem in taking the City of Hay by God's appointment, cap. 7. n. 25. Ironical speech a kind of Equivocation, cap. 8. n. 16. K KING Kenulphus his charter for Abindon-Monastery notably falsified by the Lord Cook, cap. 12. n. 81. 82. & deinceps. keys how they may signify authority both temporal and spiritual, cap. 5. n. 37. King james of Great-Brittany his speech in his Proclamation & Court of Parliament, Prefat. n. 16. His moderation therein. ibidem. His affliction and molestation by Protestants in Scotland, cap. 1. n. 23. 24. & 25. His judgement of English ministers notes upon the Bible, cap. 4. n. 25. Kingly power or Priesthood in Christ whether greater, cap. 5. n. 10. 11. 12. 13. & 14. Knox his pestilent and wicked doctrine against the sovereignty of Princes. cap. 2. n. 48. His Revel and cruelty in Scotland against Catholics. cap. 4. n. 24. & 33. L LAMBERTUS Scasnaburgensis abused by Thomas Morton, cap. 6. n. 37. S. Leo notably corrupted by Thomas Morton, cap. 6. n. 19 20. & 21. Lord of Salisbury his book and answer to a threatening letter sent him anno 1605. Pref. n. 18. & 19 The scope thereof, ibid. n. 20. 21. 22. & 23. How he was deceived by his divine, ibid. n. 20. & 21. Luther's wicked opinion of the ancient Fathers when they make against him, cap. 12. n. 21. 22. & 23. Lying and dissimulation how different from Equivocation. cap. 7. n. 34. S. Thomas his severity against lying, ibid. n. 35. Item of the Master of Sentemces ibid. n. 36. Lying defined by S. Augustine, cap. 8. n. 47. The essence thereof, ibidem. Item by S. Thomas of 〈◊〉, ibid. n. 56. & 57 M MARTINUS de Magistris abused by M. Iewell, cap. 12. n. 36. Mental reservation proved in S. john baptist his answer, cap. 9 n. 18. & 19 Ancient Fathers their expositions for the same, ibid. nu. 20. & 21. Mental reservation in divers speeches of our Saviour. cap. 8. n. 13. 14. & cap. 9 n. 26. 27. 28. & 44. & 58. 59 61. & cap. 11. num. 45. Metropolitan of lying Metropolis, cap. 10. n. 33. Mitres how they be above Crowns, cap. 5. n. 25. Murder of the Lord Darley K. of Scotland by Protestants, cap. 1. n. 21. Murder of David Secretary to the Q. of Scotland, cap. 1. n. Ibid. Mysterious speeches how they be Equivocal, cap. 9 n. 35. N NATURE of heresy and pertinacy, c. 6. n. 41. Necessity of Equivocation in some cases, cap. 7. n. 20. 21. 22. & deinceps. Necessity not required to perfection in many things, cap. 7. nu. 5. O OATH what it is, cap. 8. num. 50. Oath of Supremacy in England and T. M. his judgement thereof, cap. 6. n. 24. Obedience to Princes and doctrine thereof delivered by calvinists, cap. 1. n. 10. Obstinacy necessary to make heresy, and why? cap. 6 n. 43. Offers, and kind Offices of the Sea of Rome, towards K. james of Great Britain, cap. 2. n. 41. Old-Testament a figure of the new, cap. 5. num. 6. Opinion of Catholics for restraining of evil Princes, cap. 5. n. 45. Opinion of foreign writers for the lawfulness of Equivocation, cap. 10. num. 15. Oracle of Logicians, cap. 8. num. 6. Orders of Religious men that defend Equivocation, cap. 9 num. 14. Otho Frisingensis abused by T. Morton, cap. 8. num. 36. Ozias King of Israel his expulsion, and contention thereabout, cap. 6. n. 8. 9 10. & 11. P parliaments their first beginning in England, cap. 12. num. 89. Perfection requireth not necessity in many things, c. 7. n. 5. Perkins the Minister his equivocations, cap, 12. n. 58. 59 60. & deinceps. His falsifying of S. Bernard, ibid. n. 60. 61. & 62. Plessis Mornay his Equivocations, cap. 12. n. 72. 73. etc. His disputation with the Bishop of Eureux in France, ibid. n. 74. 75. His falsifying of Authors, ibid. Ponderations about the uncertainty of Protestants doctrine, cap. 6 part. 3. §. 4. per totum. Pope's may and must be deposed for heresy. cap. 5. n. 53. & cap. 6. n. 62. & 63. Pope less dangerous without Superior, than many Princes, cap. 5. n. 61. Pope Pius Quintus abused by the Lord Cook, cap. 12. n. 78. Pope Hildebrand slandered by Th. M. cap. 6. n. 33. & 34. The emperors submission unto him at Canusium, ibidem. Porphyrius the Apostata his impiety, cap. 9 n. 66. Princes' how they must deposed by the lively word of God, cap. 4. n. 34. Prior james of Scotland made Earl of Murrey, and Lord Protector of that Kingdom, cap. 1. n. 20. & 21. Priesthood & the dignity thereof greater than Regalty, cap. 5. n. 32. & 33. Two principal points thereof, ibid. n. 17. Priesthood and Kingly power in Christ whether greater on earth, cap. 5. n. 10. 11. 12. 13. & 14. Proofs for the lawfulness of Equivocation, cap. 9 per totum. prophesies corrupted and eluded by john Calvin, c. 6. part: 3. §. 3. per totum. Propositions reserved, how they be equivocal, and how not, cap. 11. n. 14. Protestants their books and writings against calvinists, cap. 2. n. 12. 13. & deinceps. Protestant-Princes many of them never molested by the Pope. cap. 2. n. 40. & cap. 3. n. 8. Protestant-People more perilous than Popes. cap. 2. n. 44. Protestants in what cases they may be subject to the penalties of heresies; cap. 3. n. 9 Protestants charged with heresy by men of their own profession, cap. 3 n. 12. & cap. 4. n. 5. 6. 7. 8. & 9 Protestants footings in periods of Antiquity, cap. 5. n. 40. Puritan condemned by Protestants and Protestants by them, cap. 4. n. 9 Q QUEEN Maries of Scotland mother & daughter their afflictions by Protestants cap 1. n. 18. 19 20. 21. 22. & 23. Queen Mary of England her government impugned by Protestants, cap. 4. n. 28. 29. & 30. The conspiracy of Sir Thom. Wiat against her, ibid. n. 37. Queen Elizabeth her government contradicted by some Protestants at the beginning. cap. 4. n. 25. Quality and holiness of such men as have admitted the use of equivocation for lawful, cap. 7. n. 16. & 17. R REBELLION & doctrine of Protestants about the practice thereof, cap. 1. n. 6. Rebellions against Q. Marie of England how they be answered by Tho. Morton, cap. 4. n. 29. 30. 31. & 32. Rebellions in Flaunders and Germany by protestāns against their lawful Princes, cap. 4. n. 48. 50. 51. & 52. Reservations mental in Christ's speech, cap. 8. n. 13. & 14. & cap. 9 n. 26. 27. 28. & 44. Circumstances necessary to find out mental reservations, ibidem. Reservations mental in Saint john Baptist, ibidem nu. 18. 19 & 20. M. Reynoldes book of Caluino-Turcismus. cap. 2. n. 6. His collection of modern heresies, ibid. n. 8. Abused by Th. Morton, 〈◊〉 numb 27. Royardus the Franciscan abused by Th. Morton, cap. 7. n. 59 S SSACRIFICE of Christians ceased in Alexandria, cap. 6. n. 20. Salmeron the Jesuit egregiously abused by Tho. Morton, cap. 5. n. 7. & cap. 6. n. 4. Sayer the Benedictine falsified and corrupted by. Th. Morton cap. 6. n. 50. & 51. His Discourse about Equivocation in an oath. cap. 10. n. 30. Scars of infirmity in Tho. Morton, cap. 9 n. 39 Scottish-Ministers their absurd positions & doctrine. c. 4. n. 23. Secretary David barbarously murdered in Scotland, cap. 1. num. 21. Secret of confession, cap. 10. n. 2. 3. & 4. Secrets of the Commonwealth, ibidem. n. 6. & 7. How Equivocation may be lawful in defence thereof, ibid. n. 8. Sheep byters not tolerable in a Commonwealth, cap. 1. n. 4. Sociabylity in doctrine with Protestants not sufferable. cap. 2. n. 5. Sotus the divine abused and falsified by Th. Morton, cap. 10. nu. 34. 35. & 36. D. 〈◊〉 abused by Tho. M. cap. 2. n 25. Stratagem of joshua in taking the City of Hay, cap. 7. n. 25. Also of Eliseus the Prophet, ibidem, n. 26. Of judith in 〈◊〉 Holofernes ibid. n 27. Supremacy impugned by divers Protestants in the beginning and why? cap. 4. n. 36. Sutcliffe Deane of Excester and his notable shifting, cap. 4. n. 9 & 10. His testimony of Protestants doctrine for deposing of Princes, ibid. n. 44. His full and round Answer to the Three Conversions of England, how vain and impertinent, cap. 5. n. 54. T S. THOMAS of Aquin his severe sentence against lying, cap. 7. n. 35. Alleged by T. M. against himself, cap. 11. num. 56. Sir Thomas Wyatt his pretence against Queen Mary, cap. 4. num. 37. Thomas Morton his book against Romish doctrine, Pref. nu. 12. His main drift and seditious scope therein, cap. 1. nu 1. 2. 3. & deinceps. The same confuted, Ibid. & alibi sapè. His reasons against the disloyalty of Catholics confuted, cap. 2. per totum. His egregious abusing of all sorts of Authors, sacred and profane, cap. 2. nu. 23. 24. & 28. & cap. 5. num. 5. 6. 7. & nu. 49. & per totum librum deinceps. A Catalogue of his corruptions cap. 2. n. 57 & cap. 5. nu. 57 His lend and borrowing of the Lord Cook, cap. 3. n. 2. His fond flourishes, Ibidem. n. 5. & per totum librum. His bad protectorship of Protestants, cap. 3. nu. 13. His silly devise of flattery about the deposition of Kings, cap. 4. nu. 26, & 27. Thomas Morton not able to defend his Religion from heresy against his own Protestant brethren, cap. 4. num. 12. His Treatise of the Pope's Supremacy as head of Rebellion, confuted, cap. 5. per totum. His great hypocrisy, cap. 5. num. 50. & ubique deinceps. His impudence, Ibid. num. 58. His impertinent Reasons confuted, cap. 2. per totum. & cap. 5. num. 59 His conceit of the Oath of Supremacy in England, cap. 6. n. 24. & 25. His notable abuse of cardinal Bellarmine, cap. 6. n. 27. & 28. Item the like of Cardinal Tolet, Ibid. nu. 49. & alibi. His ten lies at a clap, c. 6. n. 64. His Oracle of Logicians, cap. 8. num. 6. His detestation of Equivocation, but not of lying, cap. 8. num. 20. His Socratical demands, ca 9 num. 22. His scars of infirmity, cap. 9 num. 39 His Wanton and lascivious speeches, Ibid. num. 60. His abuse of Doctor Genesius Sepulueda, cap. 9 num. 57 His Coventry-case about the plague. cap. 10. nu. 31. His egregious impudence and abuse of author's 〈◊〉. Ib. nu. 32. & 33. His lying Metropolis, Ib. n. 33. His book against Equivocation examined and answered, cap. II. per totum. How he impugneth himself, Ibidem. num. 13. His abusing of Azor, cap. II. n. 18. & 19 His Punica fides about falsification, cap. II. nu. 36. His egregious Cozenage, Ibid. num. 38. His absurd syllogisms, cap. II. num. 50. His Apostolical defence against lying, cap. II. num. 61. & 62. Truth defined by S. Augustine cap. 8. nu. 40. Three sorts or degrees thereof. Ibid. nu. 41. Tumults against lawful Princes practised by Protestants, cap. 1. num. 13. 14. 15. & deinceps. Tumults in Scotland, cap. 1. n. 20. 21. 22. 23. & 24. Tyranny and Tyrants of two sorts, cap. 5. nu. 47. V VALENTIA the jesuit his Charge against Calvin for arianism, cap. 6. n. 78. His authority for the lawfulness of Equivocation, c. 10. n. 16. Vanity of Thomas morton's vaunt of Truth, cap. 6. n. 2. Vasquez his discourse about pertinacy, cap. 6. n. 43. Venetians their disagreement with Pope Paulus Quintus. cap. 5. num. 41. Uncertainty in Protestants doctrine, Cap. 5. nu. 46. Use of Equivocation received by Cath. Doctors for 400. years, cap. 7. nu. 8. W WHITTINGHAM deane of Durham his doctrine, cap. 4. num. 35. D. Whitaker his absurd answer to Doctor Sanders, about the authority of Ancient Fathers, cap. 12. num. 26. Wyatt his practice and conspiracy against Q. Mary of England, cap. 4. nu. 35. M. William Reynoldes his book of Caluino-Turcismus, c. 2. n. 6. His collection of modern heresies, Ibid. num. 8. Abused by Tho. Morton, Ibid. num. 27. Witnesses how, and when they are obliged to speak the truth, cap. 10. nu. 25. & 26. Y YESTWERT the Printer his falsification in printing the Charter of K. Kenulphus, cap. 12. nu. 88 Z ZVINGLIUS the chief stirrer of Rebellion in the Cantons of Zuitzerland, c. 1. num. 14. Slain. Ibid. Zuinglianisme impugned by Luther, cap. 2. nu. 15. & 16. FINIS.