THe whole drift of the Author throughout this malignant inue­ctiue to be nothing els, but to per­swade, that Protestantes and Ca­tholickes cannot liue togeather in The [...] drift and seditious scope of T. M. one common-wealth, nor vnder one Prince or Gouernour, if he be a Pro­testant, is cleare and manifest by all his whole dis­course, proofes and argumentes, which afterwardes we shall more particularly in due place discusse: yea to the end he may make this diuorce and separation be­tweene [Page 32] the Kinges Maiesty of Great Britany, and his Catholicke subiectes (for thither he bendeth all his battery) the more irreconciliable and remedilesse he placeth the ground of this incompossibility, not in the will, which may be changed, but in the iudge­ment, and beliefe of Catholickes; to wit, in their pu­blicke and receiued doctrine, which doctrine well he knoweth not to lye in the handes of particular men, nor of particuler Prouinces, to change or alter at their pleasure (as Protestantes may, and doe, heere taking a part, and there leauing as they list,) but they must stand firmely, and vniuersally to the whole, this being truely Catholicum as ancient Fathers define it. And hence it is, that T. M. inferreth thus: It is taken out (saith he) of the expresse dogmaticall principles of their Priests and Doctors, and collected from their owne publicke po­sitions &c. which how true or false it is, shall appeare after. Now let vs examine some other circumstances of this proposition.

2. First then, I say and auerre, that this his maine and fundamentall axiome, of the incompossibility of Catholicke and Protestant people togeather, vnder the Gouernement of his Maiesty of Great Britany, is not only false and erroneous in it selfe (as afterward The maine propositiō of T. M. censured. shalbe declared) but pernicious also to the common­wealth, preiudiciall to his Maiesties both comfort & safety, hurtefull to the state, seditious against peace, scandalous to the hearers, offensiue to forreine nations that liue vnder Princes of different Reli­gion, both Catholicke and Protestant, and hatefull finally to the eares of all moderate, peaceable, and prudent people: and is on the other side no waies pro­fitable, needfull, expedient, or conuenient thus in publique to be proposed. For I would first demaund this famous mak-bate, what gaine or vtility may be expected, either to Prince or people by putting in [Page 33] print this so odious an assertion of extreeme diffi­dence, and distrust betweene his Maiesty, and so many thousande of his subiects, that admitted him with all ioy & comfort at his first entrance to the Crowne? Is it (perhaps) to preuēt some dāger that may be doub­ted from such kind of people, and to make his Maiesty more carefull and vigilant for his safty? If that be so, a priuate aduise had beene more important to himselfe, or his Counsell: for that the publishing and proclay­ming therof procureth not only diffidēce, but also rest­les solicitude on both sides, the one to preuēt the other.

3. Secondly I would aske, what he will doe, or haue to be done with so great a multitude of people, as in all his Maiesties Kingdomes doe loue and fauour the Religion, which this masked Minister impugneth, and would put them in despaire of any sufferance or tolerable condition vnder his Maiesties gouernment? Will he haue them all made away from the face of the Earth? This were hard, except Noe his floud should: come againe, or some other equiualent inundation,: either of water, fyer, or sword. And for the later, though some thinke he could wish it, yet who kno­weth not, but that the bowels of England are so com­byned and linked togeather at this day in this point, as hardly can the sword passe the one, but it must: wound also deeply the other. What then? Will he haue them to liue in perpetuall torment, hatred, suspi­cions, iealosyes, auersions, 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 it selfe is it durable, if we beleeue either reason, or experience of former times. For we know what Cicero, what other wise-men among the Cicero lib. offic. very Heathens haue obserued, what they haue writ­ten, what they haue counselled to be done, or to be preuented in like occasions: to wit, that multitudes [Page 34] are not to be put in despaire, no nor particuler men in­to extreame exasperation without hope of remedy: Inconue­niences of exaspera­tion and despaire. for that despaire is the mother of precipitation, & ex­treme exasperation is the next dore to fury. No coun­saile, no reason, no regard of Religion, nor other re­spect humaine or deuine holdeth place, when men grow desperate, & all stringes of hope are cut of. We see by experience, that the least and weakest wormes of the earth, which cannot abide the looke of a man, yet when they are extremely pressed, and put in de­spaire of escape, they turne and leape in mans face it selfe, which otherwise they so [...] feare and dread.

4. Wherfore seing this dangerous stickler would put this extreme despaire into so many thousandes of his Maiesties subiectes, yow [...] imagine what good seruice he meaneth to do him therby, and what pay he deserueth for his labour. Surely if a great rich man, whose wealth lay in his flocke of sheepe, had neuer so faire and fawning a dog, following neuer so diligently his trencher, and playing neuer so many flattering trickes before him; yet if togeather with: this, he had that other currish quality also, as to woory his maisters sheepe, disseuer his fold, disperse his flock, and driue them into flight and precipitation; it is Sheepe­biters not to be tole­rated in a Common vvealth. like that his Maister out of his wisedome (though otherwise he were delighted with his officious faw­ning) would rather hange such a dog, then aduenture to suffer so great and important losses by him. And no: Iesse is to be expected of the great equity & prudence of our great Monarch, when he shall well consider of the cause and consequence therof.

5. And thus much of the malice and pernicious se­quele of this assertion: let vs see somewhat now also of the folly & falsity therof. To which effect I would first enquire, if it be so that subiectes of different Re­ligions [Page 35] are not comportable togeather, vnder a Prince that is of one of those Religions for so must the que­stion be proposed if we will handle it in generall) then how doe the Iewes & Christians liue togeather vnder many Christian Princes in Germany and Italy? vnder the state of Venice? yea vnder the Pope him­selfe? how doe Christians and Turkes liue togeather vnder the Turkish Emperour of Constantinople, as also vnder the Persian without persecution for their Reli­gion? how did Catholickes and Arrians liue so many yeares togeather vnder Arrian Kinges and Emperours in old times, both in Spaine and els [...]? how doe Catholickes and Protestantes liue togeather at this day His vni­uersall proposi­tion im­proued by diuerse particu­lers. vnder the most Christian King of France? vnder the great King of Polonia? and vnder the German Empe­rour in diuers partes of his dominions (all Catholicke Princes) and in the free-cityes of the Empyre? And in particuler is to be considered that the Hussites haue li­ued now some hundreds of yeares in Bohemia vnder the Cathòlicke Princes and Emperours Lordes of that Countrey, with such freedome of conuersation with Catholicke subiectes, and vnion of obedience to the said Princes, as at this day in the great Citty of Praga, where the Emperour commonly resideth, and where Catholicks [...] wholy gouerne, there is not so much as one [...] Church knowne to be in the handes of any Catholicke Pastor of that citty but all are Hussites that haue the ordinary charges of sou­les; and Catholickes, for seruice, sermons and Sacra­ments doe repaire only to monasteries, according: to ancient agreementes and conuentions betweene them, though in number the said Catholickes be many times more then the other, and haue all the gouernment and Commaundry in their handes, as hath byn said. These are demonstratiue proofes ad ho­minem, and cannot be denied, and consequently doe [Page 36] conuince that this make-bate Ministers proposition is false in generall: That subiects of different religion, may not liue togeather in [...] peace, if their gouernours will permit them. Now if he can alleadge any seuerall weighty causes why this generall assertion holdeth not, or may not holde in the particuler case of English Catholiks and Protestants vnder our present King, we shall discusse them also, and see how much they weigh.

6. He pretendeth ten seuerall reasons in his pam­phlet, 10. Rea­sons. for causes of this incompossibility, and therof doth his whole inuectiue consist. Eight of them ap­pertaine to doctrine and practice of rebellion in vs, as he auoucheth; and the other two vnto doubtfull speech or Equiuocation. Of which later point, ha­uing touched somewhat in the precedent Preface & being to haue occasion to doe the same againe more largely afterward wee shall now consider principally of the former, concerning doctrine and practice of quiet or vnquiet, peaceable or dangerous humours & behauiours of subiects both Catholicke & Protestant.

7. And as for Catholickes, the Minister in all his About do­ctrine and practice of Rebel­lion. eight reasons bringeth out nothing of nouelty against vs, but only such pointes of doctrine, as himselfe doth consesse, and expresly proue that they were held and recevued in our publique schooles, aboue foure hun­dred yeares gone: as namely in his first reason, For that we hold Protestants for hereticks so farre forth as they decline and differ obstinately from the receyued doctrine and sense of the Roman Catholicke Church, and consequently that being Hereticks they are not true Christians, nor can haue true faith in any one article of Christian beliefe, and that the punishment determined by the ancient Canon lawes, which are many and grieuous, both spirituall & temporall, do, or may therby light vpon them. And in 2. 3. 4. his second, third and fourth reasons, that wee teach, [Page 37] That the Bishop of Rome, as spirituall head of the vniuersall Church, hath power aboue temporall Princes, and may pro­cure to let the Election and succession of such as are opposite, or enemies to Catholicke Religion, and that in some cases he may dissolue oathes of obediēce, and the like.

8. And further yet in his fifth, sixt, seauenth, and 5. 6. 7. 8. eight reasons, that in certaine occasions, and vpon cer­taine necessities, for preuenting of greater euils, im­minent to any Countrey, Kingdome, or common wealth, especially if they be spirituall and appertaine to the saluation of soules, the same high Pastour may restraine, resist, or punish the enormous excesses of temporall Princes (if any such fall out) by Censures, excommunication, depriuation or deposition, though this not but vpon true, iust, and vrgent causes, when other means cannot preuaile, for auoiding those euer­lasting euils.

9. All which doctrines (for this is the summe of all An impor tant con­sideratiō, he saith or alleadgeth) do cōteine, as yow see, no new matter of malice against Protestant Princes, inuented by vs, for that the Minister himselfe, as now we haue said, confesseth, that for these three or foure later hundred yeares, these positions haue byn generally receiued by all the vniuersall Church and face of Christendome; so as being e­stablished so many hundred yeares before Protestants were borne or named in the world, they could not be made or inuented against them in particuler; but on­ly are drawne vnto them at this time by the mali­cious application of this Minister, to make the diuorce before mencioned betweene our Prince and vs to seeme remedilesse. For if the doctrine approued and receyued so many ages before this difference of Reli­gion was heard of, shall be laid vnto vs now for mat­ter of vndutifulnes (with which doctrine notwith­standing our Auncestors liued most peaceably and [Page 38] duetifully for many hundred yeares, as good subiectes vnder his Maiesties [...] both in England & Scotland) what fault can this be in vs now, or what [...] is it in the Minister to obiect it against vs; yea to make a criminall accusation therof in this his calumnious libell against all Catholikes of our Countrey whatsoeuer?

10. If we consider their doctrines and positions, togeather with their practice and exercise concer­ning this point of quiet obedience and subiection, euen from these later times of Luther, Zuinglius and [...] beginninges of innouation, we shall find an Caluinian doctrine about obe [...] to Princes. other manner of nouelty to contemplate, and another sorte of dangers for Princes to tremble at. For if in steed of Rebellious doctrine of the [...] Church (which is the title of this aduersaries pamphlet) wee should set downe the positions and practice of the Geneuian Church and Caluinian sect, planted and directed ther­by, we should easely 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 owne bookes, not wronge or drawne by strained inferences, as our Ministers Calumniations are against Catholicks in this place, but plainely, cleerely, and Categorically set downe by their owne pen, testified and put in Archb. of Cant. in the first Booke of dangerous positions. cap. 4. & 5. and [...] in the Sur­uey of pretended discipline. print by their owne writers, and especially by one in England that is now in highest dignity vnder his Maiesty, and another in place of some dignity also by his office, who out of their owne bookes cited par­ticulerly by them, relate these and other like posi­tions: That Princes may be restrained by force; pursued, iud­ged, and punished by the people; excommunicated, depri­ued, deposed, and cast into hell by the Ministers; arraigned, condemned and put to death by the inferiour Magistrates, whensoeuer in their opinion he becommeth a [...], or oppo­site [Page 39] to the ghospell; which in effect falleth out to be so often as these head-strong new brethren shall mis­like of his or her gouernement, & thinke them wor­thy to be remoued.

11. And if to the testimony of our English Prote­stant writers in this point any be desirous to haue ad ioined the suffrages in like manner of externe au­thors of the same Religion, concerning the same ar­ticle, about the lawfulnes of violent vsage towardes Princes, in cases by them prescribed; let them read Forraine vvriters of Protestan­tes perni­cious do­ctrine a­gainst Princes. Bezae himselfe in his Apology to the Bishop Claudius de Sainctes in defence and praise of Pultrot that murdered traiterously the famous great Duke of Guise his Ma­iesties great vncle, and supreme Generall of all the French forces; as also the discourse of the French fa­mous Minister Suriau otherwise calling himselfe Ro­sier in his Booke of Reasons why it was lawfull 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 Caluinian Ghospell, 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 booke intituled [...] matin and others by the brethren of the ghospell; yea aboue others, that most dangerous firebrand by Orsinus Hoto man and the rest of Geneua, allowed also by [...], intitu led Vindiciaecontra Tyrannos: The reuenge vpō Tyrantes conteyning a most shameles publique approbation of all desperate, of all villanous attemptes whatsoeuer made, or to be made by their brethren, against lawfull Princes, vnder the name of Tyrantes, whensoeuer it might seeme to be done in fauour of their ghospell.

12. So as now after all this manifest assertiue do­ctrine of theirs, knowne and confessed in the world, and practised by them in so many places, for so ma­ny yeares, in so notorious manner, as no man can [Page 40] deny it, for this Minister to come peeping forth with certaine poore illations & strained inferences against Catholiks, for that in certaine cases they acknow­ledge power to remaine in the head of the Church by way of Canonicall lawes and publique iudgment, to re­straine exorbitant outragious excesses of Princes, when they shall fall out, is a ridiculous kind of byting at the heele, while the other do strike at the head: and so will it also appeare, if we obserue the euētes them­selues, for that heere in this place our Minister (for example) [...] only foure factes or processes of Popes, to wit, two of Gregories the seauenth and ninth, and other two of Pius and Sixtus the fifth, who in so many ages haue giuen sentence of depriuation against Princes: wheras if we consider but this one A 'markea­ble point. age only, which hath passed since Luther began (and not yet one whole age) we shall find many more Prin­ces deposed, slaine, molested, or violated by Prote­stant people, then by all Popes put togeather since the beginning of Pope-dome haue byn troubled or Censu­red, which is a markeable point, and not lightly to be passed ouer by prudent Princes: for that the reason herof is, that the one side proceedeth by lawe, publi­que iudgement, and mature deliberation, the other by popular mutiny, rash and temerarious precipitation. And this of doctrine in this place vntill 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 Practice of the Prote­stant do­ctrine for tumultes against Princes. action and examples of the exercise therof in this be­halfe, there were no end of the narration, and there is no man or woman lightly of any yeares or vnder­standing in publique affaires, whose mind and me­mory is not full of them. For who remembreth not what passed in Germany presently almost vpon the be­ginning of Luthers doctrine (at the least not aboue 7. [Page 41] or 8. yeares after) to wit, from the yeare [...]. testified aswell by Sleidan and other Protestant Authors, as by those that were Catholicke, how the new brethrē in­cited by this new doctrine again [...] their Princes, both temporall and spirituall, tooke armes and entred into tumult and rebellion with such violence and head­long pertinacy, throughout al that countrey, as in one The Re­bellions vpon Lu­thers do­ctrine. Prouince only, there were aboue two hundred Mo­nasteries and Castels taken, razed, and spoiled, and a­boue an hundred and thirty thousand people slaine, & this was for that beginning: which fire once enkind­led, and the humour of sedition once setled in the heades o that Hereticall faction, neuer ceased after­ward, but continued more or lesse still against [...] Em­perour Charles the [...], vnder diuers deuises and pre­tences of the [...] association, and the like, vn­till The Smal­caldian associatiō. more then twenty yeares after, to wit, vntill the yeare 1546. wherin he was forced to take in hand that great and dangerous warre (Luther himselfe [...] yet aliue) against the Duke of Saxonie, Marques of [...] and other Protestant Princes, whome he subdued therin, but not without great effusion of Christian bloud.

14. And the like I might relate of many other parti­culer States and principalities of Germany, as namely that of the Princes and Archbishops Electors of Collen, Treuers and Mentz with all the State Palatine of Rhene, the Bishoppricke and Dukedome of Liege, and other partes adioining, where togeather with this new Ghospell (especially now deuided into different se­ctes of Lutheranisme, Zuinglianisme, Caluinisme, Multitu­des of in­surrectiōs against true Prin­ces by the nevv Gho­spel. Anabaptisme new Arrianisme and the like) entred presently new sedition, Rebellion, and warres, and from thence dispersed it selfe longe and wide, both North and South, East and West. In the North, to Saxony, Denmarke, Norway, Sweueland, Polonia, [...], North. [Page 42] and other adioining countries; and on the south to South. Zwitzerland first, Sauoy, Grisons, and other partes next adhering, where diuers battailes were fought, Zuin­glius himselfe being present as the chief stirrer in those of the Cantons of Zwitzerland his countrey, and [...] therin, and Caluin Beza, Farellus, and other such Mini­sters being the principall inciters in the Rebellions of Geneua, and neighbour countries, against the Duke of Sauoy, and other Lordes and Princes therof, as is appa­rant by their owne, and other mens bookes of the same part and faction.

15. Towardes the East, the same fire of sedition pas­sed with the same new Protestant Ghospell, to Beme­land In the East. Austria, Hungary, Siletia, Moldauia and other borde­ring Prouinces, where more or lesse it hath continued till our time, wherin we see by lamētable experience, that they haue ioined euen with the Turke himselfe against their Soueraigne Lord and Emperour, and against the Christian name and cause, in despite of Catholicke Religion, as Boscaine, the famous Calui­nian Rebell, and others of that Religion, or irreligion rather in these partes, for some yeares now haue done; and finally haue forced the said Emperour for auoiding the fatall ruine of Christendome, to graunt him the Princedome of Transiluania during his life, which God for his so great wickednes hath soone cut of.

16. But to the West partes of the world, to wit, France, and all partes and parcels of that [...] King­dome, In the VVest. the same fire was transported with greatest fu­ry of all, as doe testify their foure generall most bloudy France. warres, lasting for many yeares togeather, wherof if I should recount but the least particulers set downe by their owne histories, it would rue any Christian hart to heare or read the same.

17. From hence if we draw neere homeward to [Page 43] Flanders, England and Scotland, the effectes of this new Ghospell and Ghospellers are yet more present vnto our eyes. For who can recount the thousandes of peo­ple, that vpon this occasion haue lost their liues both temporall and eternall as may be feared, in these long, & bloudy warres of the low countries, begunne first, Flanders. and continued euer since, vpon the entrance of Pro­testant Religion in those States? Who can number the Citties beseiged, taken, rifled and ransacked? The townes and villages burnt and ouerthrowne? The countries spoiled? The people slaine and murdered about this difference? And if we looke into England, and the state but of one sole Catholicke Princes go­uerning, England. there, but for foure or fiue yeares ouer Pro­testant subiectes misliking her gouernment for Reli­gion, yow shall find more conspiracies, treasons, and Rebellions practised against her in proportion of so: few yeares, by the said sorte of people (if we consi­der what Northumberland, Suffolke, VViat, Courtney, Staf­ford, Fetherstone, VVilliam Thomas, and others in different conspiracies practiced against her) then in more then 40. yeares was done against her Protestant sister by her Catholicke subiectes, though neuer so much af­flicted, iniured and persecuted by her.

18. But of all other countries, Scotland may be an Scotland. example and president of Protestant spirites, what See the Histories of Scotlād [...] by Bucchanā, and Knox and by Holin­shed, and my Lord of [...]. his booke of dange­rous Posi­tions, cap. 2. 3. 4. &c. they are vnder a Catholike Prince or Princesse, though otherwise neuer so vertuous, or neuer so mild. For who can deny the exceeding great prudence, mo­deration, benignity, liberality, and other vertues of the Noble Queene Mary Regent of Scotland, Grand­mother to our Soueraigne that now raigneth, when those furious and seditious Ministers Knox, Goodman, Mollocke, Douglasse, Meffan, and others began to raise vp her subiectes against her, from the yeare 1557. (which was the fourth of Queene Maries raigne of England) [Page 44] and continued the same in most spitefull and barba­rous manner, with intolerable insolency, both of wordes and actes, for 3. or 4. yeares togeather, assisted principally by the helpes, aide and encouragement of Queene Elizabeth (that had succeded in the Crowne of England) vntill through griefe, sorrow, and affli­ction, [...] affli­ctions and death of Q Mary Regent of Scotland. the excellent Princesse gaue vp the Ghost, vpō the yeare 1560. hauing byn [...] deposed, and the lye giuen her publickly, and most [...] by them. And finally seing herselfe so extreemely [...] and inuironed with these rebell forces, and with a puis­sant army sent from England in their succour, consu­med and pyned away with [...] of mind as hath byn said: And no Christian could but haue com­passion of her case. The particulers are written by Knox and Buchanan themselues, in their histories of Scotland, who were two chiefe firebrandes 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 Protestantes who concurred with them both in good will and cooperation.

19. And thus much of the Queene Regent: but now of her excellent daughter, the Queene regnant, Mother of our Soueraigne, had they any greater respect vnto her notwithstanding all her benignity and benefites towardes them at her new returne out of France, when she pardoned all that was past, and [...] procee­ding a­gainst his Maiesties Mother. accepted of new oathes and promises of faithfull obe­dience at their [...]? did all this I say any thing auaile her or procure her safty or quietnes, in gouer­ning these new Ghospellers? No truly, so long as she remained Catholicke, that is, to her death, and after her death, they pursued her with the greatest hatred, and most barbarous cruelty, that euer perhaps was read of against Prince or Princesse before, or after [Page 45] her. I shall breifly heere set downe some [...] parti­cularities of many, as I find them [...] both in English and Scottish Histories themselues, and that by Protestant writers, as hath byn said.

20. This Noble Queene after long deliberation in France, what course to take in those troublesome ti­mes, when the spirit of the new Caluinian Ghospell had raised tumultes, conspiracies, warres, and Rebel­lions A brief summe of matters fallen out in Scot­land. throughout the most part of all States, King­domes, and Prouinces round about her, determined finally to credit the faire promises of her said Prote­stant subiectes in Scotland, and to goe thither, which she did, and arriued at Lith the 20. of August, vpon the yeare 1561. But before she departed from France, there [...]. being sent to her from the Catholicke party Doctor Iohn Lesley Bishop of Rosse to counsaile her not to trust her bastard-brother Iames Steward Prior of S Andrewes, that had byn the cheife Author of all the former broi Holinsh. les in Scotland, and was now sent vnto her from the [...] supra. Protestant party to flatter and deceiue her with false oathes and [...], she promised that she would not: but he arriuing the next day after the Bishop vnto her at [...] in France, made so great pro­mises, oathes, and protestations vnto her, as by little and little gate credit with her; and so returned into Scotland by England (where he had his full instru­ctions yow must thinke) to dispose the mindes of all sortes, to receiue, and obey the said Queene after his and their fashion and agreement; for which good of­fice Prior [...] made Earle of Murrey. she gaue him soone [...] her returne the Earle­dome of Murrey, and committed the cheife Gouerne­ment of the Realme vnto him. But what effectes ensued, we shall now in few wordes declare.

21. When vpon the yeare 1563. which was two 1563. yeares after her returne to Scotland, she resolued by consent of her Parlament to marry her knisman the [Page 46] Lord Darley, newly made [...] of Rosse and Duke of Albany, this Earle of Murrey made a leagne of his con­federates against the same, pretending that it would be in [...] of their Religion, and brake into open warres against them both, saith Holinshed, and when they were pressed by the Kinges and Queenes forces, they had alwaies their refuge into England, and their counsaile and direction both thence, and from their Ministers that neuer parted from them, how to prose­cute their matters against their Princes: wherof the first point was, to abuse the yong Kinges credulity, and to set him against the Queene: and hence ensued that strange and horrible act of entring her priuy chamber, when she was at supper vpon the fourth of march 1566. in the company of the [...] of Murton, 1566. the Lordes Ruthen and Lindsey, all Protestantes, and armed, who saluted her first with this greeting, she being great with child: That they would no longer suffer her to haue the gouerning of the Realme, nor to abuse them, as hitherto she had done: And then pulled violently from her, her Secretary Dauid, which stood there present seruing her at table, and for his refuge tooke hold of her gowne, which they cut of, and slew him with The bar­barous murther of the Se­cretary Dauid. many stabbes, to such fright of the afflicted Queene, as it was no lesse then a miracle, that she had not pe­rished therwith or miscaried of her child (which was his Maiesty that now gouerneth England) hauing six monethes gone with the same. This was done at a Parlament when all the Protestant confederates met togeather, and tooke (as yow must thinke) the ghost­ly counsaile of their good Ministers for so holy an enterprise. And vpon the 20. of Iune next, was the Prince borne, which thing not pleasing some, that there should remaine any yssue of that family, which they desired to extinguish, the said King his Maiesties The mur­ther of the King. Father was most cruelly murthered in Edenbrough on [Page 47] the tenth of February next ensuing.

22. Nor did the matter cease heere, but rather now ascended to the greatest height of malicious Treason [...] euer perhaps hath byn vsed against any crow­ned Prince in the world, for that these Lordes of the Congregatiō, as they called themselues, that is to say, Religious Rebels, congregated against their sworne Prince, gathering forces togeather, laid violent han­des The bar­barous dealing against his [...] Mo­ther. on her Maiesties person first at Carbar-hill by Eden­brough when confidently she presumed, as to her sub­iectes, to goe vnto them, and treate of peace, and then casting her into prison, depriued her of her Crowne, set vp against her the name of her dearest iewell the yonge Prince, not yet a yeare old, made Regent her greatest enemy the Earle of Murrey her bastard trai­terous brother, held Parlamentes, made lawes, de­barred her the sight of her sonne for euer: and finally waging open warre against her, and ouerthrowing her forces in the feild, she being present, forced her into England, and there following her also, procured vnto her the greatest disgraces, dishonoured her with the foulest reportes, defamed her with the most spite­full sermons, bookes and printed libelles; and finally oppressed her with the most notorious open iniuries, that euer were cast vpon a person of her Maiesties quality & dignity. And all this without any scruple, or remorse of conscience at all: nay all was auerred to be done according to the very rule of the Ghospell & for the Ghospell, and this by all the Ministers both of Scotland and England.

23. And thus much of the second Queene Mary of Scotland brought to her ruine by the Euangelicall obe­dience of these new Ghospellers: but as for the yong Prince her Noble sonne, whome she loued most deare­ly aboue all earthly creatures, and neuer was permit­ted so much as to embrace, or see him more afterward, [Page 48] what passed in this time by the same sorte of mē, both during his minority and afterward, what cōtentions, [...] warres, [...], what murthers, what conspir cies, Rebellions and violences were vsed, VVhat the King [...] hath suf­fered at Protestats handes in [...] of disobe dience & Rebelliō. were ouerlong to recount in this place: the Histories are full, and the [...] made, and set forth in print by the foresaid [...] Authour of [...], in his sixt Chapter and [...] booke against the [...] doth touch many [...] pointes of diuers notorious [...], and violences offered by them and their [...], [...] the Kinges person, state, and dignity, as their taking his authority vpon them, his surpriz and restraint at Rutheuen vpon the yeare 1582. the brethrens allowing and authorizing [...]. the same afterward expresly against the Kinges de­claration to the contrary.

24. The [...] also against his person at Striue­ling vpon the yeare 1584. and many railing speaches, [...]. sermons and bookes against him and his gouernment 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 moneth of May, it fol­lowed in Nouember after that these Ministers with their complices returning into Scotland with aide from England (though this circumstance the Author con ea­leth as not making for his purpose) they gat ten thou­sand Rebelles togeather, and [...] their tentes be­fore the towne of Striueling, whither the King was retired to fortify himselfe in the Castle, making pro­clamations Intollera­ble inso­lencies of Ministers against the King. in their owne names, and there draue at length his Maiesty to yeald his person into their han­des, with the liues of his dearest friendes, and was de­priued also by them of his old guard, and a [...] put vpon him. All which actes were not only defended afterward by the chiefe Ministers of that Realme, but [Page 49] the King himselfe was called in like manner Ieroboam by them, and threatned to be rooted out, as Ieroboams race was, if he continued in the course he held: and many other like [...] by them committed, which for breuityes sake I forbeare to recount in this place.

25. Now then to returne againe to our former pon­deration set downe in the beginning of this Chapter, let euery sage and prudent Prince consider and weigh A vveigh­ty consi­deratiō [...] Princes. with himselfe, which of these two waies which of these two people, which of these two groundes of doctrine, which of these two methodes of practice, which of these two manners of spirit in Protestant & Catholicke subiectes doe best content him, and which of them he may thinke more sure or dangerous vnto him. For if we looke ouer the ancient recordes of our countries for a thousand yeares before, while English men were Catholicke, we shall not find so much vio­lent and barbarous dealing with their [...], as I haue heere recounted in lesse then thirty, within the compasse of one only Kingdome vnder the Prote­stantes.

26. And if we compare the obiections made heere against vs by T. M. in this his calumnious pamphlet (as in the sequēt Chapter more particulerly 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 common-wealth hath authority to choose to themselues a King (when they haue none) and to limit him Streyned [...] against Catho­lickes. lawes wherby they would be gouerned. And that of Doctor Stapleton: That the people (or multitude) was not made for the Princes 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 Catholicke Church may in some cases, and for some [Page 50] causes dispense in oathes: That he may censure Princes vpon iust causes, though not in temporall matters but indirectly only, and vpon such necessity as no other remedy can be found for [...] of the spirituall good of his subiectes: That euill [...] de­clyning into Tyranny may be repressed, but not by priuate men, or popular mutiny.

27. All these pointes (I say) and diuers others, which this fellow doth so greatly exaggerate and odiously amplify against vs, are so ouerrunne by them both in The com­parison betvveene the diso­bedience of Catho­licks and Protestāts. doctrine and practice, if we compare them, as they scarse admit any comparison at all, especially if we cast our eyes vpon their present practice, which repre­senteth the liuely fruite of their doctrine: as namely, the most dangerous Rebellions of Caluinian and Trini­tarian Sectaries, euen now standing on foote in Hun­gary Austria, and Transiluania against the Emperour: and of like men in Polonia against that mild and most iust King: and of Lutherans in Suetia, of Puritanes, Brownists, Protestantes, and the like in the Low-countries, so ma­ny yeares now continued against their true and natu­ral Prince as before hath byn declared; which maketh another manner of impression and force of conse­quence, if it be well pondered, then doth the particu­ler temerarious fact of halfe a score of yong Centle­men put in despaire by apprehension of publique per­secution, without demerit of the persecuted, or hope of remedy for the same, though this also be inexcu­sable; but the difference of euils, is worthy of con­sideration, especially with the more graue and pru­dent sort of people, that are not carried away with passion, or otherwise misled by sinister information.

28. And thus hauing said sufficiently in generall about the first and chiefe ground of our Ministers calumniation, concerning Rebellion and Conspira­cies, wherby he would make impossible the [...], and mutuall vnion of Catholicke subiectes [Page 51] with Protestantes, we shall passe on to his second pil­lar of impugnation, named by him The doctrine of Equiuocation: but yet first we thinke it expedient to exa­mine in a seuerall Chapter the particuler rea­sons which he hath framed for some shew of proofe to this his sedi­tious assertion.

ALbeit that which we haue laid forth before in the precedent Chapter, for the ouerthrow of the slanderous & iniurious imputations of our aduer­sary, about Rebellion and conspira­cies, be sufficient (I doubt not) for satisfaction of any indifferent and dispassionate minde, that is not ouerborne with pre­iudice; yet haue I thought it expedient to passe some­what [Page 53] further also, and to enter the list with him for improuing his particuler reasons, on which he would seene to found his calumniations, wherin as nothing is so absurd or false (according to the Oratours opi­nion) but that by speech and smooth discourse it may be made in some eares probable, at leastwise in the conceipt of him that speaketh and indeauoreth to deceaue another: so this Minister T. M. (for of that trade he is held now to be) hauing designed to him­self an argumēt wherby to make Catholickes odious, and gathered togeather for that end diuers shewes or shadowes for the furniture of his forsaid found asser­tion, that Catholickes are not tolerable in a Prote­stant State, he intituleth them: Pregnant obseruations di­rectly prouing Remish schooles to be Seminaries of Rebellion in all Protestantes gouernment: Wheras indeed they are not so much pregnant obseruations, as malignant collections and inforced inferences vpon false groundes. Neither do they at all either directly or indirectly proue that which he pretendeth, as by examination shall presently ap­peare, if it may please the Reader to hold an equall and indifferent eare in the meane space to the discus­sing of the controuersy.

2. And first of all to make vp a competent number in forme of a decalogue, he streineth himself much to bring out ten different reasons, and in deed euery man A decalo­gue of T. M. his rea­sons hard­ly streined may see that it is a streine, for that all might haue byn vttered in two or three at the most, if not in fewer; for that all doe concerne in effect the Catholike do­ctrine, about the Popes authority either in Princes or priuate mens affaires. And herehence is deduced his 1 first reason concerning the censures and punishments determined by Ecclesiasticall Canons against them that by the Church are denounced for Heretickes. The second reason toucheth the said Popes authority 2 spirituall [...] secular Princes. The third, the hin­derance 3 [Page 54] of their succession by the same lawes. The fourth, the oath and obedience of their subiectes. 4 The fifth, their excommunication and deposition. 5 The sixth the practice of their death by the Popes 6 licence. The [...], the allowance and approba­tion 7 therof. The eight the Rebellion of Priestes 8 whensoeuer they are able. The ninth the dissoluing 9 and euacuation of oathes by the Popes authority. The last that Romish Priestes by the order of the 10 Pope must professe seditious positions ex officio, that is to say, as he is a Romish Priest. By which enumera­tion yow may see in deed, that the poore man was more barren then pregnant, and after his streine had partum difficilem, a hard child-birth, as may appeare by that which he hath brought forth, to wit a mouse for a mountaine, and therupon we may iustly say: par­turiunt montes &c. We shall giue a short view ouer all his reasons.

HAuing written hitherto and passed thus far-forth in examination of the Ministers opprobrious libel of Disco­uery, I was partly forced by grieuous sicknesse that continued for some moneths, & partly also induced (for that I vnderstood that another Ca­tholicke man had answered the said libell) to lay that which I had written a side, as also for that the occa­sion [Page 90] of time, wherin this Treatise was begun, soone after the detection of the often forenamed powder­treason, seemed in great part to be past, and hauing once laied it out of my handes, had no great will af­terward to goe forward theriwth, as an argument of loathsome contention, against most odious imputa­tions and calumniations: but yet after diuers mone­thes againe, seing the said Catholicke answere to ap­peare (which before I had not viewed) togeather with a large Reply to the same by the Minister that first made and deuised the libell; and that the said Mi­nister had now resolued vpon instance of the said An­swerer to manifest his name, to wit of Thomas Morton, T. M. his nevv Re­ply. which before went ciphered with the letters only of T. M. that might aswell haue signified Thomas Mal­mesbury or Montague or Monte-banke, or any such like sur-name: and further that he presumed to dedicate the same vnto the Kinges Maiesty, by a speciall glo­sing Epistle, full of fond Ministeriall malice against Catholickes, intituling his said Reply: A full satisfa­ction concerning a double Romish iniquity, heynous Rebellion, and more then heathenish [...]. And further that he had encreased his said worke with two or three new Tre­atises, partly for iustifying of Protestantes in the case of Rebellion, and partly for confuting of a Treatise written in defence of Equiuocation, I was moued as­well of my self, as by others exhortation, to resume the thing into my handes againe, & to adioine by the view of the whole that which was wanting to the full confutation of this Ministers iniquity, in laying such heinous Rebellion & heathenish Equiuocation vnto Catholickes charge, who of all men liuing are most free from iust reprehension in them both: and the Caluinian sect and sectaries conuinced to be most guilty in the one, and consciencelesse in the other, as the iudicious Reader (I doubt not) shall see euidently [Page 91] proued and confirmed in that which is to ensue.

2. It moued me also not a little to goe forward some­what with this confutation (though in as breiffe manner as might be) to see that this deuise (though T. M. len­deth and borro­vveth of S. Edvvard Cooke. neuer so fond and false) of charging Catholicke do­ctrine with Rebellion & Equiuocation, was applau­ded not a little by some men of marke in our State; as namely by his Maiesties late Attorney Generall, as­wel in his writing, as pleadinges against Catholicks, borrowing from this Ministers first Treatise diuers large parcelles, and passages of his calumnious impu­tations, about the forenamed two heades of Rebelliō and Equiuocation, & lending him againe in lue therof for his second Reply sundry obseruations & collections of his owne, concerning diuers Kings of England, that seemed to him not so much to fauour or acknowledge the Bishop of Rome his authority ouer the English Church, which yet now vpon further search, is found to be contrary, and so set downe and demonstrated at large by a late Answere published to the said Attor­ney his booke of Reportes, as I thinke in hast will not be answered. Wherupon, forsomuch as this new de­uised accusation, of Rebellious doctrine and Equiuo­cation, is taken vp by so many handes of those that be enemies to Catholicke Religion; I thought it conue­nient to cleere somewhat more this [...]; and as I had, before I laid aside this worke, treated sufficient­ly, as it seemed to me, of the former point, concerning Rebellious doctrine, vpon the sight only of T. M. his first pamphlet (as in the precedent two Chapters yow haue seen) yet now vpon 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 goe forward to finish my first intent, and to examine the second point or head of his accusation in like manner, apperteining [Page 92] to the doctrine of Equiuocation, made no lesse odious now by continuall clamours of sycophancy, then the other of Rebellion it selfe.

3. One other circumstance also stirred me greatly to proceed in this short worke, which was, that togea­ther with these bookes sent out of England, aduertise­ment was giuen, that this Minister Thomas Morton was Chaplain to my Lord of Canterbury, who being head of the spirituall Court of Arches, which is, or ought to be the supreame for matters of cōscience in England, T. M. my Lord of Canter­buries Chaplaine I was in hope to haue some remedy against this his Lordships Chaplaine, if I should demonstrate, that he dealeth against all conscience, obseruing no law, ei­ther of truth or modesty towardes Catholick men in this his Reply, nor any regard either to his owne or Maisters honour, he behauing himself so fraudulent­ly against his owne knowledge and conscience, as in this writing he doth. And if I proue not this after­ward, by multiplicity of manifest & manifold exam­ples, as in part yow haue seene that I haue done be­fore, let me be thought to haue done him iniury (which willingly I would not doe vnto the worst man liuing) in which place I hold not him, though by his pen I must needes iudge him to be bad inough.

4. Now then to the point it self of his Reply, which he calleth, as hath byn said, A full satisfaction; it seemeth to me as full as pipes and hoggesheades are wont to be heere in these countreys at the time of vintage, when they are full only of winde and aire and nothing els; and so yow shall see afterwardes, that this his Reply is The Mi­nisters manner of dealing. full of wordes without substance, of florish without truth, of fraude without reall dealing: for that lightly he scarsely alledgeth any text of his Aduersaries wry­ting, without some fort of sophistication both of wordes and sense, or other like knackes. And further so distracteth and dismembreth his aduersaries threed [Page 93] of speach, citing one branch of it in one part of his Reply, another in another, one sentence first that should haue byn last, and another last that should haue byn first, therby to confound the Readers memory; one period halfe deuided, the other quartered, the third left out, the fourth disguised: so as it is euident that he sought rather to fly, to couer, shaddow, and hide himself, then really and substantially to come to the combate, as examples ensuing shall make all ma­nifest.

5. But heere perhaps some will say, that this see­meth a meruaile vnto them, for that this man preten­deth to deale more distinctly and exactly then others, for that he setteth downe seuerally, plainly, and cleer­ly, first the wordes of his former pamphlet of Discoue­ry, Fond flo­rishes of T. M. then the text of his aduersary (the moderate an­swerer) and thirdly the full satisfaction of his faith­full Reply. And furthermore he draweth euery thing to diuisions and subdiuisions, distinctions & contra­positions, which make a iolly florish in the Readers eye, being set downe in logicall rancke. As for exam­ple, in his first reason, for setting Catholickes and Pro­testantes at debate, he saith he will proue it thus.

• 1. Definition of an Heretick.
• 2. Explication of a person ex­communicate.
• 3. Application of Romish Cen­sures to them both.

And then the last member againe is proued:

• 1. Councelles.
• 2. Bulles.
• 3. Doctours.

[Page 94]6. And is not this plaine and cleere saith one? Yes, to entertaine Children by sound of wordes, or plea­sing pictures. But when we come to the substance, & find that neither he alledgeth his Aduersaries speech sincerely, nor answeareth truly to the sense, but either dissembleth the same, or runneth a side, or confirmeth his said aduersaries argument, by his feeble answers, what importeth this ostentation of bare and ydle sil­lables?

7. But you will say that he seemeth to haue seene and read much of our moderne Catholicke Authors, and to alledge them more abundantly in his text and margent then commonly other writers of his coat & calling haue hitherto done, for euery where almost he quoteth Vasquez, Suarez, Tolet, Bellarmine, Cunerus, Azor, [...] T. Alsonsus de Castro, Sayer, Gregorius de Valentia, Bannes, M. [...] our Catholick Authors. and others, which I graunt, that he hath seene and taken a view of them and others, if they be notes of his owne gathering, but he hath considered of them, as Satan had considered of Iob, and his actions, when God said vnto him: Numquid considerasti seruum Iob [...]. meum Iob? and he signified, yea, but it was to bely and calumniate him; and so hath this fellow considered of our Catholicke authors, not only to slaunder them what he may, but manifestly to falsify and cor­rupt them in many places both in wordes, meaning and whole drift of their discourses, as in part yow haue seene already, and shall more largely and parti­culerly vpon iust occasions afterwardes.

8. Nor hath this whole Reply of his, though bigge in bulke, any substantial point almost handled therin, either about the one or the other two partes of his subiect proposed, to wit, Rebellion, and equiuoca­tion; wherby he would dissolue all friendly combi­nation, and association betweene Catholick and Pro­testant people; for as concerning the first, he hath no [Page 95] more in effect, but that which before hath byn tou­ched in his ten deuised and distended Reasons: That we hold Protestantes for Heretiques excommuni­cate, and subiect to all the penalties of Ecclesiasticall Canons made by the Church against ancient Hereti­ques: That we ascribe power to the Bishop of Rome in certaine cases, to censure, to excommunicate, to de­priue Princes, wherof is inferred, that such and such daungers may ensue, which finally is nothing els, but may, so as the question being De futuris contingentibus, of [...] lib. Prior. thinges contingent to come (wherof the Philosopher saith there is no science) all remaineth in vncertain­ty, but only the suspition & hatred which he would raise against vs: but what the Protestantes doctrine hath done & doth at this day against lawfull Princes in their Realmes, the armies in the low countreys, Hungary, Poland, Suetia and other places, doe testify not only to our ears, as things absent, but as present also to our eyes, & then must I inferre, that where we haue so many examples of so manifest experience and present action, where we see and behold and feele with our senses what passeth, and what hath passed, and what is like to ensue daily by the notorious vnquiet spirits of new Ghospellers, vnder any Prince whatsoeuer that contenteth not their humours. What shall we stand wrangling with this Minister, or any his like, about possibilities or coniecturall probabilities? What may fall out in time against his Maiesty, for example, [...] Pro­testant Princes troubled by Popes in our daies. of Great Britany, who hath byn a King, a Protestant King, almost forty yeares, and neuer receaued hurt or disquietnes from any Pope, though diuers haue byn in that Sea within the compasse of this time, and many other Kinges and Princes both in Denmark, Sueueland and Germany for more yeares without molestation re­ceaued or offred frō the said Sea, which I dare auouch no Catholicke Prince, King or Emperour can say that [Page 96] he hath passed halfe so many years in quiet gouernmēt ouer Protestant people, vnto whome their doctrine giueth as great power ouer Princes in that case, as we ascribe to Popes and farre greater; wherin I remit me, to that which hath byn said and demonstrated in the precedent two Chapters.

9. And now to end about this first point of our Mi­nisters Reply, that wheras in his former libell of ten reasons, intituled, A discouery of popish doctrine &c. He set downe in his first reason, for proofe of our insociabi­lity with protestantes, that we hold them for excom­municate Hereticks, & subiect to all the penalties be­longing to such men, wherof one among the rest is, that we must fly them, and auoid their conuersation; the answerer of the pamphlet, for better milding and pacifying the distempered humour of this enraged Minister, told him that English Protestantes were Hovv Pro­testantes vvere de­nied by the An­svverer to be subiect to the pe­nalties of Heresy. not simply held in that accompt with vs, to wit for excommunicate Heretickes, in such degree as they were either to be auoided, or subiect to the penalties apointed by holy Canons for ancient Heretickes; vn­derstanding (as himself doth sufficiently insinuate) this to be in regard that they are not, nor any among them to his knowledge, expressely, and by name de­nounced and condemned for conuict in that behalf, which circumstance of particuler condemnation and denuntiation, by most lawiers and Deuines opinions is necessary, before the said punishmentes, especially externall, can be inflicted, albeit the internall, to wit, the losse of grace, separatiō from the Church, excom­municatiō, & the like be incurred ipso facto, by the hol­ding and professing of any condemned Heresy what­soeuer, as before in the precedent Chapter more lar­gely we haue declared.

10. But for the externall punishments, as debarring from conuersation and communication with them, [Page 97] losse of goodes, honours, and dignities, depriuation of offices, inhability to inherit, note of infamy, inca­pacity of Christian buriall, and the like, there being two opinions betweene Catholicke writers, the one more large and mild, that none of these punishments are to be actually incurred, but after particuler denun­tiation and sentence giuen by a Iudge against the par­ty, the other more seuere, that in some cases, the no­toriousnes of the thing may be so great, as in some part they may therby be incurred without sentence; the Of [...] the more moderate follovved by the An­svverer. iust & moderate answerer (for so he intituleth his booke, and in this point sheweth it by effectes) made choice rather of the more temperate, & mild opinion; which in like manner is the more vniuersall among both Canonistes and Catholicke Deuines, he thinking it sufficiēt to cite only to that purpose, as in his answere Moderate Ansvvere cap. 1. he did, the Councell of Lateran, Cunerus, Nauar and o­thers, but he might haue cited many more: for in truth §. [...]. it is the more common opinion by much, as may be seene by the wordes 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. excommunicat. 6. nu. 44. Siluest. verb. Excommunicat. 5. q. 3. Caëtan. in summa. Ledes. 4. dist. q. 23. art. 1. and diuers others.

11. But now this Minister finding that some Ca­tholicke Author did hold the other opinion in like manner, that in certaine cases some of the forenamed punishmentes might be incurred before particular de­nunciation by an Ecclesiasticall Iudge, triumpheth greatly, as though he had taken the said answerer at great aduantage, and found plausible matter to enter­taine cauillation against him, and therupon spendeth diuers Chapters of his Reply in citing some of those Authors to his purpose, without telling his Reader, [Page 98] that it is a matter in dispute or question among Ca­tholicke writers; but as though all were cleere and re­solued Reply c. 4. 5. 6. &c. on his side, he citeth not only Panormitan, Bannes, and others, but the Iesuite also Gregorie de Valentia, in these wordes: If the guilt of Heresy be so notorious (saith he) as that by no euasion it can be concealed, the party doth incurre the penalty, thus far, that his subiectes may deny such a Lord all fealty, yea before the sentence of iudgment. In alledging of which authority, though but short, as you see, he vseth the same fraud which commonly yow 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 vs, as heere the Latin text hath, Haeresis siuè Apostasiae à fide, of Heresy or Apostasy from the faith, and then paena praedicta in­curritur ex parte, the foresaid punishment is in part in­curred: and lastly, Non tamen ita, vt 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 subiectes are not bound to deny obedience to their Lord that is an Hereticke or Apostata; all with mode­rations our Minister cutteth of, and leaueth out, to the effect that yow may imagine. But for that of these trickes we shall haue afterward occasiō to treat more particulerly, I will intermit the same now, & returne to speake a word or two more, of the foresaid mo­derate Answere made to the Ministers slaunderous discouery, soone after the publication therof in Eng­land; though not come to my handes in many mone­thes after.

12. And wheras the Answerer both in regard of the exasperation of times then running, and to performe the title of his booke, which is, A iust and moderate Answer, indeauoreth euery where prudently to fly the occasion of more offence and exulceration, and to worke the moderation that he might, without iniury of the truth (for this seemeth to haue byn his purpose) [Page 99] especially in affirming, that no Protestantes are held by vs T. M. vvill needes proue Pro­testantes to be held for Here­tickes. for excommunicate Heretickes (meaning therby, denoun­ced by name, as before hath byn decsared:) this other stickler and stirrer of coles will needes take vpon him to proue at large, that Protestantes are esteemed to be truly Hereticks, excommunicate, and subiect to all the Censures of the Church, which any ancient He­reticke was in times past: and to this effect he brin­geth in the definition of an Hereticke, set downe by Catholicke writers, the explicatiō of persons excom­municate, and the application of Ecclesiasticall Cen­sures against them both, which he proueth by three meanes, to wit, of Generall Councelles, Popes De­crees, and Doctors iudgmentes; by all which he pro­ueth Protestantes to be esteemed Heretickes, & held for guilty of all the paines and penalties therof, both internall and externall, spirituall and temporall, in the sight, sense and opinion of all the vniuersall Catho­licke Church, for many ages togeather; And is not he worthy of a good fee thinke yow for pleading for Protestantes in this manner?

13. But whatsoeuer he may deserue in this (which I leaue to other mens iudgmentes) I must needes say, that in two or three other pointes, he hath deserued little of the Protestant cause, and so I thinke will his T. M a bad Pro­ctor for Prote­stantes. Lord and Maister say, when he shall make true refle­xion vpō the case; for first he hath brought in a need­lesse cōparison betweene the stirring humours of Pro­testant & Catholicke people, in matter of obedience to their Princes, which must needs fal out to the great disgrace of the Protestant party, as by the afore alled­ged examples and other proofes may appeare and be seene by the eye.

14. Secondly he taketh vpon him yet more fondly in the second part of this his Reply, to make a publi­que iustification of all Protestantes for rebelling a­gainst [Page 100] their Princes, in any countrey whatsoeuer, but more particulerly and especially in England, & therin doth so iustify Cranmer, Ridley, Syr Tho. VVyat, & others that conspired against Q. Mary in England, Knox, Bucha­nan, Goodman, and like Ministers in Scotland, turning vpside downe that State against their Soueraignes, the Rebellions raised in Suetia, Polonia, Germany, Swit­zerland, France, and other countreys, as his iustification is a more plaine condemnation of them, and their spi­rits and doctrine in that behalfe, then if he had said nothing at all, as partly shall afterwardes appeare, by some instances that we shall alledge therof.

15. Thirdly he doth with as little discretion bring in that accusation before mentioned of hard wordes vsed by some of our Authors against his party that fol­loweth Caluins doctrine: as namely; That they belieue no one article truly of the Christian Creed; That they are Heretickes, & therin far worse and in more dam­nable state thē Turkes, Iewes or Infidelles; That their doctrine leadeth by consequence to Turcisme and Infidelity &c. for by this occasion both the Author of the moderate Answere hath alledged many cleere authorities of principall Protestantes themselues, that are of the same opinion, and we haue added many The im­putation [...] Heresy vnto Pro­testantes [...] brought in by T. M more therunto, in the precedēt Chapter of this booke, wherby is made manifest, that the profession of Cal­uins doctrine is no lesse held for Heresy, Apostasy, and infidelity by all other sortes of Protestantes of our daies, then by Catholicke men themselues; and much more may be added for iustification of that point which needed not to haue byn brought in, but vpon this occasion, to shew that English Protestantes are held for Hereticks, not only by the Catholick Church whose iudgment most importeth, but by the cheiffe pillars also of the Protestantes profession in other countreys. And when I doe name Heresy and Here­tickes, [Page 101] the prudent Reader will remember that I doe name the most heinous and damnable thing that any Christian cogitation can comprehend, no matter of iest or dispute, but of terrour and teares.

16. Fourthly I can as little commend the Ministers wit for drawing into the field againe a new disputa­tion, and speciall Treatise of his, adioined in the end of this his Reply, about Equiuocation or doubtfull speeches, sometimes lawfull to be vsed for good and pious endes, and for auoiding sinne and other hurtes both spirituall & temporall, wherin though the law­fulnes and necessity therof both by law of nature, di­uine and humane, haue byn made euident, vpon di­uers occasions in England these later yeares, since this T. M. an example of Equi­uocation. calumniation was raised against vertuous and lear­ned mē about the same; yet one proofe wee shall adde more heere in this place, which before I haue not seen set downe at any length, which is that not only Pro­testantes themselues doe both vse and abuse the same, as the Answerer declareth; but that this very Author our Minister that inueigheth so sharpely & ignorant­ly against the manner of speech, which he calleth E­quiuocation, is forced in almost infinite places of his Reply, either to graunt that he doth Equiuocate, or els that he lyeth flatly. And for this also I remit my self to the proofes that after shall ensue.

17. And so to conclude this Chapter, concerning my iudgment about the Answere and Reply to the foresaid Discouery of Rebellion and Equiuocation, I must needes say, that the Answerer hath endeauored to effectuate so much as he promised in the title of his booke, which was, of a iust and moderate Answere, and in performance therof, hath not only borne on mat­ters temperately, as before hath byn shewed, but spa­red also his Aduersary in many pointes, and namely in passing ouer his allegations without note or check, [Page 102] hauing not perhaps either time or commodity of bookes to examine the same, or perswading himself, that in so small a pamphlet, and palpable matter, a The Au­thors Cē ­sure both of the An­svverer & Replyer. Minister would not aduenture to vse so many falsifi­cations; but he was deceaued, not knowing so well this generation of men, who finding their cause de­uoid of truth, are forced to hold vp the credit therof by sleightes of falshood. In the rest, the Answerer quitteth himself learnedly, and sheweth much rea­ding in particuler, as by the multiplicity of Authors by him alledged doth well appeare. 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 alledged by his aduersary, who though I may pre­sume he will best declare himself by his Reioinder to this Reply, if he thinke him worthy of so much la­bour (as in truth I doe not, especially at this time, when so grieuous punishmentes are procured in Eng­land by him & his like for such as doe presume to an­swer their bookes:) yet meane I also briefly in this Treatise, by some examples to make it manifest, lea­uing the rest to himself to be treated, and refuted by him more largely & abundantly, when he shall thinke it best conuenient; my purpose being only to lay forth in general the iniuries which this Minister doth offer vnto all Catholick people, by slaundering them in the foresaid two odious accusations of Rebelliō & Equi­uocation, wherof hauing treated sufficiently about the first in the two foregoing Chapters (and shall doe more in two other that ensue) we meane by Godes help to passe thence to the other generall head of E­quiuocation, & to handle the same with no lesse eui­dency of truth, equity and piety of Catholicke do­ctrine therin, then hath byn declared in the other be­fore cōcerning our innocency, wherin I remit me wil­lingly to the indifferent Readers iudgmēt & censure.

ANd now after iudgment giuen of this Ministers Reply in generall, it shall be needfull that we descend somewhat to particulars for proofe therof. And wheras he, by so many The Mini­sters Sleightes. sleightes and turninges of diuisions and subdiuisions, numbers & mem­bers of thinges to be handled, or rather hudled, as also by transmutation from due places, alteration of or­der, [Page 104] clipping and culling of wordes and sentences, en­deauoreth so to entangle the sight and vnderstanding of his Reader (especially the more vnlearned) as he may not easily finde where he walketh, nor when he answereth to purpose and when not, when he lea­ueth 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 firme conclusion at all about the matter in controuer­sy: Our course shall be quyte contrary, endeauoring to bring all to breuity, perspicuity, and certainty, so much as in vs lyeth, for so we thinke it necessary for the Readers true satisfaction, after the small satisfa­ction he can receiue by the full satisfaction promised by this Minister.

2. Wherfore to reduce all that before hath byn said by him, or his Answerer, or my self, concerning the charge of sedition and Rebellion, vnto some perspi­cuous order and method, three pointes seeme vnto me most important to be considered in this matter, as cōprehending the summe & substance of all that hath byn said, answered, or replied vpon. The first concer­ning Heresy; the second, seditious doctrine tending to Rebellion, and the third, the practice and exercise therof: wherin as in all other pointes of argument, & discourse, when the obiection and solution is once heard, and well considered, no great difficulty remai­neth for a discreet man to make the conclusion, and to settle his minde therin.

THis Minister Thomas Morton not con­tent, after the pretended confirma­tion of his first discouery and reasons therof, to haue added a second Trea­tise, conteyning (as he saith) A Iusti­fication of Protestantes against imputa­tions of disobedience and Rebellion against temporall Princes, either in doctrine or pra­ctice [Page 140] (both which you haue heard now how substāti­ally he hath performed) he thought good also to ad a third Treatise (though nothing needfull to the argu­ment in hand) which he intituleth, A confutation of the principles of Romish doctrine in two pointes, first, concerning The title of T. M. his [...] Treatise. the Pope supreame head of Rebellion, and secondly, the impious conceipt of Equiuocation. And forasmuch as of the se­cond point, which is Equiuocation, we are to treat more largly in the ensuing Chapters, and that the first seemed to me impertinent to be treated againe seue­rally in this place, the substance therof hauing byn touched sufficiently, forasmuch as belongeth to this affaire, in the former Chapters, especially the second; I had purposed once to passe it ouer without any an­swere at all, as indeed not deseruing any, it being only The cause of this se­uerall Chapter. a certaine disorderly hudling togeather of peeces and parcelles of other mens collections about that matter, better handled by themselues: But yet considering af­terward the speciall manner of this mans treating the same matters, both in regard of fraude and simplicity, though contrary the one to the other; I iudged it not amisse to giue the Reader some tast therof in this one Chapter, wherby he may be able to frame a iudgment of the rest, and of the exorbitant veine of this mans writing.

2. First then he beginneth the very first lines of his Confut. pag. 1. first Chapter with these wordes: This pretended predo­minance ( saith he) of the Pope in temporall causes, whether di­rectly or indirectly considered ( in which diuision of gouerning the Romish schoole is at this day extreamly deuided) if it be from To his first cauil­lation. God, it will sure plead Scriptum est &c. By which sole entrance yow may take a scantling of the mās discre­tion; for it cannot be denied I thinke (except we deny the Ghospell) but that Scriptum est was pleaded also by Math. 4. the diuell, and not only by God, as in like manner it hath byn by all Hereticks, the diuels cheif Chaplains, [Page 141] since that time; and consequently it was no good exor­dium to build all vpon this foundation.

3. Secondly it is not true, that the Romish schole is so ex­treamly deuided in this diuision of gouerning directly To his se­cond ca­uillation. or indirectly, as the Minister would make it: for the question is not at all of gouerning, but how the right to gouerne in temporall causes, was deliuered by Christ to S. Peter and his Successours, whether direct­ly, togeather with the spiritual gouernment ouer sou­les, or els indirectly and by a certaine consequence, when the said spirituall gouernment is letted and im­pugned, as before hath byn declared. In which dif­ference of opinions there is no such extremity of diuision among Catholickes, as this man would haue men thinke: for that all doe agree in the substance of the thing it self, that the Pope hath this authority from God Iure diuino, in certaine cases, whether directly or indirectly that little importeth to this our controuer­sy with the Protestantes, who deny both the one and the other. And so much for that.

4. The next sentence or obiection after the former preface (which is the very first of his discourse) is fra­med by him, but yet in our name, vnder the title of the Romane pretence in these wordes: The high Priestes in Pag. 2. the old Testament (saith he) were supreame in ciuill causes, ergo they ought to be so also in the new: for which he citeth, one Carerius, a Lawier, that wrote of late in Padua De Carerius li. 2. Rom. Pontif. ca. 18. & Sander. in visib. mo­narch. potestate Romani Pontificis, defending the former opinion of Canonistes for direct dominion, & citeth his wor­des in Latin thus: Dico Pontificem in veteri Testamento fuisse Rege maiorem: And Englisheth the same as before yow haue heard, that the high Priest was supreame, in ci­uill causes; which wordes, of ciuill causes, he putteth in of his owne, and if yow marke them, doe marre the whole market: for that Carerius hath them not either in wordes or sense, but teacheth the plaine cōtrary in [Page 142] all his discourse, to wit, that he meaneth in matters appertaining to Religion and Preisthood, and not of temporall principality, which this Author granteth to haue byn greater in the old Testament in dealing with Ecclesiasticall men & matters, then in the new; & to that effect is he cited presently after by the Mini­ster himself, contrary to that which heere he feigneth him to say. But let vs heare the wordes of Carerius. Ter­tiò dico (saith he) etiam in Testamento veteri fuisse Pontificem Rege maiorem: quod quidem probatur &c. ‘Thirdly I say that the high Priest was greater also in the old Testament then the King, which is proued first out of the 27. Chapter of Numbers, where it is appointed by God, that Iosue and all the people should be directed by the word of the high Priest Eleazar, saying, whē any thing is to be done, let Eleazar the high Priest consult with God, and at his word aswell Iosue, as all the children The dig­nity of Priest­hood pro­ued to be more then Regall. of Israell, and whole multitude shall goe forth and come in &c. And secondly the same is proued out of the fourth of Leuiticus, where foure kind of Sacrifices being ordained, according to the dignity of the per­sons, the first two are of a calfe for the high Priest & commonwealth, the third and fourth of a hee and shee-goat for the Prince and priuate persons:’ Wherby Carerius inferreth a most certaine dignity and prehe­minence of the Priestes state, aboue the temporall Prince, though he say not in ciuill causes, as this Mini­ster doth bely him.

5. And wheras Carerius had said in two former An­sweres, first that in the old Testament, Ecclesiasticall and secular iurisdiction were not so distinct, but that both might be in some cases in the King, and second­ly that in the new law, the spirituall power was more eminent then in the old; he commeth thirdly to say False dea­ling a­gainst [...]. that in the old law the High Priest in some respectes was greater also then the King, which cannot be vn­derstood [Page 143] of ciuill power, except the Author will be con­trary to himself. And therfore that clause was very falsly and perfidiously thrust in by the Minister, and this with so much the lesse shame, for that in the end of the same Chapter he citeth the same Author to the [...]. p. 2. Carer. l. 2. c. 1. plaine contrary sense, saying: In veteri lege Regnum erat substantiuum & sacerdotium adiectiuum &c. ‘That in the old law the Kingdome was the substantiue, that stood of it self, and Preisthood was the adiectiue, that lea­ned theron, but contrary-wise in the new law, Preist­hood and spirituall iurisdiction is the substantiue or principall in gouernment, and temporall principality is the adiectiue depending therof, for direction, and assistance, the one both by nature and Godes law being subordinate to the other, to wit the temporall to the spirituall.’ And thus much concerning this guile by flat falshood. Now to a tricke or two of other sor­tes of shifting by him vsed 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 therfore that in the new, the spirituall power (as the Popedome, saith he) must be the chiefe or substanti­ue &c. 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 graue answere thervnto: In this obiection (saith he) there is more childhood then manhood, babish grammer, then sound deuinity. So he. And will you heare his manhood in sound deuinity? It followeth imediatly. The old Testament indeed (saith he) in his earthly elementes was a figure of this spirituall and heauenly; but of the truly heauenly, the day of that eternall sab­both, and the Celestiall Hierusalem, the Mother-Citty of the Hebr. 4. Sainctes of God. Behold his manhood in sound deuini­ty. Hovv the old Testa­ment vvas a figure of the nevv. Let it be so, that the old Testament was in many thinges a figure of the heauenly sabboth and Celestial Hierusalem, but what (Syr) will yow conclude of [Page 144] this by your sound deuinity? Was it not a figure also of many thinges vpon earth, which should be fulfil­led in the new Testament? Were not their Cerimo­nies and Sacrifices a figure of our Sacramentes & Sa­crifice? their Manna of our Eucharist? their circumci­sions and washinges, figures of our Baptisme? 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: Nō [...] os boui trituranti, thou Deut. 25. shalt not binde vp the month of the oxe that labou­reth, vnto our preachers of the new Testament? as also the passing of the Red-sea by the Israelites? their being baptized in the cloude? their food of the Manna? their drinking out of the rock, which [...] Christ? and diuers other thinges, wherof he saith: [...] autem in figura facta sunt nostri; these thinges were done 1. Cor. 10. in figure of our present State. And againe: Haec autem omnia in figura contingebant illis; all these thinges did hap­pen to the Iewes in figure, but were to be fulfilled tru­ly and really according to the spirituall meaning in the new Testament? Is not all this so? were not these thinges to be fulfilled aswell vpon earth as in heauen? how thē doth our Minister put that aduersitiue clause: but of the truly heauenly; as though the old Testament in her earthly Elementes had [...] nothing to be fulfilled but only in heauen. Is this sound deuinity? Is this manhood? Nay is it not rather babish childhood, that seemeth not to know the very first Elementes of true deuinity?

7. I let passe the shamelesse corruption which he v­seth in translating the very wordes cited by him out of Salmeron, for proofe of his obiection, made in our behalfe, and I call it shamelesse for that euery child which vnderstandeth Latin, may see the Ministers shift therin. The Authors words are these as this man heere recounteth them: Et hoc Regnum terrenum [...] [...]. p. 3. [Page 145] tamen suit spiritualis regiminis in Ecclesia Christiana: and yet this earthly Kingdome (of the Iewes) was a shaddow of the spirituall gouernment, that was to be in the Christian Church: meaning therby that the most ex­cellent spirituall power and gouernment ouer soules, which Christ was to institute in his Church, at his comming in flesh, to wit, the power of absoluing from sinnes vpon earth, the assistance giuen by the Sacra­mentes, and the like, were shaddowed in a certaine manner by the earthly Kingdome among the Iewes: And how doth T. M. now translate these wordes, & frame our obiection out of them: The old Testament (saith he) was a figure of the new in Christ, therfore in the new the Popedome is the substātiue &c. Heere are two short pro­positions you see, the antecedent and consequent, & both framed with falshood; for that the antecedent set downe out of Salmeron, is not that which he affir­meth in his Latin words, as already we haue shewed, though otherwise in it self the propositiō be true; nor (will I thinke) 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 lesse cor­ruptly [...] of T. M. inferred in our name, then was the antecedent affirmed, for that we doe not inferre, 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, therfore in the new the Popes spirituall authority is the substantiue &c. for that this were a weake inference, as euery man seeth; nay Carerius maketh no inference at all in the place by him alledged, but only vseth that similitude, which before yow haue heard of the substantiue and adiectiue: so as this inference is only a fiction of the Minister to make himself and other men merry, and to giue occasion to play vpon his Aduersary, with the reproach of childhood and babish grammer, as now he hath [Page 146] done. But indeed the true consequence that may be made vpon the Catholicke Authors wordes, which hitherto he hath alledged, is only this; that forasmuch as the Kingdome and gouernment among the Iewes euen in Ecclesiasticall thinges was but earthly, and a figure or shaddow in respect of that which was to be ouer soules in the Christian Church, it followeth that this in respect of spirituality, was to be much more eminent then the other, as the thing figured, then the figure or shaddow it self. And what inconuenience hath this doctrine that it should be called childhood and babish grammer.

8. But now shall yow heare a new strange deuise of his, neuer heard of (I thinke) in the world before, & such a manhood in sound deuinity, that sheweth him scarce to be arriued to childhood in true Theology; for that to exalt temporall principality of a Kingdome and de­presse Priesthood, he seeketh to abase the High Priest­hood of Christ himself; for so he vaunteth that he will returne the foresaid argument vpon the Romish. ‘Christ (saith he) being King and Priest, was shaddo­wed Conf. par. 3. pag. 3. by the types of the old Testament; but in Christ his Kingdome had the preheminence of Priesthood, bycause he is a Priest only for vs, but he is King ouer vs. Secondly as Priest he is suppliant to the Father; as King he is predominant ouer all powers and princi­palities equally with the Father, Ergo, this order in­herent in Christ ought to hold as conuenient among Christians.’ An argument demonstratiue. So he.

9. Wherby yow may see, first how good a Logitian he is, who auoucheth this for an argument demon­stratiue, which is indeed a very Elench & Sophisme, A Sophi­sticall fal­lacy in steed of a demon­stratiue argument. and manifest fallacy, for that he changeth his subiect from sense to sense, making one proposition of his ar­gument in the one, and the other in another sense. For when he talketh of Christes Priesthood compa­ring [Page 147] it with his being a King, he meant (and so he ought to doe) as he was man, and inferiour to his Fa­ther; and when he speaketh of the other, of his being a King, he vnderstandeth it, as he was God and equall to his Father; and so taking the one in one meaning, and the other in the other, his principall meaning is to deceaue his Reader with a sophisticall argument instead of a demonstratiue; & yet doth the good man so confide in his logicall science, as in one place he triumpheth ouer his Aduersary, that did but once name Logicke in these wordes: Dare yow (saith he) ap­peale to Logicke? this is the art of all artes, and the high tribunall Reply par. 3. pag. 54. of reason and truth it self; which no man in any matter, whe­ther it be case of humanity or deuinity, can iustly refuse: which is so ridiculous a simplicity, as no man can read with­out laughter. For what high tribunall (I pray yow) hath logicke in deuinity? Or who gaue her this tribu­nall? was there no deuinity before Logicke was in­uented by the Philosophers? Logicke is not a science, according to Aristotle, but only modus sciendi, a manner or meane how to come to science, and it ministreth not matter, but forme of argument, as armour to the Logitian, wherby to impugne falshood and ignorance in euery science, euen as the Cutlers shop doth yeeld weapons to souldiers that goe to warre, and yet can­not the Cutlers shop be iustly called the high tribunal of all matters belonging to Chieualry and feates of warfare, and consequently this was a vaine florish & ostentation.

10. But now to returne to the principall point, we haue seene that this argument is so far from being de­monstratiue, as it is no argument at all, in regard of the Equiuocation and fallacy therin conteyned. Let vs then consider the same in respect of the matter & substance it self. First I say that it conteyneth a ma­nifest, fond and impious paradox, that Christes King­dome [Page 148] (as he was both King and Priest) had the pre­heminence VVhether Christes Priest­hood or Kingly povver vvere grea ter vpon earth. of his Priesthood; and I call it a paradox, for that I thinke no Christian man of learning euer held it before, and much lesse any sound deuine. Secondly I call it fond, in respect of his ridiculous reasons alled­ged for the same, which presently we shall examine: And thirdly I call it impious, for that it is both against the Scriptures, and preiudiciall to Christes highest dignity of Priesthood vpon earth: Wherby also follo­weth that this Ministers inference or conclusion ( Ergo this order inherent in Christ ought to be held as conuenient among Christians) must be censured by the same censures, for that it concludeth a generall preheminence 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 maintaine in his bookes De Sacerdotio, affirming, that the office and dignity of a Priest, doth so far exceed that of a King, as gold doth siluer, hea­uen earth, and the soule 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 then Kingly authority, as there can be difference imagined betweene 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 Prince­dome more venerable & great then is Kingly autho­rity. And then againe: Ne mihi narras purpuram &c. doe not tell me of purple or diademe, of scepter or golden apparell of Kinges, for these are but shaddowes, and more vaine then May-flowers: Si vis videre discrimen Ibid. quantum absit Rex a Sacerdote, expende modum potestatis vtri­que traditae &c. If yow will see indeed the true diffe­rence betweene them, and how much the King is in­feriour to a [...], consider the measure of power ge­uen to them both, & yow shall see the Priestes tribu­nall [Page 149] much higher then that of the King. So he. Wher­unto agreeth that of S. Gregory Nazienzen spoken to Naz. orat. ad ciues timore [...]. the Emperour himself: The law of Christ (saith he) hath made yow subiect to my power, and to my tribunall, for wee (Bishops) haue an Empire also, and that more excellent and perfect then yours, except yow will say the spirit is inferiour to the flesh, and heauenly thinges to earthly.

11. So he. And much more to this effect, which yow may read cited out of diuers Fathers, in a booke set forth this last yeare, in answere to Syr Edward Cookes Reportes by a Catholicke deuine, who handleth this point more largely and particularly in the second and fourth Chapters of the said answere. And this is suf­ficient to shew the inference or conclusion of T. M. to be false, touching the power and dignity of Priest­hood, and of Kingly principallity among men. Now let vs returne to the consideration therof in Christ himself, which is the principall question, though in effect it be decided by that which now wee haue she­wed, for that the dignity and preheminence aboue Kingly dignity, of Priesthood in man, which the fore­said Fathers doe so resolutly affirme, inferreth also the preheminence of Priesthood in Christ, for somuch as from that descendeth this other; but yet I thinke it not amisse to handle the same somewhat more di­stinctly, the Ministers paradox therin being so pro­phane and irreligious as hath byn said.

12. First then as Christ is acknowledged both by them and vs to haue byn 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 preheminence, were in him according as he was man, and vnder his Father, which for so much as appertained to his Priest­hood is graunted heere by T. M. and the matter is euident in itself; for that Christ as God could not of­fer [Page 150] Sacrifice, nor make intercession to his Father for vs (which are the chief offices of Priesthood) for that this belōgeth to an inferiour, 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 humane 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 plaine by Scripture, in which euery where is acknowledged that Christes Kingdome was giuen him by his Father: Ego autem constitutus Rex ab eo super Sion montem Sanctum eius, saith Psal. 2. Christ in the Psalmes: I am apointed King by him v­pon his holy hill of Sion, ergo he was King by gift and appointement of his Father. And in the same Psalme God the Father saith vnto him: Postula à me & dabo tibi Ibid. & Hebr. 1. gentes haereditatem tuam & possessionem tuam terminos terrae: Aske of me, and I will giue vnto thee the Gentiles for thy inheritance, and the confines of all the earth for thy possession: so as in this Kingdome, God the Fa­ther required an acknowledgment. And yet further the Prophet speaking to the said Father of this King­dome 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 ouer the wor­kes of thy handes, that is to say, ouer all thy creatures, and thou hast subiected all thinges vnder his feet: which point S. Paul doth prosecute most excellently in the first two Chapters of his Epistle to the Hebre­wes; 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 giuen vnto me both in heauen and earth, so as he acknowledgeth it to be giuen, which cannot stand with his diuinity, in that he is God, and equall with his Father: in which [Page 151] regard all was his owne without gift, according to those wordes of S. Paul to the Philippians: Non rapinam Phil. [...]. arbitratus est esse se aequalem Deo; He did not thinke it V­surpation to be equall to God his Father according to his diuinity. Wherfore it must needs appeare great ignorance in our Minister, to assigne him this his tem­porall Kingdome as he was God and equall to his Father.

13. But now to the principall proposition VVhether Christ his Kingdome had the preheminence of his Priesthood, or his Priesthood of his Kingdome; though in part the mat­ter be made cleere by that which is already spokē; yet shal we adde two or three wordes more. And first the matter is manifest by the narration it self in Scripture, when the figure of his Priesthood and Kingdome 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) gaue his benediction to Abraham, and tooke ti­thes of him for all that he had. In which example is greatly to be noted the reflection it self and emphasis which the Scripture maketh vpon 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 neuer haue offred vp in sacrifice that bread and wine (the highest action of all other vpon earth) as King, except he had byn Priest: nor yet haue blessed Abraham, and much lesse haue taken tithes of him: Which point S. Paul doth ponder very deeply and se­riously in his Epistle to the Hebrewes, repeating often Hebr. 7. times for the greater glory of Christ and his power­full 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 likenes of the Sonne of God, remained a Priest perpetually: Ne (que) [Page 152] initium dierum neque finem vitae habens: hauing neither be­ginning of his dayes, nor end of his life: consider then how great a man this was, to whome the Patriarch gaue tithes of all the principall thinges he had.

14. This is S. Paules contemplation of the matter, who in his said Epistle to the Hebrewes, laying this foundation of the figure of Melchisedech for the Priest­hood and Kingdome of Christ (though more special­ly as yow see for his Priesthood) doth presently after the consideration of those wordes, Filius meus es tu, ego hodie genui [...]; thou art my Sonne, I haue this day be­gotten thee (wherby he proueth Christ to haue byn not the adopted but natural Sonne of God) after this, I say, he doth insist, for demonstration of his highest [...] and dignity, vpon those wordes of God the Fa­ther for his Priesthood: Tu es facerdos in aeternum secun­dum [...]. 109. ordinem Melchisedech: Thou art a Priest foreuer ac­cording to the order of Melchisedech; out of which wordes of highest dignity and commission, S. Paul doth make many inferences, as that in the second Chapter: Nus­quam Hebr. 2. Angelos apprehendit, sed [...] Abrahae &c. vt miseri­cors fieret & fidelis Pontifex ad Deum. God tooke not An­gelles but the seed of Abraham to frame Christ, to the [...] he might be both a mercifull and faithfull High Priest for vs with God, for propitiation of our sinnes. And againe in the third Chapter: Behold yow Holy bre­thren who are partakers of this our heauenly vocation, Consider Hebr. 3. our Apostle and High Priest of this our confession Iesus. And in the fourth Chapter hauing spoken much of the Sab­both day, that he is to giue vs in the next life, he ad­ioineth this exhortation: Habentes ergo Pontificem mag­num Hebr. 4. The dig­nity of Priest­hood in Christ a­boue his Kingly au­thority. &c. we hauing therfore a great high Priest that hath pear­ced the heauens, Iesus the Sonne of God, let vs hold fast our con­fession, for we haue not a Priest that cannot take compassion of our infirmities &c. And againe in the fifth Chapter ha­uing said first: [...] Pontifex &c. Euery High Priest [Page 153] chosen out of men, is appointed for men in those thin­ges that appertaine vnto God, that he offer giftes and Sacrifices for sin &c. after this (I say) S. Paul doth im­mediatly inferre this conclusion about the supreame honor & dignity of Christ his Priesthood: Nec quis­quam sumit sibi honorem &c. Neither may any man take the honour of Priesthood vnto him, but he that is cal­led by God, as Aaron was, and so Christ (though he were the true Sonne of God) did not aduance himself to this honour of being high Priest, but that he who said vnto him filius meus es tu, thou art my Sonne, said vnto him also tu es sacerdos in aeternum, thou art a Priest for euer, appellatus à Deo Pontifex, being called by God to be high Priest, according to the order of Melchise­dech, of whome there remaineth to vs a great speech to vtter, and such a one as needeth exposition, wherof yow as yet for your weaknes ar not capable. So S. Paul.

15. And then in the other two sequent Chapters to wit the seauenth and eight, he doth prosecute the same argument of the high dignity of Christes Priest­hood Hebr. 7. much more largely. ‘Among the Iewes (saith he) there were many Priestes made, for that they were letted by death to remaine, but this our high Priest re­maineth for euer: his Priesthood is eternall, wherof it ensueth that he can for euer saue vs, interposing him­self with God for vs by himself, and euer lyuing to make intercession for vs, for such a high Priest was it conuenient that we should haue, holy, innocent, vn­spotted, seperated from sinners, and more excellent then the heauens themselues. And againe in the next Chapter: Such a high Priest we haue, as sitteth on the right hand of the seat of maiesty in heauen, and there he is Minister of the Saintes and true Tabernacle.’

16. All this & much more hath S. Paul in that Epist­le of the eminency of Christes Priesthood, therby to set forth the most admirable excellency of his power [Page 154] and glory therby giuen him from his Father for our saluation; but of the glory of his temporal Kingdome The aun­cient Fa­thers infe­rēce 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 worthines of Christes Priesthood, to inferre the great preheminēce in generall of the Christian Priesthood, before Kingly dignity of earthly principality? But let vs yet consider one reason more.

17. The office of high Priesthood, as partly hath ap­peared by that we haue said, and is euident by the dis­course of S. Paul, appointing him for a meanes or me­diator Tvvo prin cipall par­tes of Priest­hood. betweene God and man, consisteth principally in two thinges or partes: first in respect of that which he is to performe towardes God, as to his Superiour: secondly in the functions that he is to vse towardes the people, as inferiours and subiectes. The first con­sisteth in offering sacrifice, oblations, prayers and in­tercession for the sinnes of the people, as already tou­ching Christ our Sauiour out of the Apostle we haue declared. The second consisteth in the spirituall po­wer, dignity, authority and functions therof, which our said high Priest Christ Iesus, as head & high Priest of his Church, purchased with the sacrifice of his owne bloud, hath, and may exercise vpon the said Church for euer, for vnto him as our high Priest it ap­pertaineth not only to make intercession for his said Church, but to gouerne the same also, and to direct it by conuenient meanes vnto the end of their salua­tion, which he hath designed, and for this to make la­wes, prescribe orders, appoint Sacramentes, ordaine Christ a spirituall King by his Priest­hood but not a tem­porall. spirituall tribunals of iudgment, giue sentence of se­paration of the good from the bad, forgiue and retaine sinnes, which spirituall gouernment of soules belon­ging to the office of high Priesthood, is a different [Page 155] thing from the ciuill gouernment of temporall prin­cipality, and yet is a Kingdome also in it self, but a spi­rituall Kingdome ouer soules and not ouer bodies. And this had Christ our Sauiour togeather with his high Priesthood, according to the prediction and vi­sion of Daniel: Aspiciebam & ecce quasi filius hominis &c. ‘I did Dan. 7. looke and behold there appeared as it were the Sonne of man, and God gaue vnto him power and honour, and a Kingdome, his power is an eternall power, and his Kingdome shall neuer be corrupted.’ And so in the second Psalme, after he had said, I am made King by him vpon his holy Hill of Sion, he addeth presently to shew that it was a spirituall Kingdome: Praedicans praeceptum eius, my office is to preach his commandement, and many other authorities may be alledged to proue that Christ in that he was high Priest had supreame spirituall Kingly authority in like manner for gouerning of soules.

18. But now for the temporall Kingdome of Christ in this life, to wit, whether besides this spirituall and Of Chri­stes tem­porall King­dome. Royall gouernment of our soules, he had Kingly Do­minion also vpon our bodies and goodes, and vpon all the Kingdomes of the earth, so as he might iustly haue excercised all actions of that temporall iurisdiction, as casting into prison, appointing new officers, Kings and Monarches; yea whether their power, and autho­rity, and interest to their States did cease when he came, as the right of Priestly authority did: in this (I say) and other pointes depending herof, there are two disputable opinions betweene Catholicke Deuines; Almain. l. de potest. Eccl. c. 8. the one holding the affirmatiue, that Christ was Lord & King temporall, as heere is set downe, 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. diuers learned men both of old and our time doe de fend; the other affirming that albeit Christ togeather with his high Kingly dignity of spirituall power, was Lord also cōsequently ouer our bodies, & shall raigne [Page 156] ouer the same most gloriously for all eternity in the life to come; yet that he renounced the vse of all that Dominion in this life, and that in this sense, he fled when they would haue made him King, and refused Luc. 12. to deuide the inheritance betweene the two Brethrē when he was demaunded; and finally said to Pilate, My Kingdome is not of this world, confessing himself to be a [...]. 18. true temporal King also, according to Pilates meaning; but yet that the vse and exercise therof was not for this world, but only for the next, wherof also the good thiefe vnderstood when he said on the Crosse: Be mindfull of me when thou shalt come into thy Kingdome. Luc. 25. And finally they alledge for proofe of this the wordes of Zachary the Prophet: Ecce Rex [...] venit tibi iustus & Zach. 9. Saluator & ipse pauper: Behold ( Sion) thy King commeth vnto thee as a iust and sauing King, but he is poore; as though he had said, he is thy true King, but hath re­nounced the vse and priuiledge of the same, and cho­sen pouerty in this world. And with this second opi­nion which is the more Ita te­net Abu­lensis. q. 30. in Math. 21. generall, doe concurre also the Protestantes of our age, that Christ tooke vpon him no temporall Kingly power in this life, least if VValdens. l. 2. de do­ctrina. ca. 76. & 77. they held the contrary, it should be inferred therof, that he left the same authority both of temporall and spirituall vnto S. Peter his Successour; which yet the Victoria velect. 1. de potest. Catholickes that hold this opinion, explicate other­wise, saying: that albeit Christ had no direct Domi­nion Eccl. q. 5. Sotus l. 4. de iustitia q. 4. art. 1. in this life vpon temporall thinges, yet indirect­ly for preseruation of his spirituall Dominion he had, and might haue vsed the same, and in that sense he left Armacan. l. 4. contr. it to his said Successor.

19. Of all which is inferred first the preheminence [...]. c. 12 Burgensis in Scruti­nio [...] P. 1. dist. 7. of high Priesthood in Christ before his temporall Kingly principality, for that as we haue said, the a­ctions and functions of Christes Priesthood, haue not only more high & eminent dignity, both in that they [Page 157] treat with men for gouerning their soules, then Chri­stes temporall Kingdome for gouerning of bodies; but moreouer that the dignity of Priesthood in Christ, conteineth in it self a much more high spirituall Kingly power, then is the temporall.

20. Secondly is inferred, that the reasons heere al­ledged by T. M. for his paradox, in preferring Christs Inferēces vpon the premises about the prehemi­nence of Priest­hood a­boue tem­porall Kingly authority. being a King, before his Priesthood, are vaine & foo­lish. The first wherof is this. Christes Kingdome (saith he) had the preheminence of Priesthood, because he is Priest only for vs, but he is King ouer vs. But I would aske him, Is not Christ Priest ouer vs aswel as for vs? hath he not a spirituall and Priestly iurisdiction ouer our soules? doth not he binde and loose our sinnes? doth not he prescribe vs Sacramentes? appoint vs lawes of liuing, and the like? or doe not these actions appertaine vnto him as high Priest ouer his Church? And againe I would aske him, about the second member, as Christ in flesh was King, was he not made King aswell for vs, that is for our good, as ouer vs? doth not this man know that the difference betweene a good and bad gouern­ment, a true King and a Tyrant, consisteth in this, that the one raigneth for his owne good, the other for the good of his subiects? What impiety were it to affirme this defect to be in Christes Kingly gouernment, and consequētly what folly is it to bring in such reasons? But let vs see what he saith further.

21. Christ (saith he) as Priest is suppliant to his Father, & Pag. [...]. as King he is predominant ouer all powers and principalities, equally with his Father: But now wee haue shewed be­fore that there be two partes or functions of Priest­hood, the one towardes God, to be suppliant by sacri­fice and intercession, the other to be predominant o­uer men by spirituall gouernment vpon their soules, The folly of T. M. his dis­course. and that both these doe agree to Christ, in respect of his high Priesthood, and as he is man, and much more [Page 158] the other of his temporall Kingdome: so as to make him equall to his Father in this, as T. M. doth, is an impious absurdity; for that vnder his Fathers vniuer­sall Kingdome Christ himself is also conteined as a subiect, according to those wordes of graduation in S. Paul: Omnia vestra sunt &c. vos autem Christi, Christus au­tem 1. Cor. 3. Dei. All thinges are yours, life, death, the world, thinges past, thinges to come, and yow are of Christ & Christ of God; that is to say, all thinges for Christ are subiect to yow, so you are and ought to be subiect to Christ, and Christ to God his Father. Now then see how wisely this man frameth his foresaid maine Conclusion, that as in Christ, his Kingdome had the preheminence of his Priesthood (which is false as we haue shewed) so must it hold also among men that Kingly power be preferred before Priestly, temporall before spirituall. Of which opinion S. Chrysostome doth thinke 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 thinke any man to be of this opinion (to preferre temporall authority before spirituall) except a man should become mad with the rage of furies. And so to S. Chrysostome I leaue our Minister to be charmed from these kinde of Hereti­call furies.

IT is the saying both of Philoso­phers and Deuines, Bonum nisi bene fiat, bonum non esse, A good thing except it be well & rightly done, is not good: As for example if a man would re­lieue the necessity of poore and di­stressed people with almes gotten by stealth or robbery; albeit giuing of alms of it selfe be a [Page 190] good thing; yet for that it is not heere lawfully perfor­med, in this case it is not good nor lawfull: So M. Tho­mas The fraud of T. M. Morton taking vpon him to confute the Popes Su­premacy ouer Kinges and Princes, thought no doubt to doe a good worke therin, at least-wise bonum vtile, a profitable good thing for himself, in regard of some fauour or beneuolence which he might hope to gaine with some Prince therby to his preferment; but not performing the same by lawfull meanes of truth, but of sleightes (not withstanding to his Maiesty he tear­meth himself the Minister of simple truth) though it should proue vtile, yet not honestum; that is, for his gaine, but not for his credit or conscience, and consequently de­serueth rather disgrace then estimation, euen with those whome most he desired to gratify in that af­faire.

2. For demonstration wherof, though I suppose to haue said sufficient before, both in the second, fourth, and fifth Chapters by occasion of matters that occur­red in discussion betweene vs; yet now hauing de­termined with my self, to passe on no further in the particuler refutatiō of this his Treatise, as a thing not worth the time to be lost therin, and handled far bet­ter by diuers of his owne side before him, namely by M. Iewell, M. Horne, D. Iohn Reinoldes, M. Bilson and some o­thers The vani­ty of T. M. his vaunt of truth. in their bookes of this subiect; I thought good notwithstanding for some kinde of recompence of this my breuity in answering so simple and idle a Treatise, to ad some few examples more in this place of other corruptions and falsifications practized by him in this his confutation: not of all, for that alone would require a great booke, but of some competent number, wherby the Reader may ghesse at the rest; & his Maiesty take some proofe of the extraordinary vanity of that vaunt, wherwith he presented himself to his Highnes, in the very first entrance of his Epistle [Page 191] dedicatory, in so constant assurance of an vpright conscience (to vse his owne wordes) as that he would willingly remit that iust aduantage against his aduersary, which the difference betweene a Minister of simple truth, and a professed Equiuocator did offer vnto him. Now then let vs enter to the exami­nation it self.

3. Wherin only the Reader is to be aduertised, that wheras this man by a new deuise of his owne, doth pretend to put downe the sayings of our Catho­licke A [...] deuise 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 margent, pretending therby to make them speake cō ­trary one to the other, A course (saith he to the Kinges Maiesty) which I professe in all disputes; he dealeth so per­fidiously therin to bring them to debate, as commonly the simple fellow committeth three seuerall sortes of fraudes and falshood in most of his allegations. First in corrupting the meaning of the Authors, alledging them quite against their owne whole drift, and inten­ded discourse, and conclusion therof. Secondly in set­ting downe fraudulently the Latin text, by peecing & patching their sentences togeather that stand farre a sunder in the Authors themselues, & by dismembring others that were coherent before, as often now wee haue complained. Thirdly in translating the same by like fraude into English, vsing manifest violence to the wordes and sense it selfe, to get therby some shew of aduantage, or at least- wise to say somewhat. All which sortes and kindes of shifts yow shall see expres­sed in the examples that are to ensue.

4. In the second page of his pretended confuta­tion; The first example. he hath these wordes; In the old Testament the Iesuites are forced to allow, that the King was supreame ouer Pag. 2. the Priestes in spirituall affaires and ordering Priestes. For proofe wherof he citeth in the margent Salmeron a Iesuit, a very learned man, that hath left written [Page 192] in our dayes many volumes vpon the Ghospells, E­pistles of S. Paul, and other partes of Scriptures, and was one of the first ten, that ioined themselues with the famous holy man Ignatius de Loyola, for the begin­ning of that Religious order; in which citation di­uers notable corruptions are to be seene. First, for Salmer. disp. 12. in Epistolas Pauli in gen. §. sed contra. that Salmeron proueth the quite contrary in the place by this man quoted, to wit, that neuer Kinges were head of the Church or aboue Priestes by their ordina­ry Kingly authority in Ecclesiasticall matters, in the new or old Testament, and hauing proued the same largly, he commeth at length to set downe obiections to the contrary, and to solue & answere them, saying: Sed contra hanc solidam veritatem &c. ‘But now against this sound truth by me hitherto confirmed, I know that many thinges may be obiected, which we are diligently to confute. First then may be obiected that Kinges in the old Testament did sometimes prescribe vnto Priestes what they were to doe in sacred thin­ges, as also did put some negligent Priestes from the execution of their office. To which is answered: Vbi id euenisset, mirum esse non debere; If it had so fallen out, it had byn no maruaile: for that the Synagogue of the Iewes, albeit it conteined some iust men, yet was it called rather an earthly, then a heauenly Kingdome, August. l. 19. contr. [...]. e. 31. in princ. insomuch as S. Augustine doth doubt, whether in the old Testament, the Kingdome of heauen was euer so much as named, and much lesse promised for reward; and therfore those things that were then done amōg them, foreshewed only or prefigured diuine thinges that were to succeed vnder the new Testament, the other being not diuine but humane and earthly.’ So Salmeron.

5. Heere then are sundry important corruptions, & 2. Corrup­tion about the meaning. fraudes vttered by T.M. the one that the Iesuites, and namely Salmeron, are inforced to allow the temporall [Page 193] King to haue byn Supreme ouer the high Priest in spirituall matters, vnder the old law; wheras he doth expressely affirme and prooue the contrary, both out Disp. 12. pag. 324. & 325. of the Scripture it selfe, by the sacrifice appointed more worthy for the Priest, then the Prince, & many other testimonies, as that he must take the law & in­terpretation Leuit. 4. therof at the Priestes hands, that he must ingredi & egredi ad verbum Sacerdotis, goe in and out, and [...]. 17. proceed in his affaires by the word and direction of Num. 27. the Priest, and the like; as also by the testimony of Philo and Ioseph, two learned Iewes, and other reasons Philo l. de victimis par. 2. cir­ca mediū Ioseph. 3. Antiquit. cap. [...] c. handled at large in this very disputation, and in the self same place from whence this obiection is taken. And this is the first falsification concerning the Au­thours meaning and principall drift.

6. The second corruption is in the wordes, as they ly in the Latin copy, & as they are by me before men­tioned: Vbi id euenisset mirum esse non debere, If any such thing had fallen out, as was obiected, to wit that Kin­ges 2. Corrup­tiō about the vvor­des. sometimes had prescribed to the Priests what they should doe in Ecclesiasticall things, deposed some &c. it had byn no maruaile, for somuch as their Ecclesia­sticall Kingdome or Synagogue was an earthly and imperfect thing, but yet this proueth not that it was so, but only it is spoken vpon a supposition: which suppositiō this Minister that he might the more cun­ningly shift of and auoid, left cut of purpose the most essentiall wordes therof Vbi id euenisset if that had hap­pened &c. as also for the same cause to make thinges more obscure, after those words of Salmeron that stand in his text: Synagoga Iudeorum dicebatur terrenum potius quàm caeleste regnum; The Synagogue or Ecclesiasticall gouernment of the Iewes, was called rather an earth­ly then a heauenly Kingdome (wheras contrary-wise the Ecclesiasticall power in the Christian Church is euery where called Celestiall) after those wordes (I [Page 194] say) this man cutteth of againe many lines that follo­wed, togeather with S. Augustines iudgmēt before tou­ched, which serued to make the Authors meaning more plaine, and yet left no signe of ( &c.) wherby his Reader might vnderstand that somewhat was omit­ted, but [...] againe presently, as though it had imediatly followed, [...] cùm populus Dei constet corpore Sundry [...]. & animo, carnalis pars in veteri populo primas tenebat: Wher­as Godes people doth consist of body and minde, the carnall or bodily part did cheifly preuaile among the Iewes, and heerwith endeth, as though nothing more had ensued of that matter, thrustnig out these wordes that immediatly followed, and made the thing cleere which are, Et ad spiritualia significanda constituebaiur, and that kinde of earthly power was appointed to signify the spirituall that was to be in the new Testament: wherby is euidently seene that Salmeron vnderstood not by carnalis pars and regnum terrenum, the temporall Kingdome of Iury, as this Minister doth insinuate to make the matter odious; but the Ecclesiasticall go­uernment of the Synagogue vnder the old law, in re­spect of the Ecclesiasticall power in the new, wherof 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 wordes of Salmeron: for thus he translateth them in our 3. Corru­ptiō about the trans­lation. name: In the Synagogue of the Iewes ( saith Salmeron) was a State rather earthly then heauenly; so that in that people (which was as in the body of a man, consisting of body and soule) the car­nall Confut. pag. 2. part was more eminent, meaning the temporall to haue byn supreame. In which translation are many seuerall shifts and fraudes. For wheras Salmeron saith Synagoga Iudeo­rum dicebatur potius terrenum quàm caeleste regnum, the Sy­nagogue or Ecclesiasticall power among the Iewes was called rather an earthly, then a heauenly King­dome; he translateth it, the Synagogue of the Iewes was a [Page 195] State rather earthly, then heauenly; and this to the end he might apply the word of earth to the temporal Prince, and heauenly to the Iudaicall Priestes, which is quite from Salmerons meaning. Secondly those other wor­des of Salmeron being Cùm populus Dei constet ex corpore & Malitious interpre­tations to make vs odious. animo, wheras the people of God doe consist of body and minde, meaning therby aswell Christians as Ie­wes, and that the Iewes are as the bodily or carnall part of the man, and the Christians the spirituall, and consequently their Ecclesiasticall authority earthly, and ours heauenly; this fellow to deceaue his Reader, putteth out first the word Dei, the people of God and then translateth it, in that people (to wit the Iewes) the carnall part was the more eminent, meaning (saith he) the tēporall; which is false, for he speaketh expressely of the Ecclesiasticall power among the Iewes, which he cal­leth carnall and terrene, in respect of the spirituall Ec­clesiasticall among the Christians, and not the tempo­rall or Kingly power vnder the old Testament, as this man to make vs odious to temporall Princes, as deba­sing their authority, would haue it thought. And Sal­merons cōtraposition or antithesis is not betweene the temporall and Ecclesiasticall gouernment among the Ie­wes; but betweene their Ecclesiasticall gouernment and ours, that of the Synagogue, and this of the Chri­stian Church, wherof the one he saith to be terrene & earthly, the other spirituall and heauenly, the one infirme, the other powerfull ouer soules &c. So as all these sortes and kindes of corruptions being seene in this one little authority, yow may imagine what will be found in the whole booke, if a man had so much patience and time to leese, as to discusse the same exactly through.

8. A little after this againe, he bringeth in an example The secōd example pag. 7. of the King of Israell Ozias, who for presuming to exercise the Priests office in offering of incense, being [Page 196] first reprehended, and resistest for the same by Azarias the high Priest, and fourescore other Priestes with 4. Reg. 15. 2. Par. 26. him in the Temple, was for his presumption present­ly and publickly in all their sightes punished by God, and stroken with a leprosy, and therupon remoued by the authority of the said high Priest, first from the A conten­tion about the expul­sion of K. Ozias. Temple, and common conuersation of men, and then also from the gouernment or administration of his Kingdome, the same being committed to his sonne Ioathan all the dayes of his Fathers 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 sicke man was debarred of the administration. Doctor Bouchers wordes 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 frō the Tem­ple, and then from his Kingdome. Which the other will not haue to be vnderstood that the title and in­terest of his Kingdome was taken from him, but only the administration, which in effect is no great diffe­rence of opinions; for that Bellarmine also talking of this matter saith: Cùm regni administratione priuatus fuerit, wheras he was depriued of the administration of the Kingdome, which after in other words he expressing, saith, Regnandi authoritate, he was depriued of the au­thority Bell. l. 5. de summo Ponti. c. 8. of actual raigning, or exercising that authori­ty: wherunto the wordes of the Scripture seene plain­ly to agree, which are these: Festinatò expulerunt &c. Azarias and the rest of the Priestes did hastily driue him out of the Temple, and he himself being terrified with that which he felt to be the punishment of God, made hast to goe forth. VVher­fore 2. Par. 26. this King Ozias remaining a leper vnto the day of his death, did dwell in a separate howse, and he was full of leprosy, for the which he was cast forth of the howse of our Lord: so as his sonne [Page 197] Ioathan did gouerne the howse of the King, & iudge the people of the land.

9. Out of which wordes of Scripture as also out of the Booke of Leuiticus, where the law saith, That who­soeuer Leuit. 13. shalbe spotted with leprosy, and is separated at the apoint­ment of the Priest, shall dwell alone without the tentes, Bellar­mine doth gather that this separation of King Ozias was not voluntary but by prescript order of the said high Priest Azarias, and that consequently he was de­priued also by the same sentence and authority, of his gouernment and administration of the Kingdome; against which T. M. bringeth in a great tempestuous storme of wordes, and warre of the foresaid Doctor Barkley Scottishman, against Cardinall Bellarmine, as though he had refuted him with some contumely and contempt; wheras Doctor Barkley neither nameth nor meaneth Bellarmine, but only Boucher vpon his wordes before recited, against whome he being, according to his custome, somewhat vehement in speech (the dif­ference in substance being little or nothing as yow haue seene) T. M. endeauoreth by his sleightes to in­crease or aggrauate the same. For wheras Doctor Bark­ley presuming Boucher to vnderstand by those his wor­des De regno eiecit, that Azarias had taken from K. Ozias the name and right of Kingdome, saith vnto him; Magna sanè imprudentia vel impudentia est, ea scriptis man­dare, quae manifestis scripturae testimoniis redarguuntur: It is truly a great imprudence or impudēcy, to cōmit those thinges to writing which are controlled by manifest Dealings of a make­bate. testimonies of Scripture; There our Minister blot­teth out in his Latin text the word imprudentia, and will haue only to stand impudentia to set them further out then they be, which me thinkes was some impu­dency also in him; and againe when the said Barkley writeth immediatly after the former wordes; Malo te negligentiae quàm nequitiae reum facere, I had rarher accuse [Page 198] you of negligence then of malice; these wordes also not without some malice T. M. striketh out, and pit­tifully mangleth the whole discourse, putting in and putting out at his pleasure, and yet all set downe in his booke as the continuall speech of the Author.

10. Heere then yow see how many wilfull corrup­tions there be, first to bring in Doctor Barkley rating of Cardinall Bellarmine with magna sanè impudentia est &c. Wheras he talketh not against Bellarmine at all, nor in­deed is Bellarmines manner of speech contrary to that Enumera­tion of falsities. which Barkley will haue to be the meaning of the Hi­story; for that Barkley doth not so much stand vpon the thing in controuersy for Priestes authority, but vpon the manner of proofe by the examples alledged by D. Boucher of Ieroboam, Ozias, Athalia, and some other Princes, in whose punishment God vsed Priestes for Ibid. c. 11. meanes and instrumentes. Non ignoro (saith he) Ius esse Ecclesiae in Reges & Principes Christianos, nec quale ius sit igno­ro, sed id tam alienis argument is ostendi prorsus ignoro; imò non ostendi planè scio: I am not ignorant, saith Doctor Barkley, that the Church hath right ouer Christian Kinges & Princes, nor am I ignorant what manner of right it is; yet doe I not see how the same may be proued by such impertinent argumentes; nay I know rather that it cannot be so proued. Which wordes going but very few lines before those that T. M. alledgeth, he could not but see, and yet left them out, and then be­ginneth against vs his English text thus: Your owne Do­ctor calleth this your assertion most false, and contrary to the di­rect History of the Byble, to wit, that Ozias was deposed of his Kingdome by Azarias the high Priest.

11. But now yow haue seene that howsoeuer it may be called, either deposition, depriuation, restraint, se­questration or inhibition; certaine it is, that he was separated from the administration of the gouernment by [...] the high Priest, and whether his sonne du­ring [Page 199] his life were truly King or only regent or Gouer­nour vnder his Father, or whether he were bound to consult with his said Father in his greatest affaires, & take his approbation and commission, that point, which is most important, Doctor Barkley proueth not, but only that Ozias notwithstanding his separation was called King during his life, which letted not, but Ozias hovv he vvas sepa­rated by the high Priest. that his sonne might be truly King also, during his Fa­thers dayes: for otherwise D. Barkley might aswell say, that his Maiesty now of England (for example) was not King of Scotland, whiles his Mother the Queene liued in her exile, which yet I thinke he will not say; and therfore to vse the wordes impudentia, nequitia, and falsissimum in a matter so doubtfull, might perhaps haue byn omitted; but much more ought to haue byn the multiplicity of falsities vsed by T. M. in relating the same, & namely in bringing in Cardinall Bellarmine with such ardent desire to haue him contradicted & disgraced, as he not only applieth to him that which was spokē against another, but reciting also two lines of his speech, besides other manglinges, shufleth in falsly two or three words, that ouerthrow the whole controuersy, to wit separatus extra Regnum, that King Ozias was separated by Azarias the Priest forth of the Kingdome: wheras Bellarmine hath not these wordes extra Regnum at al, but only that he was separated from the Citty extra vrbem in domo solitaria forth of the Citty in a solitary house, which thing the Scripture it self before related doth testify; wherby yow see what botching there is to bring matters to his purpose; and yet will he needs stile him self The Minister of simple truth.

12. It followeth in the 16. page thus: Your deuise (saith he) of exemption of Priestes (from the iurisdiction of tem­porall The third example pag. 16. Princes in certaine cases) is to crude to be disgested by any reasonable Deuine, for (as your Victoria saith) Priestes, besides that they are Ministers of the Church, they are likewise [Page 200] members of the Common-wealth, and a King is aswell a King of the Clergy, as of the laity, therfore the Clergy is subiect vnto the ciuill authority in temporall thinges, for such matter is not ruled by any power spirituall: A plaine demonstration. So he. And I say the same, that indeed it is a plaine demon­stration of his egregious falshood, and abusing his Reader. First in making him belieue, that the learned man Franciscus de Victoria doth fauour him or his in this matter of the exemption of Priestes, wheras in this very place heere cited by T. M. his first proposition [...]. de Victoria relect. 1. of all in this matter is this: Ecclesiastici iure sunt exemp­ti &c. I doe affirme that Ecclesiasticall men are by Law exemp­ted, and freed from ciuill power, so as they may not be conuen­ted de potest. Ecclesiae Sect. 4. before a secular Iudge, either in criminall or ciuill causes, & the contrary doctrine to this is condemned for Hereticall, among the articles of Iohn VVickliffe in the Councell of Constance. So he. And now see whether Victoria make for him or no, or whether he disgested well this crude doctrine of Priestes exemption, as this Ministers phrase is.

13. Secondly if we consider, either the English trans­lation heere set downe out of the wordes of Victoria, Variety of corruptiōs or his Latin text, for ostentation sake put in the mar­gent, wee shall find so many and monstrous foule cor­ruptions, intercisions, geldinges and mutilations, as is a shame to behold; and I beseech the learned Reader to haue patience to conferre but this one place only with the Author, and he will rest instructed in the mās spirit for the rest: but he must find them as I hàue cited them heere in the margent, and not as T. M. Victoria his propo­sitions a­bout exēp­tion of Clergy men, and T. M his corruptiōs therin. erroneously quoteth them, if not of purpose to escape the examine. For that Victoria hauing set downe his precedent generall proposition, for the exemption of Clergy men, that they were exempted Iure by Law, he passeth on to examine in his second proposition Quo iure, by what Law, diuine or humane they are exempted; and in his third, he holdeth that Aliqua [Page 201] exemptio Clericorum est de iure Diuino: That some kinde of exemptions of Clergy men from ciuill power, is by diuine Law, and not humane only, and fourthly he commeth to this which heere is set downe by T. M. but not as he setteth it downe. Our fourth proposition (saith Victoria) is, that the persons of Clergy men are not abso­lutly, and in all thinges exempted from ciuill power either by di­uine or humane lawe; which is euident by that Clergy men are bound to obey the temporall lawes of the Citty, or Cōmon-wealth wherin they liue, in those thinges that doe appertaine to the tem­porall gouernment, and administration therof, and doe not let or hinder Ecclesiasticall gouernment.

14. These are the wordes of Victoria as they ly togea­ther in him, and then after some argumentes interpo­sed, for his said conclusion, he addeth also this proofe: ‘That for so much as Clergy mē besides this, that they are Ministers of the Church, are Citizens also of the Common-wealth, they are bound to obey the tempo­rall lawes of that Common-wealth or Prince in tem­porall affaires;’ and then ensueth the last reason (heere set downe in English by T. M.) in these wordes: More­ouer (saith Victoria) for that a King is King not only of laymen, but of Clergy-men also, therfore aliquo modo subiiciuntur ei, in some sort they are subiect vnto him: Which wordes aliquo modo in some sorte, the Minister leaueth out; and then it followeth immediatly in Victoria: And for that Clergy-men are not gouerned in temporall matters by Ecclesia­sticall power, therfore they haue their temporall Prince, vnto whome they are bound to yeeld obedience in temporall affaires.

15. And this is all that Victoria hath in this matter, & in these very wordes. And let any man consider the patching, which T. M. vseth both in English and La­tin in this place, to make some shew for his fained de­monstration out of Victoria, and he will see how poore and miserable a man he is, and how miserable a cause he defendeth. And in particular, let the very last pro­position [Page 202] be noted which he citeth, and Englisheth as out of Victoria, to wit, the Clergy is subiect vnto the ciuill au­thority in temporall thinges, for such matter is not ruled by any power spirituall, wherby he would haue his Reader to imagine, that no spirituall power may haue authority to gouerne temporall matters; wheras the wordes of Changing of nomi­natiue cases. Victoria are: Clerici quantum ad temporalia non administran­tur potestate Ecclesiastica, that Clergy men, for so much as apper­taineth to temporall affaires, are not gouerned by Ecclesiasticall power, but by the temporall which there beareth rule: So as this fellow by a subtile sleight changing the nomina­tiue case from Clerici non administrantur to temporalia non administrantur, frameth his plaine demonstration out of plaine cosenage and forgery. And is this naked innocency?

16. From the page 18. vnto 27. he handleth togea­ther many sentences and authorities of ancient Fa­thers, The 4. example pag. 18. 19. 20. alledged by Catholicke Authors Cunerus, Tolosa­nus, and especially Barkleius, to shew that the Apostles and their successours, and those Fathers amongest the rest, did not take armes against their Princes either In­fidels or Christians, but did rather suffer iniuries, then seeke by force to reuenge the same; which being our conclusion in like manner, and held and defended by Fraudes vsed out of the an­cient Fa­thers and Cath. vvri­ters. our Catholicke writers as yow see, and that for the most part, by name against Protestant writers & pra­ctisers, both in Scotland, France, Flanders, & other places, yow may perceaue how corruptly this is brought in against vs, as though our common beliefe 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 alledged about this matter, though nothing making against vs as hath byn said, & consi­der how many false shiftes are vsed by T. M. therin; yow would say he were a Doctor in deed in that science, for that a seuerall Treatise will scarce con­teine [Page 203] 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 Em­perour, pag. 24. when he would take a Church from him for the Arrians, but he setteth not downe what answere of his Doctor Barkley doth alledge in the very self same Barkleus l. 3. cap. 5. place, which is: Allegatur Imperatori licere omnia &c. ‘It is alledged that it is lawfull for the Emperour to doe all thinges, for that all thinges are his ( and consequently that he may assigne a Church to the Arrians:) Wherto I answere saith S. Ambrose; trouble not your selfe O Emperour, nor thinke that yow haue Imperiall right ouer those thinges that are diuine; doe not exalt your selfe, but if yow wil raigne long, be subiect to God, for it is writ­ten Ambros. l. 5. Ep. 33. that those thinges that belong to God must be giuen to God, and to Cesar only those thinges that belōg to Cesar; Pallaces appertaine to the Emperour, A cleere authority of S. Am­brose im­bezeled by T. M. but Churches to the Priest, the right of defending pu­blicke walles is committed to yow, but not of sacred thinges.’ Thus Doctor Barkley out of S. Ambrose in the ve­ry place cited by T. M. which he thought good who­ly 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 wordes.

18. The eighth Father (saith he) is Pope Leo, wri­ting The fifth example. to a true Catholicke Emperour, saying: Yow may not be ignorant that your Princely power is giuen vnto yow, not Pag. 26. only in worldly regiment, but also spirituall, for the preseruation of the Church: as if he said not only in cases temporall but also in spirituall, so far as it belongeth to the outward preseruation, not to the personall administration of them, and this is the sub­stance of our English oath: And surther neither doe our Kinges of England chalenge, nor subiectes condescend vnto. In which wordes yow see two thinges are conteined, first [Page 204] what authority S. Leo the Pope aboue eleuen hun­dred yeares gone ascribed vnto Leo the Emperour in matters spirituall and Ecclesiasticall. The second, by this mans assertion, that neither our Kinges of Eng­land chaleng, nor doe the subiectes condescend vnto any more in the oath of the Supremacy that is propo­sed vnto them; which if it be so, I see no cause why all English Catholickes may not take the same in like manner, so far forth as S. Leo alloweth spiritual autho­rity to the Emperour of his time. Wherfore it behoo­ueth that the Reader stand attent to the deciding of this question, for if this be true which heere he saith, our controuersy about the Supremacy is at an end.

19. First then about the former point, let vs consi­der how many waies T. M. hath corrupted the fore­said Many falshoods. 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 downe in the margent: Debes incunctanter aduertere, Re­giam potestatem non solùm ad mundi regimen, sed maximè ad Ecclesiae praesidium esse collatam. Yow ought (ô Emperour) resolutly to consider, that your Kingly power is not only giuen vnto yow for gouernment of the world, or worldly affaires, but especially for defence of the Church: and then doe ensue immediatly these other wordes 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 Leonē Augustū. defendas, & veram pacem his quae sunt turbata restituas: To the end that yow may by repressing audacious attemptes both defend those thinges that are well or­deined and decreed, ( as namely in the late generall Councell of Calcedon) and restore peace where matters are trou­bled, as in the Citty and Sea of Alexandria, where the Pa­triarch Proterius being slaine and murdered by the con­spiracy of the Dioscorian Heretickes, lately condemned [Page 205] in the said Councell, all thinges are in most violent garboiles, which require your imperiall power to re­medy, compose, and compresse the same.

20. This is the true meaning of S. Leo his speech to the good and Religious Emperour of the same name, as appeareth throughout the whole Epistle heere ci­ted Ibid. c. 5. and diuers others. Nonne perspicuum est (saith he) qui­bus pietas vestra succurrere, & quibus obuiare, ne Alexandrina Ecclesia &c. ‘Is it not euident whome your Imperiall piety ought to assist and succour, and whome yow ought to resist and represse, to the end the Church of Alexandria, that hitherto hath byn the house of praier, become not a den of theeues? Surely it is most mani­fest that by this late barbarous and most furious cruel­ty (in murdering that Patriarch) all the light of hea­uenly Sacramentes is there extinguished; Intercepta est The Chri­stian sacri­fice ceased in Alexā ­dria. Sacrificij oblatio, defecit chrismatis sanctificatio &c. The ob­lation of sacrifice is intermitted, the hallowing of Chrisme is ceassed, and all diuine misteries of our Re­ligion haue withdrawne themselues from those par­ricidiall handes of those Heretickes, that haue mur­dered their owne Father and Patriarch Proterius, bur­ned his body, and cast the ashes into the ayer.’

21. This then was the cause and occasion wherin the holy Pope Leo did implore the helpe and secular arme of Leo the Emperour, for chastising those turbu­lent Heretiks, to which effect he saith that his King­ly power was not only giuen him for the gouernmēt of the world, but also for the defence of the Church, which our Minister doth absurdly translate not only in Notable corruptiō of S. Leo his mea­ning. worldly regiment, but also spirituall for the preseruation of the Church, turning ad into in, and praesidium into preserua­tion; and then maketh the commentary which before we haue set downe: As if he had said (quoth he) not only in causes temporall, but also in spirituall, so far as it belongeth to outward preseruation, not to the personall administratiō of them.

[Page 206]22. And heere now he sheweth himself intangled, not only about the assertion of Imperiall power in About Ec­clesiastical suprema­cy in tem­porall Princes. spirituall matters, by that S. Leo saith it is giuen ad prae­sidium Ecclesiae, to the defence of the Church, which proueth nothing at all for him, but against him rather as yow see, and much more in the explication therof, to wit, what is meant by this authority, & how farre it strecheth it self: wherin truly I neuer found Pro­testant yet that could cleerly set downe the same, so as he could make it a distinct doctrine from ours, and giue it that limites which his fellowes would agree vnto, or themselues make probable.

23. About which matter M. Morton heere as yow see (who seemeth no small man amongest them, and his booke must be presumed to haue come forth with the approbation and allowance of his Lord and Maister the Archbishop at least) saith as yow haue heard, that it is no more, but such as S. Leo allowed in the Empe­rour ad Ecclesiae praesidium to the defence of the Church, and Church matters and men, and for punishing He­retickes that troubled the same. And further more T. Pag. 26. M. expoundeth the matter saying: That this Imperiall & Kingly authority in spirituall causes reacheth no further, but as it belongeth to outward preseruation, not to the personall admi­nistration of them. And doe not we graunt also the same? Or doe not we teach that temporall Princes power ought principally, as S. Leo saith, to extend it self to the defence ad preseruation of the Church? In this then we agree and haue no difference.

24. There followeth in T. M. his assertion heere: But not in the personall administration of them (to wit of spirituall causes, & this now is a shift dissembling the T. M. his cōceipt of the oath of [...] in England. difficulty, and true State of the question) which is in whome consisteth the supreame power, to treate, iudge, and de­termine in spirituall causes; which this man flying, as not able to resolue, telleth vs only, that he cannot perso­nally [Page 207] administer the same; which yet I would aske him why? For as a Bishop may personally performe all the actions, that he hath giuen authority to infe­riour Priestes to doe in their functions, and a tempo­rall Prince may execute in his owne person, if he list, any inferiour authority that he hath giuen to o­thers in temporall affaires; so, if he haue supreame au­thority spirituall also, why may he not in like man­ner execute the same by himself, if he please? But of this is sufficiently writtē of late in the foresaid booke of Answere to Syr Edward Cooke, where also is shewed, Answere to Syr Ed­ward Cooke c. 2. & 3. that a farre greater authority spirituall was giuen to King Henry the eight by Parlament, then this that T. M. alloweth his Maiesty now for outward preserua­tion of the Church, to wit To be head therof, in as ample manner, as euer the Pope was, or could be held before him, ouer Statut. [...] 26 Hen. 8. cap. 1. ann. [...] 1535. England: and to King Edward, though then but of ten yeares old was granted also by Parlament, That he had originally in himself by his Crowne and Scepter all Episcopall au­thority; so as the Bishops and Archbishops had no other power, or spirituall authority then was deriued from him: & to Queene Statut. 1. [...] c. 6. [...] 1547. Elizabeth by like graunt of Parlament, was also giuen as great authority spirituall and Ecclesiasticall ouer the Church and Clergy of England, as euer any person had, or could exer­cise before, which was and is another thing then this Stat. 1. outward preseruation which T. M. now assigneth, Eliza. [...]. 1559. hauing pared the same in minced wordes to his pur­pose, to make it seeme little or nothing, but dareth not stand to it, if he be called to the triall.

25. Wherfore this matter being of so great impor­tance and consequence as yow see, I doe heere take hold of this his publicke 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 Kinges of England doe chalenge more, nor subiectes required to condescend to more then to grant to their authority for outward [Page 208] preseruation, or ad Ecclesiae praesidium, as S. Leo his wordes Hold takē on the of­fer of T. M. about the oath of Suprema­cy. and meaning are, and I dare assure him, that al Catho­lickes in England will presently take the oath, and so for this point there will be an attonement. Me thin­kes that such publicke doctrine should not be so pu­blickly printed, and set forth, without publicke allo­wance and intention to performe and make it good. Yf this be really meant, we may easely be accorded; if not then will the Reader see, what credit may be giuen to any thing they publish; notwithstanding this booke commeth forth with this speciall commenda­tion of Published by authority &c.

26. And for conclusion of all, it may be noted that there hath byn not only lacke of truth and fidelity in S. Leo [...] ep. 34. 46. 62. 81. 87. Serm. 1. de nata. citing Pope Leo for Ecclesiasticall Supremacy in Em­perours aboue 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 preheminence of the Sea of Rome, then doth S. Leo; in so much that Iohn Caluin, not being able otherwise to answere him, saith, that he was tooto desirous of glory & [...]. l. 4. instit. c. 7. §. 11. dominion, and so shifteth him of that way; and therfore he was no fit instance for T. M. to bring heere in proofe of spirituall supremacy in temporall Princes.

27. But yet in the very next page after, he vseth a far greater immodesty, or rather perfidy in my opiniō in calumniation of Cardinall Bellarmine, whome he abu­seth The sixt example of Cardi­nall Bel­larmine. notably both in allegation, exposition, transla­tion, application, and vaine insultation; for thus he citeth in his text out of him. ‘Ancient generall Coun­celles (saith the Romish pretence) were not gathered without the cost of good and Christian Emperours, and were made by their consentes, for in those dayes the Popes did make supplication to the Emperour, that by his authority he would gather Synods, but af­ter those times all causes were changed, because the [Page 209] Pope who is head in spirituall matters cannot be sub­iect in temporall. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Concil. cap. 13. §. Ha­bemus ergo.’

28. And hauing alledged this resolutiō of Bellarmine, the Minister insulteth ouer him in these words: ‘Who would thinke this man could be a Papist, much lesse a Iesuit, how much lesse a Cardinal, who thus disableth the title of the Pope, granting to vs in these wordes: after these times (that is after six hundred yeares) the truth of purer antiquities challenging Popes to be subiect vnto Christian Emperours? 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 sub­iect A childish insultatiō of T. M. ouer Car­dinall Bel­larmine. in temporall matters? As if he should haue said: Then gratious fauour of ancient Christian Emperours, then sound iudgment of ancient reuerend Fathers, then deuout subiection of ancient holy Popes; in summe then ancient purity and pure antiquity adieu. But we may not so bastardly reiect the depositum and doctrine of humble subiection, which we haue receaued from our Fathers of the first six hundred yeares; and not so only, but which (as your Barkley witnesseth) the vni­uersall Christian world imbraced, with common con­sent for a full thousand yeares.’ So he.

29. And doe yow see how this Minister triumpheth? Who would thinke that men of conscience or credit could make such ostentation vpon meere lies deuised by themselues, as now wee shall shew all this bragge to be? And as for D. Barkley alledged in the last lines, Barkleius l. 6. ad­uers. Mo­narch. c. 26 let any man read him in the booke and Chapter cited, and he will wonder at the impudency of this vaunter; for he speaketh no one word of gathering Councells, or comparison of spirituall authority betweene the Pope and Emperour, concerning their gathering of Councelles or Synodes; but of a quite different sub­iect, of taking armes by subiectes against their lawfull [Page 210] temporall Princes. And what will our Minister then answere to this manifest calumniation so apparently conuinced out of Doctor Barkley? But let vs passe to the view of that which toucheth Cardinall Bellarmine, a­gainst whome all this tempest is raised.

30. First then we shall set downe his wordes in La­tin according as T. M. citeth him in his margent. 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 inuito Imperatore aliquid agere: id [...]irco Pontifex supplicabat Imperatori vt iuberet conuo­cari Synodum. At post illa tempora, omnes causae mutatae sunt, quia Pontifex qui est caput in spiritualibus, non est subiectus in temporalibus. Then in those dayes generall Councelles were made not without the charges of Emperours, & in that time the Pope did subiect himselfe vnto Em­perours in temporall affaires, and therfore they could doe nothing against the Emperours will, for which cause the Pope did make supplication to the Empe­rour, that he would commaund Synodes to be gathe­red; but after those times all causes were changed, for that the Pope who is head in spirituall matters, is not subiect in temporall affaires. So he.

31. And heere let vs consider the variety of sleightes & shifts of this our Minister, not only in citing Bellar­mins wordes falsly, and against his meaning and drift in Latin, wherof we shall speake presently; but in peruerting this Latin that he hath so corruptly set Diuers sortes of corruptiō. downe in his former English translation. For first ha­uing said according to the Latin, that generall Coun­celles in those dayes were not gathered without the cost of Emperours, he addeth presently of his owne, and were made by their consentes, which is not in the La­tin: and then he cutteth of the other wordes imme­diatly ensuing, which conteine the cause; to wit ‘for that the Popes subiecting themselues in those dayes [Page 211] touching temporalities vnto the Emperours (as hauing no temporall States or dominion yet of their owne) could doe nothing without them, and therfore did make suppli­cation to the said Emperours that they would com­maund Synodes to be gathered:’ which T. M. transla­teth that they would gather Synodes, as though Bellarmine did affirme, that it lay in the Emperours, by right, to doe it: but after those times omnes causae mutatae sunt, all causes were changed, but he should haue said, are chan­ged, as Bellarmins true wordes are, omnes istae causae, al these causes are chāged, to wit foure sortes of causes, which he setteth downe, why generall Councells could not be well gathered in those dayes without the Empe­rours help and authority, which wordes are guilefully cut of by this deceauer, as in like manner the last wor­des put downe heere by himselfe, Pontifex non est subie­ctus in temporalibus, are falsly translated, cannot be subiect in temporall, and againe afterward, Popes might not be subiect in temporall matters, which is to make Bellarmine contra­ry to himselfe, who saith a little before that the Popes did subiect themselues for many years, wherby is pro­ued, that they could doe it; but Bellarmins meaning is that in right by the preheminence of their spirituall dignity, they were exempted, & not bound therunto.

32. And thus much now for the corruptions vsed in the wordes heere set downe both in Latin & En­glish. But if we would goe to Bellarmine himself and see his whole discourse, and how brokenly and persi­diously these lines are cut out of him, and heere pat­ched togeather as one entier context contrary to his drift and meaning, we shall meruaile more at the in­solency of Thomas Morton, triumphing ouer his owne The sūme of Cardi­nall Bel­larmines discourse [...] by T. M. lye, as before hath byn said; for that Bellarmine hauing proued at larg, and by many sortes of argumentes and demonstrations, throughout diuers Chapters togea­ther, that the right of gathering generall Councelles [Page 112] belongeth only to the Bishop of Rome, and hauing an­swered all obiections that could be made against the same in the behalfe of Emperours, or other temporall Princes, grāting only that for certaine causes in those first ages, the same could not be done (in respect of temporall difficulties) without the helpe & assistance of the said Emperours, that were Lords of the world; he commeth to make this conclusion which heere is cited by T. M. but in far other wordes and meaning then heere he is cited. Yow shall heare how he setteth it downe, & therupō consider of the truth of this Mi­nister. Habemus ergo (saith he) prima illa Concilia &c. ‘We Bellar. l. de Concil. cap 13. haue then by all this disputation seene, how those first Christian Councelles were commaunded by Empe­rours §. Habe­mus ergo. to be gathered, but by the sentence and consent of Popes, and why the Pope alone in those dayes did not call Councelles, as afterward hath byn accusto­med; the reason was, not for that Councelles gathe­red without the Emperours consent are not lawfull, as our Aduersaries would haue it, for against that is the expresse authority of S. Athanasius saying: Quando Athan. in ep. ad soli­tar. vitam agentes. vnquam iudicium Ecclesiae ab Imperatore authoritatem habuit? When was it euer seene that the iudgment of the Church did take authority from the Emperour? but for many other most iust causes was the Emperours consent required therin &c.’ So Bellarmine.

33. And heere now yow see, that Bellarmins drift is wholy against M. Mortons assertion: for that he denieth Fovver causes vvhy Em­perours consents vvere ne­cessary for gathering of Coun­cells in olde time. that euer the Emperours had any spirituall authority for calling of Councells; but only that they could not well in those dayes be made without them, and that for foure seuerall causes; wherof the first was, for that the old Imperiall lawes made by Gentils were yet in vse, wherby all great meetinges of people were for­bidden, for feare of sedition, except by the Emperours 1 knowledge & licence: the second for that Emperours [Page 213] being temporall Lordes of the whole world, the 2 Councells could be made in no Citty of theirs with­out See ff. de Coll. ill. & l. con­uent. de Episc. & Presbyte­ris. their leaue: the third for that generall Councelles being made in those dayes, by the publicke charges & contributions of Citties, and especially of Christian Emperours themselues, as appeareth by Eusebius, Theo­doretus, & other writers, it was necessary to haue their 3 consent and approbation in so publicke 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 dayes, albeit the Bishop of Rome where head in spirituall matters ouer the Emperours themselues; yet in temporall affaires he did subiect himself vnto them, as hauing no temporal State of his 4 owne, and therfore acknowledging them to be his temporall Lords, he did make supplicatiō vnto them to commaund Synodes to be gathered by their autho­rity and licence: At post illa tempora istae omnes causae muta­tae sunt; but since those dayes all these foure causes are changed & ipse in suis Prouinciis est Princeps Supremus tem­poralis, sicut sunt Reges & Principes alij; and the Pope him­self now in his temporall Prouinces is supreme tem­porall Lord also, as other Kings & Princes are, which was brought to passe by Godes prouidence (saith Bel­larmine) to the end that he might with more free­dome, liberty, and reputation exercise his office of ge­nerall Pastorship.

35. And this is all that Bellarmine hath of this matter. And now may we cōsider the vanity of this Mortons triumph ouer him before, and how falsly he dealeth with him, alledging him against his owne drift and meaning, leauing out also [...] foure causes by me recited, and then cutting of [...] the particle istae, these causes are now changed, which includeth reference to these foure, aid furthermore speaking indefinitely, as though all causes and matters were [Page 214] now changed, seeketh therby to deceaue his Reader, and to extort from Bellarmine, that confession of [...] on his side which he neuer meant, and much lesse vttered 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 betweene Pope Gregory the seauenth called Hildebrand, and Henry the The 7. exāple out of Otho Frisin­gensis. fourth Emperour of that name, about the yeare 1070. he citeth the Historiographer Otto Frisingensis, with this ordinary title of our Otto for that he writeth, that he found not any Emperour actually excommunica­ted or depriued of his Kingdome by any Pope before that time, except (saith he) that may be esteemed for an excommunication which was done to Philippe the Emperour 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 pennance, as that also of the Emperour Theodosius, who was sequestred from entring into the Church by S. Ambrose, for that he had commanded a certaine cruell slaughter to be committed in the Citty of [...]: both which exceptions this Minister of simple truth lea­ueth out of purpose, which is no simplicity as yow see, but yet no great matter with him in respect of the other that ensueth, which is, that he alledgeth this Frisin. l. 6. hist. c. 32. Frisingensis quite contrary to his owne meaning, as though he had [...] Pope Gregory the seauenth for it, wheras he condemneth that cause of the Empe­rour, Otho Fri­singensis abused. and commendeth highly the Pope for his con­stancy in punishing the notorious intolerable faultes of the said Henry. [...] (saith he) semper in Eccle­siastico rigore constantissimus fuit: Hildebrand was euer the most constant in [...] the rigour of Ecclesiasti­call [...]. l. 6. c. 36. discipline. And [...] in this very Chapter heere alledged by T. M. Inter onnes Sacerdotes & Romanos [...] [Page 215] [...] zeli & authoritatis fuit: he was among all the Priestes and Pops that had byn of the Roman Sea of most principall zeale and authority. How different is this iudgment of Frisingensis from the censure of T. M. who now after fiue hundred yeares past, compa­reth the cause of Pope Gregory, to that of Pyrates, thee­ues, and murtherers, and so citeth our [...] Frisingensis as though he had fauored him in this impious assertion. Can any thing be more fraudently alledged? Is this the assurance [...] his vpright conscience, wherof he braggeth to his Maiesty?

37. But the next fraud or impudency or rather im­pudent impiety is that which ensueth within foure The 8. example of Lamb. Scafna­burgensis. lines after in these words: Pope Gregory the seauenth (saith your Chronographer) was excommunicate of the Bishops of Ita­ly, for that he had defamed the Apostolicke Sea by Symony, and [...] itall crimes, & then citeth for proofe her of Lam­bertus Schafnaburg. anno [...]. As if this our Chrono­grapher had related this as a thing of truth, or that it were approued by him, and not rather as a slanderous obiection cast out by his Aduersaries that followed the part of Henry the Emperour. Let any man read the place, and yeare heere cited, and if he be a modest man, he will blush at such shameles dealing. For that no Author of that time doth more earnestly defend the cause & vertuous life of Pope Hildebrand, then this man, whose wordes are: Sed apud omnes sanum aliquid sapientes luce clarius constabat falsa esse quae dicebātur: Nam & Papa tam [...]. [...]. in hi­stor. Ger­maniae an. 1077. sub finem. eximiè tam (que) [...] vitam instituebat &c. ‘But with all men of sound wisedome it was more cleere then the sunne, that the thinges which were spoken against Pope Hildebrand were false, for that the Pope did lead such an excellent and Apostolicke life, as the sublimi­ty of his conuersation did admit no least spot of wic­ked rumour against him, he liuing in that great Citty and open concourse of men, it could not haue byn [Page 216] hidden, if he had committed any vnlawfull thing in his life: and moreouer the signes and miracles, which by his prayers were often times done, and his most fer­uent zeale for God in defence of Ecclesiasticall lawes, did sufficiently defend him against the poisoned ton­gues of his detractours.’ And againe: Hildebrandi con­stantia, & inuictus aduersus auaritiam animus omnia excludebat argumenta humanae fallaciae: the constancy of Pope Hilde­brand, and his inuincible minde against the corruption of auarice, did exclude all argumentes of humane fal­lacy and deceipt. 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 certaine Noble men, Captaines and others, that The sub­mission of the Empe­rour Hen­ry the fourth to Pope Hil­debrand at [...]. came with the Emperour to the Castell of Canusium, and would not haue had him made peace with the Pope in that place, said in their rage afterwardes, for that against their Counsell he had submitted himself vnto the said Pope, & when a certaine Bishop named Eppo, was sent to their Campe by the Pope, and Em­perour to enforme them of the agreement and sub­mission made: Fremere omnes (saith this Story) & sae­uire verbis, & manibus caeperunt, Apostolicae legationi irrisoriis [...] vbi [...]. exclamationibus obstrepere, conuitia & maledicta turpissima quaecunque furor suggessisset irrogare. All of them began to fret and wax fierce, both in wordes and casting their handes, and with scornefull outcries to contradict this Apostolicall legation sent vnto them, and to cast vpon the Pope al the most foule reproaches and male­dictions that fury could suggest vnto them. Thus saith Lambertus: and then setteth downe the particuler slanderous reproaches heere cited by T. M. which he approueth not, but condemneth as yow haue heard, & highly commendeth not only the vertue but san­ctity also of the Pope. And will euer any man credit [Page 217] T. M. any more in any thing that he alledgeth, when this conscienceles falsification is once discouered in him? yea though it were but once throughout his whole booke, it were sufficient to proue 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 owne Euangelistes doe recount foule thinges against him (as heere 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 Pharisies for casting out diuells in the power of Belzebub; for deceiuing the people; for denying tri­bute of the paid to Cesar; for mouing sedition, and o­ther like crimes, which our Euangelistes doe recount indeed, but doe condemne them also as false and ca­lumnious; were not this as good and faithfull 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 commēded as yow haue heard, and his Aduersaries condemned? Truly, if any man can shew me out of all the Catholicke writers that be extant, English or other, that euer any one of them vsed this shamefull fraud in writing, where no excuse can free them from malicious and witting falshood, then will I graunt that it is not proper to the Protestant spirit alone. Hitherto I must confesse that I neuer found it in any, and if I should, though it were but once, I should hold it for a sufficient argument not to belieue him euer after. And this shall suffice for a tast only of M. Mortons manner of proceeding. For that to prosecute al particulers would require a whole volume, and by these few yow may ghesse at the mans vaine and spirit in writing.

ANd forasmuch as all the Considera­tions laid forth in the former Chap­ter, haue byn set downe only by way of preamble, for better vnderstan­ding the true state of the contro­uersy; it shall be now expedient, that we draw neere to the substance of the matter and yssue it self, especially being called therunto by the [...] prouocation of our Aduer­sary, who hauing 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. [...] vgly monster &c. And I shall proue this Equiuocation and ap­probation [Page 308] therof to be lying, and that no one Iota in all Scrip­ture, no one example in all antiquity, no one shaddow of reason in the naturall wit of man, can be brought for any proofe or colour therof: After these bragges (I say) he passeth to another solemne vaunt saying: Now must we come into the listes of Pag. 50. this conflict, and enter vpon our Equiuocatour to conuince him a grosse lier, wherby yow see his great confidence in the cause, which I cannot ascribe to any thing, more then to ignorance. For if he had vnderstood well, or weighed the points before laid downe, or these other which presently we are to adioine, I doe not see how he could haue spoken so confidently in so bad a cause.

2. For what? will he hold that all kind of Equiuo­cation is lying? If he doe, he forgetteth himself, for he granted in the very next precedent page, that one sort of Equiuocation (which afterward we shall proue to be the only) is no ly. ‘For that hauing set downe, as it were, for a principle or foundation of all his Treatise, Conf. p. 48 what we doe hold in this behalf, he saith, that we doe teach a double Equiuocation, the one mentall when any thing is reserued in mind, differing from that which outwardly is expressed, as when a Catholicke being demaunded, whether he haue any Priest in his Tvvo sortes of Equiuo­cation. house, may answere by Equiuocation that he hath none, reseruing in his mind that he hath none whome he is bound to vtter or discouer:’ the other kind is verball, when one word (he should haue said also speach) shall im­port two or more significations, as if a man should say yow goe to fast, or yow may not ly in my house, the word fast, may signify either fasting or hasty going, and lying may signify either remaining, or telling vntruth. And the like example may be taken out of Aristotle himself, Arist. 1. of the word Dogge; as if one should say, I am afraid of a Ele [...]ch. c. 3 Dogge, the speach is doubtfull and equiuocall, for that the word Dogge hath a triple signification, to wit a domesticall dogge, a dogge fish in the sea, or a signe in [Page 309] the heauenly spheare, wherin when the sunne hath his course we call them dogge dayes, of which some man being afraid for his health, may say, I feare the Dogge &c.

3. Now then these two sortes of Equiuocations being set downe, T. M. is forced presently to grant, that the later sort, whether it be in word or speech, is no ly of it self; for who would say, that a man lyeth in vsing the different significations of any word or speach? Who will affirme that he saith an vntruth, if Verball E­quiuoca­tiō no ly. for example, he being of a hoate & sickly complexion, and fearing the Canicular-dayes, should say, I feare the dogge, meaning the dangerous influence of that cele­stiall signe, or of those Canicular-dayes: so as now by his owne confession, (for in effect he confesseth it in this place, and can doe no other) this second part or member of Equiuocation, is no ly; notwithstanding perhaps the hearer should be deceaued, & vnderstand the speaker to meane of a domesticall dogge, when he meaneth the celestiall. And of this more examples shalbe giuen afterwardes out of the Scripture it self.

4. But heere is to be noted that [...], whome M. Morton stileth by the title of Oracle of all Logitians, setteh downe three sortes or degrees of Equiuocation: the first in word or speach, when it hath diuers significa­tions: the second in custome of phrase: the third in composition of single partes togeather. Of the first he giueth the example before mentioned of a dogge, that hath different significations, of the secōd, though he name no example, yet this may be one, if I should say: I esteeme him a wise man that can hold his peace, Three sor­tes of E­quiuoca­tion out of Ari­stotle. it would be vnderstood in English for him that can gouerne his tongue, & this in respect of our English phrase or custome of speach, but in any other lan­guage it would rather be vnderstood for him that can liue in peace, or maintaine the peace he hath made [Page 310] with his Aduersary; so as the Equiuocation or multi­plicity of sense, riseth heere out of our English cu­stome of phrase as yow see.

5. Of the third sort he alleadgeth many examples, and among other this: Possibile est sedentem ambulare, & non scribentem scribere: That one sitting may walke, and one not writing may write, in which sentences the wordes being taken separatly and a part out of com­position, they haue but simple and plaine significa­tions, but being compounded in this manner as they ly, haue manifest Equiuocation and amphibology in them, by reason of composition. For if wee vnder­stand that a man sitting, while he sitteth, can walke, or while he writeth not, can write, which is, as Logi­tians say, in sensu composito, it is not possible: but if we vnderstand it in sensu diuiso that he that sitteth now may walke afterward, or he that writeth not now, hath power to write afterward, no man will deny it; and yet are neither of those thinges falsities or lies but only Equiuocall or amphibologicall propositions, that may be true in diuers senses, and yet deceaue the Rea­der or hearer if he stand not attent.

6. But now whether T. M. will admit our former reserued proposition, which is partly [...] and partly verball, vnder any of these three sortes of Logicall E­quiuocations, I know not: but if he doe, then must T. M. ma­keth his oracle to erre in Logicke. he confesse the said proposition to be no lye, which is contrary to his asseueration in this place, saing that [...] such Equiuocation is a grosse lye: and if he doe not, then must he acknowledge his Oracle of Logitians to haue erred grossely in making an insufficient diuision, which comprehendeth not all the partes of the thing deuided. For if the said mixt proposition be an E­quiuocation, then must it haue place amongest some of these three kindes, or els the diuision should be in­sufficient: Quia latius pateret diuisum, quàm [...] diuidentes.

[Page 311]7. But howsoeuer this be, yet M. Morton who euery where pretendeth great skill in Logicke, and therin also to be a cunning Aristotelian, calling the first (as yow haue heard) the art of artes, and high tribunall of reason, and the second the Oracle, shewing also some disdaine, when his Aduersary doth but so much as name Lo­gicke Pag. 53. in his behalf; this man (I say) committeth heere one of the most childish absurdities, against both Ari­stotle and Logicke, that commonly can be committed by one that knoweth the first principles therof: 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 legge, or the whole science of Phisicke, by the skill of the herbal, or of the pulse, or in-sight in waters, which are but seuerall partes of Phisicke: euen so doth M. Morton, taking vpon him to set downe the definition of Equiuocatiō, therby to impugne our foresaid men­tall proposition, saith thus: Equiuocation in word or speech (saith the Oracle of all Logitians) is whē one word, or one speach doth equally signify diuers thinges, as when one shall say, I am Conf. p. 54 afraid of a dogge &c. which how wisely he applieth to his purpose to ouerthrow our proposition therby, & to proue it no proposition at all, shall afterward ap­peare; now only is to be noted that these wordes are not the wordes of Aristotle in defining, but in deuiding Equiuocation, and the very first therof to wit, Equiuo­cation Homo­nymia 'estìn &c. is &c. are fisted in by Morton himself, as also the Greek therof set downe by him for ostentations sake in his margent, for that Aristotle there making a diui­sion of three sortes of Equiuocation before mentio­ned, Arist. l. 1. describeth only the first sort therof in these wor­des: Elench. c. 3 There are three sortes or manners of speach according to Equiuocation, and amphibology, the one, when a speach or word 'Eisì dè trêis tró­poi tôn [...] tèn homony mian, kaì tèn 'amphi­bolian. hêis mèn &c. doth principally signify many thinges, as an Eagle, or Dogge &c. so as heere besides the sleight or falshood which is fa­miliar [Page 312] vnto our aduersary, he is conuinced either to haue abused greatly his Oracle, in making him to erre grossely in setting downe a diuision of three partes of Equiuocation, wheras there is but one, or in defining the whole by a part only, as before hath byn declared, wherof would follow that his definition non conuerti­tur cum definito, the greatest absurdity that in Logicke can be committed. Or lastly (which I easiest belieue) that he vnderstood not Aristotle, though he would make a florish therof, & so following the bat in flying hastily without light, hath broken his head on the walles before he was a ware.

8. But to returne to consider somewhat further of the nature of Equiuocation, yow will aske me (per­haps) what is the proper definition of Equiuocation, and how is the former mixt proposition partly men­tall and partly verbal, truly called Equiuocal or Equi­uocation, for so much as it seemeth by that which hitherto hath byn said, that of the double kind set downe in the beginning, to wit mentall and verball, the second only may properly be called Equiuocation, that is to say, when a speach or word fignifieth diuers thinges equally, which I grant also to be true, if wee consider the proper nature of Equiuocation treated by Aristotle, and his particuler [...] and reasons which he had in treating therof, which endes by his Exposi­tours are said to be two.

9. The first as it serueth to discerne captious and so­phisticall sillogismes, from demonstratiue and diale­cticall; to which end he alledgeth six seuerall kindes Arist. l. 1. of the said captious speeches in his first booke of E­lenchs; [...]. c. 3 and Equiuocation is the first, amphibology the second: which Equiuocation is deuided (as yow haue heard,) into three degrees before specified, to wit, into Equiuocation of speach or wordes that haue diuers significations; into Equiuocation by custome [Page 315] ction of the dead, wherof we shall haue better occasion to set downe afterward many examples, which no wayes cā be auoided from vntruth, but only by some kind of mentall reseruation in the speaker; though Thomas Morton striue and struggle neuer so much to fly the same: but the more he struggleth, the more he in­tangleth himself like a fox in a net.

12. His second conclusion also (for two only he maketh conteining the whole subiect of his [...] reatise) T M his 2 conclu­sion. seemeth to me very fond, simple, and vntrue, where he saith: Our second conclusion is this, that euery Equiuocation, whether it be mentall or verball, if it be vttered in an oath, though it be no ly, yet is it an abhominable prophanation of that sacred institution of God; and I would aske him why? for that whatsoeuer may be truly said may be truly sworne also, and without prophanation, so it be done with Equiuoca­tion both mentall & verball shevved out of Scripture. the due circumstances of truth, iustice, and reuerence; an oath being nothing els, as Deuines doe define it, but the calling of God to witnes in any thing that is af­firmed or denied. And as for mentall reseruation, I would aske T. M. whether a man may not aswell sweare, as say the foresaid sentence of the Prophet, wicked men shall not rise in iudgment? And for verball E­quiuocation, I would demaund him, whether a man may not sweare that which Christ our Sauiour saith and affirmeth to be true, as for example, Elias iam venit. Math. 17. Marc 11. Elias is come; and againe of S. Iohn Baptist, Ipse est Elias, Math. 11. he is Elias himself, where the word Elias hath plaine Equiuocation in it, for that it signifieth both the per­son and spirit of Elias, and in S. Iohn was the one and not the other. And againe that saying of our Sauiour, Ioan. 2. Dissolue this Temple, and in three dayes I will raise it vp againe, the word Temple hath an euident verball Equiuoca­tion, for it signifieth both the materiall Temple, and Math. 26. Christes body, and therby deceaued euen the wisest Marc. 14. hearers, who vnderstanding the one sense, which [Page 316] was the more common, obiected the same to our Sa­uiour both in his iudgment, and vpon the Crosse; and yet was there neither ly, falshood, nor prophanation in this speach, though Equiuocall; no if our Sauiour had sworne it, for his word was of more truth and reuerent respect to God his Father, then our oath can be. And heerby may our Minister see his wit in set­ting downe so resolute a conclusion.

13. But there be many more examples as euident as this, as, Et ego si exaltatus fuero à terra omnia traham ad me­ipsum; Ioan. 12. when I shall be exalted from the earth I will draw all thinges vnto my self, where the word Exal­tation Ambi­guous and Equiuo­call spea­ches of our Sa­uiour. may haue many senses, as to be exalted to hea­uen, or to glory, which most men would vnderstand, rather then an exaltation vpō a Crosse, which Christ vnderstood, and consequently his speech was mixt with amphibology and Equiuocation; as were also the wordes omnia traham, which may haue sundry senses, and some in apparence not true. And in like manner when he said of Lazarus sicknes, Infirmitas haec Ioan. 11. non est ad mortem, this sicknes it not to death; and yet he died, and consequently there was a further sense reserued. And in the same place, Lazarus amicus noster dormit, our friend Lazarus sleepeth; the word dormit sig­nifieth Equiuocally either to sleep or be dead, Christ vnderstood of the second, his Disciples of the first: & will yow say that he did abuse or deceaue them, or vse prophane speach in this Equiuocation? And yet fur­ther the same Equiuocation our Sauiour vseth in Luc. 12. those wordes, Ignem veni mittere in terram, & quid volo, nisi ut ardeat, I came to cast fier into the earth, and what would I els, but that it burne? The word fier signifieth both naturall fier, and zeale or feruour of spirit, and burning hath the like ambiguity; and is this also pro­phanation, if it were to be sworne, as Christ did speake it? [Page 313] of phrase; and into Equiuocation by composition of single, and simple partes togeather. His second inten­tiō was to treat therof in regard of placing each thing in due order, in his ranke of ten Predicaments, or shew their relation therunto; and for this cause in his first Treatise vpon the said Predicaments, he maketh that notorious diuision of wordes, so well knowne vnto Homó­nyma lé­getai, hôn 'ó­noma mónon koinon, hò dè katà t'óuno­ma ló­gos tês 'ousias, héteros &c. Logitians into AEquiuoca, Vniuoca & Denominatiua, saying those thinges are Equiuocall which doe agree only in name, but are different in nature and [...], ac­cording to that name, as a liuing and painted man doe agree only in the name of a man, but not in na­ture, essence, substance or definition; and the like may be said in the word dog ge before mentioned.

10. Now then wheras our proposition before men­tioned with mentall reseruation, tendeth not directly to any of these two purposes intended by Aristotle; and further hath no doubtfull sense of speach or wordes by nature of the wordes themselues, or their double or doubtfull significations, but only that it vttereth not all the whole sense of the speaker; it cannot pro­perly Of Equi­uocation and am­phibology hovv they differ. be called Equiuocall according to Aristotles meaning and definition; but rather in a more large & ample signification, as Equiuocall may signify an am­phibologicall, doubtfull, or double-sensed propositiō, in respect of the speaker and hearer, wherof the one sometime vnderstandeth the same in one sense, and the other in another. For which cause the most an­cient Schoole-Doctors, Fathers, and other Authors doe vse in deed rather the word Amphibology then Equi­uocation in expressing like kind of speaches as our pro­position is; which of later yeares only hath byn accu­stomed to be vsed in this sense, but the other is most ordinary with antiquity, not only among Philoso­phers, but also (and that especially) among Orators and Rhetoritians, in which science it is held for law­full [Page 314] & most commendable in diuers occasions, wher­or both [...] [...] maketh mention, and [...] [...] lib. in [...]. l. 7. c. 9 [...] a whole Chapter The cause then why the answering by such a reserued proposition, as before hath byn mentioned, is called by some Equiuocation, is [...] by a certain similitude, thē propriety of speach, to wit that euē as Equiuocation properly by commu­nity of name in things of different natures by variety of significations in the selfe same wordes or speach, by [...] of phrase, and composition of sundry sortes [...] make different and doubtfull senses, & meanings to the hearer; so in this case by mentall reseruation of some part of the foresaid mixt proposition, the like effect of doubtfulnes is bred in the hearers [...], and therby consequently is named Equiuoca­tion, although improperly as Equiuocation is taken for any doubtfull word or speach that may haue di­uersity of senses or vnderstandings.

11. But now to inferre herof as T. M. doth in his first [...] of this his wise dispute, that euery such [...] by mentall reseruation is a grosse ly, Pag. 49. is not only a grosse presumption, but a [...] ignorance also in my opinion, not to call it a grosse impiety; for by T. M. first cōclusion. this meanes he might cōdemne of grosse lying a great number of speaches of the holy Ghost, both in the old and new Testament, where diuers propositions are set [...] and vttered with imperfect sense, some­what being reserued which necessarily must be sup­plied, to saue the said speach from vntruth. As for Psal. 1. example, where the Prophet saith Non resurgunt impij in iudicio: Wicked men doe not rise againe in iugdment: if the Prophet reserued not somewhat in his mind vnuttered, for the complement of this speach, as na­mely that they shall not rise to glory, as S. Paul expoun­deth 1. Cor. 15. it to the Corinthians it would seeme an Heresy, & contrary to the article of our creed, I belieue the resurre­ction [Page 319] spirit or life in ner, [...] the [...] of maruaile of that she saw; And againe the same holy Ghost talking of the immensity of Salomons wealth, said: Tantam (que) co­piam praebuit argenti in Hierusalem, quasi lapidum, and Salo­mon made [...] as stones in Hierusalem, may a man sweare this without vntruth or prophana­tion? what say yow M. Morton? may a man swear this in your Lordes Court of the Arches? & the same I de­maund of those last wordes of S. Iohns Ghospell; There are many other thinges which Iesus did, which if they should be particularly written, I doe not thinke that the world it selfe would hold the bookes that should be written therof.

18. How can this be true M. Morton in plaine and li­terail sense, and without some amphibology or Equi­uocation? and yet I thinke yow will not say it is a lye, being part of the Ghospell, or that it may not be sworne without abhominable prophanation. How then will yow, or can yow defend it? Truly by no other way, but by the licence of a Rhetoricall figure called Quint. l. [...]. inst. orat. cap. 6. HYPERBOLE, which Quintilian defining saith, it is Ementiens superiectio, a lying exaggeration; and yet will no true Deuine call it a lye indeed, & much lesse periury or prophanation, if any man should sweare it: wherby is made manifest, and apparent the childish vanity of our Aduersary in his former conclusion that euery verball Equiuocation is an abominable prophanation. And so much of this second kind of Equiuocation, which yow see how lawfull and vsuall it is, euen in the Scriptures themselues, and in the speaches of our Sa­uiour which is truth it self; wherby hauing repressed somewhat the insolency and ignorance of this our vaunting Minister, we shall retourne now againe to the first kind of Equiuocation by mentall reserua­tion, about which is our principall controuersy. And for that our Minister affirmeth two pointes a­bout the same, the first, that it is no proposition at all [Page 320] according to the true nature of a proposition; and [...] second that it is vntrue morally, & a grosse ly: we shall handle and discusse these two pointes seue­rally in the two Paragraphes that doe ensue.

[Page 317]14. In these other wordes in like manner, Hoc est corpus meum (about which there is so great a doe now throughout Christendome) the Protestantes for de­fending their opinion about the Sacrament, must nee­des grant a verball Equiuocation, trope, figure, & am­phibology, wherby they haue a double sense, and one far different from that naturall plaine and common signification, which all Catholicks hold throughout About the vvordes hoc est cor pus [...] vvhether they con­teine E­quiuoca­tiō or not. the world, which is the sense or senses which they & theirs doe frame of these wordes, wherby doth fol­low in their sense and interpretation that they are E­quiuocall, according to the definition of Aristotle; and yet did Christ vse them in a more sacred institution of the Sacrament, then was that of an oath; and yet I thinke the impiety of Thomas Morton will not reach so farre, as to condemne Christ of an abhominable pro­phanation in that his sacred institution; and conse­quently he may see that his second generall conclusion was but an inconsiderate, bold, vnlearned, and vntrue assertion.

15. And thus much of this second kind of verball Equiuocation, set downe and censured by T. M. which indeed is only true and proper Equiuocation, as before hath byn noted (for that mentall in rigour is none) and agreeth only to the definition of Equiuo­cation, deliuered 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, vt Gal­lus &c. When one name agreeth to many thinges or men, it is called Equiuocation, as the word Gallus sig­nifieth both a French man, or a Cocke, & some other thinges; by which definition as also by these other descriptions alledged out of Aristotle before, is eui­dently seene that the first kind of Equiuocation by mentall reseruation, cannot properly be called Equi­uocation but AMPHIBOLOGIA, ambiguity of [Page 318] speach, which stretcheth larger then doth Equiuoca­tion, and is Genus vnto it, as Quintilian in the same place affirmeth; and that the second kind, which consisteth principally in the diuersity of significations in wordes or speach (such as before we haue alledged out of our Sauiours speaches) is properly Equiuocation, & con­sequently he an Equiuocatour in this kind, which Thomas Morton saith, that his soule doth so much ab­horre and detest.

16. I might moreouer to this purpose for further battering of this fond conclusion of Thomas Morton, al­ledge the vse of all Rhetoricall tropes, and figures, and aske him whether, as they may lawfully be vsed in speach, so likewise in an oath? As for examples when Christ our Sauiour calleth Heretickes & euill Pastors lupos rapaces, rauening wolues, which is a trope called a Metaphor, may a man sweare it is true? for that in na­ture they are men and no wolues. And so likewise 1. Cor. 4. when S. Paul wrote to the Corinthians vsing a figure cal­led EIRONEIA: Iam saturati estis, iam diuites facti e­stis, sine nobis regnatis &c. Now yow are full, now yow are rich, now yow raigne without vs, you are wise, we are fooles, yow are strong, wee are infirme, yow Ironicall speach a kind of Equiuoca­tion. are noble, we are base &c. might S. Paul haue sworne this which he writeth without an abhominable propha­nation of that sacred institution of an oath? I thinke he might, for that often he was accustomed to sweare, that is to say, to call God to witnes, that he spake the truth, and yet heere he cannot be presumed to thinke as he spake, or as the wordes literally doe import: where then is Thomas Morton in this his conclusion?

17. Againe I would demaund of him whether a man might sweare, without prophanation, that speach of the holy Ghost, concerning the Queene of Saba, when [...]. Paral. 9. she saw the wisedome, riches, & greatnes of Salomon, Non erat vltra in ea spiritus prae stupore, she had no longer

THat which briefly hath byn auou­ched in the later end of the precedent Chapter, about the lawfulnes of the former proposition, might be greatly enlarged many waies, if we would stand theron, or handle the same to the satisfaction of learned men; but for that the compasse of this short Treatise beareth it not, and I must haue a care aswell of the capacity of the vulgar Reader as of the more learned: I shall only [Page 349] adde to that which hath byn said, some few more per­ticulars, in sundry kindes of proofe, fit for the confir­mation of our purpose; and in the ensuing Chapter lay forth some speciall and principall cases, wherin the said ambiguous Proposition or Equiuocation may be vsed, wherby I doubt not but that the whole con­trouersy will remaine cleere and manifest.