A QUIET AND SOBER RECKONING WITH M. THOMAS MORTON somewhat set in choler by his Adversary P. R. CONCERNING Certain imputations of wilful falsities objected to the said T. M. in a Treatise of P. R. entitled Of Mitigation, some part whereof he hath lately attempted to answer in a large Preamble to a more ample Rejoinder promised by him.  
But ●eere in the mean space the said imputations are justified, and confirmed, & with much increase of new untruths on his part returned upon him again: So as finally the Reckoning being made, the Verdict of the Angel, interpreted by Daniel, is verified of him. Daniel 5. vers. 27. 
Appensus es in statera, & inventus es minus habens.  
You have been weighed in the balance, & are found to want weight.   
There is also adjoined a piece of a Reckoning with Sir Edward Cook, now L. Chief justice of the Common Pleas, about a Nihil dicit, & some other points uttered by him in two late Preambles, to his sixth and seventh Parts of Reports.  
Permissu Superiorum. M. DC. IX.   

THE STATE OF THE QUESTION handled in this Book.  
MASTER Thomas Morton upon the year 1606. took upon him to write a malicious Dis●o●erie against Catholics, and their doctrine about Rebellion presently upon the powder-treason: and the Pamphlet was soon after confuted and returned upon himself by the Moderate Answerer: he replied with a discourse entitled, A full Satisfaction: adding thereunto another Treatise against Equivocation. To this opposed himself P. R. Author of the Treatise tending to Mitigation: and handled in the same both the one and other subject, charging him further with many foul faults of witting falsehood; whereunto M. Morton hath exhibited now lastly a large new Preamble, with promise of another book to follow in time, that is to say, he hath presented a great head without a body; and this with no small signs of extraordinary impatience.  
For pacifying whereof P. R. hath taken the pains to review o●●er again the accounts, and findeth him far more faulty than before. For that in am of clearing old debts, he contracteth new, and in excusing former falsities, he multiplieth many other. So as now,  

The chief question cometh to be,  
Whether M. Mort. (in the cause he defendeth) can write truly or no: & whether his falsehood therein be voluntary or necessary, or rather both: that is to say, voluntary in respect of himself, that might have omitted them: and necessary in regard of his cause, that could not be defended without them● and consequently in different respects, both voluntary and necessary. In which point M. Morton holdeth the negative, I the affirmative. The Reader shall see the proofs of both sides.    

A BRIEF NOTE OF THE CHAPTERS WHICH ARE set forth more largely in the end of this Book, with their several Paragraphes.  
THE first containeth the Answer to M. Morton his first Inquiry, about the Wit, Learning, Memory etc. of his Adversary P.R.  
2 The second answereth the second Inquiry, about some points touching the subject of Rebellion and Equivocation.  
3 The third handleth a part of the third Inquiry about many falsities objected by M. Morton against Cardinal Bellarmine.  
4 The fourth discusseth like imputations of falsities objected by him against his Adversary P. R.  
5 The fifth examineth how substantially M. Morton endeavoureth to ●●●are himself from many wilful untruths, objected against him by P.R.  
6 The sixth layeth forth a great number of untruths, objected to M. Morton, which he pretermitteth without answer or mention.  
7 The seventh, wherein are handled divers other sorts of voluntary omissions of M. Morton, aswell in defending himself, as the credit of his Clients commended unto him; and namely of Sir Edward Cook, now Lord Chief justice.  
8 The eight treateth divers several points with the said Sir Edward Cook, about two new Prefaces of his lately set forth in print.  
9 The ninth, returning to M. Morton again, layeth together another choice number of new falsities and falsehoods made in excuse of the old.  
10 The tenth and last handleth twelve new Challenges made by M. Morton, after the Victory lost.  
There is added for an Appendix in the end, a Case of Equivocation newly written from England to be resolved, about the false Oath of two Ministers: Wherein there is mention also made of D. King's Sermon at the Court, upon the fi●th of November 1608.   
Cyprian. lib. 4. Ep. 9 
Apud prophanos & extra Ecclesiam positos, esse aliud non potest, nisi mens prava, & fallax lingua, odia venenata, & sacrilega mendacia.  Idem lib. 1. Ep. 3. ad Cornelium. 
Haec est verè dementia, non cogitare, nec sentire, quòd mendacia non diu fallant; noctem tamdiu esse, quamdiu illucescat dies: clarificato autem die, & sole obo●to, luci tenebras & caliginem cedere.  Hilarius lib. de Trinit. 
Haeretici cum stultè mentiantur, stultiùs tamen in mendacij sui defensione sapiunt.   

THE EPISTLE DEDICATORY TO THE UNIVERSITIES OF ENGLAND.  
MUCH more than one year is not yet past (learned Countrymen) since I presented unto you a Treatise, entitled of Mitigation, in answer of an other most bitterly written by M. Thomas Morton Mini●●er, about Rebellion & Equivocation. In which Treatise of mine, besides the two said points of principal argument handled at large (especially the later, as more capable of variety in the Treatise thereof) a great multitude of falsities were laid open, as uttered by M. Morton; and those so frequent, gross, and palpable, as they must needs be thought to have been both wilful and witting: the censure whereof notwithstanding, I was content to remit unto you, as presuming more of the integrity of your judgements in points of learning, and matter of fact, then distrusting the sequel of your unequal, affections, by reason of our difference in religion.  
2. This Treatise M. Morton perusing & finding himself, as it seemeth, not a little strained therein, was carried thereby into so great & exorbitant a stream of passion, as neither he could stay himsel●e from answering somewhat out of hand (thereby to prevent the Readers prejudice, as himself confesseth) nor yet daring to join issue upon my book and argument thereof as it lay; 
In his Epistle dedicatory.  did after a strange new fashions devise to set forth a Preamble (for some present remedy) accompanied with a promise of a larger book, & Rejoinder to ensue afterwards. And I do call this a strange devise, not only, for that I have not seen the same often practised by any writer lightly, except Sir Edward Cook (who perhaps by this man's imitation hath answered of late with a Preface of less than four leaves in quarto, 
La preface de la sixiesme pa●t des Reports.  his adversaries book of more than two hundred against him:) but also for that in this Preamble, which enlargeth itself to above two hundred & twenty pages, there is not the tenth part bestowed upon the two chief Questions of Rebellion, & Equivocation, but rather upon other matters & subjects framed by himself of n●w, whereof th● most may justly be deemed wholly impertinent.  
3. As for example, to p●●termitt his two ●pistles, the one to my L. of Salis●urie, the ot●er to myself (whereof I may chance to have occasion to speak more in my next ensuing Epistle to him) he d●uideth this whole Preamble into three several parts, 
Preamb. pag. 2.  which he termeth Inquiries. I do divide (saith he) this Preamble into three Inquiries: 
M. Mort. division of his work  The first is, what sufficiency & excellency there is in P. R. to make so great an insultation: the second, whether he may be thought a sufficient Proctor in this case or no: the third, whether he hath sufficiently performed his task, either for the defence of his cause, or justification of his conscience; with a Challenge against him for them both.  
4. This is the division of his Work, whereby I doubt not, but you will discover also the vanity, though I should say nothing thereof. For ●hat he being pressed with a Work of such ●eight, as the argument of my former book did import, & urged therein, not only with an overthrow of his whole cause, but charged furthermore with a monstrous number of plain wilful untruths, not possible, as they seemed, to be answered, or excused; the judicious Reader will easily consider, whether this were a time to trifle as he doth, making himself an Inquisitor (without commission) & to ●rame his first Inqui●y of the sufficiency & excellency of his Adversary, and to spend eight whole Paragraphes, as he doth, therein: 
Impertinent proceeding.  Enquiring first of his wit, then of his memory, thirdly of his learning in Logic, fourthly of his skill in Greek & Hebrew, fifthly of his kind of charity, sixthly of his modesty, with other like points, spending large discourses upon every one of them. Is there any man (I say) so simple or sottish, as not to see the impertinency of this manner of proceeding?  
5. His other two Inquiries are as wisely employed, and prosecuted as this. For that the second, Whether P. R. may be judged a competent Advocate or no, is but a silly discourse, containing not full two leaves in all: and the argument thereof is a ridiculous Dialogue feigned between the Mitigator, and the Moderate Answerer● The third comprehendeth the rest of the book (which is, of four parts, three) which may be not unfitly divided into the terms of offensive and defensive wars. For that first to impress some opinion of manhood in defending himself from the imputations laid against him of wilful falsehoods, he taketh upon him (quite from the argument of the controversy in hand) to impugn others of like dealing, as namely Cardinal Bellarmine, myself, and others: and then having made this flourish, he cometh lastly to his own defence, in fourteen untruths laid against him, and culled by himself out of more than forty objected by his adversary, and no one of them well dissolved by him, as after will appear. And after all ●his, he imagining the field to r●mayne wholly to himself, he concludeth all with a new vaunt and fresh Challenge in the nineteenth, and last Paragraph of this his book, phantasying himself to have had the victory in every thing that he hath taken in hand to treat. And this being the sum of M. Mort. new work, I shall briefly lay forth to your judgement the method which I have thought good to use for his confutation.  
6. First I have been content to follow him into those follies of his first Inquiry, 
The method used for M. Mort. confutation.  about my wit, memory, learning; skill in Logic, and the like, confessing willingly the mediocrity thereof in all things: but yet showing by the substance of the points handled, if I be not de●eyued, 
First Inquiry.  that if M. Mortons' wit had been excellent, or learning eminent, he would never have ●yn drawn to have leapt over graver matters, to handle such light toys as these be. For what imports me the disestimation, which M. Mort. ●rofesseth of my wit, memory, or learning; for ●o much as the things themselves that are handled (wherein wit and learning are to be showed) will be better witnesses, 
Witless contention about wit.  and of more credit with the prudent Reader, then either his or my bare words or vaunts? Wherefore to them I remit me.  
7. In the second place, 
Second Inquiry  I have had patience in like manner (for without patience it could not be done) to peruse over his second Inquirie consisting of a mere idle fancy and fiction of a Dialogue (as hath been said) devised between me, & his Adversary the Moderate Answerer, as though he had fallen out about answering his book: and me he bringeth in speaking very rudely and uncivilly thus: 
See his Preamble pag. 31.  Nay, I have not been arrogant, but thou hast been rash and precipitant. For is thou by thy former Answer mightest have been thought sufficient for a reply, what needed such posting to me beyond the seas, for a supply of a more exact, and learned Rejoinder? Thus goeth his fiction, and it is a very fiction indeed. For the truth is, that when I began my Treatise of Mitigation against M. Mortons' fi●st exasperating discovery, I knew of no other that was in hand to answer the same: as more largely I have showed in the third Chapter of my said Treatise.  
8. Moreover he feigneth us to reason together about itching and scratching, as though the Moderate Answerer had used these words: 
Preamble pag. 32.  I think you are troubled which the dis●ase of s●me of our Catholic lawyer's, of whom you have said, they itch to be doing and answering M. Attorney: this was also my disease, but I after found a scratch, and so may you. Whereby he seemeth to insinuate as you see, a certain threat of scratching his adversary, 
Threats of scratches.  w●en other weapons of more force do fail him. But this I have answered afterwards in due place, & showed, that aswell these scratches (meant perhaps of those scolding skirmishes before mentioned about wit, memory, learning, and the like) as also deeper wounds of conviction of falsehoods, and manifest impostures, are like to fall upon himself: and that in so evident a sort, as all the standers by may clearly see it, and take compassion on him, and of his manner of fight: whereof I am content to make yourselves also, my learned Countrymen, both judges and umpires.  
9 Wherefore finding so little substance in these two former Inquiries (for what is added and brought in by me in the second, which are but two particular cases only concerning our subject and argument of Rebellion and Equivocation, was borrowed from the third to make up some matter whereof to treat:) I do pass to the said third Inquirie, wherein one only exploit being requi●ed on M. Mortons' behalf, two are attempted, ●ut with very evil success in them both. The exploit required was, that for so much as M. Morton in this his last Preamblatory reply by abandoning the principal argument and subject of ●ur former controversy, 
What was principally required of M. Mort. and what he performeth.  had changed the whole state of the Question by occasion of great multitudes of witting untruths objected against him, he should now have gone roundly to the matter, and directly, plainly, & substantially have answered the said imputations: but I found him to take a far other course, allowing to himself a more large field to walk and flourish in. And this was first, to seek out, what likelihood or appearance of falsities he could find in any Roman writer whatsoever: then of what Popes in particular; then of Counsels, & their Interpreters: after this again, against Cardinal Bellarmine, and that in divers kinds, as namely for calumniating his adversaries for false allegation of the Fathers, for differing in his opinions from sundry writers of his own religion, whereof notwithstanding no one can be proved as after you will see.  
10. Finally then after all this, he falleth upon myself, pretending to show that in fourteen several points at least he hath taken me tardy, which if he could prove, (as in no one he can) yet all this while, as you see, he walketh without the list of our controversy concerning the defence of his own falsehoods, which he driveth of as long as may be, according to the fashion of those that having many deep wounds are loath to discover them, or have them handled. Wherefore this point of his own defence or excuse, which was first in his intention (for this was the cause that made him so hastily to shape out this Preamble) was the last in execution, as least gustful unto him: and so he dispatcheth it only in one Paragraph, of nineteen, that he hath in this Preamble, to wit the eighteenth only: and by all likelihood would have pretermitted it wholly if handsomely he might.  
11. But perhaps you will imagine, that he hath holpen somewhat his cause by seeking these diverticles from the purpose, in that he having weakened first his adversaries credit may find better passage to the defence of his own. But indeed this reckoning falleth not out so, but rather the quite contrary, 
The contrary success of M. Mort. expectation.  for that not being able when it cometh to the trial to fasten any one untruth upon his adversary, I mean in that nature that it may be thought witting and willing, which is our only question; he cometh by consequence to confirm, and authorize extraordinarily the credit of their integrity in their writings, who have not given place to any least touch of just reprehension in that behalf: and by this means contrary to his meaning he becometh their Encomiast or Prayser, who endeavoured to be their calumniatour, rectum ab errore, as oftentimes by God's providence it falleth out.  
●2. Wherefore I seeing M. Morton take this ●ourse, 
The sūm● of all this my Answer in 10. Chapters.  after I had examined the first two Inquiries in two several Chapters of mine, I was forced to bestow seven or eight more upon his ●hird. Wherefore the first is to answer all the particular objections, which he hath against other Catholic writers, namely Card. B●llarmine and others. The second, for answering the like objections, and calumniations made by him against myself in fourteen several imputations laid against me. The third, how insufficiently M. Mort. defendeth himself in other fo●rteen charges produced against him, which he thought good to choose out as defensible amongst a far greater number. The fourth how he pretermitteh more than other twice fourteen, far more urgent and eminent than the rest, without ever so much as once mentioning them. The fifth containeth sundry other important omissions or pretermissions of his, aswell in slipping over matters belonging to himself, as to the defence of sundry Clients of his, whom he ought to have defended, especially Sir Edward Cook now L. Chief justice of the Common Pleas: with whom there is made a piece of a several reckoning in like manner in a several Chapter, aswell about some things of his set forth before, as also concerning two new Prefaces lately published and prefixed to the sixth and seventh parts of his Reports. The seventh, how in place of clearing himself from above forty old imputations of falsehood, he is convinced of more than fifty new, superadded to the former. And finally, my eight Chapter, (which is the tenth and last as they lie in order) doth handle new strange vaunts and challenges of M. Morton, after all this battery, as though nothing had been said against him: wherein I can commend nothing, but his courage, remitting the rest to your better discretions, when ye shall have read both parts, this being the sum of our whole Concertation.  

The reason of the title of this book.  13. There remaineth to say a word or two, concerning the reason of the title of this my Answer, which is, A quiet & sober Reckoning: whereof I know that your Wisdoms will easily guess the cause, but much more will have seen it, if ye have perused over this Preamble of M. Morton which is so bitter and sharp, and over eager in many places, as doth easily show that the man was in great choler when he wrote it. And though I could allege many exorbitant speeches of his to this effect throughout the whole book, yet the beginning and ending shall only serve for proof thereof: the beginning, for that he bestoweth seven or eight whole Paragraphs of his first Inquiry (as already I have said) to examine my wit, memory, skill in Logic, ignorance in Gre●ke and H●brue, modesty, charity, and the like, which hardly could proceed but from impatience. The last Paragraph also of his new challenges declareth the same more abundantly where he avouching me first to be a man without all conscience, lame in hands, dumb in speech, dead in sense & feeling of all contrition; ●e passeth on to the most extravagant, and ridiculous terms of impatience, that ever I read in ●y Author, that valued his own credit, or you either perhaps. For he saith, that if he do ●ot manifest me to be so malignant, as if the Capital letters P. R. did justly betoken Princeps Rabularum: and so vain, as if they signified Phormio Romanista: so dissolute in my cause, as if they might be interpreted Praevaricator Rasus: so impudently unjust, as that they might import Persidiae Reus: then is he content that his Treatises be purged with fire, and himself challenged to a Recantation. And will ye not take pity of this man's passion? Or can ye marvel, why I took this title of A quiet and sober Reckoning?  
14. Truly, if I should have suffered myself to be c●rryed away with the same passion, & with the like impatience have returned him an Answer in his own vain, & character of writing; you do easily see, whereunto this contention would have grown: but I have thought best to endeavour the pacification of M. Mortons' choler, by a more moderate kind of conference, if it may be, where heat of words laid aside, the truth of matters may peaceably and more calmly be considered. Wherein (as before I said) though I may have just cause to suspect your affections: yet can I not distrust your judgements in a matter of such apparent evidency, as this is, now committed unto you. Wherein Christ jesus direct you, to the discovery of that truth in Religion, which only can save us all. And so to his protection I commit you, this 19 of December, 1608.  
Your loving Countryman, wishing you all good, that is truly good. P. R.   

THE EPISTLE ADMONITORY TO Mr. THOMAS MORTON.  
IF yourself had not given me the example (M. Morton) by writing to me a several Epistle, terming it Preamblatorie, it is likely I should not have troubled you with this Admonitory of mine, as having written sufficiently in my precedent Dedicatory to our two Vniversyties, concerning the subject of this our whole Controversy. But for so much as you do firm & subscribe your said letter thus: Yours to warn, and to be warned, Thomas Morton, and have put in execution the first part thereof by warning me, I presume you willbe content, the second part be put also in ure, and that you be warned by me. To which ●ffect I have thought best to style this my Epistle an admonitory. Now then to the matters that are to be handled therein.  
The points whereof you have warned me be two: which you call two Romish maladies. 
Two calumniations.  The one, the transcendent jurisdiction of the Pope (to use your words) troubling or subverting all Princes, & people of contrary Religion: the other; our professed art of mental Equivocation, which by your Mynisteriall phrase you term, the ●aude to all Rebellion. But h●w vain and frivolous this advertisement is, and fit only to fill up paper without s●nse, every m●ane capacity will ●as●ly conceive, and witness are at hand. For who doth not see, that Protestant Princes and people of different Sects have been now in the Christian world for almost an hundred years, both in Germany, Demmarke, Swe●land, Scotland, England, France, Flanders, & yet no subversion ●●m● unto th●m by the Pope's transcendent authority; Who doth not know in like mann●r, that the greatest Rebellions that have fallē●ut in this age have not been procured by Equivocation as the ●aude, but by Heresy as the Harlot h●r s●lf, & that by crafty deceits & lying shifts, which is quite opposite to the nature of Equivocation, that always speaks truth, though always not so understood by the ●ear●r. But for that of these two heads of Rebellion and Equivocation I have spoken abundantly in my f●rmer Treatise, & sumwhat also in this, especially in my second Chapter to your s●c●nd Inquiry, w●●re you insert some f●w pages about the same; I will lose no more time in repeating thereof, but remit th● Reader thither, only advertising him by the way, that whereas you make a flourish in this your Epistle Preamblatorie with two authorities of S. Augustine, 
August. lib. 2. cont. Petil. cap. 83. & ep. 48. ad Vin●ent. Rogat.  noted in the margin, the one against Petilian, the other against Rogatian, both of them Donatists, who feigned clemency and practised cruelty where they durst against Catholics; let him but take the pains to read the places in the Author himself, and compare their cause with the cause of M. Morton and his fellow Protestants in these days (aswell in making and following Schism against the general body of the Catholic Church as in particular actions recounted by Optatus and others: 
Optatus l. 2. cont. Pa●m. & lib. 6. August. cont. Donat. in psalm. 132. & cont. Petil. lib 3. c. 40. & lib. 4.  to wit, in breaking down Altars, & casting the B Sacrament to dogs, in contemning holy Chris●●e, & breaking the sacred vessels wherein it was ●ept, in profaning Chalices, in scraping Priests ●●ownes for hatred of sacred unction; in persecuting monks, in letting out Nuns of their Monasteries, and the like, which proceeded from their particular spirit of pretended perfection) and he will see ●●ether they agree more to Protestant's or Catholics ●our days: & consequently whether you M. Mor●●n did advisedly, in bringing in mention of these 〈◊〉, and of their contention with S. Augustine, ●●out the true Church, and manners both of heretics & Catholics. Wherein they are so like unto Protestant's, both in words & actions, & S Augustine 〈◊〉 a Papist, as that there needeth nothing but the ●hange of names to distinguish, or agree them with ●ou, or us, at this tyme.  
I would wish also the said Reader to consider the last ●art of this your Epistle, where you say that you do convince me out of my own Confession, granting, that there is an Equivocation, which no clause of mental reservation can save from a lie: 
Preamb. p. 43. & 48.  and you set it down in a different letter, as though they were my words. But if the said Reader go to the place, where I do handle this matter, both in the second and seventh Chapters of this my Answer, he will find, that I say no such thing, either in word or sense, but rather the quite contrary: to wit, that there is an external speech (as that of Saphyra in the Acts of the Apostles, for thereof was the question) which no mental reservation can justify from a lie, and consequently nor make properly an Equivocation, for that it is false in the mind of the speaker, and so cannot stand with the nature of Equivocation (that always must be true) as hath been largely demonstrated in our Treatise of that matter.  
Which point being once well noted & pondered by your Reader, he will wonder at your strange vaunting illation made hereupon, that is to say, upon your own fiction, when you write: 
About the Equivocation of Saphyra.  That this one Confession of mine is sufficient to convince all mental Equivocators to be apparent liars. And yet further: That by this you have obtained your whole cause in both qu●stions, of Rebellion & Equivocation, which is a short & compendicus Conquest, if it be well considered, & such as ●u●rie man may frame unto himself by ●alse charging his Adversary. And this shall suffice for advertisement to your Reader in this place, & upon this your epistle to me. For albeit sundry other things might be observed, yet is the study of brevity to be preferred: & what remaineth to be advertised to yourself, willbe common also to your Reader, until I return unto him again, as a little after in this Epistle I mean to do, to the end not to weary you over much with so many admonitions to yourself. Now then shall I pass to the principal points, whereof I think you to be admonished.  
Among which, the first & chief is, that you se●me greatly to mistake my meaning, or at leastwise my affection in writing against you, as though it were malignant, contemptuous, despiteful, & full of hatred & aversion of mind: which Almighty God (I hope) knoweth to be far otherwise: 
That I am in charity with M. Morton.  and that I do love you in Christ jesus with all my hart, wishing you all good in him & for him, but especially the best good for the salvation of your soul: for which I would be content to undergo any pains or peril whatsoever; esteeming also (as they deserve) your good parts & talents, if they were rightly employed by you to the advancement of God's truth, as hitherto they seem to me to have ●in to the contrary. And if in our contention about this matter, I have se●med sometimes to have been over sharp ●r earnest in my writing, I do assure you, that it proceedeth not from hatred or contempt of your person, but rather from some grief or indignation of mind, to see you so greatly deceived, or endeavour to deceive.  
Three things also I must confess to have b●ne the special causes of this grief and indignation sometimes conceived. 
Three causes of exasperation.  The first, to see a young man (as they say you are) so lately come from the Schools, so lightly furnished, and so little experienced in greater studies, as scarcely you could have life or leisure to look at the variety of Books & Authors that have written thereof, especially concerning the Catholic religion for a thousand years together, which you grant to be ours, to come forth as it were in his hose and doublet, & challenge the whole Church of God and the whole rank of profound learned men thereof, whose books for deep learning, judgement and variety of reading, you can not but confess in truth and modesty, that you are not able to bear after them. And finally they are thousands, and you are but one: thy were old, you are young: their beards were hoary and grey, yours is yet red: they wore out their ages with study, you have yet but lately begun: they have had the continuance of many ages, the wit, learning, experience, diligence of all Christian Nations that held the same Religion with them, 
M. Mort. great presumption.  your prescription of time is small, your association of fellows, Fathers & Doctors, or councils less. For if you go out of the little Island of Brittany, where all that profess themselves Protestant's, in all things are not wholly with you; you shall find abroad all the rest in most things against you. And yet do you so confidently triumph and insult every where, as though you alone were able to overcome and vanquish whatsoever was established before you in our Religion different from yours, saying every where, with contempt, when you speak of this rank of learned men, and when any thing displeaseth you in them, your own Bishops, your own Doctors, your own councils, your own Fathers, your own Popes say this or that: yea though they were never so ancient and holy. As of three Popes together Zozimus, Bonifacius, 
Preamb. p. 51.  & Celestinus, that lived with S. Augustine, and were highly commended by him above twelve hundred years ago, you speak so contemptuously, as if they had been some three petty Ministers of your own rank. And this I confess to have been one principal cause of my sharp writing against you: which yet if you would once amend on your part, you should quickly find correspondence on mine. And so I suppose ●ou will perceive, that I have begone in this Book; ●hough whiles you persevere in your old vain of pre●●mption and insolency, you are like to draw forth answers nothing pleasing your own humour: which ●ing of pride, as in all Sectaries as accustomed to be, 〈◊〉 liketh humility and patience in all people, but only 〈◊〉 themselves.  
Another cause was the circumstance of time, 
The second cause of exasperation.  when 〈◊〉 wrote your first. Discovery against Catholics. 〈◊〉 not being contented to have set abroad divers ●●●tings of yours in Latin, touching f●ygned absurdities and contraries of doctrine f●und, as you pre●●●●, in their writings (whereof you are like shortly cheer out of Germany, & to receive the said absurdities and falsehoods doubled upon yourself, as ●●u will perceive by that piece of the latin Epistle ●●itten from thence, which I have imparted with ●●u in the last Chapter of this my reckoning:) not contented (I say) with this injury offered us, ●ou watching a time of pressure and tribulation, & finding the same to fall out in full measure by the hateful accident of the powder-treason, you ran as the Raven to the fallen sheep to pick out her eyes: that is to say, to add exasperation to exasperation, affliction to affliction, calumniation to sycophancy against all sorts of Catholics. And then came forth in haste your little infamous bloody Libel without a name, which out of your charity would needs make all catholics Traitors in the very root of Catholicisme itself, that is to say, in the fundamental doctrine of their Religion. So as every one of them must be forced to deny his faith in that Religion, or else acknowledge himself traitorous in his duty of temporal allegiance and subjection. Which paradox to make somewhat probable, you were forced to accompany with so many fraudulent shifts, deceits and falsities as have been convinced against you, in my former Treatise, & confirmed now in this: which though of itself it moved no small indignation, to see so many manifest falsehoods, so boldly avouched and ratified again by you afterwards, as in this final reckoning will appear: yet must I confess that the foresaid circumstance of time did principally move me to be more sharp in my Confutation.  
And it made me also to remember a certain history, that I had read in old Lactantius Firmianus in his first book, entitled De justitia, which I shall recite as I find it in him: you may apply unto yourself so much thereof, as you may think to fit you. The story is of a certain heathen Philosopher, who in time of persecution took occasion to write against Christian religion. Ego (saith Lactantius) cum in Bithynia Oratorias litteras accitus docerem etc. 
A story out of Lactantius, about the circumstance of time, which an enemy of Christian Religion took for his advantage.  When as I being sent for, taught Rhetoric in Bythinia, and the Churches of Christians (by the Edicts of Diocletian & Maximinian) were commanded to be overthrown, a certain chief Philosopher taking the occasion of that time, nescio utrum superbiùs an importuniùs iacenti atque abiectae veritati insultaret, did insult over the truth of Christ's Religion oppressed and trodden under foot, I know not whether with greater pride or importunity etc. And then he describeth at large the manners of this Philosopher, which were overlong to repeat here. I mean of his Lybertine life, of his good fare, of his ambition with the Magistrate and Princes. And finally he saith of him: Disputationes suas moribus destruebat, & mores disputationibus arguebat: ipse adversus se gravis censor & acer●imus accusator: He overthrew his disoutations' ●ith his manners, and condemned his own manners by his disputations: being a grave Censurer and most sharp accuser against himself. And then saith further: Eodem ipso tempore quo justus populus nefariè lacerabatur, tres Libros evomuit contra Religionem nomenque Christianum. In the very self same time, that the innocent Christian people were impiously torn in pieces by the persecutor, he cast forth three Books against the Religion and name of Christians. And Lactantius adds, that albeit he was effusus in Principun laudes, and flattered the Emperors then living (no l●sse th●n M. Morton hath done ours:) yet all sorts of men, aswell Heathen as others, did mislike and detest his cruel devise, to write against them● when as they lay under so heavy a yoke of present persecution. Id omnes arguebant (saith he) quòd illo potissimùm tempore id ope●is es●et agressus, quo furebat odiosa crudelitas. All sorts of men did condemn this, that he had taken in hand to put forth his books at that special time, when odious cruelty raged against all Christians. And then immediately addeth: o Philosophum adulatorem, ac tempori seruientem! O flattering Philosopher and tymeseruer! A fit encomium for such an enterprise.  
And with the same will I leave you M. Morton, and ●nd the relation of this history, permitting unto yourself, or to your Reader, to apply so much thereof unto you, as the likeness of your cases and facts doth deserve. Only I must say, that the malice in taking hold of the circumstance of time seems so very like and conform, as I cannot dou●t, but that as many Heathen men then, otherwise modest and morally honest, took compassion of the afflicted Christians, and detested the afflicter: so many Protestants in our case would do the same, whereof myself can be witness of some. And thus much for this second point.  
The third thing that excited me to be more sharp sometimes with you, 
The third cause of exasperation.  was your manner of writing, so exorbitant in divers respects, as I never lightly read the like: but especially in professing sincerity with great vehemency, when you could not but probably know, that you had, or did, and would deceive; whereof there are so many examples, as there are witting falsities couin●ed against you in this subsequent Worke. Your ●auntes in like manner are wonderful extravagant and provocatory, as we have now heard out ●f your new Challenges, repeated in part in the recedent Epistle.  
I will pretermit divers other excesses and ●erlashings in your book, which cannot but stimulate your Answerer to some sharpness in ●●iting. As for example, where pag 29. you ●ite of me thus: 
M. Mort. provocatory speeches.  I do profess unfeignedly, ●t I never found any writer of any profes●●n whatsoever, who hath used such shameful fraud in answering: and ●et except you have 〈◊〉 yourself, you have found one of your own profession, I m●ane yourself, that hath used n● times more: you being most evidently con●●cted thereof in this my re●ly, and no one fraud 〈◊〉 fairhood in all the work being able to be verified against m●, as experience will teach him, ●●at will take the pains to peruse these our Reckoning.  
Again, pag 43. you beginning to speak ●f the lie of Saphyra which she made to S. Peter in the Acts, of the Apostles, and supposing it to be an Equivocation, which I deny; you say in the title of the Paragraph, 
Act. 5.  that I myself do flatly overthrow thereby my whole defence of mental Equivocation, which (say you) is made so evident, as no wit of man can possibly excuse it. And yet when the matter cometh to be tried, every mean wit may easily perceive, that you understood not, or mistook of purpose the question, as afterward in this Answer is declared. And yet do you insult strangely saying: 
Preamb. pag. 48.  Where is now P.R. etc. where is this Man, the new select Advocate for this cause? May he not say hereafter, I was ashamed, and therefore hid myself, so naked doth his deformity appear. And yet further you say: 
A fond insultation.  He being pressed with this example out of Scripture (to wit of Saphyra her speech to S. Peter) is driven into such a vertigo and giddiness, that even when he would defend his art of Equivocating from a lie, he is by consequence from God's word forced to confess, that there is an outward speech, which no clause of Reservation can save from a lie: whereby his own Magis, I doubt not, willbe brought to acknowledge, that Digitus Dei est hic, this is the power of God's truth.  
This is the ado you make, M. Morton, about this example of Saphyra, adding also presently, that by this, you have obtained your whole cause. But in truth you have obtained to make yourself ridiculous thereby, as you handle it. For what is there in this matter that should cause me to run away, and hide myself, as you do feign, and not dare to appear, when you call so earnestly upon me? What have you proved? What have you convinced against me? You say that her words to S. Peter (I have sold it for no more) was no less an Equivocation, then to say, I am no Priest. But I deny it, and do say it was a lie, and no Equivocation. For that she had obligation to utter the truth to S. Peter that was her lawful judge, and so hath not the Priest, that is demanded by him, who is not his lawful judge.  
You say that, 
Preamble. p. 48.  I being pressed with this example out of Scripture from Gods Word● am forced to confess an outward speech, which no clause of reservation can save from a lie. Whereto I answer, that no force of example from God's Word is needful for this. For ever it was granted, and so must be, that there be infinite outward speeches, which no mental reservation can save from lies, if there be obligation to tell the truth, as in the case of Saphyra there was. And therefore for you to bring in the Magis wondering here at the power of God enforcing me to such a vertigo, is both Comical and ridiculous indeed.  
And yet by the way I must further put you in mind● that you do deliver me here from a contradiction, and involve yourself in a falsehood unanswerable in reciting of these words of mine. For that before in your Epistle to myself you recite my Confession thus: 
M Morton taken in an open contradiction.  That there is a mental Equivocation which no clause of reservation can save from a lie. And here you say: I am forced to confess an outward speech, which no clause of reservation can save from a lie. Between which two recitals there is great difference, as before we have showed, & no less than between truth and falsehood. So as if you write truly here, you spoke falsely before: and if truly before, then falsely now. And thus much have I been enforced to admonish you of at this time, by the perversity of your own words and manner of writing.  
Many other things I should have to warn M. Morton of, in this point concerning his manner of style in writing, sed nescio an possit portare modò: I would be loath to be importune, & he is to hear them afterwards in the combat and concertation itself. Only I cannot omit to say a word or two about his Epistle Dedicatory to the Earl of Salisbury, and therewith make an end of this admonition. He beginneth his narration thus. 
M. Mort. epistle to the Earl of Salisbury.  I therefore esteemed it my duty in presence of your Honour, by this Preamble to sponge out such vile imputations, wherewith my Adversary endeavoured, through me (alas) one of the least of the Prophets, to distain both my Mother and her Sister the famous Universities, and those Honourable Persons, unto whose care and providence they ●re committed. So he. Whereby you see this little Prophet will needs interpret the imputations ●f false dealing laid against himself, by, & through ●im, to fall upon the two Universities, his Mot●er ●nd Aunt, and other Honourable Persons that ●aue the care and government of them: which is ●ot needful at all. For that, as the Scripture ●ith: The Son shall not bear the iniquity of ●●e Father, nor the Father of the Son, 
Ezech. 31.  but e●●ry one must answer for himself: let us se●●●en, how M. Morton doth perform this point. 
M. Mort. confidence.  ●●en then (saith he) when I was in greatest ●●●lousie of mine own myscarriage, I concei●●d a double matter of comfort. First from ●● self, that knowing I durst present my applications unto the judge of the secret naughts of all hearts, I doubted not but that ●ng able with true confidence to appear ●ore God, I should not greatly fear the ●●sure of man.  
This is one defence more Rhetorical than real. 〈◊〉 how could he dare with such confidence appear before God, with the burden of so many ●ntruthes, as afterward you will see convinced ●●ainst him, especially in the three last Chapters ●f this our Answer? And if he be not able to defend them before man, how will he justify thē●efore God?  
Let us see his second defence, for this first standeth only upon his own confidence. Secondly (saith he) from my adversary, took I matter of comfort, presuming that he that would write in defence of mental Equivocation, would be found to equivocate in writing also. This you see is but a presumption, and that a very poor one. For as a man may write of war and yet not fight; and of Agriculture or husbandry, and yet neither plough nor sow: 
His strong presumption.  So may he write of Equivocation, and yet not Equivocate, and Equivocate also and yet not lie. So as this could be but a silly comfort for M. Morton to presuppose and hope that I would Equivocate in writing of Equivocation, which was not needful. And if I had; yet might I do it without lying: and so nothing thereby have relieved his case, that was so deeply charged with that fault. And finally, if I had been able to be convinced of any point in that kind (as afterward you will see that I was not:) yet S. Augustine's rule is, Quod societas peccantium auget potius quam excusat peccatum: Fellowship in sin increaseth rather than excuseth the fault. Though truly it may se●me that M. Morton would highly esteem this fellowship with me, if he could bring it about, and think himself well defended, if he could attain it. Which I am lead to believe, not only by his labour, diligence & solicitude therein, but by the last Conclusion of his forenamed Epistle to myself, which he endeth thus for an upshoot.  
I may think (saith he) the Scripture verified upon you, where it is thus written: Therefore art thou inexcusable (O man) whosoever thou be, that judgest: 
Rom. 2. vers. 1.  for doing the same things, by judging an other, thou condemnest thyself.  
Out of which text of the Apostle M. Morton would prove, 
M. Mort. seeketh some association.  that I doing the same things with him (in this point of fraud and false dealing) I cannot condemn him, without condemning also myself: which consequence I grant, but deny the antecedent. Which I assure myself M. Morton will never be able to prove in any one point of moment, throughout this whole concertation of ours; himself being taken faulty almost at every turn, as you will see.  
And yet doth he vaunt, as though his integrity were extraordinary in this behalf, telling us, that as the Greek Commander being in appearance mortally wounded, demanded of his soldiers, whether the City were safe? whether his ●uckler or shield were sound? and being satisfied in them, received health, and after be●ame victorious: So he under so ghastly wounds ●f my pen, having generally inquired, & ●prightly answered himself, that his cause was ●afe and his conscience sound, began more resolutely to confront me.  
Thus you see, that he hath cleared himself, & is become victorious upon a sudden by force of a similitude only. And in truth the tale is prettily told by him in words, but let us come to the substance of the things. If M. Mortons' cause be so safe, and his conscience so sound, how do there stand together afterward in the sixth Chapter of this my Answer, above thirty untruths, 
The multitude of M. Mortons' untruths.  pretended to have been wittingly pretermitted by him in his last Preamblatorie Reply, as unanswerable? & now above fifty more newly added out of the said Reply, which are set down in my seventh Chapter? If these can be really defended by him, he doth somewhat. And for divers of them, he ought to have done it before. But if they cannot (as I assure myself without making of more new, they cannot) then is neither M. Mortons' cause safe, nor his conscience sound in this behalf. Nay his shield and buckler is utterly broken, and his City of refuge quite overthrown.  

In the same Epistle dedicatory.  But he promiseth us a more forcible Encounter to ensue, after he hath discharged his part in another task of more importance, in the Answer of the Catholic Apology, which, saith he, by this calumnious Treatise of P. R. his Mitigation, as by an adverse tempest, hath received some interruption.  
And by this you see, that M. Morton is still doing, whether well or evil, God knoweth. I marvel he feareth not the scratch due to his itch, whereof he speaketh in his Preamble. For if out of Germany there come that multitude of scratches, that is threatened by him whose letter I have mentioned in the latter end of this Answer, & do join themselves with these scratches of mine, both old and new, that do march together in this my answer against him, they are like to make a great squadron And M. Morton will have his hands full in defending himself from them, and in procuring, that of scratches and scars they do not become deeper wounds unto his credit. 
The new Encounter threatened  But indeed I do not expect any such new Encounter as he promises. For if he had really meant it, and had seen himself able to perform it, he would have answered substantially, in this Preamble, some of the chiefest difficulties that were laid against him, to the end to make his Reader believe, that he would be able to satisfy the rest in the said promised Encounter. But not doing this, but showing rather his extreme weakness in clearing any one point objected against him, it seemeth but a jest to talk of a new Encounter to come.  
And as for answering the Catholic Apology, which, he saith, he is in hand withal, as 〈◊〉 task of more importance, I do easily grant 〈◊〉, if he can perform his task well. But M. Morton well knoweth the Topical place, à ma●ori ad minus, & è converso: If he have not ●yn able to perform lesser matters, nor defend the things by himself written either in Latin or English, but by so many untruths as have been exhibited against him, what will he be able to do in another man's work, especially of such moment & difficulty, as the said Apology is: where he must answer to other men's sayings, especially Protestant's, out of whose testimonies the Author of that Apology doth so clearly con●ute their Religion and confirm the Catholic, 
The Catholic A●●logie entitled by the Author: The Protestants Apology.  if I mistake not the work, as never any book written in our language hath more ●ff●ctually done. And consequently the confutation of this book would require an impugner of more substance and stronger s●n●wes, than those of M. Morton, though otherwise I understand, that God be thanked, his bodily constitution be neither weak nor feeble.  
But to come to an end, let us see how he concludeth his Epistle to the Earl of Salisbury. If by this brief Preamble it be not manifest (saith he) that P. R. hath in this Treatise prevaricated in his whole cause, 
M. M●rt● triumphant c●̄culsi●●.  both in the question of Rebellion and Equivocation, betrayed his countries State, disgraced the Romish Schools, and strangled his own conscience: I refuse not, that to the crimes objected against me by him, this may be added, that I durst affirm so much before your Lordship. To which Rhetorical and flourishing conclusion I know n●e better answer th●n to accept of the of●er. And for trial thereof to refer me to the Book h●re in hand, which treateth every thing punctually and exactly: inviting by this occasion the Honourable parsonage h●re named to t●e r●ading and perusing thereof. For though the difference of our cause be disfavourable unto me with his Lordship; y●t dare I confided in the equanimity of his judgement, in a case of such quality, as h●re is s●t down, about prevaricating in my cause, betraying my Country, disgracing our Schools, and strangling my own Conscience.  
All which depending upon our manner of proceeding in the ensuing points of this Book, his Lordship will easily discover with the quick ●ye of ●is judgement the truth of things, though it were ●gainst himself. And therefore I do willingly ●ay hands upon the last clause of this Challenge of ●. Morton, to wit: that if he prove not all ●hese things here objected against me, and clear himself from all imputations of wilful untruths ●yd against him in my Treatise of Mitigation, 〈◊〉 is content to have this added also, as the greatest sin of all the rest, that he durst affirm ●●e same unto his Lordship.  
Wherein I could convince him presently, if I ●ould, without further dispute. For that he ta●●ng upon him in this his Preamble to answer ●●ly 14. untruths, of more than 40. objected ●●ainst him, it is evident, that he cleareth him●●●fe not fr●m the rest t●at he pretermitted. ●nd then la●ing unto this that in the said 14. he 〈◊〉 found not to have cleared himself substantially ●●om any one of moment, but to have adjoined ●boue 40. or 50. more, as is declared in the subsequent Treatise, how can he defend himself b●fore my L. of Salisburies' Honour, from open prevaricating in this his Challenge?  
But I will not pr●sse him any further here: let the ensuing Combat discern & try between us. And so returning to talk with M. Morton again, whom for a time I have left, and spoke● in the third person, to the end I might not seem to object to his face so many important defaults together: I do say, Sir, that now you see, that I have been bold to use the liberty that you gave me in the subscription of your Letter, when you say, that you are mine, to warn, and to b● warned: I have received your warning and returned mine. I beseech almighty God, it may-be to his greater glory, and both our goods, or at leastwise of other men, that shall read or hear the same.  
Yours, Wishing you all good, in the author of all goodness, P. R.   

Faults escaped in the Printing.  

●pist. Dedic. pag. 6 lin. 4 for he, read we,  
●pist. Admon. pag. 4● lin. 13 for nor, read not   
●ag● Line Fault Correction 〈◊〉 24 in latin in relating 〈◊〉 27 hears hearers 〈◊〉 18 use the use 〈◊〉 23 impawing impawning 〈◊〉 vl●. competèt competent 〈◊〉 28 stuly study 〈◊〉 ● some all 〈◊〉 Ibid. Equivocation be Equivocation or lying be 〈◊〉 28 said say 〈◊〉 31 indeed, though indeed my father is not dead though & ●. 〈◊〉 18 evident evidently 〈◊〉 26 is in 〈◊〉 14 one own 〈◊〉 2 had had he had had 〈◊〉 34 begin being 〈◊〉 35 pertracta pertractata ●●2 10 Clemens, Alexander, Clemens Alexandrinus ●●7 ● these are these ●01 29 Chapters Charges 314 28 quod quid A 1 28 verve virtue ●01 5 answer Answerer ●11 27 these those 427 25 the law, the new spi- the new law, the spiritual etc. 434 5 over ever 462 11 which with 477 3 is as 540 7 to do 640 16 objection: others objection of other● 642 14 Chap. 5. Chap. 3. 648 4 fourth Chap. fifth Chap●   

THE FIRST CHAPTER ANSWERING TO THE FIRST OF ●. THOMAS MORTONS' three vain Inquiries, concerning the Wit, Memory, Learning, Charity, Modesty, and Truth of his Adversary P. R.  

THE PREFACE.  
THE very title of this M. Morton● first Inquiry, about the insufficiency of his adversary, doth plainly show, that he was in choler & passion, when he wrote it: for that otherwise in so grave and weighty controversies, as are between us, he would vever have rifled so manifestly, as by leaving the matter to run ●o the person, and fall a scolding and scratching, according to his former threat. For what are these personal impugnations, but scratches, whereof you shall have here store, to wit, some seven or eight whole Paragraphes; which yet are such, as draw no blood, nor do scar any man, but the scratcher himself, as by further examination it will appear. For first, what doth he gain to his cause, if he could prove indeed, that his Adversary had scarcity both of wit, memory, learning, Greek, Hebrew, Logic, and other abilities here mentioned? Were not his victory the less in overcoming so weak an adversary? And were not his shame the greater, if he should be overcome by him? Yes truly.  
1. Moreover M. Mortons' intention being, or aught to be, principally to satisfy the charges and imputations of falsehood, and untrue dealing, laid unto him in the Treatise of Mitigation; (for hastening whereunto, for that they raised great scars in the reader's eye, he omitted to handle any thing at all of the chief argument of that Treatise) it seemeth very impertinent, 
Holding of from the matter.  that he should lose so much time, and spend so much paper in premising so many skirmishes, as are these Paragraphes, about the sufficiency or insufficiency of his adversary, before the main battle itself: but the reason is conceived to be the small comfort he had to come to the said battle; and therefore as scholars, that are truants, do seek occasions to loiter and linger, and ●ntertayne themselves in every corner of the street, thereby to prolong their journey: so M. Morton in this affair. For albeit he pretend and profess his purpose to be● to clear himself from the said imputatios; yet knowing how little able he is to do it, and how small comfort he is to receive therein, when he cometh to the point, he differreth the matter as long as he can, which is, to the very last end of his book, spending first in this first Inquiry eight or nine Paragraphes, as hath been said, to inquire of my sufficiency: and then some other about the title of my Treatise, pretermitting the whole substance; then many other to prove ●hat divers Catholic writers, Popes, and Coun●ells have uttered also some falsities and contradictions; then that Cardinal Bellarmine hath done ●he like; and than that I have my part also in such ●anner of dealing: All which serveth, as you see, to ●●are of from coming to the main point of clearing himself. And this course he holdeth unto the very ●●st cast of his book, to wit, to the 18. Paragraph, ●hich is next to the conclusion. And finally when he ●●teth upon the matter, & pretendeth to satisfy four●●●ne imputations of above forty laid against him, 〈◊〉 doth it so weakly and insufficiently, as each man 〈◊〉 see, why he was so loath to come unto the trial: 〈◊〉 this will you also see, by the view of the work 〈…〉 lfe, if you please to take the pains to look it 〈◊〉.   

M. MORTONS' Impugnation of P. R. his Wit examined. § I.  
THis Paragraph is set down by M. Morton in these words: 
1 About the sleeping soldiers of Jerusalem.  An argument of P. R. his kind of wit, ●●●ch may seem to have been in a slumber, when he made his 〈◊〉. And again in the table of his Inquiries & Pa●●●raphes, he frameth a title thus; An argument, that ●● R. his wit was in a slumber in answering to the point of the ●●●eping soldiers: whereby it appeareth that he argueth 〈◊〉 to have little wit (as indeed without folly I cannot presume of much) and the cause why he takes all wit from me, is, for that in my Epistle dedicatory to the Universities of England I reprehended ●s idle and impertinent in his Epistle, to our deceived brethren (as contemptuosly he called them) his censure, that it was against common sense, that the sleeping soldiers of Jerusalem should be able to tell, that our saviours disciples had stole● him away, while they were asleep: to which end he citeth here in this Paragraph my words at length though leaving out some in the beginning, which make to the explication of the matter, and therefore must here be added by me. Thus than they lie, which I shall set down by way of Charge, as M. Morton himself ordinarily doth, and thereupon afterward shall we see his discharge and so friendly make up th● reckoning.  

The Charge of P.R.  
3. As for the other (Epistle) say I, which scornfully he directeth to our deceived brethren, it is so short● fond, and idle a thing, that it deserveth no answer at all; 
The treatise of Mitigation in the Epistle to the Universities. num. 23.  the principal point, whereupon he standeth therein, being this, that Catholic people are seduced by their Priests, who will be Doctors (saith he out of S. Paul to Timothy) and yet understand not what they say, nor whereof they assirme. But whether this description of fond presumptuous doctors touched by S. Paul, do agree rather to Protestant ministers, or to Catholic Priests, will appear in great part, by reading over this book, especially the 5.8. and 10. Chapters, if by Thomas Mortons' errors and ignorances, a scantling may be taken of the rest. But now let us see, how he doth go about to prove, that our priests are such bad doctors as S. Paul speaketh of. 
1. Tim. 2.   
4. This chief proof consisteth in a certain comparing of th●m with those jewish priests of the old law in Christ's time, who taught the soldiers that watched at the sepulchre of our Saviour, to say, that whilst they were sl●●●ping his disciples came and stole ●im away. Comm●n s●ns● (saith he) might have r●ply●d, how could you t●ll ●ha● was done, when you were all asleep? but minds enthralled in the opinion of a never-erring Priesthood (which confirmed that answer) could not possibly but err with their priests: such alas, is the case of all them etc. Do you see how substantially he hath proved the matter? Let us examine the particulars: first the story, than the inference.  
5. About the story S. Matthew recounteth in the 28. Chapter of his Gospel, 
The story of the sleeping soldiers. Matth. 28.  how Christ our Saviour being raised miraculously from death to life, with a great and dreadful earthquake, and descent of an Angel, so as the soldiers, that kept the Sepulchre were astonished and almost dead for fear, some of them ran and told the chief Priests thereof: who making a consultation with the Elders, devised this shift to give them store of money, and to bid them say, that in the night, when they were asleep, his Disciples came and stole him away, and so they did. And S. Matthew addeth, that this false brute ran currant among the jews, even until that time, wherein he wrote his Gospel. This is the narration; what hath now Thomas Morton to say against us? for thereunto is all his drift.  
6. First he saith, as you have heard, that this devise was improbable and against common sense it sel●e. Common sense (saith he) might have replied (to the soldiers) what could you tell what was done, when you were all asleep? See here the sharpness of Tho. Mortons' wit, above that of the Priests; Scribes, & pharisees. 
How men may know what is done when they are asleep  But what if one of the soldiers had replied to him thus: we saw it not, when we were asleep, but afterward when we were awakened, we perceived that he was stolen away; what rejoinder would our Minister make? As for example, if Tho. Morton were walking with a communion book under his ●●me through a field, and wearied should lie down to sleep, with his book by his side, and at his awaking should see his book gone, were it against common sense for him to say, that his book was stolen from him, while he was asleep? or is not this an assertion fit for one of those doctors, whereof S. Paul talketh, that understand not what they say, or whereof they affirm? But this will better yet appear by the second part, which is his inference: wherefore we must a little also examine that.  
7. But minds (saith he) enthralled in the opinion of a never-erring priesthood (which confirmed that answer) could not possibly but err with their Priests: such, alas, is the case of all them etc. The malicious man would deface Christian priesthood by the jewish priesthood, and our priests by theirs: but consider how far he runneth from the mark in both. Minds enthralled (saith he) in the opinion of a never-erring priesthood, which confirmed that answer. etc. Did the priesthood of jewry confirm this answer? who saith so? we read that the priests with the Elders did devise this answer, and they knew they did evil and lie therein: and so did the soldiers also that published the same.  
8. But this was a matter of fact, not a determination of faith. Neither among the jews, nor Christians, was there ever opinion that Priests or Priesthood could not err in matters of fact, life, or their manners. How then is this to the purpose? Or doth not this also prove him to be one of those forenamed Doctors that understand not what they say, or whereof they affirm? How much more modesty, and piety had it been in Tho. Morton to have followed the example of Christ and his Apostles, who though persecuted by those Priests, yet both thought and spoke reverently of their Priesthood.   

The Reckoning upon the premises.  
9 Thus much I wrote in my former Treatise of Mitigation, and this discourse of mine is the argument whereby M. Morton concludeth against my wit, as you have heard, and in his answer calleth this my speech two or three times wittlesse. But for that I respect not so much wit, as truth in this affair, I am content to remit myself to the Reader, who perhaps is wiser than us both, and will see what folly it is so unwisely to contend about the commendation of our wits. But let us friendly & soberly (M. Morton) see your discharge and make the reckoning according to reason: 
Preamb. pag. 4. num. 4.  You say that I have showed myself by this inference both shameless and witless, shameless to impute ●hat for absurdity to you, which I might have known to be the ●ise and learned inference of ancient Fathers etc. And who ●re those ancient Father's Sir? You name only S. Au●●stine in his tenth Tome, 
Aug. tom. 10. hom. 36. ad finem.  whose words are as you allege them: O evil and most wicked men, either you were awake, or asleep, and knew not what was ●one etc. intimating this Dilemma (say you) that either you were awake or asleep; if awake, than confess what was done, Christ is risen out of the grave; ●f a sleep, than you knew not what was done. Thus ●. Augustine.  
●0. Whereunto I answer, that S. Augustine ar●ueth well against the soldiers; that if they were a●eepe when Christ did rise from death they could not ●now by any certainty that Christ his disciples came and stole him away, 
The soldiers speech was against truth, but not common sense  and therefore they did both fond and wickedly in avouching and testifying the same for certain and true. But S. Austin doth not say as you say, that the devise was against common sense, for than it would not have been believed so generally for so many years after, as S. Matthew insinuateth that it was unto his time when he wrote his gospel; nor would the Priests, Doctors, and principal jews of the Synagogue, which had not only common sense but worldly wisdom also, either have devised this shift, or have given money to have it published, or would they have suffered the same to have been proposed to their Governor Pilate for contenting him, who being a Roman & a wise worldly man, would never have hearkened unto it or admitted the same, if the proposition had been against common sense & reason, as M. Morton affirmeth.  
11. Besides this, if some of us, even the wisest among us should imagine ourselves to have been with the jews and Gentiles in Jerusalem at that time, and wanting the light of faith, should have heard a company of watchmen affirm unto us, that a certain man esteemed and followed by many in his life time, and afterwards slain, buried, and watched by them at his Sepulchre, and at the third day to have been suddenly gone from thence, & not to be found; What would worldly reason (that never dreamt of resurrection) have suggested in this case, 
An evident example.  but that some of his followers amongst so many as Christ was known to have had in his life time, had come and secretly taken him away? Had not this been probable in such a case to man's discourse? had this been against common sense to have alleged this excuse? who will say so, that is endued with common sense? But (saith M. Morton) the soldiers could not know at leastwise if he were stolen away his disciples had done it; which I grant that they could not know it for certain, but by probability only, which probability notwithstanding was very great, for that his enemies would not have adventured to do it with so great danger, ergo, it is likely they were his friends and followers, scholars and disciples. And is not this probable? is this repugnant to common sense and reason, as M. Morton affirmeth?  
12. But it was (saith he) a lie: I grant, & that many lies are more probable than some truths; the question than is, whether it were a probable lie, or else so absurd, as it repugned to common sense? The former I affirmed, the later is M. Mortons' position, who holdeth me for witless, for saying the contrary: for so he writeth again a little after the former: Howsoever (saith he) it be, sure I am P.R. hath showed himself very ●●i●les herein etc. 
Pream. pag. 4.  And a few lines before this again, ●he accuseth me for holding with the soldiers, and allowing the inference to be good against Christ's resurrection, and maketh this note in the margin, P. R. grossly ignorant in Divinity, and further saith, that 〈◊〉 hopeth that my faith is not so far asleep, 
divers fond absurdities of M Mortons' speech.  as to prejudicate ●he chief article o● our Christian faith (about the resurrection of ●ur Saviour) by this assertion: All which is strange that 〈◊〉 will repeat here again, for so much as my ●ordes are plain in my book before recited, affirming, that the jewish Priests with the Elders did devise this unswere, and they knew they did evil, and lied therein; and so ●●●d the soldiers also that published the same. But yet I hold ●hat this lie was not senseless, 
Mitig. in Ep. to the Universities.  or against common sense 〈◊〉 M. Mort. fond affirmeth it to be. Again I said that 〈◊〉 is false which he wrote in his other book of full satisfaction that the never-erring priesthood of the jews did confirm this answer, of the soldiers, as a truth; for ●hat they knew it was a lie as having feigned and de●ised it themselves, but yet thinking it a probable shift 〈◊〉 delude the people withal for the present.  
13. Wherefore I come now to the conclusion and upshot of all this Reckoning which M. Mort. knitteth up thus: Even so it falleth out (saith he) with my adversary P. R. who hath bewrayed his singular sottishness in the inference wherein he meant to give us a special argument of his wit. This is somewhat sharp, as you see, but I pardon easily the passion: some words must be allowed to leesers: let the sum of the Reckoning be this, 
The upshot of the reckoning  that whereas we all do agree, that the soldiers speech was false, M. Morton holdeth further, that it was senseless and against common reason, and myself witless for affirming, that it had any sense or probability therein. Let the prudent Reader judge, where the wit lieth.    

M. MORTONS' Objection against P. R. his Memory. §. II.  

2 About the clause of reservation uttered in Latin.  AFTER the impugnation of my Wit, M. Morton taketh upon him to disgrace my Memory, intituling his second Paragragh thus: An argument of the rare Memory of P. R. bewraying his free will to lying; & then beginneth he the said Paragraph in these words: To make me seem ridiculously cautelous (saith he) as intending wheresoever their equivocating forgery was to be spoken of, to keep the clause of mental reservation under a latin lock, and not Englished, least weakones might learn to practise that Magical art, P. R. saith, that Thom. Morton, though he promised to put it down always in Latin, so as it should not be understood by the vulgar Reader, yet hath he not (to his remembrance) set down the said clause of reservation in Latin, but once through all his book of full satisfaction, and that in four words in the second page thereof, the said reservation being mentioned in English more perhaps, then forty times. Out of which words of mine, M. Morton indeavoreth to infer many falsities, and absurdities against me, both of bad Memory and worse Will: for that, as he saith, the said Clause of Reservation is found to have been set down by him in Latin, not only once, as I say, but more than twenty times in his Treatises of equivocation. Whereunto I answer, that albeit, that all this were granted; yet is the matter idle, and of no importance, yea a mere cavil, for ●o much as I say (perhaps) as presently shallbe showed.  
15. But first of all before we answer to this charge ●gainst my bad Memory, we must show him to be contrary to himself (which argueth no good Memory) in that he contradicteth in his foresaid Epistle dedicatory to the King, that which here in his Preamble he writeth, to wit, in affirming here, as ●ou have heard, that he had no intention to keep the clause of ●entall reservation under a latin lock, and not English it, least ●eake ones might learn etc. 
Preamb. p. 5.  Whereas in his said Epistle ●o his Ma.tie he promiseth otherwise, and his words ●re these: Notwithstanding lest that the publishing ●f this cursed art might in respect of the more carnal●● minded aedificare ad gehennan, 
Full satisfact. Epistle to the King.  edify unto hell (as that reverend Bishop of Chichester and learned Father 〈◊〉 our Church hath said) I have framed this dispute, ●hat it may seem (I hope) to be like to Aristotle's Books ●f Natural Philosophy, so published as not published, because the clause of mental reservation (the tail of ●his serpent, wherein the whole poison lieth) is always delivered in Latin phrase, to his end, that only ●he guilty party by his sensible conjecture may per●eyue his error confuted, and yet the ignorant, though desirous to touch pitch, may not be de●iled.  
●6. Where you see, 
Contradictions of M. Morton for want of memory.  that he promised to his Majesty 〈◊〉 deliver always in Latin phrase the clause of mental reservation, in such sort, as the ignorant of the Latin tongue should not understand the same, and consequently that he would shut it up under a Latin lock: And yet now in this his Preamble he saith, that I go about to make him seem so ridiculously cautelous, as to intend to keep the said clause of mental Reservation, under a Latin lock, least weak ones might learn etc. Are not these two plain contradictory assertions out of one mouth? to wit, that he will keep the clause of Reservation under a Latin lock, and that he never meant to lock it up? Where was his Memory, when he wrote this to impugn my Memory?  
17. But yet further it may please you to note the word (always) when he saith in his former Epistle to the Kings Ma. ●y that always the said clause of Reservation was delivered in latin, and yet he confesseth in this very place, that 3. or 4. times he setteth it down in ●nglish. And was not this a slip of his Memory in like manner, to say and promise to his Ma.tie that he would set it down always in Latin: and yet presently to confess, that sometimes he did it in English? Thirdly, he saith, as you have heard, that he hopeth, his book of Equivocation so to be published as Aristotle's natural Philosophy, to wit, so published, as not published, in respect, that the unlearned should not understand him. And how could he think this, if sometimes at leastwise (as he confesseth) he uttered all in English, and this to English men? Can these things stand together? Where was his Memory, when he wrote this?  
18. So as having now showed M. Mortons' Memory not to have been good in all these 3. points, I shall pass to speak of mine, which willingly I confess to be bad: whereupon he triumpheth against me, for that I say (as before you have heard) that the clause of Reservation to my remembrance was not set down in Latin, but once throughout all M. Mortons' book●, though in English the said Reservation were mentioned more (perhaps) than forty times. Against which assertion of mine he stormeth exceedingly, and quoteth in his margin for confutation thereof, divers & sundry places where the said clause is set down in latin, as where it is said, He knoweth not any thing so, ut teneatur detegere: or I know it not so, 
Preamb. p. 6.  ut tibi dicam, vel, ut tibi revelem etc. and sundry other like places he allegeth, where albeit the external part of the proposition be set down in English, ●et is the Reservation or mental part, put down by ●im in Latin, and then presuming to have taken me ●t a great advantage, for that I said I found it but ●nce, he insulteth exceedingly saying: 
M. Mortons' insultation.  What this so open ●ing might portend, I know not, except he felt his Wit wax ●●mewhat blunt, and therefore meant ●o deserve the whetstone. ●ut I will not here examine the coherence of this ●●ason, and whether a blunt Wit be more apt to lie ●r gaining a whetstone, than a sharp: for if it be not, ●●en used not M. Morton an apt similitude, nor will I 〈◊〉 drawn to idle contumelious speeches, whatso●●er the provocations be; my purpose in this place be●●g (according to the title of my book) that this rec●●ning between M. Morton and me, shallbe quiet and ●●●er, what exasperation soever he give me to the ●●●trary.  
To the matter then, I say, that albeit in my ●●●tle Dedicatory to the Universities, which indeed was ●●itten after the book of Mitigation was sent away to 〈◊〉 print, I had mistaken the number of places wherein 〈◊〉 clause of Reservation was in Latin, yet had it 〈◊〉 but an error of Memory, and that also sufficiently excused by that clause by me put in (to my remem●●●●ce) and yet more by the other of (perhaps) where I 〈◊〉 that it was set down in English more (perhaps) 〈◊〉 40. times: not affirming it absolutely, but by ●●esse. And further I might lay the error upon the ●●ribe or Printer, that set down 40. for 4. even as ●. Mortons' own book (to wit this his Preamble) ●y the same negligence of printer or writer hath twice ●n this place ●ourteene for forty: 
M. Mortons' cavil fully answered.  and yet do I not seek to take advantage against him for it, nor do tell him of the whetstone, I having more substantial matters, whereby to whet my pen against his untruths, than these trifles, which have no interest in them to draw a man to forge or lie. And yet to satisfy the Reader more fully even in these trifles, that M. Morton objecteth, I must say:  
20. That the truth is, that my speech was according to the meaning of M. Mortons' assertion, 
The true meaning of P. R. in this matter.  promising that he would always so set down the clause of Reservation in Latin, that the simple Reader should not understand it, no more then simple men could understand Aristotle's Philosophy; in which manner I found it put down but once indeed, throughout his whole book, 
Confu●at. of ●●ui●oc. pag. 48.  to wit, in the place before mentioned, that is to say, wholly in Latin; for thus he writeth coming to the said clause of Reservation: Loquor enim Latin, ne Idiotae ansam sibi accipiant nequiter mentiendi, ut quis teneatur illud detegere, which words he Englisheth not, and consequently might be some veil to the ignorant, not to understand him● but in all other places, though he put in often times, I knew not this, or that, ut tibi dicam, ut tibi revelem etc. yet doth he so utter in English all the rest of the cases proposed, as the simplest man way understand the same; and consequently I hold them for uttered in English & not in Latin, nor any way to be like therein to the Edition of Aristotle's Philosophy, whereunto for this pretended obscurity & depth, he compareth these his wise Disputes. So as in this his sense, I said truly, that I ●ound him to utter the matter but once (to my remembrance) wholly in Latin, in such sort us the English Reader could not understand him, & above 40. times (perhaps) in English: and this is more than needed in so trifling a cause. Let us come to the conclusion.  
21. The Reckoning of this account with M. Morton must then be, 
The Reckoning or conclusion.  that he having contradicted himself manifestly in three several points of this Paragraph (as before you have seen) and I in none, that he can prove, my Memory hath not been so bad therein, ●s he would have men believe: and if it had been; yet ●ere it but error of Memory, and not of Will; and consequently without any malice or fraud, for that there ●as no interest. And so though M. Morton could prove his error objected against me (as he cannot;) yet is ●e far from proving any thing to his purpose of wilsill and witting falsehood, whereof is our principal contention, as a●ter shall appear. And of this followeth again, that it is but lost time and labour to con●●nd about these trifles, which M. Morton bringeth in 〈◊〉 entertain his Reader, as though he said somewhat, whereas, in deed, he doth but fly the chief matter to handled, for the small confidence that he hath in 〈◊〉 cause. Now then let us pass to an other skirmish 〈◊〉 small importance as this.   

AGAINST THE Learning of P. R. especially in Logic. §. III.  
●HE title of this Paragraph is set down by M. Morton in these words: An argument of P. R. hi● 〈◊〉 of learning in Logic, wherein he hath provoked all University in the world to laugh at him, in the point of Syllogizing. A ●●rnefull accusation as you see, and to frame this ar●●ment against my skill in Logic, 
About a Logical argument of the competency of God.  he hath made a ●●pe of above 240. leaves in my book, from the for●er place of his precedent cavil against my Memory: 
Preamb. p. 7.  and ●●e very title of the Paragraph itself doth show ●hat he was in choler, when he wrote it, whereby 〈◊〉 hath been drawn to bring that into judgement of ●ll Universities of the world (about a certain false Sil●ogisme of his) which I remitted only to the judgement of his own University of Cambridge, both for the matter, and form thereof, neither of them being defensible with any colour of truth; and yet hath he taken the matter in hand with such eagerness, as he presumeth to make this general appeal: I da●e presume to make a general Appeal (saith he) to Cambridge, Oxford, Rheims, Rome, and to all Universities whether of Protestants or Romanists, whether Christian or Pagan, yea unto his own hi●ling boys & Sophisters, who P. R. saith are able to make syllogisms in one month (though the text in the Treatise of Mitigation by himself here alleged saith not one, but 4. months) I do challenge (saith he) P. R. for his false syllogism, willing, if he dare, that hereupon we venture our degrees, which we have taken in the Schools etc. 
An eager demand  Do you see the man's eagerness & choler? But here I do entreat him, if ever else where, that he stay himself, & that we make a quiet & sober reckoning of this matter, and then we shall see, who is like to lee●e or gain by the account, and where the spirit of truth is found, which is, or aught to be the principal end of this Inquiry, and not vaunting & challenging.  
23. First then that the matter may be understood whereupon the controversy grew concerning M. Mortons' false argument & syllogism (which himself concealeth for the most part in latin, much less of my speech, than was necessary fo● explication thereof) the Reader must know, that he taking upon him to impugn all use of Equivocation both in speech & oath, setteth down these two propositions, as the foundations of his work: 
Two false propositions of M. Mort.  the first, That every equivocation by a mental reservation is not a hidden truth, but a gross lie. The second, That every Equivocation, whether mental or verbal, if it be used in an oath (to any person whatsoever) though it be no lie in itself, yet is it an abominable profanation of that sacred institution of God. 
Mitigat. cap. 11. p. 441.  Of which two propositions the first is refuted largely by me throughout eight Paragraphes together in my Treatise of Equivocation, & this as well by evident testimonies of Scriptures as also practice of saints, and other manifest proofs & reasons. The second is discussed in the 9 & other ensuing Paragraphes by like authorities, examples, and arguments. After all which P. R. cometh to examine M. Mortons' arguments which he used for confirmation of his said later proposition, which was ●ound to consist in this false principle, That every man to whom we swear by God, who is competent judge of all, is made also thereby competent judge over the swearer, 
The false ground of M Mort●s syllogism  in such sort, as the said swearer is bound in conscience to swear according to the intention of him, to whom the Oath is made, he being otherwise never so incompetent a ●udge, violent or unlawful examiner: which being proved to ●e an apparent false conclusion (for that otherwise e●ery thief that forceth a true man to swear, by God, where his money lieth, bindeth him also to swear sincerely & directly to the said thieves intention) P.R. taketh in hand to examine M. Mortons' first & principal argument touching the same. His Words are these, which I shall set down as before by way of charge, and after we shall see the discharge, and so peaceably make up the Reckoning, in the most friendly manner we may.  

The Charge given by P. R. against M. Mortons' Syllogism.  
24. The absurdity and folly of this second proposition (say I) appearing so manifestly in itself, as it doth (by our precedent proofs) what should we stand to examine the arguments & reasons that may be brought for it, 
Mitigat. pag. 472. nu. 48.  by so fond a disputer, as now Thomas Morton is proved to be? For so much as no reason can s●rue for vphoulding a paradox so ridiculous as this is, even to common sense. And yet for that he putteth down four arguments, or reasons for the same as before hath been said: let us see briefly what they are.  

First argument  25. His first argument for this conclusion is drawn from the form of an oath, set down by us before, and here again alleged by him out of Tolet and other Authors of ours (for of his own he seemeth to have none,) That an oath is a religious invocation of God, either expressly, or by implication, ●or witness of our speech, 
Tolet. lib. 4. ●nstruc. cap. 20.  and the words explicitè or implicitè, expressly or by implication, are added, for that when we swear by creatures we swear by them in respect of the truth of God that is in them, and so by God himself implicitè.  
26. Now then out of this principle T. M. taketh upon him to prove this proposition; That whensoever, or to whomsoever we swear, we are bound in conscience to answer directly, that is to say, to swear to his intention, to whom we swear: which we have proved before by general consent of Divines and lawyers to be false, 
A false principle and general proposition.  and Cicero himself hath so determined the case in like manner, as you have heard, when a man should be compelled to swear to thieves: but yet let us hear how T. Morton will prove this his new and strange divinity. His Syllogism is this in his own words.  
The competency of God (saith he) by whom we swear, maketh every one competent judges, and hears to whom we swear. 
Pag. 86: The absurd syllogism of T. M neither true in form nor matter.   
But by swearing by God whom we cannot deceive, we religiously protest that in sweariug we intent not to deceive.  
Ergo, Our deceitful Equivocating is a profanation of the religious worship of God.  
27. This syllogism I leave to be discussed by Cambridge Logicians, where I hear say the man learned his logic (if he have any) for here he showeth very little or none at all, no boy being among us of four months standing in Logic or Sophistry, which will not hiss at this argument, both for form and matter. For as for form, it is toto ridiculous, the syllogism having no medium terminum at all, nor the conclusion any coherence with the premises, nor with ●is chiefest purpose that he would prove: nay which 〈◊〉 most absurd, whereas according to Aristotle (whom 〈◊〉 you have heard T. M. termeth the Oracle of Logicians) a good Syllogism hath only three terminos, ●herof the one is called Mayor extremus, the other Mi●●● extremus, and the third Medius terminus, this syllogism of his hath six terminos, and whereas the Medius ●●●●inus should be repeated in the Mayor & Minor pro●●●●tions, 
Arist. lib. 1. Prior. resolute. c. 1.  & the conclusion should consist only of 〈◊〉 extremes, as if a man should say: 
Every man is a living Creature:  
Peter is a man;  
Ergo, Peter is a living Creature.  ●eere the word, man, is medius terminus, & so repea●ed in the Mayor and minor propositions; Peter, & living ●●eature are the two extremes, whereof is framed the third proposition or conclusion by connexion of the ●●id extremes, by virtue of the medius terminus that ●ath part in them both.  
●8. But now Thomas Mortons' syllogism hath no such ●edius terminus, nor any such connexion of his propositions together, 
The faults of Th. Mortons' syllogism.  but every one of them hath his extremes, to wit, his subiectum & praedicatum separately, ●ot one depending of the other, and consequently it ●s no syllogism or argument at all, concluding any thing in form, no more than this syllogism.  
Every man is aliving Creature:  
Every ox is a fourfooted beast;  
Ergo, Every Ass hath t●o long ears.  
29. Where you see that there be six termini, as in Th●. Mortons' syllogism, without connexion, or dependence one o● the o●her. And as much concludeth this as that. A●d now compare this his skill (I pray you) with that brag of his in the beginning of this his Treatise against Equivocation, when he said to his adversary: Dare you appeal to Logic? This is the art of arte● and the high tribunal of reason and truth itself, which no man in any matter, whether it be case o● humanity, or Devinity, can justly refuse: who would not think but that the man were very skilful in that art, 
Pag. 53.  wherein he presumeth to give such a Censure?  
30. But now let us help him out to make his foresaid Syllogism in form. It should have gone thus, if he would have said any thing in true form.  
The competency o● God by whom we swear maketh every one competent judges to whom we swear:  
But in every oath we swear by God, either expressly or implicatively:  
Ergo, in every oath they are competent judges to whom we swear.  
31. And then by an other inference again he might have argued, 
The syllogism of T. Mort. brought into form.  that unto every competent and lawful judge we have confessed before, that a man is bound to answer directly, and to swear to his intention, and not only to his own, Ergo, in no oath to whomsoever, may a man Equivocate, which is his principal proposition. And thus had his form of reasoning been good, according to the rules of Logic, ●hough in matter it had been false, as now al●● it is. For that his first Mayor proposition can ne●●er be proved, to wit, That the competency of God by ●hom we swear maketh every one competent judges ●o whom 〈◊〉 swear, that is to say, for so much as God by who 〈◊〉 swear is competent judge of all, this maketh ●●ery one to whom we swear by God, to be our competent and lawful judge, which is most absurd, ●●en in common sense. For that a man may swear ●or example) to a thief or murderer by God, for ●●uing of his life, 
divers absurdities ensuing upon M. Mortons' syllogism.  as also to a common quean, yea 〈◊〉 to the devil himself, and yet t●is makes 〈◊〉 the murderer, the queans, or the devil to be 〈◊〉 competent & lawful judge, or giveth them law●●● jurisdiction, so as the swearer is bound to answer directly to whatsoever they demand, or to swear to ●●eir intention, if he should be compelled by them. ●nd the like in other such examples, whereof every ●●an may frame infinite store unto himself, at his pleasure: & the reason of this is, for that albeit in every oath God be lawful and supreme judge, to discern whether I have a true meaning of mine oath in my mind: yet this doth not make the other to whom I swear my lawful judge, except otherwise he hath iurisdictio● over me, for that this absurdity, among infinite others would follow, that if a King should swear to his kitchin-boy by God, he should thereby make his said kitchin-boy his lawful and competent judge, and to have jurisdiction over him, both to examine and command him, and bind him in conscience under sin to answer him directly; which how great a folly and absurdity it is ●ch man that hath reason, will easily of himself consider. Wherefore having showed this, let us now hear, and contemplate (if your p●ease) how Tho. Morton himself will prove his said mayor proposition; for it is like he will do it substantially, it being the foundation of all his whole drift. The mayor (saith he) etc.   

The Reckoning upon the Premises  
32. This is now the charge, that P. R. maketh upon T. M. to prove his very first and principal argument (out of the competency of almighty God) whereon all the rest is grounded, to be faulty and ruinous both in form and matter. In form, for that it is no lawful syllogism in Logical mood or figure: In matter, for that the first or maior proposition is manifestly false. 
The mayor proposition abandoned by M. Morton, and the Minor worse defended.  And how doth M. Morton now in this his Preambling Reply, endeavour to satisfy these two charges? Truly unto the last, about the untruth of his mayor proposition he saith never a word, which yet it seemeth he ought to ha●e done being the main foundation of his impugning use of all amphibology and Equivocation: but to the first he maketh an extraordinary clamour, as partly you have heard, appealing & provoking to all the Universities and Schools, as well of Christendom, as of Heathen countries, and impawing therein not only his reputation and credit, but degree of learning and schools also, and to be degraded, if he make not his party good. And yet he that shall examine what he bringeth, shall find that in substance of truth he saith nothing in effect for his own defence, but rather less than nothing: for that he entangleth himself further with affirming other such things, as he cannot stand unto, they being evidently false● and mere shifts. As for example, he being pressed about his foresaid syllogism, answereth thus:  
33. P. R. calleth that a Syllogism (saith he) which ● named only in a more general term, a Reason, & ●ot a syllogism: 
Pream. p. 8  now there be many forms of rea●onings, besides syllogisms: neither did I indeed ●●tend to make an exact and formal syllogism ●ut only such an argument, which by due inference ●nd deduction might prove my conclusion good. 
A mere shift of M. Morton.  ●o he. And is not this a strange evasion in him, that ●rofesseth such skill in Logic, yea to have been a public reader of Logic? For that the art of Logic 〈◊〉 my knowledge, admitteth but four kinds of ●easoning, to wit, Inductions●nd ●nd Examples: but this of M. Morton can be none of the ●ater three sorts, as himself (I suppose) will contesse, ergo, it must be the first, which is a syllogism, ●nd consequently it is a mere shift to say here, when 〈◊〉 is taken trip, that he called it not a syllogism, ●ut a reason.  
●4. Secondly let us hear (I pray you) his own ●ords in his book of ●ull Satisfaction where he brin●eth forth this argument: 
Full. satisf. p. 86.  Our first argument (saith ●e) is taken from the ●orme of an Oath, which is defined to be ● religious invocation (whether it be expressly or implicatively) 〈◊〉 God, as witness of our speech etc. Hence may we reasō●hus: The competency of God, by whom we swear, maketh ●uerie one competent judge, to whom we swear: But by swearing by God, whom we cannot deceive, we religiously protest, that in swearing we intent not to deceive: ergo, our deceitful Equivocating is a profanation of the religious worship of God. The Mayor is true: for that our Saviour avouching truth, held Pilate as a competent judge etc.  
35. here now is evidently proved, that which you (M. Morton) should have been ashamed to deny that you meant to make a syllogism. For first you ●intitle it. An argument taken from the form of an Oath; them you say, hence may we reason thus, which is as much as ratiocinari in latin, that is, to reason, and is a word proper to school disputes, when they will argue in form. 
A shameful ●enial of his syllogism.  Thirdly you set down three distinct propositions in form of an argument with ergo in the last, which is the form of a syllogism: and fourthly you contesse, that the first of them wa● the mayor, which inferreth always a minor, & they both include a conclusion, and so do make up the perfect nature of a syllogism. How then bl●sh you not to deny this? And thus being beaten from one defence, you run to another, saying, that P. R. confesses of your argument, that by a do●ble in●erence the reasoning is made good: 
Preamb. p. 8.  wherefore (say you● I cannot see what cause he had to be more o●●ended with me 〈◊〉 delivering that in gross, which being divided into his pa●●● was good reason, no● more than a man may mislike two per●● because it is not a couple of single pen●e.  
36. And is not this a p●easant jest to escape by? But it will not serve: for P. R. confesses not of this your argument (in the form you frame it) that by ● double inference it might be made good, but as he reform the same. For that this of yours being neither in Logical mood or figure, nor having coherence with 〈◊〉 sel●e, nor medium terminum, but rather six terminos in place of three, as hath been said, it cannot by any double, triple, or quadruple inference ever be made good, except we change the form and frame thereof. Neither did I ever say that it could be made good more than the other absurd syllogism set down for example of like absurdity, to wit, Every man is a living creature, Every ox is a ●ourefooted beast, ergo, Every ass hath two long ears: which in every point is like unto the other: 
Another absurd shift.  and if not, why had not you, Sir, for your credit sake at least showed some one real difference or disparity in the forms between yours and that, which indeed you could not do, for that they are like, and each one had three distinct propositions and every proposition a distinct subi●ctum and predicatum without medius terminus, and consequently consisteth of six several termini: for which cause I never said, nor could say, that this your syllogism could be made good without the whole form thereof were changed, and consequently this is now an absurd shi●t in you, to run to my confession, which I never made.  
37. My speech of another inference was nothing to this purpose at all, as the Reader will see, if he consider my words. For I spoke of an inference that might be further made upon your argument reform by me, but not as it came from you: and this I spoke also of the consequence of matter, and of the truth of the proposition in controversy, but not of the form, which being nought could never be made good by any inference, and therefore it is very absurd that you say, that I am offended with you, for delivering the matter in gross, which divided into his parts, was good reasoning; for that neither in gross, nor in parts can the argument be defended. And the similitude of two pence and two single pence, is not worth a halfpenny for saving of your credit in this behalf, as the Reader will easily perceive.  
38. Well then, having thus cleared the Reckoning about this principal point, 
M. Mort. presumeth not to defend his syllogism.  that you cannot any way defend the form of your syllogism, either by denial, or by underpropping the same, with any kind of shifts, you bend yourself wholly to find some faults in the reformation thereof by me, as though it were a full justification of you, if you could find out any oversight in me, and therefore you note many points of small, or no importance at all; and the most of them mere cavils or against your self, as now will appear. For first I meaning to put in some order and form your said syllogism (which yourself here dare not so much as take upon you to defend) rather then to make any new of mine own, I retained your whole Mayor proposition, which is this as before hath been set down: The competency of God by whom we swear, maketh every one competent judges to whom we swear; which proposition I do show at large to be false in matter and substance, as in part you have heard: yet do I retain it (as I said) wholly for the Mayor proposition as it came from you, and in this Mayor did I necessarily understand the words (expressly or implicatively) for that yourself had set them down expressly in the same place, within 3. lines before, out of the definition of an Oath; so as the full meaning of this Mayor proposition is, that the Competency of God by whom (either expressly or implicatively) we swear, maketh every one competent judges to whom we swear. 
The reformation of M. M. syllogism.  And then secondly for that your two other propositions of the same argument, to wit, the Minor & Conclusion, had no coherence at all with this Mayor, and consequently could infer nothing thereupon, as I did show in my answer; I was forced to change them wholly for bringing the argument to true form of syllogism, saying in the Minor thus: But in every Oath we swear by God, either expressly or implicatively; ergo, in every Oath they are competent judges to whom we swear.  
39 But against this reformation of mine you are so impatient, as maketh me take new compassion of you indeed: For it seemeth you care not much to wound yourself, so it might be thought that therewith you scratched also me. But let us hear what you do object. First (say you) th●re be five termini in this new syllogism of P. R. namely, 
Preamb. p. 9  1. Competency, 2. God by whom we swear, 3. every one competèt judges to whom we ●weare, 4. in every Oath, 5. either expressly or implicatively, whereas according to his own cē●ure ther● should be ●ut three. Whereto I answer with remembrance of that story of the envious man, who being offered by a judge to have double punishment decreed against his adversary, for any that he would take upon himself, chose to have one of his own eyes pulled out, so as his adversary might lose both of his, which how far it may be applied to this fact of M. Mort. the disapassionate Reader will discern. 
T. Mort. woundeth deeply himself to scratch his adversary.  For here to find out five terminos of this syllogism (which hath in deed but three) he will needs assign three in the only Mayor proposition, which is verbatim his own, and nothing changed by me, but set down as I found it in him; so as if this his mayor proposition have thr●e terminos, as here he avoucheth, than did he with all his skill in Logic, yea having been a public Reader and Master thereof, make a Mayor with three terminos, and a proposition with more than one subiectum, and one praedicatum, which is the grossest oversight in Logic that can be imagined; nor any mean scholar of four months study in Sophistry indeed would commit the same, Aristotle having assigned, 
Arist. l. ●. prior. resosolut. c 2.  that one proposition can have but two termini, which are subiectum and Praedicatum, in quos terminos (tamquam extrema quibus clauditur) propositio resoluitur, saith he: & this is taught unto Logicians, even at their first entrance into that stuly.  
40. So as to seem to have noted me of somewhat he is content to accuse himself of a gross error in deed, yea and that falsely also against himself: for that his mayor proposition had not indeed, nor hath three termini, but only two, as it should have: to wit, one subiectan that goeth before the verb or copula, and one praedicatum that followeth the same: for that the first part of his said mayor, the Competency ●f God by whom we swear, maketh not two termini but one, as the other later part following the verb or copula, to wit (maketh) every one competent judges to whom we swear, is but one praedicatum. And M. Morton is grossly deceived in appointing out different words, for different termini: 
A gross error in Logic against himself.  for if there were a dozen words or more going before the verb, & as many following tending all to one affirmation or negation, they should all according to prescript of Logic be but two only termini. As for example, If I should say, Every man in that he is endued with a soul, that is a spirit, adorned with reason, providence, free-will, and such other qualities may be compared to an Angel etc. All these words going before the verb make but one terminus, and consequently M. Mortons' appointing the word Competency for one terminus, and God by whom we swear for an other, which stand but for one subiectum in the maior proposition, & do tend but to one simple affirmation, committeth more than a gross error in Logic: as also he doth in that other observation of his, whereby he noteth the last words of the minor proposition (either expressly or implicatively) for a fifth several terminus, whereas in deed they are but a part of the medius terminus which was the subiectum of the former mayor proposition, necessarily there understood, and that out of M. Mortons' own words, as before is said. But yet let us hear how he goeth forward to reprehend what he seemeth not to understand well himself.  
41. Secondly (saith he) these words (the Competency) being part of the medium, 
Preamb. p. 9  should have been repeated in the minor proposition. Whereto I answer that it is sufficient that they be necessarily, and virtually included, and understood by the hearer, as they are in our minor: for when we infer thus, but in every Oath we swear by God, though we omit to say, who is competent judge of all, or, hath competency of judgement over all, as in the Mayor is expressed; yet every man will understand and supply it by himself, as in the forementioned syllogism, Every man as he is endued with a soul, ●hat is a spirit, adorned with reason etc. may be compared to Angels: but Peter is a man, ergo he may be compared to Angels. Is not this a good syllogism? And should it not be so taken in public disputations, though all the words of the former subiectum, or medius terminus were not repeated in the minor, but only the word, Man, that includeth necessary relation to all the rest, to wit, as he is endued with a soul & c? I think yes. And so I suppose all Logicians in Cambridge would affirm against M Morton in this behalf.  
42. Lastly than this third or final quarrel against this reformed syllogism is proposed by him thus: 
A third cavil turned wholly against himself. Preamb. p. 10. Mitig. p. 475.  Thirdly (saith he) there should be but one minus extremum; but with this, we swear by God, he hath joined another, to wit, either expressly or implicatively, which words being a part of the minus extremum should not have been omitted in the conclusion. So he. But M. Morton must be content we tell him here friendly, that not to speak of skill or learning, he hath showed at least much less attention, then in any other point before about this matter. For that the words, We swear by God, are not put by me for the minus extremum or subiectum of the minor proposition, but for a part of the praedicatum, & consequently for a part of the medius terminus of the whole syllogisms, as also the words expressly or implicatively are another part of this medius terminus, and therefore by law of a good syllogism are well left out in the conclusion, which M. Morton inconsiderately reprehendeth. I will pretermitt here many scurill syllogisms which you (M. Morton) have delighted yourself to frame out of your own imagination, about drunken penitentes, shaven crowns, and the like, 
M. Mort. absurd scurrility  which are not worthy the repetition: only we may not omit for the upshot of all, to see how yourself do now reform your former own syllogism after better deliberation had, & my admonition unto you considered. For finally you frame it thus: 
Every speech wherein we swear by God, either expressly or implicatively, doth by the competency of God, by whom we swear, make the judges competent, unto whom we swear:  
But every Oath is a speech, wherein we swear by God, either expressly or implicatively:  
Ergo, every Oath doth by the competency of God by whom we swear, make the judges competent to whom we swear.   
43. This is the last, & most absolute form, whereunto M. Morton hath reduced finally his former argument: which if you examine well, you shall find it to be the very same in effect with mine. And first I would have the Reader to note, 
M. Mort. brought to confess his error in his former syllogism.  that of the 3. propositions, which he set down in his former old syllogism, he here casteth away two, without so much as mentioning them, to wit, the minor and conclusion, which had in them, as before hath been showed, four distinct terminos, that is, two subiecta & two praedicata, without any combination or coherence the one with the other, whereof they being convicted, M. Morton thinketh best now not only not to defend them, but not so much, as to mention them in this his new and last reform syllogism, consenting thereby manifestly to their former rejection, and condemnation made thereof by me. And then secondly for his first or maior proposition, which I for his sake retained wholly in my reformation, as I found it set down by him, he hath so altered the same here in this his last refining, and so charged it with so many new additions of words and clauses, as if his own new rule may take place, that every distinct clause must be held for a distinct terminus, ●t will not only have two, but 4. or 5. termim at least: and so will the Reader find by looking only upon it. And I would prosecute the matter more at large, but I see we have spent to much time about these trifles: yet could I do no less, for that M. Mort. would needs take the matter with such eagerness, as you have heard, and appeal to all Universities both Christian and Heathen, for trial of the matter, yea impawne his hood, habit, degree and credit therein: by which occasion I have been forced to say more than otherwise I would, or thought the matter worthy.  
44. The final Reckoning then of this account is found to be this; 
The final reckoning of this Paragraph.  that notwithstanding all M. Mort. clamour and outcry in this matter, he hath not been able to defend his former syllogism either in matter or form, but by shameful denying (in the later) that which he cannot stand unto, nor yet impugn my reformation thereof, but by setting down the very selfsame in effect and substance, that I did before; and that the faults which he deviseth, do fal● upon his own syllogism, as you have heard demonstrated, whereby the Reader will see, in what danger his pawn lieth in the University, if rigour of justice should be exacted. But yet will he not give over nor cease, but hath another assault against me about a certain division or rather subdivision of Equivocation made by me (as he pretendeth) against the laws of Logic: which though it be of very little importance in respect of our cause; yet will we give it also some place of examination among other his trifles proposed.    

ANOTHER VAIN CONtention brought in by M. Morton, about skill in Logic. §. FOUR  
HOW ardent a desire M. Morton hath to find out some probable matter against me in this point or Logical skill (wherein himself presumeth much) may appear not only by that you have now heard him write about the defence of his syllogism (which yet he defendeth not) but also by another trifling quarrel, 
Concerning a division & subdivision of false equivocation.  which within few leaves after the precedent he picketh at a certain division and subdivision I made in the last Chapter of my book of Equivocation, distributing the same first into two sorts, lawful, 
Mitigat. c. 12. p. 485.  and unlawful. Lawful when the speaker hath a true meaning and lieth not, though he be not always so understood by the hearer; and that this sort only of Equivocation is used by Catholics upon just occasions: the other is unlawful, when the speaker lieth, and meaneth wrongfully to deceive his hearer; and that this second sort is practised every where by Protestant writers in England, by M. Morton, and his fellows, as I do show by many examples throughout that whole Chapter, which M. Morton leaving wholly unanswered, taketh upon him only to impugn the manner or form of a certain subdivision made by me of this second kind of false Equivocation, 
Mitigat. cap. 12.  which there, I say, may be subdivided again into other two members of material and formal, according to the division of a lie in general, which is so divided, viz. into material & formal lying though differently in some point. For that albeit ●ome of these sorts of false Equivocation be eull; yet ●s the latter (called formal) much worse, for that ●n the material lie, the liar knoweth not, that he ●ieth, but in the formal, he doth. Thus wrote I then.  
46. And upon this discourse of mine, wherein I proved manifestly by many examples taken out of M. jewel, M. Horn, Ha●mer, Cha●k, Fox, Perkins, Sir Fran●i● Hastings, Sir Edward Cook, and other Protestant's in ●heir writings, that they did ordinarily use & practise both these two later sorts of lying and unlawful Equivocation, whilst M. Morton so eagerly impugned the former sort of true and lawful Equivocation in Catholics: Upon this, I say, though he take not in hand to defend any one of the accused, nor so much as pretendeth to answer any of the particular accusations of lying laid against him, yet foundeth he a great quarrel against me, & my skill in Logic out of this place and matter, no less than before, about my reformation of his syllogism, saying in effect, that by my division and subdivision of Equivocation, I do come to say, That he who lieth, knowing that he doth lie, doth lie, not knowing that he doth lie. And for the ground of his Charge he doth set down a piece of my discourse, in these words, after my first division of Equivocation into lawful and unlawful.  

The Charge given by M. Morton out of my book of Mitigation.  
47. Wherefore (said I) all our speech in this place shallbe about the second kind of Equivocation, 
Mitig. p. 484. False and lying Equivocation.  which is false & lying, & thereby also ever unlawful: which though not properly, yet in a general manner, may be called Equivocation, as I have said, for that the hearer is always wrongfully deceived, or intended to be deceived by some falsity, which is known to be such by the speaker, and consequently is plain lying. And for that lying hath been showed also be●ore to be divided into two sorts, the one a material lie, when the thing spoken is false in itself, but not so understood by the speaker; the other a formal lie when the speaker doth know it, or think it to be false, and yet speaketh it. This kind of Equivocation, 
Two sorts of lying Equivocation.  which really is a lie, must have also the same subdivision, so as the one sort thereof may be called a material lying Equivocation, & the other formal, and so much worse, as a formal lie is in itself (which all ways is sin) than a material (which oftentimes may be without sin of the speaker) by so much is a formal lying Equivocation worse than a material. We shall give examples of both, that shall make all plain.  
48. Thus far it pleased M. Mort. to cite my words, excepting only the last, mentioning the examples to make all plain, which he thought best to suppress, for that perhaps he desired not to much plainness in this matter. Wherefore I have thought good to supply them here, to the end that the Reader may see the whole tenor of my speech, & thereby conceive how little to the purpose this Cavil is, which M. Morton hath sought out to handle in this place. It followeth then in my book.  
49. If one should said to me (quoth I) that my Father is dead, 
Mitigat. p. 485. n. 5.  thinking in deed that he is dead, though he be alive, it were a material lie, as before hath been declared, for that indeed, though he perhaps that made the lie may have said it with out sin, for that he thought it so: and I say (perhaps) for that in some case, ignorance could not excuse him, if it were a matter whereof he were bound to know the truth, and might with diligence have ●earned the same. But if he should say my Father is dead knowing in deed that he is not dead, and meaning to deceive me thereby, this is a formal lie, 
A material & formal lie, and the difference  and always sinful, either venial or mortal, according to the importance of the matter, wherein the lie is made. And conform to this may be the division also (as is said) of lying Equivocation, that the one be material, the other formal.  
50. Examples of the first may be these, & other like. An Arian delivereth to the people those words of Christ, Pater mens maior me est, my Father is greater than I, understanding it heretically according to their meaning of the very God head; this is an Equivocation, 
Material false Equivocation.  and in his sense is false, and consequently a lie, for that the hearer is deceived: and yet because the speaker perhaps thinketh it to be true, the lie is but material in the Arian, and not formal, & in that respect less sin then if it were formal: but yet is it dannable by another way, for that this error, (as hath been said) being willfully defended against the Church, is not excusable.  
51. The other sort of false Equivocation called formally is when the hearer conceiveth any false thing upon the speech of another, which other knoweth it also to be false and so uttereth a lie against his own knowledge, and conscience. As for example: If a preacher in England who indeed is no Protestant in heart, 
Formal false Equivocation what it is.  should preach Protestant doctrine that is false, and himself should think it also to be false (as divers perhaps do,) this were to Equivocate both falsely, and formally, which is the worst kind of lying Equivocation that may be: and this is that, which I say, that Thomas Mort. and his fellows, who inveigh bitterly everywhere, against true and lawful Equivocation, do use almost at ●uery turn.  
52. As for example, when he saith, No one iota of Scripture, 
Formal lying Equivocation in T. Morton.  ●o one example in all antiquity, no one reason in the natural wi● o● man, no one author Greek or Latin, no one Father, not any Pope, Christian or Antichristian, doth make ●or equivocation as we de●end it, or any colour thereof, neither did ●hey so much as fancy any such thing: Here is ●irst seen anotorious untruth of the assertion itself, & consequently it is a material lie, 
Mitigat. p. 485.  and material Equivocation, for that the matter delivered is untrue: and secondly it is most probable that Tho. Morton must needs know it to be a lie, having seen so many authors and reasons alleged for it by the Catholic Treatise, which he pretendeth to confute: whereof it followeth, that it was a formal lie also, & a formal lying equivocation in the highest degree of deceit and falsehood.  
53. Hitherto did I write before, and my purpose was, as here is, evident to distinguish only two kinds of lying Equivocation, 
Two sorts of lying Equivocation.  the one most grievous, which I call formal, the other less heinous, termed by me material, and both of them usually practised by Protestants in their writings. And for so much as both of them are false, & in substance ly●s (though in different sort,) I said that they might have the same division into material and formal, which a lie hath, albeit it be not necessary that the members divident be like in all and ●uery point, as now we shall declare after we have considered of M. Mortons' objection, which is this in his own words.  
54. There is no boy I think (saith he) in his College, 
Prea●b. p. 11.  but he can analyze the members of this d●uision thus: A lying Equivocation is that which is known to be such unto the speaker, and this is to be subdivided, for it is either a material l●e, which when the thing spoken is a lie in it s●lfe, but not so understood of the speaker: or a ●ormal lie, when the speaker doth kno●e it, and think it to be false, where he maketh a material lie, 
M. Mort. vain insultation.  which not known of the speaker to be a species or member of that lying Equivocation, which is known ●o the speaker: As if he shou●● s●ie, Some her knoweth what ●e speaketh, wh●n ●e knoweth not what he speaketh. And could any say thus ●ut a ly●r? here indeed is Logic, whereat the boys of our University may hiss, and the boys of his College may blush, yea any ●u●all boy (if of any mean capacity) may laugh ●y sight of the like. So he. And do you see how he ●nsulteth over me, as though he had gotten a great advantage, and how he taketh here his revenge upon me, for the shipwreck he suffered before, ●n the matter of his syllogism?  
But let us examine the thing somewhat more particularly, and you shall find him to have no better success here, then there, though his animosity in both places be great and confident, as you see.   

The Reckoning about the subdivision of false Equivocation.  
55. First then where I do say (as you have heard) that this second kind of unlawful Equivocation used by Protestants (being always a lie) may be divided, like a lie itself, into a material lying Equivocation and a formal, M. Morton omitting craftily the word Equivocation in the members divident, divideth the same into a material and formal lie, as though there were no difference at all between them, & thereof frameth this inference, that for so much as a material lie is when the liar knoweth not that he lieth, as the formal liar doth, 
A manifest fraud.  it followeth that a material Equivocator knoweth not when he doth equivocate: & yet, saith he, have I defined this second kind of Equivocation common to both membres, that it is then when the speaker knoweth that he doth falsely equivocate, which definition must agree to both.  
56. This then is a deceit in M. Morton, that should have divided false Equivocation into formal and material Equivocation, and not into formal and material lying, for that albeit between material lying and material equivocating (for example sake) there be some points, wherein they agree (as namely and principally that in the substance of the matter uttered, the speaker thinketh that he saith a truth:) yet are there some other points also wherein they differ, as namely in that a material lie or untruth may be uttered sometimes without sin or offence, as by the examples before alleged hath been made evident. But a false equivocation cannot, for that albeit the chief point, which this fa●se Equivocator uttered, be thought by him to be truth (as the Arrian before mentioned thinketh his heresy to be Catholic and true doctrine:) yet doth he equivocate in concealing some circumstance, as not telling his hearer, that it is against the doctrine of that Church, which is commonly called Catholic, or the like. 
Differences between a material Equivocation and a material lie.   
57 Another example may be, if a stranger not knowing our differences of Religion in England, should demand a Protestant which he meeteth in the street, where he may go to the Catholic service, & he should send him to S. Paul's in London, for that he persuadeth himself that to be the true Catholic service; here the Protestant, if he do err in his judgement and if that be not the true Catholic service indeed, speaketh a falsity, but yet is it but a material falsity, for that he thinketh that he saith truth: but yet further doth he falsely also equivocate in one thing, which is in not answering to the others true intention, for that he knew that the other meant the Roman Catholic service. And so you see that material false equivocation, hath somewhat more ●n it of malice then a materials lie, for that it doth wittingly always conceal some circumstance, which ought to have been uttered, and whereby it may be said to have some knowledge or guilt of deceit, which a mere material lie hath not.  
●8. Now than I would ask M. Morton whether he ●ad considered this or no, when he doth so revel ●gains● me with his rural boy? For if he had not, he ●ay consider it now, with some reprehension of ●is own inconsideration; but if he had done it, why did he equivocate so fraudulently with me, as to ●ake me to divide false Equivocation into formal and material lying? Whereas he should have said into for●all and material Equivocation, and so out of this fraud ●f his own, to go about to infer some show of absurdity against me. Is this good dealing? or is not ●his equivocating in the worst sense?  
●9. But it may be he will object my words against me, where I say, that this kind of Equivocation 〈◊〉 which really is a lie) must have also the same subdivision which 〈◊〉 lie hath: whereto I answer, that it must have the ●ame subdivision into the terms o● material and formal, 
An objection answered.  for that it is really and in substance a lie; but yet not that the parts or members divident must of necessity be altogether the same in the one and the other, in such sort, as a material false Equivocation may contain nothing more than a material lie; for which cause my words immediately following are these, so as the one sort thereof may be called material lying Equivocation, and the other formal: I do not say a material and formal lie, for that (as hath been showed) a material equivocation containeth somewhat more malice than a bar● material lie, for that it containeth the knowledge and concealing of some circumstance that ought to be uttered, which the other doth not.  
60. But here again may be perhaps objected, that this material equivocation, if it hath any knowledge or malicious concealment (as here seems to be granted;) then is it the same with that which we call formal equivocation, and so consequently both members should be coincident & confounded; and if it have knowledge only, and no malice, then is it no lie but lawful Equivocations as he that saith to an incompetent judge, I am no Pre●st (meaning, as obliged to reveal it to you) knoweth that the judge is deceived, but yet without malice or sin of his part, for that he doth not any wrong to the said judge, as not holding himself bound to utter the same to him.  
61. To these two objections is answered, first, that material equivocation is when the speaker thinketh that which he saith to be true, as the forenamed Arian doth, 
Two other objections answered.  though he conceal some circumstance that he ought to utter, which maketh it unlawful though nothing so grievous as the formal equivocation is, where the Equivocator knoweth that the whole matter is false, which is sufficient distinction to make two several members or degrees of false equivocation in general, & hereby is my division iustified●  
62. To the second I say, that a material false Equivocation can never be lawful, for that in charity the speaker is bound not to conceal the circumstance whereby his hearer is wrongfully & injuriously deceived: as when the stranger demanding, whither he may go to hear Catholic service, and a Protestant directing him to S. Paul's Church, though the Equivocation be but material in him, in that he thinketh the service of Paul's to be Catholic service, yet knowing the other meaneth indeed the Roman Catholic service, he was bound in charity to have answered him truly to his sense and meaning. Nor 〈◊〉 the case of an incompetent judge, or other injurious ●emaunder, whom we may lawfully suffer to be de●●yued, like in this point, for that the judge offereth injury, and the other demandeth matters not ●●pedient to be uttered: but here the demand is lawful & honest to inform himself of Catholic ●●uice, and consequently the Protestant answerer ●●ould have answered to his meaning & intention.  
●●. And thus much have I been forced to write though in an impertinent matter) for satisfying M. ●●rton and his Rural boy about the division of false ●●lying Equivocation, & whether it may be divided into ●●teriall & formal, or no: the more important enterprise 〈◊〉 been to prove, that he & his do not use both ●●ndes, rather than to impugn the form of the division. But this we shall expect of him afterwards; for ●●ese are but certain light skirmishes set out before 〈◊〉 main battle, whereof there remain yet some ●●ree or four more to be handled in this Chapter.    

●HE CONFUTATION OF what M. Morton objecteth against the skill of P. R. in Greek and Hebrew. §. V.  
THIS Paragraph is set down by M. Morton under this title, An argument of P. R. his kind of skill 〈◊〉 Greek and Hebrew, whereby he hath gained the opinion of rare ●●norance. 
Touching the verse of the Prophet Esay c. 29. v. 9  So he. And hereby still it is seen that the good man was much troubled, and out of temper when he wrote these Paragraphes, and so fell to plain scratching in deed: for I disputed neither of Greek, Hebrew, nor Latin with him, but only alleged the common latin text of a verse in the Prophet Esay (which he had impertinently cited for his purpose, and posy of his book) and I said that the Greek and Hebrew texts were conform to the said Latin text by me alleged, & fond applied by him, which thing I might easily do without ostentation of great skill in Greek or Hebrew; for so much as the late great Bible set forth in sundry languages hath every thing translated into the latin tongue, so as without any great knowledge of Greek, Hebrew, Chaldy, or Syriake tongues set there down a man may by only the Latin tongue, see what those other te●tes do contain, so as this try●ling assault might have been pretermitted by M. Morton: but yet for that he will needs have the matter treated here again, and allegeth the Charge made against him out of my book, I shall repeat also the same in this place briefly, which containeth only but a note made by me in the end of a Chapter, in these words.  

The Charge.  

Mitigat. p. 87.  66. I cannot well pretermit (for ending this Chapter) one little note more of rare singularity in this man above others, which I scarce ever have observed in any one of his fellows, and this is, that the very first words of Scripture alleged by him in the first page for the posy of his Pamphlet, are falsely alleged, corrupted, & mangled, though they contain but one only verse of Esay the Prophet: and then may you imagine, what liberty he will take to himself afterward throughout his whole discourse. His sentence or Posy is this: 
The very first text of Scripture alleged by him ●ost corruptly.  Isay 29. vers. 9 But stay yourselves, and wonder, they are blind, and make you blind, which he would have to be understood of us catholics. But let any man read the place of Isay itself, and he shall find no such matter either in ●ordes, or sense, but only the word wonder, to wit, ●bstupescite et admiramini, fluctuate et vacillate, inebriamini, & non à vino, movemini & non ab ebrietate. And according to this are the Greek & Hebrew texts also. ●o as what should move T. M. to set down so corruptly the very first sentence of his book, and cite ●he chapter and verse wherein his fraud may be descried, I know not, except he observed not the last ●ause of the Prophet's precept, Movemini et non ab ●●rietate. And so much for this.  
●7. To this M. Morton answereth, saying, 
Pream. pag. 13.  that this 〈◊〉 more than any man of a temperate sense would ●aue objected. For let any man read (●aith he) the English translation, and he shall find the same ●ords set down. Seeing therefore that P. R. doth intimate to his Reader that I forged a new text, and ●hat the words are by me falsely alleged, can there ●e a more false, yea (and if wilful rashness do not ●ake the upper hand of impudent boldness) a more shameless cavil then this? So he. Where you see ●hat all goeth in choler, exaggerations, and pathetical speeches with M. Morton. For I do not say, ●hat he hath forged a text, but that the sentence of his posy against Catholics pretended to be taken out of this place, to wit, out of the 29. Chapter, and ninth verse of Isay, is falsely alleged, corrupted, and mangled, the same not being found there, either in words, or sense. And upon this let us join issue, and make the recknoing if you please, and see how he can justify his allegation of this text to the sense he allegeth itaga inst Catholic Doctors.   

The Reckoning of this Paragraph.  
68 He first for his defence allegeth the English translation, to wit, that the Protestants English Bibles (at least some of them) have it so; but this is as good as nothing to me. For neither did I see, o● look for their English translation (having before me all the other original texts out of which that English must be taken, if it be true:) nor if I had, could it be of any great credit in this controversy with me, who had read and se●ne the same English translation called in question, and accused of many wilful corruptions by their own Doctors, as namely by M. D. Broughton their chief Linguist in his Advertisements to the Bishops about such corruptions found, 
Hugh Broughton in his advertisement of corruptions. pag. 2.3. etc.  and observed by him in the modern English translation of the Scriptures, and M. Mort●● can not deny it; and consequently it had been impertinent either for me or others to seek after that translation, for so much as the Authors thereon might as well be supposed to have framed what ●ense they list out of this text of Esay by the same liberty that M. Morton doth.  
69. Wherefore for your conuin●ment in this place, I mean to stand upon the original texts themselves, and the verse by you alleged, to see whether your poesy against us may be framed thereof. First then the Hebrew hath it thus, as both Pagnin●s, Vatabl●●, & others do set it down: 
The original text examined.  Be astonished and wonder, shut up your eyes, & let them be shut, be you drunk, but not with wine, do you reel but not with sicera. Or otherwise: They have shouted and cried, are drunk, but not with wine. And in the ●re●k● Septuagint thus: Do you faint, be astonished, you are drunk, but not with sicera, or wine. Th● Chaldean paraphrase hath it thus: Be astonished & wonder, you are terrified, and do marvel, you are drunk, but not with wine. The old latin translation both of S. Hierome, and before him, speaketh thus: Be astonished and marvel, waver ye and reel, you are drunk but not with wine, you are moved, but not with drunkenness.  
70. These are the ancientest texts both of He●rew, Greek, Chaldy, and Latin, out of all which 〈◊〉 would pray M. Morton quietly & soberly without passion to form and frame this his predominant ●entence against Catholics, Stay yourselves, and won●er, they are blind, and make you blind. Is there any such ●hing in this verse? He would fayne for show of ●ome defence help himself also of the next verse following which is the tenth, and saith thus, as him●elfe translateth it: Because the Lord mingled for you the spirit 〈◊〉 slumber, he will shut your eyes, he will cover your Prophets ●nd chiefe-ones which see visions. But what is this to the purpose? He cited but the ninth verse, and neither in this nor in the tenth that ensueth as you see, ●s contained his sentence, o● staying ourselves, to see b●●nd men make other men blind. And whereas he runneth to S. Hieroms Commentaries, and those of Hector Pintus where they apply some words of the later verse to the blindness of the Scribes and pharisees, it is nothing to our purpose; for they justify not his sentence and poesy taken out of the ninth verse, and much less do they go about to show hereby (as he doth) that Catholics are blind in respect of Protestants, and do make other men blind, which is his purpose to prove. And it is to be noted, that sentences prefixed for posyes ought to be clear, & not so forced and wrested as this is, which was the cause that I noted it, and M. Morton can no way justify the allegation thereof in real truth and substance, as now you have heard. Other contumelious speeches of his I let pass, as mere scratchings and scold indeed, and shall take in hand the view of another complaint against me, no less feeble and impertinent than this.    

WHAT M. MORTON allegeth against the Charity of P. R. §. VI  

About Verò and Verè in Carerius.  THE title of this Paragraph in M. Morton is laid forth in these words; An argument of P. R. his kind of charity, attended with a triumphant falsehood. And this he saith for that I had reprehended him in my book of Mitigation for a place cited out of a treatise of Alexander Carerius Doct. of the Canon law in Padua, which he wrote of late de Potestate Romani Pontificis, wherein after citing of many other writers, whom he saith to be of his opinion, he addeth the testimony of one Celsus Mancinus, saying: Nuperrim● verò Celsus Mancinus in tractatu de juribus Principatuum etc. But last of all Celsus Mancinus doth hold the same opinion with us in his Treatise of the Rights of Principalityes etc. Which words M. Morton alleging and making his advantage of them, he was noted by me, for two differences from the book of Carerius printed in Italy, by direction of the Author himself: first that after the title de potestate Romani Pontificis was added in M. Mortons' book, adversus impios politicos et nostri temporis haereticos, which addition was not in my copy of Carerius own book.  

A slippery shift.  72. The second, that he had Nuperrimè verè Celsus Mancinus, in steed of nuperrimè verò, which being contrary to the first edition which I had of Carerius his book, and seeing no reason why I should suspect it to be otherwise in any other later impression, I did lay it to his charge, especially for that I did see him abuse it egregiously to his advantage (as hath been said) as though Carerius had ridiculously exalted his witness Mancinus by naming him verè Celsus, truly ●●fty, whereas his meaning was but only to say that ●elsus was his Christian name. And had I not rea●●n to note such a slippery shift devised by M. Morton 〈◊〉 a scoff against a Catholic learned Author? ●hat lack of charity can he find herein?  
●3 But now M. Morton will clear himself, and ●roduceth to this purpose another edition printed 〈◊〉 Cullen, that hath these points as he ●yteth them: ●hich edition though I have not seen, nor heard 〈◊〉 before, yet do I think it meet to give credit to 〈◊〉 affirmation, nor will I offer him that injury 〈◊〉 to doubt thereof, especially for so much as he saith, 〈◊〉 he hath showed the same to many friends of 〈◊〉, naming also the year and form in which it is ●●inted. All which being granted, & that in this 〈◊〉 Cullen impression, the addition of contra heretics etc. may have been added, which was not in mine: 〈◊〉 doth this infer nothing against me, nor my charity. For that, where I saw a defect, I noted 〈◊〉, nor could I learn of any other edition, nor suspect, that if there were, or might be, yet tha●●here would be cause to alter the title of his first edition, which himself overlooked: so as this hath 〈◊〉 lest scratch against me.  
74. But now for the second point objected of verè for verò, 
The Cullen edition helpeth nothing Verè for Verò.  though M. Morton do allege in like manner for his excuse the Authority, or rather error of his Cullen edition; yet can he not so easily discharge himself thereof; for that the very contexture of speech must needs argue to his conscience that it should be verò, and not verè, for that otherwise there should have been no apt sense, nor any coniunctive particle to connect the testimony of Celsus Mancinus to the former. The great letter C. also in the beginning of Celsus (if this be not in like manner altered in M. Mortons' edition from the original) must needs have showed unto him, that it was no noun adjective, but a proper name of a man, and consequently must be joined with verò, and not with verè.  
75. And finally if the thing had been doubtful, or might have been (as hardly it could to any indifferent or judicious reader;) yet ought not he, nor could with a good conscience use the same for an insultation & snoffe against two such learned men, as Carerius and Mancinus are, 
A foolish scornful speech.  for these are his words: Carerius citeth another called C●lsus, by interpretation high or lofty, and therefore ensigns him with verè Celsus, as truly so named, and so truly he may be, if we judge him by the loftiness of his style and Conclusion. Thus far his scoff: which for so much as to me it seemed to stand upon the voluntary mistaking of verè for verò (and so it must still, albeit he fell upon an erroneous print;) I had just caus● to repel the said scorn, as I did with some acrimony of speech, but yet nothing comparable to the excessive bitterness of M. Morton who condemneth me not only of Malice, but also of madness for my reprehension, intituling his whole Paragraph, as you have heard against my lack of Charity for the same: yea making this question in the last lines thereof, How in so manifest impudence, any argument of modesty can appear? whereby we see the power of anger when it taketh possession of our tongue, what it can do.  

The final reckoning  76. But this tempest of passion being past, you have seen I suppose that we two have quietly and soberly made up this reckoning between us; the total sum whereof cometh to be this in effect, that as I had reason to charge M. Morton as I did, finding him so different from the Original book: so he, though he had lighted upon an other edition, had no reason (out of judgement & discretion) to urge so manifest an escape of the print (for so it must be taken) to the exprobration of two worthy learned authors as Carerius and Mancinus are; and consequently that M. Morton (notwithstanding all his defence) must needs be thought to have dealt craftily, and to have equivocated either materially or formally in urging so much verè for verò, & bringing the same in again two or three times afterwards, as you will see. Let us pass then to some other point if you please of more importance.   

THE OBJECTION OF M. Morton against the Modesty of P. R. §. VII.  
TThe proper title of this Paragraph as it standeth in M. Morions book is this: An argument o● P. R. his kind o● modesty, accompanied with a presumptuous falsehood, and in the Catalogue of his Chapters, P. R. his presumptuous falsehood in charging T. M. with falsi●ie in the allegation of the testimony of Doleman. 
Touching a false allegation of Dol●an by T. M. Preamb. pag. 18.  Where you see, that besides falsehood, he chargeth me with presumption, and thence belike with lack of modesty, for presuming to charge so upright a man, as he, with falsity. Wherefore let us make the account friendly, and see where the measure either of modesty, or truth, or want of both will be found.  

The charge given by P. R.  
78. First I do show in the former part of my Treatise of Mitigation, about Rebellion that M. Mo●ton leaving the questions of Divinity, & attending principally to sedition, exacerbation, & matters of mere sycophancie against Catholics in general, in respect of their received doctrine to make them thereby diffident and odious to his Ma.tie of England, sets down this Minor proposition out of a calumnious syllogism framed by him: 
Mitig. p. 71. A Very malignant conclusion of M. Morton.  But all Popish Priests upon this pretended Supremacy and prerogative of Pope and people, do utterly abolish the title of succession in all Protestant Princes: Ergo, And his ergo is to a good purpose, as you may assure yourself. In which heinous slander, you may note first, that albeit he name here only Priests, yet doth he mean it also of all laymen, that hold the same doctrine with Priests, & thereby strik●th at all their throats at once, so rank is his malice.  
79. After this I showed sundry sorts of malignant falsities, to be contained in this minor proposition of his, That all Priests (without exception) upon this pretended Supremacy, and prerogative of Pope and people, do utterly abolish all title of succession in all Protestant Princes. For first I show that Catholic doctrine giveth not Supremacy, 
Mitigat. c. 3.  or prerogative over Princes to the people; but that this is rather the doctrine of the chiefest Protestants of our time, so taught, and so practised by them in all countries, where they have dealt against their Superiors, and especially in England and Scotland.  
80. Secondly I do show that for so much as no such prerogative of people is pretended by our doctrine it cannot truly be said that upon this pretended prerogative all Popish Priests do abolish etc. No nor upon the supremacy or prerogative, which we ascribe to the Pope himself: for that the right, or not right of Protestant Prince's succession to Kingdoms dependeth not of the Pope's prerogative, but of the Canons of the Church, and temporal Statutes of particular Realms and Kingdoms. Thirdly that it is an exaggeration to say as he doth, that all Priests do utterly abolish etc. in all Protestant Princes etc. And now you know that exaggerations in capital accusations are heinous crimes, and show great lack of conscience and charity in the accusers.  
81. And to prove this to be an exaggeration, that all Priests did utterly a●olish the title of succession in all Protestant Princes, I alleged contrary examples in all the protestant Princes that ever succeeded in England, since the beginning of the world, who are known to be but three in number, King Edward, Queen Eli●abeth, and King james, who were admitted both by Priests and laymen, ergo all Priests do not utterly abolish all succession in all protestant Princes etc. and consequently some moderation must be granted on our side against this odious exaggeration.  
82 Next after this M. Morton bringeth in no less envious and hateful a proposition out of Doleman, saying, that Doleman doth pronounce sentence, that whosoever shall consent to the succession of a Protestant Prince, is a most grievous and damnable sinner; 
Malicious perverting of the Author's meaning. Dolman part. 1. p. 216.  but the book is examined, Dolemans words are found to be these only, that for any man t● give his help, consent, or assistance, towards the making of a King whom he judgeth or believeth to be faulty in Religion etc. is a most grievous and damnable sin in him that doth it, o● what side soever the truth be, or how good or bad soever the party be that is preferred: which last words do show M. Morton to be a calumniator in suppressing them, and affirming that to be spoken only against the succession of protestant Princes, which is spoken as well against Catholics as Protestants, and meant more principally of election than succession, as may appear by these words, If any man shall give his help to the making of a King etc.  
83. Here now M. Morton runneth aside from the purpose, and to avoid the necessity of defending himself directly allegeth out of M. Reynolds D. Stapleton, and Simancas divers sentences, whereby they signify, that in preferring of a Prince, religion ought to have the first place in consideration, which he applying to us, that do condemn Protestant religion will needs infer thereof, that, we do utterly abolish all till o● succession in Protestant Princes.  
84. But doth not the malicious man see, that the same inference may be made of all Professors of other Religions in like manner? As for example: If Protestants were to admit a King in France, and it lay in their hands to prefer either a Protestant or a Catholic, would any man doubt whom they would prefer, or whom they ought to prefer according to the rules of their own conscience? or will any learned, or honest Protestant, deny either that Religion in general is chiefly to be respected, or that his one religion is not to be preferred before others if it lay in his power? Let us put the case that a King of England or France having divers Princely Children, and one of them being taken by the Turks or other infidels as he travailed upon the sea, & brought to Constantinople, should there be perverted & made a Turk or Infidel, and that afterwards his parents and brethren dying, the right of succession should justly fall upon him, what learned counsel would M. Morton give in this case to the common wealth of England or France? 
A Dilemma to be answered by M. Mo●ton.  Will he think it lawful to admit him, notwithstanding the diversity of his religion? It may endanger the whole state of Christianity round about. Will he say it is lawful to exclude him? Then will it follow that succession may be resisted for Religion. I expect M. Mortons' answer to this Dilemma.  

Mitig. cap. 3.4.  85. Moreover it is showed by me in the book of Mitigation that the Protestants are not only the first and chief in this doctrine, that Princes may be resisted for Religion, which I show by manifold testimonies, but are the first also in practice thereof, ●s all histories do bear witness, as of the wars of ●he Hussites in Bohemia, and Albigenses in France, of more ancienter times, and of the Lutherans in Germany, ●he Zwinglians in Switzerland, the Trinitarians in Tran●●luania, the Hugonots in France, the Caluinists almost in every place where they put foot, to wit, in Holland, Zealand, Scotland, Hungary, and else where. And as for princes debarred by them from their due succession ●pon difference of Religion, 
Protestant's most forward in taking arms for pretence of religion, against their lawful Princes.  the examples of his Majesty's ties. Mother, notorious to all men, and the King ●f Polonia held from the succession of Sue●ia at this ●ay, being his natural birthright, do bear witness ●o the world.   

The Reckoning of this account.  
●6. Wherefore to come to knit up this reckoning briefly with M. Morton, we see first that he hath not been able exactly to verify any one of his two former propositions out of his own syllogism, concerning Dolemans assertion, but that he hath used exaggeration, and calumniation in them both, and that whatsoever he hath urged never so bloodily to incite his Majesty against us, may with much more reason & force of argument be retorted against himself, and his, as well in England (if the Puritans be his) as in other Countries against all sorts of Protestants. And when for ending of this Paragraph he frameth a syllogism invincible, as he pretendeth, to conclude against us, saying, One syllogism will assoil the whole doubt, he setteth down such a one, as may wholly be turned upon himself, changing only the person of whom it is made. The syllogism is this.  
Maior 
Every man is a damnable sinner who admitteth any to the Crown whom he thinketh faulty in Religion.  Minor 
But every Romish Catholic thinketh all Protestant Princes faulty in Religion;  Ergo 
Every Romish Catholic who admitteth a Protestant to succeed in the Crown, is a damnable sinner.   
87. All this syllogism, I say, is as well verified of Protestants as Catholics, and consequently the force of his argument concludeth nothing at all against us more than against himself and his. For as for the mayor proposition, 
The examination of M. Mortons' fond and malicious syllogism.  no Protestant of sense I think will but grant, that it is a damnable sin to admit any Prince (if it lie in his hand to prefer or hinder) whom he thinketh to be faulty in Religion, for that otherwise we must say that Protestants have no conscience concerning Religion, if they will advance wittingly any one that will in their opinion destroy the same. And then I make the minor, But every true Protestant thinketh Roman Catholics to be faulty in Religion: Ergo, every true Protestant that admitteth a Catholic Prince to succeed in the Crown, is a damnable sinner. And what then shall we say of the Dolphin of France, 
A case proposed about the Dolphin of France.  when he cometh to years to succeed in that Crown, after the death of the King his father? will the Protestants receive him or no? And if there were some such busy seditious spirits among Catholic preachers there, as this of M. Mort. and some others showeth itself to be in England, that would in all their sermons, and books raise quarrels, and contentions before hand about this matter, and procure his Christian Majesty to enter into new doubts and iealosyes, to propose new Oaths to his Protestant subjects; and not to believe them when they have sworn, but to give care to such clamorous makebates as these are; should he ever have quiet? Or his subjects contentment? ●his then may suffice that these wicked, and malignant calumniations against Catholics to set them 〈◊〉 perpetual iealosy and diffidence with the temporal Prince and state, in regard of their Religion & doctrine, are both extreme malicious, and foolish. malicious, in grating continually upon this seditious ●●ference of treason from Religion: foolish & sottish ●●cause the same inference may be made against ●●mselfe, or any sectaries whatsoever as hath been ●●●wed: and the facts of those of his side are so no●●●ious to the world, and continually in men's eyes, 〈◊〉 the very naming of this argument so often, condemneth him manifestly of both the vices before mentioned of malignity, and imprudency. Let us 〈◊〉 pass to another Paragraph of this his first In●●irie, wherein he seeketh most to make some ostentation of reason for himself, though he have less 〈◊〉 in the former.    

AN ANSWER OF M. Mortons' calumniation about the Truth of P. R. impugned. §. VIII.  
THE words containing the title of this last Paragraph in M. Morton are these: 
About the authority of Otho Frisingensis abused. Preamb. pag. 25.  An argument of ●●R. his kind of Truth, full of triumphant treachery: but in ●●e several Catalogue of his said Paragraphes, 〈◊〉 putteth it down thus. P. R. his 4. malicious tricks of falsehood in objecting a falsity concerning the testimony of Frisin●●nsis. And then he beginneth his Paragraph with ●hese words: Though all the former arguments saith he) of P. R. his wit, memory, learning, and modesty, contain in them the lively characters, and demonstrations of a liar: yet have I reserved to this last place of truth such an accusation from whence one would think he had gained a triumph. So he. And then he setteth down my words of Charge against him, for abusing the testimony of Frisingensis, which presently we shall recite. But first we must admonish the Reader, that he which in words objecteth here unto me so many characters and demonstrations of a liar, hath not hitherto in fact showed any one lest sign at all of such proceeding but hath been convinced of many himself, which if it had not been made evident enough, by th●s● few Paragraphes hitherto handled, having mat●●rs● of less moment; yet will it appear more substantially and abundantly afterward, when we come to examine punctually the difference of untruths objected on both sides, especially such as be witting and wilful, and some taste thereof will be given in the trial of this very Paragraph, wherein he chargeth me with so many characters of lying. For if I do not make it here manifest, that M. Morton hath dealt shiftingly, and with no sincere and upright conscience in the matter objected unto him; I am content that the Reader do condemn me, and ascribe unto me all those odious characters, which M. Morton before hath laid to my charge.  
89. And for more clear conceiving the matter, you must know, that M. Morton, 
Preamb. pag. 25.  who in this his preamble would make some show of probable defence in some few accusations of many great and heinous laid against him for falsity, hath thought good to choose out this example of Otho Frisingensis from the midst of two other much more grievous than this, 
Cunning dealing of M. Mort.  the one of falsifying and abusing Cardinal Bellarmine immediately going before, and the other of Lamber●us Schasnaburgensis, immediately following after; whereof the ●ormer he attempteth not at all to answer, the o●her he seeketh to shake of afterwards, but in vain, ●s you will see when we come to the place of exa●inatiō. And here this being a special place cho●en by him for defending his truth, and impugning ●yne, he should have touched them together, as ●hey lie together in my book: but that as one accused, and brought before a justice for theft or falsehood will be loath to have many matters disclosed together, but rather to answer one in one place, ●nd another in another, for that many jointly together would give suspicion, and credit the one 〈◊〉 the other: so dealeth here M. Morton, not so much 〈◊〉 mentioning the first, and the third, 
A crafty trick.  which are the ●ore grievous, but singling out that which lay in ●●e midst, which notwithstanding he can no way 〈◊〉 truth of plain dealing defend, as now you shall 〈◊〉. Thus then lieth my Charge against him in ●y former book.  

The charge by P. R.  
●0. In the very next page (say I) after the abuses offered to Cardinal Bellarmine's alleged testimony, 
Mitigat. p. 214.  M. Morton talking of the great and famous contention ●hat passed between Pope Gregory the 7. called Hilde●rand, and Henry the 4. Emperor of that name, ●bout the year 1070. he citeth the Historiographer Otto Frisingensis, 
The 7. example out of Otto Frisingensis.  with this ordinary title, Of our Otto, for that he writeth, that he found not any Emperor actually excommunicated or deprived of ●is kingdom by any Pope, before that time, except (saith he) that may be esteemed for an excommunication which was done to Philip the Emperor by the Bishop of Rome, almost 1400. years agone, when for a short time, he was inter poenitentes collocatus, placed by the said Pope among those that did penance, as that also of the Emperor Theodosius, who was sequestered from entering into the Church by S. Ambrose, for that he had commanded a certain cruel slaughter to be committed in the City of Thessalonica: both which exceptions (though set down by the author Frisingensis) this Minister of simple truth leaveth out of purpose, which is no simplicity as you see, but yet no great matter with him in respect of the other that ensueth, 
Fri●in. l. 6. hist. cap. 32. Otto Frisingensis abused. Ibid. l. 6. c. 36.  which is, that he allegeth this Frisingensis quite contrary to his own meaning, as though he had condemned Pope Gregory the 7. for it, whereas he condemneth that cause of the Emperor, and commendeth highly the Pope for his constancy in punishing the notorious intolerable faults of the said Henry. Hildebrandus (saith he) semper in Ecclesiastico vigore constantissimus suit; Hildebrand was ever the most constant in defending the rigour of Ecclesiastical discipline. And again in this very Chapter here alleged by T. M. Inter omnes Sacerdotes & Romanos Pontifices praecipui zeli et auctoritatis fuit; He was among all the Priests and Popes that had been of the Roman Sea of most principal zeal and authority. How different is this judgement of Frisingensi● from the censure of T. M. who now after five hundred years past, compareth the cause of Pope Gregory, to that of pirates, thieves, and murderers, and so citeth our Otto Frisingensis, as though he had favoured him in this impious assertion? Can any thing be more fraudulently alleged? Is this the assurance of his upright conscience, whereof he braggeth to his Majesty?  

The 8. example of Lamb. Schafnaburgensis.  91. But the next fraud or impudency, or rather impudent impiety is that which ensueth within four lines after in these words: Pope Gregory the seventh (saith your Chronographer) was excommunicate of the Bishops of Italy, for that he had defamed the Apostolic Sea by Simony, and other capital ●rimes; and then citeth for proof hereof Lambertus Schafnaburg. anno 1077. As if this our Chronographer had related this as a thing of truth, or that it were approved by him; & not rather as a slanderous objection cast out by his adversaries that followed the part of Henry the Emperor.  
●2. Hitherto I have thought good to recite my words, which are some few lines more than M. Morton citeth in his book, for that you should see the connection of things together, to wit, how these objected falsities about alleging of Frisingensis●re ●re craftily culled out from between the examples before cited of Bellarmine and Lambertus; but yet in this place we shall handle only that which M. Morton hath made choice of to be treated, and discussed, to wit; whether my former Charge against him for abusing the Authority of Otto Frisingensis be rightful and well founded or not, for that he that shall read this reply of M. Morton, will think that he hath injury offered him, for that I had guylfully urged matters against him further than truth and reason would require, and therefore he noteth against me in his argument these words, Four excellent tricks of falsehood in one page, which after we shall discuss, and show them to be rather frauds and shifts of his, than tricks of mine. Now then let us come to the examination of this Charge, which of us is to be found in falsity, and still I must advise the reader that to the end he may receive some utility by this conference, he have an eye to the spirit of false dealing, and not so much to errors of oversight, and this he shall easily descry, if he stand attended to the discussion.    

THE EXAMINATION OF this controversy more at large. § IX.  

Concerning other po●ntes about Frisingensis. Pr●●mb. pag. 27.  FIRST unto my whole Charge before laid down M. Morton answereth thus: In my full Satisfaction (saith he) part 3. cap. 11. pag. 28. that which was intended to be proved was this, that not till 1000 years after Christ did ever any Prelat● or Pope attempt the deposing of Emperors, and depriving them of their Crowns. For proof hereof I brought in the testimony of Otto Frisingensis from the witness of Tolosanus lib. 26. de Repub. cap. 5. in these words: 
M. Mortons' defence.  I read and read again, & find that Pope Hildebrand in the year 1060. was the first Pope that ever deprived an Emperor of his Regiment, wherein now have I wronged my conscience? Is it because Otto Frisingensis is cited contrary to his meaning? yet could it not prejudice my conscience, because I cited not the author himself, but only Tolosanus a Romish Doctor, who reported that sentence of Frisingensis.  

The Confutation thereof. Full satisfact. par. 3. c. 11. p. 28.  94. This is the first part of his answer, which is so full of wiles, sleights, & shifts, as doth easily show the disposition of the writer's mind to beguile. For first in the chapter by him named the intention was not only to improve the right of deposing Princes in the Pope, but also of excommunicating them, as appear by the title of the Chapter itself, which is this: That ●or more than 1000 years after Christ the Papal pretended jurisdiction over Kings hath been controlled. Now than this Papal pretended jurisdiction (as all men know) containeth as well excommunication, as ●eposition, the one being the efficient cause of the ●ther: so as for M. Morton to run to only deposition of Princes, is guylfully to slide from his mat●er, and from his own Authors, for that both Fri●●ngensis, and Tolosanus have as well the words excommunicated, as deprived o● his Kingdom, though Morton●ath ●ath cunningly stricken them out in citing their ●ords.  
●5. Secondly his excuse of having alleged Otto Fri●●●gensis against his own meaning from the witness 〈◊〉 Tolosanus cannot stand, or be cleared of deceitful ●●eaning, for in the English text which was writ●en for deceiving the English common Reader, was ●othing said at all of Tolosanus, but thus, in disgrace ●f Pope Gregory the 7. 
Ibidem.  I read and read again (saith your Otto Frisingensis) and I find that Pope Gregory the 7. ●●lled Hildebrand in the year 1060. was the first Pope that ●●er deprived any Emperor of his Regiment. And to this testimony he adjoineth Claudius ●sp●nseus a Parisian●octor ●octor, and writer in our time o● very small account, whom he calleth Bishop, but I never heard ●et of his Bishopric, and to him he adjoineth ●ambertus Schasnalurgensis against his own meaning, ●s he did this of Frisingensis. And with this only he ●ndeth all that Chapter instituted by him to improve all Papal authority of excommunicating and deposing Princes. Only in the margin he setteth down in latin the words of Frisingensis, with citing ●he book and Chapter, and then addeth, ut resert Tolosanus lib. 26.  
96. here than I would ask whether there were not fraud (supposing Frisingensis to be alleged against ●his meaning) to put down his testimony in the English text without relation or mention of Tolosanus, 
A double shift.  & only in the margin, and in latin to make reference unto him? Would the currant English reader ever reflect upon that, or mistrust that the words of Frisingensis were of doubtful credit, and related only by hearsay? Why had not M. Morton put down that reference in his English text which most imported? But the truth is, that it was a double cunning shift, to let it run in the text as he would have it believed by the Reader, as though Frisingensis had testified against Pope Gregory the 7. and yet in the margin to have some refuge underhand when he should be pressed with the falsehood of the allegation, as now he is.  
97. I let pass as of small moment the erroneous parenthesis which he putteth in of the year (1060.) which cannot be true, for that all English men know that William Conqueror upon the year 1066. entered into Engalnd, 
Polidore Holinshed Stow & others in anno 1066.  with a hallowed banner sent him from Pope Alexander the second, who was predecessor to Pope Gregory the 7. and consequently Pope Gregory could not excommunicate the Empero●r Henry upon this year assigned by M. Morton, for that he was not yet Pope for divers years after, but this I impute to error, and so insist not upon it, but rather upon other points of willing deceitfulness, which now I am to go forward in noting.  
98. I cannot persuade myself but that M. Morton had read Frisingensis himself, for it were absurd to write books out of other men's notes, as afterwards upon divers occasions he doth confess of himself, when otherwise he cannot avoid the objection of falsehood used: 
The words of Frisingensis curtolled.  but howsoever this were, that either M. Morton related the words of Frisingensis, as he found them in himself, or in Tolosanus, he hath not faithfully related them, as Tolosanus did: for thus they lie. 
Frising. in Chron. c. 35.  Lego (saith he) & relego Romanorum Regum & Imperatorum gesta, & nusquam invenio quemquam eorum ante hunc (Henricum quartum) à Romano Pontifice excommunicatum, vel Reg●● privatum, nisi sortè quis pro anathemate hahendum ducat, ●●òd Philippus ad breve tempus à Rom. Episcopo inter poeniten●● collocatus, & Theodosius à B. Ambrosio propter cruentam ●●dem, à liminibus Ecclesia sequestratus sit. I do read & read again the acts of the Roman Kings & Emperors ●●d I do never find any of them (before this Henry●●e ●●e 4.) to have been excommunicated or deprived of ●●s Kingdom, except perhaps some man will hold 〈◊〉 an excommunication, that the Emperor Philip●as ●as for a short time placed by the Bishop of Rome 〈◊〉 og such as did pennace, & Theodosius the Emperor ●as debarred the limits of the Church by S. Ambrose ●●ishop of Milan) in regard of a bloody slaughter cō●itted by his order.  
●●. These are the words of Frisingensis related punctually by Tolosanus as here they lie, but it pleased 〈◊〉 M. Morton to relate them, either as they are ●●und in the one or other. And as for the first part ●●erof, the Reader will see the difference by that ●hich I have already set down, and in one point ●●e fraud is manifest, that where Frisingensis saith, ●●squam invenio quemquam eorum excommunicatum, vel ●●gno privatum: 
Guileful omission  I never find any of the Emperors to ●aue been excommunicated or deprived (by the Bishop of ●ome,) he leaveth out the word excommunicated both ●n latin and in English, as though it made not to ●he purpose, and secondly he cutteth of both in la●in and English all exception of the emperors Phi●●p and Theodosius, though both his Authors have it. And could this be plain dealing?  
100LS. But here now you shall hear how he answereth this omission, 
Preamb. pag. 27.  I left them out of purpose I confess (saith he,) otherwise I should have been like to yourself in this & other such cavils, who desire to say much though nothing to the purpose: for to what purpose I pray you had this been, seeing our question was not to show what Emperors had been excommunicated, but who being excommunicated had been deposed from their regalityes. Yea (Sir) and will you escape so? why then doth your Author Frisingensis say that he findeth none excommunicated or deprived of his kingdom before Henry the 4. by Gregoy the 7? you see that he includeth both the one & the other, and so doth Tolosanus relate him also, and you have struck out the former from Tolosanus his latin text set down in your margin because it should not be seen: and then also both the foresaid exceptions of the emperors Philip and Theodosius he cutteth of & suppresseth, as nothing to the purpose: and yet you know that deposition of Princes is an effect of excommunication, and can never happen by Ecclesiastical authority, but where excommunication hath gone before. 
A Demand hardly to be answered by M. Morton.  And I would ask M. Morton in good earnest out of his Devinity, when a Christian Prince is lawfully excommunicated and shut out from all society of Christian communion and he persist impenitent, how can he be head of a Christian common wealth, for so much as he is no member, nor hath any place or part at all in the whole body, the headship being the chief part of all others?  
101. Much then it importeth to know the authority and antiquity aswell of excommunication as of deposition: from which cause the examples alleged by Frisingensis ought not to have been suppressed or embezzled: and Tolosanus here alleged by M. Morton produceth an other example both of excommunication and deposition above an hundred years before this of Frisingensis, 
Tolos. de rep●b. l. 6. c. 13. n. 20.  saying: Antea quidem, Gregorius tertius etc. Before this, Gregory the third being made Pope upon the year 759. did deprive Leo the third Emperor of Constantinople, both of his Empire, and the communion of Christians, for that he had cast holy images out of the Church, and defaced them, and ●eld a wicked opinion against the B. Trinity: thus ●e. And that Tolosanus in this saith truth, 

Two other examples omitted.  
Zonoras' in vita Leonis Isaur.   is testified ●●so by Zonoras' a greek historiographer in the life ●f the said Emperor Leo Isauricus. And before that again Pope Innocentius the first that lived with S. augustines is read to have excommunicated the Emperor Arcadius, and the Empress Eudoxia for their 〈◊〉 just persecution of S. Chrysostome, though no deprivation followed thereof, but amendment rather ●f the fault, as is to be seen in Nicephorus. 
Niceph. 13. Histor. c. 34.  here ●en the suasion of M. Morton, by saying that the ●atter of excommunication pertained not to his purpose is wholly impertinent, for so much as that 〈◊〉 the only immediate cause of deposition by Eccle●●asticall power. But now let us pass to the other ●hiefe point to consider, whether Frisingensis was alleged wholly against his own purpose, or not.  
●02. M. Morton being pressed with my former answer, 

Whether Frisingensis were alleged against his own meaning.  
Pream. pag. 27.82. Full satisfact. part. 3. cap. 11. §. 29.  
Schafnaburgensis ann. 1077.   wherein I do show that Frisingensis being alleged by him to disgrace Pope Gregory, aliâs Hildebrand, ●s much wronged (for that he commendeth him highly and his doings) seeketh this shift now by saying, ●hat he alleged him only in the question of antiquity, concerning ●he time when first any Pope did take upon him to depose Emperors. But this is manifestly false, for he allegeth him to both ends, to wit for antiquity and for disgrace but principally to disgrace him. For having showed (as he persuaded himself) that Pope Hildebrand was the first that used such proceeding against Emperors, he addeth presently, that it was a new act, & that it is nought also, will appear (saith he) by the Actor, for Pope Gregory the 7. (as your Chronographer saith) was excommunicated of the Bishops of Italy, for that he had defamed the Apostolic Sea by Simony, and other capital crimes. So he. And to this calumniation, he joineth the saying of Claudius Espencaeus in these words. Hildebrand ●as the first Pope (saith your Bishop ●spencaeus) who by making a new rent be●●ene Kingdom and Popedom, did raise ●orce against the Imperial diadem, arming himself, & by his example exci●ed o●her Popes against Princes excommunicate.  
103. These two testimonies then of Espencaeus and Schasnaburgensis, 
See Otto Fri●ing. lib. 6. Chronic. c. 34.35.36.  being joined with the t●ird of F●isingensis (which are all that M. Morton allegeth) let the prudent Reader consider, whether they be not brought to disgrace Pope Hildebrand in his action against the Emperor Henry or not; and yet do the first and last (which are the more ancient Authors) very earnestly commend the said Pope, and defend his action of deposing the Emperor, and consequently are brought in by mere prevarication of M. Morton to disgrace him.  
104. And as for the third which is Espencaeus, though he were neither Bishop to my knowledge, nor otherwise of any great estimation among us, 
The notable abusing of Espencaeus  yet is he handled here no less injuriously, & fraudulently by M. Morton then the other two, which I note now more especially then in my first answer, both for that his authority is named and urged again in this place, and for that I could not then get any sight of this his second book of disgressions upon the first Epistle of S. Paul to Timothy, though I had other books of his, 
Claud. Esp●n●. lib. 2. digress. in Epist. 1. ad Timoth. c. 6. p. 274.275. edit. Paris. 1561.  but now having found the same, I have discovered withal such fraud as was fit for such a spirit, as M. Mortons' seemeth to be, that rarely useth exact truth in citing of any thing; for that these words alleged against the Pope are not the words of Claudius ●spencaeus himself (as in untruly affirmed by M. Morton,) but related by him out of a certain angry and impatient Epistle, written 〈◊〉 certain schismatical Priests of Liege, that were commanded by Pope Paschalis the second to be chanced by Robert Earl of Flanders, and his soldiers ●●wly come from Jerusalem about the year 1102. ●●r their rebellious behaviour, which Priests with henry their schismatical Bishop wrote a very passionate invective complaint against this act and com●●ssion of Pope Paschalis, inveghing also against the ●●ing of Pope Hildebrand not long before deceased for 〈◊〉 like cause, all which M. Morton concealeth, and ●●eth the words of ●spencaeus himself: Your Bishop ●●●encaeus (saith he) writeth of Hildebrand etc. which he ●●ould not but know to be false, if he read the ●●oke and place by himself cited, for that Espencaeus●oth ●oth not only in the beginning of his citation use ●●is entrance, extat in 2. ●omo Conciliorum edit. Coloniensis, ●●leri Leodiensis ad Paschalem secundum querimonia, There 〈◊〉 extant in the second tome of councils a complaint ●f the Clergy of Liege to Pope Pascali● the second, 
Claudius' Espenceus egregiously a●used and that wilfully.  but 〈◊〉 the end also of all his speech which containeth a ●ong discourse, he concludeth thus. Hactenus Leodi●●sium & verba & sensa. Hitherto have I related both ●he words & sense of those Priests of Liege, & presently for himself saith, that he will not meddle with the controversy of fight between Popes and Emperor's, though he prove by sundry examples both out of the scripture, Fathers and Counsels that in some cases it is lawful for Priests to use temporal arms also: so as for M. Morton to come and avouch as he did in his former book of full Satisfaction, that our Bishop Espencaeus affirmed this of himself against Pope Hildebrand, whereas he must needs know that he saith it not, but relateth it only out of others, without approving the same, is to add prevarication to prevarication, and never to make an end of wilful lying, especially seeing that i● this his last Preamblatory reply he is so far of from amending the matter, 
Preamb. pag. 28.  as that he turneth upon the same again, saying: I produced Claudius Espencaeus, their own Romish Bishop, that doth plainly aver that Hildebrand was the first Pope, who without any example of antiquity made a schism between Emperors and Popes etc. Good Sir, will you stand to this, that Claudius Espencaeus doth plainly aver it? Is this true? Is this sincere? And how doth he plainly aver it, if he do not so much as affirm it of himself, but only relateth what others that were in schism, choler, and passion did utter in this behalf? Is this good dealing?  

The sum of all this Paragraph, about Frisingensis, Tolosanus, and Espencaeus.  
105. Now then to gather a brief sum of what hath passed in this reckoning, it seemeth M. Morton is so far of from having justified himself in this last combat, 
Four malicious tricks objected by T. M. returned vp●on himself.  which he instituted for demonstration of his truth, and for blazing the characters (as he calleth them) of my falsehood, that he hath entangled himself much more than before, as in part hath appeared by that we have now discussed. It remaineth then that for a conclusion we examine his former four tricks of falsehood, which he saith to have found in one only page of my writing. Let us hear them as he setteth them down: He hath played me (saith he) ●oure malicious tricks in one page: one is to lay an imputation of falsehood upon me, as though I had cunningly pretermitted the examples of Emperors excommunicate, whereas the question was only concerning Emperors deprived of their dignities. 
Preamb. pag. 29.  But my answer is, that if there be any trick at all in this, and much more any false trick, it must needs rest on M. Mortons' part, who to deceive his Reader concealed those examples of emperors excommunicate, that were in his Authors. And in simple dealing he should have ●●yd them down, & not fraudulently have cut them 〈…〉 hath been said, for that they greatly imported ●e matter it self, as before hath been declared: but ●ow to the second trick, which we shall relate in ●is own words. The second caui●● (saith he) is that ●. R. did not acknowledge the commendation of Hil●●brand in ●t●o ●risingensis, when as I intended no● to pro●e 〈◊〉 of this Au●●or the equity, but only the antiquity of that practise. Wher●● I answer, that you meant to prove the iniquity 〈◊〉 the said Pope, and of his fact, & thereby to discredit him: and to that end did you allege both ●●isingensis, ●spenc●us, and Schasnaburgensis quite against ●●eir meanings, as hath been showed: so as this second ●●icke was also yours, and not mine. The third trick (say you) in making me so perniciously envious, as to condemn hildebrand without a witness, when as I produced your own bishop Espencaeus to condemn him. But this trick is also ●ours, for that now I have showed, that neither ●o I know him for a Bishop, as still you call him, ●or doth he condemn Pope Hildebrand: but you do ●se a foul false trick with him in making him to say ●hat which he doth not, but reciteth only out of o●her men's passionate speeches, as hath been proved, which is a false trick indeed.  
106. The last trick is (saith he) in charging me with a wilful perverting of the meaning of the Author Otho Frisingensis, when as if it had been so abused, yet not I, but their own D. Tolosanus was the Author of that report. This now is a poor trick, and scarce worthy the name thereof, it being a simple shift by denial, when the matter is evidently evicted by witness and manifest demonstration, for that Tolosanus related the words of Frising●nsis sincerely, 
M. Mort. 4. tricks returned upon himself.  and you corruptly, yea you corrupted also Tolosanus his report, and recital of Frisingensis words, as hath been showed, so as if Tolosanus his text had any error it was your fraud: & how then can you for shame lay the fault upon him, whose relation yourself perverteth? What trick is this?  
107. And so, for so much as these four points, which you call tricks, are grave and serious charges truly laid against you, and so substantially proved, as you have not been able to avoid any one of them (when now it imported you most for your credit to do it,) I must infer that all these four excellent tricks of falsehood, that you mention in your margin (which are but consequences of the precedent evictions made against you) do remain wholly, and solely unto yourself. And for trial I refer the reader to the proofs partly before set down, and much more to such as are afterward to ensue.    

THE CONCLUSION, and general Reckoning of all this Chapter, or Inquiry. §. X.  
AND having now passed over all these eight or nine Paragraphes of sundry matters handled therein, 
The recapitulation of all the precedent Paragraphes.  you come at last (M. Morton) to conclude very confidently, as though the whole account had fallen out for you, and against me, and that I had remained chargeable with much false dealing against you, for these are your last words. The view of all these, and other formerly mentioned wilful and transparent falsities of P. R. together with some other like desperate calum●i●ations to be pointed at in this Preamble, 
Preamb. pag. 29.  causeth me justly to present him with his own Image, professing unfeignedly that I never found any writer of any profession whatsoever, who hath used such shameful fraud in writing.  
109. This is a grievous charge, as you see, of de●●erate dealing on my behalf; especially for so much 〈◊〉 he protesteth to speak it unfeignedly. 
A rash & precipitous censure.  And it should ●equire in reason both of conscience & religion ma●e pregnant proofs: for that otherwise the stayed ●eader (whether he be Protestant or Catholic) ●ust needs take the accuser for a light and passionate person, that would come to charge his adversary with so heinous crimes upon small or light ●ounds. Let us look back then (if you please) vpō●●l these mine heads or Paragraphes handled by us hitherto; for that hereby will appear, whether M. ●orton had just cause to give this rigorous censure against me, or not, about matter of false dealing.  
●10. In the first Paragraph about the sleeping soul●iers of jerusalem there was not so much as any one ●biection made against me for falsity to my remem●rance, 
The sleeping soldiers of Jerusalem.  only this note is in the margin, P. R. grossly ●●norant in Divinity, for that I hold, that the device ●f the jewish magistrates, in giving out that our saviours body was stolen away (though it were false ●nd a lie, and so known to themselves) yet that the invention thereof in such a straight, was neither against common sense (as M. Morton avoucheth) nor yet so absurd, as they who devised it might be esteemed senseless, but rather crafty and guileful. And finally in this Paragraph M. Morton professeth to deal against my wit only, and not against my truth, until he come to the last of all: so as here he seemeth not to have discovered any such gross transparent falsities of mine● Let us recall to memory the rest.  
111. In the second Paragraph he impugneth my memory, and layeth to my charge, 
Error in counting objected.  that I erred in numbering the times, that the clause of reservation was expressed both in Latin and English, which I have answered before. And if it had been an error, yet an error had it been of memory, or lack of attention, and not of malice, for that nothing could be gained thereby. And albeit M. Morton in the heat of his exaggerations do call it a lie, and a multiplied lie: yet if it had been so, it could not be more than a material lie, such a one as might happen by mistaking without any fault of mind, or sin at all: for so much as the speaker not having any interest thereby, cannot probably be imagined to have forged it wittingly, I mean the error in counting, if it had been proved, as it could not.  
112. In the third Paragraph he hath so much to do to defend his own syllogism (which yet he cannot do) as little leisure he had or occasion to object falsehood against me, 
3. and 4.  & less means to prove it. He picked quarrels against my reformation of his syllogism, as also against the division of equivocation in the fourth Paragraph, but both were answered, as before you have heard, without any great charges given ●f falsehood on either side, 
About his syllogism  the matter not offering occasion; so as neither here can the exaggeration of desperate calumniations be found, which M. Morton in his heat objecteth.  
113. In the fifth Paragraph concerning the place of Esay cap. 29. vers. 9 cited for the posy of his book, 
5. and 6.  all the charge of falsehood is against himself for alleging that out of Esay, 
The place of Esay misalleadged.  which is not there: and his reply to me is against my skill in Greek and Hebrew, which I professed not, though little might serve to convince him in that behalf. And the same may be said of the sixth Paragraph entitled, Against my Charity, for urging so much the difference of verè and verò, 
Verè for Verò.  out of the text of Alexander Carerius. And albeit that M. Morton in the title of this Paragraph do name a triumphant falsehood to be proved against me: yet after when he cometh to the proof, he hath nothing else to say, but that I did charge him wrongfully for using verè for verò, for ●o much as he found it in a later edition foe Carerius in Cullen print: which suppose it may be true, yet is it ●othing to me that reproved him out of the first & original Italian edition. So as here also, he and not 〈◊〉 was charged with falsehood,  
●14. The seventh Paragraph also hath a charge ●f falsehood against him, and not me, for saying that ●olman doth pronounce sentence, 
7 About Dolman.  that whosoever shall consent to the succession of a Protestant Prince, is a most grievous ●●d damnable sinner, which Dolman saith not: for than he ●●ould hold it also to be a damnable sin in a protestant to admit a Protestant Prince; for that the ●ord (whosoever) comprehendeth all sorts of men: ●ut Dolmans saying is, that it is sin for any man to pre●●re one whom in conscience he thinketh to be contrary in religion to the truth, as now you have heard: and M. Mort. ●ath not been able to clear himself of the charge.  
●15. As much less of the other charge about alleging the Chronographer Otto Frisingensis against his ●wne meaning in the eight Paragraph, 
8 About Frisingensis.  where the Reader hath seen him so entangled, while he struggleth to rid himself of open false dealing, as he maketh his matter far worse: but against me he hath ●o● one thing of moment objected in that kind. ●nd the very same may I say of the two other last ●aragraphes. 
9 and 10.   
●16. All which being so, I would gladly see now in very real truth (all passion set aside) upon what ground M. Morton can infer this heinous accusation, 
A real demand to M. Morton.  of so many wilful and transparent falsities, desperate calumniations, shameful fraud, and this more frequent than in any writer, that ever he read of what profession soever, and that he professeth unfeignedly to have found this to be true: I would gladly know (I say) upon what grounds he maketh this so solemn protestation: For except the examples, which he can allege be exorbitant, he woundeth greatly not only his conscience, but his credit also with all good men, in running into such superlative exces●es of false and contumelious speech.  
117. And for that you protest hear so solemnly (M. Morton) and unfeignedly, that you never ●ound ●●ie writer of any pro●ession whatsoever, who hath used such shameful fraud, as I have done: you force me besides this ci●●e & positive defence of myself, to go yet further, & to compare my behaviour in this behalf with some principal men of your profession, 
The comparison with some of the Protestant Religion for truth in writing.  as namely with M. jewel, who, was he not of your profession? and have you not read him? if you have, and have been so diligent in noting him, as you would seem to have been in my book, and of what is observed against him by his adversaries, as you might have been, then may you remember that M. Doctor Harding in his first Rejoinder to M. jewels reply hath these words to the reader: 
D. Hard. in his preface of the Rejoinder.  The number of untruths uttered on M. jewels part, noted & confuted by M. Doctor Sanders, by the author of Return of Untruths, and by myself amounteth to a thousand and odd, and yet of his 26. articles only 5. have passed our examination.  
118. M. Horn also, was he not of your profession? and have not you found in D. Stapletons' Counterblast 690. untruths, 
Mitigat. cap. 12. n. 43.  as in my book also I noted unto you? M. Fox in like manner, was he not of your profession? whom I have showed in the foresaid Chapter of my book to have innumerable lies unanswerable, and above 120. within the compass only of 3. leaves: whereof if you were now able to answer but ten for clearing of his credit after his death, I would say you were a man of great valour. I did set you down also in the last Chapter of my book of Mitigation many other clear examples of a wilful lying spirit in divers of your profession, and ●●ose so plain, as no probable excuse can be had, 
M. Morton much pressed.  ●hy had you not answered them now, as in reason ●ou were bound, or had proved the like against me ●efore you had avouched so resolutely, that I had ●eeded all other writers of what profession soever in shameful ●●ud in answering? Or is your profession to speak, ●●u care not what? Do you respect what you vt●●●? Or do you not think that other m●n will c●n●●●●r what you speak, and upon what grounds?  
●●9. I have heard of some men to be of such a ●●●ilitie in uttering untruths, that albeit they did certainly know, that within few days or hours ●●●erwards their hearers would come to know, that ●●ey speak falsely: yet to gain that little time, ●●ey would lie so confidently, as if they had been ●●re, that the truth would never come to light. ●nd so it seemeth to far with you: 
A comparison of a wilful liar.  for that we ●●ing to come within few leaves after in this book 〈◊〉 examine what you are able to say against me, ●r matter of untruth, and I against you (which s 〈◊〉 principal subject of this book) it will quick●● be manifest, how clear I am from any just im●●tation of wilful falsity, and how guilty you ●●d yours are: and yet wou●d you nee●es discredit ●our self with the judicious Reader in this place 〈◊〉 impawning not only your estimation, but also ●our conscience, that you never found any so faulty, for lying ●nd shameful fraud, as my sel●e. But I appeal to the trial, that hath already been made in part, and shallbe more fully afterwards in the ensuing Chapters, where I suppose that you will so be laid open be●ore your own face and others, and myself so cleared, as, if I be not deceived, you wil● be ashamed of this your overlashing exaggeration.    

THE SECOND CHAPTER ANSWERING TO M. MORTONS' SECOND INQVIRY, WHETHER P. R. may be judged a competent Advocate in this cause, which he hath assumed: and of some other points belonging thereunto, especially touching the title, and argument of the Book of Mitigation.  

PREFACE.  
WHEREAS M. Morton in th' beginning of this his Preamble hath reduced the whole subject thereof to three heads, which he calleth Inquiries; the first, What sufficiency there is in P. R? the second, Whether he may be thought to be a sufficient Proctor in this case or no? the third, Whether he hath sufficiency to perform his task? all impertinent and idle matters as you see. And as the distribution is very uncleere and confused, every member treating of sufficiency; so is the prosecution thereof much more deform, for that the first Inquiry having had thirty pages allowed unto it, the second hath but three or four, and handleth no matter at all of any moment, but only a certain feigned ridiculous conference, or colloquy devised by M. Morton to be held upon a stage by his two adversaries, the Moderate Answerer, and the Mitigator, 
Prea●. pag. 30  deciphering (saith he) the disposition of both my adversaries, by way of a dialogue, bringing them upon the stage.  
2. But Sir, is this agreeing to a grave Divine, to take upon him the part of a stage-player, and to answer your Adversaries with scornful fictions instead of sound arguments? Let us here some few passages of your play, if it like you. Thus beginneth the Moderate answerer to fall out with P. R. You have been altogether presumptuous (saith he) to take upon you this Answer, 
T. M. fō● Interlude.  because residing out of England, you cannot be rightly experienced etc. (P.R.) I have not been arrogant, but thou hast been rash, 
Mitig. pref. n. 10.  and precipitant, for if thou by thy former answer mightest have been thought sufficient for a Reply, what needed such posting to me beyond the seas & c? (M.A.) Have patience I pray you, I was enforced to take exceptions to all Authors out of England. (P. R.) Thou hast done well etc. (M.A.) I think Sir, 
Scratches threatened by M. Morton.  you are troubled with a disease of some of our Catholic lawyers, of whom you have said, they itch to be doing in answering M. Attorney, this was also my disease, but I after sound a scratch, and so may you.  
3. Thus goeth that Colloquy: and can any thing be set down more in●ulsely in so grave a matter, as we have in hand? And as for itching and scrathing I have spoken somewhat before. No man that is of any zeal towards truth, when he seeth most absurd and gross untruths uttered, can choose but to have that holy itch in their fingers, to refute or discover the same, for it is an adu●se of the holy Ghost himself; 
Prou. 26.5.  Answer a ●oole according to his folly, lest to himself he may se●me to be wise. And this hath been done both against M. Attorney, and yourself; and you like a bad Chaplain, and wo●se Champion, have not defended him at all, but left him in the plain field: only now you seem to threaten scratches, which commonly amongst bad women is the end of scolding: but your nails I suppose are so pared, and will be be●ore this account be ended, as they will draw little blood, or hurt any but yourself.  
4. And so not meaning to lose any more time in this vain Interlude of yours, wherein yourself would seem to play the Vice, spending your whole second Inquirie in this babble (●or no other matter of moment do you touch:) I for covering your nakedness, or rather idleness herein, have thought good to do you this pleasure, as to handle some other points contained under your third Inquiry, appertaining unto the title, and contents of my book of Mitigation, impugned by you, to the end, that the second Inquiry of yours might not seem to too ridiculous, and contemptible to the Reader.   

WHAT M. MORT. ANSWERETH in effect to the former part of my Treatise about Rebellion, and against the Title thereof §. I.  
FOR that my book is entitled A Treatise tending to Mitigation towards Catholic subjects in England, wherein is declared that it is not impossible for sub●ectes of different religion (especially Catholics ●nd Protestants) to live together in dutiful obedience and subjection etc. M. Morton taketh upon ●im to play ingeniously, as he thinketh, upon this word impossible, set down in the title of my book: ●ut, as I think, ridiculously, saying, 
Preamb. pag. 34.35.  that I promise no ●ore for my Clients the Catholics, but that it is not impossible for them to live in obedience. But this is a mere ca●ill of a seditious spirit, casting in iealosyes upon every occasion, to a malicious turbulent end: for that my title answereth directly to the purport of his former virulent books, that it was impossible in regard of the difference of our doctrines for Protestant and Catholic subjects to live quietly together vn●er his Majesty in England, 
The question whether it be possible or impossible for Catholics and Protestant's to live together in civil obedience.  by which he meant to ●et an unquenchable fire of discord between those two sorts of people; not only in respect of their Religion, but also of their civil life, and fidelity towards their Prince. My answer then being contradictory to the assertion of M. Morton, containeth so much as was needful to be said to his negative, he saying that it is impossible, and I, that it is not impossible, which albeit, it contain but a generality, yet doth it suppose all necessary conditions that are to be required, for performance: As for example, if a noble woman persuaded by some such unquiet spirit as M. Morton seemeth to be, should resolve to part from her husband saying, it is impossible for me and you to live together, the difference of our natures & conditions being considered, & that her husband should answer again, it is not impossible; doth he not answer surficiently, and to the purpose? for he understandeth the other circumstances included, if you bear yourself like a wife, have respect to both our honours, & the like. 
A comparison.  Vain then and impertinent is the cavillation of M. Morton, that here is nothing proved but a possibility: for so much as this possibility was denied by him before, and is here again upon sundry causes & presumptions, as now we shall see: and consequently my proving this union, and concurrence in temporal obedience not to be impossible, overthroweth directly his whole drift both in his former two books, and this other Preamble, wherein he holdeth that it is impossible. Let us here his reasons whereon his imaginations are founded.  

His first reason of Impossibility  6. His first reason of Impossibility, and that confessed (as he saith) by me, is, for that Catholic subjects do believe, that in some cases there is power left by God in the Church, and head thereof the Bishop of Rome, over Princes to use not only spiritual Censures for restraint of exorbitant excesses, 
Preamb. pag. 36.37.  but temporal remedies also, either directly or indirectly, 
Mitigat. prof. pag. 24.  when urgent necessity of the Commonwealth should require, and no other sweeter means could prevail. Whereof M. Morton will needs infer, that our combynation in civil concord and obedience to our temporal Prince, can not stand, no more (saith he) than jews and jebuzites in one kingdom, Isaac and Ishmael in one house, jacob & Esau in one ●ombe: and then a little after, that our concord stands of no more possibility, than Pope, & no Pope, King's Supremacy, and not Supremacy, which opposites (saith he) can never be reconciled together. Whereto I answer, that in belief and doctrine they cannot be reconciled, but in civil life and conversation, and practice of due temporal obedience they may be no less (for any thing touching this point) then if they were ●ll of one Religion, i● such make-bates as these would ●ease to set sedition: for that all Catholic subjects also of other Countries do hold and acknowledge this doctrine, without any prejudice at all of their fidelity, affection, or dutiful Allegiance towards their Sovereign Princes, & liege Lords, though there be sundry cases, wherein their said Princes may be obnoxious to the execution of this doctrine, besides difference of Religion, which one point of different Religion this Stickler doth only urge in this our ca●e, as most odious.  
7. But i● all those Christian Princes that have been censured by the Church, from Christ's time downward were laid together, whether emperors Kings, or others, the far greater part of them would be found to have been chastised, and pursued, not so much for any difference of Religion, as for other causes and crimes. 
Most Protestant Princes neu●r censured ●y the Sea Apostolic.  And if we look upon our times since Protestant Religion hath been named in the world, we shall find only two to have been proceeded against by the Church, and many other never touched, as the King of Denmark, the Intruder of Suetia, the Duke of Saxony, the Count Palatine of Rhine the Marquis of Brandeburge, and divers other Princes and States, as also those of Holland, and Zealand, and lastly his Majesty that reigned above 30. years in Scotland, professing Protestant Religion, and now some good number of years in England, without that any Pope hath gone about to use that authority against them which is here made by M. Morton so perilous, and pernicious, as though it were impossible for his Kingdom and Crown to be in safety while this doctrine is believed, or extant in books, which being throughout all Christendom, & received by the whole Catholic world, will be hard for the Minister to remove or extinguish, & consequently he laboureth but in vain, or rather far worse than in vain, endeavouring to entangle his Prince's mind with a perpetual, restless, & remediless iealosy, suspicion, & solicitude, impossible ever to be cured as himself striveth to prove by those his impossibilityes, though they prove not indeed the point itself, which he would persuade, that there is no mean of civil quiet union in life, whilst this doctrine of the Pope's authority is believed of his subjects.  

His 2. and 3. reasons.  8. His other two next reasons of impossibility (for he hath four in all) are so obscurely and intricately set down, as if he understand them himself, it is much in my opinion: for as for me, I confess, I see not what inference can be made out of them, though I have perused them over with much attention more than twice: and the same I suppose, the common Reader will say, when he hath in like manner considered of them. For they concern only the excommunication of Q. Elizabeth, and of King Henry the fourth of France; which Censure was promulgated by two several Popes of this our age, and consequently the doctrine is dangerous, saith he. But I have showed now, that more than three times so many Protestant Princes were tolerated by other Popes: how than do these two examples infer so general a necessity of disobedience in all Catholic subjects? yea and an impossibility of the contrary, that they can be obedient?  
●. His fourth and last reason of impossibility ● wherein, saith he, 
His 4. reason.  may be observed a sportful, or rather execrable impostureshipp of P. R.) consisteth in this, that whereas I do write in my Treatise of Mitigation, 
Preamb. pag. 39  that ●ut of Catholic doctrine concerning Papal authority in some cases (to wit, when we talk what ●opes may absolutely do) M. Morton argueth, 
Mitig. c. ●. p. 95.  and will ●eedes infer, that such & such great dangers may ●●sue to Princes thereby; I do answer him thus, ●hat all this arriveth but to a may: so as the question being but de fu●uris contingentibus, of things continent and to come (whereof the Philosopher saith, ●●ere is no● science) all remaineth in doubtful uncertainty, but only the suspicion, envy, & hatred, which ●●e Minister would raise against us. But on the con●●ary, what the Protestant's doctrine hath done, and ●oth at this day against lawful Princes in their ●●almes, their armies do show etc. This in effect I ●id then, and upon this M. Morton entereth now into ●reat choler, saying not only that this my answer 〈◊〉 an execrable impostureshipp, as before you have heard, ●ut also he further breaketh into these pathetical ●ordes of ridiculous exaggeration: I cannot laugh, saith ●e, for wonder & horror, 
Pream. pag. 40.  to see any English man conceit so basely 〈◊〉 the wits & worth of his Countrymen, as to imagine they could 〈◊〉 deluded with so senseless, so shameless, so pernicious, so impi●● a mitigation, as this is: to be persuaded therefore not to ●●bour ●or preventing ensuing dangers, because they be contingent, that is, such as may happen: what can be more senseless? 
M. Mort. foolish insultation.  Do you see this man's heat? and do you mark how jocund and prachant he is, when he getteth a little matter, whereat he may make a show to speak somewhat probably.  
10. here than he inveigeth and insulteth against me, as though I did hold, that there were no providence or care to be had of future perils, that are contingent, saying: Doth not nature in beasts, reason in man, precept of God, teach us the law of providence? even therefore to seek to prevent ensuing dangers, because they are contingent, and may be hereafter? But M. Morton doth either wilfully mis●ake me, 
Wilful mistaking.  or else I cannot conceive so well of his wit and worth; as he would have me, if he understand me not. For I do not dispute against providence in general in things that are contingent, and may fall out: for I know & contesse, that providence is a principal part of the high virtue of prudence surnamed Cardinal, whereby man is likened to God, & surpasseth all other terrene creature's; yet say I therewithal, that it must go accompanied with judgement, discretion, and moderation, which are other branches also of the same most excellent virtue of prudence. For if they be wanting, they do make prudence unprofitable: yea oftentimes pernicious, turning it into malignant suspicions, mistrustfullnesse, frights, fears, jealousies, & other like effects, which do work the greatest infelicity, that in the world can be imagined. And of these pestilent effects, 
The pestilent effects of flatterers.  are efficient causes, for the most part, in Princes, the cunning sycofancy, subtlety & malicious informations, suggestions & egging of flatterers, & makebates about them, who for their own gain & private ends, care not what seeds of iealosyes they sow in Princes heads against others, so they may reap favours themselves, by seeming to be provident and ben●uolous: no● do they weigh, what eating and consuming cares, and solicitudes they plant in the minds of their Masters, so themselves may rest at ease, as one said well of Dionysius the King of Sicily his spy, when after supper he had secretly filled his Prince's head with many false imaginations and jealousies, himself went merrily to the tavern, and after liberal drinking he slept sound all that night, but his Lord going to bed could sleep nothing at all.  
11. But to return to our present case, I do not deny, nor ever did, that due providence & provision ought to be held for ●uture cases, as M. Morton doth here most untruly affirm, & thereon fraudulently doth found his whole discourse: but my saying is, that it must have due limits, lest it become hurtful, to wit, a vain & vexing jealousy. I say moreover that every may be, is not a m●st be, & to fill Prince's ears with possibilities only of dangers without some particular circumstances of probabilities or credibilities, is an officious wounding them under pretence of fawning good will. As for example if one should do nothing else, 
Suspicions without ground only vexations.  but lay before his Majesty that now reigneth, the disasters and perils, that have happened to his nobl● ancestors in our Land, without ●urther particular ground of likelihood against himself, but only that they have happened, and therefore may happen again; it were an importune babbling. King William Ru●us was slain in hunting; & his elder brother Richard, as also his nephew of the same name, son of Robert Duke of Normandy had like disastrous ends in hunting; therefore his Majesty must hunt no more. The children of King Henry the first were drowned on the sea; therefore no more Princes children must pass the seas upon no occasion. Some Kings of England were pursued by their own Children, as King Henry the second, and ●dward the second, and the last also by his wife the Queen; therefore his Majesty must stand in jealousy of his own blood. King Stephen, King Richard the second, Edward the second, Henry the 6. and some others are thought to have been betrayed by some of thei● own counsellors, and King john was pursued by his own Barons, and Nobility; therefore his Majesty at this day must rest in jealousy both of the one & other sort of subjects: do not you see how far this lieth open to injurious calumniation and sedition?  
12. But I will give an example more proper yet to the matter. If a seditious fellow in England that had great authority with the people, and small affection towards the Prince, should continually cry and beat into their heads, that they look well about them, and stand upon their guard, for that their King may abuse his Authority and become a Tyrant, 
The case of a turbulent fellow against his King under colour of providence  and may oppress them at his pleasure, when they think not of it, alleging no other probabilities, and arguments of likelihood, but only that he may do it, or that some such thing hath fallen out before, as here M. Morton doth, against the Pope's authority and Catholics that acknowledge the same: and when any one should say to that turbulent fellow, pretending to be so studious of the Commonwealth, and jealous of the Kings proceedings, that he urgeth only a may be, and that there is no great likelihood of any will be, or that such events will follow as he threateneth, and draweth into suspicion, he should fall into choler, & rage as M. Morton doth, saying: that he cannot laugh for wonder & horror to see any Englishman conceit so basely of the wits, and worth of his countrymen, as to imagine that they can be deluded with so senseless, so shameless, so pernicious, so impious a Mitigation as this is, not to prevent ensuing dangers etc. And yet further, that this is a stupi●ying receipt, casting the state and people into a slumber of not regarding ensuing dangers etc.  
13. This exclamation I say of this troublesome fellow that would put in jealousy the people and Commonwealth against their King or Monarch only upon a may be, or possibility, were it not justly to be reprehended? Were not the party to be cast out as a tumultuous makebate? But he will say perhaps, that there is more than may be in this our case: there want not probabilities, and nearer arguments of intended troubles. These than if you please let us examine briefly, and see of what weight or worth they are.  
14. And truly in this point I see not what probabilities there may be in reason to persuade his Majesty, that his Catholic subjects would not live quietly and confidently under him, 
Reason's why greatest dangers are not imminent by Catholics.  if they might ●e used as subjects, and have that Princely and Fatherly protection from him, which both laws do allow to freeborn subjects, and they may hope and expect from his benignity, where no personal or actual delict shall have made them unworthy thereof. There are now no quarrels or differences of titles, no ●ed Rose or white, no Lancaster or York within the ●and to draw men into parts or factions, or passionate courses: his Majesty hath united both Realms together; is the son and heir of the most dearest Princess unto English Catholics, that ever li●ed in many ages; hath goodly issue of his own, which our Lord bless; is settled in his Crown, joined in friendship and league with all Princes in Chri●tendome round about him, both of the one, and ●he other Religion, hath been hitherto beloved ●nd highly esteemed for many years, 
Motives of special love towards his Majesty i● Catholics.  though a Protestant Prince, even by the very spiritual Head himself of Catholic Religion; what cause then, what reason, what motive, what hope, what probability may English Catholics have to seek, or attempt alte●ations in State, if any tolerable condition of Christian subjects may be permitted unto them?  
15. I will not add the experience of so many ages throughout Christendom, and of ours that is present, nor the comparison, or antithesis between the doctrine and practice of Catholic and Protestant subjects in this behalf, which I have handled more largely in my former treatise tending to Mitigation, and well known, and experienced also by his Majesty in sundry points & occasions; only I must say, that M. Morton here hath dealt very partially, in that he taking upon him to lay before his majesties eyes, and those of the State, so many dangers imminent from Catholics as he pretendeth, both in respect of their doctrine, multitude, aversion of minds, and other like causes, he leaveth out the other opposite part of the Puritans, that have far worse doctrine without comparison in this behalf, as I showed out of their own books, & he should have yielded, or answered the same (if he had dealt indifferently:) they are more also in number, greater in ability, in respect of their offices which they bear in the Commonwealth, and of their combination with those of Scotland, Holland and other places nearest at hand; 
Why the Puritans 〈◊〉 is not considered.  their arms more prompt & ready, their wealth better known, their practices more dangerous, and their aversion more impatient: and yet I say not this to accuse them of evil intent, but only that they have as great (a may) and greater, than Catholics, which M. Morton ought to have seen and noted, if he would have been the common watchman and explorator. But his malice was to the Catholics, and so upon them he layeth all: but yet with so silly a discourse as showeth rather will then skill to hurt them, crying out as you have heard, & going about to prove that imminent dangers in law of providence are not to be neglected, which thesis as it is not denied by us, & very poorly proved by him, so for the hipothesis, that such dangers are imminent by Catholics to the State, no one argument of moment is alleged at all.  

The Reckoning of this Paragraph.  
16. So as, if we will now make up briefly the Reckoning of this Paragraph, we shall find by due account, that M. Morton of all those things that I wrote in my book about the matter of Rebellion, clearing the Catholics both in doctrine & practice for divers Chapters together, and showing the Protestants to exceed them far, to the worse, in both points, he hath thought good to handle no one point at all (as reason would that he should have done) in this his last Reply, but only in general that which you heard of certain impossibil●yes for Catholic and Protestant subjects to live in union and common due obedience to his Majesty: of which impossibilities the fourth & chiefest is, 
His fifth devised reason of impossibility.  that which you have heard discussed of may be, and the fifth and last is, for that we hold it lawful to equivocate, or not to answer directly before an incompetent judge, that injuriously inquireth; and that we hold the lay Magistrates of England incompetent judges to examine Priests: which may be as good an argument to prove that lay men, and Priests cannot live together in Spain, Italy, & other Catholic Countries, for that there also the said lay men are incompetent judges in Clergy men's causes, and so are Clergy men themselves if they have not lawful jurisdiction, or proceed not lawfully. So as this is the most trifling Impossibility that possibly can be devised.  
17. To conclude then, 
The proper state of the question between M. Mort. and me.  the Case is thus: M. Morton and I would gladly each one of us persuade his excellent Majesty in this point of confidence or diffidence towards his Catholic subjects: I for confidence do allege, that albeit such due providence and circumspection be to be used both towards them & others, as all dangers may sufficiently be prevented: yet that so great, and remarkable a multitude of his natural born subjects as they are spread and dispersed, not only throughout the bulk and body of the whole people, but also by one vein or other extending itself to most of the Nobility and Gentry in like sort, should not for cause of their conscience be put to extremity of despair; but held at least in some reasonable and moderate terms of civil equity, though otherwise disfavoured for their Religion. M. Morton seemeth to run the quite contrary course, with his opposite desires and reasons, to have all diffidence increased, impossibilities urged, that they cannot live together; despairs confirmed of any tolerable condition whatsoever, except they force & change their judgement and belief in religion, with never so much repugnance of their conscience; detesteth any mitigation, or moderate interpretation of matters; that all must go by way of extremity.  
18. And now which of these two courses do run to a more sure, soft, and milder end, the prudent Reader will easily conceive. My considerations are the union of hearts within the Land● 
Considerations to benignity.  the avoiding of extremities, the strength of our Country at home, the honour and estimation abroad, the quietness of his majesties mind, the universal affection of all his people though different in religion, the avoiding of the odious name of persecution, example of foreign Protestant Princes that use it not, the continuance of high estimation that foreign Catholic Princes have had hitherto of the benignity, prudence, and bounty of his majesties nature, the preventing of clamours, writing of books, and odious speeches throughout all Courts, Countries, Cities, Provinces, & Realms that will most certainly ensue upon the contrary course of violent rigour and cruelty, engendering every where hatred, detestation, and malediction abroad, suspicions, execrations, and aversions at home.  
19 These are my considerations: and whether my adversary M. Morton have better for his contrary persuasion I know not: we shall expect the coming forth of the body of his book, for this his Preamble is but the head thereof, though a great head, being of above three score leaves in 4. and of little wit, as partly hath appeared by that which already hath been perused, & will do much more by that which is to ensue.    

WHAT M. MORTON answereth about the later part of my Treatise concerning Equivocation. §. II.  
IN the precedent Paragraph you have heard what M. Morton had to reply about the first main point of Rebellion: now cometh he to the second of Equivocation, writing some 3 petty leaves thereof, but with so great an ostentation & vaunt at his first entrance, as if he would do great matters indeed, for thus entitleth he his Paragraph. 
Preamb. pag. 43. §. 12.  That P.R. hath flatly overthrown his whole defence of mental Equivocation, which is made so evident, as that no wit of man can possibly excuse him. 
A fond vaunting entrance to the impugning of Equivocation.  This, you see, is confidently spoken, and very magnificently of himself and his wit, that he hath made things so plain and evident against my Treatise, as no wit of man hath possibility either to defend or excuse me. here then the Reader will take some examen of wits: for albeit I desire not to render words for words, yet must I needs foretell, that he will find as great want of wit & discretion in this brag, and in the medium here chosen to overthrow my whole Treatise, as ever, perhaps, he found in any man prefessing wit, and learning.  
21. And yet the good man goeth forward in those his oftentations, stir●ing up attention to the view of his own weakness and folly: for that having laid forth in few words my assertion concerning lawful Equivocation, to wit, that it is a speech partly uttered in words, and partly reserved in mind, but yet ever true, and no lie, for that the speech agreeth always with the mind of the speaker, and is true in his sense etc. he beginneth his confutation thus: 
True Equivocation.  How now would my Reader hear this noble Equivocatour confuted? 
Ibid. pag. 43.  By Fathers? Or by his own Doctors? or by sensible reasons? this will be no hard matter to perform, as I hope (God willing) to avouch in due tyme. So he. And this as you see is no otherwise then if a bare and broken debitour having been long called upon to pay his debts, should step forth at length in a vaunt before a multitude saying to his creditor: Come Sir, what sort of gold will you be paid in? will you have it in Spanish Pistolets? Portugal Cruzadoes? French Crowns? Zechines of Venice? Dallers of Germany, or English Angels? and his creditor should answer him, 
The case of a bragging bankrupt debitour.  Sir any kind of coin would content me, although it were but halfe-faced groats, or single-pences, so I might have it. And that then the other should reply as M. Morton doth here: Well, I hope, God willing, to pay you in time; and so leave him with less probability of payment then ever before. And were this now substantial dealing for satisfaction of his creditors? And doth not M. Morton the very like, that ask here th● reader, whether he will have Fathers, Doctors, or reasons for proof against me, produceth never a one, but faith, that he hopeth to do it in time? And was it not now fit time to allege some one or two at least, if had had such store as he vaunteth, and those of such force and evidency, as no wit of man can control them? Surely it would have delighted the Reader to have read one such example in this place for a taste, though he had expected for the other the longer after. But now he must needs suspect the art of Mountebanks in commending their wares so far beyond their worth, and refusing to afford any sight thereof.  
22. But let us come to see what supply M. Morton deviseth to make, 
Ibid pag. 43.  in am of those former pretermitted proofs of Fathers, Doctors, reasons etc. here (saith he) is offered unto me a briefer course, more fit for a Preamble, and for the triumph of truth more glorious, 
M. Mort. glorious triumph.  which is to see (as politic Achitophel hanged in his own halter, so) this doctor of the art of lying, confounded by his own assertion. I desire every child of truth to lend me attention. So he. And all this is by way of preface before he come to his triumphant and glorious victory. And if he do nothing afterward but shame himself, and show his own folly in mistaking the chief point of the question, and not understanding wherein consisteth the principal force of the controversy, will not all this vaunting prologue prove a halter of Achitophel to hang himself? 
Achitophel's halter.  And the stirring up of every child of truth to attention, make every man witness of his own disgrace? Let us then join issue upon the matter itself.  
23. The means that he taketh here to overthrow, as he saith, my whole Treatise of Equivocation, is the example of the woman Saphyra in the Acts of the Apostles, whom he will needs defend to have used Equivocation with S. Peter, when she being demanded by him, Weather she sold her land for so much, 
Act. 5.  she answered yea; which being an unlawful answer, and punished by the holy Ghost with death, he would infarre fond thereof, that all Equivocation is unlawful. But I think be●t to set down my whole charge in that behalf as it standeth in my Treatise, and then shall we see how thereby M. Morton will overthrow (as he saith) my whole defence. Thus than I did write in my former book.  

The Charge given by P. R.  
24. First to begin with his examples out of Scripture, I say, 
Mitig. pag 458.  that he might better have said example in the singular number: for whereas we of our part have alleged so many, & so great variety of examples in our former discourse to the contrary, he (poor man) out of all the body of the whole Bible hath alleged but one, and that nothing to his purpose, as presently shall appear. His example is out of the Acts of the Apostles, where it is recounted how Ananias, & Saphyra his wife, having sold a certain field of theirs, 
The fact of Ananias and Saphyra discussed.  and bringing a part of the price, and laying it at the feet of the Apostle, as though it had been the whole price, were miraculously punished by S. Peter for defrauding the Community, of that which they had promised, or would pretend to give. An act (saith Thomas Morton) proper to the infancy of the Church, 
Act. 5. Pag. 64.  to bring their substance, & tender it to the Apostles for the common good o● Saints. By which words if he allow that fact, as a form of perfection in that purity and integrity of the Christian Churches beginning; why then now is the imitation thereof in religious men of our days impugned by the Protestants? And if by the word Infancy he mean weakness or imperfect on in the sense of S. Paul, saying; cum essem paruulus etc. when I was a child or infant, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I came to the years of a man, I cast of those things that belonged to a child: If this (I say) be Thomas Mortons' meaning to note the act of imperfection, the ancient 
* 
Chrys. hom. 12. in Acta Apostolorun. Hier. Ep. 8. ad Demet. August. Serm. 27. de verbis Apost. Fulgent. ep●de debito coni●gali c. 8. Gregor. l. 1. ep. 33. ad Venant. Oecumen.  
Arator, Rabanus, Lyra, & alij in hunc locum.   Fathers do stand wholly against him, and do allow it rather for great perfection, and that it was a vow of voluntary poverty to live in common, which those first Christians had made by counsel of the Apostles, and consequently do interpret those words (Nun manens ●ibi manebat etc. did it not remain in your power to give it, or ●ot to give it?) to have been meant by S. Peter before ●heir vow: which if it be true, and that S. Peter did ●iue so dreadful a sentence upon the first vow-brea●ers of voluntary poverty, even for detaining somewhat of their own, how much may Thomas Morton, ●nd some friends of his, fear the like sentence, for ●eaching it to be lawful to take away that from a Religious community which themselves never gave.  
●5. But let us come to the application of this ex●mple against Equivocation, which he hath cho●en to use principally about the woman's speech. The ●oman is asked (saith he) sold you the land for so much? Her unswere is● 
Pag. 65.  yea, for so much, meaning but one half, & concealing the other, in which dissimulation it is impossible (saith M. Morton) but that your reserved clause must have come into her mind, 
The woman's examination by S. Peter.  to think, but so much to give in common, or to signify unto you. Thus he teacheth that poor womā●o Equivocate, a●ter his manner of Equivocation, that ●s to say, to lie: for now I suppose he hath learned ●y that which hath been setdowne in our precedent Chapter, that so speak an untruth, or to conceal a truth, or to use any Equivocation when we are justly demanded by our lawful Superior, and when no injury, or violence is used unto us, is a grievous mortal sin in our Catholic doctrine, and consequently she being lawfully demanded by S. Peter in a lawful cause touching her own vow & promise, no clause of reservation could save her speech from lying, as our Minister doth foolishly imagine.  
26 Wherefore S. Peter as most lawful judge, and governor of the Universal Church under Christ, and the holy ghost in him, did worthily punish that dissimulation, and lying bo●h in her and her hu●band for example of others in that beginning, and for manifesting the great and special assistance of the holy ghost that assisted him, & should be in his successors to the world's end, in that their government, to the terror of wicked men that should impugn it, or otherwise deserve by their demerits to be punished by the same. And thus much of his examples out of Scriptures, which is but one as you see, & that much against himself & his own cause, if I be not deceived, for that it proveth all Equivocation is not lawful, as he will needs suppose us to hold.  
27. This was my discourse then. Now let us s●e how M. Morton doth overthrow my whole Treatise of Equivocation out of this speech of mine, and that with such evidency, as no wit of man can possibly excuse me. He beginneth his impugnation thus: The supposed Equivocation of the woman Saphyra (saith he) was this, 
Preamb. pag. 44. & 45.  I have sold it but for so much, reserving in her mind (for aught that you shall know,) which is agreeable to their own example of Equivocation I am no Priest (meaning to tell it you.) This later P. R. hath defended throughout his whole book: and now of the other he is enforced by the word of truth to say, that it is a lie, and that no clause of reservation could save it from a lie: from whence it shall invincibly follow, 
Fond bragging.  that priests Equivocation is a Satanical lie, these two speeches being so semblable in themselves, as if he should say they differ, then must the difference be either in respect of the spea●ers, or in respect of the hearers. This is his discourse ●alking much of the word of truth, and the child of truth, ●nd continuing still to promise what he will do, & what he will prove: but as yet he proveth nothing. He saith it will follow invincibly, that to answer I ●m no Priest to an incompetent judge (if I be a Priest) ●s a Satanical lie, for that such was the answer of Saphyra unto S. Peter, I have sold my possession for so much, ●ith this reservation of mind (to tell you, or to confer ●n common.) But first how doth he prove that she had ●his meaning of reservation in her mind? It is but ●. Mortons' imagination, to ascribe it unto her; for it ●ay more probably be thought that she had never ●ny such cogitation, to make her speech lawful by reservation, but absolutely to lie. Which is most conform to the text itself of holy Scripture, where it ●s said by S. Peter to Ananias: Cur tentavit Satanas cor tu●m mentiri Spiritui Sancto? Wherefore hath Satan tempted thy hart to lie unto the Holy ghost? And again, Thou hast not lied to men, but to God. 
Act. 5.  Whereby it is evident that his and his wives intention was to lie, and to defraud the community of a part of their lands, and that they had no cogitation at all of speaking a truth, & avoiding of lying by Equivocation, as the Priest hath, and so have all those that mean lawfully, and with a good conscience, to cover a truth which they are not bound to utter, which properly we call equivocation: so as whosoever hath not this intention, as it is to be supposed that Ananias & Saphyra had not, he doth not equivocate, but lie. Which being so, it is very great simplicity, to abstain from a worse word, for M. Morton to found his whole discourse upon this matter, and especially so vain and vaunting a discourse as this is, only upon his own supposal, that the woman Saphyra had intention to equivocate: which if I deny, as justly I may, all this glorious building falleth to the ground. But yet not to cut him of so short, and put him to a non plus upon the sudden, I am content to do him this pleasure, as to suppose with him, that the poor woman might have some such reservation in her mind, as M. Morton imagineth, to wit, that as the Priest saith truly, I am no Priest (with obligation to tell it you:) so she might mean, that I have sold it for no more (to acquaint you withal:) and then I say, albeit we should admit this supposal, it is denied by us flatly, that these two examples are alike, as now I have declared; the one being unlawful the other not. And what invincible argument hath M. Morton, think you, now to prove that they are all one? And that of the Priest to be as unlawful as the other of the woman? You shall hear.  
28. If you say (quoth he) that they differ, then must the difference be either in respect of the speakers, or of the hearers? 
The example of Saphyra maketh against him.  We answer, that of both; for in the behalf of the speaker, there was obligation in Saphyra to answer the truth, and in the hearer lawful authority to demand it, for that he was lawful judge: but neither of these two things are in the Priest that is unlawfully examined by the incompetent judge. For that as the said judge is no judge, & consequently hath no authority to demand matters prejudicial to the party examined: so hath the other no obligation to answer directly to his intention or interrogatory. And what hath now M. Morton to reply to these so evident and important differences, that make the one answer lawful, the other a lie?  
29. Surely it is a pitiful thing to see how he is puzzled in this matter, and would feign say somewhat, and can find nothing whereon he may subsist, or rest himself. For first, he beginneth with the person of the woman, that is the speaker, that did unlawfully equivocate unto S. Peter, comparing her to the person of the Priest that lawfully saith unto ●n incompetent judge, I am no Priest, and findeth no ●reater difference between them, 
Faltering in the principal point.  but first, that she 〈◊〉 a woman, and he is a man, and then, that it is as possible ●r a Priest to lie, as for a woman to tell truth. But he dissem●leth the main difference now mentioned, that she ●ad obligation to tell the truth without equivocation, ● he not, which is the substantial difference indeed. Hear then is no plain dealing to falter so manifestly ●n the very principal point that most imported.  
●0. Secondly he passeth to the person of the hea●er or judge, and saith, there can be no difference between the two cases in that respect, whether ●hey be competent or incompetent, 
Whether competency and incompetency of the judge may al●er the truth of the speech.  and this he pretendeth ●o prove out of my words: which point for that he will needs have the whole substance of this controversy to depend thereof, saying further, 
Preamb. pag. 46.  that I cannot ●biect any difference in this behalf without gross & stupid contradiction to myself, throughout my whole Treatise, we shall severally examine his arguments herein.   

M. Mortons' first argument discussed, about a competent and incompetent judge.  
31. His first argument is taken from my words, where in my treatise of Mitigation I do say thus: 
Preamb. p. 46.  That in mental reservation the speech agreeth to the mind, and meaning of the speaker, for that when I do say to an incompetent judge, 
Mittig. c. 8. num. 54. p. 344.  that I am no Priest, I do truly & really mean, that I am no Priest in the sense that I speak it, which may be any that pleaseth me, or that I list to frame to myself. So I. And hitherto M. Morton citeth my own words, though somewhat brokenly, but yet cutteth of wholly the other that immediately do ensue and make all plain, to wit, (seeing I have no obligation to respect any thing what the demander speaketh, or asketh, for so much as he demandeth me against law and equity). Well this is no plain dealing, as you see. But what argument will M. Morton frame out of these my words? Mark (saith he) The truth of Equivocation is not suspended upon the understanding of the hearer, who may conceive, or misconceive the speech. so he. But what is this to the purpose? I grant that the truth of any answer made unto a judge dependeth not upon the understanding, conceit, or capacity of the said judge, but upon the meaning of the speaker, which meaning notwithstanding is to be measured by the competency, or incompetency of the judge. 
How the truth of a speaker may depend upon the competency of the Iudg that heareth or demandeth.  For if the judge be competent, then is the answerer bound to answer to his intention, and to have that meaning in his answer which the judge hath in his demand: but if he be not competent, than all this obligation ceaseth, and the speaker is free to have what meaning h● list in his answer (so that in his own sense it be true:) and this, for the reason now touched. So as here no inference at all can be made by M. Morton that the difference of competency of judges in the cases of the woman and Priest doth make no diversity in the truth of their answers, and yet will he needs conclude with this consequence (having said no more than I have touched) that for so much as I said in the Treatise of Mitigation, as before you have heard, that no clause of reservation could save the speech of Saphyra from a lie (for that it was to her lawful judge, to whom she was bound to answer directly to his intention) ergo, I do condemns myself and all other Equivocatours for fantastical liars.  
32. But I would ask him why? or by what consequence of reason this cometh about? He saith for that there is no difference in effect between this speech of Saphyra, I have sold it for no more, to tell it you, & of the Priest, I am no Priest, to tell it you. I say that suppose Saphyra had that reservation (which yet dependeth only of M. Mortons' fiction,) yet that there is ● great main difference between them, in that the one party was bound to tell what she was demanded, the other was not bound; he replieth that I confess ●hat the truth of the answer dependeth not of the understanding 〈◊〉 the hearer, but of the meaning and intention of the speaker; which I also grant, but yet that this meaning and intention of the Speaker must be governed and directed by the lawfulness and competency of the ●earer or judge to whom we speak, or by whom we are demanded. For if he be lawful and competent, then doth he thereby impose an obligation upon the speaker, to answer to his meaning and intention, otherwise not, which maketh a great ●aine difference, and the cases far unlike, if M. Morton had will to see it (for to want of understanding I will not ascribe it) and sincerity to utter it. So as this his first argument proveth nothing but against himself. Let us see his second.   

His second argument examined.  
33. Secondly (saith he) as we here find a woman ma●ing a lie to S. Peter a competent judge, 
Preamb. pag. 46.  so do we read that S. Peter made a lie unto a woman (an examiner incompetent;) so that the difference of the hearers doth not alter the nature of ●he speech. So he, and his meaning is (by the difference of hearers) that it importeth not whether the ●udge be competent or incompetent, for so he wri●eth within few lines after. 
Preamb. p. 46.47.  Truth is truth (saith he) though it be uttered to man or woman, whether to Prince or people, to Simon Peter, or to Simon Magus, yea whether to Archangel or to Satan, judge competent or incompetent, it cannot free a lying speech from the nature of a lie. And the reason hereof confessed by P. R. is, that the essence and formality of a lie requireth, 
Mitig. c. ●. num. 49.  that the speech disagree from the mind and understanding of the speaker. Thus M. Morton.  
34. And all this proveth nothing at all to his purpose. 
How competency or incompetency of the hearer causeth truth or falsity of the speaker.  For albeit we grant that the essence of a lie consisteth principally & immediately in this, that it doth disagree from the mind and understanding of the speaker: yet doth the respect of competency in a judge that demandeth, put obligation, as now hath been said, upon the speaker to have this or that mind & meaning correspondent to his, that demandeth, which is not in a judge incompetent. And albeit these respects of competency or incompetency may seem but circumstances: 
D. Thom. 1.2. q. 18. art. 10. & q. 72. art. 9  yet as in moral matters it often falleth out, circumstances do alter the nature and species of the virtue or vice itself, qui● transeunt in conditiones obiecti, as Schoolmen do use to speak.  
35. So here the self same answer, made to a competent or incompetent judge is made lawful or unlawful, true or false, by that circumstance of his competency, or incompetency, that layeth or not layeth the said obligation upon the speaker, to speak directly to the judges meaning. So as when M. Mort. shufleth up so many things together, saying, that truth i● truth, whether it be uttered to man or woman, Prince or people, Simon Peter or Simon Magus, Archangel or Satan, Iudg competent or incompetent; he either understandeth not the differences that be in these examples handled together, 
Crafty shuffling.  or would not have his Reader to mark the same. For albeit the simple difference of persons themselves to whom we speak altereth not the truth or falsity of our speech: yet some respect or relation in those persons (but especially of being a lawful or unlawful judge) may, and doth alter the same wholly, making the one speech truth, and the other falsity.  
36. And thus much for answering the force of M. Mortons' second argument which in effect is nothing at all. For that albeit all diversity of persons, to whom we speak, doth not alter the truth or falsity of the speech: yet some may, when the hearer hath authority to oblige in conscience the speaker to answer directly to his meaning, and to utter truth, as hath ●yn declared. And with this we might end, but that we may not let pass a contradiction or two, which offer themselves in this his speech. For in the beginning of this argument as you have heard he writeth thus: As we here find a woman making a lie to S. ●eter a competent judge: so we read, that S. Peter made a lie ●o a woman an examiner incompetent. And for this he ci●eth Matth. 26. and yet in his former book of Full satisfaction, 
Full satisfact. part. 3. chap. 15.  he wrote thus, if you remember; that the maid ●o whom S. Peter swore was competent enough to hear a true oath, ●f he had been as ready to swear truly. 
The contradiction of M. Morton about the maid that examined S. Peter.  So as there he made ●er competent, and here incompetent: which of ●hem he will stand unto now, I know not, although ●t seemeth that he is more bound to stand to the first, ●hat she was S. Peter's competent Iudg, or examiner; for ●hat he bringeth it for a proof of his mayor proposition, in that famous syllogism of six termini, which ●hen he made, and now cannot, nor so much as at●empteth to defend, as before you have seen, in which the mayor was this: 
Supra cap. 1.  The competency of God, by whom we swear, maketh every one competent judges and hearers, to ●home we swear. Whereunto if we would adjoin ●his minor, but S. Peter swore by God unto this maid, the conclusion will follow in good form: ergo she was a competent judge, and consequently also a competent examiner, for that every competent judge hath likewise lawful authority to examine. So that you see that M. Morton there did not only affirm it, but prove it also by syllogism, 
Full satisfact. pag. 86.  that she was S. Peter's lawful judge nay he held it for so certain, that he did set it down for a proof of his said mayor proposition thus: The mayor (saith he) is true, for that our Saviour in avouching truth, held Pilate for a competent Iudg, although he did not i●ridicè, but falsely proceed. S. Paul in his cause appealed to Caesar's Tribunal seat, who was a Pagan. jacob did covenant ●ith Laban an idolater. And the maid to whom S. Peter swore, was competent enough to hear a true oath, if he had been as ready to swear truly. In which words you see, that he affirmeth the maid to have been competent, by that S. Peter did swear by God unto her, and thereby pretendeth to prove his mayor proposition, that the competency of God, by whom we swear, maketh every one competent judge, to whom we swear: And yet within two lines after, he saith again: but she was no lawful examiner, and Pilate was a partial judge: so that, denying her to be lawful examiner, and yet to be competent judge, is a plain contradiction in itself. 
The maids case very troublesome to M. Morton.  For that (as hath been said) whosoever is competent judge, hath power also thereby to examine: for that otherwise he could not judge of the truth, whereof he hath no● authority to examine: so as the maids case seemeth very troublesome to M. Morton, no less than she was importune to S. Peter. But let us see the residue of the examples, how they make to M. Mortons' purpose, for proof of his mayor.  
37 The point which they should prove, is this: that, whosoever sweareth to another by God, doth thereby make him or her, to whom he sweareth, his lawful and competent judge. The fondness of which assertion, though we have sufficiently laid open before in our Treatise of Mitigation by sundry reasons and examples; 
Mitig. cap. 11. num. 53. pag. 476.  yet shall we here again take the pains to examine severally in a word or two, his other three examples as we have done now that of the maid. His first is of Pilate: Our Saviour (saith he) in avouching truth, held Pilate for a competent judge. But now what of this? Did our Saviour make Pilate his competent judge, by swearing to him by God? How can he prove it? Or who would suppose or infer this but M. Morton? His second example is: S. Paul in his cause appealed to Caesar's Tribunal seat. But this is less to the purpose then the former, for that here was no oath at all of the Apostle, whereby Cesar might be constituted his competent judge. His third example is of Jacob's covenant with Laban, which was an idolater; and is most of all from the purpose, 
Three instances examined.  and little less indeed then ridiculous: for that neither Jacob's covenant with Laban, nor Laban's with jacob (for the covenant was reciprocal) did make either Laban to be competent judge to jacob, nor jacob to Laban; 
Gen. 35.22.  but both of them remained ●as before, though bound in faith and promise the one to the other for performance of that mutual friendship, which they had promised, but yet without any superiority of being judges the one to the other, as every man in common sense doth see: and consequently M. Mortons' mayor proposition (that every man is made our Iudge● to whom we swear) is not proved to be true by any of these four instances, nor by them alltogeather. Let us pass then to his third.   

His third Argument confuted.  
38. Thirdly, saith he, in mental Equivocation P. R. saith, that the clause of reseruaton mixed with the outward speech maketh but one proposition which is as true in the mind of the speaker, 
Preamb. pag. 47.  as if it were wholly delivered in the outward speech. As for example: I am no Priest, mixed with this clause conceived in mind, to tell it you; is as true in the judgement of P. R. as if it had been without reservation fully expressed with the mouth, saying: I am no Priest to tell it you: Now then, say P. R. (for I mean to fetter you in your own shackles) the woman when she said to S. Peter; I have sold it but for so much, if she had reserved in her mind this clause, to give it to you, either had it been by virtue of reservation, ● truth, or else (notwithstanding that reservation) it had been a lie. If the clause of reservation might have made it a truth, then hath not P. R. said truth in concluding, that no clause of reservation could save it from a lie: If contrariwise the trick of reservation could not save it from a lie, then doth not the reserved clause to tell it you, being mixed with the outward speech, I am no Priest, make up one true proposition, and consequently it must be concluded of the Priestly Equivocation, as is here by P. R. confessed of the woman's, uz. that no clause of reservation can save their speech from a lie. For if she had said unto S. Peter in plain words: I ●aue sold it but for so much, ●● give it in common, or such like, this every one knoweth had been a true speech: yet she saying, I sold it for s● much, with mental reservation, reserving in her mind, to give it in common, or to tell it unto you, was, notwithstanding this reservation, even by the judgement of P. R. a flat lie.  
39 This is his last and greatest argument, whereof, as presently you shall hear, he vaunteth exceedingly, conquering me first in his margin, writing there: An evident conviction of P. R. And then again: A plain demonstration, to say no thing of the fetters & shackells in the text itself. 
The fetters and shackells that M. Morton useth.  And I have thought best to lay forth his whole discourse, as it lieth together in his book, that hereby you may see, with what manner of substance he filleth up paper, and what sort of shackells he hath to fetter men withal, which are as strong, as the nets of cobwebs: for that in this place his whole discourse and argument is founded upon a manifest false ground and principle, to wit upon the me●re mistaking, or fond supposition, that the two answers of the Priest and the woman, viz. I am no Priest with obligation to tell it unto ●ou, and, I sold it for no more, with obligation to give unto you, are of equal falsity, which still we deny, & he cannot prove: and yet himself doth often here repeat, ●hat I do hold the answer of the Priest to be true, ●nd hers to be false, for that his was made to an incompetent judge, and hers to a competent, so as she was bound to have answered directly to S. Peter's meaning: 
Childish mistaking or false supposing  which being so, what needed all this long obscure speech of M. Morton, which might have been spoken in 4. lines? For I grant that the answers of ●he Priest and the woman do make each of them in themselves, being mixed with their reservation, a whole perfect proposition, as if they had been uttered without reservation.  
40. It is evident also, that the woman's proposition, that she had sold her land for no more, with obligation to give it to S. Peter, or to be spent in common (this being the true effect, and substance of her answer) was a lie, whether it had been uttered wholly together in plain words, or part in speech, and part in mental reservation. And M. Morton doth childishly suppose and affirm, that every one knoweth that it had been a true speech. For albeit the words of S. Peter in the text of the Acts of the Apostles be, Tell me, woman, if you sold the ●eild for so much? and her answer was, 
Act. 5.  Yea for so much: yet is it evident by the drift and circumstance of the place, that S. Pe●●r● meaning was, whether they sold it for so much, and no more, and therefore if she did Equivocate as M. Morton will have her, her secret meaning must needs be, that she sold it for no more, so as she was bound to utter it, or give it unto him, or bring it to the common purse. All which was false, & a lie, in respect both of ●er vow to bring the whole to the common purse, and for that S. Peter was her lawful, and competent judge, and she obliged thereby to tell him the truth.  
41. Now than we see after so many vaunts, and brags, what M. Morton hath been able to effect by these his arguments: It shall not be perhaps amiss to add his confident conclusion wherein he doth recapitulate as it were the sum of all, comparing these two answers of the Priest and the woman together. Let us (saith he) for conclusion, 
Preamb. pag. 48.  parallel both these examples which are very near a kin. For if we do compare speaker with speaker, that is, the woman and a Priest, both will be thought to be Votaries. If outward speech with outward speech, that is, I have sold it but for so much, and I am no Priest, both are negatives. If reservation with reservation, as (to tell it unto you) or [to give unto you] both are mental. If the form with form, both equally ananswerable to the mind of the speaker. If finally, end with end, both are to deceive the hearer. Wherefore P. R. granting, that no clause of reservation could save her specah from a lie, must by irrepugnable consequence be forced to confess, that his [I am no Priest] uttered by a Priest, to whomsoever it be spoken, notwithstanding any mental reservation of [to tell it unto you] is a Satanical and damnable lie.  
42. The words of Satanical and damnable are very frequent with M. Morton, as you see. God send him salvation, and us all freedom from Satan, and Satanical spirits; which in no one thing are more descried then by the facility of wilful lying: but to the matter. His collection in his conclusion is like the making of a latin without the principal Verb. 
The principal verb wanting in M. Mortons' latin.  For whereas he gathereth in the said conclusion, sundry points of likeness, and nearness of kin (as he calleth them) to make the speeches of the Priest and the woman to seem semblable; he pretermitteth of purpose the chief and essential difference indeed of competent, & incompetent judge, and obligatiō●rising thereon, wherein we principally do insist, for their difference and diversity: & yet he saith, as you have heard, that I granting, that no clause of reservation ●ould save the woman's speech from a lie, must by irrepugnable consequence be forced to grant also the same of the Priest's answer. But whereon I pray you is this irrepugnable consequence grounded? Have you seen any demonstration alleged by him for it, besides his ●nly imagination, and fond supposition? And yet, ●s though he had done wonders indeed, he in●ul●eth exceedingly in the very last lines of this Paragraph, which are these.  
●3. And where is now (saith he) P. R. his boast of scriptures, Fathers, Reasons? Where is his Challenge of Canonists and School-devines? Where is ●●s appeal unto both our Universities? Nay, where 〈◊〉 this man P. R. himself, the new select Advocate ●or this cause? may he not say hereafter, I was a●amed, and therefore I hid myself? So naked doth his deformity appear. He hath said, That his Adversary T. M. is like one, who when the game is desperate, well notwithstanding play it out, and see the ●●st man borne. here he himself hath made such a ●lot, as cannot but be the unfallible loss of his ●hole game, who being pressed with this example ●ut of Scripture, 
Act. 5.  is driven to such a vertigo and giddiness, that even when he would defend his art of Equivocating from a lie, 
Extraordinary vaunting.  is by consequence from God's word, forced to confess an outward speech, which no clause of reservation could save from a lie, whereby his own Magis (I doubt not) will be brought to acknowledge, that digitus Dei hic est, this is the power of God's truth. And thus being contented, for this present, to have my whole cause in both questions, of Equivocation and Rebellion so iustifyable, that my Adversary his own confessions may free me from his imputation of slander; I do with better alacrity proceed unto his next challenge. Thu● goeth this solemn vaunt.  
44. And truly he hath great cause to proceed with alacrity indeed, if with so little labour & less learning ●e can make himself so victorious, in both the main questions of Rebellion and Equivocation, as here he painteth out himself. I have heard of some Cocks of the game that when they were so pricked and wounded by their adversaries in fight, 
M. Mort. vaunt.  as both ●heir heads did run with gore blood, and both their eyes almost out, yet with any least pause given them, they would crow in the cockpit in sign of courage: and it may be that my Adversary is of some kindred to that courageous race. But here I must answer him to some of his demands.  
45 Where is now (saith he) the boast of P. R. for scriptures, Fathers, Reasons? 
To ●he first demand.  I answer, they are in my book set down in great numbers, and have expected that you should have satisfied at least some one or two of them in this place. And whereas they are so many, so manifest, and so potent against you, and no one of them attempted to be answered by you; it seemeth a poor evasion, and simple Rhetorical shi●t to crow so coldly, as to ask where they are when so many do lie before you. But let us hear your second interrogation. 
To the second.  Where is (say you) his challenge of Canonists, and Schoole-devines? Whereto I answer, that they are in the same places of my former Treatise, where they were before; and you could not but see them, yet no one of them hath been examined or touched by you in all this your reply, so far as I can see. 
To the third.  But you go further. Where is (say you) his appeal unto both Universities? I answer, it is in the same ●●ate that it was before, and in the same lines that I l●ft it, without any repeal of your part hitherto made. And finally you demand in great bravery; 
To the fourth.  Where is this man P. R. himselve, the new select Advocate ●or this cause? may he not say hereafter, I was ashamed, and hid myself? whereunto I answer for him, that if he seem to have been hidden before; now he doth appear again in this new Treatise, and you have heard him speak, and felt him strike in his defence, and more you are like to do afterward before this combat be ended, though friendly and quietly according to the title of his book. And so this being to much time to lose in these tryflinges, I shall in few words make up the reckoning of this Paragraph.   

The Upshot of this Reckoning.  
●6. Wherefore now to turn myself to Morton●n ●n friendly and quiet manner, I cannot but wonder 〈◊〉 Sir) that you would enter into this matter of overthrowing my whole defence of Mental Equivocation, established by so great variety of apparent proofs ●ut of Scriptures, Fathers, Reasons, and other arguments, as my former book layeth before you, & ●hat with such confidence as, to affirm in the very ●ytle of your paragraph, 
Preamb. p. 43. §. 12.  that no wit of man could stand ●gainst you, that you would promise to your Rea●er, a glorious course to the triumph of truth: that I should be ●ettered in my own shackles, hanged in Achitophel's halter, as a satanical and damnable liar, a gross and stupid contradictour ●f myself, driven into such a vertigo & giddiness, upon your oppressing me with one only example out of Scriptures, as when I would feignest defend my art of Equivocation, am forced by consequence from God's words to confess, that their is an outward speech, which no clause of reservation could save from a lie, whereby mine own Magis should be brought to acknowledge (as the Magis of Egypt were) that digitus Dei hic est, this is the finger of God, that hath made M. Morton so miraculously glorious against me, as having said nothing, hath notwithstanding gotten the victory, and so overcome me, as all the wit of man can not defend me.  
47. And I do add here miraculously of myself, for that, 
M. Mort. miraculous Victory.  in my reason it is the greatest miracle that can be devised, that a man without saying any thing at all to the purpose, should so flatly overthrow so large a defence, so grounded, & so fortified as mine was, concerning Equivocation, and the lawfulness thereof, and this by alleging one only example of a poor woman that did make a lie to S. Peter her lawful and competent judge, whiles she pretended to Equivocate (if she had any such meaning as you will needs sign her to have had) and thereby you will conclude, that all other Equivocations whatsoever, (though to never so incompetent a judge) must needs in like manner be a lie: which seemeth not only a fancy, but also a very frenzy in law of good dispute, and argumentation. For if we consider your precedent arguments, whereon your whole bragging confidence doth rely, no one of them, nor all together are worth a rush, to prove any jot of that you pretend, as now largely and manifestly hath been proved. Wherefore I must needs say that it savoureth of a strong humour of vanity in you to frame unto yourself so full and glorious a victory as you do, which I assure myself will cause more laughter than admiration in any discreet Reader: and with this alacrity, you may proceed to that which ensueth.  
48. But yet before I end this Chap. I must needs take you once by the sleeve again, 
A new lie convinced against M. Morton.  & tell you, that whereas you do often times serve yourself in this Reply, of my confession, or rather concession, that no clause of reservation could excuse the speech of the woman (Saphyra) from a lie; for that she spoke to a competent judge, which obliged her not to equivocate: you to make semblance of some contradiction, and absurdity in me, about the same, do in the very entrance of this your Reply, (to wit, in your Epistle to P. R.) falsify my words manifestly, affirming me to grant that, there is a mental equivocation (meaning of the speech of Saphyra) which no clause of reservation can save from lie; which is a lie indeed, for that this is not my saying, but yours: for that my saying is, that the answer of Saphyra to S. Peter, could not by any reservation o● mind be defended f●om a lie, ●or that he was her lawful Iudg; and consequently, I do prove, that her said speech was no equivocation at all● and yet are you not ashamed to say, yea and to stand upon it, and to urge the matter in sundry places, as granted by me, that there is a mental equivocation which no clause of reservation can save from a lie, whereas I do hold, aver, & prove the quite contrary, to wit, that such a speech cannot be truly equivocation, for that it is a lie. This than may increase your alacrity (M. Morton) that this assertion of yours is found to be so plain, and evidently false, as no equivocation or mental reservation can excuse it from a lie, nor any wit of man possibly defend you therein.  
49. And this is all in effect that M. Morton hath thought good to handle of the two large subjects of my former book, 
The conclusion of this chapter.  touching Rebellion & Equivocation, beginning first with the title (as you have h●ard) and avouching, that to call it a Mitigation, was very ominous and unlucky to them whom specially it laboureth to de●end, whero● yet he allegeth no one proof in the world, but only the (May be) before mentioned: to wit, that I said, that albeit dangers may fall out, as in al● other commonwealths; so yet may Protestants and Catholics live together in civil union, and dutiful obedience, if they will, and be permitted. And then from this assertion he leapeth presently to another, saying; that my foresaid Treatise of Mitigation, hath betrayed my whole cause both in the one, and the other question, of Rebellion and Equivocation: for proof whereof he hath no other argument, as now you have heard, but only for the former of Rebellion, certain fond devised impossibilityes against the said may be. And for the other question of Equivocation he hath only the case of the poor lying-woman Saphyra, which yet he esteemeth so highly to make for him, as he dareth pronounce, that it overthroweth my whole defence of mental Equivocation, and that so evidently, as no wit of man can possibly excuse the same. Which vehement hyperbolical asseveration of his, I assure myself will seem to the judicious Reader, that hath taken a view of the trial past, to proceed of so little wit of man, as it may scarce possibly be defended from plainfolly.  
50. Well then this being all that is answered to the substance of my book, we must pass to certain accidents thereof, which are sundry grievous imputations of false dealing laid to M. Mortons' charge, which I did obiter, and as it were by the way, lay open in my Treatise, thereby to show the weakness, and misery of his cause, which forced him (a man otherwise much loving truth, as himself every where protesteth) to fall into such inexplicable labyrinths of gross absurdities, as few men before him have done. And for that these accidents did seem perhaps to touch him more nearly, than the substance of the controversy itself (for that they are more sensible in the Readers eye and ear:) therefore he hath principally addressed himself in this his Preamblatory-reply to evacuate or infringe some of these imputations, but with what success, the event itself will show in the ensuing Chapters.     


THE THIRD CHAPTER ANSWERING TO M. MORTONS' THIRD INQVIRY, CONCERNING falsities objected by him (though falsely) against Catholic writers, but especially against Card. Bellarmine: whereof no one can be proved.  

PREFACE.  
IN the former two Chapters the ●eader hath now taken a view of their several subjects and arguments: and in the first, what light skirmishes M. Morton thought best to make for some trial of his valour in answering (upon sundry small quarrels picked ●ut here and there from different places of my who●e Treatise,) and with what success the same hath been by him performed. In the second he hath seen two short assaults, about the two main matters in controversy o● Rebellion & Equivocation, which being contained but in two small Paragraphes, and treating only two single objections, do easily show how little store of substantial reply M. Morton hath to so large a Treatise as mine was. But we must expect the residue of full complement in his promised larger Rejoinder.  
2. Now in the mean space we are to examine three or four other points which he handleth in this his last Preamble-Reply, especially about his own defence: for that he being deeply charged in my book for manifold untrue dealing in his writings which oftentimes was such as could not proceed so much of error, or mistaking, but savoured of wilful, and witting deceiptfullnes, that commonly is called malice: which point for that I noted, and urged often both against himself, and against many other of his profession, 
Three general heads to be handled.  and this by great number and variety of examples, a●d i●●tances; he feeling himself touched not a little in credit with this matter, as it may seem, thought good after due deliberation to take this course of remedying the matter. First to object by way of recrimination divers falsityes (though far unlike) against sundry Catholic writers, and namely against Ca●d. Bellarmine. And then again, the same against me. And in the third place, to shape an answer to some of the foresaid untruths, wherewith I had charged him, such as you may imagine he thought himself best able somewhat to shadow or disguise, leaping over the rest of most importance, as after you shall perceive. So as these three points are now to be handled in this, and the next two ensuing Chapters.  
3. And first for an entrance to this matter, he indeavoureth at the beginning to excuse himself from malice against Catholics in these words: From the imputation of malice against the persons of men (saith he) if I should need the testimony of man, my adversaries may acquit me, who have acknowledged in me better measures by their own experience, D. Wri. M. Const. M. Ga. I have half injured them, with half naming them, but I hope they will pardon me this wrong, knowing that it is not spoken in exprobration to them, but for justification of myself etc. So he. But I see not why he needeth to excuse himself from exprobration, which ever supposeth ●rue merits and benefits truly objected: which how far M. Morton may object to these Catholic men ●y him here named, I know not. But howsoener 〈◊〉 be, it little maketh to the purpose, for that the ●●putation of malice was not in respect of his hatred ●gainst this or that particular man, as to their per●●ns, but against their cause, & that in such a bloody ●●rt of sycophancy, 
M. Mort. measure in malice towards Catholics.  as included all the persons of that religion: and therefore his fawning upon two or ●●ree in external words and countenance, either in ●erson, or else where, whiles in his chamber he sought 〈◊〉 writing his spiteful, infamous, and virulent lying books to oppress them all, & cut their throats; ●●●is measure was not good, but may justly be called a ●alicious measure: and yet was this M. Mortons' measure, ●r so much as no man did ever write so maliciously 〈◊〉 my knowledge as he, nor in so odious an argument, ●●d jealous a tyme.  
●● Moreover malice doth not only consist in ha●ed to particular persons, as here M. Morton would ●eme to insinuate by his answer, but in crafty and deceitful dealing against charity, conscience, and ●eason; especially in citing false witness of Authors ●gainst Catholics and their Religion, as he is convinced often to have done. And therefore whereas in ●he end of this his defence from malice, he saith, ●hat he must expostulate with Catholics according to the Apostles example saying: Am I your enem● because I tell you truth? 
Gal. 4.  (which sentence liked him so well as he would needs put the same also for his poesy in the first front of his book:) the Catholics will answer, no, Sir, You are not our enemy ●or telling truth, which you do very seldom in any matter of controversy betwe●ne us and you; but for making many a false and pernicious lie. 
Catholics answer to M. Mort.  And so the note of malice, and malicious dealing remaineth still with you unpurged, until you blot it out by contrary deeds, and not only words: and this may serve by way of Preface to this Chapter.   

OF WILFUL falsehoods objected by M. Morton in sundry Catholi●k● writers: and namely his abuse offered to Franciscus Costerus. §. I.  
NOW then to come to the matter itself: the occasion o● this labour of M. Morton to seek out some errors, or shows of falsities in Catholick● Authors, was, for that I having pressed him very sore in the last Chapter of my book of Mitigation, with great multiplicity of untruths uttered by him, 
A sign distinctive between Protestant & Catholic writers.  and his consortes, which seemed to me both witting and wilful, I said that it might well be assigned for a sign distinctive between us and then to have the spirit of uttering wilful untruths, and thereby also might be determined the difference of our causes, which is good, and which is bad. For as in a good cause there is no need of lying, and a bad cause cannot be defended but by lying: so no man willingly of any good nature will choose to lie, but upon some necessity. The words of my former discourse in the book of Mitigation, are these.  
6. And for that (say I) this matter is of great importance for the reader well to conceive in these days of controversies between us, 
Mitig. p. 488.489.  I mean to stay myself somewhat in this Chapter upon this point ●nd to show, that indeed it is a substantial sign distinctive between all sectaries and us, at this time, ●nd that in matters of controversy, our writers shall ●euer be found guilty in these kinds of false lying ●nd malicious equivocations, where not only vn●●uth is uttered, but it is wittingly also uttered, the writer knowing that he writeth untruth, as often ●ow hath been said: which manner of dealing incurreth two points; the one that such a writer or ●●eaker hath no conscience, that uttereth things ●gainst his own knowledge, and which God seeth 〈◊〉 be false, and falsely meant in his heart; and the ●her, that his cause hath no ground of substantial ●uth, which cannot be defended without such wilful lies.  
●● In this than if you please let us insist a while, & 〈◊〉 Tho. Morton bring forth any Catholic Authors whatsoever, 
A very just demand & reasonable offer.  that wrote against Protestants since ●ese heresies began, that hath been taken in this ●piety; I mean, that hath set down in print any ●●●h falsity, as cannot be excused, either by ignorance, oversight, negligence, error of print, translation, diversity of editions, or the like; but that it ●ust needs be presumed that he knew the untruth, ●●d yet would set it forth: of this kind (I say) let ●im show me but one example among all Catholic writers of our time, and I will in my conscience greatly mistrust, and discredit the Author, ●hether it be an other, or myself. But if he show ●e two or three in any writer of this kind, I shall hardly be able ever afterward to believe him more. And whereas the number and variety of Catholic writers is so great as the world seeth, it were no great ●abour to show it in some, if that spirit did reign among them, as it doth in Protestant writers.  
8. To this speech of mine doth M. Morton now in this his last Preamble frame a rhetorical answer in these words. 
Preamb. pag. 50.  Doth the man (who maketh mention of his interruption by sickness) know what he hath now said? Whet●er he spoke this being in his fever-fit, or in temper? Whether in a dream or a wake? Whether in his right mind, or in distraction? For sure I am, that this ostentation will prove in the issue as unfortunate unto P. R as ever was boast either by Thraso on the stage, or by Goliath in the Camp, or by Gorgias in the schools: 
A strange manner of boasting where no substance is at a●l.  by the which he must be driven unto so miserable and shameful a palinody, as ever hereafter utterly to discredit his own friends, and work a perpetual discontent within himself, as presently will appear. So he.  
9 And to this appearance I am content to remit me● only I desire the reader to stand attended to the condition he●re put down, that the falsehood objected must be wilful, and not excusable either by error, ignorance, oversight or the like, as many of those were not, nor could possibly be defended which in my book I brought against M. Morton and his, and more shall I do in this his Reply. And surely it is worth the noting, that he being to begin a list of falsities against Roman writers, as he pretendeth, should in the very first lines s●t down a notorious wilful untruth of his own, against that grave and learned man Franciscus Costerus, as presently will appear. For whereas I had said in m● former alleged discourse, Let Thomas Morton bring forth any Catholic Authors whatsoever that wrote against Protestants since these heresies began that hath been taken in this impiety, he maketh this answer: 
Preamb. pag. 51.  I m●y not deny even this my Adversary his due commendation of modesty, who being ashamed (we may think) of the Romish frauds, and falsifications of former times, will insist only upon such men's examples, as have professedly written of late against Protestants. It were to be wished, that his f●llow jesuit Costerus had kept himself within the same precincts, but he maketh a more general challenge thus: 
Coster. jes. En●hi●id. c. desumm● Pontif. §. Constat.  Nemo hactenu● vel Princeps, vel Praesul, vel Scriptor fuit, qui mendacij, vel malae fidei Romanos arguerit: that is, Never yet (saith he) did any Prince, or Prelate, or writer accuse the Romanists of falsehood. So he.  
10. And here now I must demand of the Reader what he understandeth M. Morton his purpose to be in this place? Is it not to show that Costerus was less modest than I, for so much as I said, if in any one Catholic writer of controversies of our age, there might be found but two or three examples of wilful lying, I would never trust him more, but that Costerus went further saying, that no Prince, Prelate, ●r writer had ever hitherto accused any Romanists o● falsehood? Is not this M. Mortons' plain meaning (think you) as both his words and drift do show? Yes truly. Which being so, I would ask him first, why he did clip the latin words of Costerus (being so few as ●hey are) for that he saith, Atqui verò nemo hact●nus fuit Catholicus, vel Princeps, vel Praesul, vel Scriptor etc. 
Costerus notably abused.  but nevertheless there was no Catholic man hitherto (to wit, unto the time assigned when Bishops of Rome were Saints and Martyrs) either Prince, Bishop, or writer etc. why did he cut of the words, but nevertheless & Catholic man, and those both in latin and English, whereas they be in Costerus?  
11. Why was this paring think you, but that they being s●t down truly as they stand in the Author, they would have bewrayed his falsehood; for that the words (but nevertheless) do show a reference to somewhat going before, and the words (no Catholic Prince or Prelate) do demonstrate that Costerus spoke not of Catholic or Roman writers, for it had been ridiculous ●or him in that sense to say, that no Catholic of the Roman Religion did ever hitherto accuse any Romanists (that is, Roman writers) of falsehood, for it had been most absurd: & therefore if we imagine Costerus to be a man of common sense, we could never think that he would write so absurdly, and therefore this word (Catholic) was guilfully left out by M. Mort.  
12. Well then what was Costerus his meaning? truly himself doth set it down both at large, and perspicuously in the very place, and Paragraph by M. Morton cited, so a as ignorance or error can not be pleaded: for that he treating of the Authority and succession of the Bishops of Rome, and proving the same out of the ancient Fathers, and historiographers of the primitive Church, 
Costerus ubi supra ●ap. 3.  S. Iren●us, Eusebius, Augustinus, Optatus, and others, he in the next Paragraph, cited here by M. Morton, proveth the same in like manner out of the Acts, Gests, Decrees, and letters yet extant of the ancient Popes themselves, even in time of persecution, when in human power they were weak, and expected nothing but affliction, death's & martyrdom, and yet did they take upon them the care of the whole world (saith Costerus) confirming Bishops, depriving patriarchs of communion when need required: as restoring also others to their Seas when by violence they were injustly oppressed, and so for this he citeth many examples, even before the time of Constantine the great, upon which enumeration he maketh this argument.  
13. Hi sanè qui vitam cum sanguine pro Christi confessione profuderunt, nihil sibi arrogasse●t alienum etc. 
The argument or inference of Costerus.  These godly Bishops of Rome that spent their lives and blood for the confession of Christ, would never (of likelihood) have arrogated to themselves that which was not theirs, nor would they have usurped any thing contrary to the will of Christ, except they had well known, and been sure that such an office was left, and commended to them by Christ. And if any man will imagine that they had been of such impudence, as not to fear to do it: yet would there not have wanted some others, either Bishops, Princes, or Doctors, who by their authority, power, and writings, would have repressed this attempt of those Roman Bishops. And yet nevertheless hitherto there was n● Catholic, either Prince, Prelate, or writer, that ever argued those Roman Bishops of lying, or false dealing, but rather Bishops, and Patriarches of the first and principal churches when they were oppressed by their adversaries, did fly unto them.  
14 Thus far Costerus. And now let us consider how faithfully M. Morton hath dealt here, even then when he principally pretendeth to deliver himself from vnfaithful●es, like as he that being arraigned at the sessions for stealing, doth not abstain to steal ●uen in that place and presence of the judges themselves: who can excuse M. Morton here? he saw the whole drift of Costerus to be, to show that if those ancient Popes before Constantine, who were Saints and Martyrs had presumed any thing beyond their lawful authority, some Catholic Prince, Prelate, or writer of that time would have resisted, or reprehended them of false dealing: but no such Prince, Prelat, or writer was found unto that day, but rather Bishops and chief patriarchs did make their refuge unto them: therefore it is a sign that they were held for lawful Superiors.  
15. And what now is there here in Costerus his speech about the lying of Romanists or Roman Writers? Can there be any defence of this so apparent abuse? will M. Morton say that he saw not Costerus his meaning, 
M. Mort. convinced of egregious fraud  or that he had not a ●alse meaning himself to deceive his Reader? Why then did he suppress all the precedent clauses that do declare Costerus his purpose? why did he cut of the other words immediately following, of Bishops, and patriarchs recourse unto ●opes, which did properly appertain and cohere to the said former words and meaning of Costerus, and no way to M. Morton? why did he translate (Romanos) Romanists, as though it pertained to Roman writers even at this day, whereas the whole contex and immediate precedent words do manifestly show that Costerus meant Romanos Pontifices, ancient Roman Bishops in time of persecution, and not Roman writers? And if all these inexcusable frauds discovered in the allegation of this one little sentence of Costerus be not sufficient to prove M. Morton not to mean sincerely, nor out of a good conscience (notwithstanding all his protestations to the contrary) I am greatly deceived: let him produce but one such against us, & I will say he doth somewhat indeed: & now whether he be able to do it or no, we shall presently take the view, for his list of objections against our writers doth immediately follow out of this his fraudulent Preamble, as full stuffed notwithstanding with protestations and vaunts of upright dealing, and sincere proceeding, even then, when he falsifieth egregiously, as ever perhaps you have read before.   

HIS FIRST EXAMPLE of voluntary falsehood falsely objected against three ancient Popes. §. II.  
I hope the reader will remember what M. Morton is bound to bring forth, if he will bring any ●hing to the purpose, and true state of the question: ●o wit, he must let us see some 2. or 3. examples of ●itting and wilful falsehood in any one Catholic writer of our time, that hath written against Protestant's, which presently afterward he will attempt to do against Cardinal Bellarmine, and some o●hers. But now he beginneth with three ancient ●opes, Zozimus, Bonifacius, and Celestinus, that lived in ●he time of S. Augustine, 
August. l. 2. de gratia Christi c. 2. & 6. & contra duas epistolas Pelag. cap. 4. Concil. African. epistola ad B●nifaciū. See Baronius tom. 5. in vitis e●●●m Pō●tificum.  and were much commended ●y him for holy men, but are accused by Morton●r ●r falsaryes, as though they had forged a Canon of ●he first Council of Nice, in favour of their own Supremacy, to prove thereby the lawfulness of appea●es to be made to them, and to their Sea from the Bishops ●o Africa, which Canon was not found in ●he ordinary copies then extant of that Council.  
●●. But first of all, howsoever this matter passed, ●t appertaineth little or nothing at all to our purpose ●or to the question now in hand of modern Catholic writers, nor doth it prove wilful falsehood in ●hose three ancient Popes, if they cited the Canon of one Council for another of equal authority (as indeed they did,) for that it might be ascribed either to variety of copies (when no print was yet extant) or to oversight, forgetfulness, or to some other such defect, rather than to malice, and voluntary error. So as for M. Morton to begin his impugnation with an example, that hath so many disparityes from the case itself, and state of the question, showeth that he hath little indeed to say against us to the purpose, notwithstanding his dreadful threat before set down against me, that I should be driven unto a miserable, and shameful palynode etc. for if he had had wares of any importance, it is likely that we should have seen some part thereof now in this beginning of his onset.  
18. Especially for that upon want of better matter, as may be presumed, he was content to have a snatch at Gratian, 
Gratian 2. q. 6. §. Placuit.  the compiler or gatherer together of the Canons of old Counsels, who citing the 22. Canon of the Council of Melivet in Africa, in which S. Augustine was present, and where it was decreed in these words, Placuit, ut Presbyteri, Diaconi, vel inferiores Clerici etc. It is decreed that Priests, Deacons and other inferior Clergy men, if they will appeal from their Bishops, they shall not appeal but unto the councils of Africa etc. Gratian after the whole Canon set down, 
The question about Appeals in the Council of Melivet.  doth by way of commentary adjoin this exception, in a different distinct letter, saying, except they do appeal to the Sea of Rome, which exception Cardinal Bellarmine in that matter alloweth not, for that the Council of Melivet did principally intent to restrain the Appeals of inferior Clergy men, from going to Rome against their own Bishops, though not the appeals of Bishops themselves, a● presently shall be showed.  
19 But now what hath M. Morton either against us, or for himself out of this case? You shall hear him speak. 
Preamb. pag. 52.  What can be said (saith he) for the defence of Gratian their public Compiler of the Decrees of Popes, who as Cardinal Bellarmine witnesseth citing a Canon of a Council of Melivet, wherein it was decreed that none should appeal beyond the sea, did add of himself this exception, Except it be ●nto the Apostolic Sea of Rome: when as that Council in forbidding appeals beyond the sea, did especially intend to forbid appeals to Rome? Many such ●ike falsehoods might be alleged. So saith he.  
20. Whereto I answer, that if they be no better than this, they are not worth the alleging, but only to entertain time, & to show your fraud in dea●ing. For first Gratian did live divers hundred years gone; 
divers false shifts in accusing of Gratian.  but we talk of writers of our time, and of ●uch only is our question & controversy; wherein you ●inding yourself barren, would now extend your commission to all Catholic writers of all ages past, which is a miserable shift. Secondly there be so many other shifts & tricks in citing these few words, ●s do make demonstration that you can city nothing in simplicity of truth, without some wilful corruption, as here where you say, it was decreed (in the Council of Melivet) that none should appeal beyond the sea, you cut of craftily the first words before cited of the said Canon, inferiores Clerici, the inferior Clergy men, as though the prohibition had been for all (as well Bishops, as inferior Clergy men) which presently we shall show to be false.  
21. Thirdly where you say that Gratian did add o● himself this exception to the Canon, you would make ●our Reader think that he had added these words ●s the words of the Canon itself; 
Bellarmin. lib. 2. the R●man. Po●● c. 24. §. 3.  which he did not, but as a commentary or explication of the Canon in a separate place, and so is now extant in a distinct letter: and consequently your note in the margin that Gratian is a falsificator, falls upon yourself, which do falsify his meaning. For that the most that can be objected to Gratian in this place, is, that which Cardinal Bellarmine saith, he mistook the true meaning and intent of that Canon of Melivet, as though it had been meant of Bishops, as well as of inferiors Clergymen, which is far ●rom the proof of wilful ●a●se meaning, which may very probably be objected to M. Morton in this and many other places. For that it cannot be well thought, but that he must know that he dealt in●uriously & ca●ūniously with Gratian in this place.  
22. But now to the former old, idle, and worn-out objection against the foresaid three Popes, for counterfeiting not one only (as M. Morton accuseth) but three Canons of the said Council of Nice, not only the Madgeburgians, but Calvin also in his Institutions, and a●ter them both● jewel at large in his fourth article, and after him every Protestant have employed their pens and tongues to exaggerate the same, 
Calvin. l. 4. Instit. c. 7. Mag●eburgens●s C●n●. 5. c. 9 jewel in his 4. article of Reply.  upon no other ground, so much as it seemeth, as upon stomach, and exacerbation of hatred against the Roman Sea, seeking to slander and defame three so notable & ancient Bishops of Rome, that sat within the compass of 7. or 8. years, upon the point of a thousand and two hundred years past, which is far without the compass of modern Catholick● writers, as you see, and consequently from the state of our question. And albeit the matter hath been answered both largely, 
M. Mort. cavil about 3. Popes six times answered already  and clearly by divers learned men, as well of our nation as others, and showed to be a mere cavillation: yet nothing will serve these men, but still is it brought again, as though it had never been answered before. Which false dissimulation is here also used by M. Morton, 
1 Hardings' detection. l. 4. fol. 249.  who saith not a word of any answer that ever he saw thereunto, and yet could he not but have seen five or six at least (and four very famous of our own nation) if he be but meanly conversant in the writers of our time. As that first of D. Harding, in his detection against M. jewel, showing among other arguments, that no writer of all antiquity from that time, wherein these ●oly Popes lived unto this age (these Protestants excepted) was so shameless as ever to call them falsaryes, ●r that they had corrupted, or forged any Canon of ●he Council of Nice, though the Canons by them cited, were not found in some Copies, as they were in theirs of Rome, by the reason that presently shall be showed.  
●3. The Second is of D. Sanders, 
2 D. Sanders de visib. mon. l. 7. p. 356. & deinceps in Zozimo.  in his Visible Monarchy of the Church, who much more largely discus●eth the point, and finally concludeth the whole matter by five several arguments, that no such thing was ever meant by the African Fathers to forbid all appeals of the Bishops to Rome, as Illyricus, Calvin, M. jewel & other Protestant writers have devised & published  
24. The third answerer is Doctor Stapleton, 
3 Stapl. Return of untruths. art. 4. p. 29.  who refuteth the whole tale, and calumniation of the Protestants in this affair, in his Return o● Untruths, and fourth article, throughout twenty whole leaves together against M. jewel, and convinceth him of 38. several untruths uttered in that one matter, which in reason M. Morton should either have acknowledged or confuted: but the one he would not, and the other he could not. The fourth answerer is Alanus Copus otherwise Doctor Harpsfield, 
4 Harpsfield Dialog. 1. cap. 6. & 7.  very large, exact, & learned, in his Dialogues, who handleth every member thereof with like observance of multitude of lies used by the Protestants in that matter.  
25. The fifth is Cardinal Bellarmine, 
5 Bellar. l. 2. de Rom. Pont. cap. 24. & 25.  who in his books of the Bishop of Rome, hath largely, & learnedly discussed the same, and answered all objections brought to the contrary with great diligence, convincing both Illyrcius, and the rest of his fellow- Centuriators, together with Calvin, for so many falsehoods, shifts, errors of history, malicious fictions, and other like abuses, as is a shame to read. And finally not to name more authors for this point, Cardinal Baronius as last of all, 
6 Baron. tom. 5. ann● 419. none long à fine.  so with more exact examination historical the● any of the rest, hath cleared the whole matter in his fifth Tome of his Ecclesiastical History, upon the year 419. to whom I remit the studious Reader.  
26. Well then, in all these six Authors at least I do suppose, that M. Morton as a learned man had seen this objection discussed, and answered, though not perhaps to his contentment, why then if he had meant plainly, as often he protesteth, had not he either mentioned these Authors, or refuted them, or at leastwise told his Reader, 
A simile well showing M. Mortons' unsincere dealing.  that there had been some such answers before, though not sufficient to overthrow the objection, whereby the said Reader might have sought to have a view thereof? For if a Merchant that professeth much sincerity, and upright dealing, should offer coin for good and current that himself had known to have been six times at least rejected for counterfeit by skilful men, and yet he should obtrude the same again the 7. time, without saying any one word that it had been called into question, and refused before; none would say that this man's sincerity is worth a rush. The application I leave to M. Morton himself.  
27. Wherefore in a word or two, to answer the substance of the matter, 
The true state of the question.  thus it passed. A certain Priest of Sicca in A●rick named Appiarius having a controversy with his own Bishop Vrbanus, after divers disagreements passed between them, wherein he thought himself hardly dealt with all, he appealed to Rome to Pope Zozimus, bringing with him commendatory letters from the Primate of all Africa. Zozimus having heard his cause, thought best to send him ●acke again into afric, and with him two Legates, ●ith instructions that they should see & procure not ●nly this man to be restored to his right, but moreover that 3. Canons of the Council of Nice, the ●●rst about Appeals of Bishops, the second of Priests, ●●e third of Bishops following the Court, to be observed. Whereupon the African Bishops gathered a ●ationall Conncell at Carthage of 217. Bishops about ●●e satisfying of the Order of Pope Zozimus.  
●8. But when this Council had examined their ●●pyes of the Council of Nice, they found not those 〈◊〉 Canons therein. Whereupon they sending into the ●ast parts to seek other Copies, they received both ●om S. Cyrill Patriarch of Alexandria, and Atticus of constantinople other Copies, which in like manner ●●anted these 3. Canons, as also they did want divers ●ther Canons cited by sundry ancient Fathers to ●aue been made in the Council of Nice, as by 
a Praef. in Iudi●h.  S. hierome, 
b Epistole 110.  S. Augustine, 
c Epist. 82.  S. Ambrose, and divers later counsels: which Canons notwithstanding were ●ade & decreed in the first Council of Nice, though ●ot extant in the Copies, that were in Africa; which ●oth D. Harpsfeild, & Bellarmine do particularly prove ●t large, and it appeareth plainly that these copies sent out of the East, had 20. Canons only of ●he said Council of Nice, which Ruffinus in his story ●oth recount: 
Ruff. l. ●. Histor. Athan. Epistola ad Marcum.  whereas both S. Athanasius and many ●ther Fathers that were present in the same Council of Nice, do testify, that there were more, which are ●et down in the first tome of councils, as translated out of the Arabian language, though not found in the Greek.  
29. But indeed ●ll the error or mistaking was this, that there begin a general Council gathered together at Sardica very soon after that of Nice, which Sardicense Concilium contained more Bishops in number than were in that of Nice (for that in thi● there were 3OO. out of the West only, and 70. fr●● the East, as both Athanasius, 
Athan. Epist. ad ●olitariam vitam agentes & Apol. 2. Socrat. 2. hist. cap. 15.  Socrates, Zozomonus, 
Zozo. l. 3. cap. 11.  & other Authors do affirm) & for that the most of these Fathers were the self same, that had been in the Council of Nice, and had determined nothing concerning faith, differing from the Nicene Council, but only seemed to be called ●or better manifestation and confirmation of the said Nicene Council, it was held (especially in the West Church) for a part, or appendix of the said first Nicene Council: in which regard S. Gregory, and other Fathers, when they do mention the first 4. General councils, do leave out this of Sardica, 
The general Council of Sardica.  though it were as General and more great than the first Nicene, as hath been said.  
30. Wherefore this Council of Sardica having set down the foresaid three Canons, as conform to the decrees of the first late Council of Nice, and going under the name of the said Nicene Council as a member thereof in those copies that Pope Zozimu● in the West Church had, he did name them Canons of the Nicene Council, as made by the authority of the self same Fathers that sat at Nice, and the naming of one for the other was no greater an error in effect, 
Matt. 27.  then when S. Matthew doth name Hieremy the Prophet for Zachary, for so much as the thing itself was true: and so was the allegation of Pope Zozimus, for that in the Council of Sardica these three Canons are extant: 
The malicious clamours of Protestant's against three ancient renowned Bishops of Rome.  nor ever was there any least suspicion or speech of forging used in the Church by either Catholics or Heretics for so many ages, before the Lutherans and Caluinists upon mere hatred and gall of stomach began those clamours in this our age, against so holy ancient Fathers as those 3. Bishops of Rome were (to wit, Zozimus, Boni●acius, and Celestinus) by the testimony of Saint Augustine, and other Fathers that lived with them, who also (I mean S. Augustine) at that very time when the controversy was in treating about the Copies of the Council of Nice, 
August. ●pist. 26●.  and matter of appellation, did appeal himself to the later of these three Popes, to wit to Celestinus in the cause of Antonius Bishop of Fessala, as appeareth out of his own Epistle, about that matter. And so this shallbe sufficient, and more than was necessary, to answer unto ●his stale impertinent objection of counterfeiting the Canons of the first Nicene Council, which is nothing ●o our purpose in hand as hath been seen, and yet ●ncōbred with so many untruths, as would require ● several Treatise to display them. Let us come then ●o his second instance.   

HIS SEC0ND EXAMPLE of wilful fraud falsely objected against sundry modern Catholic writers, about the Council of Eliberis in Spain. §. III.  
BEFORE he cometh to set down this instance about the Council of Eliberis, 
Premb. p. 53.  he falleth again to boast and brag exceedingly, saying: P. R. is more merciful, requiring three sensible instances, as it were 3. witnesses against any one of his writers (before he be condemned:) & yet this also is horribly unmerciful on their part. I wish he had but named any one, whose credit he valueth most, that I might have answered his challenge in that one. Howsoever, it willbe no more easy a task for me to find one falsehood in many, than many in one. So he. And ●aue you heard this craking? We may say with Horace, 
Quid dignum tanto feret hic promissor hiatu?  What strange effect will so great words bring forth? But here I must again, 
What this bragger is bound to do.  and in every place advertise the Reader, what this Boaster should and ought to prove, if indeed he can prove any thing at all: to wit, that he lay forth clearly and perspicuously some two or three plain instances out of any one Catholic writer of our time (as I have done many against him and his, whereby he and they are convinced of witting and wilful falsehood,) and this so manifest and apparent, as the Author himself must needs know that it was false when he wrote it. Well then, what can M. Morton bring forth in this kind against our writers, out of this his second example or instance, about the Council of Eliberis in Spain?  
32. In the controversy about Images (saith he) the Protestants appeal unto antiquity both of councils, and Fathers. The first Council is that of Eliberis about the year of Grace 305. which Protestants urge, 
Preamb. pag. 53.  as forbidding that there should be any Images in the Church. Now let us try the spirits of the answerers. Well Syr. And what trial will you make of their spirits here? The state of your question in controversy requireth that you should try them for wilful lying spirits, and that they lied voluntarily, as hath been proved against you and yours. What have you to say against them in this kind out of this place? You do accuse them that they have divers, & different expositions upon the said Canon of the Council of Eliberis? some thinking it to be understood one way, and others another: and for this you allege the different expositions of Card. Bellarmine, D. Payva, Alanus Copus, Sanders, Turrian, Vasquez, Six●us Senensis, and others; and you play merrily upon ●heir diu●rsityes of expositions about the decree of ●he Council: but how proveth this your principal proposition, that they did err wilfully, yea wittingly also, themselves knowing that they did err ●or this is the only true question? And if you prove ●ot this, you prove nothing. And now I would ask ●ou, When divers ancient Fathers in their Commentaries upon the holy Scriptures, do set down different expositions of hard places, 
M. Morton taken in a great absurdity.  every one thinking ●hat he goeth nearest to the truth, may you by this condemn them of wilful falsehood, and make trial of their spirits as of lying spirits for this respect? ●s not this absurd and impious? Are you not ashamed to come forth with these ridiculous proofs ●fter so great ostentation of words, that it is as easy ●r you to find out many wilful falsehoods in one, as one in many? ●hy had you not alleged one at lest? But let us examine in a word or two the reason of diversity of expositions of our Doctors about the Canon, and ●ith this you will be wholly downe-dagger.  
●3. The Council itself of Eliberis in Spain was a provincial Council of 19 Bishops, held somewhat ●efore, or about the time of the first general counsel of Nice, and some Controversy there is among ●iuers Authors of what authority this Eliberian Coū●ell is, 
The story of the Eliberian Council in Spain.  or may be held; and whether ever it were re●●yued by the Church or not, in respect of some Canons therein found, that are obscure & hard to be ●ightly understood: as namely those which seem to deny reconciliation to some persons even at the hour of death. But howsoever this be, certain it is, that there be sundry Canons in that Council, which Protestants may not admit, as namely the 13. which saith, Virgins quae se Deo dedicaverunt, si pactum perdiderint virginitatis etc. Virgins that have dedicated themselves to God, if they break their promise of virginity, if they repent, and that they fell by infirmity of body and do penance all the time of their life etc. they ought to be admitted to communion in the end. A hard case for Protestant-Nunnes.  
34. Those other two also, viz. 23. and 26. which are about set fastings upon Saturday, and other days may not be admitted by Protestants, & much less the 33. which forbiddeth all Priests, Bishops, Deacons, and Subdeacons' to have the use of wives, or generare filios, to beget children, under pain, ut ab honore Clericatus exterminentur, 
The Eliberian Council contrary to Protestants.  that they be cast out from the Clergy. And yet further Can. 38. that Bigamu●, or he that hath been twice married, may not baptise any, no not in time of necessity, which inferreth à fortiore, that such a one could not be Priest in those ancient days. And here then, how can M. Morton say so confidently as he doth of this Council of Eliberis, We Protestants appeal to the antiquity of councils, and first to that of Eliberis & c? And do you think that he will stand to these Canons now alleged? If he do, it must needs be very prejudicial unto him, and mar his marriage at least, if he have any intention to marry, and yet to lead the life of a Clergyman, according to the prescript of the Council of Eliberis: as also to be some other punishment unto his body to be bound to so much fasting, as those Canons of the Council of Eliberis do ordain and prescribe.  
35. But to return to the reason why he allegeth this Council. 
M. Mort. art in answering. Preamb. p. 53.  We Protestant's (saith he) do urge this Council, as forbidding, that there should be any images in the Church. Whereunto he bringeth in D. Payva to answer one way, Bellarmine another, Sanders & Alanus Copus a third, others a fourth, fifth, or sixth (a thing very usual among learned men to have divers expositions even upon the Scriptures themselves,) & then by way ●f scoffing (though very insulse) to make sport unto himself and his Reader, he frameth, as it were, a Comedy or interlude, one saying one thing, & an●ther another (though all against him:) and in this ●onsisteth a great part of his manner of answering, ●s by frequent examples you will see, if you consider ●t.  
●6. But let us examine, what the Canon itself ●ath: The words are these: Placuit, in Ecclesia picturas ●sse non debere, ne quòd colitur, aut adoratur, in parietibus de●ingatur. It is decreed by us, that pictures ought not ●o be in the Church, lest that which is worshipped or adored, be painted upon the walls. Which Canon for that it containeth not only a decree, 
The decree of the Eliberian Council examined  as you ●ee, but also a reason of the decree, and seemeth contrary both to the use of the general Church at that time, and afterwards, as is proved out of other ancient Fathers, councils, and Historiographers, & seemeth to be opposite to the determination and public decree of a famous General Council, that ensued some years afterward, to wit, the second of Nice, divers authors do allege divers reasons for the right understanding, & verifying of this Canon: so as it may agree with the truth of the councils meaning, and with the reason itself alleged by the Canon: which variety of answers or expositions in a conjectural matter, as hath been said, are no wilful contradictions, as M. Morton fondly supposeth, but multiplicity of expositions. The most general is, that the true meaning of the Council was, that for more reverence of holy images, and to the end the thing which was proposed to be worshipped & adored in them should not suffer indecency, they should not be painted upon walls of the Church where by the corruption and moisture thereof, they might come to be corrupted and defaced, but rather that they should be made upon tables, veils, & such other movable matter, whereby they might both the better be preserved, and removed also more conveniently from the injury of Infidels in time of persecution: which in effect was the very same reason that moved the ancient and Christian Emperor Theodosius to prohibit, 
Lib. 1. Cod. tit. 8. leg. cum nobis sit.  that the image of Christ's Cross, which he carried in his banner, should not be engraven upon the ground, or pavement, and so trodden upon by men's feet.  
37. And here also the consideration of learned Vasquez is worth the observing, 
A weighty consideration.  who being a Spaniard, writeth, that this decree of his Country-councell of Eliberis maketh so little against the Catholic modern use of Images, as that the greatest enemy, that ever they had one of them in the world, Claudius Taurinensis, 
Vasquez l. 2. de cultu & ador. disp. 5. n. ●26. & 135.  a Spaniard in like manner, and a chief head of the Iconoclasts, or Image-breakers, almost 800. years agone, seeking all the arguments that he could any way scrape together against them, and the pious use thereof; yet did he never allege this Canon of his own Countrey-Councell (which now Calvin and Caluinists do so much urge,) well foreseeing that it made nothing at all to his purpose, or against the Catholic use of Images. For if it had been otherwise, either he, or some other of that sect after him, would have cited the same before the Protestants of our tyme.  
38. I do willingly pretermitt the pageants and childish plays, which M. Morton doth make to himself in comparing, and opposing the variety of our writers answers, and interpretations together, and the one against the other (as before hath been said) proposing them as poppetts to make himself pastime, which he may do also upon the gravest Commentaries that ever were written upon Aristotle, or ●ther author, yea & upon the Scriptures themselves: ●ut I can not let pass the last assertion of all set ●owne by M. Morton in a different letter, 
Preamb. pag. 55. Sixt. Senen. l. 5. Bibl. annot. 247.  that whatsoever the occasion of forbidding might have been (in the Canon) this is a confessed conclusion of Senensis, that the counsel of Eliberis, did 
* An absolute lye●  absolutely forbid the worship of Images. And so he maketh the Latin text of Senen●is to speak in like manner, Omnino vetuit Synodus Eli●ertina imaginum cultum. But in Senensis you shall not find the word omnino or absolutely, wherein standeth all the force of the matter. And the fraud cannot seem but wilful, nor can it any way stand with the intention of Senensis, who saith and affirmeth only (according to the interpretation, which he best alloweth of among many other) that the meaning of the Council was this, to forbid the use of images for a time, lest the new converted spaniards, not being well instructed, seeing images upon the walls, should think there were no difference between them, and the heathen Idols. For avoiding whereof it seemed good to the Council for a while to remove the use of images, 
M. Mor● taken in a manifest false trip.  which of itself they held for lawful and pious. This is the opinion of Senensis. And now let the discreet reader judge, whether this were his confessed Conclusion, that the Council of Eliberis did absolutely, or not rather secundum quid, forbid the worship of images. Surely I am ashamed of such shifting in M. Morton, even then, when he pretendeth to charge his adversary with that crime, and cannot prove it. Let us pass to another instance of his, no better than this.   

HIS THIRD EXAMPLE OF like deceit objected against the same Catholic Authors, about the Council of Frankford in Germany. §. FOUR  
AFTER the former variety of expositions about the Canon of the Council of Eliberis, M. Morton passeth to another difference in judgement among our Catholic writers, concerning the Provincial Council of Frankford, which being held about 800. years past, presently after the second general Council of Nice, wherein the Catholic use of images was defended and established against the foresaid heresy of Iconoclasts, 
Cent. 8. c. 9 citantur Ado in Chron. an. 795. Vrsperg. in chron. anno. 793. Hin●mar. l. contra Episc. jandun. c 20. & alij.  sundry Authors, alleged by the Magdeburgians, do write, that the said Synod of Frankfurt did condemn as well the said doctrine of images, as also the Authority of the Council of Nice that had allowed the same: which if it were true, yet were not the matter of any great doubt, whether a Provincial Council (such as was that of Frankfurt) were rather to be obeyed then a general, as was the other of Nice. But for that there is great obscurity, and many contradictions in the history itself, therefore divers Catholic writers do answer, and expound the matter diversly, alleging sundry excellent conjectural reasons, proofs, and probabilities each one for themselves, as may be seen in the places of their works here quoted, but yet all agreeing in the principal point against the Protestants, that the Council of Frankfurt indeed did not condemn either the Council of Nice, or the doctrine of Images in the sense (at least) and meaning that the said Nicene Council had approved the same. And what is this to the purpose then, to prove that th●se Authors did err wittingly against their conscience? Do you not see, that still the poor man runneth quite from the purpose, 
All from the purpose.  and hath nothing to say to the effect he should say?  
40. But let us stay ourselves a little upon the matter itself, and give some brief notice to the Reader of the diversity of opinions in our Catholic Authors about this matter, that is so obscure ●y relation of others; for that no Canon or Decree ●f that Council was ever extant about the same to my knowledge. 
Three opinions about the Council of Frankford  The whole controversy is reduced ●o three opinions, the first is of 
1 Surius in praefat. ad Concil. Francof.  Surius, 
2 Dialo. 4. & 5.  Alanus Co●us, 
3 in l. de Imagine.  Sanders, and others, who think probably, ●hat albeit divers Historiographers, upon the credit of certain books, called falsely Carolini, or of Charles the great, refuted by Pope Adrian the first than ryving, have left recorded that the Council of Frankfurt did reprove the seventh General Coun●ell about images (which is known to be the 2. of Nice:) yet was it not so indeed, but another false Council of Constantinople was condemned by them of Frankfurt as held by the heretical Image-breakers a little before, and was called the 2. of Constantinople, ●nd by themselves that held it, the 7. General Council. So as according to this opinion the error was in mistaking the second Council of Nice, to have been condemned by the Council of Frank●ord, instead of the second Council of Constantinople.  
41 The second opinion is of Cardinal Bellarmine, Gene●●ard, & some others, who think that the error was not so much in mistaking Council for Council, 
Bellar. l. 2. de imagine 14.  as fact for fact, for that some Iconoclastes, and especially those that wrote the foresaid forged books, named Carolini, in Frankford, during the time of the said Council, had falsely informed the Council in two points of fact, against the Council of Nice. The ●irst, that it was not gathered, nor confirmed by the Bishop of Rome: the second that it had decreed, Images to be worshipped with di●ine honour, and the same that was due unto the blessed Trinity: upon which two false suppositions the Council of Nice being far of, and the Treatises and Decrees thereof written only as yet in Greek, and not much published to the world and latin Church, the Council of Frankford condemned the doctrine, as also the Authority of the Council upon the foresaid two misinformations: which was error of fact, as hath been said, and not of faith. And M. Morton doth fond insult, when he biddeth his adversary P. R. to tell him in good earnest, 
Preamble pag. 58.  if the Fathers of the Council of Frankfurt, judging that the second Council of Nice, confirmed by the Pope, did err in defending the use of Images, did they err in faith or no? Whereunto I answer, that they erred in fact & not in faith, as hath been said, being informed that the Council of Nice had determined that, which it had not indeed: to wit, divine honour to be given to image●. For if they of Frankfurt had known the truth as also been certain that the other of Nice had decreed, and established only due and reverent worship, such as had been used in the Church, the Council of Frankford would not have contradicted it: as neither, if they had known that the Pope had confirmed that Council, 
A wilful untrruth.  would they ever have doubted of the Authority thereof, as is evident by the Caroline books themselves. And it is witting error here in M. Mort. to say, that they of Frankfurt knew that the Council of Nice was confirmed by the Pope, for that the Caroline Books themselves, even as they are set out by the Centurians do use that for a principal argument ●n the behalf of the Council of Frankfurt, to impugn the Nicene Council: for that they supposed ●hat said Nicene Council was not confirmed by Adrian●he ●he Pope, wherein they were deceived by false information, I mean those of Frankford: but Morton●ould ●ould deceive us by craft and subtlety.  
●2. The third opinion is of Vasquez and other ●earned men, 
Lib. 2. de cultu imagine.  that this determination against the ●se of Images, was not at all made by the Council ●f Frankford, but by some other Conciliabulum of Ico●clastes, that at the same time were at Frankford, or ●e●re about: especially the Authors of the foresaid ●ookes Carolini, which being craftily dispersed came 〈◊〉 the hands of Pope Adrian, who sent them back again confuted to Charles, that was not yet Empe●ur, but made within few years after by Pope Le●●●e ●●e third, who would never have yielded (saith ●asquez) to that advancement of his, if he had thought him any way spotted with the heresy of I●●oclastes, condemned by his predecessor, and the council of Nice so lately before.  
●3. These three conjectural opinions then being ●eld by sundry Catholic writers upon different grounds; how doth M. Morton out of such variety of ●udgments infer, that they speak wilful untruth 〈◊〉 their own consciences, or are guilty of witting, ●●d voluntary falsehood, as he is bound to infer, ●r else he saith nothing to the purpose. Can there be ●ny greater absurdity than this, to promise wilful falsehood, and then to allege only diversity of opinions? Surely if his Reader blush not for him, I do, and so will pass to an other example.   

HIS FOURTH example of like falshoodes vainly objected against the same Authors: about the Epistle of S. Epiphanius, touching Images. §. V.  
FROM these two shadows of some scraps out of two Provincial Counsels, he leapeth to a place of S. Epiphanius in a certain Epistle of his, where he writeth of himself, 
Preamble pag. 59  That entering into a Church at a place called Anablath to pray, and perceiving a curtain wherein was a picture, as if it had been the Image of Christ or some Saint, he took the Curtain, and rend it, as being a thing contrary to the authority of the Scriptures. This is the story as M. Morton setteth it down: 
M. Mortons' manner of stickling between our Authors.  and then presently for answering thereof, he putteth all our writers into a great war among themselves, bringing them in, forth, and back, this way, and that way, the one opposing, the other answering, the third moderating, the fourth crossing: and himself stickling between them by interlacing some words here and there, will needs make himself the head of the fray.  
45. And this is so fond a thing as every Grammerscholler might do it: for he needeth but to go to Bellarmine's works, & especially to Vasquez, who wrote after him of the controversy of Images, and there shall he find all variety of opinions set down with their Authors and places quoted. And from these hath M. Morton furnished himself to make the muster that here he doth, without any further study or labour, then to go to our foresaid Authors, & of their objections make affirmative assertions, and of their assertions for us, make objections against us.  
46. But here again is to be noted as before, that whatsoever difference of opinions there be, or may be among Catholic writers of controversy, about the true meaning of S. Epiphanius in this place: yet is it nothing at all to M. Mortons' purpose, who is bound to prove that they wrote against their own knowledge, and conscience, which I suppose were hard to do, for that every man must be presumed to have written according as his judgement gave him, and consequently that all this which M. Morton hath so studiously gathered together, is nihil ad rhombum, nothing to the purpose● and therefore I could not but laugh, when I read his conclusion of this instance saying, 
Preamb. pag. 61.  That if P. R. shall desire ●yue hundredth (instances) of this kind, I bind myself (saith he) unto him by a faithful protestation, in a months warning to satisfy him. Which I believe, 
A fond offer of M. Mort●  yea if it were five thousand in a weeks warning, for he needeth no more but to go to the foresaid books of our Catholic authors, opening them & laying them before his adversary, and they will furnish him at large, when the state of the question is such, as it admitteth variety of opinions, or diversity of judgements about any point, or circumstance thereof.  
47. As for the controversy in hand about S. Epiphanius fact and meaning, related in the end of his Epistle to john of Jerusalem, that seemeth to make against Images, though divers learned men do expound the matter diversly, some thinking that it was a clause added by some heretics amongst the Iconoclastes, whereof both Bellarmine, Valentia, Suarez and last of all Baronius do yield most evident probabilities, and others that admitting it for the speech of Epiphanius, do very sufficiently answer the same otherwise: yet that in deed it maketh nothing at all against the Catholic use of sacred Images, is so evident by conferring their answers together, as nothing can be more.  
48. As namely first for that Baronius and others do prove abundantly out of Paulinus, 
Baron. tom. 4. anno. 392. in fine.  Venantius Fortunatus, Euodius & other ancient authors, that the use of images was ordinary & frequent in the time of S. Epiphanius: & Suarez confirmeth the same out of old holy Fathers & Doctors of the Greek Church his equals to wit, 
Suar. tom. 1. in 3. par. disp. 54. sect. 1. §. ad 3.  S. Chrysostome, S. Basill, S. Gregory Nanianzen, Gregory Nissen & others, whereof is inferred that it is not probable that S. Epiphanius would set down a thing so contrary to the common received doctrine, & practice of his time, or if he had, it would have been noted & contradicted by some.  
49 Secondly it is proved out of the second Nicene Council, that the disciples of S. Epiphanius did set up his picture publicly in his Church of Cyprus soon after his death, which they would never have done, if S. Epiphanius in his life time had held it for an abuse, 
Synod. Nic. 2. act. 6.  contrary to the authority of Scriptures to have the picture of any man set up in the Church.  
50. Thirdly S. john Damascenus that lived very near 900. years gone, testifieth in his first Oration of Images, 
Damas●. Orat. 1. de Imagine.  that the said Church of S. Epiphanius in Cyprus had continued from that time to his imaginibus exornata, adorned with images, and thereupon inferreth, that whatsoever is found in him sounding against the pious use of Images is counterfeit & thrust into his works by the Iconoclast Heretics. And in the foresaid Council of Nice itself, which was held in his time, one Epiphanius a Deacon did show two other like places to have been thirst into his books by the same Heretics.  
51. Fourthly it appeareth by the said Council, & by S. john Damascen in his foresaid Oration, that this place of S. Epiphanius in his Epistle to john of Jerusalem was never objected against Images, either in the Council itself, or by Claudius Taurinensis, or any other Iconoclast at that time, which they would not have omitted to do, if in those days such a testimony had been extant in so grave an author, as was S. Epiphanius.  
52. Fifthly S. Gregory the Great objecting to a certain Bishop of Massiles, 
Greg. l. 9 Epist. 9  called Serenus, somewhat the like fact of breaking Images, saith unto him (as is extant in his own Epistle:) Dic, Frater, à quo factum Sacerdote aliquando est quod fecisti? Tell me, brother, of what Priest was it ever heard, that he attempted a fact like unto this of yours? Which he would never have said, if the other might have answered, I have heard and read the same done by the great, and holy Archbishop S. Epiphanius.  
53. Lastly, to omit divers proofs which our men do allege, if S. Epiphanius had held for an error and abuse against the Authority of Scriptures to have Images in the Church, 
A very strong argument, that S. Epiphanius impugned not the doctrine of image●.  as our modern Protestants will needs force it upon him; then is it likely that he writing so large a work against all the heresies, and erroneous doctrine, & perilous abuses that had sprung up in the Church of God, from Christ until his time, he would not have omitted to warn men also of this, that was so dangerous & prejudicial to the honour and service of Almighty God: but no word is to be found of this amongst all his heap of heresies, and consequently we may for certain infer, that he did not think this doctrine or practice or setting up Christian Images in Christian Churches to be unlawful, or against the authority of Scriptures.  
54. And this for the matter itself which is more than was necessary for me to say, considering that whatsoever diversity of judgements there was, or is about the exposition, answer, defence, or impugnation of this place of Epiphanius: 
New Interludes brought in by M. Morton.  yet is there no one jot to be inferred thereof that any of them did wittingly or willingly write false against their own conscience, which is the question in hand, & which we are ready to prove against our adversaries. Nor yet do I mean to stand upon the examen of the Interlude brought in by M. Morton of our Catholic writers differences of opinions, wherein again he delighteth himself: only I wish the Reader, that whereas Cardinal Bellarmine is here calunniated about Epiphanius Epistle translated by S. Hierome for denying the last clause thereof to be his, he repair for the solution thereof unto Cardinal Baronius, 
Baron. tom. 4. anno 392. fin●.  who more largely detecteth the fraud, then is expedient for me at this present to relate: especially for so much as I am to pass to other particular calunniations against Cardinal Bellarmine, in his very next example or instance.    

THE SECOND PART OF THIS CHAPTER.  

OF INSTANCES AGAINST CARDINAL Bellarmine in particular, touching imputation of old heresies. §. VI  
IF you have seen how little able M. Morton hath been to perform his promise before, for wilful falsityes committed by any of our writers hitherto, much more shall you see it now, when leaving the multitude of other Authors, he singleth out Cardinal Bellarmine alone to deal withal: who as he hath written much, so were it not great marvel, if in so many books he should have left some things, whereupon his adversaries might probably wrangle: 
M. Mortons' intention by singling out Bellarmine.  but as for wilful untruth, it is so far from his known, and confessed integrity, as M. Morton could never have made choice of an unfitter match for that point. Nor can it be thought that he chose him upon hope to find any such advantage in him in deed, but only to honour himself somewhat by contending with such an adversary, and to cast some clouds, at least in the minds of the simpler sort, upon the shining beams of Cardinal Bellarmine's estimation, by objecting the name of wilful falsityes unto him. But as when the said clouds are driven away from the air, the force of the sun is more sensibly felt: so Card. Bellarmine's works being cleared here from M. Mortons' calumniations, will be more highly esteemed by every judicious Reader, as not lending any least true advantage unto any impugnation of the adversary: & this is all the hurt that he is like to receive by this assault.  

Preamb. pag. 62.  56. And yet, as if M Morton had some great matters in deed to lay against him, and that the proofs were prompt, certain, & evident, he according to his former excessive vain of vaunting, falleth into the s●me again, writing thus: P. R. requireth an example of any one, who hath been found so grossly false, that in the eye of man he may not be acquitted either by ignorance of translation etc. which demand if it proceed from unfeynednesse, 
Strange craking and boasting.  it seemeth unto me so intolerably reasonable, that now I am driven to a two fold trouble in yielding satisfaction. The one is that I know not with what one to begin first, the falsificators be so many. The second is, when I shall begin with any choice of one, how to make an end, so manifold are their falsifications. Therefore in respect of the falsifyers, I would require of P. R. to propound unto me any one of his Doctors, in whom he hath best assurance of integrity, whether Greg. de Valentia, Stapleton, Bellarmine, Coccius, Suarez, Turrian, Campian, Gretzer, Feverdentius, the Rhemish Translation in their annotations, or any (I say) of those which have been publicly authorized of their Church, & I will not doubt but to give him thrice three examples of their fraud. In the mean time I think it requisite to single out of all, such an one, as is commended of all, to wit, Cardinal Bellarmine, that P. R. ●ay not repine, saying: he hath chosen a David, the ●●ast in his Father's house: but confess that I have preferred a Saul, one higher by the head & shoulders ●hen any of the rest: not a dead man, who cannot ●●terprete his own meaning whether he had falsified upon ignorance, negligence etc. but one which now ●uing is able to answer for himself, whose credit ●. R. doth tender, and with whom he may consult to know, whether I do him injury, or no. 〈◊〉 he.  
●●. And have you ever heard more confident ●each? This now may be called present desperate in●●ed, if presently it be to be proved, 
The true ground of my moderate Challenge.  that he hath 〈◊〉 one instance of any one falsity against Cardinal ●ellarmine, throughout all his works, as here is re●●ired. And may not then his own words be returned upon him, that neither Thraso on the stage, nor goliath in the field, nor Gorgias in the schools, did ever use such ●asting? My boasting, if any were, was out of the ●●ctitude of a good conscience, esteeming no good ●hristian man to be so wicked, as to lie so wilfully 〈◊〉 before hath been set down: and therefore esteeming all our writers to be free thereof, I said, and ●ust say still, that if in any one of them there should 〈◊〉 found that deplored & inexcusable fraud, I should ●●uer believe him afterward, as a man, not regarding truth, nor speaking out of conscience, but of wilful fraud: which speech M. Morton calleth prodigal and prodigious, as you have heard. And thus he ●ust do, either in regard that he esteemeth it not ●or so great a crime to lie wilfully (as Catholics do esteem it) or that he can prove it to be used also by ●ur men. The first I suppose he will be ashamed to ●onfesse: the second I expect how he will be able to ●roue; and so I pass to the examen itself. And by the trial of his success with this one Antagonist, that he hath chosen out, the Reader may make a guess, what he were able to do, if he should enter combat with so many of our writers, as here he hath named. And for better understanding of the matter, it is to be observed, that he endeavoureth to condemn Cardinal Bellarmine of wilful falsities in two points. 
His pretences against Cardinal Bellarmine.  First in imputing certain heresies to Protestants, which (he saith) they do not hold: the second in falsifying other men's testimonies, alleged by him. Both of them were grievous, if either of them by any one example could be proved in Bellarmine. Now then to the trial.   

THE FIRST Objection against Cardinal Bellarmine, of fals● imputation of the Pelagian-heresy to Protestants. protestants VII.  

Preamb. p. 63●  LET P. R. (saith ●e) for a while take Cardinal Bellarmine into secret confession, and first ask him, 
Bellarmin. l. 4. de Eccles. militant. c. 9 §. Pelagiani.  with what conscience he hath charged Calvin with the heresy of the Pelagians, who denied that there was any original sin in Infants, especially in the children of faithful Christians? For he could not be ignorant, that this doctrine of denying original sin was (as their own 
† Greg. de Valent. l. de orig. peccat. c. 2. initio. etc. 8. & in tun. 2. disp. 6. q. ●●. punct. 1.  L. jesuit confesseth) the proper heresy of the Pelagians. And not so only, but saith furthermore, that Calvin and all other Protestants are so far from denying original sin, that they do monstrously extend the nature thereof, even unto persons regenerate. This is the charge, which he pretendeth (as you see) to prove, that Gregorius de Valentia (whom it pleaseth him to style here L. jesuit, though I know not why) disagreeth from ●ellarmine in ascribing the Pelagian heresy, about original sin, to Calui●. Whereto I answer, first, that it is well, that M. Morton permitteth Cardinal Bellarmine to ●e demanded his faults in secret confession: but himself, who I presume scarce goeth to any se●ret con●ession at all, must be driven to confess his ●aults in public, with greater worldly shame, as in ●his place. Who would not think, that after the ●●ate of the question so often set down, 
M. Mort. perpetual wandering from the purpose.  and so ma●y bragging promises made on his part to produce ●reat matters against Bellarmine, he would not have e'en ashamed to come forth now with this poor & idle objection in the very first front of his charge, wherein if all should be granted to him, that he objecteth, to wit, that Bellarmine and Valentia had not ●ully agreed in charging Calvin with the Pelagian he●esy about original sin; yet doth not this infer wilful untruth in either of them. For it might have been only difference of judgements, in understanding differently the doctrine of Calvin, each man persuading himself, that he had understood him rightly, and so still nothing had been brought to his purpose of witting and wilful untruths known to the utterer to be such. And is not this then mere trifling?  
●9. But now the matter standeth not so well: for that there is no contradiction at all between Bellarmine and Valentia, 
Shifts to make Bellarmin and Valentia seem contrary.  as presently shallbe showed. And M. Morton doth guil●ully corrupt them both to make them seem contrary. And l●t the Reader look upon it, and know him and his cause by these tricks; who to frame some show of falsehood in others, where none is, useth the same intolerably himself.  
60. The Reader than must know, that Cardinal Bellarmine in the 9 Chapter of his fourth Book de Ecclesia, 
The true opinion & discourse of Card. Bellarmin about Pelagianisme in Protestants.  handling the notes of the Church (which book and Chapter are here cited by M. Morton) taking upon him to show, that one principal note of the Church is, to agree in doctrine with the ancient Fathers from time to time, and of the contrary false Church, to participate with heretics; he recounteth twenty several heads of heresies held by twenty different heresiarchs, with sundry branches thereunto belonging, condemned by the ancient Christian Church, which also are defended by the Protestant's of our time, some more and some less.  
61. And this h● proveth so substantially, as nothing in effect can be said against it: which M. Morton having perused, and desirous to pick some matter against him, that might seem to have some show of probability, he beginneth with the Pelagians, as you have heard, which is the fourteenth old condemned heresy, showed by Bellarmine to be revived again in divers points by Protestants, thinking best to overskip thirteen at on leap. As for example, 
Bellarm. l. 4. de Eccles. c. 9 §. Pelagiani.  whereas the Pelagians did hold two principal heresies among other, saith Bellarmine, the one, That every sin though never so little is mortal, & depriveth us of God's grace: That there is no original sin in man, especially in Infants of faithful parents, 
Zuing. l. de baptism. Bucer. in c. 3. in Matt. Calu. l. 4. Instit. c. 15. §. 20.  he averreth that the Protestants of our days do concur in both points. In the first all generally, that there is no sin Venial of his own nature: in the second with some distinction, for that Zuinglius (●aith he) denieth Original sin in all, Calvin and Bucer in Christian Infants only. This is Cardinal Bellarmine's assertion, his latin words be these.  
62. Zuinglius negat simpliciter peccatum originale in quolibet homine, Bucerus autem & calvinus solùm in filijs ●idelium, quos dicunt sanctos nasci, & salvari etiam sine baptismo. Zuinglius doth absolutely deny original sin to be in any man, but Bucer and Calvin do only deny the same in the children of the faithful, whom they say to be borne Saints, and to be saved also without baptism. So as Bellarmine is guilfully abused by M. Morton, in setting down his opinion, as though he had said that Calvin had denied with the Pelagians, that there is any original sin at all in Infants, though less in the children of the faithful, citing his latin words in the margin perversely ●hus: Pelagiani docebant non esse in hominibus peccatum ori●inale, & praecipuè in filijs fidelium, idem docent calvinus & Bucerus. 
Injurious dealing.  The Pelagians did teach that there was not original sin in men, and especially in the children of the faithful, the same do teach Calvin & Bu●er. Thus he. Whereas he saith differently, as you ●aue heard, that Calvin & Bucer denied it only in the children of the faithful, granting it in the rest: and ●his could not M. Morton but see & know, & consequently is taken in a witting formal lie that know●th one thing & yet writeth the contrary.  
63. And hereupon, whereas he willed me to ask of Cardinal Bellarmine in secret Confession with what conscience he had charged Calvin with the heresy of the Pelagians, ●hat denied original sin in all men, I must ask him in open confession, with what conscience he could so ●alsify Bellarmine in making him to say that which he ●id not: for that he doth not say also absolutely, that Calvin denieth all original sin in all Infants, 
Valent. tom. 2. disp. 6. pun. 2. Zuing. lib. de bapt. Calu. l. 4. Inst. c. 16●  but only in the childrin of the faithful, & this doth not the L. jesuit Valentia any way contradict, as falsely here is insinuated, that he doth; but rather to the contrary he expressly avoucheth the same, & this in the very place here cited by M. Morton, saying: Zuinglio & Caluino visum est filios ●idelium non contrahere peccatum originale; It seemed to Zuinglius and Calvin that the children of the faithful do not contract original sin, and he quoteth the places where it is to be found in their works: and the same he doth in his 4. Tom upon S. Thomas, 
Tom. 4. disp. 4. §. 3. calvinus.  citing other places of Calui● where he holdeth the ●ame doctrine. So as in this point Bellarmine and Valentia have no more contradiction between them, than it pleaseth M. Morton to devise of his own head, and to publish in their names, contrary to their own apparent words & meaning.  
64. But he citeth a place of Valentia that may seem to make to the contrary, where he saith: 
Preamb. p. 63.  Calvin and other Protestants are so far o● from denying Original sin, that they do monstrously extend the nature thereof, even unto persons regenerate, 
Valen de peccat. Orig. c. 2. initio. etc. 8. & tom. 2. disp. 6. q. 11. punc. 1. §. Quam quaestionem.  and for this he quoteth certain places o● Valen●ia (as he might also have done divers of Bellarmine●or ●or he relateth of Calvin the very same) and setteth down the latin according to his own English, though not a little differing from the words of the Author: but that which most importeth, is, that he wittingly and deceitfully abuseth the Reader with this citation, as though Valentia did contradict both himself and Bellarmine, 
Bellarm. l. 5. de amiss. gratiae c. 5. etc.  and said, That Calvin and Bucer were far of from denying Original sin in the children of the faithful: Whereas he saith not so, but that, they do not absolutely deny all original sin, as the Pelagians did, and as Zuinglius before is charged to have done, together with the anabaptists, as Melancthon witnesseth, and before them again the Armenians, Albanenses, and others, but only denied the same in the children of the faithful, as hath been said, and in the rest they granted it: and not this only, but monstrously also do the said Calvin, Luther, and other Protestants extend the nature and guilt of original sin, even unto such as are regenerate & christened, which is to be understood in that they hold, that the very motions of concupiscence called (fo●es) are sins in themselves, even without the con●ent of our minds, which is an other extreme opposition to Catholic doctrine, that teacheth these ●otions not to be sins at all, without some consent yielded unto them: but yet this assertion of Valentia●s ●s not contrary, nor contradictory to that which cardinal Bellarmine, and himself affirmed before of ●aluin; to wit, that with the Pelagians he holdeth ●hat the Infants of faithful people are devoid of original sin, for that those motions of concupiscence ●hich he calleth original sins in Christians a●●lt, are not in infants and thereby he denieth original sin in Christian Infants, and granteth it in ●●em that be of age, in both which he is opposite to the Catholic Church. Let M. Mort. see how 〈◊〉 can defend him from contradiction to himself, 〈◊〉 I have defended Cardinal Bellarmine, and Gregorius de ●alentia.  
●5. There remaineth then only to examine the ●eason alleged by M. Morton why Bellarmine's charge ●f Pelagianisme against Calvin could not be true, 
Preamb. pag. 63.  that●saith ●saith he) this doctrine o● denying original sin was the pro●er heresy of the Pelagians, out of which confession of ●he L. jesuit Valentia, 
Valen. l. de Orig. pec●. cap. 2.  M. Morton would infer, that ●or so much as this was the proper heresy of the Pe●●gians, therefore it could not be of the Protestants: ●hich reason is so wise, as it can serve to nothing, ●ut to make the reader laugh. For albeit the Pela●●ans were the peculiar Authors of this heresy; yet ●ight the ●ame be made common by participation, & ●o doth Valentia expressly say, that this heresy was ●aken up afterward both by the armenians, Albanenses, Anabaptists, citing Castro and Melancthon for the same. So as to cite this reason or a proof, that Calvin did not deny orgina●l sin in Infants, ●or that our own L. jesuit Valentia doth say, that it was the proper errors of the Pelagians (which yet are not his words but S. Augustine's cited by him for the same) is as ridiculous an inference, 
Aug. l. 6. contra julian. c. 2. & 3. & l. 4. ad Bonif. c. 2. & 4.  as if a man should say, it was the proper error of Arius, and his fellows in old time to deny the equality of the Son of God with his Father, ergo, it cannot be that the modern Arians of Transiluania, and other places, do hold the same now: and it was the peculiar doctrine of Berengarius, and his adherents to deny the Real Presence, ergo, the Protestants of England at this day cannot be charged with that doctrine. And doth not every body see the vanity of this inference? Wherefore his conclusion is to be noted, I let pass (saith he) a doze● such criminations, cast by him upon Protestants, which by the testimonies of his own Doctors may be proved to have been lewd and intolerable slanders. Whereto I answer, that hitherto he hath not been able to show any one: we shall see what he will say afterward. But in the mean space I leave it to the modest Reader, to judge where the lewdness doth remain, if any be.  
66. And to this consideration I add another, that whereas Cardinal Bellarmine did charge Calvin, and Caluinists with two principal errors of the Pelagians, the one, that which now hath been handled, of denying Original sin in children, and Infants of the faithful, 
Hierom. l. 2. contra Pelagian.  and the second, of denying the difference of Venial and Mortal sins, and holding that by every least sin we lose our justice, and consequently that all sin is mortal, Bellarmine citing for the same the testimony of S. Hierome, who ascribeth that for heresy unto the Pelagians: and whereas in like manner he proveth the same heresy, not only to be held by Luther, and Melancthon, but also by Calvin in divers parts of his works, as lib. 2. Instit. cap. 8. §. 85. lib. 3. cap. 4. §. 28. etc. M. Morton taking upon him to clear Calvin in the former charge ●●out original sin, though so unluckily as you ●●ue heard, saith never a word against this second ●●out the distinction of venial and mortal sins; 
Calvin granted underhand to hold one point of Pelagianisme.  ●herby is evident in all probability, that he admit●●ed that for true, and consequently yielded secretly, ●●at Caluinists do agree with the Pelagians in this he●●sy, though he storm sharply as you have heard against Bellarmine for charging Calvin with any point 〈◊〉 Pelagianisme at all. And this fraud or frailty he cō●itteth commonly in all the rest of the heresies ●●iected, denying the one weakly, and by his silence ●●anting the other, as now by experience you shall 〈◊〉.   

THE SECOND INJURIOUS ●●i●ction, against Cardinal Bellarmine, for false imputation of the Novatian-heresy. §. VIII.  
FROM the fourteenth heresy, wherein Cardinal Bellarmine showeth the Protestants to participate ●ith the Pelagians, as you have heard, M. Morton starveth back to the sixth, 
Preamb. pag. 63.  of participation with the No●●tians in these words. He (that is Bellarmine) maketh Protestants guilty (saith he) of the heresy of the Novations in taking from the Church all power of reconciliating men vn●● God, when as his own 
* Castro de haeres. l. 12. haer. 3 tit. de poenit. Vega l. 13. de Instit. c. 2. pag. 486. Maldon. comm. in joan.  Authors do note, that the heresy of the Novatians was this: videlicet, to deny ●ny man, that should sin after Baptism, all hope of remission 〈◊〉 sins, although he should repent. Yea, and also Bellar●ine himself in behalf of Protestants confesseth ●lse where, that they require repentance and faith in Christians, that they may be justified, and obtain remission of sins. Nor this only, but there is no difference between us (saith he) and Protestants about repentance, as it is a conversion unto God, 
Bellar. l. 3. de justif. c. 6. Bellar. de poenit. l. ●. c. 1. §. Vt igitur.  wi●h detestation of sin, or as it consisteth in outward signs of sorrow, weeping, confession, and outward chasticements● yea and almost all o● them allow an outward rite of absolution. But the only controversy between us is, whether Pennance be properly a Sacrament. ●he contradiction is this, to impute unto Protestants an heresy, which taketh away all manner o● repentance & hope of remission for sin past, & yet to acknowledge in them a contrary orthodoxal truth, which is to pro●es●e a necessity of repentance, & reconciliation, & remission of ●●nnes. Thus far he.  
68 And if we stand attended in this place, we shall see no less fraudulent dealing then in the former, if not more, to make appearance of contrariety & difference between Cardinal Bellarmine & other Catholic Authors, 
Necessity of lying in M. Morton.  about the heresy of the Novatians: which though it could be proved, yet doth it not infer as every man may see, the principal conclusion o● the question, that there were wilful malice. But all is full of fraud, as you will perceive, and the reason is not so much, I suppose, for that he delighteth himself in lying wilfully, as before hath been touched, as the necessity of his cause, which driveth him to use the help of these shifts, or else to say nothing. And this am I forced often to note to the Reader, for that it is lightly a perpetual observation in him.  
69. His dri●t then is, if you mark it well, to argue Cardinal Bellamine of falsity, in that, he affirmeth the Protestants of our days to join with the old heretics the Novatians, 
Lib. 12. de haer. ●erb. Paenitentia §. ●ertia haeresis.  in taking from the Church all power of reconciling men unto God, for those are Bellarmine's words, though curtally recited by M. Morton out of his latin text, as presently you shall see: and to contradict the Cardinal in this, he citeth the words of Alphonsus de Castro, that saith, that the heresy of the ●●uatiās, was to deny any man, who should sin aft●r Baptism 〈◊〉 hope of remission of sins, although he should repent. 
Ep. 52. ad Antonianum.  But ●ow these two are neither contradictory, nor con●●ary, if they be well considered. For that the Novations are held to teach both these points, 
Lib. 1. c. 1. & 2. S. Chrisost. de reparat. lapsi  first & principally that there was no power left in the Church ●●to Priests to reconcile and remit sins, to such as ●●ll after Baptism, especially into grievous sins 〈◊〉 testifieth S. Cyprian in a special Epistle against No●●tianus, and S. Ambrose in his book de Poenitentia, and others. And this first part of their error was contra●●ues Ecclesiae, against the keys of the Church, or power ●● Priests to remit sins: and herein all authors do ●●ree. But the second part of their error went fur●●er, as some do gather out of the ancient Fathers, 〈◊〉 testifieth 
a Suar. disp. 16. de poen. sect. 1.  Suarez (though 
b 
Bellar. l. 1. de poen. c. 9 initio. Valent. in 3. par. disp. 7. de poen. q. 9 pun. 2. sect. 2. §. respondeo, esto.  
Idem Hasselius Ruardus & alij.   others be of different opinions) which was to deny furthermore besides ●●e Sacrament, all virtue of Penance whatsoever, whe●●er private, or Sacramental, especially in great sin●es, as by the words of Alphonsus de Castro here recited ●ay seem to appear.  
●0. Of these two errors then, the first and not ●●e second is ascribed by Bellarmine to the Protestant's, ●o wit, that they deny the power of Penance, as 〈◊〉 is a Sacrament, that is to say, as it containeth not ●nly a private detestation of sin in the sinner, but ●●so the absolution or remission thereof by the Priest 〈◊〉 the public Minister of the Church. The other ●●rour of denying all use of private repentance, ey●●er inwardly, or outwardly by sorrow, sighs, tears ●nd the like, is not ascribed to Protestant's by Bellar●ine: so as for M. Morton to bring in the one as contradictory to the other, that for as much as Alphonsus de Castro saith, that the Novatians did deny all power of penance, therefore Bellarmine saith not truly that they denied the Sacramental use thereof: Or for so much as Protestants do not concur with the Noua●ians in the one, they do not in the other, is a most absurd kind of reasoning called by Logicians à dispara●i●, fo● that both may be true, and one excludeth not the other. For it is most true which Bellarmin saith, that Novatianorun error praecipuus erat etc. The principal error of the Novatians (which word [principal] importing that they had other errors besides, is craftily cut o● by M. Mort.) was, that there is not power in the Church to recō●le men to God, but only by Baptism: which last words also bu● only by Baptism) were by M. Mort. and by the same art shifted ou● of the text, for that they have relation to the Priests of the Church, to whom it appertaineth by public, & ordinary office to baptise: and in this the Protestants are accused by Bellarmine to concur●● with them in denial of penance, as it is a Sacrament.  
71. And together with this it may be true, that besides this praecipuus error, 
A strained and counterfeit contradiction.  the principal error, the Novatians, some, or all denied the fruit of all kind of private, and particular penance, as sorrow, tears, punishment of the body, and th● like, wherein divers Protestants do not agree with them, nor yet are accused thereof. Whereby it appeareth that all this counterfeit contradiction which M. Morton hath so much laboured to establish here between Bellarmine on the one side, and Castro, Vega, & Maldona●e on the other, cometh to be right nothing at all, for that Bellarmine speaketh expressly of Penance, as it is a Sacrament, and in that sense only saith, that the Protestants deny it, together with the Novatians, as they do also the use of Chrism in the Sacrament of Confirmation, which was an other error of theirs objected by Bellarmine to Protestants, as much as the former, but wholly dissembled by M. Morton. The other three Authors, as they do not exclude but rather include the Sacrament of Penance: yet do they m●ke ●ention of the other part of the Novatian error, ●●at seemed to deny all penance in general, whe●●er Sacramental or not Sacramental: and of this ●●e not Protestants accused by Bellarmine, 
Bel. 3. the justisic. c. 6.  but expre●●y rather exempted by the words, which here M. ●orton setteth down of his. So as for him to play ●●on his own voluntary Equivocation, and mistaking of the word Pennance, & Novatian heresy about the ●●me, is toto gross an illusion. Wherefore if you ●●ease, let us briefly see how many false tricks he ●●eth in this place.  
●2. The first of all may be, that whereas Cardinal ●●llarmine to prove that our modern Protestants do symbolize and agree with the old Novatian heresies, 
Five several false shifts and voluntary corruptions.  allegeth two particular instances, the one in denying the power of the Church to remit sins by ●●e Sacrament of penance, the other in denying the 〈◊〉 of holy Chrism in the Sacrament of Confirmation, ●. Morton having nothing to say to the second, replieth only to the first by an Equivocation as you have ●●ard: and yet if the second only be true, Bellarmine 〈◊〉 justified in noting the Protestant's of Novatianisme: ●nd therefore to deny the one, & dissemble the other, ●ust needs proceed of witting fraud, granting that which is chiefly in controversy, to wit, that Protestant's do hold in somewhat Novatianisme.  
●3. The second fraud is, for that in reciting Cardinal Bellarmine's charge against Protestants, he cut●eth from the latin sentence of Bellarmine, being very small & short in itself, both the beginning & end, to wit, Praecipuus error, & post baptismum, as you have heard, and that for the causes which now I have declared.  
74. Thirdly he doth bring in guylfully the foresaid testimonies of Castro, Vega, & Maldonate, as contrary to Bellarmine: whereas they speak of an other thing, to wit, of penance in another sense: & besides this do all expressly set down the two errors o● the Novatians, to wit, that they did deny as wel● the Sacrament of Penance, as also the private use thereof as it is a particular virtue: and that the Protes●an●● of our days do concur with them in the fi●st● though not in the second: and that he could not bu● evidently see and know this, and so did write it against his conscience to deceive the Reader.  
75. Fourthly when M. Morton doth allege B●llarmine lib. 3. de justis. cap. 6. to confess that Protestants do require repentance in Christians, that they may be justified, he well knew that this was not contrary to that which he had said before in his accusation lib. 4. de Notis Ecclesiae cap. 9 that Protestants did join with the Novatians in denying all power of the Church for r●conciling men to God: for he knew that in the former Bellarmine meant of private penance as it is a virtue which every man may use of himselve, but in the second he meant of the Sacrament, and keys of the Church, which require absolution of the Priest. here then was wilful and malicious mistaking: and so much the more, for that in the very next words here set down by him both in English & latin out of Bellarmine's first book de po●nit●ntia cap. 8. the Cardinal doth expressly declare, that only Controversy between Catholics and Protestants in this matter, is about the sacrament of penance with absolution of the Church, & not the private penance which every particular man may use of himself. So as under the cloud of private, and sacramental penance he craftily endeavoureth to make some show of a contradiction, which is none indeed.  
76. The fifth falsehood is, that M. Morton to make Cardinal Bellarmine contrary to himself, or very forgetful, he alleging here his latin words, maketh him to say, first, that Protestants require faith & repentance to justification, and then presently in another place, Luther rejecteth penance, as though Luther were no Protestant: whereas this is no contradiction in Cardinal Bellarmine, but in Luther himsel●e, and anoto●ious fraud in M. Morton, so palpably to deceive his Reader: for that Cardinal Bellarmine's words are these: 
Bellarm. l. 4. de notis cap. 9 §. Quae sententia.  Lutherus lib. de Captivitate Babylonica, tria tan●um agnoscit Sacramenta, Baptism●m, Poenitentiam & Panem; tamen infra cap. de extrema unctione, reij●it Poen●tentiam. Luther in his book of babylonical Captivity (in the Chapter o● the Eucharist) acknowledgeth only three Sacraments, Baptism, Penance, and Bread, 
Luther's inconstancy.  and yet afterward (in the same book) and in the Chapter of Extreme Unction he rejecteth penance. These are the words of Bellarmine which M. Morton could not but have seen and considered● and yet to make some little show of oversight in Bellarmine, he was content against his conscience to set down, Lutherus reijcit Poeni●entiam, and to conceal and dissemble all the rest of the sentence alleged. When will he be able to produce one of our Authors with so manifest a wilfulness.  
77. Let us conclude then, that M. Mort. is in a poor case, when he is driven to all these shifts to seek out contradictions amongst us, and to find none: and yet let us hear and mark his Conclusion, and see what manner of contradiction he frameth against Bellarmine, 
Pream. p. 64.  for it will be substantial (I warrant you) out of these premises. 
M. Mort. Conclusion out of false premises.  The contradiction is this (saith he) to impute unto Protestants an heresy which taketh away all manner of repentance, and hope o● remission of sin past: & yet to acknowledge in them a contrary orthodoxal truth, which is to profess necessity of repentance, reconciliation, and remission o● sins Whereto I answer, that here is no contradiction at all, as Bellarmine setteth it down, both these propositions being false in themselves. Fo● first Bellarmine doth not impute unto Protestants that they do take away all manner of repentance, & hope of remission for sins in their sense, but only that they take away and deny the Sacrament o● reconciliation by penance, and absolution of the Church● and secondly Catholics are so ●ar o● from acknowledging an orthodoxal truth in Protestants, about repentance, reconciliation, & remission of sins, that albeit they grant that Protestant's do in words confess, and prescribe unto their follower's repentance, faith, newness of life, and such other points, uttered and practised after their fashion: yet are they little available, and much less orthodoxal, but a private manner and form of their own, rejected and condemned by the Catholic Church, for that it excludeth the Sacrament, and absolution of the Priest, without which after baptism, either in voto, or, in re (as Divines do distinguish) in Christian Religion, no pardon, or hope of remission of sins, can orthodoxally be conceived. And thus much for this second objected falsity to Bellarmine.   

THE THIRD OBJECTION against Cardinal Bellarmine, for false imputation of the Manichean heresy unto Protestants. protestants IX.  
HIs third objection against Cardinal Bellarmine, of unlawful dealing, concerning the imputation o● some points of the Manichean heresy unto Caluinists, he setteth down in these words: Belarmine attri●●●eth (saith he) unto Calvin the heresy o● the Manichees● who ●●d condemn the nature of men, depriving them o● free-will, 
Pream. p. 64. Bellar. l. 4. de notis Eccl. c. 9 §. 8.  〈◊〉 ascribing the original and beginning o● sin unto the nature 〈◊〉 man, and not unto his free-will, seeing he hath himself ●●serued, that Calvin 
* Bellar. l. 1. de gratia primi hom. cap. 1. §. In eodem principio.  teacheth, that man in his first crea●●●n had free-will, whereby in his integrity he might, i● he would, ●●●e attained unto eternal life. This contradiction in this point 〈◊〉 ●o more than this to charge Calvin with that which he did not ●●●e●ue. Is not this singular falsehood? and yet behold a more noble than this. Whereunto I answer, that if it be more ●●table in folly than this, or else in fraud, it is notable ●●deed: Let us here the folly. point●aith ●aith M. Mort.) is no more than this, to charge Calvin with that ●hich he believed not. So he. Whereof I infer that it ●as no contradiction at all. For to accuse a man to ●ould that which he holdeth not, hath no contradiction in it, but a false accusation: nor is it always falsehood, for it may be upon error: and this for ●●e folly. Let us pass to consider the fraud.  
●9. I do suppose that M Morton would have said, ●r should have said, that Cardinal Bellarmine was therefore noted by him of a contradiction: not so much ●or cha●ging Calvin with that which he did not believe, for this is no contradiction (as hath been ●aid,) as for that Bellarmine accusing Calvin of concurring with the Manichees, 
Three notorious frauds about the Manichean heresy.  in denial of freewill unto ●an, doth notwithstanding in another place confess, ●hat Calvin granted freewill to have been in man in his first creation: but neither in this is any contradicton at all. For that Calvin granting freewill to have been in man at his first creation, and lost afterwards by the fall and sin of Adam, may concur with the Manichees in this, that after the fall of Adam, and as now we live, 
C●l●. l. 2. In i●. c. 2.3. & 4.  we have no freewill: & so doth Cardinal Bellarmine take him, & prove it out of his own words in sundry Chapters o● his book, that he doth hold indeed, and concurreth fully with the very sense of the Manichees therein, which authorities of Calvin M. Morton ought to have answered in some sort, if in earnest he had meant to have defended him.  
80. This then is one egregious fraud, and the chief in this place, to delude his Reader with the ambiguity, and Equivocation of different times. The Manichees taught, that man after Adam's fall had no free will, as both S. Hierome and S. Augustine do testify in the sentence of M. Morton here set down (though craftily he covered their names) and Bellarmine proveth Calvin to hold the same, out of his own words and works. What answereth M. Morton? Calvin (saith he) is confessed by Bellarmine to grant freewill in man before the fall of Adam in his first cr●●●io●: Yea but the question is, a●ter that fall. How then doth M. Morton answer to the purpose? And how doth he allege Bellarmine as contradicting himself, in that, in one place, he saith that Calvin confesses free-will, and in another saith, that he denieth it, for so much as it is in respect of divers times. For I would ask M. Morton in his Logic, is it a contradiction to say that Calvin confesseth free-will in man before his first fa●l, & denieth it afterward, seeing they are distinct times, and import distinct estates? and if this be not any contradiction, as any child will confess that it is not, why doth he seek to abuse his Reader with such a fallacy?  
81. Another fraud, though somewhat less● perhaps then the former, 
The second ●●aud.  is, that in setting down the charge of Bellarm●ne against Calvin, he recounteth the same as in Bella●m●●es own words, thus: He attribueth unto Column the heresy of the Manichees, who (saith he) d●d co●●●mne the nature of men, depriving them o● freewill, and ●s●●i●ing the original and beginning o● sin ●nto the nature of man, & not unto freewill. This sentence 〈◊〉 say, though M. Morton put down in a different ●etter, as Bellarmine's words, and affirmeth him to speak then; yet indeed they are not his, nor set down ●y him as his own, but are the words of S. Hierome, ●nd S. Augustine with some inserted by M. Morton him●elfe, for thus are they related by ●anichaeorū●inquit ●inquit Hi●ronymus) est hominundamnare na●●ram, & liberum auferre arbitrium. 
Hierom. praef. Dial. contra Pelagianos.  Et Augustinus: Hierome●aith ●aith it is the heresy of the Manichees to condemn the ●ature of men, and to take away freewill. And S. augustines saith, 
August. de haeres. haer. 46.  that the Manichees do ascribe the origin of sin not to freewill. And why think you ●id M. Morton conceal these two Fathers names? The cause's are evident. First for that he was loath to publish, that the denial of freewill in man, 〈◊〉 ●o generally taught and defended by the Protestant's of our days, should be pronounced for an heresy, and a Manichean heresy, by two such grave Fathers, as S. Hierome and S. Augustine are. Second●y, for that if he had uttered the matter plainly, ●s it lieth in Bellarmine, he had marred his sleight of ●unning to freewill, gra●ted by Calvin in the first creation of man: for that it is evident, by these too Fathers, that they speak of freewill after ●he fall of Adam: Therefore it was necessary for him ●o conceal their names, which yet was fraudulent.  
●2. The third fraud is, 
The third fraud.  that whereas Cardinal Bellarmine doth allege two points wherein ●he Protestants of our time, but especially Cal●in, do concur with the Manichean heresy; the one, that which hath been said, of the denying of freewill, the other in reprehending and condemning Abraham, Samson, Sara, Rebecca, judas Machabaeus, Sephora etc. and other Saints of the old Testament, as S. Augustine testifieth, that the Mani●●eans did, 
Aug l 22. cont. Fa●st. & duobus lib●is cont●a adder's. l●gis & Prophet.  and Bellarmine showeth that Calvin doth hold the very same, proving by multiplicity o● place● quoted out of his 
* C●l l. 3. Ins●●. c. 2. §. 3. etc. 5. §. ●. etc. 14. ●. 11 etc. 20. ●. 15. & l. 4. c. 15. §. 22.  works; M. Mort. passeth ever with silence this latter proole as unanswerable, and yet will have us think that Bellarmine did injure Calvin in noting him with the Manichean heresy: which is as much, as if a man having two writings to show for a suit in Law, the Attorney of the adverse part, should suppress the one which is most plain and evident, and cavil about the other. And this shall suffice for this third objection. Now let us pass to the other more notable, which was promised before.   

THE FOURTH OBJECTION against Card. Bellarmin●, about pretended false imputation of Arianisme unto Protestants. protestants X.  
BELLARMINE (saith he) accuseth M. Bullinger of Arianisme, because of the sentence (tres s●nt. 〈◊〉 statu, 
Preamb. pag. 64.  sed gradu etc.) notwithstanding he knew this was the very sentence of ●ertullian, and is therefore ●ls where expounded as orthodoxal and iustifyable by himself. If this be so notable an objection with M. Morton as before he vaunted, it is asigne, that he hath gr●at penury of notable ones, for that this is so notable, as it is indeed nothing, but that only necessity and penury did drive M. Morton to produce it: and so it seemeth, that himself did esteem of it, by his obscure propounding thereon, as though he would not have it well understood; albeit he term it never so notable.  
●4. For better conceiving whereof, the Reader ●ust know, that Cardinal Bellarmine in the Preface to ●is five books de Christo, proposing divers sorts of adversaries among our modern Protestants, that ●●ther openly or secretly did impugn the divinity ●f Chri●t, or some article thereunto belonging, after ●e naming of many others, he writeth thus of ●ullinger: Henricum Bullingerum (saith he) non puduit ●ibere etc. Henry Bullinger (that was the Successor 〈◊〉 Vldericu● Zuinglius) was not ashamed to write in ●is book of the Scripture, that there are three persons 〈◊〉 the Godhead, non statu sed gradu, non substantia sed 〈◊〉, non potestate sed specie di●●erentes, di●●ering not in ●ate but degree, not in substance but in form, not 〈◊〉 power but in kind: which truly (saith Bellar●ine) the Arians themselves would scarce have durst 〈◊〉 avouch.  
●5. Thus wrote Bellarmine: and what now saith ●. Morton against it? He knew (saith he) that this was ●e very sentence of Tertullian. 
Tertull. l. adversus Prax.  True it is, but every ●hing that is in Tertullian, who wrote before the Council of Nice, wherein matters and forms of speech about the people of the blessed Trinity were ●●ore exactly discussed, is not fit, nor secure for a levyne of our times to follow. And if M. Morton had considered well o● the paradoxes of Tertullian gathered together by learned Pamelius in his last edition 〈◊〉 wherefore this is one and the last of all and censured ●or dangerous by the said Author and other learned men; 
See Pamel. in parad. 31. & annot. 316 in Apol●geti. & 29. in l contra Prax. ) it is likely that he would not so ●ashly have objected the same to Bellarmine, for reprehending it in Bullinger.  
86. But M. Morton bringeth a twofould argument for ground of his challenge, the one in latin out of Gregorius de Valentia, as though he had alleged the foresaid sentence out of Tertullian, with approving or at least wise not improving the same. For thus is the matter a●● aged by M. Morton in his margin out of ●alentia: Sic 〈◊〉 ●ertullianus in libro adversus Praxe●m, tres sunt, non statu sed gradu, non substan●ia sed ●or●a. non potestate sed sp●cie. Gregor. Valentia jesuita l. de unitate & Trinitate cap 9 And then in the English text, he saith as you have now heard, that Bellarmine himself else where in his works, expoundeth the same sentence of Tertullian, as orthodoxal and iustifyable.  
87. But in both these instances are frauds on M. Mortons' behalf, and no such sincere dealing as were requisite among men that handled good causes. For that first, there is no such narration o● Tertullians' sentence in Valentia, as here is set down, without reprehension thereof: nor is Tertullian so much as named by him in the place alleged, but a grievous reprehension is used by him against Bullinger, for using the said sentence as orthodoxal. 
Greg. de Val●nt. l. 1. de unit. & trin. c. 9 ●. Item Bulling.  Bullingerus Sacramentarius (saith he) tres in Divinitate personas differre dicit, non statu, sed gradu etc. Bullinger the Sacramentary affirmeth that there are three persons in the Deity, which differ, n●t in state, but degree, not in substance, but form, not in p●●er, but kind: by which words he doth not only overthrow th● Godhead of the Son, but even the whole mystery of the most ●oly Trinity. So Valentia. And this was his judgement of that sentence, which M. Morton would have his Reader think, that Valentia had allowed of, as of an orthodoxal sentence of Tertullian. Can there be any more wilful & witting fraud, than this?  
88 Now as for the allowance thereof else where by Cardinal Bellarmine himself, M. Morton doth o●●er him great abuse, for he never alloweth any where of that sentence, as it standeth wholly in his book against Praxea, or as it is accepted and used by Bullinger, but only taken in hand in his first book de Christo, to interpret in good sense certain speeches of Tertullian, objected by Arians and Trinitarians against the Godhead of Christ, 
Valentia and Bellarmine grossly abused.  as though he had favoured them therein, & coming to a place cited out of the same book, against Praxea, where he saith, Dum sili●m agnosco, s●cund●m à Patre desendo, for so much as I acknowledge the Son, I do defend him as second after the Father (whereby the Heretics would prove the Son not to be equal to his Father,) Cardinal Bellarmine answering to this place, saith, that the Son is called second (by Tertullian) not because he is inferior, 
Tert. l. ●on●. Hermog. long ante medium.  or not equal to the Father, but only according to the order of beginning or origen, for that the Son is originally of the Father: and by this occasion he expoundeth also the first two words of the foresaid sentence, statu et non gradu, saying, that, per gradum intelligit ordinem personarum: Tertullian by degree in this place understandeth only the order, of the three persons among themselves, but not a different degree in perfection. For that Tertullian in another place hath these words: Divinitas gradus non habet, utpote unica: the Godhead of the three persons hath no degrees, as being only one.  
89. Thus then did Cardinal Bellarmine seek to expound in good sense the first two words of the sentence, by another place of Tertullian himself: but the whole sentence he never defended, nor admitted, but held it rather for erroneous in Tertullian, & heretical in Bullinger. And now you see what notable advantage M. Morton hath gotten out of this his so notable objection, which is nothing else, but the discovery of two or three notable shifts, and fraudulent tricks of his own. And yet do you consider how he insulteth as if he had proved somewhat against Bellarmine indeed. For thus he continueth his speech for his fifth instance.   

THE FIFTH OBJECTION against Cardinal Bellarmine, for false imputation of heresies unto sundry Protestants. protestants XI.  
THOUGH P. R. require (saith he) but three examples o● f●● should, yet may I not envy h●m a further choice, 
B●ll●r. l. 1. de Be●●. Sanct. c. 4. p●●l● post i●●ium.  because I know not the curiosity of his palate. Therefore let him again consult with Cardinal Bella●mine in another taxation of Protervity saying in one place that, they teach that the soul of faithful men departing this li●e, do not go directly unto heaven. In another place he himself, 
Bellar. l. de Purg. cap. 12 Valen. de P●rgat. cap. 8.  together with his fellow jesuit, have publicly recorded● that it is a common objection of Protestants proving from Scripture against the doctrine of purgatory, that the souls of the ●aith, all pre●e●●ly after death go directly unto heau●n. So he.  

Bellar. l. 1. de Beat Sanct. c. 1.  91. And truly it seemeth strange to me that M. Morton in this his peculiar strife for sinceritv, cannot set down any one thing sincerely, without some admixture of fraud. Let him consult (saith he) with Bellarmine in another taxation of Protestants, 
Tert. l. 4. con●●a Martion. Hi●●om● in Vi●il. 〈◊〉. Armeni apud G●idonē in sūm● de ●aere●i●is.  that they teach, that the soul's o● the faithful departed do not go directly to heaven. I have consulted with him, at leastwise with his book, and he answereth, that the word Protestants twice here repeated is not to be found ●n him, in the place by you cited. For that he ascribeth not this heresy unto all Protestant's in general, but only unto three in particular of our time, to with Luther, Cornelius Agrippa, and john Calvin, a●ter divers o●d heresies named by him, as of Tertullian, Vigilantius, Armenians● and the like, that held the same; his words a●●: Eundem errorem habet calvinus etc. Calvin hath the s●me error, that souls of the faithful do not enter into heaven, nor enjoy the vision of Almighty God, before the day of judgement, but Christ only is admitted thereunto, reliquos omnes residere in atrio, ib. que expectare usque ad mundi consummationem, that all the rest besides Christ, do not enter the Sanctuary of heaven, but do expect without in a certain porch (or entry) until the consummation of the world. And this opinion of Calvin, Bellarmine proveth out of his own clear words in sundry places of his works, as namely lib. 4. Instit. cap. 20. & §. 24. & 25. §. 6. So as in setting down this assertion of Cardinal Bellarmine, M. Morton hath made him to tax all Protestants, and to say, they do teach etc. whereas he taxeth only three particular men. Neither have I yet read any other that defendeth the same. Let us see now how he maketh Bellarmine to contradict himself, for herein stands the principal drift of M. Morton, in this place, to seem thereby to say somewhat against him.  
92. First then he bringeth in these words as of Bellarmine: It is a common objection of Protestants proving from Scriptures against the doctrine of Purgatory, that the souls of the faithful presently after death, go directly unto heaven Out of which words M. Morton inferreth it cannot be, that Protestants should hold the foresaid contrary doctrine of expecting in the porch. 
Calvin entangled about his atrium or porch.  Whereto I answer, that for this, to frame this little show of contradiction M. Morton hath concealed craftily the name of Calvin in all this objection, and turned it into Protestants, whereas the assertion is ascribed by Bellarmine namely and chiefly unto Calvin, and not to other Protestant's: and therefore we grant that Calvin (supposing his former assertion to be true) cannot use this objection against Purgatory, that souls go directly to heaven, except he would say, that his foresaid atrium or porch, and outward place of stay, is also heaven, or a piece of heaven different from that Sanctuarium Caeli, into which, he saith, that only Christ is admitted until the day of judgement.  
93. But other Protestants that hold not this fond opinion (as few or none perhaps do) may use their former argument still, if it were true, that souls go directly to hell, or to heaven. And it is to be noted how cunningly M. Morton hath borne himself in this matter, not once uttering the name of Calvin, but Protestants in common; whereas Calvin chiefly is meant, yea only perhaps for the Porch: 
A sly Foxlike trick about concealment.  for that it seemeth to have been his own particular devise, whereby the sly dealing of M. Morton is discovered in every thing, and yet (forsooth) will he be still A Minister of simple truth, and convince Cardinal Bellarmine of wilful falsehood. But let us go forward, and search further into his simplicity.   

HIS sixth, AND last objection, against Cardinal Bellarmine, for false imputation of the Sarcamentary heresy to Protestants. protestants XII.  
BELLARMINE resteth not here (saith he) but once again challengeth Calvin, 
Pream. p. 65. Bel. l. 4. de notis Ec●l. cap. 9 in fine.  for (as he calls it) an ancient heresy alleged by Theodoret, affirming, that there is only a figure of Christ's body in the Eucharist. And yet 
* Bell. de Euchar. c. 1. in initio. ib. §. Secund● docet  in another place affirming both, that, that opinion is not ancient, nor yet now to be found in Theodoret; and also that the foresaid doctrine of Calvin doth teach, that in the Eucharist there is to be exhibited unto the faithful, not only a sign of Christ's body, but also the body and blood itself, by which men's souls are nourished unto eternal 〈◊〉. Or as another jesuit testifieth for Calvin, that our soles communicate with the body of Christ substantially. 
Greg. de Valent. tom. 4. dis. 6. q. 3. punct 1. §. Item.  Here 〈◊〉 no more odds in this accusation, then ancient, ●●d not ancient, heresy and not heresy. All these contradictions do certainly evince, that Bellarmine hath 〈◊〉 public imputations slandered those whom in 〈◊〉 conscience he did acquit. And shall we think at this conscience could be sincere in alleging her men's testimonies, & witnesses, who is found ●●us perfidiously unjust in exhibiting his own? I 〈◊〉 are to produce multitudes of this kind, which I ●●ue in store, and will be a debtor to P.R. for ma●● of this sort, ready to pay my debt as soon 〈◊〉 this my promise shall be exacted. Thus far M. ●●rton,  
●●. And here now I answer, that it is sufficiently seen by the payment he hath already made, ●●w ready or able he is to pay his debt for any thing promised against Cardinal Bellarmine, whose estimation is like to be highly increased, with all indifferent men, by this assault, both for conscience, sincere ●ealing, and learning, and M. Morton greatly blemished in them all: for that commonly no one instance ●ath he alleged of fraud in his adversary, but with ●ome fraud in himself, & none perhaps with more than in this sixth & last objection in that kind, concerning the testimony of T●eodoret for the Real Presence, ●or that here be so many foul faults & wilful cor●uptions, as truly after so many admonishments, if ● should use the same, it would make me ashamed to ●ooke any man in the face.  
96. He indeauoureth to frame a contradiction ●●out of Bellarmine in that he chargeth Calvin with an ancient heresy recorded by Theodoret, which heresy ● did affirm, that there is only a figure of Christ's body in the Sacrament, and then will he prove out of Bellarmine himself for contradiction of this: first that the said heresy is not ancient: 
Three points wherein M. Mort. is taken to have falsified.  then that it is not to be found at this day in Theodoret: thirdly that Calvin doth not deny the Real Presence: and so he concludeth, as you have heard, here is no more odds, then between an●●●●● and not ancient, heresy & not heresy. But if in all and every one of these three points M. Morton be convinced wittingly to have falsified, and that he could not but know that he did so, what excuse then will he make, or what will the discreet, and honest Reader say, or think of him? Now then to the particulars.  

The first point of falsity.  97. The charge which Cardinal Bellarmine maketh upon Zuinglius & Calvin (not Calvin only as M. Mort●● text importeth) is taken from the last of those 20. old heresies before signified to be objected by the Cardinal to the Protestants of our time, in his book of the Notes of the Church, 
Bellar. l. 4. de Ecclesia cap. 9  and by him is set down in these words: The twentieth old heresy (saith Bellarmine) wherein the Protestants of our time do participate with old heretics, is of them, that denied the Eucharist to be truly the flesh of Christ, & would have it to be the figure or image of the body of Christ. So it is related in the seventh General Council, and sixth Action, Tom. 3. and long before that Theodoret in his Dialogue, entitled, Impatibilis, doth relate the same out of S. Ignatius Scholar to the Apostles. 
Card. Bellarmine his assertion about the antiquity of the sacramentary heresy.  And this heresy is taught in these our days by Zuinglius in his Book De verbis Coenae Domini, & by Calvin lib. 4. Instit. cap. 17. §. 12. And so we have laid forth the heresies of 20. Archeretickes that were condemned by the Church within the first seven hundred years after Christ, which heresies being ●●lden by us for such, and by our Adversaries for 〈◊〉 articles of their faith, it followeth that our doctrine doth agree with the doctrine of the ancient Church ●●d the doctrine of our adversaries with the ancient heresies. So he.  
●●. And this is Cardinal Bellarmine's charge. Let ●●e Reader now mark how brokenly it is set down 〈◊〉 M. Morton. 
Sundry false tricks.  For first he mentioneth only Calvin to 〈◊〉 challenged for this last heresy of the Sacramenta●es against the Real Presence (as now I have said) ●auing out Zuinglius, who is equally charged by the cardinal for the same thing, which is one trick. ●hen he omitteth wholly the mention of the 7. Ge●●rall Council, which so long ago related & confu●●d the said heresy, & this is another trick. Furthermore he concealeth in like manner the name & autho●●tie of old S. Ignatius, who in his time (which was ●●mediatly after the Apostles) held the denying of 〈◊〉 Real Presence to be an heresy, & this is a third ●icke. All which points could not be pretermitted 〈◊〉 M. Morton (nor any one of them indeed) but by vo●●ntary deliberation: and consequently he must be presumed to have done it of set purpose to deceive. ●ut let us come to his two heads of contradiction, ●hich he will needs find in Bell●rmine.  
●9 The first is, that Cardinal Bellarmine is affirmed ●y him to say that, 
The first false contradiction objected to Bellarmine out of Theodoret.  that heretical opinion (cited ●●fore against the Real Presence out of Theodoret) is 〈◊〉 ancient, nor yet now to be found in Theodoret, and ●or this he citeth Bellarmine's own words, as he saith ●●b. 1. de Euchar. cap. 1. initio, and that in latin, to wit, ●uae sententia cita●ur à Theodoreto in Dialogo, ubi tamen nunc ●on habetur. Which sentence of S. Ignatius against old heretics is cited by Theodoret in his dialogue, where notwithstanding now it is not to be found. So he tel●eth us out of Bellarmine both in Latin & English, ●ut corrupteth him egregiously in both lauguages. First in allegation, and then in translation, as now shall be demonstrated. For first the true words of Cardinal Bellarmine in latin are these: Quae sententia ci●atur à Theodoreto in 30. Dialogo ex epist. Ignatij ad Smy●●●ses, ubi tamen nunc non habetur. 
Bellar. l. 1. de E●char. cap. 1. initio.  That is to say: This sentence (concerning old heretics denying the Real Presence) is cited by Theodoret in his third dialogue out of S. Ignatius his Epistle (to the Christians) of Smyrna, where notwithstanding it is not now found: meaning expressly, that it is not found at this day in that Epistle of S. Ignatius, but in Theodoret it is found, and is extant both in Greek and latin, as every man may see that will read the place quoted● 
A shameless falsification of Theodoret & lie against Bellarmine.  So as here again M. Morton corrupteth Bellarm●●● both in Latin and English leaving out not only the mention of S. Ignatius his Epistle ad Smyrnenses, and then making his Reader believe that the testimony of Theodoret was not to be found at this day in him: but also upon this falsification of his own, will needs frame a contradiction in Bellarmine. 
Theod. dial. 3.  And can there be any more witting and wilful falsehood than this? Can this dealing stand with the solemn and extraordinary protestations which he maketh of sincerity in the end of his book, even against hi● own infirmities.  
100 But let us see yet further, how he proveth that Bellarmine, 
Bell. ibid.  having said before, that this heresy of denying the Real Presence was very ancient, contradicteth himself, and saith in the very same place that it is not ancient, for which he allegeth these words of the Cardinal: Ne autem glorientur Caluinistae etc. And to the end, that the Caluinists may not glory, that their opinion (against the Real Presence) is very ancient, it is to be noted, that those most ancient heretics (mentioned) by S. Ignatius) did not so much impugn the Sacrament of the Eucharist, as the mystery of Christ his incarnation. For so much as therefore they denied the Eucharist ●o be the flesh of Christ (as S. Ignatius doth signify in ●he same place) for that they deny Christ to have ●lesh etc.  
●01. Which testimony if you consider it well, ●oth not prove at all that the denial of the Real presence was no ancient heresy, 
The ancient heresy against the Real Presence declared.  but only that it was not altogether the same with that of the Protestant's at this day, and had an other foundation or ●otiue: to wit, for so much as those heretics did ●ot believe that Christ had taken any flesh at all, ●hey consequently believed not, that he gave it in the sacrament. But the Protestants though they believe ●hat he took true flesh: yet do they not believe, that ●t is really given in the Sacrament, for that they believe not these words, Hoc est Corpus meum, in the ●ense that the Church doth: so as these do formally impugn the Real Presence, and the other but by a consequence drawn from another heresy, which ●s the cause that they cannot properly be called Sacra●entaries, as ours are, but most ancient they are: & ●o in this he contradicteth not himself about their antiquity.  
102. The last point of objected contradiction in ●his place, is, that Bellarmine confesseth Calvin to hold, 
The second point of imagined contradiction in Bellarmine.  that together with the Sacrament of the Eucharist, God doth exhibit unto the faithful, not only a sign of Christ's body, but also the body and blood itself, yea, and as Valen●ia addeth further that Calvin confesseth that our souls do communicate with the body of Christ substantially. 
Val●ntia tom. 4. dis. 6. q. 3. p. 1. § Item.  Whereto I answer: true it is, that in words Calvin doth affirm as much in some parts of his works, but denieth it again in others, and thereupon do both Bellarmine and Valentia convince him of most evident and palpable contradictions in this matter, he seeking to say something different not only from Luther, but also from Wickliff & Zuinglius, thereby to make a sect of himself, but yet not finding indeed, wherein to subsist, or be premanent in any devise that he could find out, for proof whereof 
a B●ll●r. de Eu●har. lib. 1. cap. 1.  Cardinal Bellarmine d●th set down seven s●u●r●ll propositions of his about this matter, and proveth th● same substantially out of his own words and discourses, & each one of them different from the other, and some of them so contradictory, as by no possible means they may be reconciled or stand together: 
b Calu. in sine. cozen. 〈◊〉 Pas●●●. Tigu●in.  As first, that the flesh o● Christ is only in h●au●n, and that in so certain and determinate a place, as it is as distant from the bread, as the highest heaven is from the earth: & then, this notwithstanding, he saith (as here is cited by M. Morton) 
c C●lu. i● 26. Mat. & ●ib. 4. Ins●it. cap. 17. §. 5.  that in the supper the true body of ●h●ist is exhibited unto the faithful, & not only a sign: yea, that the very substance o● Christ's body is given. Next to that again he saith, that notwithstanding the distance between th● 〈◊〉 of Christ, & the 
d lib. 4. In●tit. cap. 17. §. 7.10. & 32.  Sacramental signs, yet are they joined ●o●●ather by so miraculous and inexplicable means, as neither ●●●gu● nor pen can utter the same. And then further, tha● 〈◊〉 must not believe, that this conjunction is by any real coming down of Chr●stes body unto us, but by a certain substantial force derived from his flesh by his spirit. 
Lib. 4. Ins●it. cap. 17. §. 5. & 31.  Where he seem●●● to s●y, that the conjunction is made, not in the substance, but in some essential quality. And so in the fifth place more clearly he saith, that it is made by apprehension of faith only, whereby he contradicteth all that he said before of real and substantial conjunction. 
Ibid. §. 33.34.  And in the sixth place he confirmeth more the same by saying, that wi●ked men receive not the body at all, quia corpus Christi solo ore fidei accipitur, 
I●id. §. 2.5. lib. de c●●n● cap. 3.  for that the body o● Christ is only received by the mouth of faith. And in the●. and last place he concludeth, that this Sacrament doth not give the body o● Christ, or faith unto any that hath it not already, but only doth testify, and confirm that now it is there, and so it is, but as a sign or seal (to use his words) of that which is th●re already. And this being the variety of Calvin's opinion, it proveth no contradiction in Bel●armine, but in Calvin himself. And so many corruptions having here been proved against M. Morton, do convince that in him which he would prove in Cardinal Bellarmine, but cannot, as how see, and yet ●e concludeth so confidently as before you have heard, saying: 
Preamble pag. 66.  All these contradictions do certainly evince, ●hat he (the Cardinal) hath by public imputations slandered those whom in his conscience he did acquit: and shall we ●hinke, 
A vain confident conclusion.  that his conscience could be sincere in alleging other ●●ns testimonies, and witness, who is sound thus perfidiously ●●iust in exhibiting his own? Thus he. And I remit me to ●he Reader, whether he hath seen hitherto any one point of perfidious dealing proved against the Cardinal, among so many as have appeared on the part of M. Morton. But yet now he will go forward, as he saith to another subject, to wit, to show some example's o● falsifications out of Cardinal Bellarmine in allegation of other men's testimonies. Let us see whether he perform any thing more than in the rest he hath done.  
103. But first before we enter into this other examen, there occurreth unto me a consideration worthy to be pondered by the Reader, which is, that all these six objections made against Cardinal Bellarmine for imputing old heresies to Protestants, are taken out o● on only chapter of his, which is the 9 of his 4. Book Of the no●●s of the true Church, in which 9 Chapter (as before you have heard) he chargeth the Protestants of our time with different heresies of tw●nty several condemned old heresiarchs, or chief Heretics, and thereof infers, that as the union and agreement in doctrine with the ancient Catholic Fathers is a note of the true Church, and of true catholics: so to participate with ancient heretics in any one condemned heresy, is a damnable note of the contrary: 
A markable point.  which Chapter M. Morton perusing, thought good to set upon six only for clearing Protestants of them, to wit, the Pelagians, the Novatians, the Manichees, the Arrians, and other two particular heresies: 
Aug. lib. de heresib. ad Quod-vult-deum in fine.  whereas in reason he should have either cleared all or none, for so much as according to S. Augustine's sentence, and other ancient Fathers, the holding of any one condemned heresy, is sufficient to everlasting damnation. So as M. Morton picking out only a few, leaveth all the rest as not excusable, and under hand by his silence granteth, th●t they are held by the Protestants: which how markable a point it is, I leave it to the Reader to judge, and so shall pass to examine the other head of objections, that he hath against Cardinal Bellarmine.    

THE ●HIRD PART ●F THIS CHAPTER,  

CONTAINING ●THER OBJECTIONS against Cardinal Bellarmine, for falsifications in alleging of other men's authorities: and first about S. Cyprian. §. XIII.  
MASTER MORTON passing from Cardinal Bellarmine's accusations & imputations against Protestants for heresies, unto his allegations of their testimonies (corruptly as he pretendeth) ●andled by him; 
Preamb. p. 66.  he beginneth his accusation with a ●entence of S. Cyprian about traditions in these words: 
Cypr. Ep. 10. ad Pomp.  S. Cyprian (saith he) hath this question (he going about to refute 〈◊〉 tradition:) Whence is this tradition? It is derived from the Lords Authority, or fr●m the precept of the Apostles? For God will'th that we ●ho●d do those things which are written. From whence Protestant's conclude, that the Scriptures are of sufficiency for our direction in all questions of faith. Bellarmine answereth, 
B●ll●r. lib. 4. de v●●b. D●i. cap. 11. §. profert Cyprianus. Aug. contr. Donat. cap. 23●  that Cyprian spoke this, when he thought to defend an error, and therefore i● is no marvel, i● he erred in so reasoning, for the which cause S. Augustine (saith he) did worthily re●ute him. The question is not, what error Cyprian held, but whether his manner of reasoning from the sufficiency of Scripture were erroneous or no. Bellarmine pretendeth, that S. Augustine did worthily reprove him. But whosoever shall consult with S. Augustine in the Chapter specified, shall find, that this point by him is excellently commended, That Cyprian warneth us (saith S. Augustine) to run unto t●e ●ountaine, 
Aug l. 5. de Bapt. cap. 26.  that is, unto the tradition o● the Apostles; from thence to derive a conduct to our times, it is chief good and doubtless to be performed.  

Preamb. p. 66. §. 16.  105. This is M. Mortons' whole objection, wherein we must examine what wilful deceit to falsification he findeth here in Cardinal Bellarmine's allegation of Cyprian. For if he find not this, then findeth he nothing to his purpose, he having entitled this his Paragraph of B●lla●mines falsi●ications: but if he find no falsehood nor falsity at all, either wilful or not wilful, then is he more in the briars: but most of all if finding nothing in his adversary, himself be taken in manifest falsehood, both witting and wilful. Let us examine then this point more particularly.  

The State ●f the question concerning S. Cyprians rebaptizing.  106. And first I do note, that he proposeth this objection very obscurely, & that for the cause, which will presently be se●ne, for he doth not explicate upon what occasion these words of S. Cyprian were uttered by him, nor alleged by Protestants as an objection against unwritten traditions. Wherefore the Reader must know, that the holy man S. Cyp●ian having conceived an infinite aversion from heretics and heresies of his time, did upon indiscreet zeal ●all into this error, that as their faith was not good●●o neither their baptism, and consequently that ●uch as left them, and were converted to the Catholic religion should be baptised again after the Catholic manner: and having found some other Bishops also of afric, upon the same grounds, to join with him in the same opinion, for that it seemed to them to be most conform to Scriptures, that detested every where heretics and heresies, he wrote thereof unto Stephen Bishop of Rome, who standing upon the contrary custom always used in the Church, not to rebaptize such as were converted from heresy, misliked S. Cyprians opinion, and wrote unto him against the same: wherewith the good man being somewhat exasperated, wrote a letter unto Pompeius Bishope of Sabrata in afric, cited here by M. Morton, wherein amongst other sharp speeches he hath this interrogation here set down: unde est ista traditio & c? From whence is this tradition (of not rebaptizing heretics?) Is it derived from our Lord's Authority? etc. upon which form of arguing in S. Cyprian, M. Morton saith, that Protestants do lawfully argue in like manner, this or that tradition is not in the Scriptures, ergo, it is not to be admitted.  
107. But saith Cardinal Bellarmine, this was no good form of arguing in S. Cyprian, 
Whether S. Cyprians form of argument was good, or no.  nor ever used by him, but in this necessity for defending his error as Protestants also are driven to use the same for defence of theirs, and this he proveth by two ways. First, for that S. Augustine doth of purpose out of the sense of the universal Church of his days refute that inference, and form of argument: and secondly, for that S. Cyprian himself in other places where he was not pressed with this necessity, doth yield, and allow the authority of unwritten traditions, which later proof as the most convincent, M Morton do●h suppress with silence, in reciting Bellarmine's answer, and saith only to the first, that S. Augustine is so far of from condemning S. Cyprians mann●r of reasoning from the sufficiency of Scriptures, as he doth excellently commend the same: this than is briefly to be examined out of S. Augustine's own words.  
108. And first I grant (as S. Augustine also doth) that when any Tradition, or doctrine, can clearly be showed out of the Scriptures, optimum est, & si●e dubitatione facie●dum, 
A●g. l. 6. co●tr. Donat. c. 26.  it is the best way of all, and questionless to be observed. And for that S. Cyprian in that his error did certainly persuade himself to be able to prove the same out of holy Scriptures, as appeareth by the many places alleged by him to th●t effect (though wrongfully understood) especially in the said Epistle to Pompeius, and else wher●, which places of Scripture S. Augustine doth particularly ponder and refute, and show not to be rightly applied by S. Cyprian, who seeing the general custom and tradition of the Church to be contrary unto him, in this cause provoked to the Scriptures alone, as the Protestants do in as bad a cause. But now let us see what S. Augustine teacheth in this behalf, and how he confuteth S. Cyprians provocation to only Scriptures, in this case of controversy between them, 
A●g. l 2. d. ●●pt. 〈◊〉 Don●tis●. ●. 7.  notwithstanding he allowed for the best way to have recourse to the fountains, when things from thence may, as I said, clearly be proved.  
109. Let us hear (I say) S. Augustine recounting the case between S. Cyprian on the one side, & himself with ●ll Catholic men of his days on the other. Nōd●●●r●t●●aith ●●aith he diligent●rilla Baptismi qu●stio pertracta etc. The question of Baptism (or rebaptizing heretics was not in S. Cyprians time diligently discussed, albeit the Catholic Church held a most wholesome custom to correct that in schismatics & Heretics which was evil, & not to iterate that which was given them as good: which custom I believe to have come down from the Apostles tradition, as many others which are not found in their writings, 
S. Augustine's learned censure for unwritten traditions.  nor yet in the later Counsels of their successors, & nevertheless are observed through the whole universal Church, and are believed not to have been delivered, and commended unto us, but from the said Apostles. This most wholesome custom then S. Cyprian saith that his predecessor Agrippinus did begin to correct, but as the truth itself being more diligently after examined did teach, he is thought more truly to have corrupted than corrected the same. Thus S. Augustine of the state of the question, and of the authority of Customs and Traditions unwritten. Now Let us see what he saith to S. Cyprians manner of reasoning, from the sufficiency of Scripture as M. Morton termeth it.  
101. Ad Pompeium (saith S. Augustine) scribit Cyprianus de hac re etc. 
Aug. l. 5. de Bapt. contra Donatist. cap. 23.  S. Cyprian doth write to the Bishop Pompeius about this matter, where he doth manifestly show, that Stephen, whom we understand to have been Bishop of Rome at that time, did not only not consent unto him, verùm etiam contra scripsisse atque prae●●pisse, but also did write and gave commandment to the contrary etc. S. Cypryan did object Apostoli nihil quid●m exinde praeceperunt, the Apostles did command nothing (in the Scriptures) about this matter. It is true, saith S. Augustine: Sed consuetudo illa, quae opponebatur Cypriano, ab eor●m traditione exordium sumpsisse credenda est, s●●u● sunt multa quae universa tenet Ecclesia, & ob hoc ab Apost●●●s pr●c●pta bene creduntur quamquam scripta non reperiantur: But that custom which was opposed to S. Cyprian by the Church, is to be believed to have taken beginning from the tradition of the Apostles: as there are many things which the Universal Church doth hold, and they are therefore rightly believed to have been ordained by the Apostles, though they be not found written. Thus S. Augustine.  
111. Whereby we understand, first, his full meaning about the Authority of traditions in the Church, though they be not found written in the holy Scripture: and secondly that albeit in some cases it is good and lawful to run to Scriptures, when the matter may be clearly by them decided; yet is it no good argument always to say, It is not in the Scripture, and therefore we are not bound to believe it, which was the argument of S. Cyprian when he was in error, and for maintenance of the same, as M. Morton cannot deny: 
M. Morton convinced of evident fraud in citing S. A●gustins meaning.  nor dareth reprove S. Augustine and the Church of his time that condemned this manner of reasoning in S. Cyprian. And what now doth there result against Bellarmine in all this objection? Is he found false in any one thing which here is said? Nay is not M. Morton convinced of evident fraud in setting down this accusation? First for concealing the true state of the question● then for that S. Augustine doth not reprove, but excellently commend the manner of reasoning in S. Cyprian; pretermitting all that I have alleged out of S. Augustine's express words to the contrary, which he could not but know and have read? Thirdly by cutting of the words immediately following in Bellarmine, containing his second reason, which was that S. Cyprian in other traditions besides this of not rebaptizing heretics (which erroneously he thought to be repugnant to Scripture,) he allowed & urged also the force of Traditions in the Church of God, though they were not written● whereof Cardinal Bellarmine himself allegeth two evident examples, 
Bellarm. l. 4. de verbo Dei. cap. 7.  the one about the necessity of holy Chrism or Unction, urged by S. Cypri●n out of only Tradition lib. 1. Epist. 12. and the offering wine together with water in the Sacrifice, which he urgeth as Dominicam Traditionem, a Tradition of our Lord lib. 2. Epist. 3. whereas notwithstanding nothing is found written in the Scriptures of either of these traditions. 
S. Cyprian standeth much upon unwritten traditions  And if I would allege other traditions allowed by him, though not written in the Scriptures, I might be large herein: as for example, that of renunciation accustomed to be made in the Church before baptism, whereof he treateth in his 7. and 54. Epistles, and in his book de disciplina & habitu Virginum: as also of the demands, & answers accustomed to be made in the Church, about the articles of the Creed, Epist. 70. of Exorcisms to be made before baptism, Epist. 2. & 72. & lib. con●ra Demetrianum.  
112. The tradition of baptizing Infants, Epist. 59 which S. Augustine holdeth to stand only upon unwritten tradition, and the like. This second argument then of Bellarmine being craftily left out, and his former from S. Augustine's authority wittingly perverted, M. Morton instead of an objection against the Cardinal, hath brought in a flat condemnation of two notable frauds against himself. Let us see another of like sort and suit, if he can have patience to hear it.   

HIS SECOND OBJECTION against Cardinal Bellarmine, touching false allegations about Anacletus. §● XIIII.  
SECONDLY (saith he) Bellarmine to establish the authority of the Pope, 
Preamb. p. 67.  doth give this prerogative to S. Peter, to wit: That S. Peter was the only Bishop, and that other Apostles took their Orders from him; which he laboureth to evince from the testimonies of Anacle●us, Clemens, Alexander, Eusebius, & Cyprian: 
B●●lar. lib. 1. de Ponti●. Rom. c. 23.  where he is refelled by his own doctors: One 
* F●●n●. de Victor. 〈◊〉. 2. conales. 1. §. quod.  saying, that indeed those Fathers mean no such thing: Another, that 
* Card. Cusanus de Con●ord. Cathol. lib. 3. cap. 2  the Epistles of Anacletus are counterfeit, which many urge more than is meet, to the end they may advance the authority of the Sea of Rome.  
114. Thus far the objection in his own words. Wherein I marvel what wilful falsehood may be found, such as the writer himself must needs know it to be so, except it be on the behalf of M. Mor●on, who entereth presently with a shift at the first beginning, saying (as you have hard) that Bellarmine giveth this prerogative to S. Peter: that he was the only Bishop, and that other Apostles took their orders from him, whereas Bellarmine's saying is, some authors to be of opinion, quòd solus Petrus à Christo Episcopus ordinatus fuerit, caeteri autem à Petro Episcopalem consecration●m acceperint, 
A false tri●k.  that only S. Peter was ordained Bishop immediately by Christ, and the other received their Episcopal consecration from S. Peter. So as in so little a sentence he leaveth out first, that S. Peter was ordained Bishop alone by Christ, and then changeth Episcopal consecration into holy Orders, as though they had not been made so much as Priests by our Saviour himself, but only by S. Peter, whereas all authors agree that Christ in making them Apostles, made them all Priests though some do doubt, whether immediately by himself he made them all Bishops. So as no one thing is sincerely handled here by M. Morton without some nip or other, as you see.  
115 Secondly, whereas he saith that Bellarmine laboureth to evince from the testimonies of Anacletus, Clemens Alexandrinus etc. the proof of this prerogative, he abuseth him egregiously, for that Bellarmine doth allege this opinion, that Christ having made all his Apostles Priests, did make only S. Peter Bishop, 
Whether S. Peter were only made Bishop by Christ.  with authority to consecrated the rest, as the opinion of Turrecremata, alleging divers manifest reasons and proofs for the same: as namely one, that either Christ did ordain none of his Apostles Bishops, or all, or some certain number, or one only. The first cannot stand, for that if Christ had ordained none, 
Turrecr. lib desummae. 2. Ecclesia c. 32●  than should we have at this day no Episcopal authority among us. Nor can it be said that he ordained all immediately, for that S. Paul was ordained by imposition of hands by the Ministers of the Church, as appeareth Act. 13. and by S. Leo Epist. 81. ad Dioscorum, as also by S. Chrysost. in hunc locum. S. james in like manner is recorded, not only by Anacletus Epist. 2. but by Clemens Alexandrinus Eusebius lib. 2. hist. cap. 1. and by S. Hierome de Viris Illustribus in jacobo, to have been made Bishop by S. Peter.  
116. The third point also, that Christ ordained some certain number, he refuteth, for that it appeareth by the evangelical History that all the Apostles were equal, save only S. Peter, in whom he proveth 25. several privileges to have been given by Christ above the rest, whereof this of his being ordained Bishop alon● immediately from Christ is the 22. and the second reason alleged by Turrecremata of the Appellation of the Mother Church, given above all other Churches to Rome, by testimony, as he proveth, of all antiquity, seemeth to confirm greatly the said privilege, though notwithstanding it be a matter not so determined by the Church, but that there may be diversity of opinions, as in effect there are amongst learned men about the same, in which number is Franciscus de victoria here cited: 
Victoria rel. de pot●state Eccl●si●e §. 8.  who albeit he confess this opinion to be grauissimo●ū Virorum, of most grave Authority: yet thinking the contrary assertion more probable, that Christ himself did ordain immediately all his Apostles Bishops, doth answer the arguments of Turrecremata, saying, that the Fathers cited for the same reverà non significant id quod Auctores huius sententiae volunt, that in truth they do not signify so much as the Authority of this sentence or opinion would have them. And to like effect doth Cardinal Cusanus here cited, being of a different opinion, endeavour to answer the said arguments: but yet not saying absolutely that the Epistles of Anacletus are counterfeit, as here is alleged by M. Morton, said ●ortassi● quaedam scripta Sancto Anacleto attributa apocrypha sunt, but perhaps certain writings attributed to S. Anaclete are Apocryphal, 
Many abuses of●fered to Card Cusanus and others.  which two moderations of fortassi● and quaedam, M. Morton craftily left out both in English and Latin; as he doth in like manner divers other things that make against himself, and namely these words of the same Cusanus, In quibus volentes Romanam Sedem omni laud dignam, plusquam Ecclesiae Sanctae expedit & decet, exaltare, se penitus aut quasi fundant, that some men intending to exalt the Roman Sea worthy of all commendation more than is expedient, or decent for the holy Church itself, do found themselves either wholly or for the most part upon these apocryphal and uncertain writings. And then again: Non opus foret divinam ipsam, & omni laud super excellentissimam Romanam primam Sedem etc. it shall not be needful that the divine Roman Primate Sea most eminently excelling in all praise, to help herself with doubtful arguments taken out of those Epistles, whereas the truth may be proved sufficiently, and more clearly by undoubted records etc. All this and much more is in Cusanus in the place cited by M. Morton, which he partly imbezeling, partly corrupting, and plainly falsifying, hath brought forth the broken sentence which here you may see both in English and latin, far different from the Originals.  
1ST. And this is his common trick never lightly to allege any one sentence either in English, or latin, as it lieth in the text, but still with some helping of the die (as his own phrase is) some crafty cogging must always enter, which I desire the learned Reader to take the pains but alitle to examine: & if he find not this fraud very ordinary, I am contented to lose my credit with him.  
118. And finally let him note for conclusion of this objection, that all this which M. Morton allegeth here, if it were granted, as it lieth, containeth nothing, but two different opinions between learned men in a disputable question: Whether Christ did immediately, and by himself, consecreate all or some of his Apostles Bishops, or one only with authority to consecrate the rest, Turrecremata and Bellarmine do hold the one for more probable, but Victoria, Cusanus, and some others do allow rather the other: What wilful falsehood is there in this? Or is it not singular folly to call it by that name? But let us see an other objection, no wiser than the rest.   

THE THIRD OBJECTION against Bellarmine●or ●or false allegations about Platina. §. XV.  
HIS third obiecton against Cardinal Bellarmin● beginneth in these words: 
Preamb. pag. 67. B●llar. lib. 4. de Rome Pont. c. 13. §. Extat.  Again (saith he) where Bellarmine citeth the testimony of Pla●ina for the commendation of Pope Hild●brand: And in another place finding Platina objected in the question of Confession, answereth for the disabling of the Author, saying, that Platina had no public authority to pen the lives of the Popes from public Records. Which is notably false, Platina himself in his Epistle dedicatory unto the then Pope writing thus: 
Bellar lib. 3. de po●nit. c. ●. §. Sed neque.  Thou (o Prince of Divines, and chief of Bishops,) hast commanded me to write the lives of the Popes. Whose history is therefore greatly commended by Ballus, as being true, and tak●n out of public Monuments. I could furnish P. R. with infinite such like delusions, and will also whensoever my Adversary shall renew his demand: 
Pl●tin. in prafat. 〈◊〉.  for such a multitude of examples I could bring, that I find it a greater difficulty for me to subtract, then to multiply. So he.  

Hieron. ●●l●us de co●onatione. ●. Post mortem C●nstantini.  120. And I answer, that the more he multiplieth in this kind the greater store of testimonies and suffrages he produceth of his own folly, and impertinent dealing: for that Cardinal Bella●mine his denying of Platina to be of absolute credit & public authority in all matters touched by him in his history, doth not prove wilful malice in the Cardinal but rather a true & prudent censure concurring with the judgement of divers learned men of our time, especially of Onup●rius Panuinus, who writing observations upon the history of Platina concerning Pope's lives, 
About the authority and credit of Platina his history.  doth oftentimes note the said story of divers defects both in the Chronologie of times, and truth of matters set down by him: and I doubt not, but whosoever shall have read the works of Onuph●ius & of Balbus here cited in commendation of Platina, will greatly prefer the judgement of the first, before the later in matters of history. But let us see, what Cardinal Bellarmine saith of Pla●ina, and upon what ground, and to what effect, and so shall you see also how weak a calumniation M. Morton hath taken in hand in this objection.  
121. The occasion of censuring Platina, was in the confutation of a certain manifest lie avouched (as the Cardinal saith) by Calvin, who affirmed that there was never any certain Ecclesiastical law extant, binding men to Sacramental Confession, before the Council of Lateran under Pope Innocen●ius the third, some 300. years past, and for proof of this, Calvin citeth the story of Platina as affirming the same with this preface of his own to authorize more the writer, Eorum Annales narrant, their Annals, or public histories (of the Catholics) do declare. And again: 
Calu. l. 5. Instit. cap. 4. §. 7.  Ipsis testibus nond●m cl●psi sunt anni trecenti, themselves being witnesses (to wit the Catholics) and their public histories, there are not 300. years yet past since the law of Confession began. Which manifest untruth Bellarmine confuting by great store of antiquityes, 
Plat. in vita Zepher. Pontif.  cometh at length to Platina who in the life of the Pope's Zephe●inus & Innocentius, writeth that the decree that was made by Zepherinus for receiving the communion, at least once a year about Easter, was extended also to Confession by Pope Innocentius, which only is found written by Platina, saith Bellarmine, and not by any other Ecclesiastical historiographer: adding further these words: Sed neque Platina etc. But neither Platina did write those lives of Popes by public authority, 
Bellar. l. 3. de poenit. c. 13. §. Sed neque.  nor out o● public records in such sort as they may be called our Annals: and oftentimes is he reprehended by our Historiographers, for that he fell into divers errors in his history, by following of Martinus Polonus: and yet doth not Platina say, 
Cardinal Bellarmine clearly defendeth himself.  that which Calvin saith, that there was no law extant about the necessity of Confession before the time of Zepherinus and Innocentius, but only that the certain time, when, and how" often a man should confess and communicate, was then prescribed more in particular.  
122. So as here you see Platina doth make nothing for M. Calvin, and less for M. Morton, who dealt fraudulently according to his fashion, and never commonly doth otherwise, when reciting in his margin the latin text of Bellarmine, he cut out the words immediately following, Vt annales nostri dici possint, Platina did not write the lives of Popes as they may be called our Annals. And albeit Pla●ina saith in the Preface of his history unto the Pope Sixtus 4. who lived somewhat above 100 years past, that he had commanded him to wri●e the Pope's lives, yet this proveth not, that his collection is an Authentical history of our Church, or so well performed by him, as all things therein contained must be held for exact truth, and we bound to accept of the same, which is all in effect, that Cardinal Bellarmine avoucheth. And who would have brought in this for an example of wilful falsehood but only M. Morton? Nay who would have made ostentation therof● saying, that he findeth greater difficulty to subtract, then to multiply such examples, but himself, that seemeth not to discern between saying somewhat in words, and nothing in effect? But yet we must pass a little further to see an impertinency or two more.   

THE FOURTH Objection against Cardinal Bellarmine, touching, false allegations about Purgatory. §. XVI.  
AFTER long prying upon Cardinal Bellarmine's books, being above 60. in number, and the notes thereout gathered, which before you have heard, M. Morton cometh at length to seek some quarrels at that which the Cardinal hath written in defence, 
Prean. p. 68  and demonstration of the doctrine of Purgatory, and saith that he will end with that matter. His words are these: I will now (saith he) confine myself within the precincts of but one only controversy concerning Purgatory, where Bellarmine distinguishing of the divers acceptions of the word 
a B●●lar. lib. 21. de Purgat. cap. 1. §. vocatur.  Fire in the writings of ancient Fathers, concludeth that, 
b Bell. l. 2. the Purge cap. 1. §. Add.  when the Fathers speak of the Fire of the day of doom, when all the world shall be of a flame, they mean not Purgatory-fire, which souls suffer immediately after death. After this he allegeth 
c Bell. lib. 1. de Purg. cap. 6. §. Deinde.  most plain places (as he calleth them) out of the Fathers for proof of Purgatory. Amongst others in his first book (de Purgatorio) S. Ambrose serm. 20. in Psalm. 118. for proof o● Purgatory-fyre, which he himself confesseth in his next book not 
d Bell. ibid. §. Add.  to be meant of Purgatory. So he dealeth also with 
e Bell. l. 1. de Purg. c 7. §. Hilarius.  S. Hillary, urging his sentence upon the Psalm. 118. as an evident place for Purgatory, which by his own judgement, seemeth not to signify Purgatory. And yet 
f B●ll. l. 2. the Pu●g. cap. 1 § Idem videtur.  again, among Fathers●or ●or Purgatorie● he allegeth the testimonies of Origen, Basil, Lactantius, Hierome, Ambrose: all which are acknowledged expressly by Sixtus Senensis, 
Bell. l. 1. de Purg. c. 6. §. Deinde sunt.  from the evidence of the contexts to have spoken only of the fire of the day of judgement, and consequently as Bellarmine hath taught us, not of the fire of Purgatory. Lastly he pro●esseth to confirm the doctrine of Purgatory out of most of the Greek and Latin Fathers. 
Sixt. Sen. Bibliot. l. 5. annot. 171.  And another Iesuit●●ith ●●ith more largely 
g Salm. jesuit. Com. in 1. Cor. 15. disp. 25. in fine.  of all the Greek Fathers: which is an assertion as false as peremptory, even by the confession of their own 
h Roffen. art. 18. advers. Lutherun.  Bishop saying: That there is very rare mention of Purgatory in the Greek Fathers: 
Bell. l. 1. de pu●g. c. 6.  and that the latin Fathers did not all at first apprehend the doctrine thereof. Thus far he.  
124. And now let the Reader note how many impertinent points (to say nothing of their falsity that jointly also will be discovered) are here couched together, that i●●o say, all that are here handled, for that all conjoined together do not convince any one wilful, or witting untruth in Bellarmine, though there should be found any oversight, as there will not be; but rather you will discover the most cunning dealing in M. Morton (if juggling be cunning) thereby to make Bellarmine seem to have some contradiction in him, that ever perhaps you read. 
Bellarm. l. 1. de Purg. cap. 1. §. Vocatur & c. 4. §. Superest. & l. 2. c. 1. §. Add.  For first, where the said Cardinal writeth, that when the Fathers speak of the ●yre of the day of doom, when all the world shall be in a flame, they mean not Purgatory ●yre, though the thing itself in some sense may be granted: yet in the places by him cited, Bellarmine hath no such thing, but only treating of that fire mentioned by the Apostle 1. Cor. 3. uniuscuiusque opus quale sit, ignis probabit: Fire shall prove what every man's work is, he saith: Aliqui Patrum per ignem non intelligunt ignem Purgatorium, sed ignem divini judicij, per quem satendum est omnes etiam Sanctos, Christo excepto, transire. Some Fathers do not understand by this fire (that must try every man's works) the fire of Purgatory, but the fire of God's judgement, through which we must confess that all Saints also must pass, except Christ himself.  
125. And for this opinion he citeth S. Hilary and S. Ambrose upon the Psalm 118. as also S. Hierome, 

Hilar. in illa verba Psalm. 118. Concupivit anima mea.  
Ambr. in psal. 118. serm. 20.   who seem to understand by this proving-fire mentioned by S. Paul, not the purging-●yre of Purgatory, which is mentioned presently after in the same place of the Apostle, when he saith, ipse tamen saluus erit, sic tamen quasi per ignem: which later fire to be understood of Purgatory after death, Bellarmine proveth by the plain exposition of S. Cyprian, S. Ambrose, S. Hierome, S. Augustine, S. Gregory, and others.  
126. Now then M. Morton seeing this discourse of Bellarmine would needs pick a quarrel thereat, and frame unto himself some show of contrariety in him, by voluntary mistaking of the fire of God's judgement and trial, due to every soul immediately after death, for the fire of dooms day when the world shall be in a flame, whereof Bellarmine neither speaketh, 
Bell. l. 1. de Purg. c. 5. §. Quarta difficultas  nor had occasion to speak: nay he doth expressly deny, and show, that the prouing-●yre of God's judgements mentioned by S. Paul, is not the fire of the conflagration of the world: and then doth M. Morton frame to himself a contradiction in Bellarmine, as though he had said, that S. Ambrose, and S. Hilary in the self same places of their works, had held for Purgatory, & not for Purgatory, to wit, upon the Psalm 118. which may be true in different senses, & sentences of theirs, & in different acceptions of the word fire, as hath been showed, for that by the former words of S. Paul, Ignis probabit, 
Three fires mentioned by S. Paul.  fire shall prove every man's works, they think that Purgatory fire is not understood, but rather the examen of God's judgements as hath been said, through which examining fire both Saints and not Saints must pass: but by the other fire that followeth in the said Apostle, Damnum patietur, ipse tamen saluus erit, sic tamen quasi per ignem, he shall suffer loss or punishment, but yet he shall be saved as by fire, all the forenamed Fathers do hold that the purging fire is understood, through which only imperfect men shall pass, so as they understanding of different fires, in the self same sentence of S. Paul, no marvel though they affirm of the one, and deny of the other, without all note of true and real contradiction: for that a contradiction must be in the self same thing, and in the same respect, otherwise it were a contradiction to say, that Christ was mortal & immortal, passable & impassable, which are not contradictory, but most true in different respects, and other such like speeches: yet let us see how M. Morton frameth his contradictories here more in particular.  

Bellar. l. 2. the Purgator. cap. 1. §. Add.  127. Among other Fathers (saith he) Bellarmine citeth S. Ambrose ser. 20. in Psal. 118. for proof of Purgatory fire, which he himself confesseth in his next book not to be meant of Purgatory. Mark here the fraud. A place of S. Ambrose is alleged by Bellarmine for purgatory out of his Commentary upon the 36. Psalm, after which he saith: 
S. Ambrose and Bellarm. delivered from a cavil of contradiction.  Vide etiam eundem, serm. 20. in Psalm. 118. See also the same S. Ambrose in his 20. Sermon upon the hundred and eighteenth Psalm, signifying, that in this place the said Father hath somewhat more, worthy the consideration to the same effect of proving Purgatory, and then in his second book, Bellarmine citing a place out of the foresaid 20. Sermon, where upon the words of Genesis the 4. God placed before paradise a sword of fire, saith: that S. Ambrose affirming that fiery sword to be ignem Purgatorium, by which all must pass, both good and evil, seemeth rather to understand the proving fire of God's judgements to every soul immediately after death, both good and bad, than the painful purging fire that is to ensue after, whereby the bad or faulty do only pass. And what contradiction is there now between this reference of the Reader by Bellarm. (for he saith but Vide) to the sermon of S. Ambrose, and this other place cited out of the same sermon? may not there be in the self same sermon different sentences, and different senses upon different occasions, and to different purposes? Who would wrangle thus but M. Morton for lack of better matter? If he had showed Bellarmine to say that the self same sentence or discourse of S. Ambrose had been alleged by him for Purgatory, and against Purgatory, he had performed somewhat: this other picking of quarrels is poor and miserable, and showeth his wants in the midst of his braggings: we have delivered S. Ambrose from the calumnation of contradiction, let us pass to S. Hilary.  
128. So Bellarmine (saith he) dealeth also with S. Hilary, 
Bellar. l. 1. de Purg. c. 7.  urging his sentence upon the Psalm 118. as an evident place for Purgatory, which by his own judgement (in his next book) seemeth not to signify Purgatory, but rather Ignem divini judicij, 
lib. 2. c. 1.  by which our B. Lady and Saints must pass, which cannot be understood of true Purgatory. Whereto is answered, that both are contained in the discourse of S. Hilary upon the 118. Psalm, to wit, the proving fire of God's judgement after our deaths, and purging fire of God's justice after our judgement, S. Hylaries words are these upon that Verse of the Psalm, My soul hath desired thy judgements: 
Hilar. in Psal. 118.  Meminit Propheta etc. The prophet David hath recounted unto us how hard a thing it is to desire the judgements of God: 
S. Hilaries censure of purging fire.  for as no man living is clean in his sight, how may a man desire that judgement of his, in which that indefatigable fire is to be undergone by us, in which those grievous punishments of purging our souls from sins, are to be sustained, the B. Virgin Mary's soul was passed with a sword to the end that the thoughts of many hearts might be revealed. If then that Virgin that was capable of God, must come into the severity of God's judgement, who will dare to desire to be iudg●d by God? So far S. Hilary.  
129. In which discourse it is evident, that he comprehendeth both the fire of God's judgement, when he saith, that our Lady must undergo the severity of that judgement, as also the other purging fire in which he saith so grievous punishments must be suffered for purging of our soul, which may both well stand together, as acts of the self same justice, to wit, the examination of our life, and punishment of our defects therein found. And how impertinent then is it for M. Morton in these two things to frame a contradiction? but let us pass to a third.  
130. And yet again (saith he) among his manifest places of the Fathers for Purgatory he allegeth the testimonies of Origen, 
Ibid. p. 69.  Basil, I actantius, Hierome, Ambrose, all which are acknowledged expressly by Sixtus S●n●nsis from the evidence of the contexts to have spoken only of the fire of the day of judgement. Whereto I answer, that here are many delusions together. For first suppose that Syxtus Senensis that lived somewhat be●ore Bellarmine were of a different opinion from him, about some authorities alleged of these f●ue Father's, concerning the fire of Purgatory, doth not Bellarmine allege almost fifteen● besides these ●iue? and doth not he cite sundry other places out of these very same authors which Syxtus Senensis hath not censured? Nay doth not Doctor Coccius in his Thesaurus allege upon the point of 60. ancient Fathers, 
judoc. Co●cius lib. 7. Thesa●ri art. 5.  Greek and Latin within the compass of the first six hundred years next after Christ, who held the same doctrine? And for the first of these f●ue, to wit Origen, doth he not besides the place here excepted against by M. Morton out of Sixtus Senensis his Censure, to wit, Hom. 6. in Exod. doth he not (I say) allege five other manifest places out of the same Author confirming Purgatory, 
About threescore ancient Fathers alleged for Purgatory within the first 600. years  to wit, Hom 14. in Leuit. hom. 25 in Num. hom. 2. in Psal. 38. hom. 12. in Hier. lib. 8. in Epist. ad Rom. cap. 11.? And the like I may say of S. Basil, S. Hierome, & S. Ambrose, who have not only the single places against which M. Morton so triumphantly excepteth out of Senensis, but divers other that sufficiently declare their judgement in that behalf.  
131. Secondly I would demand of M. Morton why we should ascribe more unto the judgement of Senensis in censuring these places of the Fathers then unto other learned, that think the contrary: They are all acknowledged (saith M. Morton) expressly by Syxtus Senensis ●●om the evidence of their contextes to have spoken only of the ●ire of the day of judgement, and consequently not of Purgatory. This now is properly to help a die in deed, for that Senensis doth not talk of any such evidence of the contextes, 
Sixt. Senensis l. 5. Bi●lo●h. Annotat. 17●. in fin.  but speaketh rather doubtfully, and by conjecture, saying of Origen, that his opinion (that both good and bad should be purged by f●re) is confuted by S. Aug●stine in his books de Ci●itate D●i, but yet for excusing the same from error he saith: 
Aug. l. 21. the civit. Dei. c. 26. & 27.  Tu vide an Origenis verba interpretari queant de igne vl●imae co●flagrationis. Do thou (Reader) consider whether the words of Origen may be interpreted of the fire of the last conflagration or ●ot? So as he did not expressly acknowledge from the euidenc● of contexts (as M. Mort. shifting & lying words are) that these authorities must needs be understood of the last combustion of the world; 
Origens' plain testimony for Purgatory.  but rather leaveth it as uncertain to be considered by the Reader: and there are divers of them, that cannot be so understood, as that of Origen upon the Epistle to the Romans: haecipsa purgatio quae per poenam ignis adhibetur etc. 
Orig. lib. 8. Epist. ad Rom.  This purgation of sins which is applied by the punishment of fire, how many years, and how many ages it shall afflict sinners, only he can tell to whom his Father gave power of judgement: which words cannot well be understood of the last conflagration of the world, which no man can affirm to be likely to endure many ages together.  
132. And many like sentences may be observed in the other Father's speeches, which he expressly allegeth to the sense of this of Origen, whom he saith they do imitate and follow in holding, that both S. Peter & S. Paul, and other Saints shall pass also through this fire, though without hurt, Expurgabit Jerusalem (saith S. Basil) Dominus in spiri●u judicij, & spiritu ardoris, quod ad ●am probationem sive exam●̄ refertur, quod per ignem fiet in suturo saeculo. God shall purge Jerusalem in the spirit of judgement, and the spirit of burning, which is referred to that probation, and examination which shall be made by fire in the world to come. And this I think Sixtus Senensis, 
Basil. in c. 4. Esay.  or M. Morton for him will hardly apply from the evidence of the context itself, unto the last conflagration of this world, which indeed is but a mere conjecture of his, and for such he willeth the Reader to consider of it, as now you have heard. But M. Morton doth magnify the same, as somewhat helping him in his opinion to divert the authorities of these Fathers from inferring the true fire of Purgatory: but the truth is that they may include both, as before we have noted, to wit, the fire of God's judgement in examining sins after their deaths, and the fire of God's justice in purging and punishing them temporally, that were not purged before. Of which later execution of justice, and purging sins, the last conflagration of the world may be a member or part for those that shall live until the last day of judgement. Whereunto S. Ambrose in the very place here alleged seemeth to allude, when he saith: 
Ambros. i● psalm. 118.  cum unusquisque nostrûm venerit adiudicium Dei, & ad illos ignes quos transituri sumus etc. When every one of us shall come to the judgement of God, & to those fires through which we must pass, then let every man say as the Prophet did, respect my humility, and deliver me. Where it is evident, that S. Ambrose speaketh of more fires than one. And so this third contradiction of Bellarmine is found to be nothing at all.  
133. His fourth and last contradiction framed out of B. Fisher against Bellarmine, to wit, that there is very rare mention of Purgatory in the Greek Fathers, is understood by him as well of the name of Purgatory not then so much in use, as that the most ancient writers next after the Apostles time, when many things were not discussed so exactly, (as in process of time they were) did not so clearly handle that matter: Nemo iam dubitat orthodoxus (saith he) an Purgatorium sit, de quo tamen apud priscos illos nulla, vel quam rarissima fiebat mentio. No rightly believing Christian doth now doubt, whether there be Purgatory or no, of which notwithstanding, 
Roffens. art. 18. contra Lutherum.  there was none, or very rare mention made among those most ancient Fathers. Whereof he giveth divers reasons, and indeed the same may be said of sundry important other articles of Catholic Religion: for so much as in the first primitive Church when the said Fathers were under persecution, and occupied in other weighty affairs against heretics and persecutors, they had not time, nor occasion to discuss many things, which the holy Ghost afterward did make more clear unto the Church by success of time: and yet doth not Bishop Fisher say, that there was no knowledge of this article of Purgatory in the very first Fathers; but only his meaning was, that the name, nature, & circumstance thereof was not so well discussed, & consequently the thing more seldom mentioned by them, than afterward by the subsequent writers.  
134. Wherefore coming afterward in his 37. article to answer Luther, that said, that Purgatory could not be proved by any substantial argument, he useth this demonstration against him: 
The opinion of B. Fisher about the antiquity of Purgatory.  cum à tot Patribus (saith he) tam à Graecis quam Latinis Purgatorium affirmetur, non est verisimile, quin eius veritas per idoneas probationes illis claruisset. Whereas Purgatory is affirmed by so many Fathers, as well Grecians as Latinists, it is not likely, but that the truth thereof was made clear unto them by some sufficient proofs. And then after the citing a multitude of Fathers of the one and the other Church, he cometh to prove Purgatory first by Scripture out of both testaments, and then by great variety of testimonies and authories of the said Fathers. And if this will not suffice M. Morton, let him see the threescore before mentioned by me out of Coccius, whereof 30. or thereabout were of ancient Greek Fathers within the first 600. years after Christ.   

MASTER MORTONS' conclusion and observation about the article of Purgatory examined. §. XVII.  
MASTER MORTON having played his prize as now you have heard, in charging Cardinal Bellarmine with contradictions, and absurdities about the doctrine of Purgatory, he maketh this conclusion. If any (saith he) shall but observe in this one controversy the number of witnesses brought in for the confirmation of this their new article in the name of ancient Fathers, which are by confession of our adversaries merely counterfeit, 
Preamb. pag. 69.  as Clemens his Constitutions, Clemens Epistles, Athanas. in quaest. Eusebius Emissenus, josephus Bengorion, Hieron. in Proverb. August. ad Fratres in Eremo. the Liturgies of james and others: all which as they are urged for proof of Purgatory, so are they rejected by their own men (I desire to be challenged for proof hereof) as forged, or corrupted, or Apochryphas: and indeed no better witnesses for truth, than the Knight's o● the Post be fit men for a Iury. If further he shall mark how true Fathers, and Scriptures are instanced in for proof of the same article, whereof (when I speak of Fathers) most of them (when I speak of Canonical Scriptures) all of them are found by the judgement of their own doctors to be tortured, wrested, and forced, as it were to say that which they never meant: if he, lastly, consider how almost every one of them indeavoring the defence of the same doctrine, is in his own assertions contradicted by himself, which may be in this one controversy concerning Purgatory, a late article of their faith, most plainly discerned. So ●ar he.  
136. And this his conclusion, or repetition in the end of this last objection about Purgatory, seemeth to me a recapitulation and brief representation of all his former unsyncere dealings concerning the same; and that he cannot be trusted in any thing he saith, though he struggle still to say somewhat. For first of this number of witness which here he saith to have been brought in as Knights of the Post for confirmation of this new article of Purgatory, to wit, Cl●mens his Constitutions and Epistles, and the other six or seven authorities here cited, they, and the rest, under the names of ancient Fathers, 
Twenty ancient Fathers brought by Bellarmine for Purgatory.  are not so much as named by Bellarmine (except only the two first in a word or two) and much less are they brought in for principal authors in the Catalogue of ancient Fathers, whose testimonies and authorities he setteth down for proof of Purgatory: so as this is one deceitful untruth to make his Reader believe that these are our chief Authors, whereas Bellarmine besides these, doth allege twenty, viz. ten of the Greek Church, and as many of the Latin, as namely S. Gregory Nazianzen, S. Basil, S. Ephraim, S. Epiphanius, S. Cyrill, S Chrysostome, ●usebius, Theodoretus, Theophilactus, and Damascenus, all Fathers of the Greek Church: and Tertullian, S. Cyprian, S. Ambrose, S. Hi●rome, S. Paulinus, S. Augustine, S. Gregory, S. Isidorus, Victor Vticensis, and S. Bernard of the latin Church. All which twenty Fathers, are without the number of those other against which he excepteth here, and consequently are so many good and lawful witnesses (and not Knights of the Post) for a complete jury against M. Mor●on.  
137. Secondly it is another manifest untruth, that he saith his adversaries (to wit Catholic writers) do confess, these seven or eight Authors, and authorities by him mentioned, to be merely counterfeit. For albeit some of them be excepted against, or called in question by some writers, whether they be the true works of the Authors whose names they bear, or not, and thereof all reputed Apocryphal, 
A second gross untruth about Apocryphal writings.  that is hidden and obscure: yet it followeth not that they are merely counterfeit, for that they may be ancient works, and not to be contemned, though not of those Authors. As for example, that work entitled: Opus imper●ectum in Matthaeum, ascribed to S. Chrysostome, and the Sermons ad Fratres in Eremo, ascribed to S. Augustine, the Homilies also attributed to Eusebius Emissenus, proved by Baronius to have been written by S. Eucherius Bishop of Lions, that lived above eleven hundred years gone, all these works cannot be denied to be ancient and learned, 
Baron. anno. 441.  though Apocryphal, hidden, and doubtful, for so much as concerneth their true Authors, which yet our writers do not call merely counterfeit, as here M. Morton doth falsely affirm.  
138. His third manifest untruth is, where he saith, that, of Fathers, the most of them, and of Canonical Scriptures all of them, are found by the judgement of our own Doctors to be tortured, wrested, and forced to say (for Purgatory) that which they never meant. 
Ib. p. 70●  This now whether it be not such a wilful and witting lie, as before I described, for a formal malicious lie, such as the writer did know to be a lie when he wrote it, I am content to remit myself to any judicious, and civil Protestant in the world. For if our own Catholic doctors that make profession to believe Purgatory, do find in their own judgement, as here is said, that of Fathers alleged ●or the proole thereof the most of them, and of Scriptures all of them, are tortured, & ●orce● to say that which they never meant; 
A third notorious & intolerable lie.  how then do these doctors believe the doctrine of Purgatory to be true? Why do they not change their opinions, and become Protestants? Is it credible, that they will believe that for truth, & for an article of faith which all Scriptures, & most Fathers in their own judgements do impugn? Can M. Morton answer any thing to this so lewd & wilful absurdity? And did not he know, that he lied when he wrote this? And that it was impossible to be true?  
139. Mor●euer I have now showed that Cardinal Bellarmine in setting down the Father's opinions about Purgatory, besides those excepted against by M. Morton, hath twenty others, and Coccius in his Thesaurus hath near threescore within the compass of the first 600. years after Christ: and will any Catholic doctor or writer (think you) say that the most of these Fathers are found in their judgements to be forced to speak against their own meaning? And yet saith M. Morton, I desire to be challenged for proof hereof. And to the end that he may have somewhat to do, I do earnestly challenge him herein, 
M. Mort. sore pressed and challenged for wilful lying about Purgatory.  requiring at his hands, that of those first threescore mentioned by Coccius, within the first six hundred years he do really & sincerely prove thirty one at least, which is the mayor part, to be so tortured, and so granted to be by the judgement o● our own writers, or else he falleth wholly in his cause.  
140. And again let him prove that all Canonical Scriptures alleged by Bellarmine and others for Purgatory, are found also by the judgements of our own doctors to be so tortured, wrested, & forced, & he shall prove himself an admirable man indeed. But in the mean space, let us examine a little the probability of this fond vaunt, to wit, what he will be able to do, when he cometh to the proof. Bellarmine doth allege ten s●u●rall places out of the old testament for proof of Purgatory, with the expositions of the ancient Fathers upon them, and all a●e confessed by Protestants themselves to be taken out of Canonical Scripture, 
Bellar. l. 1. de Purg. c. 3. & 4.  except the first two out of the books of Maccabees and ●oby, which ●ere notwithstanding accounted for Canonical in S. Augustine's time, as appeareth by the third Council of Carthage, in which himself was present: and out of the new Testament he allegeth other five places, with the expositions in like manner of the ancient Fathers upon the same that understood them to m●ane of Purgatory: 
Con●. Carth. Canon. 47●  and will our own doctors think you, say, that these fi●teene places are all tortured and forced against their meaning? and all the Father's expositions violented against their own judgement? If our doctors will say so, they must be M. Mortons' doctors and not ours.  
141. And finally it is the repetition of a fond vaunt, when he concludeth thus: Last (saith he) almost every one of the endeavouring the defence of the same doctrine, is in his own assertion contradicted by himselve etc. For what one example hath M. Morton been able to bring hitherto to prove this? 
Preamb. p. 70.  All his assaults against Cardinal Bellarmine have been sagittae paruulorum, arrows of children, weak in force, 
Psalm. 63.  and returned commonly upon himselve. All which notwithstanding, let us see how peremptory he is in the end of this Chapter, 
Preamb. p. 70.  in justifying of himself, and condemning his adversary.  
142. These observations (saith he) may give our Reader such a scantling of their dealing, 
A notorious foolish vaunt about tre-trip.  that we may justly pronounce P. R. his censure upon themselves, Not to be believed hereafter. So desperate hath his demand been, when he required any one overtaken in a triple falsity, as though he would venture all the credit of all the Annotations upon the Rhemish Testament, all the Volumes of Baronius his Annals, all the Monuments of Counsels in their Binius and Surius, all the disputes of Bellarmine, o● Greg. de Valentia, o● Co●cius, and all other their late doctors, upon (as I may so call it) only tre-trippe, a triple falsity, and then never to be credited aga●ne. I am persuaded that no Protestant, who hath been conversant in reading and examining their Authors, but he will stand astonished to hear this grant our Mitigator maketh, as being as I have said) intolerably disaduamtagious unto the Romish part: but he will easily cease to marvel when he perceiveth by whom it is made, to wit P. R. the Author of the Book of Mitigation, who himself is guilty of thrice three palpable falsityes, so that none shall hereafter need to wonder, why he hath been so lavish in hazarding other men's credits, seeing he is so desperately prodigal of his own. So far he.  
143. Whereunto that I may answer briefly, I say, that for myself if there may be found thrice three palpable falsities, such as before we have described, and agreed upon, to wit, as cannot be excused by any oversight or error, but must needs be judged malicious, and wittingly untrue, I do not demand any pardon or relaxation from my first offer, that I be never credited more, yea if it be but thrice, which is the measure that I offered to others. Hitherto we have seen no one alleged & proved: and truly I do confess, that if I did persuade myself or doubt that M. Morton, or any other could prove any such one untruth uttered by me, I should be much troubled in conscience therewith: but for that I am sure I never had such meaning, I stand very confident that he will never be able to bring any one example, and much less thrice three, as he braggeth.  
144. And wh●ras he seems to accuse me of lack of providence in adventuring the credit both of myself, 
How detestable wilful lies are to honest men.  and all other Catholic writers upon only tre-trip, as he calleth it, or triple falsity; I do not lay any thing thereon, ●or that falsities may proceed of divers cau●es, and in divers degrees, and with sundry circumstances of more or less ●ault, so as there may be a falsity without falsehood, whereof my meaning is not in this place: but whosoever shall be found in a wilful and witting falsity, or rather falsehood, such as often before hath been spoken of, that is known to be such by the utterer, I do think it to abhor so much from the nature itself of an honest civil man, as of what religion soever he be of, he will not commit it once, and much l●sse thrice. And upon this tre-trip I think I might adventure the credit of all those that would be accounted honest in both religions. And it seemeth to me, that except M. Morton and his fellows were much interessed therein, and mistrusted their own parts, 
See before in the prean. p. 50.  he would never so often and so earnestly mislike the same offer, call it desperately prodigal, which notwithstanding I hold to be so just and reasonable, yea strictly necessary also to be exacted, as no man that hath care of his conscience or estimation, can repine against it, or seek exemption therein. And so much of this.   

THE SUM And Reckoning of all this whole Chapter. §. XVIII.  
NOW then M. Morton to join friendly with you, and to make up the Reckoning quietly of all this Chapter, wherein you took upon you to prove, that our Catholic Authors were to be convinced of manifold witting untruths, ●o uttered by them, as they must needs be presumed to have known that they were untruths, when they wrote them: you see what poor success you have had in the enterprise, 
M. Mort. success with Popes and other Cath. Authors.  in that you have been able to prove no one thing of any moment, either against Popes, or Popish Authors by you impugned, and much less against Cardinal Bellarmine, whom you singled out in particular: but much hath been proved against yourself in that kind, whereof you wrongfully accused him. The three Popes Zozimus, Bonifacius, & Celestinus, have been cleared from the slander of falsifying the Council of Nice: and Costerus and Gratian, have complained of your wilful falsifying their words and meaning, and with evident arguments have justified their complaint. Your objections of different expositions of our Authors concerning the councils of Eliberis in Spain and Frankford in Germany● about the use of Images, have been showed both to be impertinent to the state of our question to prove wilful malice, 
Supra 11.  and further also entangled with deuers falsities of your own: and the like about the Authority of Epiphanius concerning the same controversy of the Catholic use of Images.  
146. And when you come to join with Bellarmine in both the heads by you set down, first of wilful falsities, 
His success with Bellarmine.  and slanders evicted (as you say) by his own confession, and then of falsifications in the allegation of other men's testimonies, though you stretch yourself far, I mean not only your wit, but your conscience also, to charge him with somewhat that may seem probable against him, for which you have threescore books of his to offer you variety of matter: yet are you so far of from having produced any one thing of substance, whereunto the name or nature of a witting and wilful untruth may agree, as you have wonderfully established the credit of his works, by these your vain assaults made against the same, and disgraced yourself with the note of many witting and wilful untruths, so uttered by you, as they make you in every indifferent man's judgement inexcusable; in that objecting falsely such untruths to others, have so exceedingly multiplied the same yourself.  
147. And as for the last matter handled by you here against Purgatory, and the testimonies produced for the same, I cannot but lay before you a certain friendly consideration, 
In important & friendly consideration laid by P. R. to T. M.  tending to your eternal good. You and I, that are now so contrary in this point one against the other: you in den●ing, and I in believing the truth of that dreadful purging fire, cannot but assure ourselves, though our age perhaps be unequal, yet that shortly w● shall both come to try the matter by experience, and thereof will depend our everlasting good or evil. 
Preamb. pag. 70.  You have noted me of indiscretion ●or venturing (as you call it) all the credit of the Annotations of the Rh●mish Testament, all the Volumes of Baronius his Annals, all the monuments of Counsels, all the disputes of Bellarmine etc. upon only tre-trip, or triple wilful falsity. But you do adventure a far greater matter, the eternity of your own soul, upon a far worse chance then tre-trip, for that you have the whole dice of Christian antiquity against you.  
148. I have showed before how that Cardinal Bellarmine hath produced 15. several places out of the old and new Testaments with expositions of ancient Fathers upon the same, 
●ell●. l. 1. de Purg. c. 6.  whereby the use of Purgatory is proved from the beginning of Christian Religion, & the same he proveth out of divers ancient Counsels, both of Africa (wherein S. Augustine was present) as also of Spain, of France, of Italy, of Greece, which give their testimonies to the same effect. I have showed also, that he allegeth almost twenty different Fathers of the ancient Church, testifying the same in their days. And that Coccius produceth upon the point of threescore within the compass of the first 600. years, that confirm the common faith of the Church in those days, to have held Purgatory, and prayer for the dead for Catholic doctrine, and for the practice also of praying for souls departed, used in all ancient forms of Mass, Christian Sacrifices, & Lyturges, throughout all Nations of the Christian world, the same Coccius allegeth ten several Lyturges, 
Coccius tom. 2. titul. de Poenitentia art. 5.  as that of Jerusalem, that of Rome, that of Alexandria, that of A●thiopia, that of Constantinople, Syria, Milan, Arabia, Gothia, and Armenia: all which, or the most of them were in use in the Churches of those Christian Countries for above 1000 years gone, and in each one is there express order prescribed, to pray for the souls departed, which necessarily supposeth Purgatory. He produceth also the large testimonies of five or six & twenty learned Doctors of the Hebrew jewish Church, some living before Christ, and some after: all which do testify the conformity between Christian doctrine & theirs, in this behalf.  
149. And finally john Calvin himself treating of this matter, 
Cal. lib. 3. Instit. cap. 5. §. 10.  confesseth that the use of prayer for the dead (which supposeth Purgatory) was practised in the Primitive Church above thirteen hundred years gone. Ante mill & trecentes annos (saith he) usu receptum fuit, ut precationes fierent pro defunctis: It was received into use above a thousand and three hundred years past, that prayers should be made for the souls of them, that were departed. Whereunto I do add, that never any Father since that time will be found to have reproved, or written against the same, or to have accounted it for an error or heresy, but rather have condemned the opposite doctrine for impious, and heretical in Aërius, and other heretics.  
150. All which being so, consider I beseech you, even for the love of your own eternal good, upon what tre-trip or hazard you do cast your soul in, standing so resolutely upon this denial, which here you do. 
Upon what manner of tre-trip.  For if all this Senate of Antiquity, and consent of the Christian world, for so many ages, ●aue not been deceived, you are gone everlastingly. If they be saved, you must be damned. 
M. Mort. doth hazard his salvation.  If any of them went to the fire of Purgatory, you must needs go to hellfire. And this is another manner of tre-trip, then to adventure the credit of Annotations, Books, Treatises, and Authors which you name.  
151. For as if a man being prisoner for a grievous criminal case of life and death in a strange Country, should find all the ancient lawyers thereof from time out of mind to have been of uniform opinion, that except such and such course ●e taken in his defence, he must certainly be condemned, and put to execution: and that these should leave divers and sundry records for the same; and that some younger lawyer or two of a bolder spirit, but of far l●sse learning, and authority, should laugh and make light thereat, encouraging the said prisoner to contemn, as threats and vain fears, all that which the ancients said, or had left written in that behalf, as john Calvin doth in the former place cited, 
A comparison of much consideration.  where after his confession of the received use of prayer before 13. hundred years, saith, Sed omnes fat●or in errorem abr●p●i ●uerunt: But all of them, I confess, were carried away with error: 
C●lu. ubi sup●a.  If this case (I say) should fall out in a matter of temporal life or death, I doubt nothing, but the prisoner would stand in fear to follow the younger lawyers venturous opinions, with so great danger and doubtfulness of his temporal death and utter destruction to ensue thereby. And yet is M. Morton content in this matter, concerning the everlasting loss or peril of his soul, to adventure against all the said Antiquity, yea glorieth therein to make an opposition to them all, for that Calvin & Beza, & some yonger-devines have put him in that gogge. And is not this to play his soul upon less than tre-trip? But now let us pass to other matters that are to ensue, for that he having made this vain assault against Cardinal Bellarmine, and other Catholic authors before mentioned, he cometh now to set upon his adversary P. R. with all the forces he can gather together, though with no better success indeed, then in the former skirmishes, as by experience you will prove: whereunto I remit me.     

THE FOURTH CHAPTER CONTAINING CERTAIN IMPUTATIONS OF FALSITIES and falsehoods, falsely objected by M. Morton against his Adversary P. R. which are showed not to be such; but that the obiecter falsifieth also in objecting them.  

PREFACE.  
BY little and little we draw towards the substance of our chief point of controversy: which is, whether M. Morton can deliver himself and his from those imputations of witting and willing falsehoods, which in the Treatise of Mitigation we produced against them, and that in so perspicuous and palpable a sort as seemed unpossible to avoid the same. Unto which prejudice M. Mort. endeavouring to lay some ●enitiue salve, 
Ch●p. 6. & else where.  came forth with this his Preamble; wherein it seemed that he ought presently to have gone to the question about his own defence: but he thought best to d●f●r that to the last place of his book, & fi●st to molli●y somewhat the Readers acrimoni● of judgement with some small skirmishes cast out against his adversary. As first against his wit, memory, skill in logic, Gree●● & H●brew, modesty, truth, & the like, as you have h●a●d in his first Inquiry, & in our first Chapter: & then he singled out a point or two of the two main subjects of the book of Mitigation, to wit, about Rebellion and Equivocation. Thirdly he objected falsities against Catholic writers, both in general and particular: and now he continueth to do the same against me, to the end, as he pretendeth, that having weakened somewhat our credits, himself may in the last place either scape scotfree by our condemnation, or at leastwise say to us with the good thief, in eadem estis damnatione: you are in the same condemnation of lying with me. But I doubt this Reckoning will not fall out just. 
M. Mort. sleight for escaping.  For if we can justify ourselves openly (as hitherto hath been done) from any least convincement of any one malicious and wilful untruth, and he not; then will his condemnation be much more singular and notorious. For that as the Philosopher saith: Contraries laid together do manifest one the other much more: so as he being evidently convicted of many witting falsities, as in the sequent Chapters will appear, and his adversary not able to be touched with any one such, as willbe showed in this place, the difference between them will rest evident, clear, and manifest, nor can be avoided by any sleight or tergiversation. Let us come therefore to the point itself.  
2. The thing that seemeth most, or one of the most, to have stung M. Morton in my Treatise, that was directed to Mitigation, was, that out of my detestation of wilful falsehood in writing about matters of truth, I said in divers parts: that if any man could bring forth but two or three examples out of any Catholic writer of our days, 
Mitig. pag 489. n. 11.  that had in print used that wit●ing and wilful manner of lying in such sort, as the fault could not with any reason or conscience be excused, by infirmity, or error of the offender, negligence, oversight, ignorance, fail of memory, or the like; but that it must be presumed, that he did lie wittingly & maliciously for the advantage of his cause, knowing it to be a lie when he wrote or printed it: in this kind I said, that if he could bring me forth but two or three clear examples against myself, 
My just offer.  or any other Catholic author of ours (as I had done many in my Treatise against him and his, that in my judgement cannot be denied to be such) I would never wish that author to write more, or to be trusted afterward.  
3. With this speech of mine (though not only indifferent and reasonable, but necessary also in my opinion) M. Morton seemeth to be much grieved, inveighing against the same in sundry parts of this his Preface, calling it presumptuous, hypocritical, prodigal & prodigious, as before you have heard, saying first in the title of his Paragraph, 
Prea●b. ibid. p. 71. §. 17. Mitig. in Pref. p. 28.  that he is to lay down such a discovery of my notorious falsehoods, as will enforce me by virtue of my own promise, never hereafter to credit myself: and then bringing the same in again in his very first lines of this assault against myself, saith: P. R. among others, is bold to insert himself, saying: If any have set down in print any such falsity, so as it must needs be, he knew the truth, and yet would set it forth etc. I will in my conscience greatly discredit that Author, whether it be another, or myself, if two or three such falsities may be showed. So the Mitigator. Whereby it appeareth he would seem to have a conscience, and so I doubt not but he hath, but so miserable (if it be lawful to judge by probability) as it were a kind of happiness for him, to have no conscience at all. Let our Reader witness between me and him, according to the evidence of testimonies which shallbe brought against him: most of them sh●lbe so apparent, that any one understanding English may presently discern them.  

●●●ter a ●ad con●●●●nce, th●● n●●●●t a●●.  4. Thus ●ar M. Morton, censuring most grievously, as you see, my conscience, for that I said: That in conscience I would discredit such a liar, as should be found to lie wittingly. And in reason I do not ●ee with what grounds he hath pronounced this sentence against me, that it were better for me to have no conscience, than so miserable a one, as I have. For either by a miserable conscience he meaneth an erroneous conscience, or overscrupulous, or two large: but either of these must needs be thought to be less evil, than no conscience at all. For that every one of them may be reform, terrified, stirred up, or better instructed, which cannot be hoped where no conscience is at all.  
5. Secondly, it may seem in reason a good conscience that so much detesteth wilful lying as mine doth: and therefore for M. Morton to take an argument from thence that I have so miserable a conscience, as it were a happiness to have none at all, I see not out of what topycall place (though he profess himself to have been a Reader of Logic) he c●n probably deduce. But perhaps he will say, that his meaning is (●or charity will that we interpret to the best sense that may be, so lavish and uncharitable a speech) that the misery of my conscience consists in that, I knowing in conscience both my sel● and other Catholic writers to be chargeable with such sort of wilful lying, yet made this offer for a vaunt only, which Almighty God is my witness, was, and is far from my cogitation, but that simply, plainly, and in sincere truth without all exaggeration, I so thought, and do at this hour, & shall be most ready to yield to the performance of my promise, whensoever M. Morton shallbe able to convince me to the contrary, as I expected that he would have done in this second Reply of his, for so much as he so greatly misliketh the offer, and threateneth so much repentance to me for the same. But you have seen now that hitherto against other Catholic writers he hath been able to effectuate nothing to the purpose: Now shall we examine what he is able to do against myself. Fourteen different charges he frameth against me, but all so idle, light and impertinent, as I doubt me, the Reader will enter into some disdain afterward to have lost so much time in perusing them; yet such as they are, you shall have them set down in his own order and method.   

HIS FIRST objected falsehood against P. R. §. 1.  
HE entereth into this first accusation of me with a Rhetorical figure, 
About Thomas Mortons' name.  saying that he will not urge me with my own contradiction, and yet he doth. His words are these: I will not urge him with his own contradiction, who in his 
* p. 28.  preface to his Reader in the end thereof saith: 
Pray. p. 71.  To return to the Treatise of T. M. (for more of his name we cannot yet find out) entitled: An exact Discovery of Romish doctrine etc. and yet had he in his epistle dedicatory unto both the Universities, 
Num. 5. & 25.  which is set before the preface, mentioned T. M. in his express name, Thomas Morton, five several times: but this fault were very pardonable, were it not in him, who will think no fault pardonable in his adversary. So M. Mort. And then he playeth upon me further saying: In this contradiction I think rather, that P. R. his pen did run before his wit, and so will he excuse himself, except he had rather be accounted lyingly witty, then witless rash etc.  
7. And do you see, how M. Morton triumpheth at his first entrance, as though he had convicted me of some great matter: yet he confesseth that the fault were pardonable in any other, but not in me. So as in itself and in his own nature he granteth it to be pardonable, and thereby also he must needs acknowledge it to be impertinent to our purpose, and to the argument in hand, which is of unpardonable faults, to wit, of wilful and malicious lying, whereunto no pardon may justly be given; for that it is voluntary and not of error or infirmity: & this if the fault were confessed, or could be proved against me.  
8. But now, what if this be no fault or contradiction at all in P. R. either pardonable or not pardonable? Yea, and that M. Morton did well know it to be so, & yet would object it here for a contradiction, & that in the first place, & play upon me for it, as you have heard, what will you say then of his conscience, who holdeth mine for so miserable, as it were a happiness for me to have none? May not every man then (to use his own words) understanding English presently discern the same? Let us come to the proof.  
9 He affirmeth me to write in the end of my Preface to the Reader, that having spoken all that by way of Preface, 
Preamb. fol. 71. Mitig. Pref. pag. 28.  I would return to the particular Treatise of T. M. adding further by a parenthesis (for that more of his name then those two letters I could not yet find out) and yet (saith he) in the Epistle dedicatory to both Universities, that goeth before the said Preface, I called him by the name of Thomas Morton five times. But if I show that the said dedicatory Epistle was written after the Preface, then is there no contradicton at all: and if M. Morton must needs know it to be so, then hath he either a miserable cause or conscience, or both, that is driven thus to abuse his Reader for some little show of matter against me. First then that the Dedicatory Epistle of every work is wont to be the last thing that is written or printed, and that by order of nature and good method it should be so, to the end the Author should know, what he presenteth and dedicateth, 
A very vain cavil about the understanding of the letters T.M.  M. Morton I think can hardly deny: and he that shall read either his Dedicatory Epistle to the King in his first Reply called A ●ull satisfaction, or this to the L. of Salisbury prefixed before his Preamble, will easily see, that they were both written and printed after the Treatises themselves: For that in both Epistles is set down briefly what is handled in the Treatises themselves: and the like he could not but see and acknowledge in my Dedicatory Epistle, that it was written after the common Preface and Treatise, and consequently that I might know his name distinctly, when I wrote this, and be ignorant thereof when I wrote the other.  
10. Secondly I do expressly signify in the very first lines of my said Epistle Dedicatory to the Book, that the said Epistle was written after the Treatise and Preface thereof. For thus I do begin my speech to the School Divines and Lawyers of both Universities: It was no part of my purpose (learned Countrymen) when I took this Treatise ●●rs● in hand, either to wade so far therein, as now I have been compelled, nor yet to prefix any other Epistle Dedicatory before the same, than the large common Preface itself that doth ensue, which may partly appear by the argument, and namely also and principally by that which we have set down in the third Chapter of this Treatise etc. Which words of mine do evidently show, that my Dedicatory Epistle was written after the common Preface and Treatise: and therefore well might I come to know M. Mortons' name, when I wrote the Epistle, though I knew it not, when I wrote the other, as now hath been said: and these words also must needs M. Morton have seen, and so not to have erred, 
A plain conviction of witting falsehood.  if his will had not been obstinate to error Whereunto may be added, that if I had written the dedicatory, and printed it with the common Preface, the Printer would have begun the numbers of the pages and register of Alphabet with that, and not with the said Preface, as he doth.  
11. But thirdly to convince him indeed & most apparently of witting & willing fraud in this point● I must tell the Reader I did in the place here cited of the third Chapter of my Treatise, set down clearly and perspicuously, when, and by what occasion I came to understand, whom the two letters T. M. did signify, which before I understood not: and the occasion was by the coming forth of the first reply of M. Morton, entitled, A ●ull satisfaction: whereunto he thought best, being pressed to it by his Adversary, to put his name at length, divers months after I had travailed in answering his first invective of Discovery, that had only the bare two letters for his name, my speech in that place was this: But yet after divers months again, seeing the said Reply to appear, 
Mit. c. 3. n. 1. pag. 90.  & that the said Minister had now resolved to manifest his name, to wit, of Thomas Morton, which before went cyphered with the two letters only of T. M. that might as well have signified Thomas Malmesbury, or Montague, or Montebank, or any such like Syrnames, as Thomas Morton, I was moved aswell of myself as by others exhortation, to resume the thing into my hands again.  
12. So wrote I at that time: and now would I have the Reader to judge between us, as M. Morton also requireth, whether it be likely that he knew that my Dedicatory Epistle, wherein I take notice of his name, were written after the common Preface, and first two Chapters of the Treatise or no: and if he knew it (as needs he must in any man's judgement, both by the words before alleged out of the beginning of my Epistle Dedicatory, and the same avouched by me again in the 6. number of the said Epistle,) and yet would object that for a witless contradiction in me, that hath no more contrariety then to say, for some months I knew not whom the two letters T. M. did signify, but afterwards I did come to know it by M. Mortons' own exposition: let the discreet Reader, I say, judge what furniture M. Morton is like to have of substantial matter to prove wilful and malicious lies against me, when he beginneth with this poor and idle objection, wherein only his own wilfulness is convinced. Let him consider, what reason M. Morton had so to insult over me, for contradicting myself, and saying: that my p●nne did run before my wit, except I would be accounted rather lyingly wit●y, then witless rash. Are not these ingenious jests? But now, saith he, I come to note such his falls, as may seem to be recoverable by no excuse. Let us examine them.   

HIS SECOND objected falsehood against P. R. §. II.  
HIS second objected falsehood is as good a● his first, to wit, of no moment at all whether it be truly or falsely objected, 
About the ●lause of reservation in Latin.  and consequently is brought in here by M. Morton only to make up a number, it having been produced by him, and confuted by me be●ore in the first Chapter, and therefore is fond here called a fall irrecoverable by any excuse. 
Preamb. p. 5. §. 3. See sup. c. 1. §. 3.  It concerneth only how many times the clause of reservation is mentioned by him in Latin or in English, which having been alleged by him before to discredit my memory, 
Preamb. p. 72.  as he pretendeth, here he urgeth it as a witting falsehood. His words are these: I have already mentioned (saith he) how peremptorily he affirmed that the clause of reservation was not by me set down in latin throughout my whole Treatise against Equivocation above once. Whereto the Reader may answer for me, that it is set down in latin above twenty times: What excuse can he pretend? Ignorance? Oversight? Negligence? Why the book was present before his eyes, even in those places, which he particularly discussed. Could that error be by error of print, diversity of translation, or difference of editions? (for these are all the pretences which he will allow:) not one of all these (he knoweth) can redeem him from guilt. So he.  
14. Whereto I answer, that small guilt can be found (though the error were granted) where no malice or interest can be presumed. For to what end or profit should P. R. err willingly in a matter that importeth him and his cause so little? 
See above cap. 1. §. 3.  Wherefore the most that can in reason be presumed here, though the objection were admitted, is, that he erred in memory and numbering: which is nothing to the argument in hand of wilful error. But now you have seen before in the place here quoted of the first Chapter that in the sense and meaning of P. R. the clause of reservation was set down but once in latin, that is to say, entirely, and so as it might not be understood by the vulgar Reader, as M. Morton had promised to do: in which promise also he is showed to have failed, in that telling his Reader that he would always deliver the same in latin, confesseth notwithstanding, that sundry times he putteth it down in English: which I am far of from ascribing to malice, but rather to oversight or forgetfulness, it little importing our cause on either side. But this rather may import much to consider the great poverty of M. Morton against his Adversary for sound objections: 
The great poverty of M. Mortons' proofs.  for so much as he hath brought in this trifle now twice, making a special Paragraph thereof before, as you have heard in the first Chapter, and now another here, the thing itself objected being both false, as hath before been proved, and vain, if it were true.  
15. It shall not need to ponder the light and ridiculous insultations of M. Morton, which he useth commonly, to mak● up some weight unto every pretended charge that he giveth, saying: What excuse can he pretend? Ignorance? Oversight? Negligence? Could it be error of print? Diversities of translation & c? Whereto I answer, that neither of these are needful, for that both the thing is justified in itself: and if it were not, yet maketh it nothing to the purpose: for that no wilful and witting error can be probably supposed, where no interest can be gained thereby. And how then is this called a fall recoverable by no excuse? doth he think of what he writeth?   

HIS THIRD objected falsehood against P. R. §. III.  
WHEREAS M. Morton in a certain Epistle of his to the seduced brethren, calling themselves Catholics, prefixed before his Reply of Full Satisfaction, writeth of his Adversary, that he was of those doctors, 
Presumptuous Doctors mentioned by S. Paul.  whom the Apostle described, when he saith: They will be doctors, and yet understand not what they say, nor whereof they affirm; I taking his meaning to be general of our Catholic Priests, teachers, and Doctors, as evidently may be gathered by his whole discourse and by the title itself, 
1. Tim. 2. Epist. Dedic. nu. 23.  Of deceived brethren, thought best in my Epistle Dedicatory to the Universities, to answer the same, and to compare somewhat their Doctors with ours, saying among other things: But whether this description of fond presumptuous Doctors touched by S. Paul do agree rather to Protestant Ministers, or to Catholic Priests, will appear in great part by reading over this my book, especially the 5.8. and 10. Chapters, if by Thomas Mortons' errors and ignorances, a scantling may be taken of the rest of his Doctors.  
17. At which words of mine M. Morton is so grieved, as he will needs here frame a special accusation against me, of a wilful falsehood for applying that to our Priests & Doctors in general, which he saith that he meant of his p●rticuler adversary (the Moderate answerer) but I remit the Reader for trial of this to the ponderation of the text itself of his said Epistle to our deceived Catholic brethren, 
M. Mort. contemptible opinion of our Catholic Priests.  where within two lines after the words of S Paul recited, he nameth our Priests in general, comparing t●em with the blind Priests and Doctors of the jews. And then again, for what insufficient Doctors he holdeth our Priests in respect of his Ministers, may appear by his own ensuing words, which are these: But minds enthralled in the opinion of a never-erring-priesthood, could not possibly but err with their Priests: and such (alas) is the case of all them, whom God in his justice delivereth up to lies etc.  
18. And here now I would demand M. Morton in sincerity, did he mean of our Priests and doctors in general, or no? doth he think that only his Adversary the moderate Answerer is such a deceived Priest, as S. Paul pointeth at, or no? And if probably we cannot presume that his meaning could be only of that one, whom he named, but that under his figure he would disgrace and discredit all the rest, so far as he was able, why might not I speak that which he meant and intended?  
19 But hear, I pray you, how he taketh me up for this matter instead of better. What excuse (saith he) may P. R. now use to free himselve from falsehood? Whereto I answer, that I need none. alleadge●saith ●saith he) editions, translations, prints? here is only one edition, and that only in English. P. R. answereth, that this our English edition is sufficient to justify him, that you meant to disgrace all Catholic Priests by the instance and example of one. Will you say (saith he) that it is an error of Ignorance, oversight, negligence? No, nor any error at all, but a true explanation of your meaning, with a clear confutation and rejection of the same, and consequently these Rhetorical shifts are idly brought in by you, nothing n●edfull for me. For P. R. took you in your true meaning, wherein you desire to make Catholic Doctors contemptible in general for their blindness, though to some you will seem to grant the opinion of learning, but yet with such restraint, and limitation, as you make it not better for instruction of Christian souls, than the learning of the Devil himself. For this is your wise and grave conceit. Let them be as greatly learned (say you) as they are, and would seem to be: yet must there be a con, I mean an hart zealous of the truth, to be joined with science, to make up a perfect conscience: which is the true Doctor indeed: otherwise we know that the serpent by being the most subtle of all the beasts in the field, will deserve no better commendations, then to be accounted the skilfullest seducer. 
M. Mort. conceit of Con & science.  By which discourse of yours a man may easily see, whether your meaning were general in your former speech about ignorant Doctors, or no, and how impertinently you bring it in here for an argument of wilful falsehood against me, for that I understood you in your own sense. I will not discuss your concept of your science with your con, which was borrowed of john Reynolds, and of others before you: and though I be loath to tell it you, lest it may seem to savour of revenge, yet I must say it for your better information, that many men think very little of the one or other to be in yourself, as they should be, either science or good conscience, alleging your writings for testimony of both.   

HIS FOURTH objected falsehood against P. R. §. FOUR  
NEXT unto this he produceth for a falsehood in me, that I say in my book of Mitigation, that he taketh upon him to justify the writings and doings of the Protestants of our days, 
About justifying of Goodman.  for their seditious doctrines and practises against Princes, who please them not: and among others M. Goodman in particular, that wrote the most scandalous book against the Regiment of women in Q. Mary's days, and assisted Knox, Buchanan, and others in troubling and turning upside down Scotland: 
Pag. 73. Mitig. p. 100  whereas M. Morton saith, that he condemned him, and consequently that I dealt injuriously with him. Thus he citeth my words in a different letter, as though they stood so in my text: He (Thomas Morton) doth particularly justify Goodman.  
21. But first you must understand, that it is his common use, never lightly to allege truly and sincerely any text, that he will use to his profit, either in Latin or English, and let the Reader make proole of it if in twenty places alleged by him, he find four without all alteration, let him say, that I do offer him injury. 
Mitig. pag. 99 n. 14.  My words talking of the parts of M. Mortons' Reply called the Full satisfaction, were these: Secondly he taketh upon him yet more fond in the second part of this his Reply to make a public justification of all Protestants for rebelling against their Princes in any country whatsoever, but more particularly and especially in England, and therein doth so justify Cranmer, Ridley, Sir Thomas Wyatt, and others that conspired against Q. Marie in England: Knox, Buchanan, Goodman, and like Ministers in Scotland, turning upside down that State against their Sovereigns; the rebellions raised in Suetia, Polonia, Germany, Switzerland, France, and other countries, as his justification is a more condemnation of them, and their spirits and doctrine in that behalf, then if he had said nothing at all, as partly shall afterward appear by some instances, that we shall allege thereof.  
22. By which words of mine you may see, that I did not single out Goodman alone, as particularly justified by M. Morton, as he would make the Reader believe by his crafty and corrupt manner of citing my words: 
A fraudulent citation.  but that among many others he did go about also (so far as he durst) to excuse and justify him, saying as presently you shall hear, that albeit he approved him not (for this he durst not do, my L. of Canterbury having written so terribly against him in his book of Dangerous positions) yet that the examples alleged against him by the Moderate Answerer, might excuse him, which were of most intolerable speeches of his against Princes, and here again in this his Preamble, that in respect of Romish Priests he might be thought excusable: whereby a man may see his inclination to justify him and his writings if with security he might have done it. How then is it such a falsity in me to say, that among so many others before named, whom he cannot deny, but that he seeketh to justify them, he sought also to excuse and justify Goodman, though not in so absolute a manner, as the other Saints of his, yet in some degree convenient to his estate and merit. Let us see what I do write afterward more about this justification of Goodman: my words these.  
23. The moderate Answerer (say I) allegeth first the words of Goodman in his book against Q. Mary, 
Mitig. ●. 114.  wherein he writeth expressly, that it is lawful by God's law & man's to kill both Kings and Queens, 
Mother. Ans. c. 4.  when just cause is offered, & herself in particular, for that she was an enemy to God, and that all Magistrates and Princes transgressing Gods laws might by the people be punished, condemned, deprived, and put to death, as well as private transgressors: and much other such doctrine to this effect, cited out of the said Goodman. 
Goodman p. 94.119.203. etc. cap. 1.  All which the Bishop of Canterbury his second book of Dangerous positions hath much more largely, both of this Goodman, and many other English Protestants, chief Doctors of their primitive Church, residing at that time in Geneva. And what doth T. M. now reply to this? You shall hear it in his own words: 
Full satisf. part. 2● pag. 103.  If I should justify this Goodman, (saith he) though your examples might excuse him, yet my hart shall condemn myself. But what do you profess to prove? all Protestants teach positions rebellious? prove it: here is one Goodman, who in his public book doth maintain it. I have no other means to avoid these straits which you object by the example of one, to conclude all Protestants in England rebellious, then by the example of all the rest to answer, there is but one. So he.  
24. And this is his Full satisfaction and faithful reply, as he calleth his book: but how poor satisfaction this giveth, and how many points there be here of no faith or credit at all, is quickly seen by him, that will examine them. For first how do the examples alleged against this Goodman by the moderate answerer excuse him, as here is said, seeing the words he allegeth against him out of his own book are intolerable, and my Lord of Canterbury allegeth far worse; as for example: that it is most lawful to kill wicked kings, 
Dang. Posit. l. 2. c. 1.  when they fall to tyranny, but namely Queens: and thereupon that Q. Mary ought to have been put to death as a tyrant, monster, and cruel beast; alleging for confirmation thereof divers examples out of holy Scripture; as that the subjects did lawfully kill the Queen's Highness Athalia: and that the worthy Captain jehu killed the Queen's Majesty jezabel, and that Elias, though no magistrate, killed the Queen's highness chaplains, the Priests of Baal: and that these examples are left for our instruction etc. And now tell me, how may these examples excuse M. Goodman, as our minister Morton avoucheth? So in my other Treatise.  
25. Whereby you will see that I did no injury to M. Morton, 
See Full satisf. part. 2.  nor used falsehood in saying, that he sought in some sort to justify also Goodman, as well as the rest, according to the title of his Treatise, which was: A justification of Protestânts in case of Rebellion, without excepting of any: but he used falsehood in alleging my words in the fashion he did, setting them down in such sort, as might seem, that I affirmed him to justify absolutely both Goodman and all other Protestants, especially Cranmer, Ridley, Wyatt, and others there mentioned, whereas my words are, that he doth so justify them as his justification is a more plain condemnation of them and their spirits and doctrines in that behalf, then if he had said nothing of them at all. here than is evident falsehood and treachery in alleging my words and sense, as you see.  
26. And yet as though he had taken me at a great advantage, he runneth to his accustomed ridiculous interrogations: 
Mitig. pag. 100  What excuse now shall P. R. make? shall it be edition? print? translation? there is no difference in these kinds. Was it negligence, or ignorance? the words are plain and all in English. Thus he playeth with himself and his Reader, and answereth all but that he should, to wit, that it is plain that he desired to justify Goodman so far forth, as he might or dared, though his justification indeed be a more condemnation of them, as than I said, and now must, both repeat and confirm.   

HIS FIFTH objected falsehood against P. R. §. V.  
THIS objection is but a piece or parcel cut out of the former to make up a number: to which end he stretcheth out matters by all means possible, to multiply thereby his rank of objections, using the self same thing in sundry places, 
About Knox and Buchanan.  as before you have seen in the second objection, about the reservation in latin, and after will appear in many other points, and here, and in other ensuing objections he taketh parcels of that, which had been handled before. For that in the precedent objection you have heard how Cranmer, Ridley, Sir Thomas, Wyatt, Knox, Buchanan, Goodman, Gylby, Whittingham, and other Protestant Ministers were accused in matters of rebellion for their writings and practises against their lawful Princes, and how slenderly M. Morton defended the same: you have also seen and heard how he picked out the person of Goodman, as not defended or justified by him. Now he cometh in with two more, Knox and Buchanan, saying: 
Preamb. pag. 71.  To the objected examples of Knox and Buchanan, as Doctors and Actors of the rebellion in Scotland, my answer was, that their seditious doctrine was condemned in Scotland, noting them to have been worthy of all condemnation: and yet doth P. R. object nevertheless against me, as though I have justified them.  
28. Whereto I answer first by the very words of his defence in the former objection set down about Goodman, he seeketh to clear all other saying: 
●●ll s●ti●f. part. 2. p. 103.  If I should justify this Goodman (though your examples might excuse him) yet my hart shall condemn myself: but what do you profess to prove? All Protestants teach positions rebellious: prove it: here is one Goodman etc. By the example o● all the r●st I answer, there is but one. By which answer it is evident he cleareth all the rest: and if you look upon my L. of Canterbury's book of Dangerous positions, you shall find as bad or worse positions gathered by him out of Knox, and Buchanan, then out of Goodman, though all be most pestilent. Not only then one Goodman alone is there that holdeth this position according to my L. of Canterbury's book, which authority I persuade myself made M. Morton, together with some fear of his majesties mislike, to answer so cautelously, 
Cautelous answering  as here he setteth down, that their seditious doctrine was condemned in Scotland, saying, that he answered so before in his full Satisfaction. But indeed not fully so, but only that there was an act of Parliament in Scotland, upon the year 1584. to call in that Chronicle of Buchanan, censuring all such attempts and innovations: which is somewhat less, if you mark, then, that their seditious doctrine was condemned in Scotland.  
29. Let us see then how I impugned this his shift in the book of Mitigation. 
Mitig. p. 119.  These are my words: For Knox and Buchanan their assertions he answereth us: you might have added, that there was in Scotland an act of Parliament to call in that Chronicle of Buchanan, censuring all such attempts and innovations. And then citeth in the margin anno 1584. which was almost thirty years after the said doctrine had been taught, preached & practised in that Kingdom by those first ghospellers. And is not this a full satisfaction trow you? What if the Chronicle of Buchanan were called in, that recounted with approbation and insolent triumph the attempts made upon their lawful Princes by incitation of this doctrine. Doth this take away the doctrine itself? Or doth it prove that these first ghospellers held it not? What became of the other books of Knox? and namely his Chronicle (for he wrote also a Chronicle of the same matters, and of his own acts therein, as Caesar did his Commentaries) were they abolished hereby? Or do not the same things remain in Holinshed, Hooker, Harrison, Thine, and other writers, aswell English as Scottish? Or doth all this prove that this was not their doctrine? See then how full or rather fond this Satisfaction is.  
30. Thus I wrote then, showing that M. Mortons' evasion was insufficient, to say, that there was an act of Parliament in Scotland to call in the Chronicle of Buchanan: for here is nothing spoken of Buchanans' other Books, nor yet of any books of Knox: nor do I find that M. Morton did use these words of condemning them then, which now he doth: that their seditious doctrine was condemned in Scotland. Nay, as I noted before, by saying that only one Goodman had held positions seditious, he thought to justify and clear both these two, & all other their companions from just reprehension. Whereby you see, how idle an objection against me this is of wilful falsehood, for that I said he endeavoured to defend generally all Protestants from seditious doctrine and practice: which indeed he doth throughout all his second part of his said full satisfaction. 
Full Satis. part. 2. p. 97.98. & deinceps.  For proof whereof it is sufficient to allege the very title written over every page before mentioned: which is: A justification of Protestant's in case o● rebellion, both for doctrine & practice etc. and is not this then a worthy objection? And may he not fill up books, if he will, with such toys? Let these be compared with the real charges given against himself afterwards, and let the discreet Reader note the differenc● in weight and substance.   

HIS sixth objected falsehood against P. R. §. VI  
IN the sixth place he chargeth me with a wilful misplacing of the name of Bellarmine for Campian in a certain quotation of his in the margin concerning the heresy objected to Calvin and Beza, to wit, of the Autotheans, 
About Calvin's Autotheisme, & misplacing of Card. Beauties' name in the margin.  that affirm Christ to be God of himself, and not of his Father: For whereas it was avouched by the Moderate Answerer against T. M. that sundry English Protestants and namely M. Willet and M. Fulke did deny Christ to be God of God, light of light, according to the ancient form of speech, prescribed in the first Council of Nice: M. Morton in his full satisfaction answered the matter thus: But can you find (saith he) no more Protestants of that opinion? your jesuit reck●neth up Calvin & Beza etc. Thus he answereth, & in the margin quoteth Campian jesuit. rat. 8. and immediately after Bellarmine lib. 2. de Christo, cap. 19 and th●n goeth forwards showing how grievously this position is censured by the papists, the one of them calling it a monstrous opinion, 
Full Satisf. pa●. 1. p. 20.  another heresy, a third heinous heresy, a fourth Atheism, and a fifth Blasphemy: & yet saith he, notwithstanding all this the doctrine itself in the judgement of your famous Bellarmine doth seem Catholical, because they deny not the Son to be from the Father, but they deny the essence of the Godhead to have any generation.  
32. And for that upon the words, your jesuit, he placed the letter R. for his reference in the margin unto Campian, & for the next Author putteth the letter T. upon a quotation of Bellarmine to the same effect of referring the opinion of Calvin and Beza in this matter, the letters being very small, 
A very impertinent cavil.  the one was taken for the other, and the name of Bellarmine set down in the text instead of Campian, the difference importing nothing in the world: for that both of them do relate the said heretical speech of Calvin and Beza; Campi●n as of himself, and B●llarmine from the testimony of Genebrard, Lindan and Canisius: yet doth M. Morton make a great matter about this, as though it had been done of set malice, by a nimble sleight, as he calleth it, thereby to make it seem, that he did put a contradiction in Bellarmine against himself, as accusing Calvin's speech for heretical in one place, and yet granting it to be Catholical in another: whereas M. Morton said, he meant to put an opposition only between Campian & Bellarmine, the one accusing Caluins speech as heretical, the other allowing it, as Catholical.  
33. But all this is a mere trifling cavil. For first, what could it import me or my cause wittingly to have changed these two names of Campian and Bellarmine, for so much as it was all one to me, for M. Morton to prove that Bellarmine was contrary to Campian, Genebrard, Lindan, and Canisius in this matter, as to himself? And therefore for me to change voluntarily these names, Cui bono? what interest could I have by it? And so much of the n●mes.  
34. But now for the thing itself, albeit Bellarmine in the place here quoted do show, that according to the exposition of josias Symlerus a Caluinist, the words of john Calvin in a certain sense may have a true meaning, yet simply and absolutely doth he condemn the same, as heretical, saying: Caluinum existimo, 
Bellar. l. 2. de Christo, cap. 19  quoad modum loquendi, sine dubio errasse. I do think without doubt, that Calvin did err in his manner of speech. And a little after he beginneth a new Treatise against him with this Preface: Restat, ut modum loquendi calvini etc. It remaineth that we do demonstrate Calvin's manner of speech, 
Calvin's manner of speech condemned by Be●larmine.  that saith the Son to have his essence of himself, is simply to be rejected, and that we must speak in a quite contrary manner, to wit, that the Son hath not only his person, 
Mitig. p. 231.  but essence also from the Father, and so is God of God, and light of light, as the Council of Nice declared, and this he proveth by four ways: First, quia pugnat cum verbo Dei, For that Calvin's manner of speech is opposite to the word of God etc. Pugnat secundò cum Concilijs, and secondly it is repugnant to the manner of speech of ancient councils, as the Nicene and others: pugnat tertiò cum doctrin● Patrum, thirdly i● is contrary to the doctrine of the old Fathers: fourthly, it agreeth with the speech of the old Arians, and other such proofs, which Bellarmine doth prosecute at large confirming each one of these members by divers examples and instances, & that Calvin spoke heretically in favour of the Arians in this behalf.  
39 Thus far of Bellarmine's opinion, and thus much I did set down in the book of Mitigation upon this place: whereby it appeareth that Bellarmine neither is contrary to himself, neither to Father Campian and other Catholic writers before mentioned: for that all of them do agree, that the manner of Calvin's speech is heretical, dangerous, and to be avoided, though in some strained sense it may pass. But I did show besides this in my foresaid Answer, that M. Morton in reciting Bellarmine's Latin words in his margin, did wittingly and wilfully corrupt the same for his advantage, by turning illum into illos, and hoc errore into errore only, cutting of the word, hoc, which made or marred all the market about clearing of Calvin: for that Bellarmin said only (talking o● the heresy of the Autotheans,) Non facile audeo pronunciare illum in hoc errore fuisse. 
A nimble sleight of M. Mort.  I do not easily presume to pronounce him (Calvin) to have been in this error, refuted by Genebrard of the Autotheans; M. Morton citeth him thus: Non facilè audeo pronunciare illos in errore fuisse. I do not easily presume to pronounce them (Calvin and Beza) to have been in error, that is to say, in any error at all: wherein Bellarmine should be contrary to himself, having said of him a little before, sine dubio errasse, without doubt he erred in this manner of speech: & so you see, that this heinous fault, which here M. Morton objecteth unto me, that I by a nimble sleight would make him seem to produce Bellarmine as contrary to himself, is done by him, without any sleight of mine, but only by a sleight of his own, in voluntary corrupting of Bellarmine's text: so as going about to accuse me injustly, he falleth himself justly into the trap, and yet he runneth finally to his former accustomed interrogations. 
Preamb. pag. 75.  What excuse may be admitted in ●his place? Ignorance? Negligence? why P. R. looketh upon the place, understandeth English, and yet falsely objecteth to me a sleight of deceiving my Reader, himself by a fine sleight abusing both me and the Reader etc. 
See a●te● cap. 5.  These are words: let the discreet Reader look, where he findeth substance, albeit of this we shall have more again afterward, for that he bringeth it in upon divers occasions.   

HIS seventh objected falsehood against P. R. §. VII.  
THIS objection he beginneth in these words: P. R. in his Treatise of Mitigation cap. 4. nu. 14. rangeth at large, saying, that Thomas Morton framed a second part of his book (Of full Satisfaction) for justification of Protestants: 
The justifying of Protestant's from Rebellion.  and yet in effect he confessed all that his adversary opposed (about seditious doctrine, and practise of mutinies and rebellion:) let P. R. learn what this meaneth, 
Preamb. p. 75. & 76.  littera occidit, & then let him come to be tried by my ●ooke etc. Thus far he. But in my opinion it had been good, that M. Morton had expounded unto us himself, what his littera occidens, or kill letter doth mean, that we might have learned the mystery at his own hand. For as in the Apostles speech that used the same phrase, 
2. Cor. 3.  we know his mind to have been, that the only literal understanding of the law of Moses doth kill without the quickening spirit of the internal meaning, so how M. Mort. can apply it to his Book or my Answer, I know not, or in what sense either of them may be called such Killcowes'.  
37. But let us come to the point itself in controversy. I do say indeed in the place by him quoted of my Treatise, that whereas his first adversary the Moderate Answerer had alleged great store of proofs against him, out of Protestant writers themselves, to convince both their doctrine & practice in matter of sedition, far to surpass that of the Catholics, and that M. Morton in his Book of Full Satisfaction made a show as though he would answer the same, one by one: yet that his answer was such, as cleared nothing the case, 
Mitig. p. 113.  but in effect con●●ssed all, whereof I gave this second ensuing reason as is to be seen in my Treatise of Mitigation.  
38. And indeed (quoth I) what other Answer can be framed to most plain assertions out of their own words and writings, as of Calvin, Beza, Hottoman, and so many other French Caluinists, as I have mentioned in the first Chapter of this Treatise? Goodman also, Gilby, Whittingham, Knox, Buchanan, and others nearer home unto us? All the forenamed collections in like manner of him that is Archbishop of Canterbury, of D. Sutcliffe and others in the books entitled Dangerous positions, Survey of the pretended disciplinary Doctrine, and the like: wherein their positions are most cleeerly set down concerning this matter. And albeit this Minister T. M. in his reply doth use all the art possible to disemble the same, by telling a piece of his adversaries allegations in one place, and another piece in another, altering all order both of Chapters, matter and method set down by the Answerer, so as never Hare when she would sit, did use more turnings and windings for covering herself (which the Reader may observe even by the places themselves quoted by him out of his adversaries book:) yet are his answers such, where he doth answer (for to sundry chief points he saith nothing at all) as do easily show that in substance he confesses all, and cannot deny what is objected. And where he seeketh to deny any thing, there he entangleth himself more, then if flatly he confessed the same. Some few examples I shall allege, whereby conjecture may be made of the rest.  
39 So far then. And in proof and prosecution of this matter I do spend there a dozen leaves at least, 
Nothing can in truth be answered for excusing Protestans in matters of Rebellion.  refuting all the Answers & shifts, that he useth to yield some, not full but faint & feeble satisfaction, to the testimonies alleged, whereunto for brevities sake I remit the Reader, not to make here an unnecessary repetition. And so much of this objection. And yet noting by the way how many different dishes of meat M. Mortons' Cookery doth furnish out of one thing only, which is the justifying of Protestants from Rebellion, having made already one Paragraph of Goodman, another about Knox & Buchanan, and after will follow Sir Thomas Wyatt, and in another, Calvin, Beza and others. And this last hath been of all Protestants, and out of all which he frameth several falshods against his Adversary P. R. as dishes of different dressing, only to make a show and ostentation, as though he had somewhat to produce and lay before his Reader, whereas indeed he hath nothing at all.   

HIS EIGHT objected falsehood against P. R. §. VIII.  
THIS objection consisteth principally in a certain vehemency of passion, whereunto M. Morton suffered himself to fall (as often otherwise he doth) for that he was reprehended for a certain dissimulation of his, when knowing & having seen that his adversary had set down before many grievous accusations not only against the doctrine, but also the seditious practices of the Protestant Genevian Ministers Farellus, Calvin, Beza, Hottoman etc. 
About dissembling the wicked practices of Calvin Beza and others.  against the B. of Geneva their rightful Lord, both spiritual and temporal, the King of France and others, yet was he not ashamed to make this conclusion. Thus is Calvin justified (saith he) concerning his Doctrine, and in him also Beza. We have heard of their opinion, have you any thing to except against their practice? Whereof I did infer as the words did import, that he would have men think, that there was nothing to be objected nor excepted against their practice. Now he saith that, that question was not made by him in way of flat denial, as though his adversary could not charge Calvin and Beza with any practice of Rebellion, but after the manner of Rhetorical art and common speech by way o● translation, 
Preamb. p. 77.  to show more orderly and emphatically (to use his own words) what was by the moderate Answerer objected against their practice.  
41. Thus he saith, & would escape by this: and I am so equal & easy to be entreated in this matter, or rather so indulgent, as I am content to accept of his own interpretation, protesting sincerely notwithstanding, that I understood him in the other meaning when I wrote by Book, the words themselves leading me thereunto. But how soever it be, there can be no least matter of wilful malice framed hence against me, 
Preamb. p. 49.  notwithstanding that M. Morton crieth out: O impotency of malice! it is not unlike unto the blindness of the Sodomites, who after that they had seen lots house, 
M. Mort. falleth into great imapatience.  yet groped for the door. Which comparison I grant that I understand not, no more than before I did his Littera occidens: for that the men of Sodoma that came to lots house saw the same when they had their eyesight, and would have broke open the door, but being stricken blind by the Angels, they could not see the door: what great point of mystery is this to grope at the door when they were blind? 
Ibid. Mitig. p. 132.  Or wherein may this be like to my cause? P. R. (saith he) a little after discusseth some of my answers to this objection o● practise, & yet now will not acknowledge the beginning. So he. And let the judicious Reader judge, how aptly this is applied: yet to the thing itself I say, that true it is, that he indeauoureth both before and after to answer to divers proofs of seditious practices objected by his adversary against Calvin and Beza, but weakly, God-wot, as may be seen by my Reply, and yet out of his own confidence, or that courage rather which before I mentioned of a Cock of the game, 
Vbi supra.  he would make that crowing vaunt, Thus is Calvin justified (saith he) concerning his doctrine, and in him also Beza: you have heard their opinions, have you any thing to except against their practices? Would not you think that he meant that we had none at all to object, no more against their practices then their doctrine? And that as he held the one for justified, so did he hold the other for justifiable, and that herein there was no exception to be made? Wherein then standeth this wilful malice of mine? Yea this intolerable impudence or impotency of malice, to use his own words? But for that they were spoken in impatience, I will not greatly urge the same, nor yet seek to recompense them, lest I should go against the title of this Treatise, which is A quiet and sober Reckoning; the moderate judicious Reader shall be the judge of all, where passion, and where modesty is found.   

HIS NINTH objected falsehood against P. R. §. IX.  
HIS ninth objection is a strange one, and signifieth that the poor man is exhausted and cannot well tell what to object, with any show or probability in matter of wilful falsehood; so as he falleth to lay hands of things quite against himself. For whereas I had proved in my Treatise Of Mitigation two or three manifest untruths, uttered voluntarily by him, in going about to defend the Rebellion of Sir Thomas Wyatt, and the Duke of Suffolk, 
About Sir Tho. Wiat's rebellion & the Duke of Suffolk and others.  in Queen Mary's time, and so convinced the same, as there was no place left of probable defence, M. Morton upon mere necessity cometh here now to handle these points again, and in part to excuse himself, by the feeble means, which presently you shall hear: concluding nothing more against me, but this, which are the last words of all his discourse. Wherhfore (saith he) these two lies which P. R. would have bestowed upon me, he by virtue of his place and Patent may keep to himself. 
Pream. p. 79. & 80.  And is not this a great inference, when he should convince me of wilful falsity? But you shall hear upon what grounds he objecteth these two untruths to me, for that I convinced him of four.  
43 First then my speech upon his weak defence of the foresaid Rebellion was this in my Treatise of Mitigation. 
Mitig. c. 4● p. 127. nu. 36.  To that of Sir ●homas Wiat, the Duke of Suffolk and others (quoth I) he answereth diversly. First he saith that the History relateth the pretence of Wiat thus: A Proclamation against the Q. marriage desiring all Englishmen to join for defence of the Realm etc. Then, that in Q. Mary's Oration against Wyatt there is not to be found any scruple concerning the cause of religion. Thirdly, that no Minister of the gospel was brought in question as a commotioner in that cause. Lastly, that is intē● might 〈◊〉 for Protestant's accused in that name, th● is it plain (saith M. Morton) that it was not Religion; 
Four untruths convinced against M. Morton  is for Wyatt and his follower's it is plain it was not against the Queen or State, but for both. So he, that is to say, M. Morton in his Full Satisfaction.  
44. But in all these four different clauses I then said, and now do repeat again, that there is not so much as one, that in rigour may be defended for true. 
Full Satisf. pa●. 2. p. 102.  For as for the first, though the history of Holinshed doth relate the pretence of Wyatt to have been against the Q. marriage, con●●aling and dissembling the point of Religion in that place (which else where he confesseth, as a●ter shallbe seen) yet john ●ox a more ancient and authentical Historiographer than he, doth plainly set down, that together with the pretence of the marriage the cause of Religion was also pretended, 
Fox Acts and Monum. an. 1554. p. 1289. nu. 30.  in these words: The mention of marriage with Spain (quoth he) was very ill taken of the people, and of many of the Nobility, who for this, and for Religion, conspiring among themselves made a Rebellion whereof Sir Thomas Wyatt knight was one of the chiefest: And again. They said, that the Q. & the Counsel would by foreign marriage bring upon this realm miserable servitude, and establish Popish Religion. So Fox. And it cannot be presumed, but that M. Morton had seen, and read this, yet durst affirm, that there was no mention of Religion at all in Wiat's pretence: which is the first lie.  
45. The second also, that in the Oration of Q. Mary against Wyatt there was not found any scruple concerning the cause of Religion, is proved likewise false by the same authority of M. Fox in his Acts and Monuments: who writeth that Q. Marry in h●r Oration in the Guildhall said publicly, that she had sent divers of her Counsel to learn the pretences of that Rebellion: and it appeared to our said Counsel (said she) that the matter of the marriage se●●●ed to be but a Spanish cloak to cover their pretenced purpose against our Religion. And this testimony also of Fox must needs have been known to M. Morton: and consequently here is a second witting lie, affirming that there is not so much, as any scruple to be found, concerning the cause of Religion in that her Oration.  
46. The third point likewise that there was no Minister of the Gospel brought in question as a Commotioner in that cause, 
Whether Ministers had any part in Wyat's commotion.  is both false in itself, and cautelously set down: for that the commotion of Wiat, and the Duke of Suff●lke ensuing within the compass of five months a●ter the death of the Duke of Northumberland that did conspire the deprivation of Q. Mary (the first being put to death upon the 22. of August 1553. the other beginning his rebellion upon the 25. of ●anuary 1554● & it being well known, the confessed both by 
* In the in Stories an●o 1553. & 1554. See their lines in the t●●rd part of the 3. Conversions of N. D.  Fox, Holins●ed, Stow, and others, that the motive of Protestant Religion was common to them both, and pretended for chief in them both: and it being notorious, that in the first both Cranmer, Ridley, Hooper, Rogers, jewel, & all the chief Protestant Minister's of England did concur, who can doubt, but that in the second also (being but an appendix of the former) they ●ad their hearts therein though not ●o ●ully their hands, as actual Commotioners, for that the Rebellion was suppressed in the very beginning by taking away the two heads Wyatt and Suffolk.  
47. Whereby you may see the crafty speech of M. Morton who saith that Ministers were not the Commo●ioners, nor brought into question for such, that is to say, they were not taken with arms in the field, nor brought into public judgement and trial for the same. Whereof D. Sanders in his book de Schismate yieldeth this reason: 
Saunder. l. 2. de Schis. p. 322.  for that Q. Marie being a zealous Catholic Princess would have them rather called in question for heresy, which is treason against God, then for conspiracy or commotion, which is treason against her person: ●o as there can be no doubt, but that considering the foresaid authors, and especially Holinshead, M. Mortons' advocate, who affirmeth expressly that this conspiracy of Wiat's was generally agreed upon among most Protestants, and that for Religion as well, as for marriage, though breaking forth before t●e time by the apprehension of a certain gentleman (whom he nameth to have been cast into the Fleet for another matter) there can be no doubt I say, but the chief Protestants, to wit, Bishops and Ministers had as deeply their hearts, & hands, & heads in this, as in the former of the Duke of Northumberland, & much more: & so did Q. Marie understand it, as D. Sanders declareth, though she proceeded rather against them in matters of Religion for the causes now rehearsed: so as in this third point also M. Morton is convinced of falsity, yea of falsehood in like manner, as may appear both by that we have related, and for that in this his last Reply he hath wholly left this matter out, and past it over with silence.  

Fox ibid. Holinshed anno 1553. p. 1096.  48. And finally the fourth point is also most false, that there was nothing meant by that rebellion against the State, or the Queen, but rather for them both, and that her highness pre-eminency and sovereignty might not be impaired, which john Fox also contradicteth: and not only he, but Holinshed in like manner M. Mortons' own dear Author: for that both of them jointly relating Q. mary's Oration, do affirm Wiat's answer to have been unto two of the Counsel, sent to him by the Queen, to know the cause, to wit, Sir Edward Hastings and Sir Thomas Cornwallys (which Wyatt confessed also at his arraignment) that he and his would not be contented, except they had the government of the said Queen's person, the keeping of the Tower, and the placing of her Counsellors, which was in effect to take the Royalty of her Crown from her: I will rather be trusted, then trust, said he, and therefore demand the custody of the Tower, and her Grace within it, and the displacing o● some Counsellors about her, and to have others placed in their rooms. So writeth Holinshed of Sir Tho. Wiat's words to Sir Edward Hastings. And y●t saith M. Morton, that it is plain, that Wiat's commotion was not against the Q. or State, but rather for both: and to the end, that her highness pre-eminency, and sovereignty might not be impaired. And can any man forbear to laugh, or rather not conceive indignity at the uttering of such palpable untruths; yea known untruths to the writer, when he wrote them? For it is unpossible but that M. Morton insisting so much upon Holinshed as he doth, should have seen and read him in this place, and yet is not ashamed, as you see, to contradict him, and face out the matter, as though all were smooth and verifiable, which he uttereth, & shamelessly affirmeth, to wit, 
Full Satisf. par. 2. p. 120.  that there was nothing attempted by Wyatt against Q. Mary's person, when he demanded her to be his prisoner, and to dispose of her forces, State and Counsel.  
49. These four voluntary falsities than were laid upon M. Morton and proved, 
Notorious lying.  as you have heard in my last Treatise, will it not be well to examine now, how he hath been able to discharge himself thereof in this his last Preambling Reply? Let us hear then, if you please, his own defence in these four lies objected.  
50. The first lie (saith he) which P. R. noteth against me, 
Preamb p. 80.  is in relating of the Oration of Q. Marry, wherein I said, there was no scruple concerning Religion, and I cited for witness Holinshed. This author (as we may perceive) P. R. hath examined, and could find nothing in him against me for this point touching Q. mary's oration, therefore he seeketh other evidence, and bringeth against me the testimony of M. Fox, wherein there is mention of Religion. What therefore? Therefore I am by him condemned for a liar. Nay. But rather by this opposing M. Fox, P. R. hath wilily imitated the fraud of a ●ox: 
A mad defence.  which creature, men say, doth usually pray furthest from home. So likewise P. R. if he would have proved me a liar should have done it out of Holinsheds' relation of Q. Mary's Oration, which was the witness, whom I produced: but he wanting cause of reproof herein, doth therefore range further to convince me of lying, by the testimony, which I mentioned not.  
51. Do you see, what a kind of proof he bringeth? that for so much as Holinshed either omitted, or guilefully concealed the mention of Religion in the Proclamation of Wiat, and oration of Q. Marry, therefore I might not prove the same out of john Fox, that was before, and nearer to the matter then Holinshed, who taketh out of him? doth not one affirmative witness constantly avouching any thing, prove more than ten that hold their peace, & say nothing? Or is john Fox become of so little credit now with M. Mor●on, as to be shaken of so slightly, as here he is? Or is he become such a stranger unto Protestants & their cause, as the citing of his authority must be accounted for wily, foxlike, ranging, and preying furthest from home, as though he were no longer any domestical friend or writer? Or is not john Foxes credit in history as good, as that of Holinshed, especially when he affirmeth, & the other saith nothing?  
52. But yet further, if you remember two points or wilful falsehood were objected out of M. Morton, and proved out of Fox, which here are shuffled up into one: and the third, that no Minister of the gospel was brought in question about this Commotion, is wholly omitted here by him, without any mention thereof at all, 
Preamb. p. 81.  and much less, without any answer. And as for the fourth (which he calleth the second) that there was nothing meant against the Q. or State, 
M. Mort. convinced of intolerable falsities.  he hath a strange defence thereof saying, that even in that purpose of Wyatt to keep the Tower, wanted not the supposed intention which was the preservation of the Q. and State, which (say I) must needs be understood also of the violent keeping of her person, holding of the Tower and forces thereof, and appointing her Counsellors. And these be the good intentions and meanings that M. Morton defendeth in the rebellions of his Protestants, holding them notwithstanding for very good subjects, though by arms they forced them to these conditions. And the success and issue may be seen by the practice of the Hollanders in the low Countries, and of Duke Charles of Suetia, and others, who began their taking of arms in the names of their true Kings & Sovereigns, pretending & protesting that all was for the safety & good of their State and persons: and no less in the cause of Sir Thomas Wyatt.  
53. here than you see, that he is convinced of four several false assertions, which he could not choose but know to be false, before he set them down, if he read, and believed M. Fox, and other Protestant writers. But how now (think you) doth all this convince, or so much as accuse me of any wilful falsity? And if it doth not, as every man seeth, why then is it brought in h●e●e in this place for a several objection of falsehood against me? Yea with words of great reproach, saying: We may suffer professors of the ●eates o● l●gier-de-main to delude the beholders to convey on● man's ring into another man's pocket, and then call him a cosner: but for us Divines to play such tricks as P. R. hath done, changing Holinshed into M. Fox, and then to tax me for falsehood, is a devise inexcusable. So he.  
54. And did you ever hear a sober man in this tune? Stand attended I pray to the controversy. He cited the proclamation of Sir Thomas Wyatt, as not making mention of Religion, and quoteth Holinshed in the margin, I produced M. Fox, that wrote before Holinshed, and lived in Q. Ma●yes time, who set down not only Wiatts temporal pretences, but that also for religion: and for all the other three points I do allege the same Fox, and M. Morton quoteth no author at all but Holinshed, as holding his peace and saying nothing therein, which he will needs take for a denial; albeit in the last point, as you have heard, Holinshed himself expressly testifieth against him, which he dissembleth. And do I then here play Legier-de-main conveying rings into other men's pockets, and changing Holinshed into Fox? Doth this man know, or care, what he saith? Or is there any one of these points, that proveth any least falsehood in me, & not rather all four in him? How then is it here again brought in against me in this ninth objection of falsity? I am content that any indifferent friend of his answer for him in this point; whether in leaving to me the charge of two untruths, draweth not unto himself all four much more forcibly, than they were laid upon him before in our Treatise of Mitigation.  
55. Nay, I must tell the Reader further, that ha●●ng considered better the impudence of this his la●t Preambling Reply, wherein he would shroud himself from a manifest conviction of lying in the first point, for that Holinshed speaketh nothing of religion in Wiat's pretence: 
Holinsh. an. 1553. p. 1593. column. 2. num. 10 Stow an. 1554. pag. 1046.  I took the pains to search h●m over more diligently, and found that he did expressly affirm also the same that Fox doth, saying: The Commons and many of the Nobility for the marriage, and for the cause of Religion conspired to raise war. And the very same doth affirm john Stow in his Chronicle saying, that for this (marriage) and for religion they conspired against the Queen etc. So as now having found out this, M. Morton cannot say, 
M. Mort. taken in a notorious open falsehood.  that I do wilily like a Fox prey furthest from home, for that before I did urge only the authority of M. Fox, seeing that now both his proper Author Holinshed, and Stow are found expressly to affirm the self same. Which way will M. Morton turn himself here? For he is convinced of an open and manifest falsehood, in denying that in two several Replies and Editions of his books, which now his own author Holinshed is found flatly to affirm.   

FOUR OTHER objections of M. Morton against P. R. in matter of wilful falsity: to wit, the tenth, eleventh, tweluth, and thirteenth, in M. Mortons' Catalogue. §. X.  
IN sign that M. Mortons' matter now groweth barren, in objecting of wilful falsities against me, he beginneth to ●uddle up divers of them together, but of so small moment, 
About the text of Esay 29. of Ca●erius F●ising. & others.  and so fully answered and confuted before, as it is evident, he seeketh but some show of number to help himself for some ostentation: towards which help, I do willingly increase his number more by one, than he maketh it in his own reckoning, though he indeed set all down: but yet being ashamed of the first (about my erring in his name T. M.) he giveth thereunto no number at all of a distinct objection, as I have done in my answer. Let us see then● what manner of objections these four are, beginning in his account from the 8. in these words.  

See Pream. §. 5. nu. 15. & 16.  57 A ninth falsehood (saith he) may be accounted his peremptory reprehension of our English translation upon that o●●say the Prophet 29. as dissenting from the Latin, Gre●ke and Hebrew both in wo●ds and sense, in which censure he hath b●ne convicted o● a gross● falsehood in both, by the judgement o● his own Doctors. Thus far he. And for this he noteth in the margin, 
About the 29. of Esay vers. 9  see a●o●e §. 5. nu. 15. meaning that the same is handled before between us, in this Preamble, & consequently condemneth himself of impertinency and o● lack of matter to object against me, when he bringeth it forth here again for making up a number of many objections, though never so vain and idle, quite contrary to his solemn promise in the beginning, that he would bring forth nothing, but only such falls of mine, as may seem to be recoverable by no excuse, and enforce me never hereafter to credit myself, and the Reader to think that I have no conscience at all. All this he threatened: and now do you judge whether these objections of his do enforce thus much or no, being in themselves both trifles & not proved by him.  
58. And for this first, about the text of Esay, wherein he accuseth me of gross falsehood, there could be none therein on my part at all, it being but a reprehension of mine against him, for that he translated the sentence falsely: which if it could be proved that he did not, yet should it be b●t an error in me, and no witting falsehood, and consequently nothing to our purpose; 
vid. Supr● c. 1. §. 2.  but he that shall peruse the place here cited, where this matter is before discussed, shall find M. Morton, and his English translation (if there be any such extant) clearly convinced, that they neither agree with the Latin, Greek, or Hebrew, nor with S. Hierom, most skilful in all three languages: so as this objection might have been left o●t, but only for want of other store. And as for that he saith in the last words of this objection that I am convinced of gross falsehood by the judgement of my own Doctors, it must needs be gross presumption for M. Morton to affirm it. For that there is no one of mine, that is to say Catholic, that ever took out that sense of the words of Esay, that he doth: nor could they do it, the text not bearing any such interpretation, as before hath been declared. Wherefore his subtlety in forcing Esay to say that which he doth not, is contemptible to us in comparison of our grossness, that cannot understand him, but in the sense he speaketh and meaneth. Let us pass to the other 3. objections of this Paragraph.  

See Pream. §. 6. n. 17. & 18. Pream. 82.  59 For a tenth (saith he) take his wilful falsehood in pressing one only edition of Carerius, thereby accusing me o● falsehood in corrupting the author, whereas the Colen edition hath i●sti●yed me, and discovered this disposition of P. R. to have been willing, that I should rather be condemned rashly, then justly acquitted. Whereto I answer that this also hath been handled before in the foresaid first Chapter, 
Supra cap. ●. §. 6.  & is brought in here again without any grace, cause, or substance at all. The perverting of Carerius his text, as it lay in the Italian original edition, to wit, in setting down advantageously, and urging Verè for Verò, which made a great difference in the sense, I could not omit to note, he standing thereupon so much as he did, and I never having heard before that time of any other edition. Now he saith, that he hath another later edition of Colen (which I never saw, nor could by any inquiry hear of, but now from M. Morton himself) wherein he avoucheth the word Verè is to be found. What wilful falsehood was there in me to note the error, which I found in my edition? Nay M. Morton is not so excused by his Colen edition, but that he may be argued to legier-de-main for urging so much Verè out of that said second print, differing from the Original, for so much as evidently he might see by the drift and context of the author, that it could not be Verè Celsus, but rather Verò: wherein I refer me to that, which before hath been treated against him more at large, and do conclude this his objection, that if there were any wilful falsehood committed, it must needs lie on his part, and not on mine. He goeth forward.  
60. For an el●uen●h fraud (saith he) m●y be remembered his unjust crimination in noting me as a notable liar, 
Preamb. §. 7. n. 21.  ●or affirming that which his own ●riple instance doth evidently evince. 
Preamb. §. 8. n. 21.  And we may add for a ●●elu●h ●●s objection of the Author Frisingen●is, wherein that he may prove me a ●alsifi●atour, he doth himself play ●oure excellent feats of falsehood. So he. And these two objections are also handled before in the Chapter mentioned in this Treatise: 
About Protestant Princes succession.  for which cause it will not be needful to adjoin much more here, but only that the Reader may no●e, what simple furniture he hath for the matter taken in hand, to prove witting & wilful falsehood against me, such as cannot be excused, but that I must needs know them to be falsities, when I uttered them (for this is our question, and of this sort do I produce multitudes against him and his: 
About Frisingensis corrupted by T. M. ) as for example, in this his eleventh objection he accuseth me for noting him as a notable liar: but if I proved the same in the matter produced, then was i● no falsehood, but truth in me: and if I did not, yet doth it not follow presently that it was wilful fraud, for it might be error in me, that did persuade myself, that he had lied in that point. But he that shall read the place here quoted, 
See supra c. 1. §. 8.  where before it is handled, shall find, that the lie is justified against M. Morton, and that there is not any such triple or simple instance making for his excuse, as here he pretendeth: and the like he shall find about the 12. objection, concerning M. Mortons' false and fraudulent allegation of the author Frisingensis and that all the four excellent feats of falsehood there mentioned are proved indeed to be but so many sooleries of his own invention. And with this he endeth his dozen of objections against me. Whereunto I having added the title of one more, M. Morton hath reserved another for the upshot of all, which he calleth both new and noble. Let us hear what it is, and so end this whole Chapter.   

THE fourteenth, & last objected falsehood against P. R. §. XI.  
FOR this last place M. Morton hath reserved a sure card, which he calleth a new & noble falsehood convinced against me: 
Of the doctrine of Equivocation granted for 400. years.  but the conviction is not yet granted by us, but rather is like to light on his side. For whereas I had affirmed in my Treatise of Mitigation, that M. Morton had confessed in effect, that for the space of these last four hundred years the doctrine of Equivocation had been received for true and lawful doctrine in our Schools, and consequently practised also throughout all Christendom, when just occasion was offered etc. 
Mitig. p. 279.  Upon this M. Morton falleth into a great distemper of speech saying: that by custom of falsity I have cast of all sense of lying, fallen into a dead sleep, a●d cast away all conscience of truth, 
Preamb. p. 83.  & the like. Which he pretendeth to prove by two points. First in that I do pervert his confession, for so much, that albeit he confess the use of Equivocation for the space of these last four hundred years: yet (saith he) that he never acknowledged the same for so universal, as that it was received in all Universities, Schools, of all Divines, Casuists etc. Nay, that he confuted this assertion of generality, by the sentence of our own Doctor Genesius Sepulueda, who saith, that Gabriel Biel a lewd Sophister set it abroach, & of him took it Silvester, Angelus, and some few other such Glozers, but was not then so generally received among them. And hereof doth he infer this new & noble falsehood against me, as though I had avouched him to contesse the generality thereof in all Schools, Universities etc. for these four hundred years.  
62. But in this I see not what advantage M. Morton can take against me, not only of any falsehood, wherein there must be voluntary error, but neither of falsity, where error happeneth by oversight & infirmity. For first I said no more in my Treatise, than that M. Morton had manifestly set down in his, to wit, that for these last four hundred years, he granted the lawfulness of Equivocation to have been taught in our Schools. And consult (saith he) with the ancient Logicians from the beginning of the world, till within the compass of these last four hundred years and less, that ever any Logician did allow your mixed proposition partly mental and partly verbal, & I will etc. 
Full Satisf. par. 3. p. 54  Out of which exception for these last four hundred years, is evidently deduced, that he granteth the use of such mixed propositions (which are properly Equivocations) whereof one part is uttered, the other reserved in mind, as before hath been declared.  
63. And thereof I inferred further by evident consequence & sequel of reason (though he specified not the same) that for so much as our Catholic Schools were then over all Christendom & none publicly known or in use but they, 
My inference of the generality of Equivocation upon M. Mortons' grant for 400. years.  (for the first three hundredth at least of these four) it must needs follow, that the same doctrine, during that time, was generally received in the said Schools, Universities etc. Whereof also may be alleged for proof amongst other points, that which Morton●iteth ●iteth to the contrary, to wit, that Genesius Sepulueda of this our last age seemeth to be the only first Author that M. Morton can produce for disallowing absolutely Equivocation (though indeed he do not) and thereby doth plainly prove, that in the first three hundredth of these four, there was no opposition found to have been made to the contrary, among so many multitudes of books and Authors, as are extant of those times: or if there had, that their opposition had been extant, aswell as this of Sepulu●da.  
64. Neither did I say (as M. Morton would seem to persuade his Reader) that, expressly and by name, he granted the general use thereof in all Schools, Chairs, Universities, Tribunals, and the like, for these four hundredth years: but I did by force of consequence infer that he must needs grant so much upon his first confession of four hundred years, as hath been said. Neither can he avoid that inference and consequence, as hath been demonstrated: for if it were a received doctrine among us, and no ancient contradiction to be found, then must it needs in that antiquity be supposed to have been general current doctrine in our Schools, Universities, Tribunals etc. 
Preamb. p. 84.  For where no contradiction is found, there general approbation may be presumed. Neither do I vouchsafe to answer to that obscure comparison of the French ●ox which M. Morton (though a Minister) is not ashamed to bring in for an example, 
M. Mort. obscene comparison.  that some, yea & many have had them in this age, and yet may we not conclude, that all have had them: And the like (saith he) in the doctrine of Equivocation, though some Schools and Doctors have taught it, yet not all. Whereto I answer that there is no parity. For if there had been as many writers that had opposed themselves against the doctrine of Equivocation, and use thereof in the four hundred years, and detesting the same, as there have been clean men and women, that have detested that other fowl disease, professing themselves to be free thereof; M. Morton would not have been in those straits that he is, for finding out one Author that contradicteth the same in all the time by him appointed, before Genesius Sepulueda, that only in some particular Cases, reproveth the same, though granting and defending it in others. So as I leave the filth of this comparison to the Author, and do conclude in this first point, that here is nothing at all to be found, either of falsehood or falsity in this objection against me. For what I said, is justified by M. Morton his own words.  
65. There remaineth then the second point to be discussed. But noting first by the way, the lavish immodesty of M. Mortons' tongue in citing the learned Doctor Gabriel Biel out of Genesius Sepulueda by the contemptuous title of lewd Sophister, 
Sepul. Dialogo Theophilus. c. 19  whereas Sepulueda styleth him in the same place, Theologum doctissimum, a most learned Divine, and Tritemius who lived with him saith: 
Tritemius lib. de Scriptor. Eccles. in Gabr. Biel.  In divinis Scripturis eruditus, ingenio excellens, vita & conversatione praeclarus etc. Learned in the divine Scriptures, excellent in wit, and famous for his good life and conversation, Governor of the University of Tubinga in Germany even from the beginning thereof, unto the year 1494 which praises and ●uloges will never (I doubt me) be verified or given by any Author of credit or account, 
Injury offered to Doct. Gabriel Biel.  to M. Morton, that so scorneth and iniureth so grave and learned a man. And yet doth his gravity and humility make no bones to censure him for a lewd Sophister at the very first blow, whom perhaps he hath not read, and without (perhaps) understandeth not in many points of chiefest learning. And this is the privilege of our new Doctors, to contemn & reproach all others, though never so much learneder than themselves. But let us go forward.  
66. The second point in his Paragraph is, that he taketh upon him to check the general acceptance of Equivocation, 
Preamb. p. 84.  which I said to have been admitted in all Schools, Universities etc. for the space of four hundredth years, by alleging the contradiction of three ●amous learned ●esuits o● our time (for so now he calleth them, 
Three learned jesuits wrested against Equivocation.  when they seem somewhat to serve his turn) to wit, joannes Azorius, Emanuel S●, and joannes Maldonatus, who in some particular cases do reprehend, or not admit all manner of Equivocation. Wherein first is to be noted, that whereas M. Morton should have showed some contradictour of the three ages past, he nameth only the writers of our time, and those jesuits also, which sort of men are every where accused by him, as the Authors and special favourers of Equivocation, and now findeth none in effect to contradict it but them. Wherefore M. Morton and his fellows must cease hereafter to accuse jesuits so generally, as defenders of this doctrine, or else say, that they are contrary one to the other: or that there is some meaning and particular sense in those that seem to deny the same, which M. Morton therefore concealeth, for that being discovered, no contradiction would be found amongst them.  

jesuits restrain the use of equivocation but do not condemn it generally.  67. And this mystery by him concealed is (which before also sundry times we have noted) not that any jesuit doth utterly deny the lawfulness of Equivocation in all cases whatsoever, as boldly and ignorantly M. Morton doth, but for the restraining of such abuses as may fall out in the practice thereof, if to much liberty be permitted, they are more severe than other men in limiting the same, as more fully may appear in part by our discourse in the last Chapter of the Treatise of Mitigation: where Catholics are exhorted to use the lawfulness thereof with great restraint and parsimony. And further the speech that in●ueth about these three learned writers Azor, Sà, & Maldonatus, all three Jesuits, and misalleadged by M. Morton, will more plainly make manifest the same.   

THE OPINION OF the Doctor jesuit, joannes Azor, about Equivocation falsely objected by M. Morton, as making for him whereas it maketh wholly against him. §. XII.  
AND as for the first which is Azor, M. Morton bringeth him in with this Encomion, saying in a special title: The first witness convincing P. R. of falsehood, is Azorius a learned jesuit: 
Azor falsely alleged against all Equivocation.  but I do wonder that M. Morton will bring him in again here, or suffer him to be so much as mentioned, I having convinced him in my Treatise of Mitigation of so notorious and wilful a fraud and corruption in alleging Azor his words about Equivocation in an Oath, 
Preamb. p. 84.  as could not but shame any man of modesty to have it seen or understood by the Reader, wherein I refer myself to the place quoted in the Margin. 
Mit. c. 11. nu. 18.19. pag. 450. & 451.  But now let us see notwithstanding further what Azorius saith against Equivocation in general, for to this effect he is brought in, in this place, as though he held that all Equivocation were to be rejected as lying: for proof whereof he citeth two places out of the self same leaf and page of Azorius. The first whereof reprehendeth some kind of men that did extend the Rule of Reservation and Equivocation to far, out of Navarre, Silu●ster, & Angelus, contrary to their meaning, making it lawful in common use and conversation amongst men, to use any kind of dissimulation by reserving in their minds any thing at their pleasure: which Azorius condemneth, and so do we to. And for better direction of men, how, where, 
Azor the jesuit notably abused by M. Mort.  and in what matters that occasions they may Equivocate, or may not, he setteth down distinctly in five several Rules. Whereof M. Mo●ton skipping over four (for that they make expressly and resolutely against him, in allowance of many Cases of Equivocation) runneth only to the fifth and last, perverting the same against the Author's meaning as presently shall be showed.  
69 And to let you see what manner of writer M. Morton is, and what manner of cause he maintaineth, that forceth him to this foul kind of shi●ting, he reciteth the words of Azor saying thus: I am of a different opinion (saith Azor) from those afore mentioned (that stretch the use of Equivocation to every thing that they list to deny or dissemble) which opinion o● mine I will declare briefly by certain Rules that here I will set down. 
Azor. Inst. moral part. 1. l. 11. c. 4. §. Meotamen.  Which words M. Morton having related, saith presently. His fi●th Rule doth hit the nail on the head. And is it so Sir? What say you then of the precedent four? Why say you nothing of them? What part of the nail do they hit? if the last only strick the head? How is it possible that your Reader, 
Five rules of Azor about Equivocation.  if he should look upon Azor, would pass to the fifth without seeing the former four, which are all quite against you? For that in the first he resolveth, that a Priest may equivocate, and say he knoweth nothing, when he is demanded any point about Confession. In the second he resolveth, that whensoever any man is demanded by an incompetent judge, even in an Oath, whether he hath committed this or that sin, he may by Equivocation deny the same even in an Oath. Whereof he giveth many reasons, and resolveth sundry other cases by virtue of the same Rule. As if a man be wrongfully compelled by a judge to say, or swear that he will pay such a sum of money to his adversary, he may swear it (saith Azor) though he have no intention to perform it, as being against law, having this reservation in his mind, that he will pay so much as by law he is bo●nd: & three or four other like Cases besides in the explication of this Rule.  
70. By his third Rule he proveth the like in other Cases, beginning his Rule with these words Quoties in convictu hominum communi etc. 
divers cases resolved by Azor for Equivocation.  As often as in the common conversation of men we are demanded of any thing, and driven to swear it, if any injury therein be offered unto us, it is lawful for us in swearing to use ambiguous words, and to take them in our se●se so far forth as the words may bear that sense, albeit in the minds of the hearers they do engender an other sense. And by this Rule he resolveth two several Cases: that an adulterous wife being unlawfully demanded by her husba●d whether she have committed adultery? 
An adulteress how she may equivocate.  she may, if the adultery be secret, swear that she hath committed no adultery, reserving in her mind, that she hath committed none, so as she is bound to confess it unto him. This is Azor his resolution. And is not this our Case plainly? doth not this hit the nail on the head also against M. Morton?  
71. Two other Cases in like manner he resolveth by the force of this Rule. First, that if a man fall into the hands of a thief, 
How Equivocation may be used to a thief.  a tyrant, or an enemy, or of any other that doth vex him injuriously, and be forced to swear and promise any thing by oath, he may equivocate, and is not bound afterward to perform that which he promised upon wrongful coaction. The second Case is the Coventry Case, which M. Morton in his former book did greatly reprehend, and jest at, but learned Azor (as M. Morton calleth him) holdeth it for true and justifiable, to wit, that if a man should, for example sake, come from Coventry, or any other City, that is suspected to have the plague, and indeed hath it not, nor is himself otherwise infected: 
The Coventry case about coming from an infected place.  but yet should be demanded at the gates of London whether he came from Coventry or no? he might lawfully answer, he came not: understanding in his mind, that he came not from Coventry, as infected. And all these Cases doth Azor resolve under his first three Rules: which are all directly against M. Morton as you see. And in his behalf there is nothing, either in these or in the other two, which have no particular Cases assigned them, but only have this in general.  
72. The fourth rule of Azor is: Si nulla nobis ●iat iniuria etc. If no injury be offered us when we are demanded any thing, it is not lawful to use ambiguous words, except in that sense which the hearers do conceive. The fifth, Si reverà verba quibus utimur etc. If indeed the words which we do use are no doubtful in their signification, nor in the common use of men, nor have any other sense but only one, we must use them in that sense which they yield. Neither is it lawful for us, albeit we should be demanded against all law and right to wrest it into another sense by any cogitation of our mind. For it is never lawful for us to lie: but he doth lie, that doth take words in another sense than they do signify. So Azor. Where you see that he forbiddeth only, that words which have but one only natural sense and signification, and are not ambiguous or of divers senses, should be used by the speaker in any other signification then naturally, or by common use amongst men they do yield: as for example, if one that had a horse & not an ox, should be demanded, whether he had any horse, he should say no, meaning that he had no Ox, for that he conceived an Ox for an horse, this were not lawful, saith Azor, in the use of words, because the word horse hath but one proper meannig amongst men, and cannot signify an Ox: and consequently cannot be so taken but by a lie. But if the word horse had a doubtful or double signification, signifying as well an Ox as a horse, then might a man use the amphibology of the word, to avoid any injury offered him by an incompetent judge, as Azor himself determineth.  
73. But now (to return to the matter) what is this against our Clause of Reservation in a proposition or sentence? And how doth this strike the nail on the head for M. Morton? Nay, doth not Azor strike M. Mort. on the head directly, instead of the nail, & most manifestly in the first, second and third Rules, & by all the different Cases therein resolved? Who would think then that a man of common sense, or of any mean modesty & care of his credit would have alleged Azor so confidently against his adversary, as M. Morton doth? & that which is most ridiculous, so to insult against him, as he doth against me here, saying: P. R. manteineth that his mental reservation is a truth: but Azorius concludeth that it is a lie. 
Insolent fond insulting.  And can there be any greater contradiction the● this? Hath he any shadow of excuse by ignorance of the Author and place? No, for he hath alleged this Author upon this question of Equivocation four times. 
Preamb. pag. 86.  Is he helped by difference of translations or editions? No, he will not pretend this. Therefore no evasion can save him: and thereby any man may discern, what credit such wretched Equivocators may deserve. So M. Morton.  
74. Whereto I answer, that not only four times, but perhaps twice four times have I alleged the authority of Azor for the lawful use of Equivocation against M. Morton, 
Azor proved to defend Equivocation.  and in divers of them he hath been so manifestly convinced of witting & willing falsehood, as there is no de●ence or excuse to be had. Nay, he doth not so much as pretend any defence thereof hitherto, nor I think shall I find any of them defended by him in the ensuing Chapter, though it be expressly deputed to this argument to answering divers manifest and wilful untruths laid to his chrage. Wherefore to say (as he doth here) that I have no shadow of excuse by ignorance of the Author and place etc. 
Five different frauds & lies at one time.  is only to entertain talk, and to seem to ●ay somewhat: for I am not charged with any thing that requireth excuse, but he is convinced of voluntary concealing of five or six different Cases resolved against him by Azor, as you have heard, and passed over by M. Morton, as if he had not seen them: so as every one of them includeth a witting fraud in him, that admitteth no excuse. Let us come to his second learned jesuit, whom he bringeth in for denying of Equivocation, which you shall see to be no less contrary unto him then the former, and especially to teach Equivocation to be lawful, in the very places alleged by M. Morton.   

M. MORTON His second witness falsely pretended against Equivocation is the Doctor jesuit Emanuel Sà. §. XIII.  
A SECOND witness saith M. Morton convincing P. R. of falsehood is the authority of Emanuel Sà, a famous learned jesuit among Casuists, 
Emanuel Sà untruly alleged against all Equivocation.  as here he is called, whose words are set down thus out of his Aphorisms: Quidam dicunt etc. Some there be who say, that he who is not bound to answer to the intention of the examiner, may answer by reservation of some thing in his own mind, to wit, that it is not so, that is to say, 
Sà in Aphoris. verbo mendacium 3. & 4.  so as he is bound to utter it unto him: or that he hath not such, or such a thing: to wit, to give it unto him: Albeit others do not admit this manner of answering, and peradventure upon better reason than the former. Thus far Emanuel Sà: alleged also as M. Morton saith, 
Satisf. part. 1. cap. 26. Moderate. Answ. c. 10  by his former adversary the moderate Answerer. But how truly and sincerely M. Morton here dealeth with him in this behalf we shall see presently after. Now is to be considered, what he doth infer out of this authority against Equivocation in general, for thus he maketh his inference upon the recited text. Thus far Emanuel Sà (saith he) confessing hereby that divers Catholic Authors have contradicted this equivocating sorgerie, 
Pream. 86.  which P. R. hath avouched, that no Catholic writer did ever contradict. Is it possible that my adversary can free himself from a falsity corroding the conscience?  
76. Whereto I answer, that even now it shallbe tried, who hath a corroded Conscience in this matter, he or I: and let the Reader stand attended, 
The Reader required to stand attended.  for that M. Morton may not escape until he have satisfied somewhat. First then my assertion was, that no Catholic writer within the time by him ascribed of the last four hundred years hath been ●ound to deny absolutely all Equivocation without exception: albeit in particular Cases (as this is here proposed by Emanuel Sà) some School-doctors were of one opinion, and some of another, some more straight and some more large. The Case proposed here by Emanuel Sà, is of a man that hath no obligation to answer to the intention of him that demandeth, whether he may answer with Equivocation or Noah, and say that it is not so, understanding (with obligation to tell it you:) or I have it not (to give unto you.) In which particular Case he saith, that some men do not admit that kind of answer: but for so much as he hath no obligation to answer any thing at all, he is bound either to hold his peace or tell the truth. And perhaps (saith he) this later opinion is the better, fortè potiori ratione non admittunt. So as here he speaketh but by (perhaps) that a man may not equivocate in this Case: 
Eman. Sà in Aphor. verbo Mendac. 3. & 4.  which word (perhaps) M. Morton craftily omitted: and indeed in the last edition of his book at Rome 1607. this whole last sentence was left out, as though he had cha●ged his opinion. But howsoever this be, this is but one particular Case of Equivocation, as hath been said, and M. Morton could not but know it, and consequently doth use notable fraud, when upon the different opinions of some School doctors in this special Case (when a man is not bound to answer) he would infer (as here he doth) that divers Catholic authors do contradict and deny Equivocation in general, that is to say, all kind of Equivocation in what case soever.  
77. And that M Morton could not choose but know this to be a fraud, & consequently the fraud to be wilful, is evident: 
Wilful fraud inexcusable.  for that in the very next four lines going immediately before the former alleged words, Emanuel Sà doth resolve two other Cases, wherein a man might equivocate, saying: Petenti quae ei reddidisti, pot●s negare te accepisse etc. if a man that had left some pledge with you, and you had restored the same to him again, he should afterwards demand the same the second time, 
Equivocation in case of restitution.  and press you with an oath about the same: you might lawfully deny that you had received any such pledge, understanding in your mind that you received it not, in such sort as you are bound now to restore it. And again: if a man (saith he) should demand the whole s●me of money, whereof he had received back a part: you might deny the said petition, saying: that you owe it not, understanding of the whole, or of so much as he wrongfully demandeth. So as in both these Cases Emanuel Sà confesseth, that Equivocation may be used, as you see. And how then is he brought in here by M. Morton, as a witness denying all Equivocation, or at leastwise as saying, that there are divers opinions about the same, which is in part also false, for that Emanuel Sà doth not say, that there is doubt or difference of opinions, whether any Equivocation at all be allowable: but only whether in this or that particular Case it be to be admitted.  
78. This then is evident and witting fraud in M. Morton, 
Aphor. 25● de Confes.  for that besides the former two Cases resolved in approbation of Equivocation, Emanuel Sà hath many more, 
Sundry cases resolved for Equivocation by Emanuel Sà.  which M. Morton probably could not but know, as amongst others these: Potest Confessor jurare se nihit scire etc. The Priest that heareth Confessions may lawfully swear, that he knoweth nothing, nor that he hath heard any thing in Confession: understanding in his mind, (so as he is bound to utter the same.) Again: the penitent may swear, that he said nothing, 
Ibid.  or no such thing, as he is demanded in Confession, though he had said it. And moreover in another place: 
Aphor. 8. de Testib.  Non legitimè interrogatus etc. He that is not lawfully demanded, may deny that he knoweth the thing he is demanded (though he know it indeed) understanding in his mind, that he knoweth it not so, as he is bound to open it to him. And yet further: 
Aphor. 7. de Reo.  Reus non tenetur etc. He that is accused is not bound to confess those things, for which if they were revealed, he should unjustly be condemned: Wherefore he may deny them, understanding in his mind (that he hath not done them so, as he is bound to utter them.) And now will any man say, but M. Morton, that the learned jesuit Emanuel Sà, is a good witness against all use of Equivocation? Doth not every one of these examples convince him of wilful fraud? And consequently these four examples dissembled by him are four several falsehoods wittingly and willingly committed? But let us see one notable shift more, which is the fifth new falsehood, before we pass to his third witness.  
79 He doth cite the foresaid authority of Emanuel Sà against Equivocation, alleged by his first adversary (the moderate Answerer) and to cover himself the better with his shadow, doth dissemble that he hath looked upon the Author himself, to the end he may have some hole to run out, when he shall be pressed with these wilful corruptions of Emanuel Sà, and his meaning. But yet he could not do this handsomely enough, but he must also egregiously abuse and falsify the words of his said adversary, making him seem to infer out of this particular Case, an absolute denial of all Equivocation. To which end after the foresaid words of Emanuel Sà recited, he maketh him to conclude thus: Whereby it is manifest, that all Catholics do not allow of Equivocation; and then himself saith (I mean M. Morton:) Thus far he, confessing hereby, that divers Authors have contradicted this Equivocating forgery.  
80. But o M. Morton, let me pose you here: 
M. Mort. is posed.  Is it true that your adversary said, so far, and no further to the purpose in hand? Or is it rather true, that you cut him of, and would suffer him to say no further? Surely your bad dealing is not excusable in this point. For your adversary did fully clear the matter, if you would have permitted him to tell out his tale: for these are his words: Whereby it is manifest, that all Catholics do not allow of Equivocation, 
Moderate Answerer c. 11. initio.  where he is not bound to answer the judge or examiner proceeding unjustly and not according to law and equity. By which words he declareth plainly, that he alleged not Emanuel Sà, as denying all Equivocation, or as making Catholic Authors to doubt of it among themselves, as M. Morton doth untruly impose upon them: but only he teacheth, that not in every particular Case whatsoever, where he that is demanded is not bound to answer, do all Catholics allow of Equivocation. For that where there is no injury offered, nor violence used, some think it better (or rather obligation) that he should hold his peace, then equivocate. But this is reported but as a particular opinion in this particular Case, which it seemeth that Emanuel Sà did afterward change, as before hath been said.  
81. Now then to conclude, consider (gentle Reader) in how many witting and wilful falsehoods M. Morton, in producing this one forced witness, hath here been ta●en, both against Emanuel Sà, myself and his moderate Answerer. Against Emanuel Sà, in falsyfying him contrary to his own words and drift, making him to condemn all equivocation which manifestly he teacheth in many Cases to be lawful, 
The manner of falsities convinced against M. Mort. in this allegation of E●anuel S●.  as now you have heard. Against me, for that twice or thrice at least he fraudulently urgeth my saying as contrary to Emanuel Sà, that no Catholic writer did ever contradict any kind of Equivocation: which I never affirmed, but rather granted that in this or that particular Case, there might be difference of opinions: but my assertion was and is, that none did ever absolutely deny all use thereof, in every Case. Against his moderate Answerer in like manner he useth fraud, in that wilfully he cut of those words that explain the whole matter about the meaning of Emanuel Sà. All which notwithstanding, will he needs be talking of corroded consciences, as though his Conscience were clear, & smooth among so many & manifold false tricks as are convinced against him. But let us leave this, & pass to the third witness.   

M. MORTON His third jesuit Doctor brought in to witness against Equivocation, to wit, joannes Maldonatus. §. XIIII.  
HE entituleth this Paragraph, The third witness convincing P. R. of falsehood, presupposing that the former two have done the same: 
joannes Maldonatus falsely alleged for a witness against all Equivocation.  but how contrary that hath fallen out, and of how many falsehoods M. Morton himself hath been by them and their occasion convinced, the Reader hath now seen & considered I doubt not. Let us peruse then that which he writeth of this third, which willbe found to have no more against P. R. then the former two, which in effect is nothing at all: yet shall we lay forth what M. Morton produceth in this behalf. Thus than he beginneth his narration.  
83. Maldonate (saith he) a principal ●esuit and Casuist resolveth thus: 
Preamb. p● 87. Meldonat. Com. in ult. Luc. ver. 28.  Whosoever doth endeavour by feigning to deceive another, although he intent to signify some thing else, yet doubtless he li●th. This testimony I used for confutation of this vile art, which P. R. could not be ignorant of, because he endeavoured to satisfy other testimonies, as of Genesius & Sotus: but this Author Maldonat specified in the same place (as the weaker adversary will do his overmatch) he did willingly pretermit. So M. Morton, 
Satisfact. par. 3. c. 4. pag. 59  and he quoteth in the m●rgent, Treatise of Mitigation, cap. 10. num. 4. pag. 409. and 410. where I do answer Genesius and Sotus and not Maldonate. But as in all other places lightly which he citeth he dealeth unsincerely, when any ways it may make for his purpose: So here, if the Reader will but take the pains as to turn to the place quoted of my Book, he shall discover more than simple shifting.  
84. For first I do not treat in that place of Genesius and Sotus together (as he saith I do) but only of Genesius alone: 
False and absurd shifting  neither do I there endeavour to satisfy any of their testimonies, as he falsely affirmeth, for that there are none in that place brought forth against me: but rather to the contrary I do bring forth an evident unanswerable testimony of Genesius in defence of Equivocation against M. Morton, which he doth not so much as go about to answer here, nor ever willbe able. How then will he be able to justify this quotation: Or how can he defend, that I do endeavour to satisfy Genesius and Sotus together, as specified in the same place, but pretermitting Maldonat as an unequal m●tch? For in the place quoted I do not treat of them both, as now hath been said, nor do I remember that I do join Genesius and Sotus in any place together throughout my Book, though they be cited within the compas●e of one page in M. Mortons' Full Satisfaction, 
Full satis. par. 3. c. 4. pag. 59  together with Azor and Maldonate, which authorities I do examine in different places of my Book, according as the matter and subject requireth.  
85. It may be therefore that by some error he meaneth of Azor and Sotus (and not Genesius and So●u●) who●e authorities I do examine and ponder together some twenty pages after the former quotation o● M. Morton. 
Mitigat. pag. 431.  But truly me thinks he should have been greatly ashamed to send the Reader thither, ●or he shall find there the most intolerable corruptions & falsifications of those two Authors proved against M. Morton, that perhaps are objected against him in the whole Book For that Azor is cited by him quite contrary to his own words & meaning: 
Desperate dealing.  as for example, that he condemneth his fellow jesuits for allowing Equivocation, where he doth expressly defend the same: and that he condemneth the Coventry Case be●ore mentioned of coming from an infected place, when as he doth by name allow of that Case. And the like falsifications are demonstrated out of Dominicus Sotus, as may be seen in the book. And M. Morton taketh not upon him to answer, or so much as touch them here in this his Preambling Reply, and consequently should have blushed to di●ect the Reader thither, where he should find these wounds laid open, but durum telum necessi●as. And when thorns are on every side of the path, to run barefooted and blindfold, as M. Morton seemeth to do, is a hard Case. ●or of no side he can step without incurring some peril. Now then let us come to Maldo●at, whose authority he saith I did of purpose, as unanswerable, pretermitt.  
86. For to make Maldonate of more weight & credit, as though he had said somewhat against me, and in his behalf; he beginneth with this description of him. 
Preamb. p. 87.  Maldonate (saith he) a principal jesuit and Casuist resolveth thus etc. and in his book of Full Satisfact. he citing the self same sentence of Maldonate, which he doth here, beginneth with this preamble: Not only Sotus (saith he) called among you the subtle Doctor, but even the subtlest of all your jesuits calleth your Equivocating, rank lying: saying, whosoever doth endeavour by feigning to deceive another, although he intent to signify somewhat else, doubtless he lieth. In which two Prefaces to pretermit all other points you may note two gross overslippes: 
Two absurdities convinced against M Morton.  the first in styling Maldonate a Casuist, who is never known to have read or written of Cases in his life, but Scholastical divinity he professed many years in Paris, and left very learned Commentaries upon all the four Evangelists, though the Roman Index Expurgatorius Anno Dom. 1607. do mention, that certain Cases of Conscience published by another & printed at Lions An. 1604. were falsely ascribed to him. The second, that Dominicus Sotus was john Scotus the subtle doctor, which lived above 200. years before Sotus, whereof I admonished him before in the Treatise of Mitigation, and yet he would needs renew again the memory thereof in this Preamble, by sending men to peruse what I answered before to Sotus, and thereby reveal his own shame.  
87. But now what hath Maldonatus here in the sentence alleged, that I should willingly pretermit to answer, as being overmatched therewith? doth Maldonate say any thing in this sentence that is not conform to our Common doctrine of Equivocation? No truly. For we grant, that whosoever doth endeavour by feigning to deceive another, doth lie. In so much as it agreeth well with the definition of a lie set down in S. Augus●ine: M●ndacium ●st salsa ●ocis significatio c●m int●ntione sal●●ndi. 
Lib. d● menda. c. 4. & lib. con. ●enda. cap. 12.  A lie is a ●alse signification of speech with intention to deceive: which two clauses of the definition of a lie, I do progue and demonstrate ●or divers leaves together, in the eight Chapter of my former Treatise, that they can not agree with the nature of equivocation, and by consequence that Equivocation is no lie.  
88 Not the first Clause, a false signification of speech, which is, when the speech doth di●●er from the meaning and sense. Not the second, o● intention to deceive: 
Mi●ig. c. 8. pag. 336.337.  for that the first and principal intention of him that is forced for some just cause to equivocate (●or otherwise he may not use it,) is to del●uer himself from that injury which is o●●ered him, and not to deceive the judge or hearer, though consequently that do follow. And this I do prove to be ●o clear, as that by this are justified all Stratagems in war, which are indeed nothing but Equivocations in fact, 
Stratagems lawful though they be equivocations.  that otherwise should be unlawful and sinful: Which yet S. Augustine with all other ancient Fathers do expressly justify saying: cum justum bell●m q●is suscep●rit, utrum aperta pugna vel insidijs vincat, ●ihil ad ius●itiam interest. When a man wageth just war, it importeth not in respect of justice, 
Aug. q. 10. in joshua. Gra●tian. in causa 23. q. 2. §. Don●mus.  whether he overcome by open fight or else by sleights or stratagems: which stratagems are indeed nothing else, but lawful dissimulations that seem to have deceit in them, and consequently to be lies in fact and unlawful, but indeed are not: as I do show by sundry examples out of Scripture itself, where God that cannot lie, did either command or allow such sleights and deceits in stratagems, as that of joshua at the City of Hay, 
joshua 1. 4. Reg. 6. judith 11.  wherein many thereby were s●aine: the stratagems of Elizeus at the City of Dothaim: that of judith at Bethulia and the like. And I do allege divers other examples both in fact and wo●d aswell of our Saviour out of the Evangelists, 
Mit. c. 7. num. 23.24.  as of S. Paul and other Saints; whereby it is most evident that in some Cases a man may equivocate.  
89. I do show also at length in the same Chapter to wit, 
See of t●is i● gely c. 8. nu. 56.57. etc. 9 n. 71.72.73. & deinceps.  the eight, but much more in the ninth, that the Clause (intentio fallendi) contained in S. Austin's definition of a lie, doth in no case truly enter into equivocation. For that he which useth lawful equivocation, hath not his firs● and principal end to deceive the hearer, but to avoid the hurt that he is subject unto, i● he did not equivocate; albeit thereby it followeth, that the other be deceived, which is without all fault of him that speaketh doubtfully: which I do demonstrate by many examples out of the Scriptures and Fathers; whereby is evident that this permission of others to be deceived by our speech, when we do in effect but conceal a truth, is lawful, and used by Saints, yea God himself, and consequently can be no lie.  
90. Now then to return to Maldonate M. Mortons' third witness, which he affirmeth in his title to convince me of falsehood, 
See the former places quoted: and more cap. 9 n●. 77.78.79. M●ld. comment. in Luc. c. 24. ver. 28.  he saith nothing against me at all, or for him. For we grant that whosoever by seygning, doth endeavour to deceive another, doth lie: so as it differeth nothing from our common opinion, as now hath been said. And how then doth he convince me of falsehood? Or how did I willingly pretermit to answer him, when as he said nothing against me, but with me and for me, as I do show by divers distinst numbenrs, citing, him also num. 75. pag. 399. & this very place here quoted by M. Morton, together with another of Toletus to the same effect? 
Tol●t. lib. the 7. Sacram. c. 46.  What meaneth, I say, M. Morton to de●le so unsincerely in such sort as every child may see his fraud? And if any man will doubt whether Maldonate did de●end Equivocation in such Cases as we do, wherein somewhat is reserved in mind of the speaker, more than is specified in the words, let him read him in his Commentaries upon the gospels, in the places that contain such reservations, as that of our Saviour concerning the Archisynagoges daughter, Non est mortua puella, sed dormit: the maid is not dead, but sleepeth: 
Au●. ser. de v●●. Do mint 44.  whero● the secret understanding and reservation is, saith Mald●nate, that she was no so dead as the people thought, 
Matt. 9  that she could not be raised again: 
M●●c 5  which mental reservation S. Austin also noteth upon that place in like manner. 
Lu●. 8.  The other words o● our Saviour, Ego non judico quemquam: I do not judge any man, cannot be verified without a mental reservation or subintellection.  
91. Yea Maldonate hath a special note upon these words of the last of S. Mark, He that shall believe, and be baptised, shallbe saved. 
Mar. ult. v. 15.  The Rule, saith he, which in many other places we have set down is here to be observed, to wit, that general propositions in the Scriptures are to be understood with certain conditions not expressed, but only conceived in mind, 
Maldonat teacheth plainly Equivocation.  if they be not set down in the text: as that saying in joel: Every one that shall call upon the name o● our Lord, shallbe saved, to wit, Si reliqua quae debet, faciat, if he perform all the rest which he is bound unto: which clause was not set down by the Prophet, but reserved in mind. An● so here in the alleged sentence of our Saviour, is necessarily to be understood this reseru●d condition, Si bene crediderit, & baptizatus fuerit: if he believe well, & be baptised.  
92. here than you see that Maldonate doth expressly teach, not only the lawfulness, but also the necessity of reserved Equivocation in some Cases. Now then to conclude, we see what help the jesuit Maldonat, drawn in for a third witness, hath brought to M. Morton, that is to say, he hath testified plainly against him. And yet you must have patience to hear his triumphant conclusion after his manner. Now (saith he) have I instanced this general proposition of all Universities, Deumes, Casuists, approving this doctrine in three famous jesuits and Casui●●s, Azor, Sà, Maldonate, 
A most f●d insulting conclusion of M. Mort.  & in the confession of his fellow, the Moderate Answerer, acknowledging that divers catholics approved not their mental reservation etc. I have exceeded the proportion of our Mitigators demand, who required but two or three instances in any, though of himself: I have offered him thirteen unsatisfiable falsehoods, as many as I could well bundle up in this brief Preamble, reserving the rest for the exact Encounter, when I doubt not, but upon the discovery of his unconscionable depravations, he will wish, that his brains had been a sleep, when he framed this Mitigation.  
93. This is his Conclusion, still singing the victory as you see. And it shall not need for me to answer any points thereof: for that they are either evidently false or impertinent. I said that for these last four hundred years the doctrine of Equivocation in some Cases hath ever been admitted, and never known to be wholly controlled by any. He bringeth forth three jesuits of our time against this, 
A brief answer to the follies before promised.  who were so far of from denying the doctrine of all Equivocation, as they teach the same expressly in sundry Cases, as now you have heard. This then rather deserveth laughter of the Reader, than any confutation by me. He saith it is con●●ssed that divers Catholics do not approve mental reservation: I answer that in some Cases it is true, but not in all He saith, he hath exceeded the proportion of my demand of two or three instances: I say, he hath brought forth never a one, or half on● that he can defend to make for him. He avoucheth that he hath o●●ered me thirteen unsatisfiable falsehoods against myself out of my writings: I answer, that three were sufficient, if they were unsatisfiable: of which kind he hath yet produced never a one, as by experience you have ●ound, and consequently his words of my unconscionable depravation discovered, and that I would wish that my brains had been a sleep when I wrote my Book, are most vain threats, & fit for such a brain as M. Mortons' seemeth to be.   

THE FINAL Reckoning of this whole Chapter. §. XV.  
TO pass then to sum up the account of this whole Chapter briefly & friendly with M. Morton: 
The conclusion of all these 15. Paragraphes.  let the reader remember, how at the beginning thereof, for so much as, I was so bound (to use his words) as to insert myself also in the offer made, that if two or three such wilful falshods, as there I described (wherein nothing can excuse from witting malice) should be found in my writings, I would discredit myself, and would be content to be discredited for ever, and esteem myself unworthy to take pen in hand again: for this confident speech, I say, M. Morton condemned me and my conscience for worse than no conscience at all, promising to prove it in this Chapter by the matters to be objected unto me: and further added as you have heard, let our Reader witness between me and him according to the evidence of testimonies, which shallbe brought against him. 
Preamb. pag. 71.  Now the testimonies have been brought forth, and viewed by the Reader, thirteen in number, as M. Mort. reckoneth them, but fourteen in my account. 
Exceeding vaunting.  All which do contain (as he affirmeth) unsatisfiable falsehoods and irrevocable falls, and that so apparent ●or the most o● them, that any one understanding English may presently discern them.  
95. This was his promise then, and is his vaunt now. 
Pream. p. 71. sup. §. 1.  I for my part demand performance, and that the Reader give his judgement. And as for these fourteen objections now brought against me, they might be aswell four hundred of that kind, which they are, as fourteen; that is to say, of no force in the world to the question here handled of witting and wilful falsehood. For as for the most part of them, he cannot so much as pretend any such malice to be in them. 
Pag. 72.  For what malice could there be in interpreting the letters T. M. for Thomas Morton in my Dedicatory Epistle written after the Treatise ended (which is his first charge against me) and yet saying before, that until that time, I had not known that Name to have been meant by these letters? 
Pag. 72.  What profit might my cause gain thereby? As also by wilful erring (if it had been an error, 
Pag. 81. ) in counting how many times M. Morton had set down the Clause of reservation in latin? 
Pag. 82.  What gain might I pretend by applying that to all Catholic Priests & teachers in their degrees, which M. Morton scornfully objected to his Adversary, as to a Priest, in contempt of all Priests?  
96. And with these he beginneth his charge, and endeth with no better. For what do make to the purpose those other last objections, as that I reprehended him for placing, as his poesy in the first page of his book against Catholics, Stay yourselves, for they are blind and make others blind: where as neither the original Hebrew, nor Syriack, Greek or Latin ancient translations have it so? That I noted him to have used and urged Verè for Verò out of Carerius contrary to the edition which I had of that book? And like to these, are the other three that ensue in him, which are but very light & vain toys. And if they should be all granted, as they lie, they would prove nothing of moment, concerning the question in hand. And yet doth he repeat them again and again, and some of them three times, as though they were great matters against me. Can there be any more poor and miserable dealing then this?  
97. But besides this, I presume not only to have cleared myself in all these trifles objected by him, but further also, to have convinced my adversary commonly in every one of his objections, to have committed some new manifest falsities himsel●e. And as for his last three witnesses, learned and famous jesuits, I doubt not, but so to have turned them against himself, as he hath received much con●usion by bringing them in. There remaineth nothing then for the ending of this account, but that the Reader, as chie●e Auditor, laying before his eyes, what he hath seen brought in, in charge, and answered in discharge, do give his sentence where the debt remaineth: or rather who is bankrupt, either I, or my Adversary. Which yet he shallbe better able to do, after he hath heard in likewise, what new Charges are to be laid upon him, in the ensuing Chapt●rs. For that hitherto hath been handled only, what he hath pretended to be able to say against Catholic writers, and me his adversary; which hath been so weak, poor and pitiful, as now you have seen, every battery of his, recoiling commonly upon his own head. But the next three Chapters are to contain the fight made upon himself, 
Chap. 5.  for three sorts of falsities. First such as he goeth about to defend, and cannot: 
Chap. 6.  the second, such as he dis●embleth and pretermitteth to mention, for that he could not clear himself therein: and the third, such as he hath committed a new, 
Cap. 7.  in going about to defend and clear the old: and then after that, you are to see and behold his multitude of new brags and Challenges, as though notwithstanding all this, he had had the victory in the former: so confident the man is in his own concepts.    

THE FIFTH CHAPTER CONCERNING THE CHIEF POINT INTENDED BY M. MORTON In this his last Reply, which is the clearing of himself from many notorious untruths, objected as wilful & witting, by his Adversary P. R. And how insufficiently he performeth the same.  

PREFACE.  
I FIND the saying of the Philosophers, That the thing which is last in execution, is first in our intention, to be verified in this Preamble of M. Morton: for that his principal intention being to quit himself, so far as he might, of the odious imputation of so many wilful untruths objected unto him by P. R. in his Treatise of Mitigation, and that the importance of the matter o● satisfying somewhat, or staying at leastwise the judgement of the Reader, with some speedy Apology in that behalf, required that presently in the first place he should excuse himself, from those manifest imputations laid against him: 
Voluntary wandering from the purpose.  Yet hath he delayed the matter as you see unto this last place, entertaining himself first in certain idle, and impertinent skirmishes with his Adversary: As whether he be a man o● sufficiency, wit, memory, skill in Logic, Greek and Hebrew, and the like, and then taking in hand to touch two or three little points about the argument and subject of his Adversaries Book: and thirdly objecting falsities to others, that he alone might not seem to be culpable: and so finally he cometh by little and little, though unwillingly, as it appeareth, like a bear to the stake, to the point first intended, which is to deliver himself from some small number of a greater multitude of manifest untruths objected against him, out of which multitude he saith, 
Preamb. pag. 88  That he hath singled out fourteen, not such as might seem unto him most easily answered, but those which P. R. hath most vehemently pressed and urged.  
2. In both which assertions he swerveth again from the truth, as presently will appear: for that the Reader by taking the view, aswell of those that he hath pretended to answer, as of the rest, that he hath willingly pretermitted, 
A manifest falsity.  will see (and so shall we also demonstrate in the next Chapter) that those which he hath overpassed are much more both in number and force, than these which he hath produced, and consequently hath singled out such as might seem unto him most easily answered: the other part also of his assertion is false, that P. R. hath most vehemently pressed & urged against him these which he hath answered for that he presseth and urgeth most the corruptions against Bellarmine, Azor, Sayer, Sotus, Cicero, Victoria, and others, which shall be set down more particularly in the next Chapter, and thereby convince M. Morton of overlashing in this behalf.  
3. Of all which M. Morton hath made here no mention, and besides this, hath laid together in these fourteen, divers of small weight and moment, and some handled before upon other occasions. As for example, about the place of Esay the 29. which was but lightly objected unto him for an oversight. And the like in urging verè for verò out of Carerius, brought in here by him the third time to make up a number. And the like about a citation of Dolman, that was handled before. His 12. objection also in this Chapter about the succession of Protestant Princes, and the 13. about an allegation out of Frisingensis, have been all handled before, 
A fond vaunt.  and brought in by him again and again, thereby to make a show, that he answereth to many things: whereas in truth, he answereth to nothing truly and substantially; no, not indeed to the easiest of these, which here he hath picked out, to show his manhood in defending them. And yet he saith in the Preface of this Chapter, 
Preamb. pag. 88  That he hopeth to give such satisfaction to all, as that not only the wound of slander may be cured, but even also the suspicious scar of imputation may be wiped away.   

THE FIRST objected falsity pretended to be answered by Thomas Morton §. I.  
IN the first front of his squadron of 14. objected falsities, chosen by him here to be defended, he placeth a reprehension of mine, 
About Pope's names changed out of Polidore. Preamb. ibid.  made unto him in my Epistle dedicatory to the Universities, for that in his Epistle to the K. Majesty of his Treatise, entitled A full Satisfaction, he useth these calumnious words: Polidore observeth (saith he) that the Popes a long time in their election, had their names changed by Antiphrase, viz. the elected, if he were by natural disposition fearful, was named Leo, if cruel, Clemens, if uncivil, Vrbanus, if wicked, Pius, if covetous, Bonifacius, if in all behaviour intolerable, Innocentius etc. This speech as malicious and contumelious, & fraught with deceitfulness, I justly reprehended; noting by the way that he had cited no place in Polidore, whereas he hath written sundry books besides his histories. I noted also that divers Kings and Princes might have names whose significations might be far different from their qualities and actions: and that Popes, since the beginning of that custom of changing their names after their election, did not take names by antiphrase or contrariety of sense, as this man seditiously did insinuate, but for reverence, commonly, of other holy Popes who pas●ed be●ore th●m, whose names they took, as I exemplified in many: and yet not having Polidore then by me (I mean that work of his de Inuentoribus Rerum) I passed over divers other points of deceitful sleights in him, which I might have urged, and now must needs in part touch, for that to this accusation of mine, he hath nothing to answer in this his Reply, but this which ensueth.  

Preamb. 8●. & ●●.  5. First that albeit he cited not any certain book or place out of Polidores works; yet that the sentence reported by him upon his memory, is found in Polidore his fourth book de inventoribus Rerum c. 10. which is entitled, De origine honorum qui Romano Pontifici hab●ntur, & de eius authoritate in omnes Ecclesias: of the beginning of the honours that are given to the Bishop of Rome, & of his authority over all Church's. And albeit this observation of Polidore mentioned by M. Morton be not found in any of our Books, now commonly extant: yet, he saith, that they are in his book of the edition of Basilea of the year 1570. and that two years after that by order of Pope Pius Quintus, 
Pream. pag. 90.  the Index expurgatorius did put out these words, 
Lib. expurgat. ex Hispanico & Belgico verbo Polidorus p. 457.  but he telleth not what Index it was, for I have one containing both the Spanish & Flemish Index, wherein it is written about Polidore Virgil thus: Ex Indice Lovaniensi quae in Polidoro Virgilio de rerum inventoribus Basileae impresso anno 1544. in octavo, corrigenda sunt atque delenda. The things that are to be corrected, or blotted out in Polidore Virgil (in his eight books) of the first inventors of things, which work of his was printed at Basilea in octavo, upon the year of Christ 1544.  
6. Out of which words it may be presumed, as to me it seemeth, that upon the said year of Christ 1544. while Polydore Virgil lived yet in England, his work de inventoribus Rerum, though it were printed at Basile, where Protestant Religion was entered, yet this place of Polidor about changing of Pope's names was not found, for that being both scandalous and untrue (as presently shall be showed) it is very like, 
A great probability that Polidore is abused.  or rather certain, that this our Index expurgatorius would have noted it at least, as it doth divers other things, not only out of the same work, but even out of the same 4. book and 2.3.4.5.6.7. and 8. Chapters, and yet saith nothing at all of any thing of the tenth, where M. Morton saith this his observation is now found in his book printed at Basile 1570. which was 26. years a●ter the former edition: whereof must needs be inferred, that either M. Morton dealeth not sincerely with us (which yet in this matter I will not be so unfriendly as to suspect) or that his edition of 1570● (which hitherto I cannot see) hath received this addition about the Pope's changing their names after the foresaid edition of 1544. which could not be from Polidore himself, who was dead before, but from some new merry brother of Basile, then heretical, who to make sport, put it in for a merriment indeed, for so in the text itself he professeth that he wrote it in jest, though it pleaseth M. Morton to take it up in earnest.  
7. But let us hear the words themselves which M. Morton setteth down as found in his Polidore. Primus honos (saith he) Romano Pontifici habetur, ut si minùs pulchro honestetur nomine, ei statim creato liceat illud mutare: verbi gratia (quòd non extra iocum dictum sit) si homo maleficus antea fuerit, ut Bonifacius appelletur, si timidus, Leo, si rusticus, Vrbanus etc. This is the first honour given to the Bishop of Rome after his creation (saith he) that if his name be not fair, he may change the same: as for example, (which yet be not spoken but in jest) if before he had been perhaps an evil doer, he may be called Bonifacius, that is a good doer, if he had been fearful, then may he be called Leo, a lion, if rustical, then Vrbanus, or civil etc. And the first Author (or beginner) of this custom is said to have been Pope Sergius the 2. whose name having been before Os Porci, which signyfi●th the mouth of a hog, it was permitted unto him (saith the supposed Polidore) for avoiding the obscenity of his former name to change the same.  
8. Thus much out of M. Mortons' Polidore, 
Preamb. pag. 80. & 90.  whereof he vaunteth according to his fashion in these words: Although they have made Polidore by their Index expurgatorius almost in every page dumb, not suffering him to bear witness against the pride of Popes etc. yet our ancient Polidore now dwelling among Protestants printed anno 1570. Basileae, 
The tale out of Polidore confuted.  hath a tongue that will tell tales. So he. Speaking more truly than perhaps he imagineth that his Polidore in this point telleth mere tales indeed, and consequently, is no great jewel of antiquity to be bragged of, as dwelling now among Protestants. For now I have showed that in a more ancient edition than this by 26. years, this treasure so much bragged of by M. Morton, is not extant.  
9 And as for the two points touched therein, the one a jest (as himself termeth it) about changing of names by antiphrase, the other of the first occasion thereof by Pope Sergius, 
Platina in vita Sergij secundi.  neither of them hath any sound subsistence at all: for that to speak first of the second, the narration of Platina in the life of Pope Sergius 2. who was chosen Pope upon the year of Christ 844. that he being called first Os Porci, or Os-Porcius, changed his name into Sergius, himself proposeth the matter very doubtingly, saying: Sunt qui dicant, there are some who say, that Sergius 2. was called before Os Porci, and so changed his name Vt●unque sit, constat Sergium ex Illustri familia natum, howsoever be it, it is evident that this Sergius was of a Noble Family: so as here Platina relateth it but as a report of some, and namely, as is thought, out of Martinus Polonus a simple credulous writer, as all learned men do know.  
10. But further than this Onuphrius Panuinus a very learned man of our age, 
Onuphrius Panuinus in vita Sergii 2.  confuteth this tale much more effectually out of the history of Anastasius Bibliothecarius, that according to the account of Tritemius & other learned men, lived in that very time when Pope Sergius did, 
Anastasius Bibliothecarius ibidem.  and had chief care of the Roman Library, and wrote the life of this Sergius 2. and therein showeth evidently where, & of what noble parents he was borne, how brought up, by what means chosen Pope, and that before his Popedom he was called Sergius, and saith no word of changing of his name, nor of Os Porci, and yet he may be presumed to have been present at his election by the many particularityes which he setteth down of the same. Besides it is to be noted, 
Consider of this reason.  that Os Porci, or Os-Porcius is the surname of the family, which no Pope is wont to change, but only the Christian or proper Name, as when of late Hippolytus Aldobrandinus was called Clemens 8. he changed not the name of Aldobrandinus, but only of Hippolytus: and the like in other Popes, wherefore though the surname of Sergius had been Os Porci, yet would he never have changed that, but only his proper name.  
11. The foresaid Onuphrius also in his notes upon the life of Pope john the 12. a noble Roman, called before Octavianus, 
What Pope first changed his name.  who was chosen Pope upon the year 955. (more than a hundred years after Sergius) showeth by many arguments, that he was the first of the Popes that changed their names at their election. And Cardinal Baronius having found an old Epitaph written in marble in the Church of S. john Lateran in Rome of Pope Sergius the fourth, chosen Pope upon the year 1009. (an other hundred years after the for●said Pope john the 12.) doth manifestly show out of this Epitaph, that the said Sergius the fourth, being called Peter before, did out of the reverence and respect he bore to that name leave it, and took the name of Sergius, which was the cause why others, especially Martinus Polonus, mistaking one Sergius for another, did ascribe it to Sergius the second.  
12. But howsoever this be (as Platina before said) concerning the first Author o● this changing of names, which little importeth; certain it is that M. Morton did falsely & maliciously abuse this jest of Polidore, or of whom soever it be, about naming Popes by Antiphrase. 
A detection of M. Mortons' lies about this matter.  Nor is he able to defend himself now, but rather as i● falleth out commonly in untwisting of lies, he hath entangleth himself much more, or rather convinced himself of open falsity. For first, he saith to his Majesty, as now you have heard, that Polidore observeth, that Popes for a long time in their election had their names changed by Antiphrase, viz. the elected if he were by natural disposition fearful, was named Leo, i● cruel, Clemens, if uncivil, Vrbanus, if wicked, Pius etc. But now by the latin words of Polidore brought in by M. Morton himself, it appeareth that he saith not so; to wit, that Popes for a long time had their names so changed by Antiphrase. Nay, he affirmeth it not of any one of all the whole rank of Popes, but saith only (and in jest) that some might be so called by changing of names, not answerable to their dispositions.  
13. This then is the first inexcusable untruth, wittingly and willingly avouched to the King's Majesty, and now again averred to the Honour of my Lord of Salisbury, 
A wilful untruth uttered to the ●ing and to the L. of Salisbury.  to whom, notwithstanding, he writeth in the Dedicatory Epistle of this Preamble, that he is content to undergo all the crimes objected against him, if it may be proved that he durst affirm an untruth before his Lordship. But he that durst do it so confidently to the King, it may easily be presumed that he will dare it to the other also. And here I must charge him to have done it unto them both, until he can defend himself.  
14. His second falsehood was, the leaving out of those words of Polidore, 
The second falsehood in abusing of Polidore.  (non extra iocum dictum sit,) let not this be spoken by us (or be understood to be spoken by us) but in jest (or for a merriment:) whereby the writer would signify, that this pleasant conceit came into his head, that by this changing of names, such an Antiphrase, or contrariety of names and dispositions might be practised: which words if M. Morton had related in his first quotation of Polidore, the matter had been well qualified of itself. But this made not for his purpose, which was to scoff at Popes, and make them contemptible by the help of Polidore. And I doubt not, but that this was the cause, why he quoted neither book nor Chapter in that allegation, lest we should have found out this which now himself is forced to produce to his own shame and condemnation.  
15. But now perhaps the reader will demand what hath M. Morton answered to these two Chapters in this his Preamblatorie Reply? 
What M. Morton answereth to these two notorious lye● Preamb. pag. 91.  Hath he cleared himself of falsehood? No, but rather doubled the same. For to the first this only he answereth: What have I reported from Polidore? viz. that Pope's names were changed by Antiphrase or contrary speech, to cover their defects, & this is no whit different from the testimony of Polidore, who saith that if the Pope were before his creation wicked, he did take the name of Godly upon him, if rigorous, then Gentle etc. This is his defence. But we have showed now the same to be false: and it is convinced out of the foresaid latin words of Polidore, who saith only, that by the liberty of changing names, there may such Antiphrases be brought in: but saith not that it was practised in any one. Liceat mutare (saith he;) they may change their names if they will. This falsehood than is doubled by himself, which is the first.  
16. The second is of concealing or leaving out deceitfully in his fir●t citation, the words of Polidore (non extra iocum dictum sit) let it not be spoken but in jest: where unto here now he answereth nothing in effect, but first with this interrogation, Can this be aught but a transcendent impudence to blame me for not citing that testimony which his Pope, lest it might be cited● hath utterly razed out? 
Two impertinent answers of M. Morton.  But Sir, be more calm I pray you, for you are not blamed for not citing that which our Pope had commanded to be blotted out in our Copies, but for not citing that which remained in yours, & was willingly omitted by you (as now it appeareth) for that it made against you. This is then his first answer very choleric as you see. His second is a certain evasion by a sleightfull translation into English, whereby he seeketh to shift of the force thereof, for thus he Englisheth it. As for example, saith he, (which may not be spoken without a jest) if peradventure he had been before a wicked man etc. which sleight every man, that is but meanly learned in the latin tongue, will easily discover. For that, non dictum sit cannot be fitly translated, it may not be spoken without a jest, but, let it not ●e spoken but in jest, wherein I remit me to the sense of the text itself. So as about this second point M. Morton remaineth culpable two ways, first in dissembling and suppressing this jest in his first book, and now in seeking to avoid the same by sleightfull translation. But let both tricks go under one, and so I make it but one falsehood, which laid to the other before, do make two notorious untruths, wherewith I do charge M. Morton now again in this his last Reply, and say they are unanswerable.  
17. As for that which he inveigheth against our Index expurgatorius, wherein he saith that our Popes do, appoint what words shall be put out in men's books, as if they pulled out their tongues, lest they should speak, it is not worth the answering. And I remember that I have handled the matter else where against some of M. Mortons' 
* Warn-word against Sir Franc. Hastings, enc. 2. cap. 9 nu. 22.23 etc.  fellows. Good reason, it must needs seem in any reasonable man's judgement, that such as profess themselves catholics, should be content, that if in any works of theirs, any thing had escaped them, that either disagreed from the public rule of faith, acknowledged by the whole Church, or were temerarious, scandalous, inconsiderate, or otherwise offensive, should be censured and reform by public authority of the same Church. And he that hath not this humility and submission with him, is not worthy to be accounted a Catholic, or son of the Catholic Church.  
18. And as for others that are not Catholics, they rather gain hereby: 
How just a thing it is that Catholic books should be overseen and corrected when need requireth.  for that whereas their books that handle matters of religion, and are judged to contain inexcusable heresies, are wholly forbidden to be read by catholics, but with particular licence: yet some other works of theirs, that either treat not of that subject, or do it so moderately, as with paring and cutting of some exorbitant things that be most offensive; they may be made tolerable, and are permitted to remain to posterity: and all this by the benefit of this Index expurgatorius, which otherwise should be extermined with the rest, whereof almost infinite examples may be seen in the Indices expurgatorij of every Catholic Country, which permit books of heretical Authors of all sorts, 
How books of Heretical authors are permitted.  to be read commonly and publicly after they have been censured and reviewed in this sort, which is not done by the Pope himself, or by his particular order, in this or that place, as M. Morton would seem fond to persuade his Reader, when he saith, that Anno Domim 1572. by the Authority of Pius Quintus the foresaid words of Polidor were commanded to be blotted out: and again, which his Pope (saith he) utterly razed out etc. but the same is performed by a Congregation of learned men in every Nation by commission of the said Church and Head thereof.  
19 And I would demand of M. Morton, or any indifferent man on his behalf, if in England there were the like Congregation appointed of learned men to examine and censure books of their own men, that are set forth, or after they be published, and are found to be so full of palpable untruths as these of his, and some other of his fellows are, were it not a good providence, and more profitable both to their public cause and private credit of the writers themselves, 
A demand made to M. Mort. about censuring of books.  that some such review should be made, than that every man writing what he list without check or controlment, do come after to shame their own cause, by so many and manifest untruths laid open to the public sight and laughter of the world, as in this and other books appeareth? But this point of providence concerneth not me, and I have mentioned it only by enforcement of M. Mortons' importunity. Let us pass to the sebond imputation.   

THE SECOND Charge of wilful falsehood against M. Morton, and pretended to be answered by him, but poorly performed. § II.  
AFTER this first charge which he took unto himself out of my Epistle Dedicatory, 
About the death of Pope Adrian by ● fly.  and hath so badly discharged, as you have heard, with adding of new falsehoods; he taketh the second out of the fourth Paragraph of my second Chapter of the said Treatise of Mitigation, where I having reprehended him for false accusing of Pope Sixtus Quintus, that he censured the late K. Henry of France, 
Preamb. pag. 91.  for this only crime (as he averreth) for that himself being a Papist, yet favoured the Protestants etc. concealing the two known murders both of the Cardinal & Duke o● Guise, I do pass on to tell him of another egregious falsity about the feigned death of our English Pope Adrian by a fly in these words.  

The Charge.  
21. And again in the same place, or precedent page, he hath these words: 
Mitig. p. 79. c. 2. num. 46.  Pope Adrian being guilty of like seditious practice against the Emperor Henry the second, was choked with a fly. 
Naval. p. 1. gener. 39  And in his quotation citeth Nauclerus for it, Generatione 139. which should be 39 for that Nauclerus hath nothing near so many Generations in that part: 
Our English Pope Adr. egregiously abused by T. M.  and instead of Henry the second, he should have said Frederick the first of that name, for that Henry the second was before the time of our Conquest, and almost two hundred years before Adrian the 4. our English Pope, of whom we now speak, who lived in the time of King Stephen, and King Henry the second of England, and was a holy man, and accounted the Apostle of Noruegia, for converting the same to our Christian faith, before he was Pope: and all Authors do write honourably of him, and so doth Nauclerus affirm; and therefore though he maketh mention of such a fable related by Vrspergensis that was a Schismatical writer in those days (who also doth not absolutely avouch it, but with this temperament, ut ●ertur, as the report goeth) yet doth the said Nauclerus reject the same as false, and confuteth it by the testimonies of all other writers, especially of Italy that lived with him, & thereby knew best both his life, and death. And yet (said I) all this notwithstanding will this false lad T. M. needs set down this history as true, affirming it for such, and never so much as giving his Reader to understand, that any other denied the same, or that the only Author himself of this fiction doubted thereof. And is not this perfidious dealing? Or can any man excuse him from falsehood and malice in this open treachery?   

The pretended discharge.  
22. This was the Charge. What doth he now answer for the discharge of this imputation? First for a ground of evasion he saith, I do truly protest (for the man is every where full of protestations) that I did not write this out o● the Author himself, 
An absurd Confession.  which I had never seen, but from collection out of some other books. So he. Which though it be a thing little standing with his own credit to confess; yet in this protestation he must give me leave not easily to believe him, and this ●or two or three reasons. 
The first reason.  First, for that he hath made many protestations in his former books to God, the King, the L. of Salisbury, and others of true and sincere proceeding, and doth iterate the same here again in many places, and especially in the end of this Preamble, with great solemnity, under the names of new Challenges, wherein notwithstanding I find him to have practised the quite contrary to his protestations.  
23. The second reason is, 
The second reason.  for that it is not probable that he having to lay so great and grievous an accusation upon our English Pope Adrian, held by the Christ●an world of his time for a holy and renowned man, and this upon the only testimony of Nauclerus, he would presume to do it, without looking upon the Author himself: or if he did, it must needs argue him of great temerity, and of the same crime that here he would avoid, to wit, of falsehood, and malice, and perfidious dealing. 
A comparison showing unconscionable dealing without regard of credit.  For i● in England one should accuse another of murder or any other like grievous crime, and that resolutely and affirmatively in public judgement (as this was presented by him to the King's Majesty of England, and to all Englishmen beside in a printed book) and this only upon hearsay, that some man had spoken it, and the man being in the City to be found out (as Nauclerus book was in London) yet that he would not so much as seek him out nor speak with him, but go presently to the kings Bench and accuse the other, and cause the arraignment to be made: and when the witness denied the same, he should excuse himself, saying, as M. Morton doth here: It is true, and I do truly protest that I did never see the man, or speak with him, but framed my accusation upon hearsay; were not this sufficient to condemn this man of falsehood, and malice?  
24. My third reason is, for that he set down in the citation the very latin words themselves of Nauclerus thus: 
The third reason.  Hadrianus Pontifex excommunicationem Henrico secundo d●nūcians, ipse à D●o maledictus, a musca suffocatus est. Naucler. giver. 139. Adrian the Pope pronouncing excommunication against the Emperor Henry the second, himself being cursed by God, was choked with a fly. Which words are not to be found in Nauclerus, as here they lie, nor yet in Vrspergensis, out of whom Nauclerus reciteth this fable, 
Many probabilities of false dealing.  but his words are these: Cumque venisset ad quenda● fontem, ha●sit et bibit, ac continuò, ut fertur, musca os cius intravit etc. And when as he came to a certain well, he took water, and drunk it, and presently, as it is reported, a fly entered into his mouth, & could not be gotten forth until he died. So Vrspengensis, saith Naucl●rus. And then refuteth it both by the testimonies of all Italian writers which he could read, & of john Salisburi●nsis (whom he calleth Falsboriensis) who was familiar with Adrian himself, and testified his virtues. And if M. Morton had not seen nor read Nauclerus (as here to excuse himself he saith) how did he presume to set down his latin words so precisely, as his reader could have no probable cause to doubt, but that they were his own proper words? Was not this crafty perfidious dealing? So as to me it seemeth, that M. Morton by this first part of this evasion which consisteth in his protestation that he he had not seen, nor read the book, doth more entangle himself in the crimes of falsity and malice, which he pretendeth to avoid, then if he had simply confessed the same. But let us see the other parts of his Answer.  

The second part of his answer.  25 Secondly than he confesseth, that he erred in the misquotation of the Generation cited out of Nauclerus, to wit, 139. for 39 and goeth about to prove that there was no malice therein, which I easily grant, nor did I object it as any corruption, but only advised him of it as an error. And therefore his long excuse of that matter, 
Preamb. pag. 92.  which was never urged against him, showeth that he seeketh occasions to entertain himself, and to make a show that he answereth somewhat, where in effect he saith nothing.  
26. Thirdly, he confesseth that he should have said Frederick the first for Henry the second, 
The third part.  against whom he accused Pope Adrian to have moved sedition, and saith for his excuse: What skilleth it whether it was Henry an Emperor, or Frederick an Emperor that was excommunicated● whereas the intended conclusion was only this, that Adrian the Pope did excommunicate an Emperor, and conspired against him? But this now is not so tolerable as the former excuse, no nor tolerable at all in a learned man, especially in an accusation of so great weight, wherein the accuser ought to be exact, and precise. M. Morton saith it importeth no more, then in an examination of a murder, whether the wound were given by the right hand or by the left: but ●e is deceived, or would deceive in this: For that error personae is of another manner of weight in such kind of accusations then M. Mort. would seem to make. For if Thomas Harvey (for example) should be accused to have murdered secretly Henry Denham, and that Thomas Harueys friends could prove that Henry Denham was dead two hundred years before Tho. Harvey was borne (as Henry the second was very near before Frederick and Adrian) should this import no more, then whether Denham were slain with the right or with the left hand of Harvey, whereas he could not be slain by him at all? here than you see that matters are not exactly handled by M. Morton in this his false accusation of Pope Adrian. 
The 4. part of his answer.   
27. Wherefore in the fourth place concerning the principal point itself of alleging Nauclerus, as a witness of the disastrous death of Pope Adrian by a fly, he answereth little or nothing to the purpose, for excuse of his guileful dealing therein, though he turn himself many ways to get out. He saith, that though Nauclerus doth not affirm it, yet Abbess Vrspergensis, related by Nauclerus, doth. But why had not M. Morton mentioned Vrspergensis at the firs●? and sincerely have told his Reader that he did only relate the matter with this clause (ut fertur) as it is said? Why, if he would have dealt plainly, had he not confessed that Nauclerus did mislike and improve the said report, & that by the testimony of all Italian writers that he could read? Nay, why doth he now again, being taken in flagrant delicto, misalleage Nauclerus words after that he had seen and read him, saying: Verùm cum multi Itali nullam de hoc mentionem faciunt etc. but whereas many Italians do make no mention of this, whereas Nauclerus true words are: Verùm cum Itali, quos legere potui, nullam de hoc faciant mentionem, & joannes Flasboriensis alijque multam de Adriano reserant honestatem etc. But whereas the Italian writers, which I could come to see, do make no mention of this matter, & john of Salisbury and other Authors do relate much good of Adrian, etc. 
Many bad shifts of T. M. against Nauclerus.  Hae● et alia ambiguum me reddunt quid potius eligendum, quidùe credendum sit. Scribimus enim res gestas affectu nonnunquam plusquam veritatis amore ducti. Verùm unum hoc adijcimus, Adrianus Virum ●uisse integrum etc. These and other such things do make me doubtful, what were to be chosen, or what were to be believed. For that we do write other men's acts more oftentimes by affection, than led thereunto by the love of truth. Which words are evidently meant by Nauclerus, of Vrspergensis, taxing him that he wrote much of passion against Pope Adrian in behalf of the Emperor Frederick, with whom he held against the Pope, and that do the next ensuing words of Nauclerus show which are cut of by M. Morton in relating them here, in his Preamble, Ver●m hoc adijcimus, Adrianum Virum ●uisse integrum etc. but we add notwithstanding to this, that Pope Adrian was an irreprehensible man. So as in this small speech o● Nauclerus by us now related, M. Morton instead of Itali quos leg●re potui, reciteth his words to be, C●m multi Itali: he striketh out also joannes Flasboriensis alijque multam de Adriano re●erant honestatem: he addeth of his own that he was maledictus à Deo: and finally he cutteth of the last of Nauclerus, which contain his own judgement. Adrianum Virum ●uisse integrum. So as, if now after he confesseth to have seen Nauclerus, he doth relate him so corruptly, what great credit can be given to his former protestation, that he had not seen nor read him? Or what importeth whether he saw him or no, for so much as he was resolute to corrupt him, and to make him speak no more nor less, than he would have him to do, as now you have seen.  
28. So as to conclude this account, we see that M. Morton in going about to clear himself f●om this charge of treachery, doth entangle himself with two or three other treacheries more. And last of all, not having what to say, runneth to a common place, that four other Popes are reported to have had disastrous ends, 
Four other Po●es objected impertinently to have had ill ends.  to wit, Anastasius 2. joannes 10. joannes 12. & Vrbanus●. as if we defended, that all Popes had good lives, or prosperous deaths, or that among our Kings of ●ngland & Scotland, who have been peradventure fewer than Popes, many lamentable ending● were not to be found: and yet may we not argue thereof against the lawfulness of Kingly power, or due respect to be borne to their persons and places: or that it might be taken for an argument that God did abandon them and their dignity, for suffering them to die disastrously, as this man would infer of Popes. And finally how many Popes soever did die unfortunately, this doth not excuse M. Morton in belying Adrian, and his Author Nauclerus, from which it seemeth that he cannot be excused.  
29. And this in case all were true which he writeth of these other four Popes, whom impertinently he bringeth in to accompany Adrian: but as in the one we have found him manifestly false, so in these also you shall not find him exactly true, in any one thing lightly, that he saith of them, but still there must be some mixture of sleightfull tricks to disguise matters. And to help out the die (to use his own phrase) he beginneth thus: 
Preamb. pag. 94.  But why should it be thought a matter incredible, that such a dismal end should befall a Pope? Whereunto I answer that the question is not whether it be incredible, that a dismal end may befall a Pope, but whether such an end as you describe, did befall Pope Adrian, or no? And whether you have used true dealing in the manner of recounting the same?  

About Pope Anastasius the second his death.  30. It followeth in your narration out of one of our Doctors (as you say:) Bene legitur Anastasium divino nutu percussum interijsse: It is read that Pope Anastasius was strooken with the hand of God and perished, & you cite for it joannes de Turrecremata lib. de summa Eccles. de Anastasio. Which citation is so set down, as I persuade myself, 
Anno Domini 499.  that at the next reply he will have the like evasion as before in citing of Nauclerus, to wit, that he saw not the work itself. For that Turrecremata doth not write only one book de summa Eccles. as here is insinuated, but four, each one of them having many chapters, and one only hath more than a hundred, which is this whereout this sentence is pre●ended to be taken. And yet doth M. Mortons' citation specify neither book nor Chapter, w●ich always you must imagine hath some mystery in it. He quoteth also de Anastasio, as though the Author had some such Chapter, whereas he only speaketh of this Pope Anastasius by way of answering certain objections about the cause of infallibility of not erring in the Bishop of Rome, when he is to decree any thing for the Church: whereabout some said, that albeit a Pope might fall into heresy, yet God would not permit him to decree any thing heretical, whereof an example was brought of this Pope Anastasius 2. that being inclined, as some thought, by instance of the heretical Emperor (of his own name) Anastasius then living, to admit unto his communion the heretic Acatius, and expecting only for that purpose (as was thought) the returning of his legate Festus from Constantinople, 
Turrecre. lib. 2. de sum. Eccles. cap. 112.  God took him away before his return. Turrecremata his words are these: Tertium etiam hic inducunt e●emplum de Anastasio, qui licèt volverit revocare Acatium, non tamen potuit, quia Divino nutu percussus est. They bring in also here a third example of Pope Anastasius, who albeit he had a will to recall the heretic Acatius, yet he could not do it, for that he was strooken by the hand of God and died.  
31. This is all that ●urrecremata saith of the matter, which maketh much more for the pre-eminence of the Bishop of Rome, if you mark it, than any way against the same: for it showeth that God hath such special and particular care of that Sea, and Pastor thereof, as he will rather take him away then permit him to do any thing prejudicial to the Church, which is the blessing, as we know of the elect, and dearly beloved of God, according to the saying of the Scripture: Placens Deo, ●actus dilectus, rap●us est, ne malitia mutaret intellectum eius, albeit I mu●t advertise the Reader, 
Sap. 4. v. 11  that the whole current of other writers do deny this matter about the inclination of Pope Anastasius to recall Acatius, 
Nicep. l. 16. c. 12.  affirming that the said Aca●●us was dead divers years before Anastasius was Pope, 
E●ag. l. 3. c. 18. ●● 23.  as do testify Nicep●orus Callix●us, Euag●ius, Anastasius Billiothecarius, Liberatus, 
●ib●●at. c. 19  Gelasius and others: all which, or the most, are named in the first part of the Decree or 
* Dis●in. 19 cap. 9  Gratian which is cited also by M. Morton, and so if he looked upon it, he abuseth us greatly in dissembling the matter: and if he did not, why doth he cite it? And thus much of Anastasius, whom all writers commonly do hold for a very good man. And if any will see him further defended both for sanctity of life, integrity of faith, and the removing of this slander touching his death, let him see the learned discourse of Albertus 
a lib. 4. Hierarc. cap. 8.  Pighius, Cardinal 
b Lib. 2. Prop●g.  Hosius, Doctor 
c In visib. monarchia lib. 7. fol. 386.  Sanders, Cardinal 
d tomo 6. in Anastasio.  Baronius, Cardinal 
e Lib. 4. de P●ntif. cap. 10 §. Decimus nonus est Anastasius 2.  Bellarmine, and others in the places here cited. All which M. Morton in his manner of plain dealing dissembleth, and passeth over, and allegeth only 4. or 5. words out of Turrecremata, which that Author proposeth only in the way of objection, and not of assertion.  
32. And as for the fable raised about his sudden death, it seemeth to have been taken by error, and similitude of the name of Anastasius, of which name the heretical Emperor being, that lived with him, as before hath been said, and being strooken suddenly by death with a thunderbolt, as both Paulus Diaconus, Beda, Cedr●nus, and Zonaras do testify, 
In vita An●st●sij Imperatoris.  it fell out that the one was mistaken ●or the other, as divers learned men are of opinion.  
33. As for the other two Popes john the 10. and john the 12. as they were both violently intruded by favour and force of friends into that Sea, and gave no great edification in their lives, so no marvel if ●hey had no very good ends. 
L. de vitis Pontif. Rom●n. cap. 115.  Albeit for so much as belongeth to john the 12. otherwise the 13. divers Authors do defend him, and namely in our age Franciscus joannettus, citing both Otho Frisingensis, and Abbot Vrspergensis for the same.  
34. The last of the four, 
About the death of Vrbanus tertius calumniated. by. T. M.  Vrbanustertius, whom M. Morton bringeth in as noted by Doctor Severinus Bin●us out of the testimony of Vrspergensis, that for sedition against the Emperor he was called Turbanus and died as strooken by the hand of God: true it is, that Binius relateth such a thing recorded by Vrspergensis, a Schismatical Author, standing with the Emperor against the said Pope, but refuteth the same as false and malicious out of Platina, and other Authors, showing how he died peaceably in his bed at Ferrara, for the sorrow he conceived of the overthrow of the Christian army in the Holy Land, for preventing whereof he had taken a journey to Venice Anno Domini 1187. adding these words: 
Anno 1187.13. Cal. Novemb.  Ita Platina de obitu optimi Pontificis, veriùs et melius sentiens quam Schismaticorum fautor Vrspergensis. So writeth Platina of th● death of this excellent Pope, wherein his judgement was truer, and better than the judgement of Vrspergensis the favourer of Schismatics: which conclusion M. Morton according to his ordinary art of simplicity thought best to pretermit and conceal from his Reader: and yet to furnish his margin with sundry citations of Doctor Binius, as though he made for him.  
35. And besides this testimony of Platina guylefully concealed, he dissembleth also two other Authors of greater antiquity of our own Nation, to wit, Roger 
a in Henrico 20. p. 362. in fine  Hoveden, and 
b Lib. 3. c. 34. in fine  Neubrigensis, who both lived in the same time when Pope Vrbanus did, and do write very honourably of his death, saying that when he hea●d the grievous calamities happened at Jerusalem, dolu●t vehement●r, & incidit in aegri●udin●m, & mort●u●est apud Ferrariam: He ●eceyued ●xceeding grief thereby, fell into sickness, and so died at ●errara, which signifieth both his piety in God's cause, and the honourable cause of his d●ath.  
36. Thus th●se two ancient English writers to omit many other that do ensue. And now consider good R●ader the vain vaunting of M. Morton● speech upon this fiction: What is now wanting (saith he) but an example of one Pope to be produced upon whom the vengeance of God seized, because of his rebellious opposition against temporal Lords? This was Vrban the third (saith Abbas Vrspergensis) commonly called Turban etc. so little cause could I have to wound my adversaries with forged inventions, being thus sufficiently furnished, and prepared to con●ound them with true and plain confessed testimonies. 
Preamb. p. 98. & 99  So he. And do you hear him how he croweth? Hath he cited any one Author but V●sp●rge●sis and Binius, whereof the later is expressly against him, as you have heard, and fully overthroweth the former? And have not we alleged three for his one to the contrary? and may do thrice as many more of those that ensued the other, if we would stand upon it? How then is M. Morton so sufficiently furnished to con●ound us with true and plain confessed testimonies? Where are they? what are their names? When lived they? Where dwell they? Why did he not bring them forth with the rest? Is it not plain that Morton●elleth ●elleth wind, and words, and vaunts for works? but let us furnish him with testimonies to the contrary, of Authors who write right honourably of this Pope's death. Let him read and consider what Sabellicus hath left written, Aenead. 9 lib. 5. What Cranzius, lib. 6. histor. Saxon. cap. 52. What Na●ul●●us, pa●te 2, generatione 43. 
The authors that wrote of Pope Vrban his death.  What We●ne●us in fas●●●●lo temporum a●tate 6. anno 1184. What Onuphrius Pa●●inus in vita Vrbani te●tij. What Ioanne●iu● in Chron. cap. 151. What Phili●pus in suppl●mento ●istoriarum anno 1186. What Carolus Sigonius lib. 15. de ●egno Italiae anno 1187. What Genebrardus in Chronico anno 1185. And finally what Blondus doth testify lib. 6. decad. 2. anno 1181. whose words be these and may stand for all the rest that agree in the same: Orb●m Christianorum (saith he, speaking of the life and death of this Pope Vrban the third) de mittendis in Asiam copiis monuerat etc. Pope Vrbanus 3. advertised the Christian world by an universal decree to send forces into Asia, (for recovering the holy Land) the success whereof when he saw to proceed more slowly and negligently, than the fervour of his hart desired, he determined to go in person to Venice, there by his presence, to draw together more abundantly, and with greater speed a Christian army. Wherefore being arrived unto Ferrara, and advertised first by common rumour of an unfortunate fight had with the Infidels, and then afterward understanding more certainly the truth thereof, he fell into such sorrow, as caused an Ague, and soon after death itself, through the force of grief.  
37. Thus wrote Blondus. And with him agree the rest of the Authors cited, & many others by me pretermitted. And now consider M. Mortons' words, What is now wanting (saith he) but an example to be produced of one Pope upon whom the vengeance of God seized, because of his rebellious opposition against temporal Lords? Was it a vengeance of God to die peaceably in his bed, through the fervour of holy desires to see the holy Land recovered? But I will pose M. Morton no further in th●se matters, for that every man seeth what necessity driveth him to speak and write so absurdly, as he doth.    

THE THIRD Charge of falsehood against M. Morton, which he pretendeth to answer. §. III.  
IN the third place it pleaseth M. Morton to choose out another imputation of mine against him, in t●e same 2. Chapter, & 4. Paragraph of my book, which is about the egregious abusing of a place of D. B●ucher the Frenchman De justa abdicatione etc. thurby to make all English Catholics odious, 
A●out the assertion of D. Boucher perverted. P●eamb. pag. 95.  as allowing his doctrine. The controversy is clearly set down in my reprehension of his fraud, expressed in these words.  

The Charge.  

D. Boucher de abdic. l. 3. c. 16.  29. another like trick he playeth us some few pages before this again, citing out of D. Bouchers book, De justa abdicatione these words: Tyrannum occidere honestum est, quod cuivis impunè facere permittitur, quod ex communi consensu dico. 
Mitig. pag. 80. Dis●ou. pag. 23.  And then he English●th the same thus: Any man may lawfully murder a Tyrant, which I defend (saith he) by common consent. But he that shall read the place in the Author himself, shall find that he holdeth the very contrary, to wit, 
A notable corruption about D. Boucher.  that a private man may not kill a Tyrant, that is not first judged and declared to be a public enemy by the common wealth. And he proveth the same at large, first out of Scriptures, & by the decree of the general Council of Constance: his words be these. Neque verò eo iure quod ad regnum, habet, nisi per publicum judicium, spoliari potest etc. Neither can a tyrant be deprived of that right which he hath to a Kingdom, but only by public judgement: yea further also so long as that right of kingdom remaineth, his person must be held for sacred, whereof ensueth, that no right remaineth to any private man against his life. And albeit any private man should bring forth never so many private injuries done by the said Tyrant against him, as that he had whipped him with iron rods, oppressed him, afflicted him, yet in this case must he have patience, 
1. Pet. 2.  according to the admonition of S. Peter: That we must be obedient not only unto good and modest Lords, but also unto those, that be disorderly: and that this is grace when a man for God's cause doth sustain, and bear with patience injuries unjustly done unto him etc.  
40. And in this sense (saith he) is the decree of the Council of Constance to be understood, 
Concil. Constant. S●ss. 15.  when they say, Errorem in fide esse etc. 
Catholic moderation towards censuring of Princes.  It is error in faith to hold (as john Wickliff did) that every Tyrant may be slain meritoriously by any vassal or subject of his, by free or secret treasons etc. Thus writeth that Author, holding as you see, that no Tyrant whatsoever, though he be never so great a tyrant may be touched by any private man, for any private injuries though never so great, nor yet for public, though never so manifest, except he be first publicly condemned by the Commonwealth, which is an other manner of moderation and security for Princes, than the Protestant doctrine before rehearsed, and namely that of Knox uttered in the name of the whole Protestant congregation both of Scotland and Geneva: 
Knox in hist. p. 372.  If Princes be tyrants against God and his truth, his subjects are freed from their Oaths of Obedience. So he.  
41. And who shall be judge of this? 
Knox apple. fol. 33.  The people: for that the people (saith he) are bound by oath to God to revenge the injury done against his Majesty. Let Princes think well of this, and let the Reader consider the malicious falsehood of this Minister T. M. who in alleging that little sentence before mentioned, about killing of a Tyrant, struck out the words of most importance quem hostem Resp. iudicaverit: whom the commonwealth adjudged for a public enemy, & adding that other clause, which I say by common consent, which is not there to be found: and with such people we are forced to deal that have no conscience at all in cozenage: and yet they cry out of Equivocation against us, where it is lawful to be used; making no scruple at all themselves to lie, which in our doctrine is always unlawful for any cause whatsoever. Thus far were my words of charge & reprehension to him in my former Treatise of Mitigation.   

The pretended discharge.  
42. And now you having heard this large Indictment, it is reason you hear also what the prisoner at the bar can bring forth for informing the jury to his discharge. You must stand attended, for he would gladly slide away, under a veil of words. Wherefore first he layeth forth at large the drift of D. Bouchers discourse, saying that he maketh a double consideration of a Tyrant: 
A very pretty evasion of M. Mort.  one, as he doth any injury to any private man, and that for this he may not be slain of a private man: the other, as he doth commit public injury and violence either in case of religion, or the civil state, and this Tyrant may be slain by the common wealth; yea also and by any private man, when the common wealth hath declared him for a public enemy. And then he inferreth thus for himself: We see now that Boucher hath defended, both that no private man may kill a Tyrant for private injuries done against private men, and also, that any private man may kill a Tyrant for common injuries. I have alleged the later, and P. R. hath opposed the former, both of us have affirmed a truth, where then is the falsehood? Thus seeketh M. Morton to escape, and goeth about by two similitudes to confirm this manner of answering. The first, that if an Esquire have a son that is a knight, he shall sit above him in public meetings, but not in private: that is, that he shall fit above him, and not sit above him, and so Christ commanding (●aith he) that we should do as the pharisees did ordain, but not as they did in their lif● & manners: he willed us to do, & not to do as the pharisees do, in different respects and senses etc. And thus thinketh to have quitted himself learnedly by a distinction, for that as he saith the self same Tyrant may be killed, and not killed by a private man, in regard of public or private injuries.  
43. But this evasion is overthrown by the words & whole discourse of Doctor Boucher now alleged, 
The overthrow of his evasion.  for that he speaketh not only against killing a Tyrant for private injuries by a private man, but also in public injuries: for so doth show his allegation of the Decree of the Council of Constance that condemned as an error in faith to hold with john Wickliff, that every Tyrant may be slain meritoriously by any vassal or subject of his, by open or secret treasons, which is understood, as well for public as private injuries.  
44. But it is granted by D. Boucher, saith M. Morton, that when the common wealth hath condemned and declared any Tyrant for a public enemy, he may be slain by a private man. Whereto I answer, that then he is no private man, for that he doth it by a public authority of the Common Wealth, as doth the executioner, that cutteth of a Noble man's head, by order and authority of the public Magistrate: so as in this M Morions distinction se●ueth him to no purpose, for that neither for private or public injuries can a private man, as a private man, that is to say, by private authority kill any Prince though he were a Tyrant for any cause either private or public whatsoever. So as in this principal charge M. Morton remaineth wholly convicted as you see.  
45. There do rest the two other wings of falsehood objected unto him: 
M. Mort. condemned in the principal.  the first, that he struck out the words of most importance from D. Bouchers discourse, which made the matter clear, to wit, quem hostem Respublica iudicaverit, whom the Commonwealth hath adjudged for a public enemy, him may a private man kill: and the second, that he addeth the other clause of his own that are not found in Bouchers words, Which I say by common consent. The first of these two falsehoods he would excuse by saying, that albeit that D. Boucher in the place before alleged, out of his third book, doth set down this position with the foresaid restriction, privato etiam cuivis Tyrannum quem hostem Respub. iudicaverit, occidere licitum esse: that it is lawful also to any private man to kill a Tyrant, 
Two accessoryes.  whom the Commonwealth hath judged for a public enemy, (for then he doth it not by private authority:) yet that in his fourth book he hath a whole Chapter to prove, that in some urgent cause the matter may be prevented, as when the thing is so notorious, instant, and perilous, as the said public judgement cannot well be expected, and may be presumed, as granted, especially (saith he) in po●na privativa in privative punishment, that is to say, when subjects in punishment of open and manifest tyranny do withdraw their due respect and obedience, by seeking only to defend themselves: though not in positiva, in positive punishment of actual rebellion or war offensive. But this doth not any way satisfy the falsehood objected in striking out these words in the former book & place, where D. Boucher set them down for declaration of this doctrine, that a private man was not licensed to kill a Tyrant by his own private authority: for when Subjects are forced to use this way of prevention by arms defensive, before the commonwealth can make public declaration; in such cause they do it not, as private men, but as the body of the Commonwealth: So as considering what here is in question, he must needs be condemned of a nihil dicit, if not also of balsam dicit.  
46. And the very like may be said about the second accessary untruth, for adding the words (which I say by common consent,) for excuse whereof he runneth to the other Chapters wherein he saith that D. Boucher avoucheth, Mirum esse in affirmand● consensum, there is wonderful consent in allowing this doctrine, and then in another Chapter, that he who denieth this (that he saith) is destitute of common sense: But these are of other matters and spoken upon other occasions and not annexed to the former sentence of D. Boucher, 
The second Accessary.  produced and corrupted by M. Morton, and consequently they are mere impertinent evasions, that do more confirm and establish, than any way remove the frauds and falsehoods objected against him. And so much of this matter, which would grow over long, if we should prosecute the same, as M. Mortons' manner of answer would invite us.    

THE FOURTH Charge of falsehood pretended to be answered or rather shifted of by M. Morton, and cast upon R. C. §. FOUR  
AMONG other examples that I alleged of M. Mortons' spirit in dealing unsincerely by calumniating our Catholic writers, thereby to get some show of advantage against them, and the Catholic cause, I produced a place out of M. William Reynolds his book de Reipublicae authoritate, 
About the abuse of M. William Reinolds  most notoriously abused and perverted to make him seem to abase the authority of Kings, and Princes in that very place where M. Reynolds did specially employ himself in advancing their dignity: I shall here lay forth the fraud; you shall judge what manner of consciences these men have, and whether they defend their cause as a cause of truth or no. This than was my former reprehension about his dealing in this point.  

The Charge.  

Mitig. pag. 68 Discou. pag. 8. R●inold. de iusla R●ip. aucto●itate. c. 1.  48. In his book of Discovery pag. 8. having set down this false proposition, that all Catholic Priests did pro●esse a prerogative o● the people over all Princes, for proole thereof he cyred this position of M. Reynolde● in the place aforesaid, Rex human● creatura est, quia ab hominibus consti●uta: and englisheth it in this manner, a King is but a creature of man's creation, where you see first that in the translation he addeth, but, & man's creation of himself, ●or that the latin hath no such adversative clause as, but, nor, creation, but rather the word constitution. Secondly these words are not the words of M. Reynolds, but only cited by him out of S. Peter, and thirdly they are alleged here by Thomas Morton to a quit contrary sense from the whole discourse and meaning of the Author, which was to exalt and magnify the Authority of Princes, as descending from God, and not to debase the same as M. Reynolds is calumniated to say. For proof hereof whosoever will look upon the book and place itself before mentioned, shall find that M. Reynolds purpose therein is, 
M. Reynolds discourse.  to prove, that albeit earthly Principality, power and authority be called by the Apostle, humana creatura: yet that it is originally from God, and by his commandment to be obeyed. His words are these: Hinc enimest etc. Hence it is, that albeit the Apostle do call all earthly principality a human creature, for that it is placed in certain men (from the beginning) by suffrages of the people: yet election of Princes doth flow from the law of Nature, which God created, and from the use of reason, 
Rom. 13.  which God powered into man, and which is a little beam of divine light drawn from that infinite brightness of Almighty God: therefore doth the Apostle S. Paul pronounce, that there is no power but from God, and that he which resisteth this power resisteth God himselve. So M. Reynolds.  
49. In which words we see that M. Renoyldes is so far of from debasing Kings in this his discourse or subjecting them unto the people, as he doth both extol & magnify their dignity, as proceeding from God himself, and reconcileth together the speech of P. Peter, call a King a human creature, with the words of S. Paul, pronouncing it to be of God, and under pain of damnation to be obeyed. And can there be any more untrue dealing then this? Let us see then how M. Morton will here discharge himself: you shall see him somewhat more humiliated then before (would God to his conversion, and not to his greater obduration and confusion:) and yet will he in any case defend & not amend his error: for thus he proceedeth.   

The pretended discharge.  

Pag. 100  50 This Allegation is (saith he) of all which yet I have found most obnoxious, and alliable unto taxation; which (God knoweth that I lie not) I received from suggestion, as the Author thereof R. C. can witness. For at that time I had not that Rosaeus, aliâs Reynolds, neither by that present importunity of occasions could seek after him, which I confess, is greatly exorbitant: for I received it as a testimony debasing the authority of Kings. So he. And truly when first I read the beginning of this answer, and heard him so earnestly, and solemnly to protest before God that he received this fraud against M. Reynolds by suggestion, I imagined he would have said of the Devil, for that he commonly is the proper suggestour of all such unjust and wicked calumniations: but when I saw the letters of R. C. follow instead of the Devil, I began to muse and think with myself whether there were any Devil of that name or no, 
A strange evasion of M. Mort. by accusing R.C.  or if it were no Devil himself, what instrument or chosen servant of Satan it might be, that had made this false suggestion, which M. Morton himself confesseth here to be greatly exorbitant from the truth, and instead of one thing to have suggested the quite contrary, & that wittingly against his conscience; yea with a double malice as may seem. The first to calumniate M. Reynolds, and Catholic doctrine by him: and the other to disgrace M. Morton, by making him put in print so notorious a lie and corruption.  
51. But when afterwards I was advertised by some that would seem to know the mystery, that R. C. did signify Ri. Can. I was driven into a far greater marvel, how M. Morton could be permitted to publish such a matter in print (the thing having to pas●e the view of R.C. his officers) and how he could presume to have more care of his own credit, then of the others that is his head and Chiefteyne? For as a scar the more higher it standeth in the forehead, the more deformity it worketh to the whole body: so such a notorious crime of wilful falsification being proved to be in the Head itself, even by the asseveration and testimony of so principal a member of the same Head, cannot be but very disgraceful to the whole body: though it may be that M. Morton being the party most interessed, might pretend in this, not only his own personal defence, in this particular escape, but a protection also more general hereby for all Ministers to use this art with less reprehension, when the Head of Ministers should be convinced to use the same with such liberty and lack of conscience, especially in a matter so odious, preiudicious and calumnious to all the rank of catholics. I do confess (saith M. Morton) that it is greatly exorbitant, for I received it as a testimony debasing the authority of Kings. And from whom? From R. C. But did he gather it himself (think you) or did he take it also by tradition of others & upon credit as you profess yourself to have done? The later were disgraceful: the first hateful. For if he looked upon the Author himself he must needs see, that M. Reynolds drift was to advance Kingly authority, and not to debase it: and therefore for R. C, to set down the quite contrary, and make another to print it also with his allowance and approbation, was a double or triple iniquity. And surely if the like may be proved in any Prelate of ours, let him have for penance never to be trusted after, 
A moderate satisfaction demanded for a great crime.  which is the greatest satisfaction that I would wish to be exacted of R. C, if he acknowledge this accusation of M. Morton for true.  
52. But now, though this charging of R. C. be some disburdening to T. M. that he invented not the slander of himself: yet doth it not wholly free him from all falsehood in the matter. For he should not have yielded to the false suggestion, nor● e● admitted so unjust a temptation: for supposing that R. C. would needs play the part of the tempting and lying serpent, yet ought T. M. not to have followed the frailty of the credulous & infirm woman: & although R. C. had delivered unto him the note so ba●ely, as he putteth it down, out of M. Reynolds, to wit, Rex humana creatura est, quia ab hominilus constituta: yet could not M. Morton but remember, that the effect thereof was in the Epistle of S. Peter, and that in no sense it could be truly Englished as he doth, A King is but a creature of man's creation: 
The word (but) maliciously inserted.  both for that the word (but) which is a particle adversative or exclusive, is not to be found in the latin words of M. Reynolds: nor could it stand in any reasonable good meaning, that a King's authority is nothing else but a human creature, as though it had no dependence or causation from God. Wherefore as there was great malice in the suggestor of this false imputation: so was there no less want of truth in him that so willingly yielded to so bad and false a suggestion. But what saith he here for his defence? This which now ensueth.  

Preamb. pag. 100  53. Upon this presumption, saith he, (if true,) (to wit, that M. Reynolds had spoken to the debasement of King's authority as he did not, but to the contrary) it could be no falsehood in me, to insert the particle (but,) especially being acquainted with the doctrine of Cardinal Bellarmine, who that he may disable the authority of a King in comparison of the dignity of a Pope, doth defend, ●hat Kings, being chosen by men, are not immediately created by God: and yet, the Pope elected by Cardinals, hath his authority immediately from God.  
54. Whereto I answer, that well he might say so, for that Christ both God and man did institute in particular, and immediately the Supreme Authority of S. Peter, and his successors, when he gave to him, and by him to them the keys of heaven, but he instituted not the Authority of Kings immediately, but left to each people to be governed by what sort of government they best liked: 
How the authority of Kings is from God and how from man.  albeit, that where that form of government, or any other (as of Dukes, Commonwealth, or the like) was once lawfully introduced, he commanded due obedience to be performed thereunto. So as though we may truly say, that Kingly Authority is immediately but from man; yet can we not say, that a King is but a creature o● man's creation, for that this includeth both immediately and mediately, which is false: For that kingly Authority is the creature of God mediately and originally; for that God giveth power to the people to choose him, with commandment to obey him when he is chosen, and it is the creature of man immediately, for that by choice of men that dignity is appointed in some Countries, and not in other, which is not so in the Popes, and their Authority. For though their persons be chosen immediately by Cardinals, that are men, as here M. Morton objecteth: yet is not their office, power or authority chosen or appointed by those men as in Kings, but immediately by God. So as this hole will not serve M. Morton to run out at, or to excuse his fraudulent thrusting in of the word (but) that perverted the whole sentence of his adversary.  
55. And yet is it further to be considered by the Readers that all which here he hath said for his excuse therein, is but upon a supposition, that this sentence in M. Reynolds did tend to the abasing of King's Authority: which supposition being t●ue●●aith he) it could be no falsehood in me to insert the particle ● but●) which I have showed to be●alse. For that albeit we admit the supposition to be true, that M. Reynolds intention was in that place, 
The particle (b●t) slily inserted ●y M. Mort.  to prefer the Pope's authority before the Kings, in that it is immediately from God● and the other mediately only: yet that the sentence of S. Peter could not admit the inserting of the particle (but) without falsehood.  
56. But now this supposition is not true but false that M. Reynolds pretended that, in the place alleged, but the quite contrary, as was delivered in my reprehension: and M. Morton having seen the place before the making of this his last Reply, & thereupon made his protestation which you heard, saying, God knoweth that I lie not, but received it from suggestion of R. C● yet this notwithstanding he maketh all his defence out of a supposed presumption, saying: If it be true (saith he) than it could be no falsehood in me: but now being proved and granted not to be true, it must needs follow that it was a falsehood in him. And this is the substantial manner of clearing himself.  
57 Lastly he frameth to himself an objection, & seeketh to entertain time by answering the same to no purpose in the world, for thus he saith. 
An objection made by himself, which he is not able to solve.  I know that P. R. may possibly insist, that he cited the text o● S. Peter 1. Pet. 2. who calleth a King or Governor constituted by man, humanam creaturam, a human creature, and then how could those words be reprehensible in M. Reynolds, which are warrantable by S. Peter? This is his objection, which indeed hath no solution: for that the words being taken out of S. Peter, and used by M. Reynolds in S. Peter's sense, and to ●he same end that S. Peter did, as here ●s both proved and confessed, th●y can have no reprehension, except we will reprehend the Apostle himself, and consequently they were absurdly brought in by M. Morton against M. Reynolds as picking a quart●ll where none was.  
58. But to this M. Morton answereth, that the self same sentence may be used by divers in several senses, laudably in the one, and reprehensibly in the other, 
Matth. 16.  as hail Master was to Christ by the Disciples, and by the pharisees, and, 
Marc. 5.  thou art the Son of God by S. Peter, and by the Devil, & so it might have been presumed (saith M. Morton) that M. Reynolds used S. Peter's words, but not in S. Peter's sense. And let the Reader observe that he saith that it might have be●ne presumed, to wit, when R. C. did falsely suggest it so, but now that M. Morton hath seen, and read the place both in my reprehension here set down, & in M. Reynolds himself, and hath found that he used this place in the very sense of S. Peter for exalting the King's authority; yea in the sense of M. Morton here set down, saying: Let every Christian learn that, that Governor whom S. Peter calleth a creature of man, S. Paul calleth the Ordinance of God. If this I say be so, how can M. Morton excuse himself from a gross malicious falsehood, 
divers shifts to get out.  in that he objected this sentence in his Discovery against M. Reynolds, as though thereby he had debased Princes Authority? Hear I pray you his last shift. Though not the place alleged (saith he) yet the scope of M. Reynolds whole book doth convince him of rebellious doctrine, as will more plainly appear in the Encounter. Mark now whither he is fled. He confesseth, that in the place alleged by M. Reynolds (whereabout only standeth our controversy) his dri●t was not to debase, but exalt Prince's Authority, and consequently he must grant, that he abused him in that crimination. But he saith, that the scope of his Book is otherwise, which he deferreth to prove until he make his larger Encounter, which I suppose will require a large time: and in the mean space we have both by our eviction and his own confession, that he belied M. Reinolds in this accusation, and fraudulently also put in the particle (but) to make it seem more heinous and odious, especially to his Majesty, whom both he & R. C. purposed to incense by this their false conspiracy against us, and our whole cause, using such inventions of their own for our assertions; than which manner of proceeding nothing can be more malicious or wicked. And it being once discovered to his Maies●y by so authentical witnesses as are the confessions of these two Ministers so combined together, may justly move his Majesty not so ●asely to believe hereafter, what is presented by such people unto him. And now to the sequent imputation, for this is not only not put of, but confessed and confirmed, as you have seen.    

THE FIFTH Imputation of lying pretended to be answered by M. Morton, or rather by M. Stock for him. §. V.  
NEXT unto this M. Mort. culleth out of my book some dozen pages after the former, 
About the decree of Gratian wrongfully alleged.  an imputation of false dealing about certain places cited out of the Canon law. My reprehension of his said false dealing is set down in these words. But will you hear a case or two more out of the Canon law, how dextrous Sir Thomas is in corrupting that which he loveth not, 
Mitig. pag. 82.  nor seemeth well to understand? You may read in the fourth page of his pamphlet an ancient decree (for so he calleth it) alleged by him out of Gratian in the Gloss, determining, that though a man hath sworn to pay money to one that is excommunicated, 
Another Cozenage about a text of Gratian.  yet is he not bound to pay the same, & he allegeth the latin text thus: Si iuravi me soluturum alicui pecuniam qui excommunicatur, non ●eneor ei solvere: If I have sworn to pay money to any man that is excommunicated, I am not bound to pay it, adding this reason, quia qualiter cumque possumus, debemus vexare malos, ut cessent à malo: We ought to vex evil men by what means soever we may to the end they may cease from doing evil. In the allegation of which little text a man would hardly believe how many false tricks there be to make Catholic doctrine to seem odious and absurd. 
Apud Grat. causa 15. q. 6. cap. 4. Gloss.  For first these words not being found in any text of law, or decision of any Pope or Council, but only in the Gloss or commentary, they ma●e not any ancient or modern decree, as the Minister falsely avoucheth, but rather show the opinion of him who writeth the Commentary, if his words were as here they are alleged.  
60. But the truth is that the words of the Gloss contain only a certain objection, upon a clause of a Canon, concerning promise to be observed to one that is exommunicated, after the promise was made: 
A doubt proposed & solved.  and the objection or doubt is made in these words by the Author of the Gloss or Commentary: Sed quid dices, si iuravi etc. But what will you say, if I have sworn to pay money to any person, or have promised the same under some forfeiture, and in the mean space, he, to whom I made the promise, is excommunicated, am I bound to pay the same or not? This is the question: and then he argueth on both sides, and first for the negative, Vi●etur quòd non, It seems I am not: for the Canon law saith causa 23. q. 6. That we ought to afflict wi●kedmen by all means possible, to the ●nd they may cease from their wickedness. So he● alleging divers other arguments for the same opinion, but yet afterwards coming to glue his own resolution he saith thus: Verius credo, quòd licèt ill● non habeat ius petendi, tamen debet et solui: I do believe the truer opinion to be, that albeit he, that is so excommunicated, do lose his right to demand his money yet is the other bound to pay him. And for this he citeth divers laws and reasons, therein mentioned, as namely Extrau. de iure debitoris, & Extra. de senten. Excom. Si verè & 11. q. 3. Cum excommunicato.  


See of ●his ●●sto●y the disputation's b●f●●e the King of F●ance, a●nexed to the Confut. of the first 6.  
Months of Fox's Calendar.   61. So as here our Minister, not of ignorance but of falsehood, taketh the objection for the resolution, as Pl●ssis Mo●nay did in his book against the Mas●e, where he would prove, that S●otus, Durand, and other School divines did doubt of the Real presence, and transubstantiation, for that having proposed the question, they began to argue for the negative part, saying: Videtur quòd non, though afterwards they resolved the contrary, and solved the argument. And the very like doth our Minister here, calling this objection of Videtur quòd non, not only a resolution but an ancient Decree. Secondly, there is wilful deceit in leaving out the first words of the Author, Sed quòd dices, si iuravi? But what will you say, if I have sworn? which do plainly show that it is but an objection. Thirdly that he allegeth the reason of the objection, 
Four fal●●●oodes about one thing.  Quia quali●ercumque possumus etc. for the reason of the solution, which is false: for that the resolution is made against that reason. Fourthly, the true resolution of the Commentor is utterly concealed, and a contrary determination by him impugned set down, and this not as a private opinion, but as an ancient decree of the law and Canon itself. Consider I pray you how many frauds and falshoodes there be in one little quotation, and what a volume I should be in●orced to make, if I would examine exactly such a multitude of citations, as he quoteth against us. Thus far wrote I at that time in my Treatise of Mitigation: now let us see how M. Morton will quit himself hereof. He beginneth his discharge in these words.  
62. My adversary, P. R. (saith he) may satisfy himself for me, 
Pream. p. 104.  who a little after concerning this same allegation of this Authority hath said, 
Mitig. p. 84. nu. 52.  that, It may seem to import that he (T. M.) scarce read the books themselves, but cited the same out of some other man's notes. here, we see, in his vehement crimination of malicious falsehood, he hath inserted a charitable and true divination of my integrity. I am glad to see in the mingling of a pound of wormwood, and ten ounces of gall, he had the grace to let fall this dram of sugar, and that so seasonably. For the truth is, that I took up these allegations of Gratian upon credit, & therefore return these pieces unto him, of whom I receiu●d them, who is to prove them currant, and to satisfy for himself. So M. Morton.  
63. Whereby we may see, first how doughty a man M. Morton is to be a public writer, when so often he is forced either to confess that he never saw the Authors which he citeth, or that he took them up by credit or borrowing of others: we may see also how poor men in substance our Ministers are, who for some show of defence of their bad cause, and for some ostentation or rather calumniation against Catholics they join their labours together like emmitts, the one to carry straw, the other earth, the other some more contemptible matter to make a common treasure, out of which every man may take for furnishing himself: but yet when it cometh to be handled and weighed, it proveth nothing but dross, 
Considerations upon the former confession of T. M.  every one of them following rather his prejudicate passion & appetite in making his collections, than the truth or substance of the things he gathereth together: and whereas he taketh so kindly the dram of sugar, that I l●t fall, in saying, that it seemed that he scarce read the books which he citeth against us, I cannot but be delighted with his gratitude: yet if he had set down my whole words, they had some wormwood also in them: for I say, that this fau●t we●e more pardonable, if he did not use fraud in like manner in the things themselves deduced by him f●om those m●salleadged authorities, as you shall hear in the next imputation.  
64. Now then finding himself pressed in such so●t as he cannot tell which way to turn for defending his credit, he is forced to make recourse to stocks and stones, blocks and bones, (as their phrase is, of our recourse to intercession of Saints and honouring of their relics) that is to say, he is constrained to refer us over to one M. Richard Stock a brother-Minister of his, and dignified by him in the margin with the title of a learned Preacher of London. This Stock then being a bad storehouse of such as write against us to furnish them with false wares, lent M. Morton the places, or rather deceived & abused him with them, as Ri. Can. did before, which Stock acknowledgeth the matters & beginneth his recognizance thus: I Richard Stock brought this allegation with some others to the Author of the Discovery etc. And can there be any thing more ridiculous than this, when one Minister is brought in to help out another in matter of false dealing. If I would bring in a Colloquium here between M. Morton and M. Stock about the defence of this place for saving mutually their honesties, should I not have other manner of matter for an interlude the M. Morton framed to himself before out of his fingers ends between the Moderate Answerer, 
Supra. c. 2.  and the Mitigator.  
65. But I mean not to spend time in such trifles: only I would have the judicious Reader in earnest to consider, that if M. Morton either of himself or with the help of his creditor M. Stock, that lent him the falsified authorities before alleged against Catholics, could any way in the world with any probable shift have answered the said falsities himself though never so slenderly; it may be presumed that for his credit's sake he would have done it rather in his own name, then have confessed his poverty, or rather patchery in borrowing it of another, and much less would he have sent us to M. Stock for answer thereof, 
The conference between M. Stock and M. Morton, for dividing the shame of falsifying.  but rather would he have taken Stocks direction, & have delivered the same as from himself, if any way he had found it to be sufficient for some probability of truth? But indeed they conferring matters together, and examining the places, and finding that they were both of them taken in a false measure, the one for lending the false authority, the other for borrowing and abusing; they concluded like good fellows & friends to divide the shame between them, M. Morton for his beggarly borrowing and deceitful usage of that which he had borrowed, and M. Stock for his fraudulent lending of that which was not true, nor verifiable.  
66. Let us come then to the trial how both joining together, do endeavour each one for his part to satisfy my former charge. There be four or five points of falsity objected to them as you have heard. The first, that M. Morton in his Discovery averred (& repeated the same afterward again in his full Satisfaction) that it is an ancient decree of the Canon law, that Catholics are not bound to pay debts unto heretical creditors, notwithstanding they have sworn to do it. And for this he citeth thus: 
Discou. p. 4. full Satis●. part. 1. pag. 21. Mitigat. p. 82.  Apud Gratian● causa 15. q. 6. cap. 4. yet cited he no particular Canon but only certain words in latin found in a Gloss upon the 4. Canon that beginneth Nos Sanctorun etc. but so fraudulently patched together by M. Morton, or by his Creditor M. Stock, as where the said words lie not together, nor are spoken by the Gloss to one purpose but to quite contrary and opposite senses, M. Morton alleged them as appertaining to one & the same effect: the words are before set down: Si iuravi me soluturum etc. and the different frauds and falsities therein used have been before displayed. Now only we must see how M. Stock (the Champion or undertaker) can defend himself about the first point, whether there be an ancient decree or no, for not paying debts to excommunicate persons, which both he, and his borrower M. Morton are bound to bring forth under pain of discredit, for that the words of any Gloss do not prove a Canonical decree, nor do these here alleged, Si iuravi me soluturum, make to that purpose but expressly to the contrary that a man is bound to pay, as hath been declared. How then are these two first points answered of falsifying a decree, and perverting the Gloss? Let us hear the new advocate M. Stock speak for himself.  
67. This allegation (saith he) with some others, I Richard Stock brought unto the Author of the Discovery, which P. R. challengeth to be maliciously cited, 
Pream p. 104. M Stocks defence.  partly for that the words of the Gloss were only set down, when the decree is mentioned, wherein I conceive P. R. complaineth no otherwise, than one, who being smitten with the scabbard, should complain that he was not struck with the sword: So he, because T. M. talked of the decree, and urged only the Gloss. For the decree is far more plain against them then the Gloss. Nos sanctorum praedecessorum statuta tenentes, eos qui excommunicatis ●idelitate aut Sacramento constricti sunt, Apostolica Authoritate à juramento absoluimus: & ne sibi fidelitatem obseruent, omnibus modis prohibemus, quousque ipsi ad satisfactionem veniant. This is the Decree, which in the general carrieth as much or more, as is set down by him, and so cleareth him from any malice in this point. So M. Stock.  
68 But as for malice, we shall treat afterwards. Now we are to see how he hath beaten us with both the sword & scabbard, that is, both with the Canon or Decree itself of Gregory the 7. Nos Sanctorum: as also with the scabbard, which is the Gloss upon that Canon: and for this later we have proved before, that being perverted & manifestly corrupted by M. Morton, quite contrary to the sense, words, and meaning of the writer, who saith, and proveth the quite opposite to that which he was made say by M. Morton: though it be but a scabbard; yet hath it wounded and broken M. Mortons' head, and M. stocks also, if he had part in the corrupting thereof.  
69. As for the sword itself which is the Canon Nos Sanctorum here alleged, 
The sword & scabbard both wounding M. Mortons' cause.  M. Stock himself confesseth, that it striketh not us in particular in determining any thing about or against paying of debts to excommunicate people, and therefore he maketh his inference thus: This is the Decree which in the general carrieth as much or more as is set down. Mark that he saith, that it carrieth as much in general: but generalities are not sufficient to avouch particulars. This Canon doth prohibit obedience to be exhibited to excommunicate persons until they do conform themselves: it speaketh nothing of debts: how shall we try it? First by the words themselves, wherein there is no mention at all of debts: and for that cause it is probable that M. Stock was ashamed to English them, as M. Morton before to recite them. Secondly by the Commentary or Gloss, whose words are plain Licèt excommunicatio tollat obligationem quoad ●●●●li●at●m, non tamen quoad alios contractus: albeit Excommunication do take away obligation of fidelity or subjection towards the person excommunicated, yet not in other contracts: So as if I do owe to an Excommunicate person money, I am bound to pay him. Thus doth the Gloss expound the Canon, and the scabbard doth agree with the sword, and both of them do hurt M. Morton & M. Stock, though never so good fencers in a bad cause.  
70. After this M. Stock, to help out somewhat his Client M. Morton, telleth us that the self same Gloss (that after disputing to and fro, concluded before for us, as we have seen, that we are bound to pay debts to excommunicate persons) granteth notwithstanding in the end, that probabiliter dici potest etc. probably, notwithstanding, it may be said that by excommunication of the person a man is excused from paying debts unto him in respect of the sundry authorities and reasons that he had recited for that opinion before: but what of this? We know his own resolution before was, Verius credo etc. I do think the truer opinion to be, that we are bound to pay, though this other be not improbable also for the reasons alleged: what maketh this for the excuse of M. Morton that alleged this Gloss, as holding the quite contrary.  
71. M Stock goeth further to allege another beginning of a Canon, Absolutos se noverint, which was made by Pope Gregory the 9 almost two hundred years after the former, 
Greg. 9 decret. l. 5. tit. 7. c. 16.  wherein the very same thing is decreed as in the other, to wit, that he who falleth into manifest heresy, (and is by name denounced, as both Medina and other expositors do observe) loseth all service and obedience due unto him, 
Medin. Cod. de restitut. q. 3. causa. 9  until he be absolved again: Wherein there is no one word of debts, though by occasion of this decree a certain Glos●e●, which is of Bernardus de Buttono Parmensis, doth probably hold, that to such a man there is not obligation of payment of debt (at leastwise of such debts as are only contracted by promises, but are not real debts) so long as he remaineth in that case. 
Tolet. lib. 1. Instruc. cap. 13. §. Sextus.  And to this effect also speaketh Tolet in the place here cited by M. Morton, and we have heard before, how the other Gloss of Bartholomaeus Brixiensis held it for probable, though the contrary for more true, upon the Canon Nos Sanctorum.  
72. Wherefore to conclude, we see that neither M. Mort. nor his new Advocate M. Stock, nor both of them together have been able to bring forth the ancient decree which was promised about not paying of debts due to Protestant's (for this he would infer to make our doctrine more odious unto than) for besides that Protestants are not nominatim excommunicati, and consequently not comprehended in the cases alleged, the two decrees mentioned, do speak only of temporal service and obedience, and secondly the Gloss, alleged and corrupted by M. Morton and M. Stock both in words and sense is not here justified nor defended at all, according to their former allegation thereof, but that the four abuses objected by me out of the same, remain still liable upon them, as if they had answered nothing at all, so valiant undertakers have they showed themselves, and stout Champions. Let us pass unto another no better defended by them then this.   

THE sixth Imputation of falsehood pretended to be answered by M. Morton with the help of the same M. Stock. §. VI  

About another false pretended decree in Gratian.  THE sixth charge given by me upon M. Morton for wilful and fraudulent dealing, chosen out by him to be defended is set down by me somewhat largely in my Treatise of Mitigation, for that it containeth sundry branches: and I beseech the Reader to have patience to read it out, & to mark with attention the points thereof. Thus than I wrote before.  

The Charge.  

Mit. p. 84.  74. In the sixth page (quoth I) of his Discovery he hath this grievous accusation out of the Canon law against us: Haeretici filii, vel consanguinei non dicuntur, sed juxta legem sit manus tua super eos, ut fundas sanguinem ipsorum. And then he quoteth thus, apud Grat. gloss. in decret. lib. 5. Ex decret. Greg. 9 caus. 23. q. 8. cap. Legi. which distracted kind of quotation separating the first and last words that should have gone together, seem to import that he scarce read the books themselves, but cited the same out of some other man's notes. But that fault were easily pardoned, if he used no greater fraud in the thing itself. For first he Englisheth the words thus, Heretics may not be termed either children or kindred, but according to the old law thy hand must be against them to spill their blood, and then in the margin he setteth down this special printed note, The professed bloody massacre against the Protestants without distinction of sex or kindred. And what can be more odiously urged then this? Now than let us see how many false tricks and shifts, fit for a Protestant Minister, do lie lurking in this short citation.  
75. First of all is to be considered that this Gloss or commentary of the Canon law, which here is both vnt●uely cited and maliciously applied, is upon a Canon, beginning Si quis; which Canon is taken out of the third Council of Carthage, 
Decret. l. 5. de haeret. tit. 7. c. 5  wherein the famous Doctor and holy Father S. Austin was present, as a chief Bishop that had voice in that Council, and the decree of the Canon is: That if any Bishop should institute heretics or pagans for his heirs, whether they were consanguinei or extranei, kinsmen or externes, ei Anathema dicatur, atque eius nomen inter Dei Sacerdotes nullo modo recitetur: let him be accursed, and let not his name be remembered any way among the Priest's o● God.  
76. This is the severity of that Canon: for ground whereof, another precedent Canon sets down out of the same S. Augustine, quòd haereticus perseverans, aeternaliter damnatur etc. that an heretic persevering in his heresy is da●ned eternally; 
The severe sentence of S. August. against heretics.  Neither can he receive any profit by baptism, alms, martyrdom, nor any other good works. So hath the title of the Canon. But the words of S. Augustine are these: ●irmissimè tene & nullatenus dubites etc. Hold for most certain and no ways doubt, 
August. l. ●e Fide Cath.  but that every heretic or schismatic shallbe partaker of hell fire everlastingly, together with the Devil and his Angels, except before the end of his life he be restored and incorporated again into the Catholic Church. Ne●ther shall baptism, nor alms n●u●r so abundantly bestowed, no nor death itself suffered for the name of Christ, profit him any thing to salvation. So S. Augustine.  
77. Upon this ground then that heretics out of ●he Church & so censured as here you have heard, t●ough they be never ●o near of kin, may not be made heirs, especially by Church men, the Gloss yielding a rea●on thereof, hath these words: Qui● isti Haeret●●s, iam non dicuntur filii vel consanguinei. unde dicitur in lege; si frater tuus, & amicus tuus, & uxor tua depra●are volue●it veritate, s● manus ●ua super illos: For that these heretics are not now called children or kinsfolks, therefore, as such, they cannot be made Inheritors by Ecclesiastical men. Whereupon it is said in the law (of deuteronomy) if thy brother, & friend, or wi●e will go about to deprave the truth, let thy hand be upon them. And presently he citeth to the same effect, th● Authority of S. Hierome, out of another Canon, in another place of the law, as presently we shall see.  
78. So as first here we may behold that T. M. hath not put down this his quoted Gloss, as it is found in the true Gloss itself, but left out both the beginning, Quia isti haeretici etc. which imported somewhat to the understanding of his meaning: as also he le●t out the reason alleged by the Gloss out of Gods own words in deuteronomy, to wit, the wilful corrupting o● his truth. 
Hier. cont. Vi●il. cit. a Gratiano cause. 23. q. 8. c. Legi.  And thirdly he added these words ut ●undas sanguinem ipsorum, which here (as you see) the Gloss hath not, but they are cited out of S. Hierome, in another Canon, & volume of the law, where the holy Father excusing to his friend Ripariu● a Priest his earnest zeal & desire to have Vigil●ntiu● the heretic (against whom he had written) punished by his Bishop, allegeth divers examples of severity in like cases out of the Scriptures, as of Phin●es, Elias, Simon Can●naeus, S. Peter, S. Paul, & lastly citeth also the foresaid words of God's Ordinance in deuteronomy: I● thy brother, thy wife, thy friend, etc. shall go about to pervert thee from God's true worship etc. hear him not, nor conceal him, but bring him forth to judgement, and let thy hand be vp● him ●i●st, & then after the hand o● all the people etc. which is to be understood according to the form of law appointed afterward in the 17. Chapter, that he be orderly brought ●orth to judgement, and then when sentence is passed against him, he which heard or saw him commit the sin, and is a witness against him, must cast the first stone at him, and the rest must ●ollow. And this also doth the ordinary commentary or Gloss of Lyranus, and others upon those texts of Scripture, declare.  
79. And now let the judicious Reader consider how many corruptions this crafty Minister hath used to bring forth to his purpose this one little distracted text for proof of professed bloody massacres intended by us against Protestants. 
A Catalogue of corruptions.  For first he corrupteth the words of the Gloss apparently, and that in divers points, leaving out that which the Gloss saith, and adding that which the Gloss hath not; then he corrupteth the meaning both of Gloss and Canon, depraving that to a wicked sense of bloody massacring without distinction of sex or kindred; which the Canon and Council of Carthage, with S. Augustine, meant only of civil punishment against heretics, to wit, that they could not be made heirs to Ecclesiastical men. Thirdly he perverteth in like manner S. Hieromes intent, which was, that albeit he wished that heretics should be punished also bodily, yet by order and form of law, and not that any one should kill another, and much less by ●loudy massacres, as this fellow setteth it down in his marginal note. And lastly he presumeth to pervert the very words of God himself in the law, by translating, fundas sanguinem ipsorum, spill their blood, in steed o● shed their blood, as though God were a bloud-spiller, or commanded the same to be done unjustly by others. But all is strained by the Minister, to make us odious, whereas himselve indeed is thereby made ridiculous. And thus far endured my former Charge.   

The pretended Discharge.  
80. To this important Charge, let us see now how Morton●●ameth ●●ameth his discharge: for it ●ay be presumed, that if he had not been able to do the same sufficiently in his own conceit, he would not have made choice of defending this before so many others as he hath let pass without answer. First then, you must know, that here again he referreth us to his friend M. Stock, to help him out, which he doth so miserably, as it is pitiful to see in what plight they both are. For that M. Stock, though ●e confess that he lent him this place also out of the Gloss, yet he will not take upon him to iusti●y any thing the●in, but only the citation to be true which notwithstanding he cannot perform, as presently shall be showed:) but as for the corruptions and falsi●ications used about the same, he leaveth them all to M. Morton to shift with them as he can. 
The Comedy between M. Mo●ton & M. Stock.  And in truth it is a very Comedy to see, how they deal together. For first you must imagine M. Morton to enter on the scaffold, and there being charged with this imputation of so many falsityes, as now you have heard, first looketh round about him who will come forth to help him therein: and then seeing no body appear saith thus: To the allegation o● thi● place of Gratian, Ric. Stock doth owe you an answer. And so goeth of the scaffold again, leaving the other to play his part, who coming up, prosecuteth the matter thus.  
81. This second place also I brought (saith R. Stock) unto T. Morton, 
Preamb. pa. 107.  the whole being no otherwise distractedly quoted then the Gloss, whence I had it, warranted by me: so that if P. R. reprove me, he must check his Glossary: for when the Gloss had set down the first part, he quoted for the later, Causa 23. q. 8. cap. Legi. etc. And this being said, he presently recoileth, and leaveth the stage for M. Morton again to make the Epilogue, and end the Comedy. But we must call him back again, for the gloss cited by him doth not warrant this citation, to wit, apud Gratianum Glossae in decret. lib. 5. ex Decret. Grego●ij 9 caus. 23. q. 8. cap. Legi. for it had been ridiculous that this Gloss here cited upon the 5. of the Decretals of Pope Gregory, should have been found cited in Gratian, as the collector of these Decretals of Gregory the ninth, for so much as the said Gratian was dead many years before this Pope Gregory the 9 was made Pope, which was upon the year 1227. as in the beginning of the said Decretals is set down: and Gratian collected his Decrees seventy & six years before, 
Vide Posse●in in ●iblioth. verbo Gratianus.  to wit, 1151. So as M. Morton in his first two books, the Discovery, and full Satisfaction, citing the sentence, Haeretici filii vel con●anguinei non dicuntur, quoteth the place thus, apud Gratian. Glossa in Decret. lib. 5. ex decreto Gregorij noni, did mist ●irst in saving apud Gratianum Glossa, for that the Gloss cited is not upon Gr●ti●n, but upon the Dec●etals of Gregory, and the Author thereof is Be●nardus de Bottono. Secondly it is not in Decretis gathered by Gratian, but upon the Decretals of Pope Gregory, gathered by Saint Raimondus Bar●inon●●sis almost a hundred years after Gratian, as hath been said.  
82. Wherefore, though before I said to M Morton, that this ●ault of distracted quotation were easily pardonable, if he used no greater fraud in the thing itself, for that it was likely he read not the books which he cited (& he thanketh me heartily for it, 
M. Morton more pardonable then M. Stock.  as now you have heard, as for a dram of sugar ●alling seasonably upon him out of a pound of wormwood, that had gone before:) yet I cannot so easily pardon it in M. Stock, who will confess nothing, nor imitate M. Morton in his humility, but will needs stand to his former error, and redouble it by a new outfacing that he quoted the place no otherwise then the Gloss had warranted: which is manifestly false. For albeit the Gloss did cite the later part well out of Gratian, to wit causa 23. q. 8. cap. Legi. which I reprehended not: yet the former part, to wit, Apud Gratian. Glossa in decret. lib. 5. ex decret. Greg. 9 can never be defended or justified. And so M. Stock, though he took but little upon him for defence of M. Morton which was to defend only the bare quotations: yet hath he not performed so much as he promised, but left his Client more entangled then before. For now the error is not only of ignorance, as before, but made malicious also by this extravagant defence. Let us hear how M. Morton will satisfy the rest. He beginneth his defence in these words, after M. Sto●ke is departed of the stage.  
83. So hath M. Stock satisfied (saith he) for ●i● all●gation: It remaineth that I likewise iusti●y both my collection and translation. Whereto may be answered, that if you do justify no better than he hath done, you will prove both of you just men alike. And first of all it is ridiculous in you, that being charged with so many grave matters of shifts and falsi●ications, as are set down in the precedent charge, which you have related most brokenly and corruptly, leaving out many chief parts thereof to hide them from the sight of your Reader; you run to a certain Dilemma, set down in your margin, and say, that you will take me up upon a Logical rack, 
Deutr. 31.  demanding me whether the Canon of murdering kindred (which words are taken out of deuteronomy, & applied by S. Hierome against the heretic Vigilantius) if they should be applied to Protestants, whether I would hold it for a Massacre or for Catholic justice. For if I answer the one, then am I a Traitor, if the other, then am I against the Canon. 
M. Mort. fond Dilemma.  Whereto I answer, that the demand is foolish, and not worthy the answering at all: for that the like odious demands may be made about the execution of all criminal laws. And it is a token that M. Morton is at a Nonplus, when he seeketh to entertain time in these impertinences. Why doth he not answer directly to some of the main charges laid against himself before: as first, the manifest corruption of the words o● the Gloss it sel●e: secondly, the falsification of the meaning, b●t● o● the Gloss and Canon: thirdly, the perverting of S. Hieromes sense and intention: fourthly the perverting of the words of God himself b● translating bloud● instead o● shed their blood, as though that God were a bloud-spiller, and commanded the same to be done unjustly by others: for that spilling of blood is commonly understood in the worst sense. And this translation is seemed to be used by him, rather than the other to make the very words of Deutronom● odious, as they lie in the Pope's Canon taken out of S. Hierome.  
84. But now he pretermitting all the other three points, taketh upon him only to write some few lines in defence of this fourth and last point about spilling of blood, 
Whether spilling & shedding of blood be all one.  going about to show out of divers places of the Rhemish Translation of the new Testament, that not only spilling of blood, but shedding of blood also is sometimes taken in ill part, as Rom. 3.15. Their feet are swift to shed blood: and aga●ne Apoc. 16. They have shed the blood of Saints, and other such places, where shedding of blood is understood vn●u●● shedding, or spilling of blood: which I deny not, but that oftentynes shedding of blood may be taken for spilling of blood: but yet this difference you shall find, if I be not deceived, that spilling is always taken in the evil part, and shedding sometimes in one, and sometimes in the other, as k●lling a●d murdering for example, killing may be applied both to good and bad, just and unjust slaying, but murdering can never be taken in good part. And so M. Morton, if passion against the Pope's Canon had not letted him, would never have translated the words of God sundere sanguinem, to spill blood, which always is taken in the worst sense, but rather shed blood, that may have a good sense. And against this distinction, and observation, let M. Morton allege me but three examples, where spilling of blood is taken in good sense for lawful shedding of blood, & I will say he hath done some what. And for so much as he hath not been able to do it here, where most it imported him, & where he most endeavoured to seek out some one example for the purpose, the discreet Reader will easily consider of his passionate speech and conclusion in this place, which is this: Now then (saith he) what a notable Critike have I met withal, 
Preamb. pag. 108.  whom every good wise is able to convince of idle dotage, the vulgar use of speech being, tha● drink is spilled, and drink is shed: this is the man privileged to send me to the University to make a syllogism, whom I may more justly send to an Alehouse to learn English. So far M. Morton in his choler. And now all this (as you see) requireth no answer, but compassion rather towards the party, so pitifully put out of tune by the weakness of his cause, as he is forced to draw us to an Alehouse for ending thereof. But let him prove by any of his Alewives, that spilling of good ale is taken in good ●ense, to wit, that it is well spilled, & then he proveth somewhat out of his Alehouse, where I persuade me that he shall find few good drinkers, that will be of his opinion.  
85. Finally then he concludeth his defence in these words: The last point (saith he) which is observed in our Mitigator, is, that he affirmeth this Canon to have been de●reed in the third Councel● o● Carthage, where no such thing can be ●ound: therefore must his o●ne ●●●mes of falsehood, fraud, treachery, reue●b●rate upon himself. Thus he. And truly I cannot but marvel greatly what he meaneth to deny matters so resolutely, that are so apparent as this is, & may invincibly be proved against him. For first the Canon itself that begins: Si quis Episcopus etc. If any Bishop do institute heretics for his heirs etc. is cited by the Collector of the Decretals ex Concilio Africano, out of the Council of Africa, whereby some do understand to be meant the said ●. Council of Carthage, as held in Afri●ke: but the note in the margin upon the Canon itself doth expressly refer the reader to the said third Council of Carthage, and 13. Chapter, and to the testimony of Theodorus Balsamon a Greek writer in his Collections upon the Council of Carth●ge, and 25. Chapter.  
86. But what need more testimonies when the thing is clearly extant in the Council of Carthage itself, 
A shameful denying of a Canon in the third Council of Carthage.  where it is written in the 13. Canon, Vt Episcopi vel Clerici etc. that neither Bishops nor Clergy men shall bestow any of their goods upon any that be not Catholick●ly Christian, though they be their kinsfolks. And the Council of Hippo where S. Austen was Bishop, which Council professeth to make Abbreviationes Concilij Carthaginensis tertij, an abridgement of the third Carthage Council, hath this Canon: That Bishops and Clergy men shall bestow nothing of their goods upon any, but such as are Catholics. So as for M. Mort. to deny this matter now, and to say boldly that there is no such thing found, ye● t● t●●ne it over again to me as falsehood, fraud, and treachery, I know not in what account of speech or proceeding it may be reckoned; but only that the necessity of entertaining his Reader forced him to say somewhat, though never so false or far from the purpose, yea void of modesty and shame, as now you have seen, in denying that, which his own eyes must needs testify against him. But let this pass with the rest.    

THE seventh Imputation of falsehood pretended to be answered by M. Morton. §. VII.  
THE Reader cannot forget how that in the beginning of this Chapter M. Morton protested that he had not chosen out those imputations which were most easy to be answered, 
About the Extravagant for the Gloss  but such rather, as his Adversary did most insist and insult upon. Now he layeth further forth against me, that I do charge him with falsehood about alleging an Extravagant of the Pope instead of a Gloss, and that after my whole charge given, I do insult in these words: Thus much ●or his variety o● corruptions in this littl● sentence. To which I answer, that this is no great insuitation, if the particulars of the Charge given be considered. For thus it standeth in my book of Mitigation.  

The Charge.  
88 To pass no further (said I) in this second point of arguments, 
Mit. p. 173. & 174.  under the n●w Testament, we shall say a word or two only of the third, to wit of proofs affirmed to be deduced by us from force of reason, for so M. Morton entituleth them, to wit, Popish Arguments from Reason. And to the end you may see his talon therein, we shall examine only the third reason in this place, which he declareth in these words: Except (saith the Romish pretence) there were a way of deposing Apostata Princes', God had not provided sufficiently ●or his Church. And for this he citeth the Constitution Extravagant of Pope Boni●acius, and saith, this objection is in your Extravagants, and so it may be called, because it rangeth extra, that is without the bounds of God's Ordinance etc. 
Disco p. 34 Extravag. communium de Maior● & Obedientia. §. unam sanctam.  But as in all his other citations generally he is never lightly true, and sincere in all points, no not thrice (I think verily) throughout all this lying Book of his: so neither here. And it would require a great volume alone to examine only some part of his leaves about this point of his shifts & corruptions, they are so many, and thick, & craftily huddled up together. As for example here, first this sentence is not in the Pope's Extravagant at all, but only in a certain addition to the ordinary Gloss, or Commentary of john Picard, 
Extravagant of Bonifa. 8. falsely alleged.  which addition was made by Petrus Bertrandus a late writer. Secondly this Commentary saith nothing of deposing Apostata Princes', but only affirming the foresaid opinion of Canonists to be true, that Christ was Lord absolutely in this life over all, not only in spiritual authority, but in temporal also, he inferreth thereby, Christ should not have sufficiently provided for the government of his Church, and Kingdom upon earth, Nisi unicum post se talem Vicarium reliquisset, qui haec omnia posset, except he had left some such one Substitute or Vicar after him, as should be able to perform all these things, 
Addit. ad ●om. extrauag. de maiorit. in c. 1. ad finem.  to wit, as belong both to spiritual & temporal power, according as necessity shall require, which later clause you see, that T.M. cut of, as he added the other about Apostata Princes. And thus much for his variety of corruptions in this little sentence.   

The pretended discharge.  
89. We see the points of jugglings here objected, let us also see how sincerely they will be now answered by M. Morton in this his last Reply. First he said in his Book of Full Satisfaction, that the sentence by him proposed, was in the Pope's Extravagants, or Extravagant Constitutions: now it is showed that they are not found in any Extravagant Constitution at all, but only in a certain addition of one Petrus Bertrandus a late writer upon the Gloss or Commentary what answereth he to this? For citing (saith he) the Extravagants of the Pope, 
Preamb. p. ●10.  an ingenious Reader would have understood a figure called Synecdoche, where the part is put for the whole: as when we say, This man shall not come under my roof, meaning by roof, which is ●ut a part of the house, the whole house i● sel●e: so here by Extravagant might have been meant the whole body of their Constitutions, which contain both Extravagants and Glosses etc.  
90. This is the first part of his answer, that we must understand him by a figure, 
A ridiculous answer by a figure.  Pars pro toto, as if a man should say in divinity, the Scripture hath this or that, because some that write Commentaries or Annotations upon it have it: so as all Commentaries must be held for Scriptures. And the like in Philosophy, Aristotle may be affirmed to say this or that, for that some of his Expositors do say the same. Were not this a substantial kind of arguing ou● of the figure Synecdoche, which is Pars pro toto, a part for the whole? Will not M. Morton be ashamed of this shift, and blush at the consequence? But indeed here is not so much as any Synecdoche, or such figure at all, but only the figure of plain lying. For neither are the Extravagant Constitutions of Popes, parts of the glosses, nor the Glosses are parts of the Constitutions, & much less may Additions or Annotations be accounted any parts at all of the same: So as here M. Morton cannot be defended or excused by his Synecdoche in citing an Annotation for an Extravagant Decree, or Papal Constitution. And this is his first shift: let us see his second.  
91. The second is not so fine, but much more soul and fraudulent, or rather shameless, which he delivereth in these words, thereby to prove that Glosses and Annotations are not only parts of the Pope's Constitutions, but of the very same Authority and validity with them: a strange desperate assertion, if you consider it well. But how will he prove it think you? Let us hear his words and reason.  
92. Pope Gregory the 13. (saith he) hath ratified the foresaid Gloss and Annotations, 
Preamb. p. 111.  with privilege and authority equivalent and answerable to the authority o● the Decretals & Extravagants themselves. Whereof he inferreth, that whether a man do cite Decretals, Extravagants, Glosses, and Annotations, all is one, for that all have equivalent authority. And will any man of sense believe this to be true? It is incredible. And how then doth he avouch it? Or what reason can he allege for it? You shall hear his ma●ner of proof how substantial it is. First than you must know that Pope Gregory the 13. in these our days being demanded licence to print the Canō●aw a new, 
A notorious & senseless falsification of Pope Gregory the 13.  prefixed an Epistle before the Decretals of Gratian with this title, Ad suturam rei memoriam, wherein he giveth licence to Paulus Constabilis Magister Sacri Palatij to review the same, and to the Printers to print it exactly according to the Roman example, saying among other things thereupon: Vt hoc juris Canonici Corpus fideliter & incorruptè, juxta exemplar Romae impr●ssum, imprimi possit, that this Corpse of the Canon law may be faithfully, and without corruption printed, according to the Copy set forth at Rome: whereof M. Morton will needs infer, that for so much as Pope Gregory did ordain, that all the whole Corpse of the Canon law should be printed together, according to the Roman Copy, as well of Constitutions, Decrees, Extravagants, Glosses, Annotations, and the rest, he made them all equal, and of the same and equal authority, for so run his words: Pope G●egory the 13. (saith he) hath ratified the foresaid Gloss and Annotations with privilege and authority equivalent and answerable to the authority of the Decretals and Extravagants themselves.  
93. And what man in the world in his right wits, besides M. Morton, would have had the face to allege this Licence of printing, for an equalling the credit and authority of all the things printed? Can there any match be found to this? Tell me I pray you, when king Henry the eight did allow at the beginning, and gave privilege for printing the great English Bible with Tindals' notes (which afterward he called in again & censured for heretical, did he thereby make these notes of tindal of equal Authority with the Scripture itself? Or if Queen Elizabeth did approve the printing of the English new Testament with Beza his notes, did she thereby equal the said Notes with the text of the Testament itself? Who would reason so, or who would go about so to abuse his Reader, and himself, that had care of conscience or credit? Can these frauds be committed but of deliberation and set purpose? Surely if any one such trick should be brought and proved against any writer of ours, it were enough to shame him for ever. Let any man read the said Breve of Gregory the 13. and he will say, that these men are driven to great extremities, when they are forced to lay hands upon such base and bare thiftes.  
94. But let us see how he shifteth of the last two charges of adding to the beginning, and cutting from the end of the sentence alleged out of the Gloss. He saith to the first, that albeit the words Apostate Princes be not in the text of the Gloss, 
Extravag. Commun. l. 1. de maiorit. & Obed. cap. 1. ad finem.  totidem verbis, that is in precise words (nor indeed are they found at all:) yet may the matter handled in that Gloss be extended unto them, and to their deposition, for so much as in that gloss is disputed the Pope's authority in general over temporal Princes: which is far fetched as you see, to be set down by him in a different letter, as the very words not only of the Gloss, but also of the Canon or Extravagant itself. And as for the second clause which is the cutting of the last words of the sentence, Nisi unicum post se talem Vicarium reliquisset etc. he answereth thus: What needed any addition of that which was sufficiently expressed in my Adversaries objection? But Sir, we require no addition by you, but why did you cut of these last words of the sentence that immediately followed in the Gloss, and made so much for explication of his meaning? What need these nibblings, streching, and other such shifts in so small sentences (as now we are to see also in the next imputation) but only that the misery and necessity of your cause cannot else be defended? For that otherwise it may be supposed, that you are not so delighted in falsehood, as to use it so often, without utility or necessity: yea more or les●e in every least sentence lightly, that is alleged, as now the Reader shall see in another that ensueth. In the mean space it is evident, that you are so far of from being able to deliver yourself from the Charge and imputation of falsehood in this place objected, as you have incurred new, and that most notorious in slandering Pope Gregory the 13. to have equalled Glosses and Annotations with Extravagants and Canonical Decrees, which never passed through his cogitations. And the mistaking is not only ridiculous, but also malicious, to discredit thereby Pope Gregory, as by itself is most evident.    

THE EIGHT Imputation of falsehood pretended to be answered by T. M. §. VIII.  
THIS eight imputation in like manner, is about an other wilful corruption used by M. Morton in a little sentence alleged by him out of Cardinal Bellarmine, 
About the h●●●●●e of Autoth●isme objected to Calvin and the corruption of Bellarmine's words th●rin.  which though it contain scarce two or three lines: yet hath it two or three corruptions therein, so set down, as could not by any probability be of oversight or error, but of set purpose for helping of a bad cause. I handled this matter somewhat before in the precedent Chapter, but Morton●or ●or want of new store, draweth it here in again. The controversy arose about a certain speech brought in by M. Morton of Calvin and Beza, how they were accused by F. Campian, Genebrard, & other Catholic writers, for holding the heresy of the Autotheans, who deny Christ to be God of God● & Light of Light, as the Council of Nice teacheth us to speak, but that he is God of himself: which doctrine notwithstanding M. Morton said, that Cardinal Bellarmine holdeth for Catholical, and consequently he both delivereth Calvin and Beza from imputation of heresy therein, and is contrary to his fellows, who of ignorance or passion ascribed this for heresy to Calvin and Beza; wherein M. Morton goeth about by Equivocation to beguile his Reader. For albeit Bellarmine doth teach that in some sense it may be truly said, that Christ is God of himself: yet absolutely doth he condemn the speech of Calvin for heretical therein, and he proveth it by many arguments, which point M. Morton concealed, and besides craftily corrupted the words alleged out of Bellarmine, as presently will be seen. For thus my former Charge was made after the recital both of M. Morton and Cardinal Bellarmine's words at large.  

The Charge.  
96. But now (said I) aswell Calvin and Beza (as 
Mitig. p. 230.  also M. Willet and Doctor Fulke their Scholars) in a particular sense (saith our Minister) do deny Christ to be God of God, to wit, that the Essence of his Godhead hath no generation, though as he is Son, and the second person in Trinity, he is by generation from his Father: 
Bellarm. words fraudulently alleged.  which doctrine he saith our Bellarmine doth hold for Catholical, whose words he allegeth in the margin thus: Dum rem ipsam excutio, non facilè audeo pronuncia●e ill●s in errore fuisse, while I do examine well the thing itself, I date not presume to pronounce them to have been in error, to wit, Calvin and Beza: whereas Bellarmine's words are, fuisse● while I examine the matter itself, and diligently consider Caluins opinions, I do not easily presume to pronounce him to have been in this error, to wit, in the particular error, or heresy of the Autotheans, set down and confuted by Genebrard, and in his sense condemned expressly by the ancient Catholic Church, for denying Christ to be, and to have his Essence from the Father: but yet though in some sense it seemeth to Bellarmine, that Calvin may be excused in this private & particular meaning of his, yet not absolutely as T. M. would m●ke his Reader to think, by striking out cunningly the particle hoc (this error) & leaving the word (error) in common, as though Bellarmine had excused him from all kind of error, which is most false, for that presently after, he both impugneth of purpose and confuteth by many arguments his manner of speech, as heretical in this behalf.  
97. Restat (saith he) ut modum loquendi Calumi, qui dicit Filium à se habere essentiam, simpliciter esse repudiandum, & contrario modo loquendum esse demonstremus etc. It remaineth that we do demonstrate Calvin's manner of speech, 
Calvin's manner of speech condemned by Bellarmine.  that saith the Son to have his essence of himself, is simply to be rejected, and that we must speak in a quite contrary manner, to wit, that the Son hath not only his person, but essence also from the Father, and so is God of God, and light of light, as the Council of Nice declared: and this he proveth by four ways. First, Quia pugnat cum Verbo Dei, for that Caluins manner of speech is opposite to the word of God etc. Pugnat secundò cum Concilijs, and secondly it is repugnant to the manner of speech of ancient Counsels, as the Nicene and others. Pugnat tertiò cum doctrina Patrum, thirdly it is contrary to the doctrine of the old Fathers. Fourthly it agreeth with the speech of the old Arians: and other such proofs, which Bellarmine doth prosecute at large, confirming each one of these members by divers examples and instances, and that Calvin spoke heretically in favour of the Arians in this behalf.  
98. So as the cozenage here of striking out (hoc) out of Bellarmine's words, making him to say, non audeo pronuntiare illos in errore ●uisse, instead of illum in hoc errore fuisse, though it be small in sound of words, yet in substance it is much. For that thereby Thomas Morton would make his reader believe that Bellarmine cleareth Calvin & Beza from all sorts of error in this point, and for that propose turneth illum into illos, & hoc errore, into errore, that is to say, him into them, and this error, into any error at all: whereas Bellarmine though in one sense he excuse him, yet absolutely doth he condemn him, as you have heard. And no man can deny, but that his latin words were here fraudulently and perfidiously alleged, and mangled by Thomas Morto●, for that he could not do it but wittingly and of purpose: and yet forsooth this man will not equivocate as he saith for a world, though lie he will manifestly for much less as you see. Thus wrote I then.   

The pretended Discharge.  
99 For answer to this Charge M. Morton saith three things. First, that for a sign of his sincere meaning, and that he had not any such devilish disposition to cozen his Reader, 
Poor & weak answers.  as is pretended, he allegeth that he left the latin sentence of Bellarmine untranslated: whereas if he had recited it also in English, he had laid as it were a double net to trap his Reader etc. But this is a poor excuse: For he that shall read the contexture and thread of his text in that place, shall see that he could not conveniently bring in the sentence of Bellarmine Englished, but it was enough to cite the latin words for the more learned, and deceive the vulgar Reader with the false assertion, that Bellarmine held the doctrine of Calvin and Beza for Catholic, without any mislike or reprehension at all.  
100 Secondly for nibbling of the word hoc, and citing errore, for hoc errore, he saith the fault was nothing, 
Preamb. p. 113.  for that all was one in Bellarmine's speech. For proof whereof he runneth to divers experiments of speech, as before to the Alehouse and Ale-wyves about spilling and shedding ale: so here he taketh example of his Hostess and of eating at the table, affirming that if one should say, of two sorts of bread used at table, give me the courser bread, and his servant should fetch him hors-bread, ●or that he had not added (hoc) that is to say, give me of this sort of courser bread, and not hors-bread, for so much as it was so to be understood of itself: so when the question was about a particular heresy of the Autotheans, when Bellarmine delivered Calvin (ab errore) it was as much to say, as ab hoc errore, from this particular error. And the like he answereth about illos for illum, saying that for so much as Bellarmin doth afterward in the same place exuse one Simlerus a follower of Calvin for the same opinion o● Calvin, he doth consequently also excuse Beza: and so M. Morton might quote illos for illum.  
101. Thus he trifleth out matters ad excusanda● excusationes in peccatis. And what may not be defended or deluded in this sort? but let him answer directly and substantially to this demand? 
M. Morton hardly pressed.  Why had not he (if he had meant plainly and sincerely) set down Bellarmine's words as he found them in his text? especially they being so few? Why did he alter them? Was it by chance or of purpose? If by error he miss in the citation, why happened it upon those things that were all to his advantage? To wit, the leaving out of (hoc) thereby to make it seem that Bellarmine cleared Calvin of all error in that matter, wherein he expressly condemned him quoad modum loquendi, in his manner of speech, which he proveth to be heretical by four sorts of arguments, as now you have heard. Or why had not M. Morton so much as mentioned this condemnation by Bellarmine, seeing it imported the matter so mightily? If it were not by chance, but by industry and set purpose (though it be but a word:) yet is it sufficient to argue the faulty mind of the Corrupter. And in this sort might I argue in all the rest of other points, that are perverted: It could not probably fall out (especially so often) by chance or error, ergo of purpose, ergo of fraudulent meaning, and of desire to deceive. And so much for this to prove in M. Morton mentem rean, a guilty mind, that according to S. Augustins judgement maketh him mendacij reum, guilty of wilful lying, though it be but in smaller things, where malice is more than the matter itself.  
102. Hitherto M. Morton hath gone up and down, seeking and picking out the weakest sort of imputations laid against him● whereunto he thought himself best able to make some show of probable answer: wherein notwithstanding you have seen how little he hath been able to perform in any substance of truth, and how in three or four of these eight already proposed, he hath been forced either to confess, 
M. Mort. idle repetition of things before discussed.  that he saw not the Author which he cited, or to remit us to other men for answering the falshoodes therein objected. And now he betaketh himself to another shift, for making up a number of imputations, as satisfied by him (for it seemed somewhat to touch his credit to answer fourteen imputations, which was the number he objected against me, though he leave more than twice fourteen unanswered) and this new shift is to repeat, and bring in again in this place five several imputations treated both by him, and us before, and some of them twice at least: and yet would he needs fetch them in the third time, not for want of other laid against him, of much more force & difficulty to be answered, but for that these being things of small moment, and lightly objected for such by me, they do serve him to make a bulk of work, as though he had dispatched much matter, and solved great difficulties, whereas indeed they are nothing but words, on his behalf, and ostentation without substance. Let us see then what they are.    

THE NINTH Imputation twice handled before, and now against brought in by M. Morton. §. IX.  
THIS is about a place of Isay the Prophet in the 29. Chapter and 9 verse, 
About a place of Isay 29.  where it is said in the common Latin translation of S. Hierome, Obstupescite & admiramini, fluctuate & vacillate, inebriamini, & non à vino, movemini, & non ab ebrietate: 
See before cap. 1. §. 5. & cap. 4. §. 10  Be ye astonished and wonder, waver ye and reel, ye are drunk, but not with wine, ye are moved but not with drunkenness: and conform to this are the other texts also both in Hebrew & Greek. Which sentence M. Morton translateth into English, 
Isay. 29.9.  & setteth it forth for his poesy in the first page of his book in these words: But stay yourselves and wonder, they are blind and make you blind, 
Mitig. p. 88  applying it to our Catholic Doctors and doctrine: for which I noted him only in the end of my second Chapter, for falsely alleging, corrupting, and mangling this place: the Reader will see my reason by looking upon the text. And how little he hath been able to say for himself in justification of this his fancy, may be seen in the two Chapters before mentioned. And so we pass to another as trifling as this.   

THE TENTH Imputation twice also handled before, and now again brought in by M. Morton. §. X.  
THIS also is a Colewort twice already sodden, and now brought in again the third time, for lack of better victuals, to wit, about the text of Carerius the Paduan Doctor, 
About verè & verò in Carerius  whether it should be Nuperrimè verè Celsus, or nuperrimè verò Celsus, whereof I spoke but a word or two in my Treatise of Mitigation, 
Mitigation p. 234.  censuring it for a trifle: and now M. Morton hath so stretched out the matter, for that he may seem to have some little patronage for his error by the later error of another print, 
See before cap. 1. §. 6. & cap. 4. §. 10.  as having brought it in twice already in two several Chapters for an ostentation of his manhood, he cometh now again the third time with the same thing, as you see, whereas my book might have lent him a great many of other more real Charges, wherein his said manhood might better have been tried. But he desired only to make a flourish.   

THE ELEVENTH Imputation pretended to be answered, which is handled also before. §. XI.  
THIS Imputation was for that M. Morton had affirmed that Doleman doth pronounce sentence, 
About Dolman falsely alleged.  That whosoever shall consent to the succession of a Protestant Prince, is a most grievous and damnable sinner. Which sentence I do affirm in my Treatise of Mitigation, that it is neither in words nor in sense to be found in Doleman, 
See cap. 1. §. 7.  which I do prove by producing his whole text that hath no such words, though M. Mo●ton hath set them down in a different letter, 
Mitigat. p. 72.  as Dolemans prope● words. Nor are they there in true sense, as more prejudicial to Protestants, then to men of other religion: for that the discourse is general for all sorts of men of what Religion or sect soever, that they do sin grievously, if willingly they do concur to the making of a King, whom they think in their conscience to be contrary to God's true religion? Where M. Morton (saying nothing to the substance of the matter itself) endeavoureth to show, that as a man may sometimes allege the sense of Scriptures only, and not the very words, 
Impertinent ●itations.  citing for the same divers examples, as Ephes. 5.14. Heb. 1. 1. Heb. 3.5. Act. 10.43. and so might he allege the sense of Doleman though he varied from his words. But I deny, that either the true words, or true sense of Doleman was related by him, and consequently, it cannot be excused from a witting falsehood. See this matter handled before Cap. 1. §. 7.   

THE TWELFTH Imputation handled before Chap. 1. and pretended now again to be answered. §. XII.  
THIS Imputation was about false dealing on M. Mortons' behalf, 
About the succession of Protestant Princes  in setting down a general assertion, that all Popish Priests upon the pretended supremacy and prerogative of Pope and People (over Princes) do utterly abolish the title of succession in all Protestant Princes. Wherein he is convinced of divers falsehoods, handled before by us in the first Chapter of this Treatise, 
Mitig. p. 72. full satisfact. part. 1. c. 13. p. 9  where we have showed evidently, that he cannot defend his position, but with multiplying more fal●ityes one upon another, for view whereof I remit the Reader to the place quoted: for so much, as M. Morton in this last Reply writeth only five lines thereof in this place, 
Preamb. p. 116.  remitting us in like manner to that which before hath been handled.   

THE THIRTEENTH Imputation handled also before, and now brought in again by M. Morton. §. XIII.  
IT is a great argument of M. Mortons' penury that he is forced to repeat things so often, 
About Otho Frisingensis peruerted●  thereby to make some show of answering to somewhat, though in truth it be nothing in effect: for that he dissembling above 30. weighty and main Charges given him by his Adversary, as will appear in the next Chapter, he seeketh to entertain his Reader here with smaller matters, twice or thrice repeated. And now this thirteenth Imputation, if you remember, was about alleging the authority of the Historiographer Otto Frisingensis, against the cause of Pope Gregory the seventh, in favour of the Emperor Henry the fourth, quite contrary to the words & meaning of the said Historiographer, who defendeth the cause of the said Pope, speaking much good of his life & virtue. And M. Mort. is so far of from being able to quit himself from false dealing in this behalf, as he is forced partly to lay the fault upon others, as upon Doctor Tolo●anus, partly to abuse the name and testimony of Claudius Espencaeus, and make him to say and aver that which he doth not, but relateth out of others: And in no one Imputation hitherto touched was he more graveled then in this, as the Reader may see by turning to the place itself. So as it is strange that M. Morton will bring in this again, 
Supra c. 1. 〈◊〉. 8●. & 103. & cap. 4. §. 10  but only to make up a number, and yet leave out so great store of other of far greater importance as hath been said. But now leaving this, let us peruse another defence of his, which he hath choose to make, as the last prize of his mastery in this behalf: and it being reserved by him for the last place, we may imagine, it will be a good one.   

THE FOURTEENTH and last Imputation of falsehood pretended by M. Morton to be triumphantly answered. §. XIIII.  
FOR the last place and upshot of this Combat, M. Morton hath made choice of an Imputation which he pretendeth not only with great advantage to be able to repel and shake of from himself, but to retort the same in like manner upon his adversary, & therefore he intertaineth himself longer therein then in any other hitherto named, 
About Lammbertus Scafnaburg. perverted.  & divideth his answer both into a several preface & four distinct heads or paragraphs, promising in the one to show the falsity of this objected Imputation: in the second the foolishness: in the third the vn●ortunatnes: in the forth the blasphemy. And surely if he can, not only clear himself from the imputation, but prove also these four points against me for objecting the same, or any one of them (which is more liberality than he demandeth) I will say that he hath showed manhood indeed in this last attempt, to recompense the Childhood we have found in all the rest.  
109. But yet before we pass to the particular trial, I must needs tell him friendly, that this adventurous anymosity of his is not always either commendable or fortunate, as we shall show in our eight Chapter, where we shall be forced to treat somewhat of his confident & audacious o●fers & protestations. And for that he termeth the Charge made by me of this imputation an Indictment, I shall use the same Metaphor in this my Answer & advertisement unto him, which is that I have heard of sundry in England, who being called into suspicion about criminal imputations, 
M. Mortons' fond animosity, whereo● see afterward c. ●.  & bound over only upon sleight bands to appear at the next Assizes, have upon like animosity, & to daunt the adversary with voluntary appearing & defending their own cause, remained condemned, & executed, notwithstanding their indiscreet courage in presenting themselves at the bar, when it needed not, & sometimes perhaps the sooner, for that they showed thereby so little respect to the Sea● of judgement, as to think themselves able to delude the same: And even so fareth it in our case, M. Mort. having seen the parts of his indictment, as himself calleth it, & pondered (no doubt) of what weight they are, would, notwithstanding, needs call the matter into question again before a new ●ury & have all particulars reviewed, & more exactly looked into, whereas the thing might have bi● passed over with silence, or at least with les●e publicity, if himself had not provoked the contrary.  
110. Well then for so much as he will needs have i● so, let us bring forth our Charge set down in the Treatise of Mitigation, which he calls an Indictment, the subject whereof is about egregious false dealing, in alleging the authority of the Germane historiographer Lambertus Scafnaburg. against Pope Gregory the 7. whom Lambertus doth highly commend, even as the same M. Mor●. had done b●fore in alleging Otto Frisingensis; but yet with more audacity, for that he would seem to excuse the other fact, by laying the fault upon Doctor Tolosanus as you have heard. But here he doth not only not lay it upon another, nor excuse the fact, nor acknowledge any error or over sight, but averreth both falsity, ●olly, infelicity and blasphemy to be in the imputation. Let us come them to the discussion of the whole. My former words were these.  

The Charge.  
111. But the next fraud (after that of misalleaging Fri●ingensis) or impudence, or rather impudent impiety (said I) is that which ensueth within four lines after in these words: Pope Gregory the 7. (saith your Chronographer) was excommunicate of the Bishops of Italy, for that he had defamed the Apostolic Sea by Simony & other capital crimes. 
●iti●. p. 215. num. 37.  And then citeth for proof hereof Lambertus Schasnaburg. Anno 1077. As if this our Chronographer had related this as a thing of truth against the said Pope, or that it were approved by him, and not rather as a slanderous objection cast out by his adversaries that followed the part of Henry the Emperor. Let any man read the place and year here cited, and if he be a modest man, he will blush at such shameless dealing. For that no Author of that time doth more earnestly defend the cause & virtuous life of Pope Hildebrand, them this man, whose words are: 
Lamb. Schafnab. in histor. Germaniaes, ann. 1077. sub finem.  Sed apud omnes sanum aliquid sapientes luce clariùs constabat falsa esse quae dicebantur: Nam & Papa tamburlaine eximie tamque Apostoli●è vi●am instituebat etc. But with all men of sound wisdom, it was more clear than the sun, that the things which were spoken against Pope Hildebrand were false; for that the Pope did lead such an excellent & Apostolical life, as the sublimity of his conversation did admit no least spot of wicked rumour against him, he living in that great City & open concourse of men, it could not have been hidden, if he had committed any unlawful thing in his life. And moreover, the signs & miracles which by his prayers were often times done, & his most fervent zeal for God in defen●e of Ecclesiastical laws, did sufficiently defend him against the poisoned tongues of his detractors. And again: Hildebrandi constantia et invictus adversus avaritiam animus omnia excludebat argumenta humanae ●allaciae. The constancy of Pope Hildebrand and his invincible mind against the corruption of avarice, did exclude all arguments of human fallacy and deceit. So Lambertus.  
112. And now let the Reader consider, with what conscience & fidelity T. M. hath cited him for condemnation of Pope Hildebrand. He relateth indeed, what certain Noblemen, Captains & others that came with the Emperor to the Cas●le of Canusium, 
The submission of the Emperor Henry the fourth to Pope Hildebrand at Canusium.  & would not have had him made peace with the Pope in that place, said in their rage afterward, for that against their Counsel he had submitted himself unto the said Pope. And when a certain Bishop named Eppo was sent to their Camp by the Pope and Emperor to inform them of the agreement & submission made: 
Lambert. ubi supra.  Fremere omnes (saith this Story) & sevire verbis & manibus coeperunt, Apostolicae legatio●i irrisorijs exclamat●onibus ●bstrepere, convitia & maledicta turpissima q●aec●mque f●●or sugg●ssisset irrogare. All of them began to fret and wax ●ierce, both in words and casting their hands, & with scornful outcries to contradict this Apostolical legation sent unto them, & to cast upon the Pope all the most foul reproaches & maledictions that fury could suggest unto them. Thus saith Lambertus: and then setteth down the particular slanderous reproaches here cited by T.M. which he approveth not, but condemneth as you have heard, and highly commendeth not only the virtue, but sanctity also of the Pope. And will ever any man credit T.M. any more in any thing that he allegeth, when this conscienceles falsification is once discovered in him? yea though it were but once throughout his whole Book, it were sufficient to prove that he dealeth not out of any faith or conscience at all.  

A comparison expressing the fraud of T. M.  113. If an enemy would discredit both Christ & Christian Religion, and say, your own Evangelists do recount foul things against him (as here this Minister saith our historiographer doth of Pope Gregory) and namely that he was accused by the Scribes & pharisees for casting out devils in the power of Beelzebub, for deceiving the people, for denying tribute to be paid to Cesar, for moving sedition, and other like crimes, which our Evangelists do recount indeed, but do condemn them also as false and calumnious: were not this as good and faithful a manner of reasoning, as this other of Thomas Morton out of Lambertus and Fri●ingensis against pope Hildebrand, who is by them both most highly commended, as you have heard, and his adversaries condemned? Truly, if any man can show me out of all the Catholic writers that be extant, English or other, that ever any one of them used this shameful fraud in writing, where no excuse can free them from malicious and witting falsehood, then will I grant that it is not proper to the Protestant spirit alone. Hitherto I must confess that I never found it in any: and if I should, though it were but once, I should hold it for a sufficient argument not to believe him ever after. And this shall suffice for a taste only of M. Mortons' manner of proceeding: for that to prosecute all particulars would require a whole volume, and by these few you may guess at the man's vain and spirit in writing. So I wrote then in my Treatise of Mitigation.   

The pretended Discharge.  
114. To this Charge M. Mort. beginneth his Discharge thus: 
Preamb p. 119. & 120.  Thou seest (Christian Reader) I have had patience to hear my Indictment delivered unto the full, and suffered my Adversary without any interruption to say so much in this accusation, as that by this time he may seem to h●●e run himself out o● breath etc. Now therefore I turn myself unto thee (good Reader) as to my judge, who may seem by this time to exact of me an answer, and of whom I must desire and expect a just censure. Vouchsafe therefore (I pray thee) an inten●iue examination, and I dare presume, thou wilt acknowledge this accusation to be both so false, and foolish, and unfortunate to his cause, and indeed blasphemous, as though he had studied to be either faithless, or fond, or unlucky, or impious etc. So M. Mort. And you see how passionate the man is in these his speeches, and how needful it was for me to entitle this Answer A quiet and sober Reckoning, for that otherwise we might have fallen from all reckoning of reason and moderation. But to come to the matter, what saith he to the point itself of justifying his allegation of the untruth of Lambertus against Pope Gregory? You shall hear it delivered by himself.  
115. In the beginning (saith he) I am charged with impudent impiety for citing Lambert Schafnaburge to affirm that, 
Pag. 1●●● M. Mortons' narration out of Lambert. about Pope Gregory's excommunication.  The Bishops of Italy did excommunicate Pope Gregory for capital crimes. But why is this impudency? As if (saith P. R.) this our Chronographer had related this as a thing of truth, or that it were approved of him, and not rather as a slanderous objection cast out by his Adversaries that followed the part of Henry the Emperor etc. The point now in question is, whether this Author Lambertus Schafnaburge was of this opinion? Which P. R. denieth, calling my assertion an impudent impiety. Let us be judged by the evidence of the Author himself who in the place alleged hath these words: Postquam per It●liam fama percrebuisset etc. After that the fame was spread abroad throughout Italy that K. Henry had set his foot in their coasts (certatim omnes Italiae Episcopi etc.) All the Bishops of Italy did flock by troops unto him, receiving him with all honour worthy the magnificence of such a person, and within a few days after, an army of an infinite multitude was gathered unto him: for from the first time that he was King, the longed for his coming into Italy, because at this time Italy was pestered with the every. And what else? It followeth a little a●ter. Besides they (viz. the Bishops & people) did congratulate his coming, because it was reported that he came with a resolute courage to depose (Gregory) the Pope. here we see it granted by Lambert, that all the Bishops of Italy were desirous to have this Pope Gregory deposed. Thus far are M. Mortons' words.  
116. But to begin with that which he last mentioneth of all the Bishops of Italy, the word all is fraudulently urged by him, as you will see: so that scarcely in any thing doth he deal sincerely, for albeit these words be in Lambertus, Certatim ad eum omnes Italiae Episcopi & Comi●es confluebant: All Bishops and Earls of Italy did flock unto him, yet that they were only certain Italian Bishops & Earls, that dwelled about the Alps is evident by the narration itself. For the very next precedent words le●t out by M. Morton are, Superatis asperrimis rupibus, iam in●ra Italiae fines consistere, certatim ad eum omnes Italiae Episcopi. After that it was understood that the Emperor had overcome the high rocks, and was within the borders of Italy, all the Italian Bishops & Earls flocked unto him. And what sort of Bishops these were, he expoundeth with in few l●nes after saying: Qui fe iampridem ab ●cclesiastica communione suspenderat: they hated Pope Gregory● as him that had suspended them from Ecclesiastical Communion. And again a little after, about the cause of their suspension: Passimiactantibus Regis sa●●●ribus & pre●ipuè Cleri●is, quibus i●ici●a & con●ra s●ita Canonum cont●acta coniugia prohibe●at. The emperors favourers did cast abroad, especially Clergimen, unto whom Pope Gregory had forbidden unlawful marriages, contracted against the Decrees of the Canons, that he lived dissolutely etc.  
117. These them are the Bishops of Italy whom he mentioneth, to wit, some of Lobardy that lived about the Alps & were of dissolute life and excommunicated by Pope Gregory, 
What manner of Italiam Bishops impugned Gregory 7.  who were the first that ran to the exommunicated Emperor, hoping, as the said Lambert saith, by his means, ut iniuriam suam idoneè vindicarent, that they should fitly be able to revenge by his power their injury received, as they acompted it. And albeit in respect of the multitude of Germane Bishops, and also of Burgundi● and other Countries that came with the Emperor, some for him and some against him, Lambertus doth call them Ital●s & Italiae Episcopos: yet doth h● no● mean that all the Bishops of Italy, nor yet all of the Northward parts thereof (and much less of the Southern) were against Pope Gregory, or favoured the Emperor. For that expressly he showeth that the Countess Mathildes which was Lady of the most and greatest Sta●es bordering upon those Countries of Lombardy was wholly with the Pope against the Emperor: so as all those Italian Bishops (in which word M. Morton standeth much) that did make Conventicles against Pope Gregory, were only those, and of that sort which I have mentioned. And this did M. Morton craftily conceal, as his fashion is though it lay in the very same lines, from whence he took the rest.  
118. But this is not the chief question, that now we must handle, whether these Bishops were all the Bishops of Italy or not (which no man will imagine, that shall read the endeavours o● S. Anselmus of Luca, and of many other holy Bishops of Italy for the Pope:) but whether Lambertus did affirm or approve, that those Schismatical Bishops did depose Pope Gregory or no● For if he did not testify both these points, ●●en was he no fit witness for M. Morton to disgrace Pope Gregory withal, yet doth he to avoid this illation propose the matter otherwise in the●e words.  
119. The point in question is (quoth he) whether this Author Lambertus did think that those Bishops of Italy had condemned this Pope Gregory (for whether they did it iusty or injustly is the second question) for such crimes or no. I have affirmed that Lambertus was of this opinion, but P. R. denieth it. So he.  
120. Whereto I answer, that this is not the point in question, wh●ther Lambertus did think, that they had excommunicated him or no? Ne●ther did we ever join issue thereupon, as doth appear in my charge before set down: though Lamber●us is not found any where to affirm that they did excommunicate him, but only rela●eth, that some of his enemies in their fury, rage, and passion did object ●uch things against him: but the true question is, Whether Lambertus supposing such a thing had been done, were of opinion, that it was justly or injustly, rightly or wrongfully done, for otherwise he should impertinently be brought in for the condemnation of Pope Gregory: for so much as if he had been wrongfully and injuriously so condemned, it would have been more for his praise, as by the examples of S. Athanas. S. Chrys. & other holi● men so condemned by multitudes of either bad or deceived Bishops, may appear.  
121. Wherefore we see M. Morton brought here into great straits, and forced first to change the whole state of the question: and then to say, that I did deny that which I did not, and himself to affirm that thing which is neither to the purpose, nor can be proved to be true. For neither did I deny that Lambertus knew of such a condemnation, nor is M. Morton able out of him to prove, that he knew it. And if it were, yet is it a very absurd and injurious manner of proceeding, upon another man's relation only, without approbation or liking the fame, to infame & condemn so grea● a man as P. Greg. was. Let us set down the Case in true terms.  
122. A Son complaining that his Father hath been injustly infamed, saith, that his enemies amongst other things did slanderously accuse him of murder, stealth, adultery and the like, 
A case expressing the nature of M. Mortons' calumniation out of Lambertus.  but that all was false & done of hatred against him. Whereupon notwithstanding som● of them having no authority thereunto did deprive him of an high office which he bore in the Comonwealth● and his complaint remaining in Record, some enemy of his house many years after, should allege these things for true against him, and should cite the testimony o● his own Sonn● for witness thereof, might not he be accounted for a notable bad fellow & malicious calumniator, that would do this? M. Mort. Case is just the same towards P. Greg. and Lambertus alleging the later for infaming the first: whereas he doth defend, praise and extol him. Can there be more wilful malice then this? But let us examine yet further some words of his defence.  
123. Besides this (saith he) the said Bishops and people did congratulate the emperors coming, because it was reported that he came with a resolute courage to depose (Gregory) the Pope. 
p. 120.  And then he inferreth thus. Here we see it granted by Lambertus that all the Bishops of Italy were desirous to have this Pope Greg. deposed● But we have showed a little before what manner of Bishops those were. And now if M. Morton would have dealt plainly, and without fraud (as scarce he doth in any thing) and have continued the words of Lambertus but a little further, as they lie in his text, we should hau●●eene the causes of this their desire: for thus L●●bertus writeth. 
L●mb. ubi supra an. 1077.  Praeterea quia fama vulgaverat ad deponendum Papam ●er●cibus eum ●nimis properare (which M. Morton translateth, with a resolute courage) admodum gratulabantur oblatam sibi occasionem esse, qua in cum, qui se iampridem ab Ecclesi● comm●●ione suspenderat etc. Moreover, ●or so much as the same was now public, that the Emperor came hastening his journey with a tyerce mind to depose the Pope, they did greatly congratulate, that they had an occasion offered, whereby they might fitly revenge their injury upon him, that had before suspended them fr● Ecclesiast. Communion. And by this you see the true case why these delinquents were glad to see a potent enemy come to vex him that was their lawful judge was this any dispraise to him? but let us see yet further in M. Mort. defence.  

Preamb. p. 120. & 121.  124. After all this (saith he) the Emperor goeth to Rome, seeketh absolution of the Pope, returneth back again, and the Bishop Eppo is sent after to signify to the Italians this submission to the Pope. What now? Now followeth the testimony which was alleged: Qui cum causam Italis expofuisset etc. When Eppo had told his message to the Italians, all of them began to rage and fret etc. casting upon the Pope all opprobrious reproaches, whom all the Bishops of Italy had before justly excommunicated, because by Simony he had defiled the Sea Apostolic. Could this Chronologer but acknowledge that the Pope had been excommunicated by the Bishops of Italy, who (as he confessed in the beginning) did rejoice at the coming of the Emperor, because he came with a resolution to depose the Pope?  
125. To this now I have answered, that this is not the point in question, whether this Chronologer acknowleged the Pope to have been excommunicated by sun schismatical Bishops of Italy or no: but whether he approved the same or no, by alleging a cause: for so saith M. Mortons' first accusation in these words before alleged: Pope Greg. the 7. (saith Lambertus) was excommunicated of the Bishops of Italy, 
The unfaithful dealing of T.M. in alleging Lambertꝰ his words.  for that he had defamed the Apostolic Sea by Simony, & other Capital crimes. By which words it is evident that M. Mortons' intent was to make his Reader believe, that Lambertus knew there was such a deposition, and besides reproved not the same, in that he alleged so grave a cause and motive thereof. In both which points M. Morton doth maliciously deceive his Reader: for neither doth Lambertus expressly affirm the thing itself, (that is to say, that he was excommunicated by those bishops, but only that his passionate enemies in their fury & rage said so:) neither did he any way approve or allow thereof, but impugn it. Neither doth he assign this Reason (for that he had defamed the Apostolic Sea by Simony) as M. Morton affirmeth, and after again in other words, because by Simony he had defiled the Sea Apostolic. For making up of which sense M. Morton corrupteth again the text of Lambertus, putting in (quia) for (qui) so as ever he must help the die in somewhat. The words of Lambertus may be seen a little before in our Charge, to wit: That those seditious Italian people that were banded against the Pope, and grieved with the peace made between the Emperor and him, did fret and wax fierce both in words, and casting their hands, and with scornful outcries to contradict his Apostolical legation sent unto them: and did cast upon the Pope all the most foul reproaches and maledictions that fury could suggest unto them. Which words for the most part M. Morton leaveth out, as you may see in his English citation, & he adjoineth, whom all the Bishops of Italy had before justly excommunicate, because by Simony he had defiled the Sea Apostolic. But the words of Lambert are, Seize excommunicationem illius nihili aestimare etc. that they did esteem nothing his excommunication, whom all the Bishops of Italy for just cause had excommunicated, who had by violence obtained the Sea Apostolic by the heresy of Simony, and had defiled the same by murders, adulteries, and other Capital crimes. In which words we find nothing spoken against the Pope on the part of Lambertus, or as approved by him, but utterly reproved as proceeding from rage & fury of those schismatical people. And is this a good witness? & secondly we find no causative for that, or because by Simony he had defiled &c. uttered either on the part of Lambert, or of the Schismatics, but a thing made out of the malice of M. Morton, who turneth Qui Sedem Apostolican; into Quia Sedem Apostolicam per Symonian &c. to make it seem to be a reason of their deposing Pope Greg. whereas Lamb. doth not recite it as a reason (which allwais supposeth some ground of truth) but only as a mere malicious calumniation, contumely, & reproach proceeding from men put in fury by sudden discontentment and despair. And thus hath M. Mort. delivered himself in the first point from falsity according to his fashion, in adding more falsityes to the former. Let us see his second point which he termeth the foolishness & sottishness of his Accuser.  

About the folly objected to P. R.  126. This ●olly he foundeth upon this principle: That an Author may be cited to testify some fact, without regard of his approving or reproving the thing: and that so he cited Lambertus as testifying that Pope Gregory was excommunicated by the Bishops of Italy, though not approving the same as lawfully done. Whereunto first we answer, that when nothing is fought but the bare testimony of the fact, this ground may be admitted: as in the example before alleged of the Child in the case of his Father, 
How Lamb. authority might have been alleged without lying.  if a man would only make known that such and such crimes had been objected against the Father, which there we mentioned, he might with sincerity allege the testimony of his son that complained of the same, as we are wont to do in the history of Saints lives, putting down their reproaches published against them by adversaries; but in this, if we will proceed with Christian truth and sincerity, we must allege such facts in such sense as the Relator or witness meant them, to wit, showing that they were falsely, wrongfully and injuriously objected. And so in this our Case, if M. Morton had only alleged the testimony of Lambertus for the fact and speeches of these passionate men against Pope Gregory, and had added more over sincerely for the discrediting thereof, that which the Author addeth, to wit, that it it was false and spoken in passion and fury of anger etc. and had told in like manner the contrary virtues that were in Pope Gregory which Lambertus recounteth, it might well have passed: but doing the plain contrary, and endeavouring to defame Pope Gregory by him that greatly defendeth and commendeth both his person and cause, it may be wit in M. Morton, as wit goeth with him, that calleth me a fool for holding the contrary: But sure I am, honesty it can not be, which is never separated from truth & plain dealing.  
127. And this shall suffice for this point, pntermitting sun other trifles, which M. Mort. toucheth in this place upon some stomach of revenge, as it seemeth, though merely false, & without any foundation. And therefore passing to his third point of infelicity, which he will needs lay upon me, for objecting this matter of Lambertus against him, we shall see, whether he hath any more substance in this, then in the former.  
128. First of all noteth me not only for not acute (as his words are) but for absurd, 
Infelicity objected against the argument of P. R.  in that I do say, that Lambertus doth highly commend not only the virtue, but also the sanctity of Pope Gregory: as though (saith he) virtue and sanctity were different things, and might be separated. Wherein I know not how acute M. Morton may seem to the judicious Reader, for so much as every man knoweth lightly that virtue is commonly held but for the way to sanctity, & that via & terminus are different things. And I presume M. Mort. himself will make profession of some kind of virtue, though not pretend perchance to be yet a full Saint, at leastwise in this common sense of Sanctity, wherein it is taken & understood ordinarily for aggregation of all virtues in their perfection.  
129. Well, I know that the word Sanctity is taken also in some other sense, 
divers acceptions of Sanctity.  as namely for that Sanctity which we receive by our redemption & vocation by Christ, in which sense all baptised Christians are called Saints by vocation, though afterward in life they should be never so wicked even as S. Paul writing to the Corinthians, 
1. Cor. 1. 2. Cor. 1. & 15.  termeth them vocatis Sanctis, saints by vocation: though afterwards he signifieth divers of them to be loaden with grievous & heinous sins, and of these Saints there is store in the world.  
130. Thirdly, Sanctity is taken also of Scholmen for a special virtue, not differing in substance from the verve of Religion, but only that it hath a certain generality in it, not only to apply our minds firmly to God's service, but also to li●t up all the works of other moral virtues unto the same service & honour of God: as for example the act of abstinence or temperance which in a moral man may be used to other moral ends, as to the health of body, opinion of sobriety & the like, this special virtue of Sanctity directeth the same to the glory of Almi. God: & the like in the actions of all other moral virtues. But for so much as concerneth our matter, Sanctity was taken by me in the first sense, wherein a man may be virtuous, and yet no Saint, according to the definition of S. Dionysius Areopagita. 
The description of sanctity by S. Dionysius c. 12. De divin. nominib.  Sanctitas quidem est, ut secundum nos loquamur, omni scelere libera perfectaque & penitus in coinquinata munditia. Sanctity (to speak according to our use) is a certain perfect and unspotted purity o● life, free from all touch o● wickedness: which is somewhat more if you mark it then common virtue, as M. Morton would have it. And thus much for his acuteness in reprehending my speech in distinguishing virtue from sanctity, which it seemeth that either he understood not, or considered not well of his reprehension before he uttered it: but to the matter itself for proof of my unlucky imputing falsehood unto him in alleging the authority of Lambertus, he bringeth forth three witnesses, to wit, Benno Cardinalis, Abbas Vrspergensis & Sigebertus, all Germane writers, that reprehend the life of Pope Greg. the 7. called before Hildebrandu●. But what infelicity is this unto my imputation out of Lambertus? It is felicity enough for my attempt (if M. Mort. will needs have it so) that he hath not been able to clear himself from open fraud in alleging Lambertus against Pope Hildebrand, as now you have heard. This other is a new matter and from the purpose: whether there be other Authors that speak and write evil of Pope Gregory or no? it is sufficient for me to have showed that Lambertus did not, but in his behalf and praise, & consequently that he was falsely brought in for his discredit.  
132. But yet to say somewhat of these three other Authors also alleged here by M. Morton to prove my infelicity, that in taking from him one Lambertus I have gotten three others to come out against me, to wit, a Monk, an Abbot, & a Cardinal: 
The bad Card. Benno and his feigned book by the Protestants.  I will answer first unto the Cardinal, to wit Benno, who being not made by the true Pope Gregory the 7. but by the Antipope calling himself Clement the 3. at the procurement of the Emperor, that was his professed enemy, he cannot be accounted either a true Cardinal, or a lawful witness, & therefore no marvel, though in the book ascribed unto him by the Protestant's of our days, he be found to rail most intemperately against the true Pope Greg. about which book of Benno notwithstanding I refer me to the judgement of another Cardinal whose name beginneth with the same letters, I mean Card. Bellarmine, who having diligently perused the said railing book, testifieth that he found it excessive railing, & so extreme full of lies, contrary to the writings of all other Authors, that had written of the same Pope, either whiles he lived or after his death until Luther's time (whereof he nameth 32. Anthors in particular, & ten of them that wrote whiles he was living) as he protesteth, that he was forced to doubt least some L●theran had written the same under the name of the foresaid false Card. Benno. Wherefore of this man, being such as he was & convinced for an open liar by so many witnesses, we say no more, but leave him to M. Morton, as a fit Knight of the Post for his purpose.  
133. As for the other two monks, Vrsperg. & Sigebertus, the same Card. Bellarmine's judgement is, 
Bellar. l. 4. de Rom. Pontif. c. 13.  that albeit they being favourers of the Emperor in that faction, durst not write over plainly in the praise of Pope Greg. & dispraise of his enemy the Emperor their patron; yet doth he show out of their works, that setting aside a manifest error of Sigebert, that imagined Pope Gregory to be of opinion that the Masle of a Concubinary Priest was not good (which he never said, but for a punishment only commanded men not to hear such a naughty Priest) in the rest Card. Bellarmine, as I said, doth prove that in sundry other occasions both of them did rather commend Pope Greg. than discommend him, as is evident out of sundry places in their own works which Bellarmine citeth.  
134. But nothing doth discredit more the bringing in of these two witnesses by M. Mort. then the joining them to Benno, as though they had been of his opinion, or had written against Pope Gregory as he did. Let us examine but only this one place alleged here out of Vrsperg. & then let any man say, 
Preamb. p. 123.  what is to be thought of M. Mort. fidelity: thus he allegeth him. The Abbot Vrsperg. (saith he) writeth thus: P. Gregory was an usurper of the Sea of Rome, not appointed by God, but intruded by fraud & money, a disturber o● the Empire, a subverter o● the Church. 
Vrsperg. in anno 1080. p. 224. edit. Basil. anno 1569.  So he. But now let any man read the place & year by him quoted: and he shall find the words indeed and wors● related by Vrspergensis, as uttered against Pope Gregory by certain enemies of his gathered together jussu Regis Henrici, by the commandment of K. Henry, in form of a Council or Synod at Brixia, they being in number 30. Bishop's: but that Vrspergensis did affirm any thing of himself, 
How Vrspergensis writeth in favour of P. Greg.  or approve the same is not to be found, but rather the quite contrary. For in the very same place and page, he showeth how these things were contradicted & refuted by the famous Anselmus Bishop of Luca then livings A man (saith he) most excellent, well learned, sharp in wit etc. and that which exceedeth all, a man known to ●eare God, and o● all holy conversation, in so much as both in his li●e and after his death he was famous in doing miracles. So Vrspergensis of him, that did defend Pope Gregory against these slanders which M. Morton allegeth as averred by Vrsperg. & will not he yet blush at this new fraud of his discovered? will he still continued of forge new lies against the Authors express words and meaning? 135. But yet me thinks that the other which ensueth is more shameful, to wit, the joining of Severinus Binius for a fourth witness to the former three, whereof he writeth thus: I● three witnesses be not sufficient against the Pope, whereof one is a Monk, 
Preamb. p. 124.  another an Abbot, the third a Card. let us further understand, that fourthly Severinus Binius in his new Edition o● the councils, confesseth that the Bishops in a Council at Worms An. 1076. declared that Gregory was to be deposed: And that the Council at Papia An. 1076. did excommunicate ●im: and that the Council of Bishops at Brixia did depose him: the acts of which Council, as they are recited by Vrspergensis show these causes: because he was an usurper o● the Sea etc. And the Council at Mentz An. 1085. declared him to be justly deposed. Thus we see that P. R. by denying one Council of Bishops of Italy in Papia, to have opposed themselves against this Gregory, hath contrary to his desire, gayved with that one of Papia, three other councils, one of Brixia, another of Worms, the last of Mentz. So unlucky hath he been etc.  
136. To this I answer first, that the whole supposal of this narration (to wit) that I did deny the Council or Conciliabulum of Pavia to have excommunicated Pope Gregory is utterly false. 
M. Mortons' whole supposal false.  For that this was not in question between us, as hath appeared by the former discourse, but whether Lambertus did relate and allow of the same, or no: whereof neither point is found in him, to wit, neither that he relateth the fact, as out of his own asseveration, but only as objected by passionate enemies, & much less doth he approve the lawfulness thereof but impugn it. This was the state of our question, which now M. Morton seeing his error would willingly change: but nothing falleth out more aptly for his conviction then the bringing in of Severinus Binius in this place to be a fourth witness with Benno, Vrspergensis, and Sigebertus for disgracing of Pope Gregory, by affirming that he was condemned in four several councils here mentioned. But what if Binius do expressly say, that all these councils were but factious metings and no councils, and set up by the Emperor & the Antipope made by him, for malice against the true Pope: & that they were wicked and schismatical Bishops that met there in conspiracy against their true head? doth this serve to M. Mortons' purpose for disgracing of Pope Gregory by Binius his testimony? Or doth he deal plainly with his Reader in telling him that Binius is a 4. witness that joineth with Benno, Vrspergensis, & Sigebert, in condemning Pope Greg?  
137. As for Benno the counterfeit Card. no man denieth but that he did condemn Pope Gregory, if that Book be his that goeth in his name: & the like we must understand of Vrspergensis and Sigebert, if we believe M. Morton, who saith that they wrote out of their own judgement against him, 
Benno the counterfeit Cardinal.  whereof notwithstanding we have showed the contrary: how then can he couple Binius as a fourth witness to these three, which Binius he confesseth to be contrary in judgement, and to defend Pope Gregory most earnestly, calling these councils Conciliabula, factious and schismatical conspiracies? Let us set down here a comparison for better conceiving the matter. 
A comparison expressing M. Mortons' case of unfaithful dealing.  If a jew of our time should take upon him to disgrace the Apostle S. Paul, as many of them have sought to do, for envy, that he was first a zealous follower of their law, and should reckon up the conspiracies made against him in divers times & different places, how he was condemned by sundry metings of principal men, both jews & Gentiles, often laid in prison, often escaped by flying, and the like: inferring thereof that he was a troublesome & evil man, & should for witness hereof bring forth the testimonies, not only of some ancient heretical enemy of his that lived with him, but other two also, who in the accusers' opinion were not his friends, and then for a fourth witness should join unto them the testimony of S. Luke himself, that recounteth these things, but in the Apostles high praise, and then should vaunt, & tell his Reader, as here M. Morton doth, that now he had four witnesses conspiring together in the same matter: would you say that this man dealt otherwise then as a jew indeed, that is to say, perfidiously?  
138. Let us hear then what this Binius cited here for the fourth witness, saith against, or rather for, & in the behalf of Pope Gregory. First he speaking of a certain pious embassage or Legation sent by the said Pope to the excommunicated Henry, he saith thus: Quam cum numinis contemptor & cultor per●idiae excepisset etc. Which embassage when the Emperor that contemned God & followed perfidiousness, had received, 
Binius tomo 3. Concil. p. 1281.  & contrary to the law of Nations had beaten with whips the Legates that brought the same, & had afflicted them with most grievous injuries, he presently thereupon gathered together at Worms in Germany a Conventicle of excommunicated & Schismatical Bishops against the Pope, 
The testimony of Binius for Pope Gregory.  in which Conventicle with the greatest contumely that could be devised, were appointed set forth & published those things which Lambertus Schaffnaburge doth relate in his history, to wit, about the deposing of Pope Gregory etc. This is his narration. And is not this a good fourth witness to join with the former for discrediting of Pope Gregory? and may not a man aswell allege S. Luke against S. Paul as Binius against this Pope in this cause? 
How absurdly blasphemy is objected to P. R. for alleging an example of the Euanglists.  Or might not we object the sacred sufferings and persecutions of that holy Apostle out of S. Luke by the same sort of arguments that M. Morton doth here the conspiracies of the wicked Emperor & schismatical Bishops against Pope Gregory their Apostolical governor? though I do not compare the person of Pope Gregory with the person of S. Paul, as M. Morton will presently calumniate, but the manner of proceeding and arguing in their supposed adversaries, the jew & M. Morton. But we shall have occasion to speak more of this in the next point concerning blasphemy: for needs he will have this my reprehension of him, not only to be false, foolish & unlucky, as you have heard, but also blasphemous: this point than we must in this last place consider of.  
139. In the end of my former charge I do set down an example to show the absurdity of M. Mortons' disgrace of Pope Gregory out of the writings of Lambertus & Frisingensis, 
Mitig. p. 217.  by a comparison taken out of the new Testament in these words. If an enemy (said I) would discredit both Christ & Christian religion, & say, Your own Evangelists do recount foul things against him (as here this Minister saith that our Historiographer doth o● Pope Gregory) & namely that he was accused by the Scribes & pharisees for casting out devils in the power of Beelzebub etc. which our Evangelists do recount indeed, but do condemn them also as false & calumnious, were not this as good & as faithful a manner of reasoning, as this other of T. Morton out of Lambertus & Frising. against Pope Hildebrand, who is by them most highly commended?  
140. Thus I said at that time: & now M. Mort. answereth that this comparison containeth blasphemy, 
What blasphemy is.  which to me seemeth strange. And if he had proposed the definition of blasphemy together with his accusation, the question would quickly have been decided. For that Schole-doctors do define blasphemy to be, 
D. Tho. 2.2. q. 13. art. 1.  cum aliquid negatur de Deo, quod ei convenit, vel asseritur de eo, quod ei non convenit. When any thing is denied to be in God which is in him, or when any thing is affirmed to be in him, which agreeth not unto him. By which definition M. Mort. who●e accusation falleth to the ground. For that in my comparison nothing is falsely affirmed or denied to be in God at all: neither doth the comparison touch God himself in any affirmation or negation, but only a certain manner of reasoning, that may be used by an enemy, concerning him; which I do show to be like to that of M. Mortons': but let us hear his proofs.  

Preamb. p. 125.  141. Whosoever (saith he) shall exactly examine the Analogy of this comparison, must needs acknowledge it to be in a manner blasphemous. Mark how he beginneth to temper the matter, calling that in a manner blasphemous, which in the title of his Paragraph he absolutely calleth blasphemy. Let us hear his reason: For either must Christ (saith he) the Son of God be compared with Pope Gregory, or ●lse the likeness consisteth in the comparison of th● Reporter, matching the holy evangelists & their Monks Frisingensis and Lambertus together. Whereto I answer, that M. Morton misseth wholly the cushion: for that in neither of these two is the comparison made, but in the manner of reasoning. For as it were no good form of argument in an enemy to say, These & these things were objected against Christ as your own Evangelists do testify, ergo, he was no good man: So is it not in M. Mort. to say, These & these enormous crimes were objected against Pope Greg., & recorded by your own Monk's Frising. & Lambertus, Ergo, he was a wicked man. Wherein you see that the comparison by me here brought in, is only in the form of argument in the one & in the other case, and neither between Christ & Pope Gregory, nor between the evangelists & our Monks is there any comparison made, except only in this, that as Christ was wrongfully slandered, so was Pope Gregory, & many other of his servants are daily: & as the evangelists should be greatly injured to be brought in for witnesses as accusing our Saviour, whom they most dutifully reverenced & highly commended for that they recount slanders objected against him, by enemies: so are Lambertus & Frising● no less abused in being cited ●or authors to disgrace Pope Gregory, whom they defended, justified, & reverenced. One other comparison also may be between M. Morton & the enemy, who do reason after one fashion, & do seek to deceive after one manner.  
142. These three later comparisons I made not in my former speech, but only the first about the form of argument: these other do follow ex natura rei: nor is it blasphemy to frame a comparison between God & man, or between him & inferior things to man, so the point be true, wherein the comparison is made. And it seemeth great simplicity or perversity in M. Mort. to hold the contrary: for that all the Scripture is full of comparisons between God, heaven, man & other Creatures; 
Comparisons may be piously made between God & creatures.  which things, though in themselves they be not comparable for their natures and qualities, yet may they be in some other points. As the kingdom of heaven is compared to a mustardseed, & God to a husband man, yea to a covetous man, to a thief that cometh in the night, which in the proportion of their own natures, worth, value, dignity or indignity are incomparable: yet in some respect comparisons may be made without all blasphemy, which I do note the rather to the Reader, 
Math. 13.  for that it is a common refuge of M. Mort. & his fellows, 
Luc. 23.  when they are pressed with any similitude or comparison, 
Matt. 20.  
Luc. 19 Luc. 12.  to run from the point wherein the comparison is made indeed and to seek out disparities between the things themselves in points wherein no comparison is made: As if a man out of the Gospel should allege any one of the foresaid similitudes; 
Luc. 13.  as that God is like the husbandman, in this point of cultivating or dunging his ground, his adversary should laugh at him, and say it were blasphemy to compare such base things as dunging, to the unspeakable majesty of almighty God, 
A false trick or two in T. M. for a parting blow.  which were a vain cavil as you see, because in that point of dignity or indignity, worthiness or baseness, the comparison is not made; but only in cultivating: & so is this of M. Morton. And with this we shall leave him for this argument, only noting by the way, that notwithstanding all the disgrace he hath received for unsincere dealing, yet can he not pass over this place without showing a trick or two in that kind, even in reciting my words.  
143. For whereas I said: If an enemy would discredit both Christ and Christian Religion, and say your own Evangelists do recount etc. he reciteth my words thus: If any man would discredit both Christ and Christian religion, and say our Evangelists do recount etc. turning (an enemy) into (any man) and (your Evangelists) into (our Evangelists) in the first person, and all this to make my speech seem more odious by these slippery tricks and helping the die underhand, for that my similitude soundeth differently from the mouth of an enemy, and from a man of our own Religion. And finally I would ask M. Morton why he did change these words, if he had no intent of falsehood, for so much as the other were as few and as easily to be written as these: but because this Paragraph was to charge me with blasphemy, and finding nothing in my words sounding that way, he thought good by altering them, to make some little appearance: which is an art most usual with him. Let him show the same but in any of our writers, and I promise to stand to my offer before made of never believing him afterward; which I confess, that I must perform in like manner towards M. Morton, until I see him alter his course, and become more scupulous of truth, and punctual sincerity in his writings.    

THE SUM AND final Reckoning of this whole Chapter. §. XV.  
TO come then to an end of this trial, and to see what substance there is on either side: M. Morton taking upon him to answer to the charges of falsehood & untrue dealing laid against him in my late Treatise of Mitigation, chose out fourteen of those which he thought he could best answer, or make some show at least of satisfaction unto them, which he hath performed in the manner that you have heard, to wit, first leaving out the greatest number of such as pressed him most, as in the sequent Chapter you are to behold And albeit he professed in the beginning to satisfy those that I most insisted in, yet that hath appeared to be false, and may be tried for such by any man that will but look upon my book.  
145. Secondly, for furnishing up the show of these seven Charges pretended to be discharged by him, he hath laid hands of sundry that are very impertinent, & scarce objected by me as points of moment. For which cause he handleth them over again & again, & some three tim● as you have heard: as namely the 9.10.11.12. & 13. where as once handling had been sufficient, especially for that others remained of far greater weight to have been treated, if he had listed or thought it easy.  
146. Thirdly, of the rest which he pretendeth to satisfy (for touching sun, he confesseth in effect his own weakness & imbecility, either denying that he read the books & Authors, which he had cited & urged against us, or remitting us to other men for the answer, that had lent him the said authorities) are the 2. the 4. the 5. & 6. So as these two sorts making up ten of his fourteen Charges, there remained to him but four more to discharge, which how manfully he hath performed I remit me to the view, whereby willbe seen (I doubt not) that he hath not ●nly not wiped of the scars (to use his phrase) of the former imputations, but hath made also many more, not only scars & scratches, but also deeper wounds a new by making new escapes no less enormous than the former: & consequently you may consider of the truth of his promise and vaunt made in the entrance to this Chapter, to wit, that he would give such satisfaction, as that not only the wound of slander may be cured, but even also the suspicious scars of imputation wiped away. Thus he promised then, but now for lack of performance, both scars & wounds are renewed, & deeply impressed, as will appear more evidently by the ensuing Chapter, which is to lay down a very pitiful list of many scars & wounds left uncured by him, that is to say many grievous charges of untrue dealing, that were objected unto him, & urged by his adversary, are now wholly pretermitted, concealed, & dissembled by him in this his Answer, when most effectually he should have sought to heal them.    

THE sixth CHAPTER CONTAINING A recapitulation of many manifest untruths wherewith M. Morton being charged by his Adversary P. R. did wittingly pretermit to mention them in his last Reply, & thereby left suspicion, that he could not answer them.  

PREFACE  
IT hath appeared now by that which hath been written before, that albeit the first & principal end, for which T.M. framed this Book of Preamble was to make some show of answering, 
Epist. dedicat. to the L. Sal●●b.  or shifting of some of the great multitude of untruths & falsehoods laid against him, or to use his own words, to s●ay the prejudice of his Reader: yet that the success thereof hath been far wide from his expectation; for that he hath not only not cleared, but much more entangled himself therein, especially in regard of these 2. or 3. points. First that he making a several Chapter for answering the accusations of falsehood (which is the precedent) he chooseth out both the fewest & weakest of all the rest, & secondly answereth them in such sort, 
Preamb. p. 88  as he addeth new falshods to the old: & thirdly though he profess not to have singled out such, which might seem unto him most easily answered, but those which P. R. hath most vehemently pressed & urged, as he saith: yet doth he in very deed the quite contrary, choosing out both the weakest & least insisted upon, as will appear by examination. For which cause though I desired here to make an end: yet have I been enforced, for the presenting more lively to the Readers eye the falsehood of this assertion, to set down some number of other untruths laid against him in my Treatise, & for the indignity thereof pressed & urged by me against him, as much, or more than any of these 14. which he hath chosen out, whereof divers were of the lightest sort that I objected against him, & many of them treated & discussed before, as now you have seen. Let us run overthen if you please some number of other falsehoods objected to him by me (for that to resume & discuss all would ask a several Treatise) which are concealed by him in this his answer. The cause why is easy to be conjectured.   

THE FIRST Pretermitted falsehood by Thomas Morton without mention or answer. §. I.  
ANd first I shall begin with that, which I objected against him of the abusing of the learned man Gabriel Vasquez concerning the nature of heresy, 
Vasquez mistaken and slandered about the nature of heresy & pertinacy.  whereof I wrote thus. In the third page (quoth I) of his said reply (of full satisfaction, he beginning to talk of the nature of heresy, hath these words: We may not be ignorant first that seeing the nature of heresy is such, that it is a vice proper to the mind, it may denominate the subject whatsoever an heretic, without obstinacy, 
Mitig. pa. 219.  which is only a perverse obliquity of the will, & therefore a man may be an heretic, though he be not obstinate. And for proof of this false doctrine he citeth in his margin, 
The first example of corruptions.  Vasquez jesuita, whose words are: Malitia huius peccati intellectu non in voluntate consummatur: The malice of this sin of heresy is prefected and made consummate in the understanding & not in the will, 
Vasq. disp. 126. c. 3. in 1. Tom. About the the nature of heresy and pertinacy.  which our Minister understanding not, and yet desirous, as in the preface to the King's Majesty he insinuateth, to divide our tongues, and to make our writers seem contrary the one to the other; hath fond slandered the learned man Vasquez in this place, by making him seem to be patron of this his absurd doctrine, that heresy may be without obstinacy, whereas Vasquez in the very same disputation here by him cited, expressly doth impugn this doctrine and establisheth the contrary, defyning heresy thus: 
Ibid. c. 1●  Haeresis nihil aliud est, quam error in rebus ●id●i cum pertina●ia: Heresy is nothing else, but an ●rrour in matters of faith with obstinacy.  

Valentia 2.2. qu. 11. puncto 1. Turrec. 4. summa, par. 2. c. 1. & Doctores omnes 4. d. 13. & D. Tho. 2.2. art. 2. vide etiam Cau. 14. q. 3. Can. Dixit Apostolus & Can. Qui in Ecclesia.  3. Which an other learned man of the same school, by somewhat a more ample definition declareth thus: Heresy (saith he) is an error contrary to the Catholic faith, ●herunto a man that hath professed ●he said faith in his Baptism doth adhere, with an obstimat● mind: which definition he proveth ex communi mente D●c●orum, by the common consent of school doctors. And finally not to stand upon a thing so clear among us, S. Thomas for decision hereof hath th●se words: de ratione haer●sis sunt duo, ●lectio privatae disciplinae, & pertinacia.  
Two things are of the essence and intrinsical nature of heresy, without which heresy cannot be: the one, the choice or election of a particular doctrine, discipline or opinion, contrary to the doctrine of the universal Church: the other, pertinacy or obstinacy in defending the same, though the party know, that it be against the doctrine of the Church, without which knowledge & obstinacy there can be no heresy.  
4. This is our Catholic doctrine about the nature of heresy, to wit, that it cannot be without obstinacy, which is so common and trivial, as it is now come into an ordinary Proverb, to say: 
Obstinacy necessary to heresy.  well I may be in error, but heretic wi●● I never be, for that I hold nothing obstinately. And as for the words of Vasqu●z: That the malice of heresy is consummated in the understanding, and not in the will: If our Minister had read the other words immediately going before, he might perhaps have understood Vasquez meaning, 
Vasquez his discourse about pertina●ie.  for they are these. Vt aliquis sit v●●è reus h●resis etc. To make a man be truly guilty of heresy, it is not necessary, that he be carried directly in his affection or will against the authority of the Church, that is to say it is not needful, that he have an express will ●nd purpose to disobey or contradict the Church, but it is enough that he do contradict the same re ipsa, indeed, knowing that opinion which he defendeth to be against the authority of the said universal Church, albeit he be not induced to this belief with a direct will to impugn the Church, but either by desire of glory or other inducement: so as indeed the malice of this sin is consummated in the understanding, and not in the will.  
5. This is the discourse and doctrine of Vasquez in this place about the nature and essence of Heresy, wherein he doth not exclude either the understanding or will, but includeth them both expressly: for that as there must be knowledge, which appertaineth to the mind or understanding: so must there be choice with obstinacy, which belongeth to the will and affection: but his scholastical consideration is, in which of these two powers of our soul this sin of heresy receiveth her consummation. For better explication whereof, let us use this example.  
6. If a man should hold or believe an erroneous proposition contrary to the doctrine of the Catholic Church: as for example, that there were but one nature in Christ, not knowing it to be against the Catholic Church, it were false in it self, and an error in his understanding, 
How heresy is consummated in the understanding and not in the will.  but not Heresy, except also by act of his will, he should choose to hold it with resolution and obstinacy even after that he knoweth the same to be against the doctrine of the said Church: for then this knowledge (saith Vasques) that it is against the Church, maketh it perfect and consummate Heresy: albeit the matter pass not to a further act of will, to wit, that he chooseth expressly to contradict the authority of the Church therein, which should be a greater sin, but yet is not necessary, for that the perfect nature of heresy is consummated, by knowing that it is against the Church. And for that this notice or knowledge belongeth to the understanding, therefore Vasquez holds that the last perfection or consummation of this sin is in the understanding, and not in the will, not meaning to exclude thereby obstinacy of the will (as ignorantly T.M. doth when he saith, We● may not be ignorant:) but to show in what power of the mind the last perfection and consummation of this heinous sin consisteth, to wit, that a man may be a perfect and consummate heretic by holding obstinately any opinion against the Doctrine of the Church, after we once know it to be against the said Churches doctrine, though we have not that further malice also of express will & purpose to contradict thereby the said Church, but only we hold the same, for that the opinion pleaseth us, or is profitable, or honourable unto us, or thereby to contradict an other, or some such like inducement, according to those words of S. Augustine to Honoratus: 
Aug. l. de util. cred ad Honor.  Haereticus est, qui alicuius temporalis commodi, & maxim gloriae principatusque sui gratia, falsas ac novas opiniones vel gignit, vel sequitur. An heretic is he, who in respect of some temporal commodity, but especially for his own glory and pre-eminence, doth beget or follow false and new opinions.  

Aug. l. 4. con●i. Do●at. c. 16.  7. The same S. Augustine also against the Donatists proposeth this example: Consti●uamus (saith he) aliquem sentire de Christo quod Photinus etc. Let us imagine one to think of Christ, as Photinus the heretic did, persuading himself, that it is the Catholic faith etc. Istum nondum haereticum dico (●ayth he) nisi mani●estata sibi doctrina Catholicae fidei resistere maluerit, & illud quod tenebat, elegerit. I do not yet say this man is an heretic, until a●ter that the doctrine of the Catholic faith being opened unto him, he shall choose notwithstanding to resist, & to hold by choice that which before he held by error. In which words S. Augustine doth evidently declare, how necessary both knowledge and will are unto heresy: and consequently how absurd and ridiculous the assertion of M. Morton is, 
S. Augustine's explication of the whole matter.  that heresy being a vice proper to the understanding, may denominate the subject whatsoever an her●ti●ke, without obstinacy of will. For a●beit we grant withal Divines, that heresy is in the understanding as in her subject (& so is faith also that is her opposite;) & further that her last persection & consummation is from the foresaid knowledge in the understanding, as Vasquez doth explain it: yet doth not Vasquez or any Divine else exclude the necessity of pertinacity also and election in the will: and consequently both his words and meaning have been evidently falsified and calumniated by T. M. And so much of this first charge, whereby you may see what books might be made against him, if we would follow his ●●●pps in all his fraudulent traces.  
8. This was my charge to M. Morton at that time, and it was a great Charge as you see, and more earnestly pressed then divers of these other smaller matters, which in the former Chapter he singled out to answer, though as you have heard he professeth the contrary. But why said he nothing to this, seeing it hath more difficulty in it, than many other laid together? Surely no other so probable cause can be alleged, as the difficulty made him to fly the endeavour of answering it. But let us see some others, of not much unlike quality to this.   

THE SECOND Pretermitted falsehood by Thomas Morton. §. II.  
THIS is a like abuse practised by M. Morton against the learned Azor, 
Azor corrupted about the word Pe●tinaci●er. Mitig. pag. 225. De i●st. pun. H●er. l. 1. cap. 10.  thus by me set down, in my former Treatise. In the very same page (said I) he going about to make us odious by our severe censuring of heretics, putteth down first these words of Alphonsus de Castro: He that understanding any opinion to be expressly condemned by the Church, shall hold the same, is to be accounted an obstinate heretic. Wherupo● M. Morton playeth his pageant thus. What obstinate? It may be, some do but doubtingly defend it, what will you judge of these? Whereunto he answereth out of Azor: If he doubt thereof willingly, he is certainly an heretic. But by our Ministers leave Azor addeth more. 
Azor corrupted.  Quoties quis voluntariè & per●inaciter de fide dubitat, eo ipso est Haereticus. As often as a man doth doubt willingly and obstinately of his faith, he is thereby an heretic. For that faith is a sure and certain assent of mind unto those things that are to be believed: and he that willingly and obstinately doubteth of the truth thereof, ●an not have this firm and perfect assent and consequently hath no faith during the time of this wilful and obstinate doubting.  
10. And that you may understaud of what importance this word Pertinaciter is, that this ma● cunningly so cutteth out of Azor his words, you must know that he in the very same Chapter holdeth that if a man doubt without pertinacity, being ready to submit his judgement, when he shallbe instructed in the truth, incurreth not heresy at all. So as here the most substantial word is left out, and craftily conveyed away by our divider of tongues, whereby the Author is made to say the quite opposite to that he saith and protesteth.  
11. These were my words at that tyme. And now let the judicious Reader judge, what cause I had to complain as I did, and yet got no satisfaction of M. Morton at all, though the title of his former book was a full Satisfaction: and this later Preamble was cast out for a supply or complement to the said Satisfaction. Did not this objection deserve to be satisfied before divers other trifles, wherewith you have heard him now to fill up paper, and entertain his Reader? Let us go forward.   

THE THIRD Pretermitted falsehood by Thomas Morton. §. III.  
AND for that we have begone to talk of Azor, 
Azor perverted about the Case of Coventry.  whom M. Morton some times will seem highly to esteem, we shall city an example or two of his abuse towards him, which is s●t down in my Treatise, about a Case of coming from a City infected, or believed to be infected, in these words.  
13. The first Case shallbe (quoth I) that which our Minister so often proposeth, and odiously doth exaggerate about Coventry, saying: 

Mitig. 430 §. 7.  
though Mortons' Case of Coventry.   That our English Equivocators do teach, that if a man come from Coventry, for example, which town is held to be infected with the plague, himself dwelling in a part of that City, which is free from infection, and being asked at London gates, whether he came from Coventry, th●y intending to ask him concerning a place infected he may answer, no. For that herein he deceiveth not the mind of the questioner, but answereth directly to his intention. So propoundeth he the Case, as he pretendeth, out of the Catholic Treatise of Equivocation, which hitherto I have not seen, and consequently cannot affirm, how truly or falsely the same is related: but he having so uttered the said Case, doth in opposition thereof city the foresaid jesuit Azor his sentence against this, as though he said, that if we admit this Case: 
Azor l. 11. i●st. c. 4. §. Primò quidem.  Nihil tam falsum esse posse, quod non queat ab omni mendacio liberari: nothing is so false, but that it may be freed from a lie: which words are indeed in Azor, but not applied by him to this Case, but to another, saying: That is it were lawful ●or us, to feign what words we would in an Oath without regard to the circumstances of time, place and persons before mentioned, t●en nothing were so false indeed, that might not be freed from all lying. But this Case of ours goeth not conjoined with these words of Azor, as M. Morton hath perfidiously here tied them together: but Azor speaking twice of this our Case in one page, first in the name of others by way of objection, and again in his own name by way of resolution, he saith: 
Azor. ib. §. tertia regula.  Libenter concedimus de eo, qui ad portas Vrbis rogatur etc. We do willingly grant the example of him, who coming to the gates of a City & being asked whether he came from a certain place, which by error is thought to be infected with the plague, and is not, tutò citra mendacium jurare pot●st● se ex eo loco non venire: he may securely swear without lying, that he cometh not ●●om that place: so as he understand that he cometh not from any place infected with the plague, nor that himself ●s infected This is Azor his judgement & resolution. And before him this Case was resolved by Doctor Sylvester, Navarre, Tolet, Roderiquez, Cosmus Philiarchus and divers other learned men: 
Syl Verb. juramentum 3. q. 2. Navar. in Manual c. 12. nu 196.  as after him also by our often named Country man Gregorius Sayer: and the reason of the lawfulness of this answer is, for that the answer being sure, that either the place is not infected from whence he came, or that himself hath brought no infection about him (for otherwise he should be perjured) it were great injury unto him to be stayed at the gate without cause. 
Tolet. in Instruct. Sacar. c. 21. l. 4. Rod●r. in sum. p. 1. c. 1●1. con. 4 Cos●us Phil. p. 2. l. 3. c. 14. Say●r. l. 5. c. 4. ●1. 22.  And therefore for declining this injury and injustice, it is lawful for him to answer to the final end and intention of the keeper, and of the City or Common wealth (whose intention only is to exclude infected people) and not to their immediate words about the particular place.  
14. And now all this being so, consider, I pray you (said I) the shameless forehead of this deceiving Minister, in citing Azor quite against himself, and his own sense and meaning: and tying his words together that were spoken separately to another end: and yet as though he had played no such juggling trick, but had gotten some victory over us, hear his insolent speech about this answer, set down by so many learned men as you have heard named. 
Egregious impudence of T. M.  An answer (saith he) so grossly false, that a jesuit, of high esteem in your Church ●to wit Azor) writing against this spiritual juggling of his subtle lying brethren doth confess, that if this kind of answer concerning a place infected with the plague etc. be not false, then there is no speech so false, but it may be freed from falsehood. By whom your Equivocators (saith he) may learn, that if the man you fancied came not from a place infected with bodily pestilence, yet this your Equivoting proceedeth from minds spiritually infected w●th the contagion of pestilent lying. So he  
15. And I do willingly remit myself to the indifferent Reader, where this contagion of pestilent lying reigneth, either in these grave learned m●n, that have decided this question without lying and against lying: or in M. Morton that hath multiplied so many lies together in this place, as is a shame to number them? For besides all that I have noted already, he cor●upteth also h●re the v●ry text of Azor, which himself allegeth in his marg●nt, by translating it falsely into English, where as Azor saith in the Case proposed, Si venit ex loco aliquo p●ste minimè insecto, qui ●alsò habet●r pro ins●cto: he ●ngl●sh●th the same by le●uing out the words (minime & ●alsò) saying: 
divers Gr●sse untruths of T.M.  If ●e c●me from a place in●●c●ed: which altereth the whole Case. For if either the place, or h●mse●fe be in●ected, he cannot swear without perjury, as hath been said. Secondly, he saith that Azor t●● lesuite doth write against the spiritual iuggl●ng o● his subtile-lying brothers: & yet are neither the principal Authors of this answer and resolution Jesuits, as by their names you have heard; nor writeth Azor against them, but with them, and for them in this Case, conforming his judgement as you see to theirs, that a man coming from such a place, may justly swear in the ●or●e that hath been said. Nor is their answer subtle juggling, as the Minister slandereth, but plain and real dealing, yielding their resolution, together with the reason thereof, as hath been declared. And all the juggling is on M. Mortons' side, who declaiming against lying, doth nothing but lie: and yet finally concludeth most rydiculously his speech thus: Therefore be you exhorted ●or the love of God, who is truth, to recant your doctrine of Equivocating, the Metropolis o● lies Whereunto my answer is, that in my opinion T. Mort. is well worthy to be the Metropolitan of that Metropolis: 
T. M. Metropolitan of his lying Metropolis.  for if ever man, honest or unhonest, lay or clergy, learned or unlearned (to use his manner of exaggerations) did tell so many lies together, ●nd in print, and within the compass of so few lines, as Morton here hath done, I am much deceived etc. Thus I wrote at that time, & can M. Morton say that this abuse is not much insisted upon by me for wring out some answer? Let the Reader be judge between us. He saith in the beginning of his precedent Chapter, that he took upon him to answer, not such points as were easiest to answer, but such as I most insisted upon: which you see to be false in both points. Let us pass to others.   

THE FOURTH Pretermitted falsehood by M. Morton. §. FOUR  
THERE followeth another falsehood used against the same Author Azor, 
Azor falsyfied as rejecting a Case which he plainly alloweth. Exod. 20.  more notable perhaps than any of the former: & thus by me expressed in my Treatise of Mitigation: where having showed how impertinently M. Morton had produced a place of Exodus, to wit, Thou shalt not bear false witness, to prove that every mental Equivocation was a lie, I went forward with this speech.  
17. But hearken further (quoth I) for that M. Morton will bring another proole more strange than this. 
Mitig. 450 §. 18.  Your great Moralist Azor (saith he) doth condemn all Equivocators herein (to wit for mental Equivocation in an Oath) as perjured liars, or otherwise (saith he) there is nothing in an Oath, that may not be affirmed and denied without a lie. 
Pag. 60. & 61.  Thus he. And I would demand M. Morton about this matter, whether he will swear this to be true which he saith of Azor? 
Azor notably belied by T. Morton.  For if Ministers & Priests go in equal rank in England, a ministers word ought to be equal to an Oath: as a Priest's word, laying his hand on his breast, is with us: and then must I needs conclude Morton●or ●or a perjured liar indeed, who hath so perfidiously belied Azor in this place, and that in so many points. For first Azor handling in the Book and Chapter by him cited, De iure●urando cui videtur veritas aliquo modo deesse: 
lib. 11. c. 4. §. Quinto quaeritur.  Of an Oath which may seem in some sort to want truth, he doth put down divers example● (8. or 9 at least) wherein the swearer may swear truly in his own s●nse, though false in the sense of him that exacteth the Oath. All which are so many plain approbations of swearing equivocal propositions without perjury, and so many public contradictions and confutations of Tho. Mortons' notorious slander avouched here against him, that he condemneth all Equivocators for liars. Of which Cases here determined by Azor against M. Morton, the first is, Si Sacerdos rogetur etc. If a priest be asked any thing which he hath heard in Confession, he may answer, Se ●ihil scire, nihil audivisse: that he knoweth nothing, he hath h●ard nothing. And how then doth this great Morali●● condemn all Equivocators herein as perjured liars? Is not this public lying in Tho. Morton? and that in print? And were not this formal perjury, if he did swear it in any Court whatsoever? as namely in his Lord's Court of the Arches? And should he not be punished in that Court, as a perjured person, if it were proved against him? And how then dareth he to commit the same so publicly without blushing? But let us leave him to his Lord's correction in this behalf, and so pass on to another point.  
18. Secondly th●n, not only the sense and drift, but the words themselves set down by T.M. out of Azor, 
Azor lib. 11. ●. 4. §. Primò quidem.  are most fraudulently and falsely alleged: Quidam putavit (saith he) ●as esse cuiquam, ut vitam suam conseruet, hosti jurare, tantummodo ●o sensu, quem mente in●us concipit: possemus enim hac ratione quiduis negare, & nihil non absque menda●io dicere. Some have thought it lawful (saith he) to every man, for the conservation of his life to swear to his enemy only in that sense which he conceiveth inwardly in his own mind, which if it should be granted, then might we by this means deny anything, & speak what we will without a lie.  
19 These are alleged for Azor his words, and indeed the most of them are in Azor, but not together as they lie here, but some in one place, and some in another, spoken to different purposes, & in different sense from that T. M. allegeth them corruptly in this place. And for proof hereof, 
Wilful and perfidious de●ling.  & of the egregious consenage of this Minister, it shallbe sufficient to let you know, that this special example alleged here as out of Azor, & as rejected by him of one that swore to his enemy for saving his life in another sense than his words did sound, is not rejected, but allowed & approved by Azor. For that he having proposed the Case first under other learned men's names, much after the sense as here is set down by M. Morton, he cometh at length to resolve, and approve the same in his own name saying: quare libenter concedimus id quod paulò ante dicebatur de co, qui, ut se saluum tueatur, promittit latroni, Tyrano, aut hosti, daturum se illi pecuniae quantitatem etc. Wherefore we do willingly grant that, which before was proposed of him that by Oath doth promise unto a thief, a Tyrant, or his enemy for saving his life, to give him a certain quantity of money, which yet notwithstanding in his mind he hath no purpose to do, he swearing with this reservation (of mind) dabo si debeo: I will give it, if I owe it.  
20. Now then consider, good Reader, the honesty and truth of T. Morton that bringeth in Azor to condemn that as lying perjury, which he doth not only allow, as truth, and no lie; but proveth also the lawfulness thereof by many examples, and especially by this of him that sweareth by Equivocation, which example M. Morton bringeth in as condemned by Azor for perjurious lying. What will you say? or what will you do with such men? And do you note also that in the former words of Azor he cutteth of La●roni & Tyranno, and this to peru●nt a Case resolved against him afterward by Ci●●ro predonibus & pyramis, to thieves and pirates perjury is not committed: what then (I say) is to be thought, or said, or done with such men? Himself setteth down a rule in his epistle Dedicatory to the Kings Ma.tie cited out of ●ully, 
Tully's 〈◊〉 against liars.  which is, that such are as taken once in lying, may never after be credited again, which he applieth against the Catholics: but how justly it ought to be practised in him and his follows, that are taken at every turn in such notorious wilful lying, is evident to the discreet Reader, etc.  
21. So wrote I in my la●t Treatise, laying down the falsity and indignity of this manner of dealing. And this I think also to have been sufficiently insisted upon by me, which might have moved M. Morton to have yielded us some piece of answer, if he had pleased, or had thought himself able: Whereunto he was specially bound, for that in the precedent Chapter, as you have heard, he cited Azor for one of his three jesuits that condemn all Equivocation: but it seemeth that he careth little what he saith in one place, so he may scape out in another, where he is most pressed. And yet after all this in the very end of his book, he maketh new Challenges of sincere integrity, as freshly, as if he hadnever been taken in the turnings, windings, and contradictions, which now you have heard and wondered at, I doubt not.   

THE FIFTH Pretermitted falsehood by M. Morton. §. V.  
LET US pass from these two jesuits to a third: 
Cardinal Tolet abused about gross and affected ignorance  for ●t seemeth that M. Morton hath a special grace in disgracing these men, though with his own little grace & credit. The falsehood objected against him in this place is about a 〈◊〉 of the w●●ds & sense of Cardinal ●olet by a sleight or two of M. Morton, thus by me recorded in my Treatise of Mitigation.  
23. If followeth presently in the same text (said I) where M. Morton continueth his pleasant vain of playing with us. 
Mitig. 225.  But i● may ●e (saith he) that he which doubteth is ignorant: ●ill no ignorance excuse him? Whereunto he ●rameth of himself this answer, citing Tolet in the margin for the same: Affected ignorance doth argue him an obstinate Heretic. Which if you mark, doth not answer the demand, for he demandeth, whether no ignorance at all doth excuse him, and then answereth; that affected ignorance doth not excuse him, but doth rather argue him an heretic. 
Tolet abused.  Now those that be learned do know, that there be divers sorts of ignorance, and of divers degrees, whereof affected is the most culpable: so as this is very impertinent. For that albeit affected ignorance do not excuse him, yet some other, less faulty may do it. And this for the sense. But if we look upon the words themselves of Tolet, 
Lib. 1. Instr. Sac. c. 19  cited by this man in the margin, we shall discover much more impertinency or impudency rather: for they are these: Ignorantia crassa non excusat aliquem à pertinacia: Gross ignorance doth not excuse a man from pertinacy. Now gross ignorance and affected ignorance are two different things, which may be understood by this example: That one may be ignorant o● Catholic Religion by gross ignorance, in that attending to worldly affairs, he doth not care to inform himselve: but he is ignorant by affected ignorance, that doth purposely fly to be informed. So as here still our ignorant Minister either ex ignorantia crassa or aff●ctata, telleth us quid pro quo, in translating affected ignorance, for gross ignorance. And then again in englishing, non ex●u●at aliquem à per●inacia, doth argue ●●m ●n ob●●●●●●●ereticke: ●or that it is one t●ing to argue, and another not to excuse. And wh●r●s ●e●ore ●. M. held, that pert●nacie appertained not at all to the nature of heresy, here contrary wise he translateth pe●tinacia, an obstinate heretic, making it to signify both substantive & adi●ctiue, substance & quality. But yet further than this you must note, that in citing this sentence out of Tolet, he cunningly dissebleth the Author's assertion set down clearly not six lines before these word●: Pertinacia necessaria est ad consti●uendum hominē●ae●e●i●um: pertinacy is necessary to make a man an heretic: being the quite contrary proposition to that of this man before set down in the first example of his corruptions in the former part of his Reply etc.  
24. This was myformer discourse and conviction against him. And was not this worthy of some consideration in his answer? But we must go forward, for there resteth much to recount.   

THE sixth Pretermitted falsehood by Thomas Morton. §. VI  
AFTER Cardinal Tolet may succeed Bellarmine of the same dignity, and of no less fame for learning and virtue, whom as you have heard him abused before by M. Morton in the precedent Chapter (though he went about to excuse it: 
Cardinal Bellarm. egregiously injured about the question of ancient gathering of councils. ) so more notably shall you see it here, which I insisted upon so earnestly, moved with the indignity of the abuse, as I cannot but marvel, that M. Morton with any credit could pretermit to answer somewhat thereunto. My words are these:  
26. But yet in the very next page after, he useth a far greater immodesty, or rather perfidy in my opinion, in calunniation of Cardinal Bellarmine, 
Mitig. pa. 208.  whom he abuseth both in allegation, translation, application, and vain insultation: for thus he citeth in his text out of him. Ancient general councils (saith the Romish Pretence) were not gathered without the cost of good and Christian Emperors, and were made by their consents. For in those days, the Popes did make supplication to the Emperors, that by his authority he would gather Synods: but after those times all causes were changed, because the Pope, who is Head in spiritual matters, cannot be subject in temporal. Bellarm. lib. 1. de Concil. c. 13. §. Habemus ergo.  
27. And having alleged this resolution of Bellarmine, the Minister insulteth over him in these words● Who would think this man could be a Papist, much less a jesuit, how much less a Cardinal, who thus disableth the title of the Pope, granting to us in these words: After these times (that is a●ter six hundred years) the truth of purer antiquities challenging Popes to be subject unto Christian Emperors. And yet who but a Papist would (as it were in despite of antiquity) defend the degenerate state, saying: After those times Popes might not be subject in temporal matters? as if he should have said: 
A childish insultation of T. M. over Card. Bellarm.  Thou gracious favour of ancient Christian Emperors: Thou sound judgement of ancient reverend Fathers: Thou devout subjection of ancient holy Popes: in sum, Thou ancient purity and pure antiquity, adieu. But we may not so bastardly reject the depositum and doctrine of humble subjection, which we have received from our Fathers of the first six hundred years: and not so only, but which (as your Barkley witnesseth) the universal Christian world embraced with common consent for a full thousand years. So he.  
28. And do you see how this Minister triumpheth? Who would think that men of conscience or credit could make such ostentation upon mere lies devised by themselves as now we shall show all this brag to be? And as for D. Barkley alleged ●n the last lines, 
Barkleius l. 6. a●●● s. Monarch. c. 26.  let any man read him in the book● & Chapter cited and he will wonder at the impudence of this vaunter: for he speaketh no one word of gathering councils, or comparison of spiritual authority between the Pope and Emperor, concerning their gathering of councils or Synods: but of a quite different subject, of taking arms by subjects against their lawful temporal Princes. And what will our Minister then answer to this manifest calumniation so apparently convinced out of D. Barkley? But let us pass to the view of that which toucheth Cardinal Bellarmine, against whom all this tempest is raised.  
29. First then we shall set down his words in Latyn according as T. M. citeth him in his margin. Tunc Concilia generalia sievant (saith he) non sin● Imperatorum sumptibus, 
Bellar. l. 1. de Conc. c. 13. §. Habemus ergo.  & e● tempore Pontifex subijcie●at se Imperatoribus in temporalibus, & ideo non poterant invito Imperatore aliquid agere: idcirco Ponti●ex supplica●at Imperatori, ut iuberet convocari Synodum. At post illa tempora omnes causae mutatae sunt, quia Pontifex, qui est Caput in spiritualibus, non est subiectus in temporalibus. Then in those days general councils were made not without the charges of Emperors, and in that time the Pope did subject himself unto Emperors in temporal affairs, and therefore they could do nothing against the emperors will: for which cause the Pope did make supplication to the Emperor, that he would command Synods to be gathered: but after those times al● causes were changed, for that the Pope who is head in spiritual matters is not subject in temporal affairs. So he.  
30. And here let us consider the variety of ●leights and shifts of this our Minister, not only in citing Bellarmynes words falsely and against his meaning and drift in Latin, 
divers sorts of corruption.  whereof we shall speak presently: but in perverting this Latin, that he hath so corruptly set down in his former English translation. For first having said according to the latin, that general councils in these days were not gathered without the cost of Emperors, he addeth presently of his own, & were made by their consents, which is not in the Latin: & then he cutteth of the other words immediately ensuing which contain the cause, to wit, for that the Pope's subjecting themselves in those days touching temporalities unto the Emperors (as having no temporal States or dominion yet of their own) could do nothing without them, and therefore did make supplication to the said Emperors, that they would command Synods to be gathered: which T.M. translateth that they would gather Synods, as though Bellarmine did affirm, that it lay in the Emperors by right to do it: but after those times omnes causae mutatae sunt, all causes were changed: but he should have said are changed, as Bellarmyns' true words are, omnes istae causae, all these causes are changed, to wit, four sorts of causes, which he setteth down why general councils could not be well gathered in those days without the emperors help and authority, with causes are guilfully cut of by this deceiver, as in like manner the last words put down here by himself, Pontifex non est subiectus in temporalibus, are falsely translated, cannot be subject in temporal. And again afterward, Popes might not be subject in temporal matters, which is to make Bellarmine contrary to himself, who saith a little b●fore, that the Popes did subject themselves for many years: whereby is proved that they could do it. But Bellarmyns' meaning is, that in right by the preeminence of their spiritual dignity, they were exempted and not bound thereunto.  
31. And thus much now for the corruptions used in the words here set down both in Latin and English. But if we would go to Bellarmyne himself, and see his whole discourse, and how brokenly & perfidiously these lines are cut out of him and here patched together, as one entire context, contrary to his drift and meanings we shall marvel more at the insolency of Tho. Morton, triumphing over his own lie, as before hath been said. For that Bellarmyne having proved at large, 
The sum of Cardinal Beauties discourse falsified by ●. M.  and by many sorts of arguments and demonstrations, throughout divers Chapters together, that the right of gathering general councils belongeth only to the B. of Rome, and having answered all objections that could be made against the same in the behalf of Emperors or other temporal Princes, granting only that for certain causes in those first ages, the same could not be done (in respect of temporal difficulties) without the help and assistance of the said Emperors, that were Lords of the world; he cometh to make this conclusion, which here is cited by T. M. but in far other words and meaning then here he is cited. You shall hear how he setteth it down, and thereupon consider of the truth of this Minister. 
Bellar. l. 1. de Conc. c. 13. § Habemus ergo.  Habemus ergo (saith he) prima illa Concilia etc. We have then by all this disputation seen, how those first Christian councils were commanded by Emperors to be gathered, but by the sentence and consent of Popes, and why the Pope alone in those days did not call councils, as afterward hath been accustomed: 
Athan. in. Ep. ad solitar. vit. agentes.  the reason was● not for that councils gathered without the emperors consent, are not lawful, as our adversaries would have it, for against that is the express authority of S. Athanasius, saying: Quando unquam judicium Ecclesiae ab Imperatore authoritatem habuit? When was it ever seen that the judgement of the Church did take authority from the Emperor? But for many other most just causes was the emperors consent required therein etc.  
So Bellarmyne.  
32. And here now see, 
Four causes why Emperors consents were necessary for gathering of councils in old time.  that Beauties' drift is wholly against M. Mortons' assertion: for that he denieth that ever the Emperors had any spiritual authority for calling of councils, but only that they could not well in those days be made without them, and that for four several causes: whereof the first was for that the old Imperial laws made by Gentills were yet in use, whereby all great meetings of people were forbidden, for fear of sedition, except by the emperors knowledge and licence. The second, for that emperors being temporal Lords of the whole world, the Councell● could be made in no City of their● without their leave. 
See ff de Col. ill. & l. convent. de Epis●. & presbyteris  The third, for that general councils being made in those days by the public charges and contributions of Cities, and especially of Christian Emperors themselves, as appeareth by Eusebius, Theodoretus, 
Euseb. l. 3. de vit. Const. Th●od. l. 1. Hist. c. 16.  and other writers, it was necessary to have their consent and approbation in so public an action, as that was.  
33. The fourth and last cause was (saith Bellarmine) for that in those days, albeit the B. of Rome were Head in spiritual matters over the Emperors themselves: yet in temporal affairs he did subject himself unto them, as having no temporal State of his own; and therefore acknowledging them to be his temporal Lords, he did make supplication unto them to command Synods to be gathered by their authority and licence. At post illa tempora istae omnes caus● mutatae sunt: But since those days all these (four) causes are changed, & ipse in suis Provincijs est Princeps supremus temporalis, sicut sunt Reges & Principes alij. And the Pope himself now in his temporal Provinces is supreme temporal Lord also, as other Kings and Princes are: which was brought to pas●e by God's providence (saith Bellarmyne) to the end, that he might with more freedom, liberty & reputation exercise his office of general Pastourship.  
34. And this is all that Bellarmyne hath of this matter. And now may we consider the vanity of M. Mortons' triumph over him be●ore, and how falsely he dealeth with him, alleging him against his own drift and meaning: leaving out also those four causes by mer● cited, & then cutting of frauduiently the particle (istae) these causes are now changed, which includeth reference to these four: and furthermore speaking indefinitely, as though ●ll causes, and matters were now changed, seeketh thereby to deceive his Reader, and to extort from Bellarmyne that confession of antiquity on his side, which he never meant, and much less uttered in his writings. What dealing, what conscience, what truth is this? etc.  
35. Thus I insisted then: and was not this sufficient to draw some answer from M Morton, if he had resolved to answer the points of most moment and most insisted upon, as he professeth? But it shameth me to see him thus taken at every turn. Let us go forward,   

THE seventh Pretermitted falsehood by Thomas Morton. §. VII.  
AFT●R Bellarmine it shall not be amiss to bring in Salmeron another jesuit, 
The jesuit Salmeron much perverted in sundry points. Mi●ig. pa. 191. Pag. 2.  whom M. Morton will needs shake also by the sleeve, and show him a trick or two of his art in sundry places of his Book, whereof one is somewhat largely handled by me in this manner.  
37. In the second page (quoth I) of his pretended Confutation, M. Morton hath these words: In the old Testament the jesuits are forced to allow, that the King was supreme over t●e Priest's in sp●ri●uall affairs, and ordering Priests. For proof whereof he citeth in the margin Salmeron a jesuit, a very learned man, that hath left written in our days many volumes upon the Gospels, Epistles of S. Paul, and other parts of Scripture, and was one of the first ten, that joined themselves with the famous holy Man, Ignatius de Loyola, for the beginning of that Religious Order: in which citation divers notable corruptions are to be seen. First, for that Salmeron proveth the quite contrary in the place by this man quoted, to wit, that never Kings were Head of the Church or above Priests by their ordinary Kingly authority in Ecclesiastical matters in the new or old Testament: and having proved the same largely, he cometh at length to set down objections to the contrary, and to volue and answer them saying: 
Salmeron disp. 12. in Ep. Pauli in gen. §. Sed contra.  Sed contra hanc solidam veritatem etc. But now against this sound truth by me hitherto confirmed I know that many things may be objected, which we are diligently to confute. First then may be objected that Kings in the old Testament did sometimes prescribe unto Priests, what they were to do in sacred things, as also did put some negligent Priests from the execution of their office. To which is answered: Vbi id evenisset, mirum esse non debere: If it had so fallen out, it had been no marvel: for that the Synagogue of the jews, albeit it contained some just men, yet was it called rather an earthly then ●n heavenly Kingdom: in so much as S. Augustine doth doubt, 
Aug. l. 19 cont. Faust. cap. 31. in princ.  whether in the old Testament, the Kingdom of heaven was ever so much as named, and much less promised for reward: and therefore those things that were then done among them, foreshowed only or prefigured divine things that were to succeed under the new Testament, the other being not divine but human and earthly. So Salmeron.  

1 Corruption about the meaning.  38. Here then are sundry important corruptions and frauds uttered by T. M. the one that the jesuits and namely Salmeron are in●orced to allow the temporal King to have been supreme over the high Priest in spiritual matters, under the old law: whereas he doth expressly affirm and prove the contrary, both out of the Scripture itself, by the sacrifice appointed more worthy for the Priest, than the Prince, and many other Testimonies, 
Disp. 12. pag. 324. & 325. Leuit. 4. Deut. 17. Num. 27. Philo. l. de victimis par. 2. circa med. joseph l. 3. antiq. cap. 10.  as that he must take the law and interpretation thereof at the Priest's hands, that he must ingredi & egredi ad verbum Sacerdotis, go in and out, and proceed in his affairs by the word & direction of the Priest, and the like: as also by the testimony of Philo and josephus two learned jews: and other reasons handled at large in this very disputation, and in the self same place from whence this objection is taken. And this is the first falsyfication concerning the Author's meaning and principal drift.  
39 The second corruption is in the words as they lie in the latin copy, & as by me before mentioned: 
2 Corruption about the words  Vbi id evenisset mirum esse non debere. If any such thing had fallen out as was objected, to wit, that Kings sometimes had prescribed to the Priests what they should do in Ecclesiastical things, deposed some etc. it had been no marvel: for so much as their Ecclesiastical Kingdom or Synagogue was an earthly & imperfect thing, but yet this proveth not that it was so, but only it is spoken upon a supposition: which supposition this Minister that he might the more cunningly shift of and avoid, left out of purpose the most essential words thereof, ubi id evenisset, if that had happened &c. as also for the same cause to make things more obscure, after those words of Salmeron that stand in his text, Synagoga Iud●orum dicebatur terrenum potius quam caeleste regnum: The Synagogue or Ecclesiastical government of the jews was called rather an earthly than an heavenly Kingdom (where as contrariwise the Ecclesiastical power in the Christian Church is every where called Celestial:) after those words (I say) this man cutteth of again many lines that followed● together with S. Augustine's judgement before touched, which served to make the Author's meaning more plain, 
Sundry sleights.  and yet left no sign of (etc.) whereby his Reader might understand that somewhat was omitted, but joineth again presently, as though it had immediately followed; Itaque cum populus Dei constet corpore & animo, carnalis pars in veteri populo primas tenebat. Whereas God's people doth consist of body & mind, the carnal or bodily part did chief prevail among the jews: and herewith endeth, as though nothing more had ensued of that matter, thrusting out these words, that immediately followed, & made the thing clear, which are: Et ad spiritualia significanda constituebatur: & that kind of earthly power was appointed to signify the spiritual, that was to be in the new Testament: Whereby is evidently seen that Salmeron understood not by carnalis pars, and regnum terrenum, the temporal Kingdom of jury, as this Minister doth insinuate to make the matter odious: but the Ecclesiastical government of the Synagogue under the old law, in respect of the Ecclesiastical power in the new, whereof the other was but an earthly figure or signification.  
40. But now the third corruption, 
3 Corruption about the translation. Confut. pag. 2.  and most egregious of all is in his English Translation out of the Latin words of Salmeron: for thus he translateth them in our name: In the Synagogue of the jews (saith Salmeron) was a State rather earthly then heavenly: so that in that people (which was as in the body of a man, consisting of body and soul) the carnal part was more emynent: meaning the temporal to have been supreme. In which translation are many several shifts & frauds. For where as Salmeron saith: Synagoga judaeorum dicebatur potius terrenum, quam caeleste regnum. The Synagogue or Ecclesiastical power among the jews was called rather an earthly, th●n a heavenly Kingdom: he translateth it: The Synagogue of the jews was a State, rather earthly then heavenly. And this, to the end he might apply the word of earth to the temporal Prince, 
Malicious interpretations to make us odious.  and heavenly to the judaical Priests, which is quite from Salmerons' meaning. Secondly those other words of Salmeron being, cum populus Dei constet ex corpore & animo: Where as the people of God do consist of body and mind, meaning thereby aswell Christians as jews: and that the jews are as the bodily or carnal part of the man, and the Christians the spiritual, and consequently their Ecclesiastical authority earthly, and ours heavenly: this fellow to deceive his reader putteth out first the word (Dei) the people of God, which could not but signify Christians in Salmerons' meaning, and then translateth, In that people (to wit the jews) the carnal part was the more eminent, meaning (saith he) the temp●rall: which is fals●, for he speaketh expressly of the Ecclesiastical power among the jews, which he calleth carnal and terrene, in respect of the spiritual Ecclesiastical among the Christians, and not the temporal or kingly power under the old Testament, as this man to make us odious to temporal Princes as debasing their authority would have it thought. And Salmerons' contraposition or antithesis is not between the temporal and Ecclesiastical government among the ●ewes: but between their Ecclesiastical government and ours, that of the Synagogue, and this of the Christian Church, whereof the one (he saith) to be terrene and earthly, the other spiritual and heavenly: the one infirm, the other powerful over souls etc. So as all these sorts and kinds of corruptions being seen in this one little authority, you may imagine what willbe found in the whole Book, if a man had so much patience and time to lose, as to discuss the same exactly throughout. So in that place. And did not this require some answer also among the rest? Had it not been good that M. M●rton had ●ent us some few lines of satisfaction to this, instead of so many idle triflings, as he hath prosecuted largely in this his Reply? But it is easily seen, that he sought for choice matter, whereby to entertain his reader, and seem to say somewhat.   

THE EIGHT Falsehood pretermitted by Thomas Morton. §. VIII.  
THERE remaineth yet another notable abuse, which I may not pas●e over, against the same Salmeron, 
Salmeron again abused by egregious cavillation.  though by order I should have mentioned it be●ore: thus it is la●d forth in my Book of Mitigation. 
Mitig. pag. 143.  It followeth in the same place (said I) as a second Romish pretence, produced by M. Morton, That the old testament was a figure of the new in Christ, and therefore that in the new, the spiritual power (as the Popedom saith he) must be the chief or substantive etc. which short sentence he patcheth out of two different authors Salmeron & Carerius, part of one & part of another, & then frameth this grave answer thereunto: 
Salm. disp. 12. in Ep. Paul. Carer● l. 2. cap. 1.  In this objection (saith he) there is more childhood than manhood, ba●ish grammar then sound divinity. So he. And will you hear his manhood in sound divinity? It followeth immediately. The old Testament indeed (saith he) in his earthly elements was a figure o● this spiritual and heau●nly, but o● the truly heavenly, the day of that eternal Sabbath, and the celestical Jerusalem, the mother-Citty of the Saints o● God. 
Heb. 4.  Behold his manhood in sound Divinity!  
42. Let it be so, that the old Testament was in many things a figure of the heavenly Sabbath and celestial Jerusalem: but what, Sir, will you conclude of this by your sound divinity? was it not a ●igure also of many things upon earth, which should be fulfilled in the new Testament? 
How the old Testament was a figure of the new.  Were not their Ceremonies and Sacrifices a figure of our Sacraments & Sacrifice? their Manna of our Eucharist? their Circumcisions and washings figures of our Baptism? doth not S. Paul in the 9 an 10. of his first Epistle to the Corinthians set down many examples to this effect? as that of deuteronomy, Non alligabis os bovi trituranti: 
1. Cor. 9  
Deut. 25.  thou shalt not bind up the mouth of the ox that laboureth, applying it unto our Preachers of the new Testament that must have their maintenance? as also he expoundeth the passing of the Red-sea by the Israelits, their being baptised in the Cloud, their food of the Manna, their drinking out of the Rock which prefigured Christ, and divers other things, whereof he saith: Haec autem in figura facta sunt nostri: these things were done in figure of our present St●te. And again: Haec autem omnia in figura contingebant illis: 
1. Cor. 10.  All these things did happen to the jews in figure, but were to be fulfiled truly and really according to the spiritual meaning in the new Testament Is not all this so? Were not these things to be fulfilled aswell upon earth as in heaven? How then doth our Minister put that adversative clause (but of the truly heavenly,) as though the old Testament in her earthly elements had prefigured nothing to be fulfilled but only in heaven? Is this sound Divinity? Is this Manhood? Nay is it not rather babish Childhood, that seemeth not to know the very first elements of true Divinity?  
43. I let pass the shameless corruption which he useth in translating the very words cited by him out of Salmeron, for proof of his objection made in our behalf: and I call it shameless, for that every Child which understandeth Latyn may see the Ministers shift therein. The Author's words are these as this man here recounteth them: Et hoc regnum terrenum umbra tamen suit spiritualis regiminis in Ecclesia Christiana: 
Confut. pa. ●●  and yet this earthly Kingdom (of the jews) was a shadow of the spiritual government, that was to be in the Christian Church: meaning thereby the most excellent spiritual power and government over souls, which Christ was to institute in his Church, at his coming in flesh, to wit, the power of absolving from sins upon earth, the assistance given by the Sacraments, and the like, were shadowed in a certain manner by the earthly Ecclesiastical Kingdom among the jews. And how doth T. M. now translate these words and frame our objection out of them. The old Testament (saith he) was a figure of the new in Christ, therefore in the new, the Popedom is the substantive etc. Here are two short propositions you see, the Antecedent & Consequent, and both framed with falsehood: for that the Antecedent set down, as out of Salmeron, is not that which he affirmeth in his Latin words, as already we have showed: though otherwise in itself the proposition be true, to wit, that the old Testament was a figure of the new in Christ: nor will (I think) T. M. deny it. There followeth then the Consequent or second proposition (that therefore in the new the Popedom is the substantive) which is no less corruptly inferred in our name, 
Cavillation of T.M.  than was the Antecedent affirmed: for that we do not infer, nor yet the Author Carerius in the said second proposition or Consequence by him alleged, that for so much as the old Testament is a figure of the new, therefore in the new, the Pope's spiritual authority is the substantive etc. for that this were a weak inference, as every man seeth. Nay Carerius maketh no inference at all in the place by him alleged, but only useth that similitude, which before you have heard of the substantive and adjective: So as this inference is only a fiction of the Minister to make himself & other men merry, and to give occasion to play upon his adversary, with reproach of Childhood and babish grammar, as now he hath done: but indeed the true Consequence that may be made upon the Catholic Authors words which hitherto he hath alleged, is only this: that for so much as the Kingdom and government among the jews, even in Ecclesiastical things, was but earthly, and a figure or shadow, in respect of that which was to be over souls, in the Christian Church, it followeth, that this in respect of spirituality was to be much more emynent than the other, as the thing figured, than the figure or shadow itself. And what inconvenience hath this doctrine that it should be called Childhood and babish grammar? So much I set down in my former reprehension of M. Morton for this abuse of Salmeron, all which he now in his last Reply thought best to pass over with silence: for that belike he esteemed it not sufficiently insisted upon by me, thereby to press him to answer it. But this may be amended at another time: and so I pass on now to recount others of like sort.   

THE NINTH Pretermitted falsehood by Thomas Morton. §. IX.  
THERE followeth now against Dolman a like sleight, thus recorded by me in my book. M. Mortons' second reason why his majesties Catholic & Protestant subjects may not live together in England is: 
About Dolman and other writers abused by him.  For that all Popish Priests (saith he) d● attribute a double prerogative over Kings, that is to say, a democratical and Monarchical sovereign Civil power: the first to the people, the second to the Pope. And for proof of the first concerning the people, he allegeth four several authorities of Catholic writers, 
Mitig. pag 65.  but so corruptly & perfidiously, as if nothing else did show his talon of cogging & treacherous dealing, this were sufficient to discover the same: though afterwards greater store will occur, we shall run over briefly all those four.  
45. First he saith that Dolman in his Conference about Succession hath these words: The common wealth hath authority to choose a King, and to limit him laws at their pleasure: 
Dolman. par. 1. pag. 13. cited in Discou. pag. 9  which if it were truly alleged, as it lieth in the Author, yet here is no mention o● the people, or of democratical state, but only of the Common wealth, which includeth both nobility and people, and all other States. Secondly Dolmans words are not of choosing a King, but of choosing a form of government, be it democratical, Aristocratical, or Monarchical. Let us hear the Author himself speak. In like mā●●r (saith he) it is evident, that as the Common wealth hath this authority to choose & change her government (as hath been proved:) so hath it also to limit the same, with what laws and condi●ions she pleaseth: whereof ensueth great diuers●●y of authority a●d power, which each one of the ●ormer goverments hath in itself. So he. Where we see that Doleman speaketh of the power which a Common wealth that is devoid of any certain government, to choose unto themselves that form that best liketh them, with the limitations they think most expedient: & so we see in Engla●d, France, Polonia, Germany, Venice, Genua, and in the Empire itself, different forms and manners of government, with different laws and lymitations, according to the choice and liking of each Nation. This place then of Dolman is corrupted by T. M. both in words and sense. 
About Dolman● text abused in words & sense.  For he neither speaketh nor meaneth as the false Minister avoucheth him, of giving democratical power to the people over Princes established.  
46. So wrote I in my former book. And albeit I do not insist and dwell upon the matter so long as upon some other sleights: yet doth it contain notable falsehood, if you consider it well; first to allege the words of an Author that are not his: and then to infer thereof, that, which neither the words themselves do bear, nor the Author ever dreamt of.  
47. And here I might allege divers other Writers, but especially jesuits wrongfully abused by him, both in citing of their works and words, and falsifying their meaning: as namely those three whom he bringeth in for witness in the end of the fourth Chapter against Equivocation, even in those places, where they do most resolutely affirm Equivocation to be lawful: namely Azor, Emanuel Sà, & Maldonatus: but these will have their place afterward. And so from jesuits I pass to other Authors, who have received the like sort of dealing from him.   

THE TENTH Pretermitted falsehood by Thomas Morton. §. X.  
AS you have heard how M. Morton hath dealt fraudulently with the jesuits, so shall you see him use the same measure also towards others, as namely toward the Paduan Doctor Carerius, 
Carerius injuriously handled about his opinion of Priesthood and Kingly authority. Mitig. c. 6. nu. 60. pag. 234. Mi●ig. pag. 141.  out of whom he hath made great stir before, if you remember in answering three several times at lea●t a certain reprehension of mine, for that he cited the words Celsus verè, for Celsus verò, though I objected the same but slightly, & by the way, & said expressly that I held it for a tri●le. But now you shall hear a more grave and grievous charge made against him for worse abusing of the same Carerius. Thus it lieth in my book.  
49. The next sentence (quoth I) or objection after the former preface (which is the very first of his discourse) is framed by him (but yet in our name) under the title of the Roman pretence in these words. The high Priests in the old testament (saith he) were supreme in civil Causes: Ergo, they ought to be so also in the new. For which he citeth one Carerius a Lawyer, that wrote of late in Padua, de potestate Romani Pon●ificis, 
Pag. 2.  defending the former opinion of Canonists for direct dominion, and citeth his words in Latyn thus: 
Carer. l. 2. de Rom. Pont. c. 18. & Saunder. in visib. monarch.  Dico Pontificem in veteri Testamento suisse Rege maiorem: and Englisheth the same as before you have heard, That the high Priest was supreme in Civil causes: which words of Civil causes, he putteth in of his own, and if you mark them, do mar the whole market. For that Carerius hath them not either in words or sense, but teacheth the plain contrary in all his discourse, to wit, that he meaneth in matters appertaining to Religion and Priesthood, & not of temporal Principality: which temporal principality this Author granteth to have been greater in the old Testament in dealing with Ecclesiastical men and matters, then in the new: and to that effect is he cited presently after by the Minister himself, contrary to that which here he feigneth him to say. But let us hear the words of Carerius. Tertiò dico (saith he) etiam in Testamento vete●i, fuisse Ponti●ic●m Rege maiorem: quod quidem probatur etc. Thirdly, I say, that the high Priest was greater also in the old Testament than the King: which is proved first out of the 27. Chapter of Numbers, where it is appointed by God, that joshua, and all the people should be directed by the word of the high Priest Eleazar, saying: 
The dignity of Priesthood proved to be more the● Regal.  When any thing is to be done, let Eleazar the high Priest consult with God, & at his word aswell joshua, as all the Children of Israel, and whole multitude shall go forth and come in etc. And secondly the same is proved out of the fourth of Leviticus, where four kind of Sacrifices being ordained according to the dignity of the persons: the first two are of a Calse for the high Priest and Common wealth: the third and fourth of a he and shee-goat for the Prince and private persons. Whereby Carerius inferreth a most certain dignity and pre-eminence of the priests state above the temporal Prince, though he say not in Civil causes, as this Minister doth belly him.  
50. And whereas Carerius had said in two former answers, first that in the old Testament, Ecclesiastical and secular jurisdiction were not so distinct but that both might be in some Cases in the King: & secondly that in the law, the new spiritual power was more emynent than in the old, he cometh thirdly to say, that in the old law, the high Priest in some respects was greater also than the King, which cannot be understood of Civil ●ower, except the Author willbe contrary to himself. And therefore that clause was very falsely & perfidiously thrust in by the Minister, 
False dealing against Carerius.  & this with so much the less shame, ●or that in the end of the same chapter, he citeth the same Author to th● plain contrary sense saying: 
Confut. p. 2. Carer. l. 2. cap. 1.  In veteri lege Regnum erat subs●anti●um, & Sacerdo●ium adiectiwm etc. That in the old Law the Kingdom was the substantive that stood of itself, and Priesthood was the adjective that leaned thereon: but contrariwise in the new law, Priesthood and spiritual jurisdiction is the substantive or principal in government, and temporal principality is the adjective depending thereof for direction and assistance: the one, both by nature, and God's law being subordinate to the other, to wit, the temporal to the spiritual. And thus much concerning this guile by flat falsehood. Now to a trick or two of other sorts of shifting, by him used for deluding the Reader.  
51. This was my reprehension and complaint then, and if M. Morton had dealt really, he would rather have thought how to have answered somewhat to this substantial imputation, then to have trifled so often with the other of verò & verè, out of the same Author, but that he had some shadow how to shift of that, by a show of a later erroneous print of Cullen, but none at all for this.   

THE ELEVENTH Falsehood dissembled by Thomas Morton. §. XI.  
AFTER the Paduan Doctor of law Carerius, followeth the famous Religious Doctor of the Order of S. Dominicke, 
Franc. de Victoria abused touching the exemption of Clergy men.  named Franciscus de Victoria, whom in like manner he doth egregiously abuse, as by my former complaint may appear, which I delivered in these words.  
53. It followeth in the 16. page thus: Your devise (saith M. Morton) of exemption of Priests (from the ●urisdiction of temporal Princes in certain Cases) is too crude to be digested by any reasonable Divine, 
Mitig. pag 199.  for (as ●our Victoria saith) Priests, besides that they are ministers of the Church, they are likewise members of the Common wealth: & a King is aswell King of the Clergy as of the Laity: therefore the Clergy is subject to the Civil authority in temporal things, for such matter is not ruled by any power spiritual. A plain demonstration. So he. And I say the same, that indeed it is a plain demonstration of M. Mortons' egregious falsehood and abusing his Reader. First in making him believe that the learned man Franciscus de Victoria doth favour him or his in this matter of exemption of Priests, whereas in this very place here cited by T.M. his first proposition of all in this matter is this: 
Franc. de Vict. relect 1. de potest. Eccl●●iae sect. 4.  Ecclesiastici iure sunt exempti etc. I do affirm that Ecclesiastical men are by law exempted, and fr●ed from Civil power, so as they may not be convented before a secular judge, either in criminal or Civil causes, and the contrary doctrine to this is condemned for heretical among the articles of john Wickliff, in the Council of Constance. So he. And now see whether Victoria make for him or no; or whether he digested well this crude doctrine of Priests' exemption, as this ministers phrase is.  
54. Secondly, if we consider either the English translation here set down out of the words of Victoria, 
Variety of corruptions.  or his Latin text for ostentation sake put in the margin by M. Morton; we shall find so many & monstrous foul corruptions, intercisions, geldings and mutilations, as is a shame to behold: and I beseech the learned Reader to have patience to confer but this one place only with the Author, 
Relect. 1. sect. 4. no● sect. 7.  & he will rest instructed in the man's spirit for the re●t: but he must find them as I have now cited them here in the margin, and not as T. M. erroneously quoteth them, if not of purpose to escape the examine. For that Victoria having set down his precedent general proposition for the exemption of Clergy men, 
Victoria his propositions about exemption of Clergy men, and and ●● M. his corruptions therein.  that they were exempted jure, by law, he passes on to examine in his second proposition, Quo iure? by what law, Divine or human they are exempted? And in his third he holdeth, that aliqua exemptio Clericorum ●st de iure divino: that some kind of exemptions of Clergy men from Civil power, is by divine law, and not human only: and fourthly he cometh to this which here is set down by T.M. but not as he setteth it down. Our forth proposition (saith Victoria) is that the persons of Clergy men are not absolutely and in all things exempted from Civil power, ●ither by Divine or human law, which is evident by that clergy men are bound to obey the temporal laws of the City or Common wealth, wherein they live, in those things that do appertain to the temporal government and administration thereof, and do not let or hinder Ecclesiastical government.  
55. These are the words of Victoria, as they lie together in him, and then after some arguments interposed for his said conclusion, he addeth also this proof. That ●or so much as Clergy men besides this that they are ministers of the Church, are Citizens also of the common wealth, they are bound to obey the temporal laws of that Common wealth or Prince in temporal affairs: and then ensueth the last reason (here set down in English by T. M.) in th●se words. Moreover (saith Victoria) for that a King is King, not only of Laymen, but of Clergy men also, therefore, aliquo modo subi●ciuntur ei: in some sort they are subject unto him. Which words aliquo modo, in some sort, the Minister leaveth out. And is this plain dealing? And then it followeth immediately in Victoria: And ●or that Clergy men are not governed in temporal matters by Ecclesiastical power, therefore they have their temporal Prince, unto whom they are bound to yield obedience in temporal affairs. And this is all that Victoria hath in this matter, and in ●hese very words. And let any man consider the patching, which T. M. useth both in English and Latin in this place, to make some show for his feigned demonstration out of Victoria, and he will see how poor and miserable a man he is, and how miserable a cause he defendeth. And in particular, let the very last proposition be noted which he citeth and Englisheth, as out of victoria, to wit, the Clergy is subject to th● Civil authority intemporall things, ●or such matter is not ruled by any power spiritual: whereby he would have his Reader to imagine, that no spiritual power may have authority to govern temporal matters: whereas the words of Victoria are: Clerici quantum ad temporalia non administrantur potestate Ecclesiastica, that Clergy men ●or so much as appertaineth to temporal affairs, are not governed by Ecclesiastical power, but by the temporal, which there beareth rule. So as this fellow by a subtle sleight changing the nominative Case from Clerici non administrantur, to temporalia non administrantur, frameth his plain Demonstration out of plain cozenage and forgery. And is this naked innocency & c? Thus far I had in my former Treatise. And here you see, I was earnest enough in urging & pressing for an answer, if it might have been had: but none came at all, but other trifling toys in steed thereof: and that in great store, as our former discourses, have declared: and yet we must go forward to recount more●   

THE TWELVE falsehood pretermitted by Thomas Morton. §. XII.  
WE shall pass from private Doctors to an Archbishop and Martyr of our own Country S. Boniface: 
●. Boniface Archb. falsified notably in the question, Whether a Pope may be an heretic.  whom M. Morton seemeth to make a Pope also, for that his speech is alleged in one of the Pope's Constitutions. My former charge against M. Morton about that matter, was this that ensueth.  
57 Now (said I) to the second, wherein he saith, that one of our Popes placed also in the Calends of our Martyrs, doth affirm, that though a Pope should carry many people with himself to hell, no mortal man may presume to say, why do you so? 
Mitig. page. ●●●.   
I do greatly marvel with what conscience, or if not conscience, with what forehead at least, these men can write and print, and reiterate so often in their books, things that they know, or may know, to be merely fa●se and forge? Is not this a sign of obstinate wilfulness, and that neither God nor truth is sought for by them, but only to maintain a part or faction with what sleight or falsehood so ever? I find this very objection set forth in print not many years agone by Sir Francis Hastings in his Watchword and Defence thereof, 
Shamles facing of untruths  and the same avouched stoutly after him for a time by Matthew Sutclisse the Minister, Advocate and Proctor of that De●ence: but afterward I find the same so confuted at large by the Warn-word, and so many lies, falsehoods, and evident frauds discovered therein, as the said M. Sutclisse in his Reply entitled, A full & round answer, though good roundly to let it pass without any answer at all, which I can find in his said book, though I have used some diligence in search thereof: which I do add, for that he changeth the whole order of answering, from the method of his Adversary, to the end not to be found: and so answereth nothing in order or place, as it is set downed by him, whom he pretendeth to answer, but rather taking a new, vast, and wild discourse to himself, 
A note of M. Sutcliffs manner of answering.  snatcheth here a word and there a word to carp at, not as they lie in his adversaries book, but as it pleaseth him to admit them, now from the end of the book, then from the beginning, then from the middle. And with this substantial method he taketh upon him to answer all books that come in his way: for so he hath answered of late the book also of Three Conversions of England, and may do easily all that is written by Catholics, if carping only and scolding be answering.  
58. Wherefore to this instance here resumed by T. M. though I must remit him, or rather the Reader, for larger satisfaction to the said Catholic Treatise, entitled The Warnwoord; 
Warn-word, Encounter 2. c. 13. n. 18.19.20. etc.  yet here briefly I am to tell him first, that he erreth grossly in affirming in this place, the Author of this Canon cited by him, Si Papa, to have been a Pope: for that the said Canon was gathered by Gratian out of the sayings of S. Boniface Martyr, as in the title of the said Canon is expressed: which Boniface, 
The error about S. Boniface the English Martyr.  was never Pope, but a virtuous learned Englishman, that lived above 850. years agone, and was the first Archbishop of Mentz or Moguntia in Germany: of which people, & Country he is called by all ancient writers the Apostle, for that he first publicly converted that Nation, erected that primate Sea, and suffered glorious Martyrdom by the Gentills for the faith of Christ. Wherefore the scoff of T.M. calling him our Pope placed in the Calends of our Martyrs, besides the ignorance tasteth also of much profane malice and impiety.  
59 Secondly, I say, that these words of his are corruptly set down, as over commonly else where, and that both in latin and English. In latin, for that he leaveth out the beginning of the Canon, which showeth the drift thereof, whose title is: Damnatur Apostolicus qui suae & ●raternae salutis est negligens. The Pope is damned, which is negligent in the affair of his own salvation and o● his brethren: and then beginneth the Canon, Si Papa suae & fraternae salutis negligens etc. showing that albeit the Pope have no Superiour-iudge in this world which may by authority check him, unless he fall into heresy: yet shall his damnation be greater than of other sinners, for that by reason of his high dignity, he draweth more after him to perdition then any other. Whereby we may perceive that this Canon was not written to flatter the Pope, as Protestants would have it seem, but to warn him rather of his peril, together with his high authority.  
60. After this the better to cover this pious meaning of S. Boniface, T.M. alleging two lines of the same in Latin he cutteth of presently a third line that immediately ensueth, to wit, Cum ipso plagis multis in aeternum vapulaturus: that such a Pope is to suffer eternal punishments, and to be scourged with many stripes together with the Devil himself, if by his evil or negligent life, he be the cause of others perdition: which threat this man having cut of he joineth presently again with the antecedent words, these as following immediately in the Canon: Huius culpas redarguere praesumet nemo mortalium: This man's faults (to wit the Pope) no mortal man shall or may presume to reprehend, and there endeth. In which short phrase are many frauds. For first he leaveth out (i●ti●) here in this life: and then for (praesumit) in the present tense, that no man doth presume to check him in respect of the greatness of his dignity, this man saith (praesumet) in the future tense, that is, no man shall presume, or as himself translateth it, may presume to cotroll him, which is a malicious falsehood. And lastly he leaveth out all that immediately followeth containing a reason of all that is said: Quia cunctos ipse iudicaturus, à nemine est iudicandus, nisi depre●endatur à fide devius etc. for that whereas he is judge of all other men, he cannot himselve be judged by any, except he be found to serve from the true faith. Here then is nothing but fraudulent citing & abusing of Authors.  
61. But now thirdly remaineth the greatest corruption and abuse of all in his English translation, which is, that which most importeth his simple Reader that looketh not into the Latin, and this is that he translateth the former sentence of the Canon thus as before you have heard: Though he should carry many people with him to hell: yet no mortal creature may presume to say why do you so? 
Great impudence  But in the Latyn neither here, nor in the Canon itself, is there any such interrogation at all, as why do you so? And therefore I may ask T. M. why do you lie so? Or why do you delude your Reader so? Or why do you corrupt your Author so? Or why do you translate in English for the abusing of your Reader, that which neither yourself do set down in your Latin text, nor the Canon yt selfe by you cited hath it at all? Is not this wilful and malicious fraud? Wherein when you shall answer me directly and sincerely, it shallbe a great discharge of your credit with those, who in the mean space will justly hold you for a Deceiver.  
62. Thus I pleaded with M. Morton at that time, and was earnest enough as you see, if not over earnest, but all will not get an answer. Now we shall expect, that in his promised Rejoinder he will answer all together, and that he may the better remember to do it, I thought convenient to give him this new record for remembering the sam●.   

THE THIRTEENTH falsehood wittingly pretermitted by Thomas Morton. §. XIII.  
FROM S. Boni●ace an Archbishop and the Pope● Legate we shall pass to a Pope indeed, namely S. Leo the first, 
S. Leo deceitpfully alleged about the Oath of Supremacy.  a man of high esteem in the Church of God, as all Christians know: and therefore the abuse offered to him by M. Morton is the more reprehensible, whereof I wrote thus in my last Treatise.  

Mitig. pag. 203. Pag. 26.  63. The eight Father (saith M. Morton) is Pope Leo, writing to a true Catholic Emperor, saying: You may not be ignorant that ●our Princely power is given unto you, not only in worldly regiment, but also spiritual, for the preservation of the Church. As if he said not only in Causes temporal, but also in spiritual, so far as i● belongeth to the outward preservation, not to the personal administration of them: and this is the substance of our English Oath. And further neither do our Kings of England challenge, nor Subjects condescend unto. In which words you see two things are contained: first what authority S. Leo the Pope above eleven hundred years agone ascribed unto Leo the Emperor in matters spiritual and Ecclesiastical. ● The second, by this man's assertion, that neither our Kings of England challenge, nor do the Subjects condescend unto any more in the Oath of the Supremacy, that is proposed unto them: which if it be so, I see no cause why all English Catholics may not take the same in like manner, so far forth as S. Leo alloweth spiritual authority to the Emperor of his tyme. Wherefore i● behoveth that the Reader stand attended to the deciding of this question: for if this be true, which here M. Morton avoucheth, our controversy about the Supremacy is at an end.  
64. First then about the former point, let us consider how many ways T. M. hath corrupted the foresaid authority of S. Leo, partly by fraudulent allegation in Latin, and partly by false translation into English. 
Many falsehoods.  For that in Latin it goeth thus, as himself putteth it down in the margin: Debes incunctanter advertere, Regiam potestatem non solùm ad mundi regimen, 
Leo ep. 75. ad L●onem Augusti●●  sed maximè ad Ecclesiae praesidium esse collatam. You ought (o Emperor) resolutely to consider, that your Kingly power is not only given unto you for government of the world or worldly affairs, but especially for defence of the Church: and then do ensue immediately these other words also in S. Leo, suppressed fraudulently by the Minister, for that they explicate the meaning of the Author: Vt ausus nefarios comprimendo, & quae bene sunt statuta defendas, & veram pacem hijs quae sunt turbata, restituas. To the end that you may by repressing audacious attempts ●oth defend those things that are well ordained and decreed (as namely in the late general Council of Chalcedon) and restore peace where matters are troubled (as in the City and Sea of Alexandria,) where the Patriarch Proterius being slain and murdered by the conspiracy of the Dioscorian heretics lately condemned in the said Council, all things are in most violent garboils, which require your Imperial power to remedy, compose and compress the same.  
65. This is the true meaning of S. Leo his speech to the good and religious Emperor of the same name, as appear throughout the whole Epistle here cited and divers others. 
Ibid. c. 5.  Nun perspicuum est (saith he) quipus P●e●as Vestra succurrere & q●●bu● obuiare, ●e Alexandrina Ecclesia etc. ●s it not evident whom your ●mperiall piety ought to assist and succour, and whom you ought to resist and repress, to the end the Church of Alexandria that hitherto hath been the ●ouse of prayer, become not a den of thieves? Surely it is most manifest that by this late barbarous and most furious cruelty (in murdering that Patriarch) all the light of heavenly Sacraments is there extinguished: Intercepta est Sacrificiij oblatio, defecit Chrismatis sanctificatio etc. The oblation of Sacrifice is intermitted, 
The Christian sacrifice ceased in Alexandria.  the hallowing of Chrism is ceased● and all divine mysteries of our religion have withdrawn themselves from the parricidial hands of those heretics, that have murdered their own Father and Patriarch Proterius, burned his body, and cast the ashes into the air.  
66. This then was the cause & occasion, wherein the holy Pope Leo did implore the help & secular arm of Leo the Emperor, for chastising those turbulent heretics: to which effect he saith, that his Kingly power was not only given him for the government of the world, 
Notable corruption of S. Leo his meaning.  but also for the defence of the Church, which our Minister doth absurdly translate, not only in worldly regiment, but also spiritual for the preservation of the Church: turning ad into in, and praesidium into preservation, and then maketh the Commentary which before we have set down: As if he had said (quoth he) not only in causes temporal, but also in spiritual, so far as it belongeth to outward preservation, not to the personal administration of them.  
67. Thus far I wrote hereof before, and proceeded also further, showing not only that he had corrupted both the text, sense and meaning of S. Leo, but also that fond he had affirmed, that the Oath of Supremacy exacted by King Henry and some of his followers in England, was, nor is any thing else but the acknowledging of so much authority spiritual as S. Leo granted to the Emperor of his days. Whereupon I do join issue with him and promise that if he can prove it to be no other, then that; all Catholics in my opinion will accept the same, and so come to union and concord in that point. And thereupon I did urge very earnestly that this assertion might be maintained, 
Mitig. pag● 208.  saying among other things: Methinks such public doctrine should not be so publicly printed and set forth, without public allowance and intention to perform and make it good. If this be really meant, we may easily be accorded: if not, then will the Reader see what credit may be given to any thing they publish, notwithstanding this Book cometh forth with this special commendation of, published by authority etc. Which words in my judgement should have moved M. Morton to have said somewhat to the matter in this his answer, and not to have passed it over so slily, as though never mention had been made thereof. But every man will guess at the cause, and so we shall expect it at some other time.   

THE FOURTEENTH Pretermitted falsehood by T. M. §. XIIII.  
LET us come back from Pope Leo unto another private Doctor named Genesius Sepulueda, 
Sepulueda abused about Equivocation.  whom M. Morton in words calleth ours, but yet would make him his, if he could, in the question of Equivocation: and for that he will not come of himself so far as he would have him, he giveth him a" wrinch or two to force him to draw nearer, whereof my former accusation was this that ensueth. 
Mitig. pag. ●84. n●. 57   
69. And lastly (quoth I) where M. Morton concludeth the whole matter by the testimony of our Doctor Genesius, as he calleth him, I have told before how he is ours, and how in some sort he may in this controversy be called his, though he detested his Religion, as by his works appeareth. Ours he is, as in all other points of Religion, so in the substantial and principal point of this question, for that he defendeth the use of Equivocation in concealing some secrets, but denieth it in others, wherein he favoureth somewhat the adverse party, with small ground, as in the next Chapter shallbe declared. But what saith this Doctor Genesius? 
Genes. Sepulu● l. de●rat. dicend. testim. ●. 3.  He will tell you (saith M. Morton) that this sense (of this text of Scripture) which you conceal, is not only contrary to the sentence o● all Fathers, but also against all common sense. And is this possible? Will Sepulueda deny all those Fathers, alleged by me before for our interpretation, to be Fathers? Will he say, that their exposition is contrary to all common sense? doth not Genesius himself in the very Chapter here cited allege both S. Hierome and S. Augustine for this interpretation, and alloweth the same? What shameless dealing then is this of our Minister to charge Genesius with such folly or impiety which he never thought of? For Genesius denieth not either the sense or interpretation of the place, and much less saith, that it is contrary to the sentence of the Fathers, and least of all to common sense: but denieth only the application thereof for use and practise to certain Cases, wherein he admitteth not Equivocation, and saith, that upon this interpretation to bring in such a new law were greatly inconvenient (wherein afterwards notwithstanding we shall show him to have been greatly deceived:) & his Latin words are: Contrà non modò veterum & gravissimorum Doctorum, sed communem hominum sensum quasi legem inducere: to bring in as it were a law, not only against the judgement of ancient & most grave school Doctors (for of them only he speaketh in that place) but also against the common sense or opinion of men.  
70. This is Genesius his speech, wherein though his judgement be rejected by other Scholmen as singular and paradoxical in this point, as after shallbe declared: yet is he egregiously abused by M. Morton, 
Genesius much abused by M. Morton.  who first maketh him to say of the interpretation & sense of this place of scripture, that which he speaketh only of the application thereof, to use & practice in tribunals. And secondly he maketh him to discredit the Fathers which himself allegeth: then he englisheth ancient Fathers for ancient School doctors: & last of all addeth consensum of his own, leaving out hominum, to make it sound common sense: and other such abuses, which any man may see by conferring the place. And these are other manner of sins then simple Equivocation, if the art of falsifying or forgery be any sin with him at all. And so much for this place of Scripture. Thus wrote I in my said Treatise, being earnest, as you see, to draw some answer from M. Morton: but it would not come. It must be our patience to expect the same at his more commodity hereafter.   

THE FIFTEENTH Falsehood pretermitted by Thomas Morton. §. XV.  
FROM Sepulueda we pass to another Spanish Doctor his equal or rather much better learned, named Sotus, whom M. Morton erroneously taketh for Scotus, under the title of subtle Doctor, and abuseth him egregiously, as I do show in my former book of Mitigation in these words.  


Sotus manifestly preuerted against his own assertion about Equivocation. Mitig. pag 433.  
Sotus l. 5. de just. q. 6. art. 2.   72. Behold (saith M. Morton) one Doctor among you so subtle, that for that faculty he hath by figure of excellency been called The subtle Doctor, who doth conclude all your Equivocators for Liars, saying: To say that I did not that which I know I have done, although I speak it with this lymitation or reservation of mind, ut tibi significem, it is not Equivocation but a lie. And then he quoteth Sotus in his books De iure & ius●itia, setting down also in margin the Latin words conform to this. But all is treachery, falsehood and lying in this impertinent impugner of Equivocation. For first by the subtle Doctor according to the phrase of Catholic Schools, every child knoweth to be meant joan. Scotus, & not Dominicus Sotus, who lived more than 200● years after the other, & was of the order of S. Dominicke, the other being of S. Francis: so as this is foolish & ridiculous error, if it be error: but the other is clearly false and malicious, that these words as here they are cited, are in Sotu●, 
Sotus falsely abused by T. M.  which M. Morton will never be albe to show for ●auing his honesty in this point: and much less will he be able to prove, that Sotus doth conclude all Equi●●cators for liars, which is an other incredible impudence in him to affirm. For that Sotus in this very book, question and article by him cited doth te●ch and prove largely the plain contrary, ●o wit, t●at to equivocate is lawful in divers Cases, to which e●●ect we have cited him before, when he saith in general: Poss●nt & debent sic contra ius requisiti quac●●que uti amphibologia. They which are unlawfully required to speak or swear as we have declared, may and aught to use any kind of amphibology or Equivocation.  
73. This is his general assertion: but afterwards in particular he putteth many examples to prove the same. And first he setteth down this proposition: Dum testis de alieno actu interrogatur, potest ri●● respondere, Se nescire. When a witness is (unlawfully) demanded of another man's action which he knoweth, he may justly answer he knoweth nothing: the reason whereof he saith is this. Quia oratio illa, nescio, recipere hunc sensum citra mendacium potest, nescio, ut tibi modò dicam For that the answer, I know nothing thereof, may without falsyty admit this sense, I know it not ●o tell it you at this tyme. Sicut silius hominis nescit diem judicij, ut dicat, as Christ knew not the day of judgement, to tell or utter it to his disciples. 
Matth● 13●  And doth it seem to you, that Sotus in this place doth go about to conclude all Equivocators for liars, as M. Morton affirmeth? If he did, he concludeth one Saviour Christ also in his sense. What extreme impudency is this in a Minister? But let us hear Sotus yet further in this matter.  
74. In his book De tegendo Secreto, the third member and third question, he repeateth again the very same Conclusion here mentioned: 
Sotus expressly impugneth T. M. Lib. de teg. Se●r. nu. 3. q. 3. Concl. 4.  That a witness being injustly demanded whether he knoweth such & such a thing of another, may answer he knoweth nothing, though he secretly know it: and then going further, he demandeth: Whether I having seen Peter kill john, and being after examined upon the same injustly, whether I may say, I know nothing thereof? To which he giveth this answer: Respondetur, quod iure possum respondere, nescio: quia iure intelligitur, nescio, ut dicam: aut nescio eo modo, quo iure debeam di●ere. I affirm (saith he) that I may rightly answer I know nothing thereof, ●or that by law it is understood, that I know it not to tell it: or, I know it not in such manner, as by law I ought to utter the same. 
T. Mortons' Doctor Genesius refuted by Sotus.  And presently he re●ut●th T. Mo●tons Do●tor Genesius Sepulueda, that calleth this pulchrum commentum, a fair gloze, and putting him in number of juniores quidam, certain younger fellows, that would reprehend that which they understood not, saith: Hij aut non capiunt, aut dissimulant vim argumenti: These (younglings) either do not understand, or do dissemble the force of the argument, for this our doctrine etc.  
75. Thus wrote I in my former book, and having convinced so evident falsifications, as ●ere have been laid down, quite contrary to the meaning & sense of the Author alleged, I marvel that some little place had not been allowed for some piece of answer to this also among the rest. But belike M. Morton was not ready.   

THE SIXTEENTH Falsehood pretermited by Thomas Morton. §. XVI.  
FROM the Spanish Doctor Sotus we come to the Flemish Doctor Cunerus, 
Cunerus ●asifyed against his own meaning about the nature of religion.  for that from all sorts of men, and from all Countries M. Morton draweth testimonies, either gathered of himself or by others: but always bestoweth some sleight of his own bugget to pervert them from their own meaning. Now then hear (good Reader) what I alleged in my late Treatise as practised against a place of Cu●erus, no less injuriously, then against the former.  
77. Within few lines after this M. Morton beginneth his third Chapter with these words: 
pag●23 ●23.  That is only true Religion (say your Romish Doctors) which is tau●ht in the Romish Church, and therefore whosoever mainteyn●th any doctrine condemned in that Church, must be accomp●ed ●n obstinate heretic. And in the margin he citeth Cunerus, 
Cunerus de office Prin●. cap. 13.  alleging his Latin words thus. Haec est Religionis sola ratio, ut omnes intelligant sic simpliciter esse credendum atque loquendum, quemadmodum Romana Ecclesia credendum esse docet, ac praedicat. which words if they were truly alleged out of the Author, yet were they not truly translated: For if only true Religion (a corrupt translation of Religionis solaratio) be applied to particular positions and articles of Religion: then we grant that such true Religion may be also among heretics, & not only taught in the Roman Church, for that as S. Austin well noteth, 
Aug. in Psal. 54. in verb. Psal. In multis erant mecum. & Ep. 48.  Heretics also hold many articles of true Catholic Religion. But here the corruption and falsifycation goeth yet further, and it is worthy the noting: for that Cunerus having treated largely against the insurrections and rebellions of those of Holland and Z●land for cause of Religion and other pretences against their lawful King, taketh upon him in his thirteenth Chapter to lay down some means, how in his opinion those dissensions may be compounded, giving this title to the said Chapter: Quae sit vera componendi d●ssi●ij ratio: what is the true way of composing this dissension. And then after some discourse setteth down this Conclusion: 
B. Cunerus egregiously perverted  Haec igitur in Religione concordiae sola est ratio, ut omnes pio ac simplici animo, purè ac integr● sic sap●ant, vivant, loquantur ac praedicent, quemadmodum Sancta Catholica Romana Eccl●sia, quae Dei providentia magistra veritatis orbi praeposita ●st, docet, loquitur, ac praedicat. This therefore in Religion is the only way of concord, that all men with a pious and simple mind, do wholly and purely conceive, live, speak and preach, as the holy Catholic Roman Church, which God by his providence hath given for a teacher of truth unto the whole world, doth teach, speak and preach.  
78. And now consider you this dealing, that whereas Bish. Cunerus saith: Haec est in religione concordiae sola ratio; this is the only way or means of concord in Religion; this man allegeth it in his margin, Haec est Religionis sola ratio: this is the only way of religion, as though concord and Religion were all one: & then by another trick of crafty translation in his English text, that is only true religion; as though true religion and the way or means to come to true Religion were not different. And then for all the rest how it is mangled, and how many words and sentences are put in by this Minister, which are none of Cunerus: and how many of his altered and put out, is easy for the Reader to see by comparing the two Latin texts before alleged, and thereby to consider how facile a matter it is for this fellow to divide tongues: A course (saith he) which I profess in all disputes, when he divideth and separateth the words from their Authors, and the sense from the words, and the whole drift from them both: a very fine course and fit for a man of his profession. So much wrote I at that time: which had as you see some acrimony to draw out some satisfaction from M. Morton, if he had been as full thereof, as the title of his former book of Full satisfaction pretendeth.   

THE SEAVENTEENTH Pretermitted falsehood by T. M. §. XVII.  
NOw we come to another abuse appertaining to two men indifferently, to wit Cassander● German Schoolmaster and Bellarmine an Italiam Cardinall● but we shall ascribe it rather to the Germ●n for this present, for that we have spoken often, and have had divers examples about Cardinal Bellarmine before. 
Cassander and Bellarmyne abused at once about the means of concord between catholics & heretics Mitig. pag 238.  Thus than I did propose the matter in my former Treatise.  
80. Albeit I have not yet passed over (said I) the half of the first part of this first Treatise of M. Mort. Full satisfaction: for it is divided into sundry Treatises, and that in this● first half also I have pretermitted willingly many other examples, that might have been alleged: yet finding myself weary to prosecute any further so large a Labyrinth of these intricate juggling tricks, used by this Minister in his whole corpse of citations, which do consist principally thereof: I mean to draw to an end, adding only one example more in this place, about a matter more nearly concerning our argument, which is of Reconciliation of Protestants with Catholics in points of Religion, 
Pag. 55.  which T.M. willing to accuse Jesuits, as the only hinderers thereof writeth thus. 
Bellarm. l. de laicis cap. 19  Only by the insolency (saith he) of jesuits, all such hope of reconciliation is debarred, as is plain by Bellarmyne: for whereas that most grave learned Cassander, 
C●ssand. l. de offi●. pij viri.  honoured o●●●o emperors ●or his singular learning and piety, did teach, That Emperors should endeavour a reconciliation betwixt Papists and Protestants, because (saith he) Protestants hold the Articles of the Creed, and are true members of the Church, although they descent from us in some particular opinions: the grand jesuit doth answer, that this judgement of Cassander is false, for that Catholics cannot be reconciled with heretics, heretically meaning Protestants. So he.  
81. But here I would ask him, why he had not uttered also that which immediately followeth in Bellar. that john Calvin had written a book against this ●rrour of Cassander, and that among Catholic writers joannes à Lovanio had done the same, and showed that it was an old heresy of Appelles, as Eusebius testifieth, 
Eusebius 5. Hist. c. 13. evag. l. 3. Hist. c. 14. & 30.  and of other heretics afterwards under Zeno the Emperor, named Pacifyers, as Euagrius testifieth: who held that Catholics & heretics might be composed together: why (I say) did T.M. conceal this? As also the many great & strong arguments that Bellarmyne allegeth to prove his assertion? And why would he lay all the fault of not agreeing, upon the insolency o● jesuits, seeing joannes à Lovanio was no jesuit, nor Calvin neither.  
82. But to leave this and to come to the thing itself, and to take some more particular view of the false behaviour of Tho. Morton in citing this authority: it is strange, that in so small a matter, he would show so great want of truth, or true meaning as here he doth. For first to pretermit that he goeth about to deceive his Reader by the opinion of gravity & learning in George Cassander of Bruges, 
Cassander what manner of man he was.  who was but a Grammarian in his days: and that he was a Catholic, who is censured for an Heretic prima classis in the index of prohibited Books: and not only for heresies of this time, but also, 
Mitig. pag 239.241.242.  quòd dicit Spiritum Sanctum minùs advocandum & adorandum esse, for that he saith that the holy Ghost is less to be called upon or adored &c. as the Index expurgatorius testifieth: 
Index expurg. in l. Cassandr. De Off●●io pij ●i●i fol. 314.  Besides all this, I say, M. Mort. corrupteth manifestly in the sentence before alleged, the words and plain meaning of his Author, to wit Bellarmine, from whom he citeth Cassander's judgement: for thus they lie in him: Tertius error (saith he) est Georgij Cassandris in libro de Officio pij Viri: ubi docet debere Principes invenire rationem pacis inter Catholicos, Lutheranos etc. Sed interim dum non inveniunt debere permittere unicuique suam fidem, 
Bellarmin. l. de laicis cap. 19  modò omnes recipiant Scripturam & Symbolum Apostolicum: Sic enim omnes sunt verae Ecclesiae membra, licèt in particularibus dogmatibus dissentiant●  
83. The third error is of George Cassander in his book Of the office of a pious man, where he teacheth that Princes ought to seek out some means of peace betwixt Catholics, Lutherans, Caluinists & other Sects of our time: but in the mean space whiles they find no such means, the aught to permit every one to follow his own particular faith, so as all do receive the Scripture and common Creed of the Apostles: for so all are true members of the Church, albeit they disagree among themselves in particular doctrines. These are Bellarmine's words. Now let us see how they are mangled by M. Morton both in Latin & English, as by him that hath the notablest talon therein (notwithstanding his solemn protestations to the contrary) that ever I read in my life.  
84. He putteth down first the latin words in his margin thus: 
Full Satisfact. pag. 55.  Debent Principes invenire rationem pacis inter Catholicos, Lutheranos, Caluinistas etc. qui omnes, dum Symbolum tenent Apostolicum, vera sunt membra Ecclesiae, licèt à nobis in particularibus dissentiant. Which words M. Morton doth very deceitfully English thus: Emperors should endeavour a reconciliation betwixt Papists and Protestants, because Protestant's hold the articles of the Creed, and are true members of the Church, although they descent from us in some particular opinions. So he.  
85. And here now you see, first to be omitted cunningly and wilfully by this crafty Minister the words of much moment, before mentioned; 
Cassander's judgement not allowed by English Protestant's  to wit, That whiles Princes do not find a fit mean of peace, they ought to permit all to live according to their particular saith: which sentence of his grave and learned Cassander not seeming to himself allowable in our English State, or to his own brethren the English Caluinists, that now having gotten the government, will suffer no other Religion but their own, he thought best to suppress and cut them quite out. Secondly instead of the conditional speech used by Cassander, modò omnes ac●ipiant Scripturam etc. so that all do receive the Scripture and Apostolical Creed, he putteth it down in English with a causitive clause, as if it were, quia omnes Symbolum tenent etc. All Which Sects, because they do hold the Articles of the Creed, are true members of the Church, leaving out the word Scripture, and the English of (dumb) that is, whiles they receive the Scripture, and thereby doth, as you see, pervert the other wholly in sense. For who will not hold it absurd, that Catholics, Lutherans, Caluinists & other Sects of our time, though in words they do admit both Scripture and Apostolical Creed: yet differing in sense, and so many doctrines as they do, are all to be held notwithstanding for true members of one and the self same Church? Can any thing be more ridiculous than this?  
86. Thirdly he doth most notably cog in thrusting in the words (à nobis) from us, which are not in the original, meaning thereby to make Cassander seem a Catholic, and to speak in the behalf of Catholics, which is plain cozenage: and to this end also he leaveth out dogmatibus. And finally you see, that he shapeth every thing to his own purpose & by making C●ss●nder as a Catholic, seem to wish and endeavour this union, and Bellarmine to reject it, he would confirm his former calumniation, that only by the insolency of Jesuits, all such hope is debarred.  

The ●leight of his English translation.  87. And thus much for the corruption of the latin text. But his English hath other corruptions also, according to his ordinary custom. For first he translateth Debent Principes, that Emperors should endeavour a reconciliation, to confirm thereby his former vanity, that Cassander was so great a man with Emperors, as he talketh not but to Emperors, whereas the word Principes used by Cassander doth comprehend all sorts of Princes. Secondly he translateth Catholicos, Lutheranos, Caluinistas● etc. which words of (& caetera) comprehend all other Sects of our time as Anabaptists, Arrians, Trinitarians, H●ssites, Picardians and the like: he translateth them, I say, Papists, and Protestants, as though all those Sects of our time were to be comprehended under the name of Protestants of the English faith: or as though Cassander, if he were a Catholic, as here he is pretended, would call us Papists.  
88 Thirdly whereas in his own Latin here set down, he saith: Qui omnes dum Symbolum tenent etc. All which, to wit, catholics, Lutherans, Caluinists & other Sectaries, whiles they hold the Apostolical Creed, are true members of the Church: he doth English it thus, because Protestants hold the Articles of the Creed, and are true members of the Church, 
Beauties' opinion falsified.  excluding Catholics from believing the said Articles, or being true members: which in his own Latin (and that of Bellarmine's) also are included. And fourthly is the corruption before mentioned (although they descent from us in some particular opinions) which in Bellarmine is although they descent among themselves in particular doctrines. And finally the words by him cited of Bellarmine's judgement, which he controlleth, to wit, falsa est haec sententia Cassandris: non possunt enim Catholici reconciliari cum haereticis, are not so in Bellarmine: but these, potest facilè reselli haec Cassandris sententia: primum enim non possunt Catholici, Lutherani & Caluinistae eo modo conciliari etc. This sentence of (Cassander) may easily be refelled: first, for that Catholics, Lutherans, and Caluinists (for example) cannot so be reconciled as Cassander appointeth, to wit, by admitting only the words of the Creed, for that we differ in the sense and sometimes in the Articles themselves, as in that, descendit ad inferos, he descended into Hell: & in like manner we agree not about the sense of those other Articles, I believe the Catholic Church, and Communion of Saints, Remission of sins etc. So Bellarmine: all which this fellow omitteth.  
89. And so you see there is no truth or sincerity with him in any thing. Neither can these escapes b● ascribed any way to oversight, error, mistaking or forgetfulness: but must needs be attributed to wilful fraud & malicious meaning, purposely to deceive, as the things themselves do evidently declare. For which cause I shall leave him to be censured by his own brethren, but specially by his Lord & Master, for so notable discrediting their Cause, by so manifest false manner of proceeding.  
90. These were my words in the other Treatise whereupon I insisted the more in regard of the multiplicity of frauds discovered. And so M. Morton had not any just pretence to say (as he insinuateth) that this with the rest of the Charges laid against him, and pretermitted by him, were either of less importance, or less insisted upon then those other fourteen which he chose out to answer.   

THE EIGHTEENTH Falsehood pretermitted by Thomas Morton. §. XVIII.  

Royardus and Cunerus perverted against their words & meaning about obedience to temporal Princes.  AS the former example appertained unto the abuse of two together: so doth this that next wear to allege which are indeed two distinct things: but that drawing to an end I am forced to join divers together. Wherefore I accused him in my former writing to have corrupted two Authors jointly, Royard a Friar, and Cunerus a Bishop: which accusation I set down in these words.  
92. And here will I pass over (said I) many things that might be noted out of the sequent pages namely 30.31.34. where he doth so pervert and abuse both the words, discourse, and sense of divers Authors alleged by him, as is not credible to him that doth not compare them with the books themselves from whence they are taken. 
Mitig. p. 232. Pag. 30. 3●.34.  As for example, Royardus the Franciscan Friar is brought in with commendation of an honest Friar, for that he saith; That a King when he is made by the people, cannot be deposed by them again at their pleasure: which is the same doctrine, that all other Friars & learned catholics do hold, so long as he containeth himself within the nature of a King: for that otherwise (which is the question in controversy) Royard himself saith parendum ei non esse, that he is not to be obeyed: 
Royard. Serm. 1. in Domin. 1. Aduent.  but this is not to be judged by the people and their mutiny, as Protestant Doctors do teach.  
93. And to like effect he citeth a discourse, 
Serm. 2. in Domin. 23. post Pentecost  though most brokenly out of B. Cunerus writing against the Rebels of Flanders, and testifying, that it lieth not in the people's hands to reject their Prince at their pleasure, as those Protestant subjects did: and then M. Morton as though he had achieved some great victory triumpheth exceedingly, saying: That for so much as Friars in our councils have no voice, but only Bishops, he hath brought forth a Bishop against us; whom for that the moderate Answerer had named a little before, this man scornfully telleth him Caesarem appellasti, ad Caesaremibis. You have appealed to Cunerus, 
Royardus and Cunerus abused.  and now he shall be your judge against you. And is not this great folly & insolency? for that Cunerus in all that his book saith nothing against us, 
Act. 25●  but altogether for us, to repress the rebellion in Flanders, as ha●h been signified. And secondly, notwithstanding all this exact obedience, which both he and we prescribe and require at subjects' hands towards their lawful Princes, he hath a special Chapter which is the third after this alleged here by T. M. wherein he doth expressly & largely prove, that in some Cases when Princes fall into intolerable disorders, 
Cap. 8.  there is authority le●t in the Common wealth and Church of Christ to restrain & remove them. What falsehood is this then to allege Authors thus directly against their own sense, meaning, and whole drift? Doth this become a Minister o● simple truth? Is this for a man that so much abhorreth Equivocation? So said I to M. Mor●on at that time, when I expected that he would have returned me some answer to my demand. The like I do repeat again now, and shall attend what may come from him hereafter.   

THE nineteenth Falsehood pretermitted by Thomas Morton. §. XIX.  

Sayer grossly abused about Haereticus pertinax.  FROM strangers we return to a Countryman of our own, no less abused by M. Morton, than any commonly of the former, which I set down in these words.  
95. But the greatest corruption in this page said I (& it is notable indeed) is of the words, sense & meaning of our learned Countryman Sayer, 
Mitig. pag. 227.  of whom T. M. writeth thus. In beiefe our Countryman upon this Case of conscience saith: 
Sayer in ●as●b. consc. l. 1. c. 9 §. 30.  An obstinate heretic is as well he that is presumed so to be, as he that is manifest. And again in the same page: Seeing therefore that (as your great Casuist hath said) every one presumed to be an Heretic, is taken for an obstinate, who can be free from your censures? And then citeth in the margin these words of Sayer: Contumax haereticus est tam praesumptus quam mani●estus. An obstinate heretic is as well ●e that is presumed to be so, as he that is manifest, or known for such: which may seem to be a great injustice in our doctrine. But if I do not show this devise to be one of the most manifest and faithless deceipts and corruptions that ever any honest man put in paper against his Adversary, them let me be censured for too sharp a reprehender.  
96. For first● Sayer hath no such matter at all concerning obstinacy in heresy, 
A notable falsification of Sayer.  his whole purpose being only to declare who may be excommunicated by a judge for contumacy in not appearing (which is a different thing from obstinacy or pertinacy) & this whether he be heretic or Catholic: nay he speaketh either only or principally of Catholics, who do show contumacy in any Court or Tribunal, in not appearing, and answering, according as they are cited and summoned by a lawful judge: and so he defineth Contumacy in these words: 
The definition of contumacy.  Contumacia (saith he) nihil aliud est quam inobedientia quaedam qua ius dicenti non paretur. Contumacy is nothing else, but a certain disobedience, whereby he is not obeyed that fits in judgement. So as here is no mention or meaning of obstinacy in heresy. And further he putteth down two sorts of contumacy thus: Contumax duobus modis esse potest, nimirum mani●estus & praesumptus: A man may be contumacious in two sorts or manners, either manifest or by presumption: and he giveth divers examples of both● as namely: If a man cited do refuse openly to appear or obey his judge, this man's contumacy or disobedience is public and manifest, and thereby he is made contumax manifestus: but if he do not refuse openly, but by idle dilations & shifte● doth put of, or delude the Court, he is contumax praesumptus, that is, presumed to be contumacious, and so may excommunication (if it be a spiritual Court) proceed against him, as if his contumacy were manifest.  
97. Now than what hath all this to do with Contumax haereticus tam praesumptus quam mani●estus? Hath Sayer any such word or sentence? 
The difference between contumacy & pertinacy.  No truly: or shall we think Tho. Morton to be so simple both in Grammar, Law, & divinity, as that he doth not know what difference there is between contumax and pertinax? whereof the one is a fault in obedience towards our Superiors, as now hath been showed, the other of tenacity of opinion, as before we have declared? Of if Tho. Morton will not confess this ignorance, but that he knoweth the difference of the words & of their significations, sense & applications here used by the Authors than must he confess wilful deceit in using one for the other, 
Many false sleights.  and much more in twice translating the words Co●●umax haereticus in this one page, for an obstinate heretic: and much more yet in foisting in the word haereticus, which Sayer hath not: and most of all in making his Reader believe that contumax, praesumptus, & mani●estus doth signify in Sayer one that upon presumption only is judged to be as obstinate an heretic, as if he were manifest: whereof Sayer neither spoke nor meant, but in a quite different sense (not appertaining to heresy at all) saith: That a man may be condemned as contumacious by presumption, if he appear not before his lawful judge, or useth sleights, diverticles or delays, aswell as if openly he refused to appear. Now then consider what a Minister of truth this is, and of what naked innocency, thus perfidiously to delude his Reader: and yet to come forth after all with this dissembled Hypocrisy, Now let me be beholding unto you (saith he) for an answer. And so I think he is, but if not sharp enough for so shameful an abuse, it may be amended and augmented hereafter upon like occasions, 
Pag. 4.  which every where are offered throughout his whole book. And there were no end if I would answer him to all. Hitherto was my former reprehension to M. Morton for his shameful dealing, which seemed to me to import either great ignorance, or intolerable lack of conscience in going about to deceive his Reader. Some word of answer had been worth the writing in so great a Charge: but he thought it not expedient.   

THE twentieth Falsehood pretermitted by Thomas Morton. §. XX.  
FROM Christians and Countrymen he passeth to Heathens & committeth such notorious falsehoods against one of them, even then and there, 
Cicero falsyfied in the question of swearing to a thief etc.  where he speaketh of faithful dealing against perfidiousness, as may justly make any man admire, what he did suppose his judicious Reader would think of him, when he should see the fraud disclosed, of which fraud I wrote thus in my former Treatise, beginning first with the relation of his own words in this manner.  
99 There was a man (saith M. Morton) who together with nine other prisoners being dismissed out of the prison of Carthage upon his Oath, 
Mitig. p. 462.  that he within a prefixed time should return again: 
Full satisf. p. 90. p. ●.  as soon as he was out of prison, he returned as though he had forgotten something, and by & by departeth home to Rome, where he stayed beyond the time appointed, answering that he was freed from his Oath: But see now the opinion of his own Countryman Cicero, 
The cause s●t down by cicero of prisoner's let forth upon their oath by ●●niball.  concerning this Equivocation of return. This was not well done (saith Tully) for that craft in an oath doth not lessen but make the perjury more heinous. Wherefore the grave Senators of Rome sent this cozening mate back again to the prison of Hannibal their enemy, from whom he had escaped etc.  

L. 3. Offi. §. Regulus.  100 Thus relateth M. Morton the Case, and then maketh this malicious Conclusion against us: This was the honesty of the ancient heathenish Rome, whi●h must rise up in judgement against this present Rome to condemn it, which hath changed that faithful Roman faith in fidem Punicae into Carthaginiā●ayth, which now by custom of speech is taken for perfidiousness itself. And would not you think that M. Mort. did hold himself very free from this perfidiousness, who objecteth the same so freely against us? And not only against us, but to the whole Church of Rome itself, and to the universal Catholic Religion conjoined therewith? Mark then the deportment of this man in this one point, and if you knew him not before, learn to know him by this●  
101. First then I would have some Grammar scholar that studieth Tully's Offices, to turn to the places here quoted, 
Cic. 3. Offic. §. Regulus & §. Sed si.  and comparing them with that which this Minister setteth down in english, consider how they hang together, & how he picketh out one sentence in one place, & another in another, and leapeth forth & back to make some coherence of speech contrary to the Author's order, sense & method, as is ridiculous to behold, and fit for the cozening mate, of whom he talketh in his text. And secondly after this, is to be noted, tha● he setteth down the narration itself of ten men delivered upon their Oath by Hannibal, not as Cicero doth out of two historiographers Polybius & Accilius, and in particular against the faith of both their histories, and Tully's asseveration, which saith that those ten were dismissed by Hamniball out of his Camp post Camnensem pugnam after the famous battle of Camna in Apulia, Mort. ignorantly saith, they were dismissed out o● the prison of Carthage, whereas they of all likelihood had never seen Carthage in their lives.  
102. But the most notorious cozenage is, that he perverteth all Cicero his meaning, words, sense, and discourse in this matter, alleging them quite contrary to himself, as before you have heard him do many other Authors, so as he belieth and corrupteth them all, both profane and divine. And if in this one point, he can deliver himself from Punica fides, I will say he playeth the man indeed. 
T.M. pressed with Punica fides about falsification.  For first Cicero whom here he would seem to bring against us, doth fully agree with us, for that we say in the Case of those ten Romans delivered by Hannibal upon their oath to return again, if they should not obtain that with they were sent for (which was to persuade the Senate to redeem divers thousands of other Roman soldiers, whom Hannibal had taken in the said victory at Canna:) we hold, I say, first, that if they swore absolutely to return again, if they obtained not their suit, they were bound truly and sincerely to perform the same. And secondly, that they being now justly by law of arms prisoners of Hannibal, they were bound to swear sincerely to his intention, and not to any other reserved meaning of their own, as in the former Chapter hath been declared. And this very same doctrine also teacheth Cicero by light of nature, in these words, perfidiously ●ut of and left out by this Minister in the very same place, out of which he taketh the rest. Est aute● (saith he) ius etiam bellicum, fidesque i●siurandi saepe hosti servanda: quod enim ita iuratum ●st, ut mens con●iper●● fi●ri oportere, id seruandum est: quod aliter id si non 〈◊〉, nullum periurium ●st. There is al●o a law of arms saith he) and a faith in our swearing to be observed oftentimes, ●uen unto our enemy. For that which is so sworn by us, ●s our mind doth conceive that it must be done, that is to be observed: but if it be otherwise sworn, that is no perjury, if he perform it not.  
103. Behold here the very same distinction which Catholic divines put down of swearing according to the intention & understanding of the swearer, or of him to whom it is sworn: & that the former is that bindeth & maketh perjury, 
Cicero most plainly against T. M. and for Catholic doctrine.  if it be not performed, and not always the second, to wit, when any violence or force is used: which Cicero doth express in the very next immediate words by the self same example that Azor used before: Si praedonibus pactum pro capite pret●um non attule●is, nulla ●raus est: ne, si iuratus quid●m id non seceris etc. nonenim ●alsum jurare peierare est. Sed si ex animi tui sentemi● iuraveris, sicut verbis concipitur more nostro, id non sac●r● periurium est. Scitè enim Erupides': juravi lingua, men●em iniuratam gero. If you should not pay the price or ransom unto public thieves, which was agreed between you for saving of your life, it is no deceit, no, though you had sworn to perform it: for that it is not perjury to swear false (in any sort whatsoever.) But if you swear a thing which you determine in your mind and do utter it in words, according to the common custom of speech, and do not perform it, this is perjury. For well and fitly to the purpose saith the Poet Euripides, I have sworn with my tongue, but my mind hath not sworn. So he.  
104. And consider now here I pray you, the Punica fid●s of our Minister against our Roman faith. He saith that Cicero and other heathenish Romans shall rise up against us at the day of judgement, for that they condemn all reservation or doubtful sense in an oath, 
T. Mort. convinced of egregious cozenage.  and do condemn it for perjury: whereas Cicero affirmeth, that there is neither perjury nor fraud therein. And the same Philosopher alloweth the very same example of swearing with a reserved intention to a public thief, without either meaning or obligation to perform it, which M. Morton objecteth to Azor in the precedent Chapter, though craftily leaving out the words Latroni and Tyranno, for avoiding the force of this place, as before is noted, saying: that Azor did condemn for lying all such Equivocation against his subtle brethren: whereas he both affirmeth and proveth the same, no less than Cicero doth here in this place, as before hath been showed. Who then shall rise in judgement against T. Morton for all this wilful lying? No doubt but Satan himself, that is the Father of liars in this life, & shallbe their tormentor in the next.  
105. Thus far at that time I wrote against M. Morton. And truly when I read it over again, together with many other points before mentioned and do consider how weighty matter of accusation they do contain, and how much I do insist upon them to make the deformity thereof appear in the Readers ey●s, and in those also of M. Morton, if it were possible, and thereby to draw from him either some sound answer, or a simple confession of his errors, so far as such they may be called: or rather of his witting fraud to beguile his Reader, which were the best and truest form of answer, if almighty God would give him light to see the same (though I will presume that he sinned not wholly against his conscience therein, but framed rather ●is conscience so, as he might think it lawful perhaps to strain truth for helping such a cause as his is:) yet I can not but marvel, that he would pass over with silence all these graver matters, and betake himself to slighter things in this his last Answer, telling notwithstanding his Reader, that he chose out 14. principal points to answer, such as I insisted most upon: which by experience hath been evinced to be most false by these 20. which I have alleged, as wittingly pretermitted by him, & might sundry more, whereof the most are more weighty, & much more insisted upon then any of the former.   

THE ONE and twentieth, and two and twentieth falsehoods pretermitted by M. Morton §. XXI.  
ALBEIT my intention was to note only these precedent 20. heads of falsehood wittingly pretermitted by M. Morton, 
Of two abuses offered in citing D. Barkley.  whereof each one, or most of them do contain sundry branches under them: yet that you may know that this number of 20. is not precise, but that many others may be added also, if a man will but run over my said Treatise: I have thought good to note 2. more here together concerning one and the self same man, to wit, Doctor Barkley a Scottishman. The first, in that he relateth a certain choleric speech of the said Doctor Barkley used against an argument of Doctor Boucher, as though it had been spoken against Bellarmine, whom it concerned not● My words were these.  
107. Here than you see (quoth I) how many wilful corruptions there be, first to bring in D. Barkley rating of Cardinal Bellarmine which magna sanè impudentia est etc. whereas he talketh not against Bellarmine at all: nor indeed is Bellarmine's manner of speech contrary to that which Barkley will have to be the meaning of the History: 
Mitig. pag. 198.  for that Barkley doth not so much stand upon the thing in controversy for Priest's authority, 
Enumeration of falsities.  but upon the manner of proof by the examples alleged by D. Boucher, of jeroboam, Ozias, Athalia and some other Princes, in whose punishment God used Priests for means and instruments. Non ignoro (saith he) ius esse Ecclesiae in Reges & Principes Christianos, nec quale ius sit ignoro, sed id tam alien is argumentis ostendi, prorsus ignoro: imo non ostendi planè scio. I am not ignorant (saith Doctor Barkley) that the Church hath right over Christian Kings and Princes, nor am I ignorant, what manner of right it is: 
Ibid. c. 11.  yet do I not see, how the same may be proved by such impertinent arguments; nay I know rather that it can not be so proved: which words going but very few lines before those that T. M. allegeth, he could not but see, and yet left them out, and then beginneth against us his English text thus. Your own Doctor calleth this your assertion most false, & contrary to the direct History of the Bible, to wit, that Ozias was deposed of his Kingdom by Azarias the high Priest.  
108. And this is the first abuse, as to me it seemeth, inexcusable. The second is about an authority of S. Ambrose, craftily cut of from the speech of the said D. Barkley by M. Morton whereof my accusation in my former Treatise was this.  
109. But yet if we would exanine (quoth I) the particular authorities that be alleged about this matter, 
Mitig. p. 202.  though nothing making against us, as hath been said, and consider how many false shifts are used by T. M. therein, you would say he were a Doctor indeed in that science, for that a several Treatise will scarce contain them. I will touch one for example sake. He citeth D. Barkley bringing in the authority of S. Ambrose that ●e resisted not by force his Arrian Emperor, when he would take a Church from him for the Arrians: but he setteth not down, what answer of his D● Barkley doth allege in the very self same place, which is, Allegatur Imperatori licere omnia etc. It is alleged, 
Full satisfact. p. 24. Barkleus l. 3. c. 5.  that it is lawful for the Emperor to do all things, for that all things are his (and consequently that he may assign a Church unto the Arrians:) whereto I answer, saith S. Ambrose: Trouble not yourself o Emperor, nor think that you have Imperial right over those things that are divine. Do not exalt yourself, but if you will reign long, be subject to God: for it is written, that those things that belong to God, must be given to God: and to Cesar only those things that belong to Cesar. 
Ambr. l. 5. Ep. 33.  Palaces appertain to the Emperor, but Churches to the Priest. The right of defending public walls is committed to you, but not of sacred things. Thus D. Barkley out of S. Ambrose in the very place cited by T. M. which he thought good wholly to pretermit and cut of, 
A clear authority of S Ambrose, embezzled by T. M.  and yet to make a flourish as though D. Barkley had cited S. Ambrose to prove that the temporal Prince and Emperor was in no case, nor in any cause spiritual or temporal, to be withstood or resisted. And what will ye say of this manner of dealing? Out of what conscience may it proceed? But let us see another Charge that containeth ten falsehoods together, and so with that we will make an end.   

OF TEN OTHER Falshoodes set down together and dissembled by Thomas Morton. §. XXIII.  
AS the former Charge had two examples together, so this last hath ten at a clap (to make up 32.) which I set down in my former Treatise in these words.  
111. There followeth (said I) within 2. leaves after a heap not only of falsehoods, 
Of divers authors falsified about the deposition of Popes.  but also of impudencies. For whereas his Adversary the moderate Answerer had said, That not only Kings but Popes also for heresy by the Canon laws were to be deposed: he answereth thus: 
Mitig. 235. Full satisfact. p. 38.  The Authors of the doctrine of deposing Kings in Case of heresy, do profess concerning Popes, That they cannot possibly be heretics, as Popes, and consequently cannot be deposed: not saith Bellarmine by any power Ecclesiastical or Temporal, 
Bellarm. l. 4. de Rom. Pon. c. 2.  no not by all Bishops assembled in a Council: not saith Carerius, 
Carer. l. 1. c. 24.  though he should do anything preiudi●i●ll to the universal state of the Church: not saith Azorius though he should neglect the Canons Ecclesiastical, 
Azor. l. 5. c. 14.  or pervert the laws of Kings: not saith Gratians gloss, 
Grat. can. Si Papa dist. 40.  though he should car●y infinite multitudes of souls with him to hell. And these forenamed Authors do avouch for confirmation of this doctrine, the universal consent of Romish Divines & Canonists for the space of an hundred years.  
112. So he. Whereto I replied, that in these words are as many notorious and shameless lies as there be assertions & Authors named by him for the same. For first (quoth I) the four writers which he mentioneth there in the t●xt, to wit, Bellarmine, Carerius, Azor, & Gratian, do expressly, clearly, and resolutely hold the contrary to that he affirmeth out of them: for that they teach and prove by many arguments● that Popes both may fall into heresies, and for the same be deposed by the Church, 
That Popes may fall into heresy and be deposed for the same.  or rather are ips● facto deposed, and may be so declared by the Church. And their words here guilfully alleged by Tho. Mort. as sounding to the contrary, are manifestly spoken and meant of manners only, and not of faith, that is to say, if they should be of naughty life, yet have they no Superior to depose them, for that cause, (they being immediately under C●●ist) though for heresy they may be deposed: which instead of all the rest you may read largely handled in Bellarmine in his second book de Pontif. where among other proofs he citeth this very Canon of Gratian here mentioned by T. M● saying: 
●●llarmin. l. 2. de pontiff. c. 30.  ●aereticum Papam posse judicari express habetur Can. Si Papa, dist. 40. It is expressly determined in the Canon Si Papa, 
Four notorious lies together.  that a Pope falling into heresy maybe judged and deposed by the Church. And more. That in the 8. general Council and 7. Session, Pope Honorius was deposed ●or heresy. So Bellarmine. And the same doctrine hold the other two cited by our Minister, to wit, Carerius, & Azor. So as here be four notorious lies together, that by no shift or tergiversation can be avoided: for that T. M. could not but manifestly see, that he alleged these four Authors quite contrary to their express words, drift and meaning. What then will you say of this ●ellow, and his manner of writing? Shall he be credited hereafter?  

Greg. de. Val. anal. l. 8. cap. 3. Salm. come in Gal. 2, disp. 24. Can. l. 16. loc. Theol. cap. 8. Stapl. doct. T●in●. l. 6. initio. Coster. de Pontif. in ●n●●i●. ●ap. 3.  113. But yet not content with this, he citeth other four or five Authors besides in the margin, to wit, Gregorius de Valentia, Salmeron, Canus, Stapleton, & Costerus: all which in the very places by him cited are expressly against him. And is not this strange dealing? Let Canus that goeth in the midst speak, for all five, who having proved first at large the opposite proposition to T. M. to wit, that Popes may fall into heresy and be deposed for the same, concludeth thus his discourse: negandum●saith ●saith he) quin Summus Pontisex haereticus esse possit. It cannot therefore be denied but that the Pope may be an heretic, adding presently: whereof one or two examples may be given, but none at all that ever Pope though he fell into heresy did decree the same for the whole Church. By which last words of Canus is discovered the ridiculous fallacy of T.M. alleging here out of our fore●aid writer, That Pope's cannot possibly be heretics as Popes, & consequently cannot be deposed. whereof they say the flat contrary, as you have heard, That Popes may be heretics as Popes, 
Though Popes may fall into he●esy: yet shall not they be pretermitted to decree it.  and consequently may be deposed. But yet that God (as Popes) will never permit them to decree any heretical doctrine to be held by the Church.  
114. Consider then I pray you (said I) what a fellow this Minister is in abusing thus so many Authors so manifestly: but especially do you note the impudence of his Conclusion. And these forenamed Authors (saith he) do avouch for confirmation of this doctrine, the universal consent of Romish Divines and canonists for the space of an hundred years. 
Full satisf. p. 38.  So he. But I would ask him of what doctrine? That Pope's cannot be heretics or be deposed for the same? You have heard them now protest the contrary, and you may read them in the places here cited, out of all the nine several writers before mentioned, who by their express contrary doctrine do prove T. M. to have made nine several lies against them in this his assertion, and now the tenth and most notorious of all, 
Ten lies made at once.  is this his Conclusion, That they do avouch ●or confirmation o● that which he objecteth the universal consent of Romish Divines and Canonists for the space of an hundred years: which besides the manifest falsity thereof seen in their own words and works here by me cited, it containeth also great folly & simplicity to say, that they avouch the consent of Romish Divines and Canonists for an hundred years: for that their proofs are much elder: & Bellarmine among the rest for deposition of Popes, doth cite the 8. General Council under Pope Adrian the second for above six hundred years agone: and the Canon Si Papa, out of our Country man S. Boniface Archbishop of Mentzes & Martyr above seven hundred years agone, and collected by Gratian and confirmed by Popes, as part of the Canon law, above four hundred years agone. So as to say that now they avouch Author's o● an hundred years old, against that, which for so many hundred years before was held and established, is mere folly or rather foolish malice.  
115. Thus I wrote in my former Treatise of Mitigation, whereby, as by all the rest that here hath been set down, the Reader will see, what store of grave matter M. Morton had to answer for his own defence, if indeed he had meant to defend himself really and substantially, and not to have slipped out under the shadow of a Preamble for answering his adversary: but indeed laying hands only upon a few & the lightest imputations that he could pick out. And yet by the way the Reader must note, that every one, or the most of these examples of falsehood here objected do contain divers & sundry points, which being laid together do make (I dare avouch) a double number to that, which here we have set down, if they were severed & singled out after the manner of M. Mortons' mincing his imputations before produced about Goodman, Knox, Buchanan, Sir Thomas Wyatt, & the like, severally set forth to the show. So as according to this reckoning we may boldly say, that he hath left out here above threescore witting & voluntary untruths, which he knew could hardly, or never handsomely be answered. And besides these ●e hath purposely also left out the mention of other matters no less weighty than the former, though not in the same kind of falsehood and lying, yet no less cunningly pretermitted, subtracted, or concealed to the advantage of his cause, in this last Reply of his, them any lightly of the former, which we are to lay forth in the Chapter that ensueth.    

THE seventh CHAPTER WHEREIN ARE SET DOWN DIVERS SORTS OF M. MORTONS' OMISSIONS, besides the former: and namely in not defending certain Clients of his, whose credit was commended to his protection in the Treatise of Mitigation. And among others, SIR EDWARD COOK, now L. Chief justice of the Common Pleas.  

THE PREFACE.  
HITHERTO have we beheld the omissions or rather pretermissions (to wit omissions voluntary) used by M. Morton in answering the chief accusations laid against him in matter of falsity, and untrue dealing; now you are to see others of another kind, which though in my opinion they do proceed out of the same motive (which was by delaying the answer, to avoid the necessity of answering at all) yet are they in a different subject or matter, not so much concerning corruptions & falsifications immediately, as the other, but about sundry principal parts of my Treatise (yea all in effect) no less craftily concealed then the rest, though with a certain pretence and faint promise to answer them afterward. But for that I have just cause to suspect this promise, as a dilatory shi●t and subtle suasion, whereby to detain from the Readers knowledge what I wrote in may said Treatise, making him to think by the perusal of this his Preamble of Reply that I had handled nothing therein worthy the relation or confutation, besides those trifles which himself pleased before to lay forth: for this cause (I say) I am forced here to detain myself a little longer in repeating again some chief points of my said Book, which M. Morton hath passed over with silence leaving only a hope, as hath been said, that in time he will satisfy them.  

How prudent creditors do proceed with doubtful debtors.  2. But in this case I mean to proceed as Creditors do with old & doubtful debtors, which is, to examine the accounts, & make up the Reckoning, while the debts are yet somewhat fresh in memory. For better declaration whereof I will use this example, or comparison. If a merchant in London, or else where having many charges of debts laid upon him, should promise, that (at such a time, when accounts are wont to be cleared, & made straight) he would answer all, & then the prefixed time approaching he should suddenly withwraw himself, leaving some small & scattered sums (& those also of very bad coins) to satisfy for great & many obligations, promising further that in time he would yield abundant satisfaction for all the rest.  
3. In this case I would demand, what the prudent Creditors would do, think, or suspect, especially finding the sums of money left to be so small, & of so bad coin, as now hath been said? Two things do occur unto me, that they would do for their better assurance. First to inform themselves well, what store of debts the said party was to be charged withal. Secondly quid habeat in bonis, what substance he might be presumed to have for satisfying thereof. And this I take to be the very Case also between me & M. Mort. who being charged with very many debts and obligations of answering matters objected against him in my foresaid Treatise, he took a respite until the ordinary time of payment, which was the time of his Reply: which time coming, he gave us instead of a book a Preamble only (though a large one) answering not to the tenth part of that he was indebted: & this so weakly & fraudulently, handling matters impertinent, as no way it can pass for currant coin, as now in part you have seen, and shall do more in that which ensueth.  
4. Wherefore I am constrained to perform the parts of the foresaid Creditors, making first a survey of the chief debts liable against him, and which he is to answer, & then to examine what likelihood of payment, or satisfaction he may be thought to have, for effectuating the same: both which points you have in part seen already put in execution by me in my former discourse. For you have heard the many charges laid against him for falsity & untrue dealing & you will hardly I think conceive, where he will have the substance to answer them. Now we are to make the search in another sort of debts, wherein I persuade me that the like in many points, though not altogether the same will fall out, to wit, that the debts will be found clear, & the satisfaction not easy: wherein I refer myself to that which is to ensue.   

OF THE PRETERMISSION of the chiefest points concerning the argument and subject of Rebellion, in my Treatise of Mitigation. §. I.  
WELL then according to this designment let us look into the principal heads of matters treated by me concerning the first part of our argument about Rebellion: to wit, whether Catholic people above others be found obnoxious to that heinous crime, & this also by force of their Catholic doctri●e, & belief; for that this was the chief but, whereat M. Mortons' first seditious libel of Discovery did level, bringing in ten pretended reasons, but indeed calumniations for some show of proof thereof: 
Mitig. c. ●●  which being confuted largely by me for almost twenty pages together, & covinced not only not to be reasons of any substance or force against us, but plain calumniations & arguments rather against himself & his people, did impose, as you see, a great obligation upon him for answering the same in this his Reply: but he thought good volutarily to pretermit them, & in●●eed thereof to institute almost ten other different Paragraphes about the wit, learning, memory, skill in Logic, Greek & Latin, charity, modesty & truth of his Adversary P. R. as before you have seen handled: So as this first main debt remaineth in effect undischarged: & what probability there is, or may be, how well it will be paid hereafter, is not hard to guess: at least I, as his Creditor, have cause to suspect the matter, & that this putting of or delay upon expectation of a ●urther Rejoinder to come forth, was but a devise to evacuate the payment.  
6. And for so much as the first of these ten reasons against us is ●ounded by him upon the pretended opinion that he saith we have of English Protestants, that they are Heretics, & that Protestancy is damned heresy, & consequently are liable, & obnoxious to all the Canonical penalties, which are set down against men convicted of that crime, by the Canon law: albeit I showed unto him that this consequence in rigour was not necessary, for that all Protestants were not nominatim excommunicati & denunciati, by name excommunicated, and denounced for such: yet for so much as concerned the guilt of heresy, as it is a choice of a particular sect and difference of Religion from that which the known Catholic Church doth hold, and profess, I alleged sundry authentical proofs as well out of the definition of heresy, and an heretic, set down by S. Augustine unto Honoratus infected with the heresy of the Manicheans, 
What is heresy according to S. Austin.  & out of the same Father against the Donatists, defining who is properly an heretic (to wit) Qui manifestata sibi doctrina Catholicae ●idei, resistere maluerit, & illud quod tenebat, eleg●rit: he that after the doctrine of the Catholic faith (generally held) is made known unto him shall determine notwithstanding rather to resist and make choice of that, which before he held. As also I showed and demonstrated the explication of this definition unto English Protestants, and professors of the English Religion of our days, out of great variety of other Prontestant Authors of other Countries, who all affirm, a●d determine that the Religion & doctrine of john Calvin, which is now most followed in England is formally and truly heresy, & consequently the Professors and manteyners thereof must needs be heretics: 
Stancar. l. de Trinit. & Mediatore.  for which I alleged not only the Censure o● Franci●●us Stancarus a chief Protestant Superin●end●nt in Polonia, who saith, that they are deplora●issimi haeretic●, most desperate heretics, but also the Censure of a whole Lutheran University in Germany named Tubinga, whose chief Reader of Devinity Philippus Nicolaus in the name of the whole University decreeth, 
Philip Nicolaus l. cont. Caluinum in prafat. etc. p. 1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10. etc.  that Caluinists are damnable heretics, intituling his book thus: Fundamentorum Caluinianae sectae cum Arianis & Nestorianis communium detectio. A discovery of the foundations of the calvinian sect, which are common to them with the Arians and Nestorians: In which book this Doctor proveth throughout many Chapters together that Caluinists are no less Heretics, than the said Arians & Nestorians: that they agree with them at least in 17. or 18. articles: alleging also Luther's Authority to the same effect, 
Luth. lib. Contra Sacr●ment●r. in Ep. ad Marchion. Pruss.  who saith, that they are alieni ab Ecclesia Dei, & Sathanae membra, cut of from the Church of God, and members of Satan.  
7. And after this I added further to this effect: I will pass over (quoth I) the testimony of many other learned protestant Ministers, Doctors, & teachers, as namely Conradus Sclusselburgius, who affirmeth Caluinists, To believe and teach rightly no one article of the Creed: as also I will do that of Heshusius, affirming, That their association is a most blasphemous & sacrilegious sect: that of Hunnius, That it is most damnable, & the right way to hell: that of joannes Schutzius, That it is the sink of all wicked heresies; that of joannes Modestus, that affirmeth Caluinists, To be as bad as jews & Mahomet's: that of joannes Mathias, and of Albertus Graverus, and others, that affirm all those that follow the doctrine of Calvin, to be professed enemies of Christ. All which I do city in my last book against M. Mort. quoting their names, 
Mitig. p. 58.59.60.61.62. etc. Item p. 107 108.109. etc.  works and Chapters, & years when they wrote, more largely, & particularly in the pages here set down in the margin. All which men being chief Doctors, Readers, Preachers or Pastors of our Protestant people, & such as our Protestant Ministers of England hold for their brethren against us that are Catholics, do easily wipe away with these their asseverations, the childish clamour of M. Morton against catholics for holding his calvinian doctrine to be heresy, seeing that so many learned & grave Protestants enlightened with the spirit of God (as they must needs grant) do hold & aver the same.  
8. And why then had not he answered somewhat to this Charge, being so weighty, & substantial as it is? Why had he not given some satisfaction? Or at leastwise mentioned the same in this his last Reply? Was not this as necessary a subject to be handled as to put himself to discuss the wit, memory, skill, and other qualities of his Adversary? Or when do you think will he be able to answer this matter? Or what substance hath he, or may be presumed to have for making this payment?  
9 Nay, that his substance is small, or rather none at all for discharging these debts, may well appear, for that he being further pressed by me afterward about the like argument of john Calvin's being an heretic, and that most heinous & damnable by the public testimony of his said Protestant brethren the Lutheran Doctors, and this not only in the common known controversies between them, about the Real presence, & other Sacraments, for which by Luther they were called Sacramentaries: but even about the highest articles of the blessed Trinity, Divinity of Christ, & equality with his Father, Godhead of the Holyghost & the like; he hath shifted of the same in this his Reply by no less silence, than the former: not so much as naming the matter, but in general terms telling us that he will pay all his debts in time: & yet did I urge him as much as might be, to draw from him some answer. For thus I said unto him, when he had accused all our writers of extreme malignity in censuring Calvin & Caluinists for heretics, insinuating also in his book of Full satisfaction, that the former Lutheran Doctors, whereof some had been objected before by the moderate answerer, had been corrupted, & depraved by us, 
M. Mort. defendeth himself with silence.  (a poor shift you see, when their own books are extant in print, & the places known of their printing) I told him, I say, that I would bring against him a new book of a famous late Lutheran Doctor, & Reader of Devinity called Aegidius Hunnius printed at Wittenberg upon the year 1593. which should confirm this and much more. My words were these.  

Mitig. p. 248.  10. We shall here (quoth I) with as much brevity as may be, bring ●orth the judgement of another renowned Protestant Doctor concurring with the foresaid, he being a public Reader of Devinity in another famous University of Germany, namely Wittenberg, where Martin Luther himself once held the chair, as Calvin did in Geneva, & this Doctor whose name is Agidius Hunnius in a several Treatise set forth about a dozen years gone, 
D. Aegidius Hurnius his book of Calvin.  entitled by him, Calu●us judaizans, & dedicated unto one David Pareus a principal calvinian Doctor, setteth down the argument of his book thus, in the first front thereof: This book is to show (saith he) that john Calvin hath most detestably presumed to corrupt (in ●auour of jews & Arians) the most clear places, 
Anno 159●. Wittenberg. apud viduam Matth●i Welaci.  & testimonies of Scripture, concerning the glorious Trinity, Deity of Christ, of the Holy-ghost, & above all, the predictions of Prophets ●or the coming of the Messias, his Nativity, passion, ascension, and sitting at the right hand of God etc. with a clear confutation of his false corruptions therein etc.  
This is the title & argument of the book, which he doth prosecute for almost two hundred pages together, dividing the same into two parts: the first wherein he showeth, how john Calvin most wickedly, & maliciously under pretence of interpreting the Scripture in different sense from the ancient Fathers, did go about covertly to weaken, infringe, or take from the Christians all the strongest arguments which they had, or have out of the Scriptures for the Godhead of Christ, and his equality, and consubstantiality with the Father etc. And in the second part of his book Doctor Hunnius showeth that the said Calvin useth the same fraud, and malice by overthrowing all the predictions, & fortellings of Prophets about Christ, is he was man.  
11. Thus far I wrote at that time, and then produced somewhat largely and particularly 18. examples partly out of the old, 
john Calvin an angel of darkness with the Lutherans.  and partly out of the new Testament, maliciously perverted by him in favour of jews and Arrians, against the truth and certainty of Christian Religion, leaving out 20. more, which Doctor Hunnius doth handle, and in the end concludeth thus: Quapropter ut receptui canam, detectum satis superque judico, Angelum illum tenebrarum joannem Caluinum, qui ex abyssi puteo emergens etc. Wherefore that I may now (saith he) retire myself, I do judge that Angel of darkness john Calvin to be sufficiently, and more than sufficiently discovered, who being raised from the pit of hell to the perverting of mankind, hath partly by his detestable desire of wresting Scriptures & overthrowing the bulwarks of Christian Religion, which it hath against jews and Arians: partly also by his impious pen against the holy and sacred Majesty of jesus Nazarenus, now exalted in heaven; partly also by his perverse doctrine of the Sacraments, and horrible monstrous paradoxes of his absolute predestination, hath obscured in these our later days no small part of the light and sun of God's truth, and drawn with him a great number of stars, as the Apocalyps saith, headlong into hell: from whom God everlasting by his mercy sign & protect his servants, lest they may be in●ected with this most pestilent plague o● calvinian error, & convert those that are infected, unto jesus Christ the Pastor of their souls, to the end they perish not in their error, but be saved everlasting with those that faithfully do love God: And this I had to warn the Church of Christ of the most wicked deceits of john Calvin.  
12. Hitherto are the words of Doctor Egidius Hunnius which you see with what vehemency of spirit and protestation he uttereth them against the heresies of Calvin and Caluinists, 
A consideration of much weight.  so as they may easily be seen to come from his hart, & full determination of his settled judgement, who being so principal a Protestant, and learned Doctor, and Professor of Devinity, & held for a brother of the self same Church by which M. Morton meaneth to be saved (if he have any such meaning) I marvel what impression it maketh in him, or whether it maketh any thing at all, which I should have been glad to have understood by a word or two of his answer: but nothing cometh from him; and so this debt must be laid up with the rest, until the day of payment come, which when it may be, or how much, or what he will be able to pay, 
How Caluinisme is heresy by the judgement of learned Protestant's.  yea (though he de●erre it until doomsday) is a matter easily to be conjectured, by such as can cast up accounts, & look into debtors abilities, or possibilityes for their discharge. But yet one thing is clear without any answer of his, & I would have it noted by the reader, that all his invectives to his Majesty against us, for calling and holding them as heretics out of the fo●said definition of S. August●n, & other Fathers do fall to the ground, as vain & frivolous, for so much as so principal men of their own brotherhood do affirm the same, as now you have heard. And thus much about the first head or question, whether the Protestant Religion of Engla●d, so f●r forth at leastwise, as it followeth the doctrine of Calvin, be truly accounted heresy, or no? And consequently damnable to the holder's thereof.  

Two other heads of controversy.  13. Two other great heads of controversy there were between us in this first part of my foresaid Treatise about Rebellion: the first, whether the doctrine of Catholics, or of Protestants did more favour obedience unto their temporal princes, & secondly which part did most practise the same. And about the first for Catholic doctrine, it is largely proved by me throughout the whole first part of my Treatise, that it is exact in all respects for obliging men to do all due obedience both unto temporal & spiritual superiors, 
Catholic doctrine touching Obedience to Princes  not only when they are good and virtuous, but also dis●●lis, that is, bad & fastidious, as the Apostles word is; & that we must obey them out of conscience, as Ministers of God, from whom they have their authority, & power. And when the exorbitant defects of any Prince, or governor shall impose necessity of redress or restraint, it may not be by private Authority, or popular mutiny: but by order, judgement, & public authority. Whereas on the other side the Protestant doctrine is showed out of their own words, writers, & authors, to teach the quite contrary, which authors I do cite, as namely Calvin, Beza, Hottoman, & others in France, by the testimonies of Launay, Belforest, & other French writers, 
Mitig. p. 38.39. etc. & p. 116.117. etc.  & in England & Scotland, Goodman, Gilby, Whittingham, Knox, Buchanan, & others, by the testimonies of their own writings, & stories, & of the Archbish● of Canterbury out of his first Book Of dangerous positions, & of D. Sutcliffe in his Survey o● pretended discipline, against the Puritans, 
Protestant's doctrine about restraining and punishing Princes.  that is, the most zealous sort o● Caluinists, all which have set down their resolute opinions, that it is lawful, when the Prince offereth injuries, or becometh, as they call it, a Tyrant, especially in matters of Religion: they hold it lawful, I say, by their Devinity, for the Nobility, or people, or private men, as they have, or may ha●e commodity to do it, to make revenge either upon his person or otherwise, yea by death itself.  
14. And as for the second point, which is the practice of this doctrine, I do show such a notorious difference between Catholic, & Protestant people, out of the experience of this our present age, as nothing can be more convincing out of public histories, & men's memory ye● alive, that there hath been more violence offered by the Protestant people & subjects, to their lawful, & true Princes by arms, actions, conspiracies, rebellions, & other forcible means, within the compass of almost one half age in the Northern p●rts of the world, 
The practice of Protestant's against P●●nces.  to wit, Germany, France, Flanders, England, Scotland, Denmark, Sweveland, Polonia, and other parts, than was practised, or heard of in a thous●nd years before, throughout all the Christian world. Wherein, for that his Majesty of England, that now is, unto whom my Adversary presumed to dedicate his book, 
S●● Mitig. p. 44.45. ● d●●●●●ps ●●●m p. 116.117. etc.  can be the best, and most honourable, a●d authentical testimony of any Prince perhaps l●●●●g: in regard of the many troubles and perils, which he and his Royal lineage have passed therein. I do stay myself longer upon the contemplation of broils raised by that means in Scotland, both before the birth of his Majesty, and afterward, which is so lamentable a story as no man can read it, but with horror, and infinite regret of mind.  
15. These things being laid forth by me, & many other, to this effect, which for brevities sake I do pretermit here to repeat, had it not been convenient that M. Morton in this his last Reply (seeing he would needs reply) should have signified in some few words unto us, how he would or could satis●ie this main charge and debt: especially, for so much as this touched the very hart of his cause in this first argument about rebellion. 
Great om●●ons of M. Morton in his Reply.  For albeit his Reply be but a preamble, yet is it a large one, of above a hundred & twenty pages in quarto, whereof he might well have bestowed some one or two in acknowledging at least unto his Reader, what I had touched concerning this main point, that is so important. But it seemeth that he would have his Reader imagine, that no more substantial matter was treated by me, than he hath set down, in those skirmishes, & other trifling contentions, in this his preamble before discussed  
16. But his greatest omission, and pretermission indeed, was in this matter, the concealment of what soever in e●fect I had said for laying open the absurdities, hurts, & inconveniences, that did, and must needs ensue to the Realm and Common wealth by this intolerable licence, taken up by rayling-Ministers to traduce and slander at their pleasure ●o many thousands of quiet, & wellmeaning people, & faithful Subjects of his Majesty, by way of sycophancy, drawing them into suspicions of Rebellions, Treasons, conspiracies, & faithless meaning towards their Prince & Country, and this in regard of their religion, faith and conscience, which lieth not in their power by force to alter, but with the everlasting perdition, and ●uine of their souls.  
17. This I showed how damnable a course it was, how seditious, & pernicious to all quiet S●ates: and I declared in particular, what stinging exasperations there had been laid upon English Catholics for many years together out of such motives as these ar●: how grievous, and dangerous a thing it is to drive men to desperation: 
A wicked and pernicious course of exasperating● & driving to desperation  how little thanks, or reward he deserveth, that casteth in fyrebrands to kindle sedition, & divideth any Prince's subjects among themselves, and from their said Prince: how potent and happy his Majesty of great Brittany were, if such makbates would suffer him to enjoy his greatness and felicity, and to be beloved and served of all his people jointly: that the pursuing of catholics with that ●agernes, that now is seen, for their only religion, & this in the sight of the whole Christian Catholic world, that is of the same religion, cannot but work pernicious, and prejudicial effects both at home & abroad, in begetting sinister, & averse affections, & judgements, worse words and writings conform thereunto: how that when Protestants began their sect, & were underlings to catholics, all their books preachings and speeches tended to show, and prove that it was against the gospel of Chris●, and contrary to all reason, Religion, equity, and piety to vex men for their conscience: & that now they having the government in their own hands it cannot be but extreme dishonourable unto them to use such continual vexations, & angariations unto catholics for their said Religion, which they never changed, nor invented of themselves, but continued in that, wherein their ancestors had both lived and died, from the first planting of Christian faith in that Island.  
18. Many of these points did I touch and handle more largely in this first part of my Treatise, concerning obedience and Rebellion, 
Preamb. pag. 36.  and did expect that M. Morton would have returned me some part of substantial answer in this his Reply. But this credit also remaineth undischarged, as the rest: & we must expect the full payment at his further leisure, and ability. Yet some few scatter he left about this matter in his third Inquiry, and eleventh Paragraph which we have discussed befor● in the second Chapter of this our Answer, and have found it to be of no force at all, to give satisfaction to any of these points which here we have mentioned. And therefore we conclude, that in effect he hath omitted and pretermitted all the principal points handled by us in this affair. Let us now pas●e to the second general argument of my said Treatise of Mitigation, which is about equivocation: & let us s●e, whether M. Morton have used the same sleight of concealment therein also, as in the former.   

OF M. MORTONS' Pretermissions in the second argument of my Treatise, about Equivocation. §. II.  
YOU have heard how many principal points M. Morton hath passed over with a deep silence (as it were) in the first argument of my Treatise, concerning the controversy of Rebellion: Now let us turn our eyes upon the second subject, which is of Equivocation, against which he made such great clamours and outcries in his former empty book of full Satisfaction, as if it had been the most strange, new, absurd ridiculous, and blasphemous doctrine in the world. For clearing of which point I was forced to write five or six large Chapters, and bestow almost three hundred pages to repress his said clamours, vain exasperations, and childish insultations against the same, reducing first the whole matter to five serious, and important considerations as it were, for an entrance into the whole Treatise. The first, how perversely, and calumniously M. Morton and his fellows do deal with us to make us odious in this controversy, mistaking of purpose the true state of the question of which point I wrote then as followeth.  
20. And first of all (said I) to the end the indifferent Reader may understand with what kind of adversaries we are to deal in this matter, 
Mitig. p. 274.275.  I think it necessary for declaring their perversity and preventing some calumniations, to make a certain brief protestation or explication here, at the beginning, 
About the perversity of our adversaries.  that we do not take this defence of Equivocation in hand, either for patronage of lying, as this new discovered false Minister doth every where most slanderously in 〈◊〉, nor for that we delight in this art, or manner of evasion by Equivocation, though it be no lie at all, but rather do allow, and like ●ar better o● simple, plain, and resolute speech in all Catholics, concerning as well matters of ordinary conversation, as of their conscience and religion, especially at this t●me when God hath given them so singular an occasion to profess the same to his great honour, 
How Equivocation is defended.  & their own everlasting good, & increase o● m●ri●t: yet ●or that perfection is one thing, & obligation is another, we may not bind men to more, than God's precept bindeth, which is never to lie, or utter anyuntruth. But as for the other of Amphibology, doubtful speech, or Equivocation, i● law o● nature, diu●ne, and human, do in certain cases permit it unto men, (as afterward shall be showed) either for concealing of things secret, or for necessary defence of innocency, we may not without injustice take that right from them, which by so many titles they may duly challenge.  
21. It were greatly to be wished by all good & peaceable men, that the most excellent ●orme of Christian speech prescribed b● our Saviour, 
Matth. 5.  Yea yea: No no, were used by all in common conversation, and no other; as also Nolite jurare omnino, s●eare not at all: 
Gratian. Causa 22. c. 2.  but yet for that the infirmity of man is such (saith S. Augustine) as one will hardly believe another without an oath, the Church of God hath always so interpreted those words of Christ, so as they take not all liberty of swearing from Christians in necessary cases, albeit perfect men would pass with the same. And this is S. Augustine's reason in sundry parts of his works, and is translated into the Canon law by Gratian, and consequently also allowed by Popes, and the sea Apostolic &c.  
22. Thus I wrote at that time alleging many other authorities & examples of Scripture, for proof of the same, showing that many things are commended for perfection, but yet are not commanded by ordinary obligation: as, 
divers things are commendable, and of perfection, but not of ob●ligation.  bonum est homini mulierem non tangere 1. Cor. 7. It is good ●or a man not to marry at all. And then: If a man do marry, not to make any divorce at all, Matth. 19 And so likewise it were good not to strive, or go to law at all, 2. Cor. 6. And it were perfection for a preacher not to take any wages, or temporal rewards at all, but maintain himself by the labours of his own hands, as S. Paul did, which he called his glory, 1. Cor. 15.  
23. All these things I say, were good & higly to be commended, but yet the contrary thereof is not to be condemned for sin, but permissible: & the li●e in Equivocation. Unto which consideration I adjoined 4. others. First that the allowance, & use of this amphibology, or Equivocation was known, & practised in Catholic Christian Schools over the world for above 400. years past, 
Five considerations about the use of Equivocation.  by M. Mortons' own confession. The second, that the men that both taught, and used the same, were holy, learned, & grave, and great lovers otherwise of truth, & consequently would never have approved, or exercised the same, if it had been so great an iniquity, & offensive to God, as M. Mort. & his fellows do pretend.  
24. The third consideration, or rather fourth in order is, that there be many cases, which do fall out in man's life, (as afterward more at large, & in particular is declared) wherein a man is bound in conscience to use the refuge & help of this kind of doubtful speech, or Equivocation, for defence of innocency, and avoiding other greater inconveniences. And lastly the fifth consideration is of the great severity in detesting all sorts of lying both great and small, mortal, and venial, which those men had, that permitted notwithstanding the use of Equivocation, as S. Augustine & others, in such a rigour, as for saving a man's life, either our own, or our neighbours, we ought not to commit the least sort of lying that can be imagined, which is an evident argument, that they did distinguish between lying and Equivocation, which M. Morton every where holdeth to be the same, and would have us to be of that mind too. And for approving the one condemneth us of the other, against all right, and reason as you see.  
25. And these were my first five Considerations for stopping M. Mortons' clamours, exaggerations, and exclamations, and reducing him to a more moderate temper in treating this controversy. 
Preamble p. 82.83.  And it had been good, that in this his Reply he had bestowed some ●ew words upon the answering of these reasons. ●●uth it is, that he maketh mention of the one of them, which is the 2. by way of an objection, as though I had presumed him to contesse more than he doth, about the 400. years, wherein the doctrine of equivocation had been received, but this is answered be●ore in the fourth Chapter, & showed to be a mere cavil; and consequently, we may truly say, as we do, that M. Morton hath not answered any thing at all to these five considerations, at least four of them, nor yet so much as mentioned them in this his last Reply, nor given notice to the Reader, that any such thing was ●et down in my behalf.  
26. Next unto this entering into the substance of the matter itself, I do discuss the principal points belonging to this controversy, 
Mitig. c. 8. & 9 p. 307  as namely what Equivocation truly is: what is the definition of truth; what of falsity; what of lying: what differences they have, and wherein they do agree, showing the same by many reasons, & authorities not only of Philosophers, where the matters do appertain unto them, but out of ancient holy Fathers also, and variety of examples taken out of holy Scriptures, and of the words and facts of Christ our Saviour, and his Apostles themselves: and this very largely, and copiously throughout divers Paragraphes, whereby it is made most evident that the holiest men that ever were upon earth, did equivocate sometimes in their speeches, 
Forcible proofs for equivocation.  and used clauses of reservation in a far different sense from that which the hearer did apprehend. And yet for that they had a true meaning in their own mind, it cannot be reprehended without impiety, both in respect of their excellent persons for sanctity, and the received sentence of S. Augustine, Non facit linguam ream, nisi mens rea; 
Aug. ser. 28. de verbis Apostol.  Nothing maketh the tongue guilty of lying but a guilty mind, when one thing is meant, and another spoken.  
27. As for example when S. john Baptist was demanded, Propheta es tu? Are you a Prophet? 
joan. 1.  and he answered, No. And yet doth Christ call him a Prophet expressly Luc. 7. And so did Zacharie his Father, 
See mitig. c 9 §. 2. pag. 362. & deinceps.  before he was borne Luc. 1. yea more than a Prophet Matth. 11. which is showed to import as much as when a Priest is unlawfully demanded, Are you a Priest? And he answereth, No: for as S. john Baptist had a mental reservation in his words, and thereby an Equivocation (as is showed out of the exposition of Origen, S. Chrysostome, S. Cyril, S. Augustive, Theophilact, Euthymius, Rupertus and others) so saith the Priest in his answer: and consequently Equivocation is a different thing from lying, 
Full satisf. p. 48.49.  and not so hellish, heathenish, heinous, & monstrous, as intemperately M. Mort. calleth it.  
28. After this do follow many other examples, as that of our Saviour in S. john's gospel, Ego non judico quemquam: I do not judge any one. And yet himself saith in the same gospel, Pater omne judicium dedit ●ilio, 
joan. 8.  my Father hath given all judgement unto (me) his Son. 
joan. 5.  And again in the Acts of the Apostles S. Peter avoucheth that Christ is appointed Iudg by God his Father, both of the quick & the dead: which S. Paul confirmeth in divers places, 
Act. 10  as Rom. 13. 1. Cor. 3. So as that first speech of Christ that he judged no man, cannot be verified, but by a mental reservation: which what it was, the holy Fathers and expositors do labour to explicate. And the like to this, is that speech of Christ, of the daughter of the Archisinagogue, 
Math. 9  
Marc. 5.  The maid is not dead but asleep, and yet she was truly dead: 
Luc. 8.  and the hearers were deceived in Christ's meaning, which could not be true, nor was held for true in the literal & external meaning, but by some mental reservation, which S. Augustine, and other holy Fathers do labour to seek out what it was; and in ●hat sense it was to be understood. And many other examples to like effect are produced, and discussed, both out of the old and new Testament, whereby it is made more clear than the sun, that this kind of speech in answering by Equivocation and doubtful speech when need requireth, that is to say, when one sense soundeth in the words conceived by the hearer, and another is reserved in the mind of the speaker upon just causes, is no lie, but a truth, and most lawful, & that it were impiety, and blasphemy to hold or say the contrary in sundry persons, and speeches, which holy Scriptures do recount.  
29. Now then why hath not M. Morton in this his last Reply given some satisfaction about this great debt: 
When T. M. is like to pay this debt.  I know his answer will be, to say, that he will do it in his promised Rejoinder, which shall be his last day of payment: but there remaineth to be considered, what likelihood there is, that he will be able to pay at that day: especially for so much as he having in his last full Satisfaction attempted to answer some like places alleged before in a little treatise of this matter written as he saith by M. Garnet● was not able to satisfy any one substantially, and to the contentment of any mean judgement, 
Mitig. p. 3●0.  as I do show at large throughout the third part of my ninth Chapter: adding further in the fourth part thereof many more authorities both of Scriptures, and holy Fathers to convince M. Morton, that Equivocation is to be freed both from the name and nature of lying, falsity or falsehood. All which in like manner is concealed by him in this his frivolous Preamble.  
30. Wherefore having cleared all this matter by Scriptures, holy Fathers, evident arguments and reasons, from the imputations and calumniations of M. Mor●on, ● do further set down the assertions, grounds, and determinations of School-Doctours, Divines, Canon & Civil lawyers, with their reasons, 
Mitig. c. 9.10.11.  foundations & practice: as also I do prove the same by the practice of our very adversaries themselves. And moreover I do set down sundry particular cases, & occasions, wherein Equivocation may & must needs be granted lawfully to be used. And finally I do answer & solve all M. Morions pretended arguments & objections made against us, & this common doctrine, with such perspicuous evidency, as to me it seemeth, that no man can doubt thereof hereafter. And last of all I do conclude with a large exhortation to Catholic people, that notwithstanding the lawfulness of Equivocation in sundry cases: yet for the seeming injustice, that it may appear to have, and thereby also give disedification to them, that understand not the true ground & reason of the lawfulness: for this cause (I say) and for that in confession of our faith (whereof the necessity is frequent in these our days of persecution) it is no ways to be admitted or tolerated: therefore I do counsel them to be very sparing in using the liberty of this Equivocation, when they are not pressed thereunto, for avoiding some greater evil.  
31. All which limitations, restrictions, and explications of our Christian sincere meaning, and hatred of lying, M. Morton doth conceal from his Reader, 
M. Mort. iniquity in dealing maliciously with us.  & still crieth out, that we are Patrons of lying, no● will he understand the difference, nor hear our defence. And though he do hear and vnders●●nd us, y●● will he conceal it from the Reader, and go on with his clamour, as before: nay, which is more strange, he will make proclamation, as he doth in this his preamble, that he hath gained the victory in both causes, as well of Rebellion, as of Equivocation: and yet hath he in effect said no more about the former, 
Act. 5.  but what you have heard touched before, which is plain nothing. And concerning the second, he hath chosen out the Example only of the poor woman Saphyra, that according to his imagination answered to S. Peter in the Acts of the Apostles with an Equivocation, concerning the selling of her lands, but as we hold and prove, with a lie, and not with Equivocation. And what is this to so long and large a discourse as mine was? Wherefore M. Mortons' voluntary omissions in this matter are notorious, & in my judgement are evident signs of great weakness in his cause. Now we are to see others also of an other ●ort which we shall handle in this next Paragraph.   

OTHER OMISSIONS OF M. Morton concerning the defence of ten other Protestant writers charged with false dealing: which defence being remitted over unto him, was wholly pretermitted & concealed by him. §. III.  
IN the the 12. and last Chapter of my Treatise of Mitigation, for that M. Mort. had continually in his former pamphlets & Treatises both o● Discovery & Full satisfaction inveighed bitterly against all kind of Equivocation as falsehood & lying, and against Catholics, as lovers, & fautors thereof; I thought best to descend unto some particulars with him, for the removing this unjust reproach, and for laying it where it was due, to wit, upon Protestant-writers themselves, granting, that as in a large sense, and unproperly, Equivocation might be called lying and deceiving, when the due conditions and circumstances of true Equivocation are not observed (which are, to have a just cause, and true meaning;) so I said, that this kind of unlawful Equiuocati● doth always lightly fall upon the Protestant side, and not upon catholics. Which as I had showed before in multiplicity of occasions against M. Morton himself (as now you have seem and heard in the ●ormer eleven Chapters of that book of Mitigation:) so in this last, I thought it not amiss to assign him some partners in his condemnation showing that others also of his brethren were of like spirit in lying with him, though perhaps himself had outgone most of them now in that damnable liberty.  
33. And then for more easy understanding hereof I divided Equivocation into two sorts, the one lawful, & the other unlawful, as hath been said: and this unlawful, I subdivided again (as also lying) into material and formal unlawful Equivocations the later being much more heinous than the former: for that the speaker knoweth that he doth unjustly deceive by Equivocation. And albeit I do exemplify there in many particulars against M. Morton, wherein I do challenge him to have often used the worst sort of these formal lying Equivocations, whilst he impugneth the other sort, that lawfully and without lying is used some times, and in some cases by catholics, and was by the Apostles, Prophets, and Christ himself, as now you have heard, 
Supra. c. 1. §. 4.  yet in this his Reply he pretermitting to answer to the things themselves objected, picketh only quarrels at the form of the division and subdivision, as you may see before in our first Chapter, where the matter is handled largely and the cavil laid open, and refuted. But to the end that M. Mort. omissions, and sly dealing in the principal points may better appear, it shall not be amiss perhaps to set down some particulars wherewith he was charged at that time.  

The Charge.  


Mitig. p. 486.  
Formal lying Equivocation in T. Mort.   34. As for example (said I) when he writeth in his late book of Full satisfaction, No one iota of Scripture, 〈◊〉 one example in all antiquity, no one reason in the naturals wi● of man, no one Author, Gre●ke or Latin, no one Father, no on● Pope Christian or Antichristian, doth make for Equivocation (as we defend it) or any colour thereof: neither did they so much as 〈◊〉 any such thing. here is first seen a notorious untruth of the assertion itself, and consequently it is a material lie, and material Equivocation: for that the matter delivered is untrue. And secondly it is most probable that Tho. Mort. must needs know it to be a lie, having seen so many Authors and reasons alleged ●or it by the Catholic Treatise which he pretendeth to con●ute. Whereof it followeth, that it was a formal ly● also, and a formal lying Equivocation in the highest degree of deceit and falsehood.  
35. And so in like manner in the fo●mer Chapter when he allegeth Azor, Dominicus Sotus, and Cicero, directly against their own meaning, words and drift in the very same places, which he citeth, and taketh words out of them for his pretended purpose, he could not but see and know that it was a lie to city them to the contrary: and yet he thought best to do it, and tell his Reader that they were of a contrary opinion. This then is formally to lie, and Equivocate in the worst and superlative degree of false Equivocation.  
36. About which point the Reader may be remitted to the second Chapter of this treatise, & last Paragraph thereof, where he shall see divers examples laid together, and among other, that which he reporteth of the death of our English Pope Adrian choked (as he saith) with a fly, and citeth Nauclerus for the same: who though he mention, yet refuteth expressly that ●able, which T.M. concealed: where he is showed in like manner to corrupt notably a passage of Doctor Boucher, avouching him to say that which he expressly impugneth about the kill of a Tyrant by a private man, and private authority.  
37. And the like corruption he is convinced to have used in citing Gratian the Collector of the Canon law●s, and his Glosses, perverting their words, 
T. Mort● talents in lying Equivocation.  and whole sense, as is there set down, with sundry other examples, which show that the man did not lie of error, or oversight, but merely out of malice to deceive the simple and credulous Reader, knowing in deed, that he did lie. And the same is demonstrated by many examples most apparent, & evident throughout the whole sixth Chapter of this book, and other places: so as if we had no● other proof of this spirit, but in Tho. Morton himself, it were sufficient to prove our purpose, for that of all other lightly of his coat, he professeth most innocency, simplicity, and sincerity in this behalf, & by this doth principally prove our purpose, which is, that they Equivocate & lie, both wittingly & willingly, & then most of all, when they make greatest protestation of truth.  
38. As when T. M. talketh of his naked innocency in his Epistle to the King's Majesty, of detesting Equivocation from his soul, of styling himself A Minister of simple truth: & finally his usurping of those protestations of S. Paul before mentioned, That in all things he spoke the truth, and lied not, which Thomas Morton, as we often have proved before, could not choose but know to be a wilful lie indeed, having seen & read the Author's which so manifestly he be●yeth, as never in this he will be able to clear himself. And hereof we do finally infer, that he and his do equivocate in the worst kind, which by us and ours is never used: and so while he declameth against lawful Equivocation & practiseth unlawful, he showeth himself a plain prevaricator.  
39 And for that this matter is of so great importance for the Reader well to conceive in these days of controversies between us, 
Asigne distinctive between Protestant's and us.  I mean to stay myself somewhat in this Chapter upon this point, & to show that indeed it is a substantial sign distinctive between all Sectaries and Us, at this time, and ●hat in matters of controversy our writers shall never be found guilty in these kinds of false lying, and malicious equivocations, where not only untruth is uttered, but it is wittingly also uttered, the writer knowing that he writeth untruth, as often now hath been said. Which manner of dealing inferreth two points: the one that such a writer or speaker hath no conscience that uttereth things against his own knowledge, and which God seeth to be false, and falsely meant in his hart: and the other that his cause hath no ground of substantial truth, which cannot be defended without such wilful lies.  
40. In this then if you please let us insist a while, & let Tho. Mort. bring forth any Catholic Author whatsoever, that wrote against Protestants since these heresies began, that hath been taken in this impiety, I mean, that hath set down in print any such falsity, as cannot be excused either by ignorance, oversight, negligence, error of print, translation, diversity of editions, 
A just challenge to M. Mort.  or the like, but that it must needs be presumed that he knew the untruth, and yet would set it ●orth: of this kind (I say) let him show me bu● one example among all Catholic writers of our time, and I will in my conscience greatly mistrust and discredit the Author, whether it be another or myself: but if he show me two or three in any writer of this kind, I shall never be able to believe him more. And whereas the number and variety of Catholic writers is so great as the world seeth, it were no great labour to show it in some, if that spirit did reign amongst them, as it doth in Protestant writers, out of whom great volumes might be framed of this one point, if a man would embrace them all throughout all nations: but I meaning to speak of Englishmen, and those very few in respect of the multitude, and not having all their works by me at this present, am forced only to use some few notes taken heretofore out of their books, which notwithstanding shall suffice for this short view, which we pretend. And for better method & memory, I have thought good to reduce my notes at this time to three sorts of men, that have written against us. First Protestant Bishops: then Ministers: and ●astly Laymen, but of good sort, I mean Knights: and of each one of these shall we make our several paragraphs.  
41. Thus far I wrote at that time: and as for the first part of that which I did set down, that M. Morton had been taken in many and inexcusable false Equivocations, which in effect are the same with lying; if before it was evident by the particular examples here alleged and many others, I do presume that now it will be much more manifest after his Reply, and this my rejoinder made unto the same. For that not only his former faults committed in this kind in his former Treatises o● Discovery & Full Satisfaction, are more orderly laid forth, as by the precedent part of this Chapter appeareth, than they were in my Treatise of Mitigation, but many ●ew escapes are detected in like manner, as will appear in the sequent Chapter dedicated only to this particular effect.  
42. And as for the second point to declare that this spirit of false dealing joined with necessity and misery of their bad cause is comm●● not only unto him but unto many of his brothers, & must needs be unto all of them, whensoever they tak● pen in hand to defend the same, for that one lie cannot be defended without another, 
Ten Protestant writers brought in for lying Equivocators.  as hath been said: therefore I do produce ten several witnesses, two of them called Bishops M. jewel and M. Horn: five inferior Ministers M. john Fox, M. Cal●ield, M. Hanmer, M. Charke, & M. Perkins, and might have named 5. times more: three lay men also & Knights that have written against us, Sir Francis Hastings, Sir Philip Mornay, & Sir Edward Cook, alleging not one, but sundry examples out of each o● their works: & might enlarge myself to a volune i● that argument if I would say what I have found in their, & their brethren's works in this kind, standing only & precisely upon this, that they be such examples, as there is not only material falsehood found in the thing, but so apparent also, as it must needs be presumed the party knew it to be such when he wrote it, & consequently was formal lying, & false equivocating indeed.  
43. As for example: when M. jewel in the beginning of Q. Elizabeth's time to draw her & the Realm to change Religion, 
M. jewels egregious Equivocation.  & become Protestant, did preach at Paul's Cross & in the Court, & with a most confident semblance, and sundry tears, did cast fo●th 28. several articles against Catholic Religion, saying, that if either the English, or any other learned Catholics in the world could show but one place of Scripture, one Father, one Doctor, one allowed example of the Primitive Church within the ●irst 6. hundred years after Christ for clear proof of any one of these 28. articles, he would yield & subscribe, & be no more a Protestant, adding also these words: 
In his sermon in the Court, and at Paul's Crosse.  I speak not this in vehemency of spirit or heat of talk, but even as before God, by way of simplicity, and truth, lest any of you should happily be deceived, and think there is more weight on the other side, then in conclusion will be found etc. Which protestation he repeated divers times and in divers sermons. And then yet further he broke into this vehement Apostrophe: O merciful God who would think that there could be so much wilfulness in the hart of man! O Gregory! O Austin! O Hierome! O Chrysostome! O Leo! O Dionyse! O Anaclete! O Sixtus! O Paul! O Christ! if we be deceived herein, you are they that have deceived us etc.  
44. In which words & protestations I did show by 5. or 6. convincing reasons that there must needs be much hypocrisy, dissimulation, and Equivocation against his own conscience: and that consequently every member and branch of this deceitful speech must needs contain a formal lie, 
divers reasons c●̄uincing that M. jewel spoke wittingly against his conscience.  & known for such to himself, when he uttered them: for that he could not be ignorant how many, not only places and sentences the ancient Fathers, for example, had against divers of these Protestant articles that he holdeth, but whole Treatises also against some. And as for that of the Real Presence, which was one of his most principal, he had been present himself, not many years before, and one of the Notaries also in the disputation of Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer, at Ox●ord under Q. Mary, wherein there were so many, and so perspicuous places, and discourses of ancient Fathers brought against them for the said Real Presence, as they remained wholly confounded, as may be seen by him that is diligent, and will stand attended, by the relation thereof, s●t forth by john Fox himself, in his Acts and Monuments, and more pithily collected out of him in a several printed Treatise set forth these years passed by N.D. in the ●hird Part of the Three Conversions of England  
45. And finally when Doctor Harding, & many other learned Catholics began to write against M. jewel, and this hypocrisy of his, they came forth with so huge a number of authentical authorities in all these kinds, which he nameth here, Scriptures, Fathers Doctors, councils, examples of the primitive Church within the first six hundred years, as they forced him to procure a prohibition of their books by the State. And then was he urged about these speeches of his: 
Mitig. p. 501.  Now it standeth upon you to prove but one affirmation against me, and so to require my promise of subscribing. And again: If you of your part would vouchsafe to bring but t●o lines, the ●hole matter were concluded. And yet further: Show forth but one Doctor o● your side, yea one sentence in ●our de●●nce etc. All which I do prove to be notorious cogging, and dissimulation: for that many other Protestants more learned than himself do acknowledge the Fathers to have many sentences against him, and cannot be stood unto by them, without overthrow of their cause. And among others I do allege these words of Doctor Whitaker We repose no such confidence's (saith he) in the Father's writings, 
D. Whitaker in his answer to D. Sanders Demonstrations. p. 21.  that we take any certain proof of Religion from th●m, because we place all our faith and Religion, not in human, but in divine authority. If therefore you bring us, what some Father hath thought, or what the Fathers universally all together have delivered the same, (except it be approved by testimony of Scriptures) it availeth nothing, it gaineth nothing, it convinceth nothing. For the Father's a●● such witnesses, as they also have need of the Scriptures to be their witnesses. I● deceived by error they give ●orth their testimony disagreeing from Scriptures, albeit they may be pardoned, er●ing ●or want of wisdom, we cannot be pardoned, if because they erred we also ●ill err with them. So Doctor Whitaker, more learned perhaps in the Fathers then M. jewel, though not so confident. For if he had found by his experience, that no Father had any one place or sentence against Protestant religion, he would never so much have discredited them all, as here he doth. Wherefore the false Equivocation of M. jewel is notable in this place.  
46. But besides this, I do lay forth six several examples of egregious wilful corruptions taken out of M. jewels books and words, which are ou●r long to be repeated here: two or three also of M. horns practice in that behalf who possessed the bishopric of Winchester for some years: 
Six several examples of M. jewels Equivocation.  sundry out of M. Calfield: divers out of M. Charke, and M. Hanmer: and no less notorious, and wilful out of M. Perkins: some very markable out of Sir Francis Hastings: a great number intolerable out of Sir Philip Mornay, who was challenged by the Bishop of Eureux for 800. and affronted with threescore at one offer, and convinced of nine in one days conference before the present King of France, and his Counsel.  
47. And finally I adjoin to the former, for my last witness of false dealing, Sir Edward Cook late Attorney General to his Majesty, 
Sir Edward Cook.  and not long since manifesting himself to the world for a writer against catholics, whose spirit I do show by sundry examples to be like the rest in that behalf: leaving the defence both of him, and the others to M. Mortons' patronage, who hath had so little care of their credit, as it seemeth, that he hath not so much as once mentioned them, or any one of them in this his Reply, but leaveth every one to shift for himself, which omission cannot but seem somewhat prejudicial unto them, for that every man will thereof infer, that their causes were so bad, as he durst not take their defence in hand: but especially will this seem to be true in the cause of Sir Edward Cook, whom M. Morton had more obligation to de●end, in that in his book of full Satisfaction against me, he served himself of divers examples, & authorities taken out of the said knights book, & always reportable Reports, as there he calleth them. Which he having seen answered since that time, in my Treatise of Mitigation, and showed to be impertinent, and nothing to the purpose, had obligation thereby to have defended somewhat in this his Reply, either the things themselves, or the Author, or both: but neither of them hath he done, and therefore do I mean to handle this omission severally in the sequent Paragraph.    

OF M. MORTONS' OMISSIONS Concerning the defence of Sir Edward Cook, wholly pretermitted by him. §. FOUR  
ALBEIT perhaps M. Morton may say, that his meaning was, to take in hand the defence of his Client Sir Edward Cook in his other promised Rejoinder, and therefore said nothing of him now in this his Preambling Reply: yet having now seen him very hardly charged in two several Books, the one of the Catholic Divine in answering to the fi●th part of his Reports: the other, the Treatise of Mitigation, with the like imputations of untrue dealing, as are laid against M. Morton himself, it seemed that it had been a point of friendship (if not of duty) to have said somewhat for preventing and staying at least the Readers prejudice, as in his Preface he said he did for himself, especially for so much as he had seen now and read all those places which he borrowed out of M. Cook to furnish one whole Chapter of his full Satisfaction, 
Full satisfact. c. 17. fol. 40.  fully answered and confuted by the Catholic Divine in his foresaid Book, 
In the Answer to Reports in the lives of Edward the ●irst, Ed. 2. etc.  which M. Mor●●● might have at leastwise mentioned, among so many other points of less importance, which he handleth, if his hart had not served him to take upon him the whole defence.  
49. But all these indeed are signs of feeblene in both parties, I mean as well in the Patron 〈◊〉 the Client, for that it is no less strange, that Sir 〈◊〉 Cook himself having set forth a certain Preface for some excuse of himself, and this after my Treatise of Mitigation (wherein he was so deeply charged with sundr● gross and wilful falsehoods) had been seen and read by him, and yet to say never a word of this charge, nor how he could discharge it: this silence (I say) is no less strange unto me then the other of M. Morton, but rather more, for that Sir Edward was to defend himself, M. Morton another: & propria magis premunt, our own affairs do more press us then other men's. Wherefore to the end that I may somewhat oblige both M. Morton in his promised Rejoinder to be more mindful of this matter, and Sir Edward himself (if he mean to write any more Books against us) to clear somewhat this Charge that was laid against him, I shall repeat the same again here as it was there set down in my other Treatise: Thus than I wrote at that tyme.  
50. Our last example (said I) shall be of Sir Edward Cook lately the King's Attorney, 
Mitig. p. 535.  who having taken upon him these years past to be both a sharp writer and earnest Actor against Catholics, 
The Charge laid against Sir Edward Cook.  seemeth therewith also to have drunk of this spirit in such abundant measure, as he is like in time to overrun all the rest, if he go forward as he hath begun. For that being admonished not long a go, by one that answered his last Book of Reports, of divers notorious his excesses committed in this kind, he is (men say) so far of from correcting or amending the same as he hath not only in a late large declamation against catholics, 
See the answer ●f the Cath. Divine to the 1. p. of Sir ●●ward Cook●. Reports c. ultimo.  in a Charge given by him at Nor●ich, repeated and avouched again the same excesses, but hath added others also thereunto of much more apparent falsity. As for example, he was admonished among other points, that it was a notorious untruth which he had written and printed, that for the first ten years of Q. Elizabethes' Reign, no one person of what religion or Sect soever did refuse to go to the Protestants Church & Service: which the Answerer confuteth so clearly & by so many witnesses, as a man would have thought that the matter would never have been mentioned more for very shame: and yet now (they say) that the Attorney being made a judge hath not only repeated the same, but avouched it also again with such asseveration in his foresaid Charge, as if it had never been controlled or proved false.  
51. Nay further they write, that he adjoined with like asseveration divers other things, no less apparently false than this: As for example: 
A notable fiction against Pius V.  that Pope Pius Quintus before he proceeded to any Ecclesiastical Censure against Q. Elizabeth wrote unto her a Letter, offering to allow & ratify the English Service, Bible and Communion book, as now it is in use in that kingdom, if she would accept it as from him: which she refusing to do, he did excommunicate her. By which tale he acquitteth notwithstanding catholics (if you mark it) from procuring that Excommunication for rebellion, which elsewhere he often objecteth most odiously against them. For if upon this cause she were excommunicated, what part had Catholics therein? But yet I must needs say, that the fiction is one of the most unlikely things, and the most impossible in moral reason, that any man can devise. For that Pope Pius Quintus, albeit some man would imagine him to be so good a fellow, as to care for no Religion (who is known to have been most zealous) yet had he adventured his Popedom by making such an offer. 
Decret. p. 1. dist. 40. ca 6. Si Papa.  For he should have allowed of divers points in the Communion book, which are held by the Catholic Church for heresy, and so condemned by the Council of Trent and other councils. And now you know it is a ground among us, that a Pope that should be an Heretic, or approve of heresy, thereby ceaseth to be Pope: how improbable then is this of Pius Quintus his offer? And why had not this Letter in so many years been published to the world for the credit of the English Service, and discredit of the Popes? And yet the voice is, that the Lord Cook did so earnestly avouch this matter, as he pawned therein not only his credit and honesty by express terms of protestation, but even his ●aith also to God and man: a great adventure no doubt. And for that I assure myself that the greater part of the Auditory being discreet men, did imagine it to be quite false, as I and others in effect do know it to be: it mu●t needs be a great blemish to my Lord's credit at the beginning of his ●udgship, that in other things also he be not believed.  
52. But I understand that the Book of this speech or charge now printed is expected shortly, 
The L. Cook's charge against Catholics.  together with some other appertaining to the same man, and then it may be, that some body will examine matters more particularly (especially those that appertain to the injuring of Catholics) and afterward return with the aggrievances to the judge himself (seeing he is now a judge) to give sentence of his own oversightes. Albeit I must confess that as well myself, as divers other men have lost great hope of his Lordship by this accident: for before we did think that his overlashing in speeches when he was Attorney did proceed in great part of the liberty of that office, and that when he came to be judge he would reform his Conscience ratione Status, in regard of his state of life: but now it seemeth that he is far worse: though this I say shallbe left by me to others to be discussed upon the sight of the foresaid printed Books.  
53. My speech at this time shall be only about that which passed in his Book of Reports while he was Attorney, and which hath been disputed these months passed between him and a Catholic Divine of our party in his answer to the said Reports, which Answer is in England. And albeit thereby may easily be seen the talon which M. Attorney had, while he was Attorney in this kind of worst Equivocation (notwithstanding his often declamations against the other sort, that with due circumstances we have proved to be lawful) yet will I here adjoin one example more, but such a one as is worth the noting and bearing away. And it is this.  
54. That whereas in answering of divers laws, statutes and ordinances which the Attorney alleged out of the Reigns of sundry ancient Kings, to prove that they did exercise spiritual authority and jurisdiction, the Divine sometimes not having the law books by him out of which the said laws or authorities were cited, supposing the allegations to be ordinarily true (●or who would suspect lawyers to be false in their citations, 
The Divine deceived by the subtlety of the Lawyer.  that were wont to be accounted most exact in that point) did answer the same with that sincerity of truth and reason, as to a man of his profession appertained: though sometimes also he was forced to suspect some fraud, and therepon requested such as had commodity in England to see the Books, that they would peruse the places and take them out Verbatim: which some have done, and have found such store of Equivocations and false dealing in the alleging thereof, as never could be imagined in a man of his calling. I shall only set down one example, and it shall be the first that is cited by him in the whole Book, to wit, of the Charter of King Kenidphus of the West Saxons, unto the Abbey of Abindon in Berkshire; which Charter M. Attorney set down with this Preface. To confirm (saith he) those that hold the truth, and to satisfy such as being not instructed know not the ancient and modern laws etc. these few demonstrative prooses shall serve.  
55. And then beginneth he with the said Charter of king Kenulphus before the conquest, 
K. Kenulphus his charter notably falsified by M. Att. Reports fol. 9  meaning to prove thereby, that the said king did give unto the said Abbey of Abindom spiritual jurisdiction by virtue of his temporal Crown, exempting the same from all authority of the Bishop: which indeed was done by the Pope; and so the Charter itself doth plainly express, if it had been truly related by M. Attorney. And for that the Case is not long I shall set it down Verbatim, as the Attorney hath it in his Book pag. 9 only putting into English that which is recited by him in Latin, and left without any translation to make the matter more obscure: & then shall we lay forth also the true Case, whereby willbe seen how true a dealer M. Attorney is in those his writings and protestations, which after we shall more largely consider of. Thus then beginneth the Charter.  
56. Kenulphus Rex etc. per literas suas Patentes, consilio & consensu Episcoporum & Senatorun Gentis suae, 

The charter as M. Attorney allegeth it, anno 755.  
Stanford l. 3. c. 39 fol. 1012.   largitus fuit Monasterio de Abindon in Comitatu Bark. & cuidam Ruchino tunc Abbati Monasterij etc. quandam ruris sui portionem, id est, quindecim mansias, in loco qui à Ruricolis tunc nuncupabatur Culnam, cum omnibus v●i●itatibus ad eandem pertinentibus, tam in magnis quam in mod●cis rebus, in aeternam haereditatem. Et quòd praedictus Ruchinus etc. ab omni Episcopali iure in sempiternum esset quietus: ut inhabitatores eius nullius Episcopi aut suorum Officialium iugo inde deprimantur: Sed in cunctis rerum eventibus & discussionibus causarum, Abbatis Monasterij predicti decreto subiiciantur: ita quòd etc. Thus goeth the Charter as M. Attorney allegeth it, which in English is as followeth.  
57 King Kenulphus etc. by his letters Patents with the Counsel & consent of the Bishops and counsellors of his Nation, did give to the Monastery of Abindon in Berkshire, and to one Ruchinus Abbot of that Monastery a certain portion of his land, to wit, ●ifteene Mansions, in a place called by the Country men Culnam, with all profits and commodities, gr●●t ●nd small appertaining thereunto, for ●ue●las●ing inheritance. And that the foresaid R●●●inus etc. should be quiet from all right of the Bishop for ever: so as the inhabitants of that place shall not be depressed for the time to come by the yoke of any B●shop or his Officers, but that in all events of things & Controversies, of Cases, they shallbe subject to the decree of the Abbot of the said Monastery. So as etc. And then doth M. Attorney continue his speech thus:  

Mark M. Attorneys inference upon his own falsification.  58. This Charter was pleaded in 1. H. 7. & vouched by Stan●ord as at large appeareth: which Charter granted above 850. years syt●ece, was a●ter confirmed per Edwinum Britāni●e Angiorum Regem & Monarcham, anno Domini 955, By which appears, that the King by this Charter made in Parliament (for it appeareth to be made by the Couns●ll and constant of his Bishops and Senators of his Kingdom which w●re assembled in 
* This is false.  Parliament) did discharged and exempt the said Abbot fr●m the jurisdiction of the Bishop etc. And by the same Charter did grant to the same Abbot Ecclesiastical jurisdiction within his said Abb●●, wh●ch Ecclesiastical jurisdiction b●ing 
* This also is false.  derived f●ō●he C●o●●, contynned until the dissolution o● the said Abbey in the Reign 〈◊〉" K. Henry the eight. So he.  
59 And by this you may see, what an important Conclusion he doth in●erre of the King's supreme jurisdiction in spiritual affairs at that time: whereunto the Divine coming to answer, and supposing that M. Attorney would not ●alsify or belly his Authors, 
M. Att. solemn protestation falsified, Reports fol. 40.  having protested most solemnly fol. 40. o● his Book, that he had cited truly the very words and texts o● the laws, resolutions, judgements and acts of Parliament all 〈…〉 and in print without any in●erence, argument or amplification, quoting particularly the Books, years, leaves, Chapters and other such l●ke certain referenc●s, as every man at his 〈◊〉 may see and read them etc. The Answerer, I say, hearing this formal protestation, and supposing beside, that the man would have some respect to ●is credit & honour in this behalf, granting all as it lay, answered the same as you may see in his Book. But now upon better search it falleth out, that this whole Case was falsely alleged by M. Attorney in the very point of the principal Controversy in hand about the King's spiritual jurisdiction: for that whatsoever the Char●ter did ascribe expressly to the Pope and his authority, the Attorney suppressing the true words, relateth it as proceeding from the King & temporal authority of his Crown. For proof whereof I shall set down the very words of my learned friends letter out of England about this point, after view taken of the law books themselves: and then let any man say, how far M. Attorney is to be credited in any thing he writeth or speaketh against Catholics.  
60. As concerning (saith my friend) the Charter of King Kenulphus for the Sanctuary of the Monastery of Abindon, 
The relation sent out of England about the true charter of K. Kenulphus.  you must know that M. Attorney hath egregiously abused his Reader in that and other points: for the Case standeth thus. That in the first year of King Henry the 7. Humphrey Stafford was attainted by Act of Parliament of high treason, & took Sanctuary first in Colchester in Essex, and after fled to Culnam, and took Sanctuary in the Abbey of Abindon: and being taken from thence brought unto the Tower of London, and from thence brought unto the King's Bench he pleaded that he was drawn by force out of the said Sanctuary of Culnam: and prayed his Counsel to plead that point: which by all the judges of both Benches was granted unto him. And so they pleaded in this manner.  
91. Idem Humphridus per Consilium suum dixit, quòd Kenulphus Rex Merciorum per Literas suas patentes, consilio & consensu Episcoporun & Senatorun gentis suae largitus suit Monasterio de Abindon, accuidam Ruchino tunc Abbati Monasterij illius, quandam ruris sui portionem, id est quindecim Mansias, in loco qui à Ruricolis ●unc nuncupabatur Culnam, cum omnibus v●ilitatibus ad eand●m partinentibus, tam in magnis quam in modicis rebus in aeternam haereditatem. Et quòd praedicius Ruchi●us ab omni Regis obstaculo & ●piscopali ●ure in s●mpit●rnum esset quietus, ut inhabitator●seius nullius Regis aut Mini●●rorū suorum, Episcopi●e, aut suorum Offi●ialium i●go inde deprimerentur, sed in cunctis rerum eventibus & dis●tissionibus causarum Abbatis Monasterij praedicti decreto su●ij●●r●ntur. Ita quòd etc. And here ceaseth M. Attorney leaving out as you see in his recital the words that go before ab omni Regis obstaculo, that the Monastery should be free from all obstacle of the King, as also these words: ut inhabitatores eius nullius Regis aut Ministrorum suorum iugo deprimantur: that the inhabitants be not oppressed with any yoke of any King or his Ministers. Whereby is evident that the King in his Charter did for his part give exemptions from temporal and Royal power But especially the fraud is seen by cutting of the words that do ensue, which decide the whole controversy, which are these. Et etiam allegavit ultra, quòd Leo tunc Papa concessit dicto Abbati dictas immunitates & privilegia. Et quod Edwinus tunc Britanniae Anglorum Rex & Monarchus cō●●ssit, quòd praesatum Monast●rium omnis terr●nae s●r●●tu●is esset liberum, quae à pr●dec●ssori●us suis Catholicis, videlicet à dic●o sancto L●●ne Papa, & dic●o Rege K●n●lpho etc. Et quòd virtute literarum & Bullar●m praediciarum & t●mpore con●ec●ionis earu●d●m, eadem villa de Culnam suit Sanctuarium & l●cus privilegiatus etc. Which in English is thus. 
This decideth the whole controversy: and therefore was fraudulēt●ly cut of by M. Att.  And moreover the said ●umphrey Stafford by his Counsel alleged further for himself, that Pope Leo had granted unto the said Abbot the said immunities & pr●uiledges: & that king Edwin then King & Monarch over all the English in Brittany had granted that the said Monastery should be free from all earthly servitude, which by his Catholic predecessors, to wit, the said holy Pope Leo, and the said King Ken●lphu● was granted: and that at the time of the making of the foresaid letters Patents and Bulls, the said village or Town of Culnam was a Sanctuary & privileged place by virtue of the said Patents and Bulls.  
62. This is word for word the very plea of Humphrey Stafford for the Sanctuary of the Monastery of Abindon, as it was pleaded by his learned Counsel in law, even as it is recorded in the Reports of the years of K. H●nry the seventh, 
1. Henr. 7. printed by Pinson, & Brook tit. Corone, pl. 129.  as they are printed by Pinson the law printer in the time of K. Henry the eight, before the Protestant religion came up. And the Lord Brook in his Abridgement of the law, in the title of Corone, placito 129. doth accordingly set down the same Case, with mentioning of the Bulls of Pope Leo for the said immunities and privileges. But all the Protestant editions in the time of the late Queen Elizabeth printed by Tottell and Yestwort have committed a notable trick of falsification, 
A falsification of Protestant printers.  in leaving out altogether these markable words: That Leo then Pope did grant the said immunityes and privileges. And also those words of King Edwin, which of his Catholic predecessors S. Leo & King Kenulphus were granted. And again: By ●orce of the Letters and Bulls aforesaid the said village of Culnam was a Sanctuary and place privileged.  
63. And hereby also is evident, that the King did not by his Charter in Parliament (for it appeareth to be made by the Counsel and consent of his Bishops and Senators & not by Parliament, as M. Attorney doth misreport it) neither was there any Parliament held at that time in the land, or many hundredth years after (for as it appeareth by Holinsheads Chronicle pag. 34. the first use of Parliaments in England was in the time of King Henry the first: 
When parliaments began in England. ) it is clear (I say) that the King did not discharge and exempt the said Abbot from jurisdiction of the Bishop, nor did grant unto the said Abbot Ecclesiastical jurisdiction within the said Abbey, neither had that abbot any Ecclesiastical jurisdiction derived from the Crown: But as it appeareth by the authentic report of the Case, the Pope & the King did join both in making the said Sanctuary, according to their several powers & authorities. So that the exemption from Episcopal jurisdiction proceeded duly from the grant of Pope Leo: as likewise the exemption from all Regal & temporal jurisdiction proceeded from the Charter of King Kenulphus. Note also that King Edwins' Grant was only that the said Monastery should be free from all earthly servitude, & toucheth not any spiritual immunities or jurisdiction at all.  

The conclusion.  64. Thus far my friend out of England: and by this now you may see, how well M. Attorney hath observed his foresaid protestation: that he had cited the very words & texts of the Laws, without any inference, argument or amplification at all. And this being my friend's advertisement from England with like observation of many other places cited by M. Attorney with like fydelity, I thought good to produce this one amongst many (being the first in order) for a taste in this place, reserving the rest to a fitter, or at leastwise to a second edition of the foresaid answer of the Catholic Divine, where every thing may be referred to his due place: and with this will I end this Chapter. Thus far wrote I at that time in charge of Sir Edward.   

THE DISCHARGE AND Reckoning about the former Charge made to Sir Edward Cook. §. V.  
YOU have heard now this Charge, how important & substantial it is: and who would not have thought, but that either M● Morton or Sir Edward himself would have answered somewhat to the same in their Replies made since the publishing hereof, or at leastwise would have as much as mentioned it, especially M. Morton, who in a certain manner and law of urbanity was more obliged to take the patronage of Sir Edward's writings then himself: for so much as the Charge was given in a Book against M Morton, and he had so highly commended the said work of his Reports, as he calleth them The always reportable and memorable Reports: taking out of them sundry heads of examples, as his words are, that improve the Pope's Supremacy in causes Ecclesiastical & ascribe it to the king: which that you may see how substantial they are, I shall take the pains to set them down here, as they stand in his Book.  
66. I will point at some ●ew heads o● examples (saith he) o● our ancient Christian kings which Sir Edward Cook his majesties Attorney general in his always reportable & memorable Reports hath lately published. 
Five cases taken out of Sir Ed. Cook his Reports.  In the Reign o● king Edward the first (saith he) a Subject brought in a Bull of excommunication against another Subject o● this Realm, & published it: But it was answered that this was th●n according to the ancient laws o● England, 
Full satisf●ct. par. 3. pag. 41.  Treason against the King, and the Offender had been drawn and hanged, but that by the mercy of the Prince he was only abjured the Realm etc.  
67. At the same time the Pope by his Bull had by way of provision bestowed a benefice upon one within the Province of ●orke, the King presented another: 
1 Reports fol. 12.  the Archbishop re●useth the King's presentation, and yielded to the Pope's provision. This Archbishop then by the common law o● the land was deprived o● the lands o● his whole Bishopric during ly●e. 
2 Reports fol. 15.  And in the Reign of king Edw●rd ●he third the king presented to a Benefice, & his Presentee was disturbed by one, who had obtained a Bull from Rome: for the which cause he was condemned to perpetual imprisonment etc.  
68 In the Reign o● Richard the second, 
3 Reports fol. 21.  it was declared in the Parliament (R. 2. c. 2.) that England had always been ●ree and in subjection to no Realm, but immediately subject to God & to none other: and that the same ought not in any th●ng touching the regalty of the Crown to be submitted to the Bishop of Rome, nor the laws of their Realm by him frustrated at his pleasure etc. 
4 Reports fol 23.   
69. In the Reign of King Henry the fourth it was confirmed that Excommunication made by the Pope is o● no force in England etc. 
5 Reports. fol. 26●  In the Reign of King Edward the fourth, the opinion of the King's Bench was, that whatsoever spiritual man should sue another spiritual man in the Court of Rome for a matter spiritual, where he might have remedy be●ore his Ordinary within the Realm, did incur the danger of praemunire, being an heynons offence against the honour of the King, his Crown and dignity.  
70. Thus far M. Morton out of Sir Edward Cook: then he addeth: Many other examples of like nature I pretermit, and remit the Reader desirous to be further satisfied, unto the book o● Reports: habet enim ille quod det, & dat nemo largiùs. For he hath to give, and no man giveth more abundantly. This is his Encomium: But what doth he give? truth or falsehood? sincere or wrested allegations? matter to the purpose or impertinent? That we shall here now discuss, & show that neither the examples themselves are altogether true as here they are set down: nor if they were, yet do they not prove the purpose, for which they are alleged: And first we shall prove the second which most importeth: and it is easily proved.  
71. For first Sir Edward's purpose & obligation was to prove, that Q. Elizabeth by force of her temporal Crown had all manner of Supreme authority in spiritual affairs, no less than any person ever had, did, or could exercise in England, as the words of the Statute have, alleged by him: and the purpose of M. Morton was as appeareth by the title of his Treatise, to improve the Pope's supreme authority in Causes Ecclesiastical: So as both their ends and purposes were by different means to prove, that the Pope had no supreme authority in Ecclesiastical matters for time passed in England: the one by ascribing all to the King: the other by denying it to the Pope. But this purpose of theirs either in the one or the other point is not proved by any one of all these examples, nor by them altogether, though they were granted to be true as here they lie. For that they do not prove, that either our Kings here mentioned did assume to themselves to have Supreme authority in spiritual affairs, or to take it from the Pope: nay the Catholic Divine in answering to Sir Edward's objections herein, doth evidently show and prove, yea convinceth, that these five English Kings here mentioned, to wit, King Edward the first, Edward the third, Richard the second, Henry the fourth, & Edward the fourth, under whom these Cases fell out, did all of them most effectually acknowledge the Pope's supreme authority in Ecclesiastical matters, and were obedient Children to the same, as he showed by sundry most clear and apparent examples of their own actions towards the Sea Apostolic: and that these particular Cases, supposing they were all true, and fell out as here they are set down, to wit, that the publishing of a Bull of Excommunication in some Causes, and under some King might be held for Treason: as also that the Archbishop's lands might be seized upon for refusing to admit the Kings presented Clerk: & that in Parliament it was said, that the Regality of the Crown of England depended not of Rome: and that in certain Cases no suits might be made thither, without recourse first to the Ordinaries of England.  
72. Albeit I say that these things were all granted as they lie, 
False inferences.  yet do they not infer by any true consequence that which the Knight and Minister should prove, to wit: that for this either these kings were, or held themselves for supreme in spiritual authority at that time, or that it was denied unto the Pope. Whereof this one is a most convincent argument, that the like Cases do or may fall out at this day in other Catholic Countries and Kingdom●s, as in France, Spain, Naples, and Sicily, where ●here be divers Concordates, res●rictions & limitations agreed upon for avoiding further inconveniences between the Pope and Catholic Kings and Princes, concerning the manner of execution of Ecclesiastical authority, without any derogation to the Supremacy thereof in the Pope. And so might men be punished by the said Princes for breaking rashly the said agreements, as they may and are daily in the said Kingdoms, especially in the last: and yet do not these Kings thereby either deny the Pope's supreme authority, or take it to themselves (as M. Attorney & M. Morton do falsely ininferre) in these our cases. And thus it is manifest, that albeit these examples were in all respects truly alleged: yet are they impertinent to prove that which is pretended. And this for the first point.  

False dealing.  73. But neither is it all true, that here is set down, nor as it is set down, which is the second point to be considered. For which cause though I find these five Cases sufficiently answered by the Catholic Divine in his late Book against M. Attorney: y●t for t●at the said Knight in his last Preface to the sixth part of his Reports, doth say that he findeth him utterly ignorant in the laws of the Realm (though as a Divine he made no profession to be skilful in the same) yet shall I add somewhat to the review of these Cases: whereby it may appear at leastwise, whether he, to wit, the Divine, or M. Attorney, or M. Morton have used the skill of their professions with more sincerity in this matter.  

The 1. case again discussed.  74. The first Case th●n is thus set down by M. Morton, out of the Attorneys book, though not altogether as it lieth in his book, but with some advantage, as the Attorney did out of his Books whereof he took his Case. 
Full satisf. par. 3. pag. 41. Reports part. 1. fol. 12. Mitig. p. 267.  So as here is helping the die on all hands as you see. In the Reign of King Edward the first (saith M. Morton) a Subject brought in a Bull of excommunicati● against another Subject of this Realm and published it: But it was answered, that this was then according to the ancient laws of England treason etc. as before is set down.  
75. Wherein I must note first, before I come to examine the answer already made, that M. Morton can not choose, as it seemeth, but to use a trick or two of his art of juggling, even with M. Attorney himself. For whereas he relateth (to with the Attorney) that this Bull of excommunication was published to the Treasurer of England, 
T. M● clipping of hi● Author.  M. Morton clippeth of all mention of the Treasurer, which notwithstanding in this Case is of great moment: for so much as it seemeth that if he had published the same to the Archbishop or Bishops appointed to have the view of such things and had brought their authentical testimonies for the same, it seemeth by the very book itself of justice Thorpe, who recounteth this Case by occasion of the Case of Sir Thomas Seaton and Lucy, 30. E. 3. that it had been little or no peril at all unto the publisher; for that this reason is alleged for the offence therein committed: 
30. Ed. 3. l. Ass. pl. 19  that for so much as the party (to wit, Lucy against Sir Thomas Seaton) did not show any writ of excommunication, or any other thing sealed by the Archbishop of England, nor any other Seal that was authentic proving this: therefore the Bull was not allowed etc.  
76. This than was a fine trick, 
Brook in his Abridgement, tit. Praemunire pl. 10.  to cut of all mention of the Treasurer: the other also immediately following hath some subtility in it, though not so much as the former, to wit, that it was answered, that this was Treason etc. for that in none of the books cited either of Thorpe or Brooke is any mention of such answer given, as M. Morton feygneth: nor any such judgement of Treason passed thereon, as M. Attorney would make his Reader believe, as presently shall be proved: So as these are the first two tricks of M. Morton, to help his dye: all the rest for the substance of the matter is like to fall upon M. Attorney.  

Answer to the Reports pag. ●67.  77. First then the Answer of the Divine unto this Case (not having commodity at that time to see the two books of Thorpe and Brooke cited in the margin) was, that it could not possibly be imagined, by reason that the Case stood altogether as M. Attorney did set it down, especially with this note in the margin, that the bringing in of a Bull against a subject was Treason by the ancient common laws of England, before any Statute law was made thereof: for that the Divine demandeth what this Common law was, not made by Statute? How was it made? By whom? Where? At what time? Upon what occasion? How introduced and commonly received (for all this a Common law supposeth) especially for so much as the said Divine had showed and abundantly proved now, 
The Divines reason against the probability of the Attorneys assertion.  that all precedent Kings of England both before and after the Conquest were most Catholic in this very point of acknowledging the Pope's supreme and universal authority in spiritual affairs, whereof the power of excommunication throughout the world upon just causes is a principal member: so as except they would introduce a law contrary to their own belief, or suffer a law to grow and be made common in their Realm without their knowledge or assent, it is absurd to imagine that there could be such a Common law against the Pope's Excommunications before the days of King Edward the first, and before any Statute was made against the same, as M. Attorney avoucheth.  
78. Secondly he showeth out of the testimony of Matth. Westmonast. that this King Edward being in a great heat of offence against the Clergy of England, 
Westmon. in hist. anno 1197.  for that they denied to give him the half of their Rents and goods towards his wars, upon the express prohibition of Pope Bonifacius to the contrary: which prohibition some Clergy men upon fear transgressing, had compounded & made their peace with the King in that behalf, he doubting lest some of the other part of the Clergy would bring in an Excommunication against him, or against some of those that had compounded with him, made a Decree (saith Westmonaster.) commanding under pain of imprisonment, that no man should publish any sentence of Excommunication against the King himself, or those that had newly sought his protection: he making also a provocation or appeal as well for himself, as those that stood on his side, to the Court of Rome. Thus he. 
A convincing argument against M. Attorney.  And now let the prudent Reader consider (saith the Divine) that if the King even in his passion of choler did appoint but imprisonment, to be the punishment for bringing in an Excommunication against himself, and Clergy men that stood with him, how unlike is it, that by the common law it was treason against the King, his Realm, Crown and dignity (as M. Attorneys thundering words are) to bring in an excommunication against a Subject, which is much less, then against the King's person himself.  
79. Thirdly the said Divine, though he had not perused the law books at that time; yet did he yield the true Cause, why private men might not bring in excommunications and publish them at their pleasure, as now also is prohibited in other before named Catholic Kingdoms: but they were to be showed first to a Bishop, & under his Seal were to be certified unto the King's Courts: which since that time I have found to be set down expressly in the law-bookes themselves and craftily concealed by M. Attorney: for thus is it found written 11. Henr. 4● fol 64. Hancford the chie●e justice said, 
11. Henrici 4. fol. 64●  that he found in his books, that in the time of will.. ●erle (who was judge in the beginning of the reign of K. Edward the third) every officer or commissary of the Bishop might certify excommunication in the K. Court, and for the mischief that ensued thereof, it was advised by the Parliament that none ought to certify excommunication but only the Bishop, & so it is used at this day. Thus far are Hanckefords' words: whereby we may see why the party that published a Bull to the Treasurer of England without the Bishop's approbation incurred so high displeasure.  
80. Fourthly, the said Divine doth convince M. Attorney out of a Case alleged by himself afterward in the 31. year of the Reign of King Edward the third, 
Reports fol. 15.31. E. 3. tit● Excommunic. ●.  where he saith, that in an attachment upon a prohibition, the defendant pleading the Pope's Bull of excommunication of the Plaintive, the judges demanded of ●he defendant, if he had not the Certificate of some Bishop within the Realm testifying this excommunication etc. Whereby (saith he) it is made evident first, that private men were obliged to show their Bulls unto some Bishop, before they published the same: and secondly, it appeareth most clearly by the answers of the judges, that they held it not for treason in those days, nor made any such inference thereof: for that their only resolution was this, that for lack of this Certificate, the party excommunicated was not thereby disenabled to follow his plea in that Court: 
Note the force of this argument.  without saying any one word of danger or punishment against him, that had pleaded the Pope's Bull of excommunication: which they would never have omitted to do, if 50 years before that, under K. Edward the first it had been held for treason by the Common-law, to bring in or publish any Excommunication against a Subject.  
81. This than was the substance of the Divines answer at that time, which though it doth sufficiently convince M. Attorney to have abused his Reader egregiously in avouching with such resolution, that in K. Edward the first his time, it was by the ancient law of England, adjudged treason against the king, his Crown and dignity to publish any Bull of the Popes against any Subject of the Realm: yet having since that time had better commodity to inform myself of the lawbooks here mentioned, I will add some more proofs to those which now you have heard.  
82. First then I must let the Reader understand, 
An addition to the former answers.  that neither of those two books cited by M. Attorney lib. Ass. pl. 19.30. Ed. 3. and Brooke tit. Praemunire pl. 10. neither of them, I say, doth affirm, that it was Treason, or that there was any judgement of Treason given in that Case: which Case is related by justice Thorpe 30. Edwardi 3. thus. That whereas Sir Thomas Seaton sued a Bill in the Exchequer against a woman named Lucy for calling him Traitor, 
The case between Sir T. Seaton and Lucy.  felon, and robber, in the presence of the Treasurer and Barons of the Exchequer in contempt of the King and slander of the Court. Hereupon the said Lucy showed forth the Pope's Bull, proving the plaintive to be excommunicate, and therefore demanded judgement, whether he should be answered or not: And for that she did not show any writ of excommunication, nor any other thing sealed by the Archbishop etc. the Bull was not allowed: whereupon she was forced to answer, and pleaded not guilty. And in that plea Thorpe justice said, that in the time of the Grandfather of the King, which was K. Edward the first, ●or that one did notify an excommunication of the Apostle to the Treasurer of the King, the King would he should have been drawn and hanged, notwithstanding that the Chancellor and Treasurer did kneel before the King ●or him, yet by award he did abjure the Realm: and said that the woman was in a hard Case ●or showing forth this excommunication, if the king would. Thus far the said Book.  
83. Wherein we see first, that here is no answer made about treason as M. Morton affirmeth, nor judgement given as M. Attorney avoucheth, nor any such inference made by the judges: but only a case related, of what K. Edward the first in his anger would have had to be done to a man, that presented an excommunication to the Treasurer, to wit, he would have had him hanged and drawn about the same: which seeming to his judges not to be just, or according to law, did entreat the King not to put it in execution, but rather by way of award they made him abjure the Land (though this also was not due unto him by rigour of law) to pacify thereby the King's wrath. And it is not unlike to that Case, that fell out in England Anno Domini 1578. under Q. Elizabeth, when in her anger she would have had Peter Bourchet to have been put to death by Martial law, 
Peter Bourchets case anno 1578.  when he had wounded Sir john Hawkins instead of Sir Christopher Hatton: but the judges would not yield thereunto, as being against law, & therefore found out this temperament, that he should be committed to the Tower, and accused of matters of Religion, as Puritanisme and the like. Where afterwards he gave them a just cause of putting him to death, by killing his keeper. But as the Queen's will & passion made this no law, so neither did that other under K. Edward the first. So as M. Attorney did much abuse his Reader in averring it to be treason by the common law, & adjudged for such out of this Case.  
84. And if he will urge that the punishment of hanging and drawing implieth treason; it is answered, no: but that this rather maketh much for us. For that the punishment of treason (I mean high treason) is not only hanging and drawing but quartering also (excepting only the Case of counterfeiting of money, Stat. the 25. Ed● 3. de proditionibus) as appeareth by Stanford in his Book of the Pleas of the Crown fol. 182. but petty treasons, as of killing the master or Mistress by the servant, or of any Prelate by his subject etc. (which in effect are but felonies) are punished by hanging & drawing o●ly: whereof is consequent, that albeit K. Edward's will and commandment had been according ●o law, as ●t was not, yet had it in●erred no treason at all.  
85. And further to satisfy this matter and make it more clear, that the Reader was abused in this assertion, 
Four other reasons against Sir Edward.  I will add four several Reasons & arguments more out of the law-books themselves. The first is concerning the abjuring the Realm for pacifying the King, awarded in justice Thorp's Case: which proveth evidently, that it was not an offence of treason in the delinquent, for that abiura●ce is no punishment for treason, but only for felony, as appeareth by the said justice Stand●ord in his said Book fol. 116. where he setteth down the beginning of abiurance, 
The beginning of abiurance.  & how it was first ordained by S. Edwa●d before the Conquest, and was grounded upon mercy, when a man had committed felony, and fled to a Church or Churchyard for safety of his life: and did choose rather perpetual banishment then to stand to the law. So as abiurance by the old laws of England was at t●e election of the Offenders, and not at ●he will of the Prince. And afterward the said Stanford showing for what offences in particular a m●n might abjure the Realm, saith, that abjuration doth not lie ●or h●m that hath offended in high treason  
86. The second Reason is, that the said Stanford in his said book of the Pleas of the Crown fol. 182. intending to set down all offence of treason, which were either by the Common-law or Statute-law, doth not rela●e any such matter to be treason, as the bringing into the Realm Bulls of excommunication by one Subject against an other: which he would never have concealed, if he had found it held for such in any law book before him.  
87. The third Reason is to the same effect, that the Statute of 25. Ed. 3. being made for declaration of treasons, doth ●et down what offences were treasons by the Common law. In this Statute, I say, no mention at all is made, that the bringing in of Bulls of excommunication was treason or any other offence: which of likelihood cannot be presumed that they would have pretermitted to touch or mention, if any such thing had been.  

Pleading of Bulls no treason under K. Ed. 3. Hen. 4. Hen. ●.  88 The fourth Reason, and most concludent, is that we read in many Books of law, as 31. Ed. 3. excommunicate. 6. Fitzh. tit. Excom pl. 6.14. ●en. 4. ●ol. 14.8. Hen. 6. fol. 3 and else where, that divers Excommunications were pleaded in the King's Courts, and no matter of treason or other offence made thereof by the judges, which no doubt they would never have passed over so negligently & carelesely, if it had been treason by the common-law. Neither would any Counsel have presumed to plead the same so often in the said Courts, if there had been such peril or offence therein at that time as M. Attorney now pretendeth. 
Brook in his abridgement tit● Premuni●e. pl. 10.  Neither doth the authority of Brook here cited by M. Attorney patronise him in his voluntary mistaking & misconstruing of the law-books a foresaid: For that Brook doth not say, that the bringing in of Bulls was judged treason by law, as M. Attorney doth, but on●y maketh this note: So see punishment of that before the Statute of Praemunire: which maketh nothing for M. Attorn. purpose: and if it did, yet were it not to be equalled with so many grave authorities & evident convincing reasons, as before we have alleged to the contrary.  
89. Wherefore we must conclude that in this first Case M. Attorney hath sundry ways dealt unsincerly, and gone about to deceive his Reader, making him believe: that the bringing in & pleading of the Pope's Bulls in ancient time was treason according to the Common-lawes: which being now proved to be false, yet doth he so often repeat the same upon all occasions against Catholics both in writing, speaking, pleading: and ubrayding: as if it were a most certain truth or principle, and not to be controlled. Let us see somewhat of the other Cases.   

TO THE OTHER FOUR CASES objected by M. Morton out of Sir Edward Cook. §. VI  
IT were over long to answer so largely unto all the other Cases, as we have done to this first, especially for so much as the Divine hath done it very sufficiently and fully before, 
The second case about advousons and collations of benefices●  the second Case containing only a temporal matter about Advowsons' and authority thereby to present Clerks to benefices, which was an ancient custom of the Church of England, where temporal men having founded Churches and benefices, reserved to themselves the nomination and presentation of the persons that should enjoy the same: who if they were found fit and nothing to be proved against them, that might justly be opposed for their exclusion, than the Bishop of the diocese was bound to admit them. And if he did not, the Aduowsoner might have an Action against the said Bishop at the Commonlaw of Quare non admisit, as in a temporal Case: and if the Bishop could not excuse his not admitting of the Clerk of the Recoverer by some sufficient cause, than the plaintiff should recover damages against the Bishop, or else he might have upon the not executing the first writ to the Bishop an Alias, or a Pluries against him. 
An Alias and Pluries.  And if these were not served or sufficient excuse made upon the return thereof, why they were not served; then the party grieved might have an Attachment against the Bishop for his contempt. And if he were attached and would obstinately re●use to obey the King's commandment in admitting the sai● Clerk: then might the King for his contempt seize upon his temporalities which were o● t●e King's endowment. And this was the uttermost that the King could by law do against him: for that he could neither imprison, nor depose, or degrade him, there being no precedent to be found (as I suppose) of the first. And for the second, the law it sel● seemeth clear against it, as may appear by Bracton, fol. 401. Stanford, ●ol. 130. etc. But howsoever it be, this proveth nothing against the Pope's spiritual jurisdiction in England, this matter of Aduowsons' being mere temporal things and of the kings temporal inheritance, wherein as in all other temporal affairs, Bishops were bound to observe the temporal laws.  
91. The other point also that happened out under K. Edward the 3. when one was condemned to perpetual prison for having disturbed the Kings Presentee by Bulls from Rome, 
The third case about disturbing the patron's Presentee.  is nothing to the purpose at all, for that it appertained not to the Pope, but to the King's temporal inheritance, as hath been said, to present Clerks to such benefices as were of his peculiar patronage: and therefore it was ordained in the Statute of Carli●le in the 25. of Edw. the first, 
Statute of Carliele 25. E. 1.  that such as went about to disturb the same unjustly by false informations and negotiations at Rome, should be punished at the discretion of the Prince, so it were not with loss of life, member, or of his livood. And what inferreth this? Are not the like laws at this day in Spain and Sicily, and else where against them that transgress ordinations of those Realms about like affairs? Or doth this prove that those Catholic Realms do not acknowledge the Pope's Ecclesiastical Supremacy? Every child may see the weakness of these inferences: and yet upon these and the like doth all M. Attorneys Treatise lain and consist.  
92. As for the other Case under K. Richard 2. where it was propounded by the Commons in a certain narration that the Crown of England hath been at all times ●ree and in subjection to no Realm, 
The 4. case about dependence of the Crown.  nor to the B. of Rome touching the Regality of the Crown etc. it is so fully answered by the Divine in his Reply to the Reports, as no more needeth to be said. 
Ans. to Reports p. 211.  For that they speak but of temporal regalities, and have some reference also (as may be supposed) unto the time when the Sea Apostolic after the concession of K. john pretended temporal right also in that Crown. And the answer o● the Bishops in that Parliament with distinction that they would ●eld to that Statute, so far forth as they did not prejudice the ancient jurisdiction Ecclesiastical of the said Sea Apostolic in spiritual affairs, doth evidently show; that this objection maketh nothing to the purpose, to deny thereby any part of the Pope's supreme Ecclesiastical authority; and consequently as it was impertinently alleged by M. Attorney to that effect in his Reports: so much more fond was it chosen out by M. Morton, as a matter of moment to furnish his Book withal.  
93. And as for the last Case under K. Edward the fourth where he saith, 
The 5. case about suits in Rome.  That it was the opinion of the King's Bench, that whatsoever spiritual man should sue another spiritual man in the Court of Rome for a ma●ter spiritual, where he might have remedy before his Ordinary, that is the Bishop of the diocese within the Realm, he incurreth the danger of Praemunire, being an heinous offence against the honour of the King, his Crown & dignity: though the former answer of the Divine be very sufficient in this case, yet must I needs add ●n this place, 
Answer to reports pag. 232.  that it is rather an heinous offence in such a man as M. Attorney is, or should be, to misreport and misconstrue his law-bookes, thereby to make some● show o● probability against the ancient power Ecclesiastical of the Sea Apostolic in England, whereas the said Books being rightly alleged & understood, do make wholly for it. 
9 E. 4. fol. 3.  As for example here in this case alleged out of 9 Ed. the 4. ●ol. 3. the saying is only of Yeluerton of the king's Bench: 
justice Yelue●tō.  and his Report is meant, when a spiritual man shall sue an other that is a temporal man in the Court of Rome for a thing mere temporal he shall incur the said punishment: For that for one spiritual man to sue another spiritual man in the Court of Rome in spiritual Causes, was a thing all ways lawful and usual, both before the time of K. Ed. 4. and after, 
14. H. 4 ●. 14.  until it was forbid by King Henry the eight. And that this is true, that it was lawful by the Common-law in K. Henry 4. time appeareth expressly by the Book of 14. H. 4. fol. 14. Neither can (I think) M. Attorney allege any example, where the same is prohibited either by Common or Statute law, during the time aforesaid.  

Fitzh. abused.  94. And whereas for strengthening this his false assertion he citeth in his Margin, vide Fitzh. in Nat. Breu. fol. 45. lit. ●. agreeing herewith. And further adds a Notandum for the same, as a matter notorious, he doth notoriously abuse his Reader: 
The true case set down.  For that Fitzh. speaketh not at all of a Praemunire, but only, That if one sueth another out of the Realm for debt or other cause, whereof the king's Court may have conusance, he shall have a prohibition against him: And so if one Clerk sue an other upon title of Collation o● any Prebendary out of the Realm etc. he shall have also this prohibition. And if a man purchaseth out of the Court o● Rome against any Clerk or others, any Citation directed unto the Archbishop of Canterbury or any others to cite such a person to appear be●ore the Pope etc. to answer for the Collation or Presentation unto any benefice or Prebendary; a prohibition shall lie in this Case. Hitherto Fitzher. in his writ of prohibition. And this is all that he hath in that place of this matter. So you see, that all that Fitzherbert saith, is but that a prohibition shall lie, for suing in the Court of Rome for debt or title of Patronage, or such other temporal Causes whereof the King's Court may have conusance: and he maketh no mention of any Praemunire. And yet every puny Student in the Law can tell how much difference there is betwixt a Praemunire and a Prohibition: & that Sir Edward dealt not sincerely, when he brought in the one for the other.  
95. So then we so what striving & wresting, & worse usage M. Attorney offereth to his law-bookes, to make them seem to say somewhat against us, and for Protestant religion, against which most of them were written, as all of them before our times without exception in favour of the Catholics. We see also the pitiful choice that M. Morton hath made of these five Cases out of all M. Attorneys Reportable Reports against the Pope's supreme Ecclesiastical authority. 
Five fond comparings not worth a paring.  But if we will consider the wise glosses Commentaries, and comparings which the Minister maketh very Ministerially upon every one of those Cases after he hath related the same, it will appear much more ridiculous. For to the first (which evidently convinced both him and M. Attorney of falsity if you remember, for affirming that to be treason by the Common law which is not) he saith thus: Compare this Bull, which did only push at a subjects benefice, with that Bull which goareth Kings. And to the second: Compare this Bull of disturbans the Presentee of Kings, with that which doth ordinarily violate kings persons. And to the third: Compare this English King immediately not subject to the Pope, with the jesuitical principle: All Kings are indirectly subject to Popes. And to the fourth: Compare this that the excommunication of the Pope is of no force in England, with those excommunications, which in these later times have been m●de against England.  
96. And to the fifth: Compare this (o● the punishment of them that drew men ●or suits to Rome) with their acts, who have made no other suit to Rome, but ●or means to dispossess English Kings o● their Crown and dignity. All these comparings I say, are not worth a paring: and it was great idleness in M. Mort. to fill up paper & spend time in such comparings: whereas the matters & things themselves whereon these ●on conned parisons are founded, are found to be falsely applied as now hath been showed. Wherefore this hath not served any whit to justify his Client or himself, but rather to confirm & aggravate the former Charges given against them both. And it is to be considered, that if in these five Cases chosen out by M. Morton out of five & fifty cited by M. Attorney against the Pope's authority before King Henry the 8. his Reign, so many false tricks are found, what would the number be, if we should discuss all the rest with like survey? Surely if M. Attorney might be presumed to have dealt no more sincerely in the rest of his Reports (whereof six several parts are now published) than he hath done in these, concerning R●ligi●, they might be called reportable reports indeed, in respect of the infinite untruths reported by them: & few Lawye●s, I think, would be at the cost to buy them. But I will not suspect this, for that in those other there is no interest, as I suppose, to wrest them to partiality, as there was in this: both in regard of hi●●erswasion in religion, & favour with the Pr●ce. But now let us pa●se to peruse and say somewhat of his late new preface which subministreth some new matter to be handled in this place.    

THE EIGHT CHAPTER WHICH BY OCCASION OF TWO NEW PREFACES lately set forth by the said SIR EDWARD COOK, doth handle divers Controversies, as well about a Nihil dicit, objected by him to his Adversary: AS also about the Antiquity, & Excellency of the Municipal Common laws of England, and some other points.  

THE PREFACE.  
AFTER I was well entered into this work for answering M. Morton his Preamble, I came to the sight of a new Preface set forth by Sir Edward Cook before the sixth Part of his Reports, lately published: & for that the name and argument of Preamble and Preface came so jointly together from two different Authors, and that the ●inall purpose of the one and the other therein (for so much as concerneth our subject of Religion and justifying themselves about that which they had written thereof, to the slander & injury of Catholic profession) seemed to me to be one & the very same; which was, to subtract their shoulders from the weight of the matter in answering the whole that was written against them, and by a new ●leight and devise o● Pre●aces and Preambles, 
Prefaces and Preambles instead of books.  and promising further treatise, to divert the Readers attention from the principal business, and to entertain him with other fancies and general terms, as though they had answered somewhat indeed. For this I thought it not amiss to join them also together in this my Reply; and as I had answered the one largely and particularly, so to say somewhat also to the other: especially, for so much as notwithstanding this Preface came forth long after that the Author thereof Sir Edward had seen my former Charge laid against him, in the last Chapter of my Treatise of Mitigation; yet here doth he not only not answer any thing thereunto, but neither so much as mentioneth the same, as before hath been said: only in this place he hath a certain snatch at the Divines answer against his Reports: and I call it a snatch, for that it containeth scarce one page against the others whole Book of above 400. and yet doth he so confidently condemn his adversary both of ignorance, and boldness, as if he had confuted him indeed by a large convincement; wherein you shall hear his own words.  

In the preface to the 6. part of his Reports.  2. When I looked into the book (saith he) ever expecting some answer to the matter, in the end I ●ound the Author utterly ignorant (but exceeding bold, as commonly those qualities concur) in the laws of the Realm, the only subject of the matter in hand: but could not find in all the book any authority out of the books of the common laws of the Realm, Acts of Parliament, or any legal, or judicial records, quoted or cited by him for the maintenance of any of his opinions or conceits: whereupon (as in justice I ought) I had judgement given ●or me, upon a Nihil dicit, and therefore cannot make any replication. ●hus far Sir Edward, wherein as you see, he answered all that large work of the Divine in few words, condemning him of ignorance, boldness, and of saying nothing at all, in so large a Discourse: but as for the former two points of ignorance and boldness, and whether he cited no one authority at all out of any law-books, shall be afterward discussed more particularly: now only in this Paragraph shall we consider how true this last assertion is, that the Divine said nothing at all, and that thereupon Sir Edward had judgement given for him upon a Nihi● dicit.   

WHETHER the Catholic Divine might be justly condemned of a Nihil dicit, or no? no I.  
FIRST then for trying of this point● I would demand, what judge gave this judgement, ●ith●r Sir Edward himself (for he is now a judge) or an other, and upon what due information? If himself did give sentence for himself, it may easily be excepted against, as suspected of partiality: for that no man, I think, can be both judge and party, even by Sir Edward's laws (for according to those of Saint Edward I am sure he could not) in his own cause. But if another judge gave the sentence, let us know, who it was and upon what proofs & grounds (for that such sentences, I suppose, are not yet brought to be arbitrary in England nor permitted to every judges will, and liking, without any proofs or grounds at all:) which being supposed, I am content to stand herein, not only to any judge that sitteth upon any of his majesties Benches at this day, but even to Sir Edward himself, with condition only that he will be content with patience to hear my reasons, which are these that ensue.  
4. First, a judgement of Nihil dicit cannot proceed, as I suppose, but upon one of these two causes, that ●yther the party saith nothing at all, 
Two causes inferring a Nihil dicit.  as when one standing at the bar to answer for his life, will for saving of his goods and lands utterly hold his peace: or when he speaketh, his speech is nothing to the purpose. But neither of these causes can be justly alleged in our case. Not the first, for that the Catholic Divines printed Answer is large, and containeth, as I have said, above 400. pages in quarto. Not the second as now shall evidently be declared; ergo, no judgement could pass in justice upon a Nihil dicit in behalf of Sir Edward against the said Divine.  
5. Now then, let us come to demonstrate that the Catholic Divine did speak to the purpose in deed: for better understanding whereof we must recall to memory, the true state of the question, and what Sir Edward Cook, than Attorney, upon his offer and obligation was to prove, to wit, 
The principal point, that Sir Edward must prove.  that Queen Elizabeth by the right of her temporal Crown had supreme spiritual, & Ecclesiastical authority over all her subjects, in Ecclesiastical affairs, as largely as ever any person had or could have in that Realm, and this by the common laws of England before any Statute law was made in that behalf. For proof whereof the said Attorney pretended to lay forth a great number of cases, examples, and authorities out of his law-bookes, which he said should prove the ancient practice of this authority in Christian English Kings, both before and since the Conquest: which being his purpose, whatsoever his adversary the Catholic Divine doth allege substantially to overthrow this his assertion, and to prove that Q. Elizabeth neither had, nor could have this spiritual Authority, though she had been a man; neither that any of her ancestors Kings and Queens of England did ever pretend, or practise the like authority: this (I say) cannot be judged to be from the purpose, & much less a Nihil dicit. Let us examine then the particulars.  
6. The Catholic Divine at his first entrance, for procuring more attention in this great and weighty controversy between M. Attorney and him about the Spiritual power and authority over souls in the modern English Church, 
Answer to Reports in the Preface.  doth aver the question to be of such moment, as that the determination of all other controversies dependeth thereof. 
The high importance of this controversy.  For that wheresoever true spiritual authority and jurisdiction is found, there must needs be the true Church, to whom it appertaineth to determine of the truth of the doctrine taught therein, or in any other false Church or congregation, for approving the one, & condemning the other. Whereof consequently also dependeth everlasting salvation, or condemnation of all those that believe, or not believe those doctrines.  
7. He showeth further, that the life, & spirit, & essence of the true Church in this world, consisteth in this true jurisdiction of governing and directing souls by preaching, teaching, binding, and absolving from sin, administering true Sacraments, and the like. And that where this true power & Ecclesiastical jurisdiction is not lawfully found, but either none at all, or violently assumed, there wanteth this vital spirit. Neither is it any Church at all, but a Synagogue rather of Satan: and therefore that the fir●t and chief care of every Christian ought to be for saving of his soul, (especially in times of strife, contentions, and heresies, as are these of ours) to study well this point, and to inform himself diligently therein: for if he find this, he findeth all: and i● he miss in this, he misseth in all. Nor is it possible for him to be saved.  
8. Moreover he declareth, that as in England at this day there be three different professio●s of religion, 
Th●ee different professions of Religion in Englā●, with their grounds or spiritual jurisdiction.  the Protes●ant, the Puritan, and the Catholic, all three claiming this true and vital power o● Ecclesiastical jurisdiction to be in their Congregations: so do they derive the same from three different heads and fountains immediately, though all pretend that mediately at leastwise it cometh from God. The Protestants taking it from the Temporal Prince's authority, given him from God by right of his Crown, as here is taught by M. Attorney: The Puritans from the people gathered together in their congregation. The Catholics from their Bishops, and Prelates descending by continual succession from the Apostles, to whom they believe that Christ first gave heavenly power and jurisdiction for governing of souls, and especially to the chief Bishop Successor to S. Peter, and not unto temporal Princes, or to lay people or popular Congregations made by themselves, who cannot properly be called Successors of the Apostles: and this difference, as it is manifest, and evident; so is it of such weight, as it maketh these three sorts of men, and their Congregations, or Churches irreconcilable: for that which soever of these three parts hath this true jurisdiction Ecclesiastical, hath thereby the tru● Church, as hath been said, & maketh the other two to be no Churches at all, but rather profane, and Diabolical Synagogues, and such as have neither true Prelates, nor Prelacy, nor true preaching, nor teaching, nor Sacraments, nor absolution of sins, nor any one act, or thing o● a Christian Church in them. And that the trial of all this dependeth of the discussion of this controversy between M. Attorney and him. All this hath the Divine in his first entrance. And did he not herein speak to the purpose? or can this be condemned for a Nihil di●it?  
9 A●ter this for better understanding of the whole controversy, the Divine layeth down at large the ground, beginning and origen of all lawful power and jurisdiction of men, over men, 
The origen and ordinance of both powers spiritual and temporal.  both spiritual and temporal, in this world: showing how both of them are from God, though differently: the spiritual being instituted immediately by him, and delivered to the Apostles, and their Successors; but the temporal mediately, that is to say, given first to the Common wealth to choose what form of government they list, and by mediation of that election giving to temporal Princes supreme Authority in all temporal affairs.  
10. Then he showeth the different ends, and objects of these powers: the end of spiritual power being to direct us to everlasting salvation, both by instruction, discipline, direction, and correction: & of the temporal or civil power by like means, and helps to govern well the Common wealth in peace, abundance, order, justice, and prosperity. And according to th●se ends are also their objects, matter & means. As for example, the former hath for her object, spiritual things, belonging to the soul, as matters of saith, doctrine, Sacraments, & such other: and the later handleth the Civil affairs of the Realm, and Common wealth, as they appertain to the temporal good, and prosperity thereof.  

The different excellency of these 2. powers.  11. Next after the declaration of these three points, to wit, of the origens, ends, & objects of these two powers, spiritual and temporal, the said Catholic Divine deduceth out of the same the different dignity, excellency, & eminency, of the one, & the other power, the one being called Divine, the other human, for that the ends, and objects of the one are immediately concerning the soul, as now we have declared: and the other concerning human affairs immediately, though mediately in a Christian Common wealth referred also to God. And this difference of these two powers he declareth by the similitude & likeness of flesh and spirit out of S. Gregory Nazianzen, 
Nazianz. orat. ad Cives timore perculsos  who in a certain narration of his, doth most excellently express the same by the comparison of spirit and flesh, soul and sense: which thing (saith he) may be considered as two distinct Common wealths separated the one from the other, or conjoined together in one Common wealth only. 
Answer to Reports pag. 24.  An example of the former wherein they are separated may be in beasts and Angels, the one having their common wealth of sense only, without soul or spirit: and the other Common wealth of Angels, being of spirit only without flesh or body; but in man are conjoined both the one, & the other. And even so (saith he) in the Common wealth of Gentiles was the Civil and Political, Earthly and human power, given by God to govern worldly and human things, but not spiritual for the soul: whereas contrariwise, in the primitive Christian Church for almost three hundred years together none or few Kings, Princes, or Potentates being converted, the Common wealth of Christians was governed only or principally by spiritual authority under the Apostles and Bishops that succeeded them.  
12. Out of which consideration confirmed, and strengthened by sundry places of holy scripture, & ancient Fathers alleged by him, he showeth the great eminency of spiritual Authority above temporal, being considered severally in themselves, though they may stand jointly, and both together in a Christian Common wealth, where the temporal Princes be Christians, though with this necessary subordination, that in spiritual and Ecclesiastical affairs belonging to the soul, the spiritual governors be chiefly to be respected, as in Civil affairs the temporal magistrate is to be obeyed, and this he showeth by divers examples, and occasions out of S. Ambrose, S. Chrysostome, S. Gregory Nazianzen, and other Bishops and Prelates, that in Ecclesiastical affairs preferred themselves, and their authorities before that of Christian Emperors, with whom they lived, expressly affirming, that in those respects they were their Superiors & Pastors, & the said Emperors their sheep & subjects, though in temporal affairs they acknowledged them to be their Superiors.  
13. All this is set down by the Catholic Divine with great variety of proofs, many examples, 
Nazian. orat. ad cives timore perculsos, Chrysost. l. 3. de Sacerdotio & to. 4. in c. 6. Esaiae. Ambr. lib. 2. ep. 33. tradendi●●  facts and speeches of ancient Fathers. And will Sir Edward Cook say, that this was from the purpose, & a Nihil dicit? doth not this quite overthrow his assertion that all temporal Kings by virtue & power of their temporal Crowns, have supreme authority also in spiritual affairs? If the foresaid three Fathers (to pretermit all others) S. Gregory Nazianzen, S. Chrysostome, and S. Ambrose, that had to do with Christian Emperors, which had temporal authority over all, or the most part of the Christian world, did yet notwithstanding affirm unto their faces, that they had no authority at all in spiritual matters belonging to souls, but were and aught to be subject to th●m, their Pastors in that Ecclesiastical government: how much less could a woman-Prince have the same by right of her temporal Crown, as most absurdly M. Attorney averreth? 
Answer to Reports p. 74 75.76.77. & dein●eps.  Which absurdity the Catholic Divine doth convince so largely by all sorts of proofs, both divine and human, as well under the law o● Nature, as Mosay●all and Christian, that a person of the feminine s●xe is not capable of supreme Spiritual jurisdiction over man, as nothing seemeth can be answered thereunto. And was this also from the purpose, to prove that Queen Elizabeth could not have it? What will Sir Edward answer here for his Nihil dicit?  
14. After all this, and much more alleged by the Catholic Divine, which I pretermit for brevities sake, he cometh to reduce the whole controversy between M. Attorney and him, unto two general heads of proof, the one de jure, the other de facto, that is of right, and fact, showing, that in the first of these two proofs de jure, which is the principal, M. Attorney did not so much as attempt to say any thing ●or proof, 
Two sorts of proofs de iure & de facto.  that by right, Queen Elizabeth, or any of her Ancestors had supreme jurisdiction in causes Ecclesiastical, but only that de ●acto some of them had sometimes taken, and exercised such an authority. Which if it were without right, was as you know nothing at all: and therefore the said Divine having proved more at large, that by no right of any law whatsoever, divine, or human, Queen Elizabeth, or her predecessors had or could have supreme authority Spiritual, he cometh to join with M. Attorney also in the second, proving that neither in fact any such thing was ever pretended or practised by any of her Predecessors, before the time of her Father K. Henry the viii either before or after the Conquest.  
15. And as for before the Conquest, there have been more than an hundred Kings of different Kingdoms within the land, he proveth by ten large demonstrations, 
Ten Demonstrations against M. Attorneys assertion de facto before the Conquest.  that none of them did ever take upon him such supreme spiritual authority, but acknowledged it expressly to be in the Bishop of Rome; of which demonstrations, the first is of laws made by them generally in favour, and confirmation of the liberties of the English Church, according to the directions and Canons derived from the authority of the Sea Apostolic. The second, that Ecclesiastical laws in England made before the Conquest, were made by Bishops, and Prelates, who had their Authority from Rome, and not by temporal Kings. The third, that all determination of weighty Ecclesiastical affairs were referred not only by the Christian people generally of that Realm, as occasions fell out, but by our Kings also in those days, unto Rome, and the Sea Apostolic. The forth, that the Confirmations of all Privileges, Franchises of Churches, Monasteries, Hospitals, and the like were in those days demanded, and obtained from the Pope. The fifth, that in all Ecclesiastical controversies, suits, and grievances, there were made Appeals, and complaints to the Sea of Rome for remedy. The sixth, the succession of Bishops & Archbishops in England during that time all acknowledging the supremacy of the Pope, were notwithstanding in high favour, and reverence with the English Kings, with whom they lived: whereof is in●erred, that these Kings also must needs be of the same judgement and belief, and consequently make laws conform to that their faith and belief: as chose since the schism began by K. Henry the 8. other Princes, being of contrary belief, have also made the contrary laws.  
16. These heads of demonstration together with four more not unlike to these, which for brevity I do pretermit, being laid forth at large by the Divine with the manifest proofs, and declarations out of the ancient, and irrefragable histories of our Nation to make this evident inference that our Christian Kings before the Conquest did all of them acknowledge the Pope's supreme jurisdiction in spiritual affairs, and consequently they acknowledged also that it appertained not to themselves. And whereas the Attorney to prove his assertion allegeth two examples before the Conquest, 
Two instances of M. Attorney before the Conquest, helping him nothing.  the one of K. Kenulphus about a Privilege he gave to the Abbey of Abingdon, the other of K. Edward the Confessor, that saith, That a King as Vicar of the highest, must defend the Church: it is answered by the Divine, that both of these examples do make against M. Attorney. The first, for that there is express mention, that this Privilege was given by Authority from the Pope: and the second, that it is nothing to the purpose, K Edward speaking of temporal Authority, when he saith, That the King is Vicar of the highest, and in the very same place insinuating most manifestly that in spiritual affairs the Pope is supreme, and consequently that both these authorities were frandulently brought in by M. Attorney: yea the former most wilfully corrupted, as I do show more largely, and particularly in the end of my twelfth Chapter of my book of Mitigation. And was not all this to the purpose? Or will M. Attorney call this a Nihil dicit, when the cause shall come before him in seat of judgement?  
17. Lastly, the Divine coming down from the time of the Conquest unto our days, to wit, to the reign of K. Henry the viii. showeth largely in the several lives of every one of those Kings, that in this point of the Pope's supreme Ecclesiastical Authority they were all uniform in one & the self same belief, and acknowledgement: which he proveth out of their own words, facts, laws, histories, & other authentical proofs. And if at any time there fell out any disagreement, or disgust between any King, 
Concerning the English Kings after the Conquest  and the Pope that lived in his time, it was only upon particular interests, complaints of abuses by officers, evil informers or the like: for remedy whereof some restrictions, agreements, or concordates were made, as now they be also in other Catholic Countries: & not for that any English King from the very first Christened, unto K. Henry the 8. (nor he neither for the first 20. years of his reign) did ever absolutely deny the Pope's supreme jurisdiction in Ecclesiastical causes.  
18. And secondly the said Divine answereth fully to all those pieces and parcels of laws, that M. Attorney produceth, which are showed either fraudulently to be alleged, or wholly misconstred, or utterly to be impertinent to the conclusion which they should infer. And shall this in like manner be judged from the purpose, and a Nihil dicit? where now is that judge that gave sentence ●or him in this behalf, will he come forth & stand to his sentence? Or will Sir Edward Cook be so unreasonable in this behalf, 
Sir Edward precipitant in au●rring things against Catholics.  as to request any man to believe him that such a judgement was given for him? Or that he found so unjust a judge as would give such a sentence so contrary to all conscience, sense, and reason? But you must note that many men have noted this to be somewhat singular in Sir Edward Cook (as many other points be) that when he talketh of Catholics or their affairs, he is so confident, resolute, & precipitant in his asseverations against them (especially when he preacheth on the Bench, or giveth his Charge) that except we believe him at his bare word, contrary to all likelihood of truth, the most part of that he speaketh will seem to be wilful untruths spoken against his own conscience: so little he remembreth the saying of the prophet, Pone ostium circumstantiae labijs meis. 
Psalm. 140  I do not say they are lies, for that were inurbanity, considering his present dignity, but that they may seem such to the wiser sort, for that they lack this door of true circumstances to make them probable, whereof we shall have occasion to touch some more examples afterward. Now we shall pass on to examine whether this Nihil dicit, objected to his Adversary, do not fall more justly upon himself, and therewith also an opposite charge called a Nimium dicit, which is to speak more than is true.   

THAT THE Imputation of Nihil dicit, doth fall more rightly upon M. Attorney: as doth also the Nimium dicit, or everlashing in his assertions. §. II.  
HAVING showed now that the Nihil dicit cannot be ascribed to the Catholic Divine, for that he left written so much and so effectual to the purpose he had in hand, it would be an easy m●tter to show in regard of the contrary effects that the sa●e remaineth with M. Attorney: both for that he answered little or nothing, and that wholly from the purpose. The ●irst is manifest by this new Preface of his, wherein he answereth scarce half a page to more than 400. pages of my book written against him. The second also is not obscure by that I have written in the precedent Paragraph of the impertinency of proofs produced against us, which afterward perhaps may be better examined, and consequently for both these respects, the Nihil dicit lighteth upon himself.  
20. Now then l●tting pass this Nihil dicit, we shall contemplate a while the Nimium dicit, when more is uttered then the truth, with shall be the proper argument and subject of this present section or Paragraph, and this only about such matters as he hath now freshly and lastly uttered in this Preface, that in all containeth but one only printed sheet: whereby appeareth how great a volume it would arise unto on our behalf, if we should examine the untruths of all his other writings against us.  
21. To begin then with that which before we touched, he avoucheth in this his Preamble; 
A manifest untruth uttered by Sir Edw.  That he could not find in all the book any authority out of the books of Common laws o● this Realm, Acts of Parliaments, or any legal, and judicial records, quoted or cited by the Catholic Divine for the mantenance o● any of his opinions or conceits: whereupon (as in justice, saith he, I ought) I had judgement given for me upon a Nihil dicit. Thus far the Knight: whereby you perceive, that the immediate cause of this judgement given in his favour was grounded upon this presumption, that the Divine neither quoted nor cited any one such witness throughout all his book: which if it be evidently false (as now I shall prove it) then must the judge confess, if he will not be judex iniquus, that the sentence of Nihil dicit is to be revoked as unjust.  
22. Let us see then how true or false this assertion is, or rather how many several falsehoods there are contained in one. First then page 163. The Deuin● doth cite the several laws of William Conqueror out of Roger Hoveden part 2. Annalium in vita Henrici 2. ●ol. 381. and by them doth prove, that the Conqueror acknowledged the Pope's supreme Authority in causes Ecclesiastical. And is not this a legal record? And in the next two leaves following, he doth city above twenty different places out of the Canon law and Canonists, which though perhaps M. Attorney will not call legal in respect of his Municipal laws, yet judicial records they cannot be denied to be. Moreover pag. 245. & 246. he doth allege the testimony of Magna Charta cap. 1. made by king Henry the third, as also Charta de ●oresta made upon the ninth year of his reign, & Charta de Merton made in the 18. of the same King's reign, as other laws also of his, made upon the 51. year o● his Government, all in proof of the Pope's jurisdiction, and are all legal authorities. And furthermore he doth city pag. 248. statut. anno 9 Henrici 6. cap. 11. and pag. 262. he citeth again the said Great Charter, and Charter of the Forest made by K. Henry the 3. and confirmed by his son King Edward the first divers times. And pag. 271. he citeth two laws anno 1. Edward. 3. stat. 2. cap. 2. & 14. eiusdem statut. 3. pro Clero, 
Variety of legal authorities out of law books  and doth argue out of them for proof of his principal purpose against Sir Edward. And how then, or with what face doth, or can the Knight avouch here that the said Divine allegeth no one Act or law of Parliament or other judicial record throughout his whole book? doth he remember his own saying in this his Preface: That every man that writeth aught to be so careful of setting down truth, as if the credit of his whole work consisted upon the certainty of every particular period? Doth he observe this? How many periods be there here false of his? But let us see further. Pag. 277. in the life of king Edward the first the said Divine doth cite an expre●se law of King Edward 3. Anno regni 25. as also pag. 283. he doth allege statut. de consult. editum anno 24. Edwardi 1. and another Anno 16. Edwardi 3. cap. 5. and all these things are cited by the Divine before he cometh to treat peculiarly of the life of King Edward the third: 
Manifest and wilful untruths uttered by Sir Edward.  but under him, & after him he doth not allege as few as 20. legal authorities, and statutes of Acts of Parliaments: so as for M. Attorney to avouch here so boldly & peremptorily as he doth, that the Divine in all his book did not allege so much as any one authority either out of the common laws or Acts of Parliament, or other legal or judicial record, is a strange boldness indeed: And yet he saith, that he found the Author utterly ignorant and exceeding bold. But if he could convince him of such boldness, as I have now convinced himself, for affirming a thing so manifestly false, I should think him bold indeed, or rather shameless: for that here are as many untruths, as there are negative assertions, which is a Nimium dicit, with store of witnesses.  
23. It is another Nimium dicit also, if you consider it well, that which he writeth in the same place, that, when he looked into the book, ever expecting some answer to the matter, he found none at all. Whereas he found all that is touched in the former Paragraph and much more, which was so much in effect, as he saw not what reply he could make thereunto: which himself confesseth a little before in these words, saying: Expect not from me, good Reader, any reply at all: for I will not answer unto his invectives, and I cannot make any reply at all unto any part of his discourse: & yet doth he endeavour to mitigate this also, saying: That the Divine answereth nothing out of the laws of the Realm, the only subject (saith he) of the matter in hand. And a little af●er again: I will not (saith he) depart from the State of the question whose only subject is the Municipal laws of this Realm. But this refuge will not serve, both for that I have now showed that the Divine hath alleag●d many testimonies out of the Municipal laws, as also for that this is not true, that the question is only about these laws: for that as before hath been showed the true state of the question between us, is, 
The true state of the question.  Whether supreme Ecclesiastical authority in spiritual af●a●res did remain in Queen Elizabeth and her Ancestors by right of their temporal Crowns, or in the Bishop of Rome, by reason of his primacy in the Chair of S. Peter: which great matter is not to be tried only (as in reason you will see) by the Municipal laws of England, or by some few particular cases deduced from them, but by the whole latitude of divine and human proofs, as Scriptures, Fathers, Doctors, histories, practices of the primitive Church, laws both Canon and Civil, and the like, as the Divine doth teach in different occasions of his book, adding further: That albeit it should be granted to Sir Edward that this matter should be discussed by the common Municipal, and Statute laws of England only, yet would he remain wholly vanquished, as largely doth appear by the deduction of the said Divine throughout all the succession of English Kings from Ethelbert the first Christened, to King Henry the 8. that first fell into schism against the Church of Rome. This than was a notorious Nimium dicit.  
24. Another is when he saith in reproof of the Divines answer to his Reports, that the book is exceeding all bounds of truth and charity, full of maledictions and calumniations, nothing pertinent to the state of the question: and that it becometh not Divines to be of a fiery and Salamandrine spirit, soming out of a hot mouth etc. which indeed will seem to any indifferent man a strange passionate exaggeration of Sir Edward, 
The temperate proceeding of the Divine in his writings.  exceeding all terms of simple truth, for that there is nothing found in that book, but temperately spoken, and with respect as it seemeth both to his Office and Person: but yet when he saw the exobitant intemperance of the attorneys hatred against Catholics to draw him to such acerbity of bloody calumniations, that he would needs involve them all in the heynons crime of treason by mere sycophancy, & malicious collections upon false supposed grounds, and fictions of Pius quintus his Bull, and such like impertinent imputations; no marvel though he were more earnest in the repulsion of such open wrongs; but yet with that moderation, as I persuade myself no injurious, or contumelious speech can be alleged to have passed from him in all that book, & much less such inu●ctiues as here M. Attorney chargeth him withal: as also with that fiery Salamandrine spirit, foaming out of a hot mouth, wherein, besides the contumely, which he will easily pardon, Sir Edward speaketh more than I suppose his skill in Philosophy, or history will be able to aver or bear him out. For that ancient Pliny in his natural history treating of the nature of the Salamander which liveth in fire, saith not that he is hot & fiery, 
Plinius lib. 10. histor. natural. cap. 67.  but contrary wise so extreme cold of nature, as he resisteth the very force of the fire if self. So as whiles M. Attorney goeth about to accuse his adversary of too much heat, his example inferreth that he is over could, & that he mistook quid pro quo. And was not this a Nimium dicit in like manner?  
25. Another excess though of meaner mark including also a Nimium dicit, is commouly noted in Sir Edward, 
The Pedanteria of Sir Edward.  & all his speeches & writings, & not wanting also in this little preface, which is, a heaping together of many latin sentences without Englishing, or rightly applying them, thereby to seem more admirable to the ignorant, when they hear so frequent phrases and sentences which they understand not: and in other Countries it is accounted Pedanteria, or playing the petty Schoolmaster, nothing fit for grave men to use, whereof notwithstanding you have some store also in this little Preface, though but of one printed sheet of paper, as hath been said: for both in the first and last page, he beginneth and endeth with that: and few other pages pas●e without some respersion thereof, as ille didicit maledicere, & ego maledicta contenmere, which sentence is evidently false in the eye and ears of all men, that either have read our books, or heard him speak. For as he cannot produce any maledictons of ours against him, so have we as many witnesses of his most bitter railing against Catholics & Catholic Religion, 
Sir Edw. his ordinary and continual railing against Catholics.  whose cause every good man ought to esteem a thousand times more than his own, as he hath written books, scrolls, or libels against us, or hath given contumelious Charges on the Bench, which are continual, but especially, and by name I remit myself to the most insolent invective which he made against us in his own Country at Norwich on the 4. of August anno Domini 1606. set forth afterward in print; and again in the same place at sundry times in the ensuing years; in all which injurious speeches besides his other poetical inventions to make us odious or ridiculous, he triumphed also in this kind of Grammatical Pedanteria, of alleging sundry la●in sentences against us, whereof I may chance to have occasion to treat more afterward.  
26. But I am departed unawares from the examples of his present Preface, and therefore shall return thither again. When he saw himself overloaden with the multitude and variety of testimonies for proving the principal question of the Pope's supreme authority spiritual, he answered thus: 
Impertinent Grammatical phrases.  For his divinity and histories cited by him, only published in the said Book, ad faciendum populum, I will not answer: for than I should ●ollow him in his error. And is not this a goodly answer? Was it error in the Divine, or vanity ad ●aciendum populum, to prove by grounds of Devinity, Scriptures, Fathers, practice of the Primitive Church and other like Theological proofs, that Q. Elizabeth in right could not have supreme Ecclesiastical jurisdiction: and out of all sorts of histories belonging to England to convince, that none of her Ancestors did ever in fact pretend the same? Was this only ad ●aciendum populum, to hunt after popular applause? How impertmently is this Grammatical phrase applied by Sir Edward?  
27. But let us see the next. In reading these and other of my Reports (saith he) I desire the Reader, that he would not read (and as it were swallow) too much at once: for greedy appetites are not of the best digestion: the whole is to be attained by parts, and nature (which is the best guide) maketh no leap: Natura non facit saltum. In which words as I acknowledge the advertisement to be good, that a man ought not to read too much together, lest he confound his memory: So why this phrase of Natura non facit saltum is brought in, but only for the foresaid Grammatical oftentation I see not. Nature maketh no leap, but she proceedeth orderly, digesting one thing after an other, it is true: but what is this to prove that a man may not read to much at one time? Surely this leap of M. Attorney was somewhat wide from the purpose: and if his writings in law-matters be no more gracious and attractive, then are his discourses in Devinity, and Controversies, I presume the Reader, that esteemeth his time worth the bestowing, will not have need of this advertisement, that he read not over much at once in his Reports, for that weariness will soon bring him to that moderation.  
28. And thus much have I thought good to say briefly to such points of this Preface as concern his Reply to the Catholic Divine: for in effect Sir Edward answereth no more to all his large Book than now you have heard: albeit in the ●ormer part of this his Preface he taketh another matter in hand, which is first to aver, that the antiquity and excellency of our Municipal laws in England, 
About the antiquity & excellency of our English laws.  which he calleth the Common, do exceed all other human laws whatsoever in the world. Then for proof of this he bringeth in a Student of the said Common law to propose unto him four particular Cases, whereof the la●t (for which all the other were brought in) is: whether the ancient laws o●●ngland did admit any Appeals to Rome in Causes spiritual or Ecclesiastical: and then vaunteth presently thus: I had no soever seen these questions (saith he) but instantly I found direct and demonstrative answer unto the same. But by his leave Sir Edward must have patience to let me tell him, that his Answers are so far of from being demonstrative, that is to say, evident, certain and irrepugnable, as that they are not so much as Logical, that is to say, probable; nor have any true form or force of a lawful argument in them: for that they go about to prove universals by particulars, and yet do not so much in effect as prove those silly particulars which they pretend. These two points then are to be examined, first about the supposed antiquity & excellency of his Municipal laws: and secondly his proof and confirmation thereof by his Answers to the Students four questions devised by himself. For that no Student I suppose, of any mean talent of wit or learning would hau● proposed such questions, for confirmation of so great a matter as is pretended: or would have been content with so simple Answers, as here are set down.   

WHETHER THE Common Municipal Laws of England be more ancient and excellent, than any other human Laws of the world. §. III.  
FOR better understanding of this point I shall first set down some lines of Sir Edwa●ds narration, which begins thus. Since the publishing of the fifth part of my Reports, 
In the Preface to the 6. part of Reports.  a good Student of the Common Laws desired to be satisfied in one special point of my Epistle to the second part of my Reports, where I affirmed that if the ancient Laws of this noble ●and had not excelled all others (speaking of human) it could not be but some of the several Conquerors & governors thereof, that is to say, the Romans, Saxons, Danes or Normans, and especially the Romans, who (as they justly may) do boast of their Civil Laws, would (as every of them might) have altered or changed the same. And (saith he) some of another pro●●ssion are not persuaded, that the Common Laws of England are of so great antiquity, as there superlatively is spoken. So he. And in these last words I presume he understood the Divine, that impugned this excessive imaginary antiquity of our Municipal ●awes in his Answer to the Reports, 
Answer to Reports pag. 14.15. etc.  and Sir Edward having seen the same, should in reason have answered somewhat thereunto, if he had been prepared for it.  
30. But he thought that course not best, but rather to help himself with the pretended authority of Sir john Fortescue 
Sir john Fortescue.  chief justice of England in the Reign of King Henry the 6. saying, that he was a great Antiquary: & he was a notable man indeed, though more as it seemeth, in the skill of our Common Laws, then in matters of Antiquity, 
A great exaggeration o● antiquity.  out of whom Sir Edward, to help his cause and assertion, citeth the words following. As touching the antiquity of our Common Laws (saith he) neither are the Roman Civil Laws, by so long continuance o● ancient times confirmed: nor yet the La●es o● the Venetians, which above all other are reported to be of most antiquity, ●or so much as their Island in the beginning of the Britan's was not then inhabited, as Rome also then unbuilded: neither the Laws of any Nation of the world which worshipped God, are of so old and ancient years: wherefore the contrary is no● to be said, nor thought, but that the English customs are very good, yea o● all other the very best. Thus he: if he be rightly cited, for I have not his book by m●.  
31. And though I do respect and reverence both these men's professions, and much more their state & place of judges: yet doth force of truth oblige me to contradict their error, which seemeth to me very gross and palpable, or rather their errors and mistakinges in sundry points here down. As first in that it is averred, that the Civil law and Roman laws are not of so long continuance of ancient times, as the ancient Municipal Laws of England are, which he goeth about to prove by two several means, whereof both do contain aswell falsyties as absurdities, if I be not greatly deceived therein.  
32. His ●irst means of proof is, 
His first means of proof by an●iquit●●f Nati●ns.  ●or that in the beginning o● the Britan's, Rome was then unbuilded, and conquently that the British Laws are more ancient, than those of the Romans. And then supposing further, that those British Laws which were in the beginning of the Britan's, were never changed, but received in England from time to time, have endured to our days, & are the Common Laws of our Realm at this day: Wherein there are many suppositions, as you see, strange to hear, but harder in my opinion to be proved. As first, that the Britan's in their beginning even before Rome was built, had such good Laws as the Romans in England seven hundred years after the said building of Rome, were content to accept for their Laws in that land. And the like after them the Saxons, & other Conquerous people that ensued: which is such a paradox unto men of reason & learning, as the very naming thereof cannot but cause laughter. For albeit the British nation be more ancient than the Roman, according to the Story of Geffrey Monmouth, 
Galfridus Monumetensis lib. 1. historiae.  that affirmeth them to descend from Brutus a Nephew of Aeneas, from whom Romulus the founder of Rome some ages after descended: and that they were a valiant warlike nation from the beginning: yet that they had such good politic and civil Laws (themselves being uncivil in those days) is a matter incredible, which I prove thus: That whereas the Roman Laws began from Romulus himself & from Numa Pompilius & other ancient Lawmakers among them, and this soon after the building of Rome (I mean the more older Laws of the twelve Tables,) and the like continued from time to time afterwards, until the coming of julius Caesar into Brittany, which was above 600. years after Rome was built, & above a thousand after Brutus had been in England: in which time it is probable, that the British Laws, would have grown to greater perfection than they were in the beginning: yet I say that the said Laws & customs of the Britan's are recorded to be such in julius Caesar his days, & set down by his own pen, as also by the writings of divers other Roman & Greek Authors that succeeded for two or three hundred years after him, as must needs be incredible that they should be continued by the Romans, Saxons, and other people that followed them. And then if they were such, and so rude so many ages after their beginning, what may we imagine they were at their very beginning itself, which was a thousand years before, from which time our two Knights here do infer their antiquity and eminency above the Roman Laws?  
33● Let us see then what ancient Histories do report of the British Laws and Customs in julius Caesar his time and afterwards. 
The state of Brittany for laws and customs in julius Cesar his tyme.  Caesar the Roman-Captaine having made two journeys into England, and informed himself diligently about the Laws and Customs of the Britons in those days, which was about 60. years before the Nativity of our Saviour, setteth down many things of their small policy in that time. As first the description of their manner of consultations in their war, wherein he saith, that in common non co●sulunt, they have no common Counsels: and then describing the chief City of the Realm where their K. Cassivelan that was head of all the rest, 
C●sar lib. 5. de bello Gallico.  had his Court & Counsel somewhat about the Thames (though not where London was afterward built) he showeth that it was in a wood, and that the walls were trees cut down round about, instead of fortresses, within which they enclosed both themselves and their Cattle: and this was the symplicity of that tyme.  
34. After this he setteth down many Laws and customs of theirs, far unfit to be received by the Romans, & other people after them, as Nummo aereo aut annulis ferreis ad certum pondus examinatis pro num●o utebantur, Their money was of brass, and rings of iron given out by weight. And then again that they had a law and custom luto se inficere, quod caeruleum efficit color●m, to paint themselves with a certain earth, 
Solinus c 35● in fi●e.  that made a blue colour. And Solinus writing more than an hundred years after Caesar again, showeth this law and custom to have been so inviolable among them in his days, that the very Children had the figures and shapes of beasts imprinted in their flesh, by lancing & cutting the same first, to the end that the said painting with terrible colours might the better sink in: and Pliny doth add that the very women also did observe the same custom, 
Plin. 22. historic naturalis cap. 1.  which seemeth also to have continued sums ages after, for that the Poet Claudianus under the emperors Arcadius and Theodosius about four hundred years after Christ speaking of the Britan's of his time, saith of them: 
Claudian. in Laudes Stilicon. paneg. 2. pag. 258.  
Ind Caledonio velata Britannia monstro,  
Ferro picta genas: cuius vestigia verrit  
Caerulus, oceanique●stum mentitur, amictus.  In which verses the words ferro picta genas, and caerulus amictus signifying that their faces were painted with the dint of iron, & their habit blew, do import that this law and custom was long continued among them: & yet never received by the Romans, Saxons, nor Danes. And Caesar yet goeth further showing their Laws and Customs about their wives and Children. Vxores habent deni inter se communes etc. Ten men agreeing among themselves have their wives and Children in common.  
35. The same Caesar also, and Diodorus Siculus and Strabo, 
Diodorus lib. 6. rer● antiquarum. Strabo lib. 4. Geographiae.  which two lived soon after him under Augustus Caesar, do recount other Laws and Customs of the Britan's of their days, whereof we see no sign in ours: as their order of fight in Chariots and Coaches, with other things belonging to Chivalry. And Pomponius Mela living under the Emperor Claudius, that went with an imperial army into England some fifty years after Christ, says of the Britan's in those days: Inculti omnes, tantùm pecore & ●inibus dites: 
Mela l. 3. Geograph.  that they were all without policy, and only rich by their cattle and pastures: which importeth tha● they had no good Laws to lend the Romans in those days, and much less to deliver them over to posterity.  
36. And yet further an hundred & thirty years after that again, 
Tacitus in vita ●ulij Agricol●e.  wrote Cornelius Tacitus under the Emperor Domitian, as also Solinus before mentioned, who do both concur in this: that in their days the Britan's were a people as on the one side stout and valiant, so on the other very rude and uncivil for policy, without discipline and order, as also Counsel or good direction, especially in their wars. Whereupon Tacitus saith: Dum singuli pugnant, universi vincuntur. whiles every one fighteth a part after his own fancy they are all overcome. And I might hereunto add divers Greek Historians, as well as Latyn, specially Herodian, Dio Nicetus, Xephilinus, and others, 
Herod. l. 3. hist. Dio in epit. hist. Xephil. in hist. Omnes in vita Alexandr● Seu●●i.  writing o● the Britons, their manners and customs under the Reign of Severus the Emperor, who went thither in person, and died in York two hundred yeare● after Christ, and almost 300. after the Britons had been under the Roman government: and yet do the said Historiographers recount such extreme want of policy and Laws among the Britan's at that time (which I take to be meant principally of the Northern) as scarce of any Country the like: 
The rudeness of the Britan's 200. years after Christ.  Nec moenia habent (say they) nec Vrbes, nudi, sine calceis, vestis usum ignorantes etc. they had neither walls nor towns, b●t went naked without shoes, not being acquainted with the use of apparel. And to the end we may not think that the Southern ports were in much better state for policy, 
Dio in Nerone. The speech of the Qu. Br●nde●i●ke.  Dio Nicetu● recounteth the speech of the Qu. Brundevica under the Reign of Nero: which Queen dwelled in the most civil & wealthy parts of Brittany, and yet objected to the Romans, that they were delicate and could not live without corn, meal, wine, oil, shelter of house, and other like commodities: Nobis autem (saith she) quaevis herba & radix ●ibus est, quili●et succus oleum, omnis aqua vinum, omnis arbor domus. But unto us (and let us mark that she putteth her self among the ●est being a woman, Captain, and Queen) every herb and root is meat, every juice is oil, every water is wine, and every tree is a house. Thus she.  
37. And now here Sir Edward perhaps will say, a● before he did of Theological authorities, that I do allege all these Histories ad faciendum populum: which I do not, but rather to show that he hath no cause to vaunt, that either himself, or his fellow-Iustice are such Antiquaries as here he mentioneth, not having seen, as it seemeth, nor considered this variety of ancient Histories, whereby is proved that the laws and customs of the Britons were not such from the beginning, and before Rome was builded, as they may be preferred for their antiquity, and excellency before the Roman Laws, whereas almost a thousand years after that the Roman Laws had been received in the world, the Britons had scarce any use of policy or common Civility: though afterward when by the benefit of Christian Religion especially they received the same, they exceeded perhaps many other Countries in piety and religious policy.  
38. Thus then is the first medium of Sir Edward's probation overthrown about the antiquity of the Brytan Laws before the Romans: which is neither true; nor if it were, yet maketh it nothing to his purpose, to prove that the Common Municipal Laws of England were of that antiquity, as presently shallbe showed. 
A ridiculous imagination of the great antiquity of the venetian Laws.  And as for the other two instances, that the said British Laws are more ancient than the Laws of the Venetians, which are most ancient of any other Nation of the world that worshipped God: this (I say) is little less th●n ridiculous. For that first the Venetians (as Blondus thei● own Country man and Historiographer testifieth, 
Blondus l. 1. ●ist. Ital. & lib. spe●ia●i de ●ebus Venetorum.  writing of their antiquity) began ●irst to build their City and Common wealth upon the year o● Christ four hundred fi●ty and six, which was upon the point of twelve hundred years after the building of Rome, and consequently the Venetian Laws cannot be imagined to be o● more antiquity than the Roma●, and much less than of other Nations more ancient than the Romans, as the Carthaginians, Grecians, Egyptians, Medians, Persians, Syrians, and the like.  
39 And secondly whereas to temper the matter somewhat, he addeth, that the British Laws are more ancient then of any na●ion of the world, that worshipped God: this addition (of worshipping God) is both from the purpose & untrue. From the purpose, for that Sir Edward exprely here pretendeth to speak only of human Laws: 
An impertinent exception.  so as whether the people whose Laws they are, do worship God or not, is from the question. Besides that M. Cook I think will not deny, but that the Romans worshipped God, and were Christians, at least many of them, before the Britan's (if this made any thing to the purpose:) and yet will he have the Britan's Laws to be more ancient than those of the Romans: so as this circumstance of worshipping God is neither true, or to the purpose.  
40. Secondly it is untrue, that the British Laws were before the Laws of any Nation that worshipped God, for that the jews worshipped God, and may be presumed also to have had some political Laws for their Civil government among themselves, long before the Britan's; yea before Moses gave them his written Laws For that being a Nation so populous as they were, cannot well be imagined to hau● l●ued four hundred years in Egypt without some human and Civil laws among themselves also, be●●des those of the Egyptians, albeit they were forced al●o to krepe, perhaps, the Egyptians laws, which in that case may be accounted their laws, and so more ancient th●n th● Britan's. So as all these things were weakly considered by Sir Edward, and he showeth himself no good Antiquary, though he would seem to covet much the opinion thereof.  
41. But more than in any other point, this defect of his is seen in setting down his second Medium for proof of the antiquity & excellency of his Municipal laws in these words, before recited: 
His second medium for proving the antiquity and excellency of our English Laws.  That if the ancient laws of this noble Island had not excelled all the others, speaking of human, it could not be but some of the several Conquerors and Governors thereof, that is to say, the Romans, Saxons, Danes or Normans, and especially the Romans, would have altered or changed the same. Where you see, he holdeth it for a supposed known, & received principle, that none of all these Conquerous people, entering into Brittany, did alter or change the old British laws: and consequently that those which now we call the Common laws of England, were also the laws of the ancient Britons, and theirs ours: which is one of the most solemn absurdities in my opinion, that ever proceeded from the mouth of a man, pretending to be learned in his own Country affairs.  
42. For fir●t besides the demonstration before made to the contrary, out of reason and evident probability, that the Britan's generally having received very little use of Civil policy until two hundred years after Christ under the Emperor Alexander Scuerus, 
Whether the ancient British Laws were ever changed or altered.  and almost three hundred after they had been under the Romans, it was not likely that the said Romans, their conquerors, would admit their laws & customs so much condemned by them of barbarism and incivility, as by the former related Authors both Greek and Latin hath been declared. Besides this (I say) there is express mention found in antiquity, though M. Attorney seemeth not to know it, of the change of those Laws and customs by the Roman Emperors.  

Plin. lib. 30 hist. cap. 1.  43. For first Pliny that lived presently after the Apostles, recounteth that the Emperor Tiberius Caesar, under whom our Saviour suffered, did take away divers of their Laws and customs, especially about sacrificing of men, women and Children, in lu●o Andates, in a certain grove dedicated to that Pagan Goddess, which signified Victory. He removed also Druids, and canceled their Laws which were the instruments, and ministers of those Cruelties. ●hereupon the said Pliny maketh this consideration: Non satis aestimari potest, quantum Romanis debeatur, qui sustulere Monstra, in quibus hominem occidere religiosissimum erat, mandi v●rò etiam saluberrimum. It cannot be sufficiently esteemed how much the Britan's do owe to the Romans that took away these monstrous customs and laws, whereby it was held a most religious thing, to kill men: and a most wholesome to eat them. Whereby appeareth that divers laws of the Britan's were changed by the Romans, and namely those of their Pagan sacrifices (which were their principal) albeit the Romans were yet heathens and Pagans themselves: so as this overthroweth quite Sir Edward's false principle, that British laws were never changed nor altered by the Romans.  
44. But yet further, when very shortly after the foresaid speech of Queen Brundevica (that was under Nero) Vespasian came to govern Britanny, and had that famous victory, wherein he took King arviragus and his some Guiderius, and divers other principal persons of the British Nobility, Hector Boethius in his History of Scotland, 
Hector Bo●th. hist. S●ot. lib. 3. pag. 45.  doth show, that upon mature deliberation, I●ra & paternas leges postea Britonibus ademit Vespasianus, & Romanas introduxit; V●spasian took away and changed their old British laws & customs, and introduced those of the Romans in place thereof. 
The British laws changed by the Romans  Behold here a whole change of laws denied so resolutely by our two justices as you have heard before: were they good Antiquaries in this think you? If you say, yea: I will oppose against them our other English Antiquary, and King of Armes William Cambd●n, who in his Description of Brittany speaking of the said Emperor Vespasian, 
Cambden. in descrip. Brit. pag. 42.  and of his son Domitian in their government of England, saith: Britannis jugum impositum etc. At this time the Britan's received the Roman yoke: four Legions of soldiers being appointed to lie there, that with terror should hold them down etc. Neque legibus suis patrijs uti permissi sunt, sed magistratus à populo Romano cum Imperio & securibus missi, qui ius dicerent. Neither were they permitted to use any more their own Country laws, but Magistrates and Officers were sent to them from the people of Rome with supreme authority and ensigns of justice, to administer law unto them. So he.  
45. What will Sir Edward say to this? Was this a change of laws or no? And will he still stand to his former assertion, that the British laws were never altered by the Romans? But let us add yet one witness more and that of great credit, to wit, Gul. Malmesburiensis, 
Guliel. Malmes●. in fastis Anno Domini 86.  who as well in his story of England, as in his Fasti signifies the same alteration, saying in the later: That upon the fourth year of Domitian, which was the 86. of Christ, Britannia nunc penitus primùm subiugata, ductu Agricolae, auspicijs Domitiani: Brittany was now first of all utterly subdued by the army of Agricola● and authority of Domitian the Emperor, etc. which full and complete subiugation includeth also the necessity to accept of the vanquishers laws, and not to give laws to them. And what will Sir Edward now say to this also? Will he recall his temerarious assertion? Will he remember now his former saying, that Ignorance and boldness do commonly concur?  
46. But let us go yet forward: for as we have demonstrated of the Romans in this affair, so might we show no less also of the other three nations by him mentioned, ●o wit, the Saxo●s, Danes and Normans. 
Why it is not likely that the Saxons or Danes would admit the british laws.  For that the Saxo●s coming in after the departure of the Romans, about 450. years after Christ, and falling into such extreme enmity and breach with the Britons, as our histories do testify, both in regard of their quarrel about the Country and possession thereof: as also for that the Britan's were Christians and the Saxons pagans: so as one did not so much as communicate with the other, but as enemies in the field: This being so, I say, it is not like nor any way in reason probable, that they (the said Saxons● being Conquerors, and such professed enemies, would admit the Britan's laws, or govern themselves thurby, both for that they brought their own laws with them, nor understood nor regarded those of their adversaries conquered by them.  
47. And the like may be said of the Danes afterward when they came in upon the Saxons, who had their own laws among themselves, & others they made in England, 
Ingulphus in historia de Croyland. Malmes●. in Guli●l. p●rimo, i●i●ue P●lidorus.  calling them the Danish Laws, and some of them were admitted generally throughout the Realm in those few years wherein they had the peaceable government thereof, which in great pa●t were afterward excluded again or altered by S. ●dward the Confessor, when by him the Saxon ●nglish blood came to recover the dominion: as those again of S. Edward were for the most part changed and altered by William the Conqueror, as all our ancient Histories do testify, namely Ingulfus, Malmesbury, Polidore & the rest.  
48. And albeit it were overlong to recount all the foresaid variety of Laws in particular brought in by Romans, Saxons, Danes & Normans, which import great changes & alterations, 
john Fox in his Acts and Monuments.  & thereby do confute Edwards●ssertion ●ssertion: yet have some of our Nation not wanted to gather out of more ancient writers, 
Doctor Ha●pesfi●ld in pistor.  sundry laws that have been made by several Kings of different Nations, as namely those of King 
1 S●culo 8. cap. 10.  Inas, 
2 Saeculo 9 cap. 5.  Alured, 
3 Saec 10. cap. 2.  Edward the first, 
4 Ibib. c. ●.  Edgar, Aethelstan, 
5 Saec. 11. cap. 2.  Agilred all Saxons: & of King Canutus the Dane, and of S. 
6 Ibid. c. ●.  Edward the Confessor restorer of the English blood reigning all before the Conquest. And after the Conquest of King William that was the Conqueror, who like a Conqueror indeed took that liberty to himself, as to change and alter at his pleasure all laws of what nation or people soever he found in use before him in our Island, which Polidore testifieth out of ancient authorities in these words: Leges penè omnes à superioribus sanctiss. Regibus olim ad bene beateque vivendum sustulit, novasque dedit minùs aequas, quas posteri non sine suo damno seruaverunt. He took away almost all the laws, that had been made before the Conquest by most holy Kings for their happy life and government of the people, and gave new laws more unequal, which they that ensued retained to their own loss: as though it had been a great crime to break those laws, which a Conqueror that was no friend of the English nation brought in, instead of good laws.  
49. So Polidore, that had examined all our antiquities about this matter of English laws: for so he saith of himself, Diligenter omnia veterum monumenta pers●ruta●us sum, I have diligently sought all monuments of ancient writers in this behalf: and by this assertion of his, doth overthrow directly three positions of our two justices here. 

Three positions of the two justices overthrown.  
Polidor. l. 9 p. 391. edit. Gandau.   First of the eminent antiquity of ou● present laws in England. Secondly that they were never changed or altered. The third, that they were the best absolutely of all other Laws: which last point about the goodness, Polidore doth impugn expressly as you see, adding also further for some example, of the iniquity and asperity of our said laws, left by William the Conqueror as followeth: Non possum hoc loco (saith he) non memorari rem, tametsi omnibus notam, admirat●one tamen dignissimam, atque dictu incredibilem etc. I cannot choose but recount in this place one thing, albeit known to all, yet most worthy of admiration and incredible to be spoken, which is, That these Laws which ought to be understood by all, were written at that time, and now also are in the Norman tongue, which neither English nor French did rightly understand. Whereupon you should have seen even from the very beginning thereof, 
The iniquity of the Conquerors laws that now are English.  partly by the iniquity or injustice of the Laws themselves, and partly by the ignorance or vnskil●ulnes of those that did interpret amiss these l●wes, this man to be deprived of his ancient inheritance: another to be condemned in criminal Causes by the judgement of most unskilful men; and yet upon that judgement put to death: another to be entangled with inextricable suits of law: and finally both divine and human affairs to be turned upside down by these new Laws.  
50. Thus you see what Polydors judgement was thereof: and he that will see more inconvenience and mischiefs that ensued thereof, let him read Ingulfus, 
engulf. in ●isto. de Croyl●nd. pag. 513. etc.  that lived and wrote in the same time, and was an eye witness of the said miseries. And finally I will end this matter with the testimony of john Fox in his Acts & Monuments, a witness I suppose which Sir Edward will not refuse: who treating of things that passed in the life of William the Conqueror hath these words: 
Fox acts & mon. p. 154. col. 1. ●um. 83.  For so much (saith he) as he obtained the Kingdom by force and dint o● sword● he changed the whole state of the government of this common weal, and ordained new laws at his own pleasure, profitable to himself, but grievous and hurtful to the poople● abolishing the laws of King Edward: whereunto notwithstanding he was sworn be●ore to observe and maintain; for the which great commotions and rebellions remained long a●ter among the people, as Histories record, to have the laws of King Edward received again. So he. And by this may appear how true it is, that Sir Edward doth affirm, that neither Romans, Saxons, Danes, or Normans ever altered or changed the ancient British laws of our Island, but that they be now the self same that they were then: And of all other Nations the best: An assertion worthy of such an Antiquary, as Sir Edward would be thought to be.  
51. And albeit this may be sufficient and superabundant also for overthrow of Sir Edward's imagination, that our common laws were never changed, but continued still for their excellency in goodness in all times, even from julius Caesar's days downward, for that he findeth, or at leastwise surmiseth some things or customs like the one to the other in different times, and under different Princes, as now you have heard: yet will I adjoin one consideration more to the contrary of his, concerning particular laws, which are found to have been both under the Saxons, Danes, and old English, that are not now in use, 
Anno Christi 687  and consequently the judge must confess, that in those at least there hath been a change. As for example, it is read that it was a law in King Inas his days the 12. King of the West Saxō● almost a thousand years gone, 
See the Saxon laws imprinted at London cap. 3. & 4 These also were printed anno 1568.  That if a bondman by commandment o● his Master did work, or do any servile thing upon a Sundays his Master should lose his dominion over him, and pay thirty shillings beside. Under the famous King Alfred, and his son Edward the elder, and King Guthrun the Dane, with whom they made peace, it was a law, That a man condemned to death, might not be hindered to confess his sins to what Priest he would, nor that he could be executed upon a Sunday. 
Alred. Rieval. de Regibus, in Edgarum.  Under renowned King Edgar it was a law, which is yet extant in the Saxon language, That whosoever did slander an other in a grievous crime, should either lose his tongue, or redeem it dearly by other means.  
52. Under King Canutus the Dane that changed King Edgar's l●wes (as Fox testifieth) it was made a law, 
See Fox Acts & monu●●ts pag. 148.  That public ●ayres and markets should not be holden upon Sundays. Item, That every wife that shall, during her husband's li●e, commit adultery, shall have her nose and ears cut of. Item, That if a widow marry within a year a●ter her husband's death, she shall lose her jointure. Item, That whosoever, having touched t●e holy Bible, have for sworn himself, should lose his hand, except he had redeemed the same at the judgement of the Bishop. And the like severity was to be used upon unjust judges, that by corruption gave wrong sentences. And this by the Danish laws. But under King Edward the Confessor that reviewed over all the former laws again, both of Saxons and Danes, retaining such as liked him, and excluding the rest, divers others of his own were made, which Polidore saith, were called Leges communes, 
Polydor. l. 8. hist. in Edwardo Conf●ssore.  the Common Laws (which importeth far less antiquity then M. Attorney avoucheth) among which this was one, That Usurers should lose all their goods, and besides be cast into banishment, as being plagues of the people: which rigour is not now used, and perhaps may not be by our modern Common laws: as neither the other before mentioned of cutting of the wives nose and ears that is an adulteress, which perhaps would make many a pitiful and foul sight in our Country. So then these and many other such laws which were generally received in our Island before the Conquest, are not at all now in use, as all men will confess, and thereby it evidently followeth, that there hath been change and alteration of laws in our Realm, and that our Common Laws at this day are not so excessively ancient, entire, and excellent, as Sir Edward Cook would have us think, and believe that they are.  
53. Concerning which excellency next after antiquity and integrity, we must now add a word or two more, for that notwithstanding all that Polidore, Ingul●us, 
Defectuous laws.  and john Fox have said before of the iniquity of such laws, as were promulgated by the Conqueror against rath●r, then for the English, Sir Edward here with his fellow justice, as you have heard, saith, 
Answer to Reports pag. 13. 14● 15. etc.  that without all doubt they are absolutely the best of all other nations. Whereunto the Catholic Divine answered before, that as he would not discommend his Country laws, nor diminish any part of that praise which is due unto them, if they be well and rightly executed: so on the other side the malice and infirmity of men considered, they seem to learned strangers, & to divers also of our own Country not to have such excellency in them, but in divers points to be defectuous, & to leave the subject open to many injuries, oppressions, ruins, and other inconveniences in sundry cases, which are piously provided for by other laws.  
54. As for example, among the rest is noted and censured for most strange, the manner of judgement for life and death, 
judgement of life and death.  where no Advocate, nor learned Counsel is allowed the defendant, for defence, either of his honour, living, or life, but himself only must speak & answer for all, against the impugnations of many and potent adversaries, that with their authority, and countenance, bitter words, threats, taunts, terror of speech, & other like meanus, may so oppress him, and put him out of himself, as that when it importeth him to say most, he can say least, and so perish for lack of just defence, as more largely the Divine doth prosecute: alleging also many reasons for the same, against all which hu●ts, & inconveniences other country laws, both ciu●ll, and Municipal, do make ample and careful provision.  
55. Another defect also in the same matter seemeth unto strangers to be very great, and importable, which is that any one of the 12. men who are to go upon his life, 
jury of 12. men.  may have such passion against him, as he would over weary all the rest, except they will yield to his condemnation. Whereunto this also being added, that if the said jurours do condemn any never so wrongfully, there is no punishment for it in this life, but only before God: but if they deliver him against the inclination of Prince or Court● (which is easily to be known or conjectured) great peril hangeth over their heads to be troubled, vexed, and forced to wear papers for perjury. This I say considered by learned men, that are indifferent in the cause, doth make them wonder and think, that no Nation living hath more harder laws in this point, nor more unequal for the subject, then ours.  
56. The like may be said about the dowry of women that do marry, 
Dowry of marriage.  which if it be in money, goods, or Chattels, may be spent and consumed by the evil husband; against whom she hath no remedy, nor security at all, which by the Roman Civil laws is most carefully provided for. So as whatsoever disorders the evil husband doth commit, either in spending, or offending: yet is his wives dowry secure, nor can he spend or dilapidate any thing thereof, but only the rent, or annual Income for what occasions soever.  
57 Another also not unlike to this is the small provision by our common laws for younger brothers especially of the Gentry and Nobility, 
Provision for younger Brothers.  who being brought up, during their Father's life in equal condition with the elder brother, are afterward enforced to great inequality; yea oftentimes to great misery, our common laws not providing for them in the divident of their Father's goods, nor yet obliging their said elder brother to allow them competent maintenance, conform to their state and birth, which other countries do.  
58. The Case also of Pupils seemeth strange to foreign nations, 
Pupils & Pupilage.  that the wardship of them both for education and livings, I mean of such as have any tenure from the King in Capite should be in the Prince's hand, without any obligation of yielding account for the Rents received, spent, or wasted. Nay that their marriage, and marriage-money, or wives dowry must appertain to the Prince, and be in his disposition: whereas in all other Kingdoms abroad there is singular care had, and provision made by their laws for Pupils, and Pupillage: and so doth their case in all equity require, as being orphans, and destitute of their Father, that should protect them. I might touch here divers other markable points, which foreigners do consider, and one not the least, that our law doth not seem to have sufficiently provided for the exorbitant liberty and avarice of some of our lawyers (for all are not culpable) in taking money without limit, and enriching themselves thereby more swiftly and excessively then any other sort of men whatsoever, 
Liberty & avarice of some Lawyers.  which being joined with their authority, & power to oppress whom they will, they become a terror (every one in his Country) to the best of the King's subjects: so as no man dare to speak or look against them. And truly the particulars that are recounted of exorbitant Fees taken by divers, to purchase, as it were, their look, without saying any one word for them at the bar are strange, & yet not so much to be wondered at, as lamented: for that there is no hope of redress. And whether Sir Edward himself have been one of these lawyers, and had his share among them proportionable to the ●est, or above the rest, let his neighbours speak, and his abundant wealth, lands, and livings bear witness: I do not mean to be his accuser, but his answerer.  
59 Only I must say one thing more which I would not have spoken at this time if Sir Edward's last contumelious speech at his departure from Nor●ich in his public Charge had not moved me thereunto, & it is this: 
A merry tale devised by Sir Edward against Monks.  That whereas in that speech to make his auditors merry, he brought in an example framed by himself, as may be supposed, of a Prior or Monk that craftily induced a Gentleman to give part of his lands from his son and heir to a Monastery; for which act his said son coming into his sick Father's chamber whiles the matter was in doing, did by his Fathers leave beat the monk out of the Chamber with good cudgels, which he carried away with him instead of inheriting the lands: whereat the Auditory did laugh merrily. But I must needs te●l Sir Edward not in jest but in very good earnest, that ●f either Monk or Priest that is learned in Devinity, & of a good conscience should come to him on his death bed to help to make his testament (according to the old custom) for better discharge of his soul in the world to come, and should hear but the common speech of people that runneth concerning his grea● wealth and hasty getting thereof, should be bound (according to Catholic religion) to seek further into matters, and to tell him another manner of tale in his ear, then ever yet he heard about restitutions and satisfactions necessarily, & under pain of everlasting damnation to be made before his departure out of this life: which doctrine if Sir Edward did believe (as all his ancestors did, and adventured their souls therein:) it may be that among other good works, he would resolve himself perhaps to give some lands also to Monasteries, Hospitals, Churches, & other places of piety ●or satisfaction of things not so well gotten, though he left the less to his Son and heir.  
60. I have recited I think in some other place & occasion, a true story, that fell out not many years agone in the Indies, where a great rich man being very sick, and having had great traffic of affairs in his life, 
A true serious story answering to Sir Edward's tale  sent for a Divine to direct his conscience at his last upshot, who examining his estate found him obnoxious to great restitutions, as of some hundredth thousand crowns, perhaps, which he had gained unjustly, and bestowed in rents and livings for his son and heir. Wherefore the learned man telling him that either he must make restitution, or be damned, quia non dimittitur peccatum, nisi restituatur ablatum, he answered him, that it was unpossible: for that his son and whole house would be utterly decayed thereby. Whereunto the other answered that than it was unpossible for him to be saved, & that hereof he did assure him upon his conscience and skill in Devinity that there was no other remedy to be taken, or help to be had in that case, for that no absolution can save between the Priest, and his Penitent, where is included the interest or hurt of a third. Whereat the sick Father being somewhat astonished● and terrified desired him to deal with his son: but his son would not so much as hear any mention thereof, but rather was as ready to have beaten out the said Divine, as Sir Edward's young Gentleman was to beat out the Monk. Whereupon the Divine took this resolution to bring him before his Father, and told him that upon his conscience and soul his Father was to go to eternal flames of hell, if due restitution were not made: but yet that he had thought upon a certain mean, how some satisfaction might be made, whereby God perhaps might be moved to pardon his Father so great extremity of punishment: 
The Father's prudent and pious resolution.  which was that his said son should hold his finger but one half quarter of an hour in the fire, or over a Candle, thereby to deliver his Father from eternal fire. But he answered, that he would not do it for ten times so much land as his Father was to leave him. Whereupon the Divine inferred, saying: And will you have your Father to lie body and soul in eternal fire for these lands, and yet will not yourself suffer half a quarter of an hours burning of your finger, for ten times as much? Whereupon his Father resolved absolutely to make restitution though with no small abatement of his sons estate.  
61. And now of this example I shall not need to make any application, for it is clear enough of itself. I do not wish ●uill unto the temporal state of Sir Edward's son and heir, whom I know not, but rather do hear him commended: yet do I wish better unto the Father's eternal state of his soul, no less than to mine own. And so much of this matter by his own provocation, concerning the beating of the Monk by the son & heir for giving that counsel to his Father, which the prophet Daniel did to one that was heavily loaden with sins, 
Daniel. 4.  peccata tua cleemosynis redime, & iniquitates tuas misericordijs pauperum: sorsitan ignoscet deli●tis tuis Deus, Redeem by alms thy sins, and by mercy towards the poor thy iniquities: perchance God will pardon thereby thy offences. But this seemeth but a matter of jest to Sir Edward, and so we shall leave to treat any further thereof, and pass to peruse the second part of his present Preface, wherein he pretendeth by four cases, or questions propounded by the student, and answered by himself, to confirm, and establish his precedent assertion of the supereminent antiquity, and excellency of our English Municipal laws above all others; but especially their antiquity; which he doth perform in as strange a manner, as ever commonly I have heard man dispute.   

ABOUT FOUR several questions said to be propounded by the Student in law, and solved by the judge for confirmation of the Antiquity, and Eminency of our modern English Laws. §. FOUR  
SIR Edward having set down before the demand of his student about the supereminent antiquity of the English Laws maketh him to say thus: That some of another profession are not persuaded, that the common laws of England are of so great antiquity as there (in my Preface) superlatively is spoken. In which words no doubt but he meaneth the Catholic Divine, and then as glad to see some doubt or contradiction made thereof for him to show his skill, and readiness in answering, he writeth thus: 
Preface to the 6. part of Reports.  I was right glad to hear of any exception (saith he) to the end that such as were not persuaded might either be rightly instructed, and the truth confirmed, or that I might upon true grounds be converted. Do you see how confidently he writeth? And do you think, that he will be a true Convertite in deed? If he meaneth sincerely, we have alleged him now many and sufficient grounds, which either he must acknowledge, or take upon him to answer them. Let us hear how he goeth forward.  
63. I desired (quoth he) to know some particulars, 
Ibidem. ●ower questions proposed & solved.  as many as they would, at length their great desire was to see some proofs, that the common law in these 4. cases, was before the Conquest, as now it is. First, that the Queen, being wise to a King regnant was a person sole by the common law to sue and be sued, to give, and take etc. solely without the King. Secondly, that a man seized of lands in see simple shall ●orseit his lands and goods by Attainder of felony by outlawry, and thereby his heirs should be desinherited. Thirdly, that a woman being attainted o● petite treason (for killing her husband) should be burnt. Fourthly, whether the ancient laws of England did permit any appeal to Rome in causes spiritual or Ecclesiastical.  
64. Thus far the questions framed by Sir Edward instead of his student, for that he persuaded himself to have somewhat to say for their proof, though in deed it be nothing, as presently you will see: for that no student of any capacity would have proposed these particular cases to prove a general assertion that the laws of England, were the most ancient of all other laws. For though we suppose all these 4. points were true, and to be proved, as he setteth them down, that they were in use before the Conquest: yet do they not infer, that the modern English laws are the same without change or alteration that were of the Britan's, Saxons, and Danes. For that divers particular cases may be common to different laws, as there were in the laws of the Lacedimonians, Carthaginians, Athenians, Romans: and yet we may not for that cause conclude, that they were the self same laws delivered from the one people to the other, without alteration; which is here the bad inference of Sir Edward. But now let us see whether these particulars can be proved, as here they are promised, and first let us hear him vaunt yet once again.  
65. I had no sooner (saith he) seen these questions, but instantly I found direct and demonstrative answers to the same. Behold the fertility, and felicity of his wit, that findeth instantly so direct, and demonstrative proofs: that is to say, such as are evident, clear, universal, and irrefragable (for such only may be called demonstrative according to the rules of Logic: 
Arist. lib. ● poster. c. 2. ) and yet shall you now presently perceive that no one of them is demonstrative: 
Answer to the first  For the first (saith he) behold an ancient Charter made long before the Conquest, which followeth in these words. Our lord jesus Christ reigning for ever, I Ethelswith Queen of the Mercians by God's grant, 
The charter of Q. Ethelswith.  with consent of my Eldermen, will give by grant to Cuthwolfe my most faithful servitor a certain piece of land, being part of my peculiar power (that is to say) a piece of land of 15. Manses, in a place which is called Laking, for his obedience, and payable money in this manner: that is to say, a thousand five hundred shillings of silver and gold, or fifteen hundred si●les, that he may have, possess and enjoy at his pleasure, as long as he liveth, and after his end, and limit of his days, he may leave it to whom soever he will for everlasting power, and perpetual inheritance. 
Anno 868.  And this my donation is covenanted in the year of our Lord's Incarnation 868. the first Indiction. And we do charge all secular powers in the name of God the Father, the son & the holy ghost to observe the foresaid inviolate. These witnesses subscribing, and consenting thereunto, whose names here recited are underwritten. I Ethelred King of the Westsaxons have consented and subscribed. I ●urghred K. of the Mercians have consented & subscribed. I Ethelswith Queen have consented and subscribed etc.  
66. Thus far this Charter, but now I would demand what Sir Edward meaneth to prove hereby? He pretendeth to prove that the common law was the same before the Conquest, as it is now, about the privilege of Queens to be able to buy and sell, give and take of themselves solely without licence of their husbands. But first if he could show this, or somewhat like to this out of some particular fact of some particular English Queen before the Conquest: yet what were this to prove either the antiquity of the common law before the Danes, Saxons, and Romans, as here he promiseth? or that this particular fact of Qu. Ethelswith was a law, or according to the common law in those days? doth one particular instance or action make a law, or prove a law with Sir Edward? Might not Queen Ethelswith make that sale and gift which here she doth to her servant, out of her own dowry, portion, or inheritance, which she brought with her from her Father, and brother Kings of the West Saxons? And if she did, the case proveth nothing. For so may not only married Queens, but all other wives also give of their own.  
67. And supposing she had received that land in gift from the King her husband, and had had his leave, and consent also to alienate, sell, or give the same, it had been no proof of a common law but a particular fact by licence of her husband, as every one will confess. Now then, that not only one but both these conditions were in this fact of Queen Ethelswith (to wit, that she disposed of her own, & this also with the special consent of her husband) appeareth clearly by the very words of the Charter itself, where first it is said: Donabo aliquam telluris partem meae propriae potestatis, I will give a certain part of land, which is of my own proper power: that is to say of my own right and possession. And secondly, both her brother King Ethelred of the West Saxons (in whose dominions it may be that the said p●ece of land, 
Sir Edward's bad argumentation.  or part of it did lie,) and her husband King Burghred of the Mercians did expressly consent, subscribe, and bear witness thereunto. And was this a good example to prove that it was a law at that time, that every Queen might take, & give solely without the King her husband? did Sir Edward when he was Attorney make such good consequences, and frame such demonstrative arguments in his plead at the barre● Surely among us here he would never have gotten half his wealth, by such like disputing.  
68 But to understand better this Charter, it is to be considered, that, as all our ancient writers do testify, 
The true story of Q. Ethelswith.  this King Burghred of the Mercians being in great distress by the ●anes of one side, and the northern Britan's of the o●her, ●●at jointly invaded his Kingdom, knowing not what to do for defending the same (which after also was lost to the Danes) he made recourse to Athul●hus, called also otherwise Adelnulphus K. of the West Saxons, who did not only help & assist him, but gave him also this his daughter Ethelswith in marriage, with such wealth and riches, as it seemeth that it eased both vectigalium pen●●u●●, ●●ostiū dep●●dationē, (to use Malmesb. his words) that is, 
Gul. Malmesb. l. 1. de gestis regum Angl. c. 5.  both the paying of his pension or tribute to the Danes, as also the spoil of his enemies. And again in another place he saith of him: Burghredum regem Merciorum & additamento exercitus contra Britones iwit, & filiae nuptijs ●on par●m exaltavit. King Ethelwolfe of the West Saxons did both help King Burghred of the Mercians against the Britan's by increasing his army, as also did not a little exalt him, 
Malmes. l. ●. c●p. 2.  with the marriage of his daughter Ethelswith. And the like hath Huntingdon, and Ethelwerd in their histories, whereby it is evident that Queen Ethelswith came rich, 
See Ethelwerd lib. 3. chron. cap. 3. Huntingt. lib. 5. histor. prope initium.  and powerable to her husband King Burghred, & was a great stay unto him in his great distress, and therefore she might well presume to dispose of such things as were her own (propriae potestatis) especially her said husband, and Brother King Ethelred then reigning after his Father, consenting and subscribing to the same, as now you have seen. And so this first demonstrative answer of Sir Edward doth demonstrate nothing else but that he answereth nothing at all to the purpose. Let us see the second ●hether it will be any better. 
Answer to the second question.   
69. The second question was, as you well remember, whether it was a law before the Conquest, that a man seized in ●ee simple shall forseyte both lands and goods by attainder of felony, or by outlawry, and that thereby his heirs shall be disinherited. Unto which question, saith Sir Edward, I have here s●t down another Charter of Record, 
K. ●thelred.  made long before the Conquest, ●or direct answer. And then he relateth a donation made by King Eth●ldred Father of K. Edward the Confesso●●, 
Anno 995.  upon the years 995. Which was but 71. years before the Conquest (though Sir Edward said it was long:) and the donation was of a certain piece of land, that was forfeited to the King by one Ethelsig, that having committed theft, and flying to the woods was outlawed thereupon: whereby the King came to have his goods and lands & made donation thereof to another, to wit Vls●icke, And this is all the proof, direct or indirect which Sir Edward allegeth. But here again I would ask him, how doth this prove the principal question, of the great antiquity of the modern English Common laws before the Danes, Saxons, and Romans, seeing the case fell out so near before the Conquest. Secondly ● would demand of him, how he can prove that it is proper alone to our English Common laws to punish theft, murder, outlawry, and other such crimes, by loss of lands & goods: for that I do see it practised commonly in all other countries besides, except only in the Kingdom of Naples: where by peculiar grant and Concession of the Kings of Spain, since it came to their dominion, the goods and lands of such delinquents are reserved to their children, except only in crimes of high treason. But in other Kingdoms to my knowledge there is no such reservation. And I have understood, that divers Great men have forfeited their lands from their heirs, not only for being outlaws themselves, upon murders and such other felonies, but also ●or favouring & aiding such men: whereof I could give divers examples fresh yet in memory, but that it is not expedient for us to meddle in matters of other Common wealths: so as this is no proper law of England, as here it seemeth to be presumed by Sir Edward, but common to all or most Nations: and therefore no marvel though it were in use also among the English before the Conquest.  
70. His third case proposed is this, 
Answer to the third question.  that a wise being attainted of petty treason, for killing her husband, should be burnt, as now is used in England: & to prove that this is an ancient law of the Britain's, & from them come down to our time without change or alteration, he citeth a place out of Caesar in his Commentaries lib. 6. affirming, that i● the wise be suspected o● the death of her husband, & si compertum est, igne etc. interficiunt: that is (saith he) if she be sound guilty of the death of her husband (which is petty treason) she is burnt to death, as she is in that case at t●is day in England. So the judge. For now he speaketh as a judge, though not like a judge, that is truly and sincerely, as presently you will see. For first though the matter were so in julius Caesar his Commentaries, as here is related: yet what doth this make to the main question to prove, that the English municipal laws are the same now that they were under the Britain's in Caesar's time without alteration? 
About burning of women for petty treason in Caesar's time.  Is one example of similitude sufficient to prove this? May not the different laws of divers countries agree in some one case or other, without this inference, that therefore they are the same laws? Was not hanging for theft in use also among the Britain's, Romans, and Grecians? and yet were not the laws one and the self same. And supposing that the Britain's had had this punishment of wives for killing their husbands in Caesar's time, how will Sir ●dward prove, that this endured always afterward, & was never changed by the Romans, Saxons, Danes, or Normans? why had he not alleged some examples of the continued use and practise of the same throughout the reigns of the subsequent Kings, and Nations? Was his store house so barren, that he had but one only example to bring forth, and that so far fetched as from Cesar by a leap to our time? here Natura ●acit sal●um indeed: or rather my Lord leapeth from nature & against nature, in making such a skip ab extremo, ad extrem●●n, sine medic, which nature never doth, or can do.  
71. But now I must show that nothing is here sincerely related, but all corrupted & perverted. For first Caesar in the place of his Commentaries here alleged, doth not talk of Britan's, but expressly of Frenchmen, when he setteth down their laws and customs concerning the power and use they have in punishing their wives, beginning his narration thus: Galli se omnes (saith Caesar) ab Dite patre prognatos praedicant, 
Caesar lib. 6 comment. de bello G●lli●o p. 157. edit. Manucianae.  all Frenchmen do affirm themselves to descend from Pluto the God of riches etc. And then a little after addeth further: Viri in uxores, sicuti in liberos, vitae necisque habent potestatem: & cum paterfamilias illustriore loco natus decessit, cius propinqui conveniunt, & de morte si res in suspicionem venit, in seruilem modum quaestionem habent: & si compertum est, igne atque omnibus tormentis excruciatas int●rficiunt. 
The custom of Frenchmen about authority over their wives in julius Caesar's tyme.  Men (in France) have power of life and death upon their wives, as also upon their children: and when the head of any honourable family dieth, all his kindred do gather themselves together to make inquiry of his death, if there be any suspicion that he was made away, than they do use torments upon the wives, as if they were slaves: and if it be found that they were guilty of the said death, then after they have been tormented by fire and all other torments, they put them to death.  
72. In which narration first you see no mention of Britan's, but only of Frenchmen, as hath been noted: the nobility whereof are divided by Caesar into two sorts; the one Druids, that had care of their sacrifices, and matters of Religion, the other Equites, Knights that made as it were the lay nobility, and of whom he recounteth this that we have here related. You will ask then perchance with what truth or sincerity Sir Edward can recite this as the Law of the Britan's which is related by Caesar as the Law of the Frenchmen? He hath no other shift for excuse of this, but to make this note in his margin: See in the Preface to the third part of my Reports out of Caesar's Comment. Disciplina Druidum in Britannia reperta, atque inde in Galliam translata esse existimatur. It is t●ought that the discipline o● the Druids was first found in Britanny, and from thence translated into France. And is not this a good reason, that whatsoever is recounted by Caesar of Frenchmen should be ascribed to Britain's, ●or that in times past the discipline of the Druids is thought by some to have come from Britanny? What coherence hath this together? May not all laws of the Frenchmen be ascribed by this means unto the Britain's? Is not this a strange direct and demonstrative proof, to prove one thing by another? This indeed is an argument à disparatis as Logicians do call it. But let us see more tricks besides this.  
73. Why had not he alleged the whole place out of Caesar as I have done? and why doth he city the words so crookedly, & si compertum est, igne etc. interficiunt: & yet in the English leaveth out (etc.) saying And if she be found guilty of the death of her husband (which is petty treason) the wife is burnt to death, as she is in that case at this day. Why had not he set down (etc.) also in the English, thereby to let his Reader understand, that there were some words left out, to wit, atque omnibus tormentis excruciatas, interficiunt: they do kill such wives as are found culpable after they have been tormented with fire and all other torments. What needed the word (etc.) for excluding so few syllables but that it stood not well with Sir Edward's purpose to have them seen & read, for that they show plainly, that neither Britain's nor Frenchmen had any such Law or custom to put such wives to death by burning, though they used the same for a torment, before their death. 
Wilful fraud by embezeling of words.  No more than it may be truly said, that Englishmen at this day have a law or Custom, to put Priests or other men to death by the Rack, though divers of them have been racked, and afterwards put to death. And this could not my Lord but see in reading Caesar: whereby is evident that his Lordship also cometh into the Classes of them that avouch wilful and formal untruths against their own conscience and knowledge, when they make for their purpose: and yet is this far from the office & manner of proceeding of a judge, that aught to be exact and punctual in his truth.  
74. But now further to his inference, suppose that he had related his Author truly, and that Caesar had said as he saith: That the ancient Britain's had this law and custom to burn wives that should be ●ound guilty of their husband's deaths, which Sir Edward saith hath continued to our time: why if it were so (to answer conjecture with conjecture) should not the other part of the same law have remained also, that husbands should have power of life and death over their wives, as the Britain's according to Sir Edward had: or how, where, or when can he prove, that, that part of the Law was abrogated, and the other of burning them left to remain? or if he cannot, or that he will say that the other part in like manner doth in rigour remain, 
Why one part of the British law descended to our times and not the other.  than would it go hard no doubt with many wives at this day, that are scarce patient of far less power and dominion in their husbands over them, than is that of life and death: which Case, as it appertaineth not to me to discuss, nor to Sir Edward, I think, to determine, so is it sufficient for our purpose to have demonstrated, that his answer to this third question hath neither been Direct nor Demonstrative, nor sincerely handled, nor grounded upon true relation. Now then to the fourth and last.  
75. If in all the former three questions, the judges answer have been found to have been defectuous, 
Answer to the 4. question.  much more in this then in all the rest. For whereas before you have heard them say, that the Students desire was, to see some proofs, that the Common law in these four particular Cases, was before the Conquest as now it is, and that Sir Edward had no sooner seen them, but that instantly he found dire●t and demonstrative answer to the same: now coming to answer indeed, he allegeth an act of Parliament holden in the 10. year of King Henry the second, which was Anno Do. 1164. 
Henricu● secundus Anno Domini 1164.  wherein it was enacted, That i● any Appeal came from any Archdeacon or Bishop unto the Archbishop, and he should fail to do justice, it must lastly come to the King, nor proceed any further without the assent of the King: 
Sir Edward flieth from the point in controversy.  which is a strange falling from the purpose, if you mark it well. For that the question was, whether this Common law of England, that is now in use, was in use also before the Conquest, and that as now it is used, which the judge affirmeth, and for proof thereof allegeth a Statute made an hundred years after the Conquest. What will you say to this? Why had he not alleged some one example or proof before the Conquest as the Case and question required? Or why had he not gone about to satisfy some of those examples to the contrary, alleged by me in the 6. Chapter of my former Answer to his Reports and fi●th demonstration, 
Answer to Reports Chap. 6 demonst. 5. pag. 1, 3.  to wit, of Appeals to Rome of the two Archbishops of Canterbury, Lambert, and Athelard, under the two Mercian Kings Offa and Kenulphus: as also the two other famous Appeals of S. Wilfrid Archbishop of York against the two Kings successively of the Northumber's, Egfrid & Alfrid? All which are recounted by S. Bede & others long before the Conquest, which in my said Book are set down, and Sir Edward could not but have read them, and are full to the purpose to prove the lawfulness of Appeals in our primitive Church of England: yet now he saith no one word of them, but cometh in with an impertinent instance, that there was a prohibition of Appeals made under King Henry the second by Act of Parliament in the tenth year of his Reign, whereas yet there was no Parliament in use, nor Statute law was begun, until the 9 year of King Henry the third, which was above 60. years after, as appeareth both by the Collection of justice Rastall, and other Law-bookes.  
76. I do not deny but that King Henry the second entering into passion against S. Thomas Archb. of Canterbury made a decree at a certain meeting of the Nobility at Claringdon, 

justice Rastall in his Abridgement of Statutes.  
The Council of Claringdon. An. 1164.   rather moderating, as himself pretended, then taking away Appeals to Rome, not denying that they ought to be made in respect of the Pope's supreme authority Ecclesiastical: but for restraining of abuses in appealing thither without just cause or necessity, especially in temporal affairs, he ordained that matters should first orderly be handled in England, in the Bishops and Archbishops Courts: and if that way they could not be ended, 
Houed. in vita Hen. 2. fol. 287.  they should not be carried to Rome without the King's assent: which declaration of the king's intention is set down by Roger Hoveden out of the Epistle of Gilbert Bishop of London to Pope Alexander the third, written by the kings own Commission: which not being admitted afterward by the said Pope, the king recalled the same with an Oath under his own hand, whereof the said Hoveden writeth thus: 
Hoveden ibidem.  juravit etiam, quòd neque Appellationes impediret, neque impediri permitteret, quin liberè fierent in Regno suo ad Romanum Pontificem in Ecclesiasticis causis. He swore also that he would neither let Appellations nor suffer them to be letted, but that they might be made in his kingdom to the Bishop of Rome in causes Ecclesiastical etc.  
77. All which things could not but be known to Sir Edward before he wrote this his Preface: and that the Catholic Divine in his answer to the fifth part of his Reports, had produced so many evident arguments and probations, that King Henry the 2. 
K. Henry the second very Catholic in the point of the Pope● supremacy.  was most Catholic in this point in acknowledging the Pope's supreme Ecclesiastical authority (notwithstanding the contention he had with S. Thomas, about the manner of proceeding therein for the execution) as none of his Ancestors were more: which in like manner is evidently seen and confessed in effect by Sir Edward himself, in that in his whole discourse of Reports, for improving the said Pope's Supremacy he allegeth not so much as one example or instance out of the reign of this King: which in reason he would not have pretermitted, if he could have found any thing to the purpose therein.  
78. But yet now finding himself in straits how to answer the Students demand about the antiquity of prohibiting Appeals to the Sea of Rome, he was forced to lay hands on this poor example, which was neither to his purpose, in regard of the time, being after the conquest, as now you have heard; nor of the thing itself, for that it was against him, as being only a moderation of abuses, yea and that in temporal things as Bishop Gilbert of London expressly avoucheth, & recalled by the same King afterwards and finally is wholly from the purpose & chief question about the Pope's supreme authority, whereof this of Appeals is but one little member only. And thus we see both how well and substantially Sir Edward hath maintained his assertion of the supereminent antiquity and excellency of his Municipal laws, and how direct and demonstrative answers he hath made to the four Questions or Cases devised by himself, for confirmation of the ●ame.  
79. And whereas he inserteth a note of Record of the decree of Claringdone, 
A shift of evasion taken from Sir Edw.  that this recognition was made by the Bishops, Abbots, Prior's &c. of a certain part of the Customs and liberties of the Predecessors of the king, to wit, o● King Henry the first his Grandfather, and of other Kings, which ought to be observed in the kingdom: whereby it seemeth the Knight would have us imagine (though he utter it not) that the same prohibition of Appeals might have been made and practised by other former Kings living before the Conquest: it is found to be but a mere Cavil, both by the Catholic Divine, that showed out of authentical histories the contrary practice under all our Catholic Kings, both before & after the Conquest; as here likewise it is convinced by the words and confession of this King H●̄ry the second himself, that these pretended liberties of his Ancestors, were brought in by himself only, and in his time, as is testified by Hoveden in two several Charters, 
Hoveden in Hen. 2.302. & 303. Baron. Tom. 12. in An. 1172. non longè ab initio.  one of the Pope, and the other of the King: as also by an authentical Record of the Vatican, set down by Baronius in his tweluth Tome. So as here the judge hath nothing to lay hands on, but to give sentence against himself, both of the Nimium, and Nihil dicit, as now you have seen. And so much for this matter.   

HOW THAT THE foresaid Nimium dicit, as it importeth falsum dicit, is notoriously incurred by Sir Edward Cook, in sundry other assertions also appertaining to his own faculty of the law, which were pretermitted by the Catholic Divine in his Answer to the 5. Part of reports. §. V.  
FOR so much as the most part of this seventh Chapter hath been of omissions, and pretermissions as you have seen, and these partly o● M. Morton, in concealing such charges of untruths as had been laid both against him, as also against his Client Sir Edward, & partly of Sir Ed. himself, in not answering for himself when he ought to have done; I thought it not amiss in this place to adjoin some other omissions in like manner on the behalf of the Catholic Divine, who passed over in silence sundry notable escapes of his adversary M. Attorney, which he committed in citing law-books, and lawyers authorities against the Pope's ancient jurisdiction in spiritual cases in England, and this partly, for that he had not as then all the Books by him, which were quoted, and partly upon a general presumption, that in this point M At●orney would be exact, for that he had so solemnly protested the same in his book of Reports, 
Reports part. 5. fol. 40.  as before hath been touched, to wit, that he had cyred truly the ver● words and texts of the laws, resolutions, judgements, & Acts of Parliament all public and in print, without any inference argument, or amplification quoting particularly the books, years, leaves, chapters, and other such like certain references, as every man at his pleasure may see and read them.  
81. This is his protestation: & who would not believe a man (especially such a man, and in such a matter) at his word, or rather upon so many words so earnestly pronounced, especially if he had heard his new and fresh confirmation thereof which he setteth ●orth in this other Preface to his sixth part, wherein he saith, 
Pref. to the 6 part of Reports f. 6.  that every man that writeth aught to be so careful of setting down truths, as if the credit of his whole work consisted upon the certainty of every particular period: which if it be true, then must it needs infer a great prejudice to the credit first of the said 6. Part of Sir Edward's Reports, for so much as so many periods have been now found false in this very Preface. And secondly it cannot but import the like discredit unto his said fifth part, for which he framed his former protestation, for that upon better view of the books, Statutes & laws by him cited, it is found, that he doth not only misalledge many both words and texts, resolutions, and judgements, but perverteth many other by wrong inferences, arguments, detorsions, and amplifications of his own, quite contrary to his former protestation, which now briefly shall be declared more in particular.  
82. First than not to iterate again the number of those many and manifold falsehoods used by Sir Edward in the citing of the Charter of King Kenulphus before the Conquest, 
See before §. 4. & 5.  for giving privilege of Sanctuary to the Church of Cul●am belonging to the Abbey of Abindon, both by concealing the words that most imported, That all was done by the consent, and authority of Pope Leo: as also the like unsincere dealing in justice Thorps' case concerning the question, 
The first two falsehoods.  whether it were treason in the ●aigne of K. Edward the first for one subject to b●ing in a Bull of excommunication against another subject, whereof we have treated in two several precedent Paragraphes of this Chapter, and convinced that there was much false, and fraudulent dealing in them both: this, I say, pretermitted, we shall note some more examples out of his other instances under English kings since the Conquest.  
83. First he allegeth this instance under the Conqueror himself, not out of any law of his, 
Reports fol. 10. b.  but out of a fact. K. William (saith he) the first did of himself as K. o● England make appropriation of Churches with Cure to Ecclesiastical persons: whereof he inferreth, 
The third fraud about the Conqueror's case.  that he had Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and citeth for the proof of his assertion 7. Ed. 3. tit. Quare impedit 19 which objection though it be fully and substantially answered by the Divine, showing sundry and divers ways, and namely four, whereby a lay man may come to have the collation or appropriation of benefices: yet the book by him cited being since that time examined, it is found that Sir Edward dealt very unsincerly in alleging this case to his purpose which maketh wholly against him. For this is the case set down briefly by Brook in his Abridgement, but much more larger, by the lawbook itself of 7. Ed. 3. fol. 4.  
84. In the 7. year of King Edward the third by reason of an action of Quare impedit brought against the Dean, Chapter, 
7. Ed. 3. fol. 4. Fi●zh. tit. Quare impedit 19  & two Prebends of the Church of S. Peter of York by the Abbot of Newenham, for that they had refused to admit his Clerk presented by him to the Church of T. whereunto he pretended to have right to present: the case was handled in the King's Bench, and the defendants pleading Plenarty for their defence, that is to say, that the place was full and not void, for that there was an appropriation, or union made of the said Church of T. with soak & sake, that is, with the appurtenances unto the foresaid Church of S. Peter of York, and unto two Prebends of the same, by a Charter of King William the Conqueror, and afterward by another of K. Ed. 1. The chief justice at that time named Herle did four or five times at least, during the discussion of that case, 
Herle chief justice.  give his judgement, that by law the Conqueror, nor K. Edward could not make any such appropriation. And of the like opinion were the rest of the judges (or at least contradicted not the same) to wit, Sir john Stoner, Sir Io●n Cantabridge, Sir john jug, Sir john Shardelow, and the rest, though two of them spoke in the case, as may be seen, and gathered by reading the book itself, and Stouffe and True that were of Council of the Plaintiff affirmed flatly, that no such appropriation could be made by the Conqueror. All which the Attorney craftily concealed in his narration of the case, to the end that it might be deemed that the judgement of the Court had been in K. Edward the thirds time (under whom this case was handled) that the Conqueror might according to the common-law, make an appropriation by his letters patent. And is this good dealing even in the very first case which he proposeth a●ter the Conquest?  
85. After this he passeth over all the Conquerors life, and six other kings ensuing, as William Rufus, Henry the first, 
Henry the first founder of the Abbey of Reading.  K. Stephen, Henry the second, Richard the first, and K. john, finding no one example among all those King's actions, laws or orders, that might seem to have any show of spiritual jurisdiction, but only that in the life of K. H. 1. he allegeth a Charter of the said King, wherein he, as founder of the Abbey of Reading, 
Anno 26. H●m. 1. qui f●●t anno Domini 1125.  doth appoint out certain orders and laws, about the temporalityes of that Abbey, a thing very just and lawful for all founders to do by their own right, and consequently maketh nothing to the purpose of our question of Ecclesiastical power; and moreover the Divine proveth by divers examples, that sundry Popes were wont to give faculty to Princes, and other founders to prescribe spiritual privileges for divers pious works erected by them: 
In the Answer to the 5. part of Reports c. 8. p. 18●.  which the Popes themselves would afterward confirm, and ratify: so as this also was a fraud in M. Attorney to allege so impertinent an example; but it showeth his poverty and barrenness in examples of those years, which being above 150. under 7. kings, as hath been said, he could find but these two poor examples (nothing proving the purpose) to bring forth in all this time, whereas if he would look over the time since K. Henry the 8. took upon him indeed Ecclesiastical authority by virtue of his temporal Crown, and the other three Princes who in that have followed him, 
Straining & squeesing of ancient Prince's actions, for some show of supremacy Ecclesiastical.  whole volumes might be written of examples and precedents given therein of practising spiritual power: whereby it is evident: that those former Princes from the Conquest downward, were not of the opinion and judgement of these later Princes, and that Sir Edward doth but squeeze and strain them, to make them say or signify somewhat, which they never meant indeed: and this iniquity is not the least in the Attorneys proceeding in this matter, and yet doth M. Morton say of him, as you have heard, exhorting every man to resort unto Sir Edward's storehouse for abundance of good proofs, saying, habet ille quod det, & dat nemo largius, he hath store to give, and no man giveth more liberally. Now than we shall peruse some of his store.  
86. Under K. Edward 1. he allegeth this instance for proof of his supposed Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, 
4. E. 1. Reports fol. 13. a.  that when Pope Gregory the tenth had determined in a Council at Lions, Bigamos omni privilegio Cl●ricali esse nudatos, & correctioni fori saecularis addictos, 
In 6. Decretal. l. 7. tit. de B●ga●is.  that all such as had been twice married are deprived of all privilege of Clergy men, and are subject to the jurisdiction of the secular Court; There arose a question in England in time of Parliament how this decree of the Pope should be executed, and observed, some of the Prelates inclining, that it should be understood only of such Bigamies, as should fall out after the Council: and therefore demanded to have delivered into their hands, and freed from the temporal jail, such as presently were in prison, and had been bigamies before the Council. But the K. & his Counsel were rather bend to have all bigamies excluded from that privilege, both present and to come, for that the Pope's Constitution now alleged seemed rather to sound that way: for that it is general and without exception. Upon which determination produced, the Attorney hath this note, instead of an inference: Observe (saith he) how the King by advise of his Counsel (that is by authority of Parliament) expounded how this Council of Lions should be understood, 
Reports p. 5. pag. 13.  and in what sense it should be received and allowed. And thereof would infer, that the king and his Counsel held themselves to be above the Pope, for that they took upon them to determine in what sense the Pope's decree should be understood. And yet M. Attorney protesteth as before you have heard, that he maketh no inferences, but only allegeth the bare law books as they lie, but yet here every man will see that it is untrue: for that here he maketh an inference, and that very false and impertinent. For he should rather have made the quite contrary inference, to wit, that for so much as the King and his Counsel did subject themselves to the acknowledgement and observation of the Pope's decree, and did accommodate the law of England thereunto (which before was otherwise) they did thereby acknowledge that the Pope's power in making laws for Ecclesiastical matters, was Superior to that of the King: and can Sir Edward or any man else deny this consequence? And this shall suffice for this case; but only I may not let pass this one note by the way, 
Arraigned.  that whereas M. Attorneys words are, that certain Prelates when such persons as have been attainted for felons, 
Attainted.  have prayed to have them delivered as Clerks, he forgot himself, for that the words in the book are: quando de felonia rectati ●uer●nt, when they had been arraigned of ●elony, & not when they had been attainted of felony: for that Clerks be●ore attainder were wont to be delivered to their Ordinaries: 
Stanford l. 2. cap. 49.  but being once convicted, and attainted they cannot make their purgation afterward, as appeareth by Stanford l 2. c. 49.  
87. Under K. Edward 2. the Attorney writeth thus: 
18. E. 1.  Albeit by the ordinance of Circumspectè agatis made in the 21. year of K. Edward 1. and by general allowance and usage, the Ecclesiastical Courts h●ld plea of Tithes, obuentions, oblations mortuaries etc. yet did not the Clergy think themselves assured nor quiet from prohi●itions purchased by subjects, until that K. Ed. 2. by his letters patents under the great seal, 
The statut of 9 E. 2. Articuli Cleri. c. 16.  and by consent of Parliament etc. had granted unto them to have jurisdiction in those cases etc. So M. Attorney. And what doth he infer hereof think you? the question in hand teacheth us, to wit, that K. Edward 2. is proved by this to have had supreeme spiritual jurisdiction. An inference you will say, very far fetched: but this is the manner of Sir Edward's disputing, and yet he saith, that he maketh no inference, nor argumentation at all: mark then his guilfulnes.  
88 He confesses that before king Edward the 2. there was general allowance and use of Ecclesiastical Courts in England for Ecclesiastical matters, 
18. E. 1.  as appeareth by the ordinance of Circumspectè agatis, under K. Edward 1. and of magna Charta before him again under K. H. 3. & many other proofs: he confesseth also that this use and allowance was confirmed according to the Custom of his Ancestors by the same K. Edward 2. by a new statute made in the ninth year of his reign, called Articuli Cleri. But what of this? hence he inferreth, that the king was supreme in spiritual authority, for that he granted (●aith he) to them to have jurisdiction: and do you see the good consequence? I will reason with him in the like. The parliament de prerogativis Regis held in the 17. year of the same K. reign did number and explain and confirm all the king's prerogatives which were allowable at the common law: ergo, this statute did give unto the king his prerogatives, and that he had them not before: which consequence I doubt not but M. Attorney himself will deny to be good, and yet is it as good as the other: for K. Edward 2. in his statute of Articuli Cleri, did but concur with his Ancestors in confirming those privileges which had been used before, time out of mind, and in subjecting his temporal laws to the laws of the Church in the cases there specified: so far of was he from taking supreme jurisdiction upon himself, as falsely and fond M. Attorney would make his reader believe. But let us pass from K. Edward 2. to his son K. Edward the third, out of whose reign M. Attorney allegeth more examples & instances, than almost out of all the rest, whereof we shall touch some few, for all would be over long, and perhaps we shall descend no lower than the time of his reign, reserving the more ●ull discussion of these, and other examples, until the Catholic Divine or some body for him shall prepare a second edition of his foresaid answer to Sir Ed. Reports.  
89. First then fol. 14. b. of this his fifth part of Reports; he reciteth out of the reign of this K. Edward 3. (but quoting no particular place) that it is often resolved, that all the Bishoprics within England were ●ounded by the king's progenitors, and therefore the advowson of them all belonged to the king etc. And that when a Church with cure is void, if the particular Patron or Bishop of that Diocese do not present another within the space of 6. months, then may the Metropolitan confer the same: 
Fraudulent dealing.  and if he also do it not within six other months, than the common law giveth to the king, as to the supreme within his own kingdom, & not to the Bishop of Rome, power to provide a competent pastor for that Church. This is Sir Ewdards narration, full of deceit as now you shall see. For albeit the common law doth give to the king as to the supreme within his own Kingdom to present by lapse, as hath been said: yet not as supreme in spiritual authority, as he would have his reader mistake and believe; but as supreme in the temporal patronage, or as supreme temporal Patron of that Benefice to whom in such cases the advowson of presenting belongeth, as appeareth evidently by Cirendon, and the Bishop of Lincoln's case in Plowdens' Commentaries, fol. 498. 
Ploughed. Cō. fol. 498.  where it is said, that because all advowsons and lands within the realm are held either immediately or mediately of the King, & the land where the Church is situate before the Church was builded, was held of the king, so in respect of the tenure of the king, the presentment by lapse accrueth unto him, as supreme Patron, and not in respect of the supreme jurisdiction Ecclesiastical, which the Statute of 25. H. 8. 
25. H. 8.  did first of all ascribe unto his temporal Crown.  
90. Under the same king 17. E. 3.23. he citeth another lawbook thus: 
Reports f. 14. b. 17. E. 3.23.  The king may not only exempt any Ecclesiastical person from the jurisdiction of the Ordinary, but may grant unto him Episcopal jurisdiction, as thus it appeareth there, the king had done in ancient time to the Archdeacon of Richmond. So he. But if you read the book itself here cited of 17. E. 3 23. you shall find that no such assertion can be founded there. For thus the case standeth in that book: Stouff a Sergeant at law said, that the Archdeacon of Richmond had the office of the Ordinary, 
The Archdeacon of Richmond.  and I think, quoth he, by l●aue of the king. This is all the case there related: where you see that Sergeant S●ou●● affirmeth not that he knew it to be so, 
Sergeant Stouf.  but did think so, that the said Archdeacon of Ric●mond had the office of t●e Ordinary by leave of the king, and much less did he avouch as Sir Edward doth for him, that the king gave or granted unto him that episcopal jurisdiction, which is not warranted, but rather overthrown by that book, as you see, for that the Archdeacon might have his Episcopal Authority, if he had any, by gr●unt from the Pope, and licence only of the king: and so this a●●●uera●ion standing but upon a collection of M. Attorney, falleth to the ground.  
91. It followeth in M. Attorney his Reports under the same K. Ed. 3. All religious, 
20. E. 3. Excomm. 9 etc.  or Ecclesiastical houses (saith he) whereof the king was founder, are by the king exempt fr● ordinary jurisdiction, & only visitable, & corrigible by the K. Ecclesiastical commission: and for this he citeth t●ese books 20. E. 3. Ixion. 9.16. E. 3. tit● Br●. 660.21. E. 3.60.6. H. 7.14. Fitz. Nat. Breu● But in none of these books shall you find these words, that th●y are only visitable or corrigible by the K. Ecclesiastical commission. This is Sir Edward's own invention. The books quoted do speak of hospitals, and free Chapels of the King's foundation, which are not visited by the Ordinary, for that they are things temporal, and without cure of souls, and therefore not spiritual or Ecclesiastical, 
●itzh. Nat. Br. f. 42. A.  nor to be visited in those days according to the common-law, by the Bishop, but by the king's Chancellor, as a temporal officer, as testifieth Fitzherb. in his Nat. Br. ●ol. 42. A. though afterward in K. H. 5. time for remedying of disco●ders it was decreed in the 2. year of his reign, 
2. H. 5. c. 1. Rastals' Abridgement ti●. Hospitals.  that the visitation, and correction of such Hospitals and free Chaphels' of the King's foundation, or of his subjects, should be done by the Ordinaries, according to the Ecclesiasticll laws 2. H. 5. cap. 1. in Rastals' Abridgement tit. Hospitals. So as here, the principal words of controversy, to wi●, by the king's Ecclesiastical commission, are feigned, and put in by M. Attorney; and this is his ordinary art, to seem to have somewhat in favour of his purpose, when it is nothing at all, but against him.  
92. It followeth in Sir Edw. instances ●ol. 15. The king shall present in his free Chapels (in default of the Dean) by lapse in ●●spect of his supreme Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, 
27. E. 3. fol. 84.  citing for i●, 27. Ed. 3. fol. 84. But here again I find a ●oule fitten, for his book hath not these words, in respect of the kings supreme Ecclesiastical jurisdiction (which is here made the principal verb of this part of speech, and often thrust in by M. Attorney of his own invention,) but the meaning of his book is, as he cannot but know, that the king in such cases shall present, not in respect of supreme Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, but as supreme Patron temporal; for that advowsons, or patronage of such benefices are mere temporal inheritances, according to our common-lawes, as often hath been declared, and therefore the King being founder, may by lapse present.  
93. An other like fitten or rather more foul is committed by him in the same place, alleging out of 22. Edward. 3. lib. Assis. pl. 75. that tithes arising in places out of any parish, 
22. E. 3. lib. Ass● pl. 75.  the king shall have them: ●or that he having the supreme Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, he is bound to provide a sufficient Pastor that shall have the cure of souls of that place, 
Notable abuses about the case of Tithes.  which is not within any parish. And by the common laws of Engl●nd (saith he) it is evident, that no man, unless he be Ecclesiastical, or have Ecclesiastical jurisdiction can have inheritance of tithes. Thus much M. Attorney to prove that K. Ed. 3. had supreme Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, & not the Pope in his days. But here be so many 'scapes, frauds and errors, as is a shame to see. For first in his book quoted there is not found those words (that principally import the controversy) that he, as having supreme Ecclesasticall jurisdictions is bound to provide a sufficient Pastor, but all this is thrust in by M. Attorney to make up his market. Secondly much less is this yielded for a reason, by his book, why the king should have such tithes, as lay out of all parishes: but another reason more substantial is to be alleged (of being temporal Lord of the Lands) which presently we shall touch.  
94. Thirdly it is not true, that the king, as having supreme Ecclesiastical jurisdiction is bound to provide a sufficient Pastor to have cure of souls, of that place which is not within any parish, both for that it may appertain to a particular subject to dispose of those tithes, 
Pour untruths uttered in one case.  if he be temporal Lord of the place, without having supreme Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and the emolument may be so small, or the place itself so vast and remote, as either there be few souls to have cure of, or the maintenance not sufficient for a Pastor. Fourthly it is false, that by the common-laws of England no man unless he be Ecclesiastical, or have Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, can have the disposing of tithes, for that every man before the division of particular parishes was made, though he was bound by divine and Canonicall-law to pay his tithes of his lands: yet might he according to the common-lawes of England have assigned them to what Parish he would. Now let us see the case itself, as it is proposed in 22. Ed. 3. lib. As●. pl. 75.  

22. E. 3. l. Ass. pl. 75.  95. The king granted certain tithes unto the Provost of C. out of certain lands newly asserted in the forest of Rockingan; and the said Provost thereupon brought a writ of Scire facias out of the Chancery against some that took away the said tithes etc. and then (after some altercation to what Court the said suit belonged) the plaintive, 
The state of the question.  that is the Provost, prayed execution, but Thorp the chief justice said; 
Thorp chief justice.  that it was wont to be law, when there is a certain place that is not of any parish, as in Engelstwood and such like, that the king should have the tithes (and not the Bishop o● the place) to grant them to whom he should think good, as he hath granted them unto you: notwithstanding (saith he) the Archbishop of Canterbury having sued unto the king's Counsel to have those tithes, for that the matter is not yet tried: until it by tried you shall not have execution. So he. And this is all the Case: wherein you see that albeit justice Thorp said, that it was wont to be law, that the king should dispose of the tithes of such places, as w●re newly asserted, and cultivated that were of his inheritance: yet doth he not so resolutely affirm it, that he would give sentence of execution against the defendants, albeit they had made default after they had pleaded to the issue, as there is manifest, but would have the Archbishop of Canterbury's suit to the contrary to be heard also. And indeed he could not but know, but that in the book of 7. Ed. 3. fol. 5. (which was 16. years before this case was treated) the opinion of Herle chief justice was, 
7. E. 3. f. 5.  that the Bishop should have such tithes: and much less doth justice Thorp assign the cause of right of those tithes unto the king, for that he hath supreme Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, as our judge doth now: but for that commonly such new waist asserted lands, appertained unto the king, albeit as now hath been said, they might have appertained also to a particular subject, if he had been Lord of the place, as is most perspicuously declared, and set forth in an ancient Treatise entitled: O● the power of the Parliament, annexed to the Old Doctor and Student, or book so entitled: where it is said as followeth.  
96. If waste ground (saith the Book) whereof was never any profit taken, 
The Book of Doct. & student f. 25. printed by the dutch print in the time of K. Henry the 8.  and that lay in no parish, but in some forest, or that which is newly won from the sea, were brought into arable land, if the freehold thereof were to the king, he might assign the tithes to whom he would: and if the freehold were to a common person, he might do the like. For though tithes be spiritual: yet the assignment of tithes to other, is a temporal act. For before parishes were divided, and before it was ordained by the laws of the Church that every man should pay tithes to his own Church, every man might have paid his tithes to what Church he would, & might one year have given his tithes to one Church, and another year to another, or have granted them to one Church for ever if he would. And like as every man before the severing of the parishes might have given the tithes to what Church he would, because he was bound to no Church in certain: so may they do now that have lands that lie in no parish: for they be at liberty to assign them to what Church they will as all men were before the said law was made, that tithes should be paid to their proper Churches.  
97. So far this Lawbook: which doth not ascribe anything to the kings Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, as here you see, as neither doth justice Brook, who in his Abridgement abridgeth the foresaid ca●e of 22. E. 3. lib. assis. under the title of the King's Prerogatives, signifying thereby, that the said tithes are due to the king (if they be due) in regard of his prerogative Royal, and not of his spiritual supreme power a●d jurisdiction, See Book 22. Ed. 3. tit. Prerogative pl. 47. 
Brook 22. E. 3. tit. Prerogative pl. 47.   
98. And as for the law mentioned in the foresaid Treatise, whereby men were appointed to pay their Tithes to their peculiar parishes, whereas before th●y were free to pay them where they would; it is meat of a Canon of the great General Council of Lat●ran held at Rome under Pope Innocentius 3. 
Concil. Lateran. can. 53. & 56.  in the days of K. john of England upon the year 1216 which was above a hundred year before this other case fell out in 22. E. 3. in which Council it was ordained, That eu●ry man should pay his Tithes to his proper Church and parish. To which Ordination of the Pope and Council the kingdom of England submitted itself, and the temporal laws thereof: 
The law of paying tithes to particular parishes.  and so the matter endured until the breach of K. H. 8. So as in all this time the Pope's supreme Authority, and spiritual jurisdiction was acknowledged and obeyed, about this matter of Tithes in England, as is evident also ●y these books ensuing, to wit, 7. E. 3. fol. 5.44. Ed. 3. f. 5.10. H. 7. fol. 16. but yet for that the said Canon of Lateran did not comprehend expressly all such lands as were then waste and should after be asserted, 
7. E. 3. f. 5.44. E. 3. f. 5.10. H. 7. fol. 1●.  K. Edward 3● in the case proposed might according to the former ancient law that was used before the said Canon, give and appoint the tithes of these newly asserted lands of Rockingham, to whom he would, as he did, though not under the title of his supreme spiritual jurisdiction, as the Attorney very falsely doth pretend, but as temporal patron of that land, for the causes before specified. And so much of this Case.  
99 Another he cited out of 38. E. 3. lib. Ass. pl. 22. in these words: 
38. E. 3. lib. Ass. pl. 22. Reports. fol. 16. b.  The king d●d by his Charter translate Cha●ons seculary into Regular and religious persons: which he did by his Ecclesiastical jurisdiction: and could not do it, unless he had had jurisdiction Ecclesiastical. So he: And here is false dealing again, for all that is said in that book, is this, that it was pleaded for the king, that by his Charter he did grant that the Prior & Covent of Plymouth might transfer Secular into Regular Canons, which was but a grant or licence, as you see. Nor did the king translate Canons Secular into Regular, which belonged unto the Pope, but granted only and gave licence, that they might be so transferred; nor hath the lawbook any one word of the kings Ecclesiastical jurisdiction, but all this is feigned by M. Attorney himself.  
100 Again he citeth out of 49. Ed. 3. lib. Ass. pl. 8. where, 
49. E. 3. lib. A●s. pl. ●. Reports f. 17.  the Abbot of Westminster, saith he, had a Prior & Covent, who were Regular and mort in law: yet the king by his Charter did divide that corporation, and made the Prior and Covent a distinct and capable body to sue, and to be sued by themselves: whereof M. Attorney would infer the kings supreme spiritual authority, and jurisdiction. But his book favoureth him not at all herein, for albeit Candish said that the possessions of the Abbot & Prior of Westminster were severed the one from the other, 
Candish.  and that this began with the Charter of the king, yet is it plain by the law 11. H. 4. fol. 10. 
11. H. 4. fol. 10.  that the Abbot and Prior of Westminster had their possessions in severalty from time to time out of mind etc. Nor is there any thing spoken there of the kings grant at all: and if there were, yet must it be understood according to that which is declared by the Catholic Divine of the concession and confirmation of privileges granted by Pope Leo the 9 and Nicolas the 2. to K. Edward the Confessor concerning the said Monastery of Westminster, 
Answer to Reports c. 6. p. 30. et 31.  to wit, that they gave him authority to grant privileges, which they themselves did ratify after they were granted, and so in this case, the separation and severalty of the said Abbot and Prior of Westminster having been time out of mind, must necessarily be presumed to have proceeded originally from the Pope, as the book 11. H. 4. saith, 
11. H. 4.  and that the Grant of the K. was but his allowance and good leave to the same.  
101. I might produce here many other particulars both under this K. Edward the 3. and much more if I would descend any lower to the reigns of other ensuing kings, but I think best to stay myself here, leaving the rest to some other more fit opportunity which before I have insinuated● and this which already hath been spoken may be sufficient to declare and make manifest that Sir Edward is neither so exact and punctual in his truth, as he would seem when he saith; That the credit of every writers whole work must depend of the verity of every period thereof: nor yet so sincere in the simplicity of his allegations, as that he useth not either inference, argument, or exaggeration, as of himself you have heard him protest before; for so much as now more or less you have seen & beheld both these two asseverations of his contradicted by himself in deeds: the first by many untruths uttered in his behalf; the second by a perpetual course of crafty dealing to infer and enforce such things to his Readers apprehension as his Authors never meant, nor the books by him cited do afford or bear, whereof I do understand that he is like to hear more ere it be long, from a Catholic lawyer that meaneth to join with the Catholic Divine in defence of their common & Catholic saith about these points: and to deal with Sir Edward in proprijs, 
A Catholic lawyer like to join with the Cath. Divine against Sir Edward.  upon his own grounds, as I doubt not, but that he may with great advantage, in respect of the notorious difference of their cause; the one having with him the authority & prescription of almost a thousand years in our Country, wherein all Lawyers, judges, and Learned men of that profession were truly Catholic and of one faith judgement, and Religion: and the other hath not yet full the prescription of one age to stand with him in his novelties: and consequently no marvel though he mean to stand to his own wit only.   

OF ANOTHER Preface instantly come unto my hands, prefixed before the L. Cook's seventh Part of Reports, containing new injuries offered to Catholics by him. §. VI  
BEING come to this place of my answer I received a new half sheet of paper printed in latin without the English, containing another Preface of the justice before his 7. Part of Reports: and albeit I expect the rest of the book both in English & Latin, yet perusing over this in the mean space which already is come, I perceive Sir Edward Cook● to persist still in his old animosity of pursuing catholics upon every occasion offered or sought for by him; so as nothing can come from him, either in speech or writing, but some part must concern them and their imputation. 
See before §. 4. & ●●  And as for his speeches (especially his Charges given upon the Bench) I have said somewhat before: and how bitter, false and injurious they are, alleging in particular some passages of his Charge given at the Assizes of Norwich upon the 4. of August 1606. published in print by R. P. & dedicated to the Right honourable Earl of Excester: which two letters of R. P. I knew not at that time whom they meant, until now in this Latin Preface Sir Edward calleth him invidum & maledicum Pricket, 
R Prick. accused by Sir Edw.  an envious and slanderous Pricket, for that belike he had pricked somewhat his Lordships patience by the edition of his said Charge without his licence: he adding moreover, That the said Pricket had not set down any one lest sentence of his speech truly and sincerely in that sense and signification wherein himself had uttered the same, which no doubt was a great fault in Pricket, if it were true.  
103. But on the other side is first the protestation of Pricket himself, 
Pricket in the Epist. dedicatory to the Charge.  who saith to the foresaid Earl, showing both his sincerity and affection towards the justice. If therefore in this following work (saith he) my memory hath given a true instruction to my pen, I hope my labours shall be accounted profitable, when it administereth a public benefit. And again: I humbly crave your Honour will vouchsafe to patronise this little book by me collected, not out of mine own, but from the words of that Reverend, and learned judge the L. Cook; who at his coming unto Norwich, did upon the Bench deliver a Charge so excellent, as that it worthily deserveth to be continued in perpetual memory. These are Prickets words, which seem to free him much from the passion of envy and malediction objected by Sir Edward, whom he pretendeth greatly to honour by this edition of his speech. And that no affection towards catholics did biaz him in this relation, may appear by his other words that presently did ensue after the former, saying: I hope that this speech being produced to a public view, shall remain unto our public weal a worthy precedent, wherein Rome's Champions may with shame discern their long continued shameful practices; Puritan and schismatics learn to know with what injustice they disturb the happiness of our most happy Peer. So Pricket, who showeth himself as you see a perfect Protestant in profession, and thereby it is made very probable that the envy objected unto him by Sir Edward did not arise upon any disparity or partiality of religion (notwithstanding it may be that the difference of their two particular states in purse and wealth considered, Pricket being a poor soldier, might envy somewhat the rich lawyers great wealth and abundant flowing fortunes.) For thus he beginneth his Epistle to the said Earl, lamenting his own penury.  
104. May it please your Honour, the observation, which this world begets, may teach experience truly to report, that love and charity are for the most part grown so cold, 
Poor Pricket a cold in the heat of his gospelling sunshine.  even in the hottest sunshine of our profession, as that despised poverty, though addicted to the religious exercise of endeavours commendable, is in the best employment (which seemeth with greatest favour to smile upon our hope) so coldly recompensed, as that poor, unpitied, dejected, and miserable poverty knoweth neither means nor place, how or where to warm herself. Unhappy I in this best time of greatest happiness, who being, as I am, a poor despised, hated, scorned, and unrespected soldier, so unfortunate, as no commended means (though many used with confirmation both of love and loyalty) can be of power to raise a spirit drowned in the worst of misery from despairs gulf etc. Whereby it may appear that Prickets chief endeavour was rather indirectly by laying forth his own temporal needs to draw somewhat from Sir Edward's purse, and by writing the story of his glorious speech at Norwich, to gain unto himself his good will and affection for his relief, than any way to show malignity against him: whereof I find no cause or probability, but rather his pricking stomach against us, whom Sir Edward also impugned, and consequently, if any thing be found in his narration, that at this present displeased Sir Edward, it must be thought to proceed either from the error of the others memory that directed not well his pen, or from some change of mind in Sir Edward himself who now perhaps reprehendeth that which before he misliked not, but was well content to have it published. And to this later conjecture I am the rather induced to incline for that there are now two years past & more, since Pricket set forth in print this speech, and I never heard that Sir Edward did mislike it, until at this present I see it so grievously reprehended by him in this last Preface: for in the former that was prefixed before his sixth part of Reports (which seemeth to have come forth after Prickets relation) no complaint or mention is made thereof.  
105. But you will ask me (perhaps) why so great a charge should be found in Sir Edward, 
Why Sir Edw. misliketh now Prickets narration.  that he should so sharply and vehemently inveigh against that which before he liked, or at leastwise tolerated for so long time; whereunto truly I know not what other thing to answer, but that it may be, that the exceptions I took in my answer to M. Morton against divers things in that narration, as notorious untruths might displease or sting somewhat Sir Edward, who having no list to answer the matters themselves, thought best to fall aboard the relator, & to lay the fault on him, saying, that he hath not related matters aright: wherein as I mean not to excuse him, so on the other side it seemeth very hard unto me, that the substance of those points, wherein I touched Sir Edward's untrue dealing, and many other, wherein I might have said much more, should be feigned, or devised by Pricket, or related by him more maliciously against us, than they were meant or uttered by the justice himself, which is evident, partly by that which I have heard to be continued still by him both there, and in other places, where since that time he hath given Charges to the jury: wherein the greatest part and most bitter of his speech is always commonly against the Catholics, as though they were the greatest malefactors of the realm, to be inquired of. And in this very Charge and speech related by Pricket, his malicious in●ectiue against them containeth above a dozen leaves printed, the whole thing itself scarce being as much again.  
106. And if you will behold the impertinency & vanity thereof, considering the auditory of Norwich his Country, where he would needs triumph gloriously in that first Charge (if I be not deceived) after he was judge, you shall find it not only like to be Sir Edward's, 
Sir Edw. parable about a young Roman judge applied to himself.  but worthy also of his vain in that vanity: for that having first by a several Exordium set down a tale of a Noble young Roman that was by the Senate made a judge in his tender years, and for divers reasons and considerations of the dignity thereof made some delay, and difficulty in admitting the same, he did notwithstanding upon some friend's persuasion yield at length to accept thereof: all which Parable the justice applying to himself, beginneth his Charge with such plausible oratorical wisdoms eloquence (to use the words of his relator M. Pricket) as first he expounded unto them upon his fingers the Grammatical verse: Quis, quibus, quid, quomodo, and, de quibus, that is: who sent this Commission? to wit, his Majesty. To whom? to Sir Edward, and others under him. What did it contain? Great and high authority. How must it be executed? By doing justice. Of whom and what causes must inquiry be made? Principally, and in the first place against catholics that do profess the Roman religion and obedience of the Pope.  
107. And is not this a goodly deduction? Was there ever any English judge before the Apostasy of Martin Luther, that gave a Charge from the bench against such men, for being such? If all the judges & lawyers of our Nation that ever gave Charges to inquire of malefactors for nine hundred years together, and more in our Island after Christian religion received, did give such a Charge, & for such a crime than hath Sir Edward somewhat to excuse his insolency herein. But if there be none, as most certainly there is not: how then doth he perform his promise made here in this new Latin Preface of avoiding five things in setting down his Reports? 
Pr●fat. ad part. 7. Re●lat.  Whereof the fourth he termeth Novitatem, Novelty, which he defineth to be then, when, 
Sir Edw. protesteth against Novelity when he practiseth the same.  si ad amussim nostrorum librorum, & antiquorum exempla applicentur, nequaquam quadrant. If the things which he speaketh being applied to the exact rule of their law-bookes, and examples of their ancients, do not agree thereunto: Which he holdeth for a thing most unworthy of their profession, indignissimam studiis nostris. Wherhfore either he must bring forth such ancient books, laws, and examples for himself and his cause (that precedent judges have given such Charges) or else he convinceth himself to be most unworthy of that place and dignity of law which he holdeth.  
108. But to return to the Charge given at Norwich: 
Charge p. 10.  after he had expounded the verse of Quis, Quibus etc. according to his manner of ostentation, he beginneth his narration thus: 
Pag. 18.  Our world's admired Queen renowned Elizabeth, did, as you do know, in the beginning of her Reign, change the State of religion in this kingdom, in her first Parliament, by the consent of her Lords Spiritual & Temporal etc. and then he goeth forward to show the continual reclaim, and resistance made by Catholic men from time to time for their religion: whereby thinking to disgrace them as rebellious, for their reluctation, doth in deed give them the highest commendation that can be given to Christian men, which is to stand firm & constant to the world's end in their Religion once received, and continued to their tyme. And for himselve doth insinuate thereby, that for the gaining of advancement, and pleasing a world's admired Queen, or any other worldly Prince, it were no hard matter to make him admit any change of Religion whatsoever, for so much as he alloweth so easily of this, which this Woman-Queene made with admiration and wonder o● the world: & yet doth he utter a notorious untruth in that he saith, she did it by the consent o● her Lords Spiritual and Temporal, for that all her Lords Spiritual (which make the chie●e part of the Parliament) resisted the matter, as appeareth by their deprivations, depositions, restraints or imprisonments that thereon ensued. So as this is as true, as that other which followeth in the very next page, and hath been handled by me in other places, to wit, that as well these that were restrained or imprisoned, as generally all the Papists of this Kingdom, did come to the Protestants Church, nor any of them did resuse during the first ten years of the said Queen's government, which I have convinced 
* Supra §. 4.  before by hundreds of witnesses, to be most shamefully false, as also the other devised fable, that Pius Quimus did offer to approve the Communion Book of English service by his own letters to Q. Elizabeth, if she would do him the honour as to accept it from him.  

Undecent scoffing for a judg.  109. I do pretermit willingly as unworthy of my pen, those scoffs and contemptible derisions, which it hath pleased his L. to use against that holy man, and high priest of our soul's Pope Pius Quintus, 
Charge p. 19  call him Pope Impius V. his hellishness, his horribleness, and the like: which seemeth much to savour of the spirit of those that in judge pilate's house did scoff at our Saviour, 
Mat 27.  bowing their knees, and crying: 
Marc. 15.  ave Rex judaeorum: but yet there the master judge did not descend to such scurrility. But surely I am sorry to see a Lord judge use the same in public auditory, which were fitter for one of his Kitchen amongst his Companions: and when such things as these are related unto strangers, they seem incredible to men of estimation and honour.  
110. But Sir Edward passing on in this manner throughout his whole speech, bringeth in all the accidents fallen out from the beginning of that Reign unto the end of the Irish wars, Doctor Sanders his being there, Steukley his going to Rome, and afterward to Portugal: the Duke of Guise his actions, and of Mendoza, called by him jesuit, though he were a Noble man, and Ambassador of the K. of Spain in England, Campian, Persons, Heywood, Shirwyn, and other Priests coming into England upon the year 1580. and many other such like things little appertaining to them of Norwich, but that my L. would needs speak like a great Counsellor that day, and be Propheta in Patria, and fill men's ears with tales, and terrors: and yet in the end after all said, and much thereof known to be false to the greatest part of discreet men in his auditory, he cometh at length to be somewhat mor● mild and placable, saying: 
pag. 36.  by this than our English Papists, either jesuits or Seminaries may learn to know that it is not Religion that they strive for; but only to maintain the Antichristian head of Rome's usurped Supremacy. 
Sir Edw. strange exhortation.  And if there be in this presence any Roman catholics, or so many o● them as shall hear of that which now hath been spoken, I entreat them, as my dear and loving Countrymen, that they will not any longer be seduced by any lying spirit sent from Rome, seeing that the Pope (whom they believe) hath himself allowed (as before we have showed) that in our Church we have a doctrine of faith and religion, sufficiently necessary to salvation. Dear Countrymen we have then enough & need not the help of any Pope, sithence all the Papists generally came unto our Churches be●ore our late Q. Elizabeth was excommunicated etc. Thus he.  
111. And do you see this Conclusion, all grounded upon suppositions, that are manifestly false, or rather ridiculous in themselves: for that first he would have us suppose, as a thing by him proved before, that it is not religion, for which we strive, but to maintain the Pope's supreme Authority in spiritual Causes, as though the article of supremacy were no point of Religion at all among us, 
The Article of supremacy in Spiritual matters, of how great importance.  which is a great absurdity to imagine. For doth not the Catholic Divine in the Preface of his Answer unto him (and we before have also repeated the same) show & demonstrate that this point of supreme spiritual authority, is so principal an article of Religion, as all other controversies may be determined thereby? How then doth the justice trifle so in this matter? Is he not ashamed to say in the face and ears of such an Auditory, that Catholics strive not for religion, when they strive for their supreme Pastors spiritual Authority? It is as good an argument, as if a man should say, that Sir Edward when he was a Counsellor pleaded not for money, but for gold: as if gold were no money.  
112. His second supposition is, that we believe Pope Pius Quintus to have allowed the Protestant Communion Book, for that Sir Edward saith, and sweareth it upon his credit, saying: and this upon my credit, and as I am an honest man is most true: which I have else where showed to be most untrue, and that no Catholic of credit doth or will give credit unto it. Thirdly he supposeth that we believe his former assertion, that all Catholics generally did come to the Protestants Church for the first ten years of Q. Elizabeth's reign, which they do not only think, but know to be most false.  
113. Fourthly he supposeth it to be a good consequence, that if Catholics did come to their Churches for the first ten years, they have enough for their salvation: and need not the help of any Pope's authority, for absolution of their sins, or other spiritual power: For such is his inference, when he s●ith: Dear Countrymen, we have then enough, and need not any help of any Pope, sithence all the Papists generally came to our church's, be●ore the late Queen was excommunicated: which inference and consequence is both false and absurd. For albeit some Catholics came to the Church for fear or otherwise; yet thereby have not Sir Edward and his partners enough for their salvation, for that the other came to their Churches; for they might come with a repugnant mind, condemning and detesting inwardly their Religion, no less, or perhaps more, than they that were Recusants, and openly refused to come, as no doubt, but at this day also many do, who are forced to Church against their consciences.  
114. And it is to be noted that Sir Edward saith: We have a doctrine of ●aith and Religion sufficiently necessary to salvation: So as he ascribeth no perfection to his Religion, nor any abundant sanctity, latitude, or degrees of holiness, one above the other; but if it be sufficiently necessary, it is enough for him. And yet doth our Saviour say: 
joan. 14. ●. Mat. 5. & 19  that there be many mansions in the house o● my Father; and exhorteth men to perfection, Perfecti estote, which importeth somewhat more, then sufficiently necessary. But if seemeth that Sir Edward would be content with a little, and go no further then necessarily he must. God grant he go so far, and keep him in charity, 
Charge p. 40.  in which here he seemeth in part to be by his offer of union and agreement, though in the very next leaf he falleth into extremities again, saying: That the most sacred person of Gods anointed, king james, whom Pope Clement the ninth could proudly dare to term the Scottish Her●ticke, shall underneath his Princely foot, tread down Rome's faithless, Papal, proud, and Antichristian heresy etc.  
115. Do you see where the man is again? Even now you have heard him ascribe so much to Pope Pius Quintus, as for that he was presumed (though falsely) to offer the allowance of the English Communion book to Q. Elizabeth, 
Sir Edw. intemperate railing  if she would take it of him, that therefore they had a doctrine of faith & religion sufficiently necessary to salvation, for that the Pope had allowed it: and yet now he turneth to his old railing, calling the Roman faith, Rome's faithless, Papal, proud, Antichristian heresy: And thereby maketh all Christian kings that acknowledge the Pope's spiritual authority to be faithless & Antichristian heretics. How will this sound in the ears of all foreign monarchs, and greatest Potentates that are touched thereby? Is this intemperate speech befitting a judges person? yea a Chief judge? But there is nothing more intolerable in this speech, than the base & odious flattering of his Majesty, which vice it is read that divers magnanimous Princes have more hated and punished, than any crime beside; yea next unto treason itself, especially when it is conjoined with notorious falsity as this is, when he saith, That Pope Clement the ninth (he should have said the eight) could proudly dare to term the Scottish heretic, which is indeed a famous English calumniation devised by himself, or others, and can never be proved to be true: for that Pope Clement spoke ever very respectively of his Majesty in all occasions, both when he was in Scotland, and after: Neither will the contrary be found in any of his writings. Wherefore it is both shameful and shameless, that such open untruths should be spoken in public audience without controlment. But let us go forward to a point or two more.  
116. After his former exhortation & invitation to draw Catholics to his doctrine of faith and religion sufficiently necessary to salvation, he pasteth to another point of threatening: first, that his Majesty will never give any toleration to Catholics: and the second, that in the mean space, 
Charge p. 36.37.  while they hope in vain, they shall abide the smart of punishments. The first he proposeth in these words: If there be any Papist so ●oolish, and altogether reasonless, as to expect, that his Majesty may be drawn to such alteration or toleration, as they desire, I will them assuredly to know, they hope in vain. The second he setteth down thus: Such Papists as notwithstanding the impossibility of their hope, will still remain perverse, let them know for certainty, that the laws concerning them shall receive a most strict and severe execution against them.  
117. This is the dreadful denunciation of our new judge, whereby you see, that in the one he forestalleth absolutely his majesties will, 
The fore-staling of his majesties will.  not only for the present, but for all time to come, further, perhaps, than he hath commission to take upon him. For what knoweth he what God may inspire his Majesty in succeeding years? Or what other reasons and circumstances of time, place, and state of things may induce his Royal Wisdom prudently and piously for benefit of his subjects to alter somewhat his present resolution? Is not the hart of kings in the hands of God? 
Proverb. 21.  Will my L. justice so make himself Pedagogue and Master of his majesties will, as he will define or predetermine before hand, what he shall do, or what he shall not do for the time to come? This is very predominant indeed, and were more then enough for a whole Counsel to do: but much more and far overmuch for him, that hitherto, so far as I know, hath no place among them. We cannot but hope better of his majesties pious disposition, and trust, that in time we shall say also, 
Rom. 5.  Spes non confundit: notwithstanding the desperate resolution of Sir Edward to the contrary.  
118. And as for the second point of his threatening punishment and vexation to Catholics, it is little to be wondered at, and less to be esteemed in such a Cause as they suffer for. Less to be wondered at; for that such animosity of spirit is wont often to accompany them, that rise in haste to excessive wealth and authority over others: less to be esteemed by Catholics, who both take it for a glory to suffer for their Religion, and have learned by experience of former times, that God is wont to extend his hand, and make an arrest, even then, when those that persecute his servants are most in their heat of pursuit against them. And I could wish that Sir Edward did but look over the two ancient written Books, the one of Tertullian to Scapula; the other of S. Cyprian, in imitation of the former to Demetrianus, both of them persecuting judges: 
Example of two persecuting judges.  whom the said Authors do earnestly exhort to look upon the ends of such, as had been their persecutors in that their office before. 
Tertull. l. ad Scapul. cap. 3.  Possumus (saith Tertullian to Scapula) & exitus quorumdam Praesidum tibi proponere etc. 
Cyprian. l. ad Deme●rianum.  We might lay before your face the ends also of certain Precedents or judges, that after afflicting us, felt the hand of God themselves: and then he nameth Vigelius Saturninus in Africa, that was suddenly strooken blind, Claudius Herminianus in Cappadocia, that was eaten with life, Ceciliu● Capella of Byzantium, that after much cruelty perished miserably, when he least expected. And I think also, that I may truly add, that whosoever shall look upon the ends of such as have been the greatest persecutors of Catholics in England, since persecution began (and among those also some judges of Sir Edward's rank, if I be not deceived) will find little cause to brag or to vaunt, that they were happy therein. But howsoever this be, I say to our judge, as Tertullian said to his, when he laid before him the said examples: Non te terremus, quia nec time●●●, we do not go about to terrify you, for that neither do we fear you in this cause, though I know you may vex us, as you have done, and do: but when all is done, our hope is where it was, in the Highest; 
Math. 10.  and our assurance and protection is the warrant of our Master: Nolite timere eos, qui corpus occidunt etc. Do not fear those that can vex or kill the body, and afterward can do no more: but fear him that after this life can cast into hell, and everlasting torments: and this judge must our judge fear also. For he is judge of judges, and can both reverse judgements, and revoke sentences at his pleasure.  
119. And thus much have we been induced to speak and repeat again in this matter of this Norwich-Charge, by occasion of Sir Edward's accusation of Pricket in setting down the same: wherein if he had gone about to recall or mislike any part thereof, as over injurious to Catholics, we should have accepted thereof most gratefully, and adjoined with him in the just reprehension of Pricket, as having related that speech more maliciously, than it was meant against us, but I can discover no such meaning or moderation in Sir Edward by that he hath written since that time, or spoken again in that place: whereof I have heard by some that were present, that he hath borne himself no less insolently, then in the former speech, especially bringing in tales against Monks, to get applause thereby of the vulgar people against that order of Religious men in the Catholic Church: whereof you have heard one example before of the Prior, that was feigned to have gotten by fraud a Gentleman's land in helping him to make his Testament: another was of an Abbot that made an enclosure, and took in a high way within his enclosure, and for that there was a rough and rude Countryman, that broke down his enclosure, 
Sir Edw. tale of the fight Abbot.  saying that he would pass where his father and grandfather had passed, the Abbot being a lusty, tall, fat, and strong knave, saith Sir Edward, desiring to fight hand to hand with this clown or countryman, when he was to repass that way, took on a serving man's apparel (if you will believe the story) went to the place, watched his return, joined with him in combat, and was well beaten by him. And then did Sir Edward both laugh heartily, and give God thanks, that he had found out such a History to tell them in that place: and further he said that he was heartily glad, that it fell upon an Abbot. And was not this grave matter, think you, for a judge to treat in that place and auditory? What would the Roman Senate have thought of their young Roman judge, (whose imitation it seemeth that Sir Edward, in the beginning of his Speech had prefixed unto himself) if they had understood that from the Bench and Seat of justice, even pro rostris, he had used such levity of speech and action, as this is?  
120. But here now it may be, that my L. will be somewhat displeased to have his things published abroad, 
Sir Edw. loud tongue in speaking ill of Catholics.  which he did but speak for his private pleasure, mirth, and triumph in his Country of Norwich. But the fault is his own in speaking it so loudly, and not observing the counsel of his Honourable friend; who hearing him one day overlash very much, as here is reported, against Catholics, said merrily, but wisely, unto him: speak softer my Lord for that otherwise you will be overheard beyond the seas. But for remedy of this also it seemeth, that his Lordship hath thought now upon a more effectual way to be free from these admonishments from beyond the seas. For in this new last Preface of his, after a great reprehension of those, that write in these our times saying, Quotidie plures, quotidie peius s●ribunt: that every day more do write, and do write worse (wherein I doubt not but his own writings are excepted by his Lordship, being also a modern writer himself) he cometh to pronounce this terrible sentence upon all Catholic books and writings, that come from abroad: Si quisquam hominum etc. If any man shall bring into England any of those Books, 
Prafat. ad par●. 7. Relat.  which I have seen lately written from Rome or Romanists, or shall by reading, seem to patronise them with his suffrage, or with approving them shall deliver them to others to be read, he must o● necessity ●or the first fault be condemned in a Praemunire with loss of goods and lands, and to be imprisoned during life, at the Prince's pleasure: and for the second he must suffer death, as in case of treason. This is his denunciation and determination, 
A dreadful new commination of Sir Edw. against all Catholic books.  which he proveth not otherwise in this Preface, but only by his own asseveration. It may be that he will go about to prove it afterward out of some laws, that he is to relate in this his seventh Part of Reports: and that he will do it as substantially, as he proveth before in his fifth part, that Q Elizabeth and her predecessors according to the ancient common-lawes of England had supreme Ecclesiastical authority. If he do, somewhat may chance to be said to the book, when it shall be seen, for hitherto I have had no view thereof at all: only I must needs say here; that in wise and indifferent men's judgement Sir Edward being a writer himself against Catholics, and having thereby provoked them to answer him (as before you have heard how joyful he was when any objections were made by the Student against his writings, and the more, saith he, the better:) he hath not provided well for his credit and honour, to go about now to bar all writing on our side, by terror of penalties, yea & of death itself. For this is plainly to provoke to the field: and then to get a proclamation, that if his enemy do overcome him, his victory shallbe death.  
121. But I cannot persuade myself that Sir Edward will easily get any such, unjust, and dishonourable refuge for his defence. For either he must procure it to be decreed of new by some modern law; which being so unreasonable I cannot expect from the wisdoms of so many grave men that must have voyc● therein: or he will deduce it out of some ancient laws of England: and therein I dare join with him, that he is not able to do it.  
122. Wherhfore my counsel should rather be to Sir Edward, 
A charitable and equal offer to Sir Ed.  that either he would cease to provoke us by writing, or intemperate speaking against Catholics, or take in good part our temperate answers, or cause them with like temperance to be confuted by himself, or by some on his part, or so finally change his course towards us, as we may have no special cause to complain of him more than of others: which were a far better way in my opinion, to peace and profit of both parts, then by terror of punishments to seek to oppress all Catholic writings, which will be very hard for him to do. And when it should succeed, he were like to gain least of all thereby: For that most probable it is, that in such a case they would all turn their pens against himself, instead of other argument by his means prohibited.  
123. And this is as much as I have to say about this last Preface, which cometh entitled thus: Deo, Patriae, Tibi, signifying thereby, as I comprehend the matter, 
About the intituling of his 7. part of Reports.  that this seventh Part of his Reports now come forth, is dedicated as serviceable to all those three; to God, our Country, and the Reader: which if it be no otherwise written then the fifth Part, that I have read, it may very well be returned again by the Reader saying: N●c Deo, nec Patriae, nec Mihi: It is neither profitable, nor seruiciable to God's honour, nor to our Country, nor to Me. Not to God; for that it impugneth his only true and Catholic Religion, and that by false and indirect means, whereof God is an enemy. Not to our Country; for that these Reports of law being contrary to all ancient laws, and written with a contrary spirit to all our ancient lawyers, judges, & lawmakers, before this our present age, can profit nothing our Country; but set greater breaches and divisions therein. To Me also, that am the Reader or Student, it can neither profit, nor import any thing, but loss of time, and breaking my head with contradictions: For so much as all this must once again be cast of and forgotten, as novelties. when our old course of Commonlaw must return to follow her ancient stream again.  
124. Wherefore a much more honourable and profitable course had it been for so great a wit, & learned a man in our laws, as my L. is said & held to be, that to the end his labours in writing might have remained grateful and commodious to posterity, he had conformed himself, his spirit, knowledge and pen, to that of ancient precedent lawyers of our land, as Plowden did, and some others, whose writings for that cause will be immortal. But Sir Edward, taking to himself a contrary new course by wrenching and wresting laws to a contrary meaning from the common sense, both of the laws themselves, & lawmakers, as also of the times wherein they were made, and torrent of authority, that governed the the same, his labours must needs in the end prove to b● both unprofitable, and contemptible.  
125. For I would demand him, what sound common lawyer will join with him in this point, which he so re●olutly averreth in his last Preface, that all books coming à Roma, vel à Romanistis, from Rome or Romanists, that is from any sort of Catholics, have punishment according to our ancient laws (for of those I suppose he speaketh) of loss of goods, liberty and life? Will any man believe him, that this is conform to any ancient law of England? 
Sir E●w. his novelties like to prejudice all his writings, as not conform to our ancient lawyers.  Doth he not know (as I doubt not but he doth much better than I) the old ancient honour, that was wont to be borne to Rome and Romanists, by our English Common laws? Can he deny but that the Bishop of Rome is termed Apostolus and Apostolicus almost eu●ry where in the same ancient laws? yea Prince of the Church? and that our Archbishop of Canterbury the greatest Peer and Prelate of England, is called in our law Apostoli Legatus, Legate of the Apostle and Roman Bishop? And that his spiritual Court is but a member of the Court of Rome, which Court in England is called Curia Christianitatis, the Court Christian, or Court of Christianity, throughout our Common law-bookes, as I might show by multiplicity of authorities, if it were not a matter so notoriously known, as no meanest lawyer will, or can deny it. And is it likely then that according to those laws it may be proved, that it is Praemunire and treason, to bring in a Book from Rome or Romanists, to read it, to praise it, or to lend it to another, as here our new justice doth tell men with terror against justice, especially when he addeth, Hi sunt illi libri qui splendidos etc. These are those books, which do carry goodly and religious titles, which do profess to help and comfort the infirm consciences of men, that are in trouble: These are they that take upon them to bring miserable and sinful souls unto the desired port of tranquillity and salvation. By which words it seemeth that Sir Edward hath a chi●●e mislike of spiritual Catholic books, 
Spiritual books misliked by Sir Edward.  which treat the argument of quieting of souls. Which if it be so, than I hope that our books of Controversies may pass with some less danger; though indeed I do suspect, that he meaneth these, when he speaketh of the other; for that they do most concern him. For what do spiritual books trouble Sir Edward, which I suppose that either he never readeth, or little esteemeth the argument they handle, his cogitations being employed about far other objects of this world for the present? Albeit I do not doubt, but if in some other circumstance of time, state and condition of things he should read them, or they should be read unto him, as namely on his deathbed, when flesh and blood and worldly preferments do draw to an end, and himself near to the accounting day, they would make other impression in him. Which being so, true wisdom would, that what we must do in time perforce and perhaps to late, or with out profit, we should out of good will and free choice prevent by Christian industry. Which almighty God grant us his holy grace to do. And this is all the hurt I wish to Sir Edward for all his asperity against us.  
126. Now let us return to M. Morton again, whom we have left for a long time to give place to this piece of Reckoning with Sir Edward. It followeth then in consequence after the precedent Chapter of his omissions and concealments in divers and different charges laid against him for untruths, wherewith he was charged in the Treatise of Mitigation; that we see what new untruths he hath superadded in his defence thereof, for increasing the burden.    

THE NINTH CHAPTER WHICH LAYETH TOGETHER ANOTHER CHOICE NUMBER of new lies, made wilfully BY Mr. MORTON over and above the old, in this his Preamble, whilst he pretendeth to defend, or excuse the said old, being above fifty in number.  
WE have made a large intermission, as you see, of M. Mortons' affairs by interlacing some of Sir Edward's: now must we return to our principal scope, which is to show more new and fresh untruths of later date in this last Reply of M. Morton. And albeit those that are to be touched in this Chapter have been for the most part handled, & discussed before: yet to the end, that they may more effectually be represented to the eye, and memory of the Reader, by putting the principal of them together in rank, under one mu●●er, I have thought it expedient to take this pains also, 
New lies added to old.  whereby may appear how ruinous, and miserable a cause M. Morton hath in hand, that cannot be defended but by addition of so many new lies unto his old, and even then when he standeth upon his trial for the said old, and seeks by all means possible to hide and cover the same in such manner, as before you have heard● And no marvel, for that, both truth, reason, and experience do teach us, that an old lie can never be well clothed, or covered but by a new. Let us pass then to the survey of this Chapter, noting by the way, that we are rather to touch certain heads, or principal branches that contain commonly sundry and several lies under them, then simple & single untruths if they be well examined: nor is it our purpose to name all, for that would imply too large a prolixity for this place, especially for so much as I am to remit the Reader commonly to other places of my book, wherein the points themselves are more largely handled before. Now then shall I lay forth some 20. of the said heads, containing in them a greater number of particulars, as now you will see.  
2. The first wilful lie then, that I will note here, is that which perhaps hath not been laid open b●fore, for that I discovered the same since the writing of the rest, 
1 About the Equivocation of Saphyra.  in perusing his Epistle to the Mitigator more diligently, where he pretending to have obtained the victory in his cause about the question of Equivocation, by the Confession itself of his adversary, he writeth thus: 
In the Preamblatory epistle to P.R.  I do appeal from your position to your Confession● granting that there is a mental Equivocation, which no clause of reservation can save from a lie: which one Confession of yours is sufficient to convince all your mental ●quiuocatours●●o be apparently liars: and thus have I obtained my cause etc. So he. And in divers other places of this his Preamble he insulteth greatly upon this Confession of mine: but let M. Morton show that in all my book I do confess, that there is a mental Equivocation, which no clause of reservation can save from a lie, and then I will grant that he obtained somewhat indeed whereabout to wrangle: but if I do never say so, nor he is able to prove it, but rather in other places of his book doth deliver me from that Confession, 
Pream. pag 47. & 48.  granting that the words, mental Equivocation are not mine, but his own (my words being only these; that there is some speech which cannot be saved from a lie, by any reservation, and not, that there is a Mental Equivocation which no reservation can save from a lie) if this (I say) be so; 
False purchase by lying.  than whatsoever he hath obtained hereby for his cause he hath obtained the same by false purchase of untruth and deceit as you will easily see: Let us examine then the matter a little further.  
3. First then (as now I have said) it was never my mind to affirm, that there is a mental Equivocation which no clause o● reservation can save from a lie, but rather thus, that there is an outward speech which no clause of reservation can save from a lie, 
Act. 5●  such as was the speech of Saphyra, for example (for of this was the treaty) when she answered falsely unto S. Peter her lawful judge about the price of her field that was sold; this speech of hers I said in the Treatise of Mitigation, 
Mitig. pag 344.346. & 348.  though she might have a mental reservation therein (as M. Morton supposeth her to have had,) yet could not that reservation excuse the same from a lie, in respect of the obligation she had absolutely to utter the truth, which obligation he hath not, who speaketh to one that hath no jurisdiction over him, and consequently may equivocate.  
4. Now then M. Morton to obtain ●his cause by a lie, falsely affirmeth me to say, that there is a mental Equivocation, which no clause o● reservation can save from a lie, which is in effect to make me speak contraries. For if it be a lie, then can it be no Equivocation, as out of their proper definitions I have largely proved in my treatise of that subject: And if it be a mental Equivocation, then must it needs be saved from a lie by mental reservation. And finally that my words, that there was an outward speech (as namely that of Saphyra) which no mental reservation could excuse from a lie, and consequently that it could be no Equivocation, do prove not only my own words, speaking thereof, but also the words of M. Morton himself afterward in the 12. Paragraph of this his Preamble, 
Pream. pag 47. & 48.  where he saith & insulteth thus: P● R. is driven to such a vertigo, and giddiness, that even when he would de●end his art of Equivocating ●rom a lie, he is by consequence from God's word (in the example of Saphyra) forced to confess an outward speech, which no clause of reservation could save from a lie. Thus he.  
5. And mark where the Vertigo is, 
A lying vertigo.  for before in his Epistle he avouched me to say, That there was a mental Equivocation which no reservation could save from a lie, & here he affirmeth my words to be, that I confess an outward speech, which no clause of reservation can save from a lie: which last I grant, & do deny the former, & do prove my denial both by mine own and his words now recited: what then can save him from a lie, and lying Vertigo in his former assertion, wherein he braggeth so extravagantly, as you have heard, that thereby he hath gained his whole cause in the controversy between us. Is there any excuse for this Vertigo? Or reason why this so notorious a lie of M. Morton may not be condemned for wilful? But let us see a greater.  
6. Card. Bellarmine speaking of an old ancient heresy sprung up in the Apostles time against the Real Presence, as is recorded by the Greek historiographer Theodoret, as taken out of the Epistle of S. Ignatius ad Smyrnenses writeth thus: 
2 About Theodoret corrupted.  Qu● sententia citatur à Theodoreto, in 3. habetur● which sentence is cited by Theodoret in his third Dialogue out of S. Ignatius his Epistle to the Christians of Smyrna, where notwithstanding it is not now found, that is to say in Ignatius: 
Bellar. l. 1. de Euchar. cap. 1. mitio. see supra cap. 3. num. 99 Pream. pag 65.  but how doth M. Morton cite it? Thus: Quae sententia citatur à Theodoreto in Dialogo, ubi tamen nunc non hab●tur, and then translateth it, which sentence is cited by Theodoret in his Dialogue, but is not now to be found in Theodoret, which is so notorious and wilful a falsification, as he that will but take the pains to look upon Theodoret, shall find it to be there both in Greek & Latin: 
Three falsehoods in one allegation.  How then may be excused this foul escape? Is it not wilful? did he not see & know that he fa●sifyed manifestly the text of Bellarmine? And told also a manifest lie of Thodoret? and thirdly went about to deceive his Reader by his false English translation? How then may be excused this trip●e falsehood in one and the self same matter, wherein Bellarmine is abused, Theodoret corrupted, and his Reader by ●alse translation deceived? Is not one only of these tricks sufficient to destrie, & discredit his bad conscience in writing? But let us go forward.  
7. In his former book of Full satisfaction part 3. pag. 28. he, to disgrace Pope Hildebrand, brought forth a testimony of Claudius Espencaeus, 
3 About Claud. Espencaeus falsified.  as affirming the said Pope to have been the first that made schism between Emperor's & Pope's, & now in this new reply of his he repeateth the same again, 
Preamb. pag. 28.  saying, I produced Claudius Espencaeus their own Romish Bishop, which doth plainly aver, that Hildebrand was the first Pope, who without any example of antiquity, made a schism between Emperors & Popes. But now the matter being better examined for that P. R. could not get that work of Espencaeus when he wrote his former Treatise, it is found that Espencaeus is so far of from plain averring the same, as he doth not so much as once affirm it of himself, but only relateth it, as passionate words of ceratine Schismatical Priests of Liege that were censured, and appointed to be punished by Pope Paschalis the second, 
See supra c. 1. num. 100  as more largely we have showed before out of the second tome of councils, where their whole speech is set down under this title, Cleri Leodiensis ad Paschalem secundum Querimonia. And is this simplicity in writing? Is this sincerity? Is this tolerable in a Minister of simple truth, who vaunteth to his Majesty of the constant assurance of his upright conscience?  
8. Whereas Franciscus Costerus in his Enchiridion of Controversies handling this argument for the authority of the B. of Rome, 
4 The false allegation of T. M. about Costerus.  that for so much as the old Popes before Constantine's time & after, did take upon them as heads of the Universal Christian world to decide Cases of all countries concerning Religion, and affirmed the same to pertain unto them, 
Cap. 3. quod est de summo Pontif. §. constat.  it is very like (saith he) or rather certain, that if that had been by usurpation, or false means, some Catholic Prince, Prelate, or writer, would have reproved the s●me. And then he addeth, Atqui verò nemo hactenus fuit Catholicus, v●l Princeps, vel Presul, vel Scriptor, qui mendacij, vel malae fidei Romanos arguerit. And yet nevertheless hitherto there hath been no Catholic, either Prince, Prelate, or Writer, that ever argued these Roman Bishops of lying or false dealing therein: Which words M. Morton perverteth egregiously, 
Pream. pag 51.  as though Costerus had affirmed, that no writers, Prince, or Prelate, had ever accused Romanistes, or Roman writers of any falsehood in writing: which is so notable a cozenage as a man of any good conscience would never devise. For that Costerus was not so simple or ignorant to affirm, that no man ●uer accused Roman writers of falsehood, seeing and hearing daily so many clamours and calumniations of Protestants against them: but his assertion is that no such exceptions were ever taken against these ancient Roman Bishops, that gave their ●iues for Christ and his Religion: and consequently it is a notable imposture, in M. Morton to obtrude to his Reader modern Roman writers, for ancient Roman Bishops, of which fraud see more before Cap. 3. num. 13.14. etc.  
9 Furthermore pag. 25. 
5 About Gratian abused.  of this his preamble he goeth about to prove Gratian the Compiler of Pope's Decrees to have falsified a Canon of the Council of Milevet (wherein S. Augustine was) and for this cause as though he had now proved the same, he writeth in the margin this note, Gratian a falsificator, for that he had added to the same Canon, a certain exception which Cardinal Bellarmine doth not allow: 
Bellar. l. 2. de Rom. Pont. c. 24● §. Tertio.  but now upon better search it is found, that M. Morton himself is the falsificator, and not Gratian, both for that he cutteth of fraudulently the beginning and first words of that Canon, and perverteth the last. For whereas the question was in Africa, whether Priests, Deacons, or inferior Clergy men, might appeal from their Bishops of that Country unto others abroad (for of Bishops there was no question but they might) the said Council of Milevet decreeth thus in the foresaid Canon, 
The Decree of the Council of Mileu●● in afric.  which is in order the 22. Placuit ut Presbyteri, Diaconi, vel caeteri in●eriores Clerici in causis quas habuerint, qui de judicijs Episcoporum suorum questi fuerint, vicini Episcopi eos audiant etc. Quòd si ab eis provocandum putaverint, non provocent nis●ad Africana Concilia, vel ad Primates provinciarum suarum. We de decree that Priests, Deacons, and other inferior clergy men, in the causes which they shall have, if they complain of the judgements of their own Bishops, let the next neighbour Bishops hear them etc. And if any think good to appeal, it shall not be, but to the councils of Africa, or to the Primate● of their own Provinces etc. So saith the Canon. But M. Mort. to make it seem that this restraint was of the Appeals of Bishops to the Roman Sea, doth cut of cunningly the first words of Priests, Deacons, and other inferior Clergy men, set down in the Canon. And was not this a cunning cut?  
10. And then again whereas Gratian did by way of Commentary, as hath been said, add this exception, Nisi ●ortè Romanam Sedem appellaverint, except perchance any should appeal to the Roman Sea: which exception Cardinal Bellarmine upon good reason doth in this thing impugn, as not agreeing with the matter in hand, M. Morton doth accuse Gratian, as if by falsification he had added this clause, as a part of the Canon, and therefore noteth him for a falsificatour in his margin: but the falsification in both points is proved to have been on M. Mortons' part, as you may read before more largely cap. 3. num. 18.19.20. etc. So as here he is convinced of a double falsity.  
11. Again Cardinal Bellarmine taking upon him in his Treatise of the Notes o● the Church to prove that it is one evident note of heresy and heretics to hold any one condemned error that was held by any ancient heretic, and that the Protestants of our time do hold many, he giveth two examples out of the heresies of the Pelagians, 
6 About simbolizing with Pelagians.  showing how Calvin, and divers other Protestants did symbolize with them in two principal heads of doctrine: whereof the first was about Original sin in Infants (which the Pelagians denied, and especially in the children of the faithful) & the other about the distinction of venial & mortal sins, which they also denied, and that Calvin, Zuinglius, Bucer, and other Protestants did hold the same, but with some distinction concerning Original sin; for that Zuinglius denied original sin in all men, Calvin and Bucer in Christian infants only, and consequently that it was Pelagianisme. Bellarmine's words are these; 
Bellar. l. 4. de notis Eccle●iae c. 9 ● Pelagiani.  Zuinglius negat simpliciter peccatum originale in quolibet homine: Bucerus auten & calvinus ●olùm in filijs fidelium, quos dicunt sanctos nasci, & salvari etiam sine Baptismo: that is: Zuinglius doth absolutely deny Original sinn● to be in any man: but Bucer & Calvin do only deny the same in the children of the faithful, whom they say to be borne Saints, and to be saved also without baptism, for which Bellarmine citeth the places of the Authors themselves, as Zuinglius lib. de baptis. Bucer. i● cap. 3. Matth. Calu. lib. 4. Institut. cap. 15. §. 20.  
12. Out of which discourse M. Morton seeking to find some objections against Bellarmine, pretermitteth first the one of the two heresies objected, 
Preamb. pag. 63.  to wit, about the distinction of venial & mortal sin, and speaketh only of the point of Original sin, saying: Let P. R. for a while take Cardinal Bellarmine into secret Con●ession, and first ask him with what conscience he hath charged Calvin with the heresy of the Pelagians, who denied that there was any original sin in Infants, especially in the children of faithful Christians. This is his demand, and for ground hereof he citeth these latin words of Bellarmine out of the forenamed place: Pelagiani docebant non esse in hominibus peccatum originale, & praecipuè in filijs fidelium. Idem docent calvinus & Bucerus. The Pelagians did teach that there was not Original sin in men, 
Bellar. lib. 4. de notis Ecclesiae c. 9 §. Pelag.  especially in the children of the faithful. And the same do teach Calvin & Bucer: which words if you confer them with the words themselves of Bellarmine before cited, who accuseth not Calvin & Bucer of all the Pelagian doctrine in this point, 
Three other falshoode●.  but only Zuinglius, and as for the other two, to wit Bucer & Calvin, he accuseth them for a part only, Zuinglius denying original sin in all, and these later only in Christian Infants, two tricks at least of wilful falsity are discovered: the first, that in his charge he wills Bellarmine to be examined in confession about Calvin, whereas he ●pake of three together, to wit, Zuinglius, Bucer and Calvin: the second that he accuseth Bellarmi●e as though he had charged Calvin with all the Pelagian heresy in this matter, whereas he expressly prof●ss●th to charge him only with one point thereof concer●ing the infants of the faithful. Wherefore these words, ●dem docent calvinus, & Bucerus (and this may be the third false trick) are not to be found in Bellarmine, but are thrust in by M. Mor●on: nor cannot agree with the distinction of Cardinal Bellarmine before set down, these things than I leave to the Readers discretion. For though the points themselves for their substance be not of great weight, yet is the mind of the writer as much discovered in false tricks of small moment as of great; see more of this matter before Cap. 3. num. 62.63.64. etc.  
13. It followeth pag. 55. of this his preamble that treating of the prohibition made by the ancient Council of Eliberis in Spain consisting of 19 Bishops not to set up Images in the Churches, 
7 About the Council of Eliberis, & Sixtus Senensis.  & the divers expositions of Catholic doctors about the same, what the causes and motives might be of this prohibition for that time of the fresh, and new conversion of that nation from Idolatry to Christian Religion, among other expositors he citeth the opinion of Sixtus Senensis for the last upshot of the whole matter ●aying thus: 
Sixtus Senen●. Biblioth. lib. 5. Annot. 247.  So that whatsoever the occasion of forbidding might have been, this is a confessed conclusion of Senensis, that the Council of Eliberis did absolutely forbid the worship of Images. And then jetteth down the same in latin in his margin, as out of Senensis al●o, in these words: Idcirco omnino ve●uit Synodus Elibertina imaginum cal●um. But he that shall look upon the text of the Author himself shall not find any such confessed conclusion, or any such words of absolutely forbidding, and consequently this is convinced to be an absolute untruth, for it appeareth clearly in Senensis that the prohibition was only for a time, until the new converted Spaniards should be better instructed in Christian Religion, and made to understand better the difference between Pagan Idols, and sacred Images: so as here are two gross falsityes, first in obtruding, as the latin sentence of Senensis, that which Senensis hath not, in words or sense, and then in translating the same so punctually into English, & setting it down in a different letter, as though it were exactly so in good earnest: and can there be any excuse for these sorts of proceedings? Let the Reader see more before c. 3. nu. 38.  
14. Gregorius de Valentia is brought in by M. Morton against Bellarmine as allowing of a sentence of Tertullian used by Bullinger the Caluinist as orthodoxal, 
8 About Bullingers' assertion of the Trinity.  and justifiable, to wit, Tres sunt in Divinitate personae, non statu sed gradu, non substantia sed forma, non potestate sed specie differentes: and M. Morton stoutly citeth in his margin for approving thereof Gregorius de Valentia jesuita de unitate & Trinitate c. 9 §. item Bullingerus, meaning thereby to oppose the one of them against the other in this matter● but when the thing is examined, the words of Gregorius de Valentia are found to be these: Bullingerus Sacramentarius etc. Bullinger the Sacramentary affirmeth that there are three persons in Deity, which differ not in state but degree, not in substance but form, not in power but kind: by which words (saith Valentia) he doth not only overthrow the Godhead of the son, but even the whole Mystery of the most holy Trinity.  
15. So saith Valentia against Bullinger for whose defence against Cardinal Beauties' accusation of Arianisme he is produced. And let the reader judge whether this be an allowance of that sentence for orthodoxal, which Valentia saith, as you see, to be so blasphemous as it doth overthrow the whole mystery of the Blessed Trinity. And the like lie you may behold uttered by M. Morton against Cardinal Bellarmine himself in this very matter, affirming him to expound as orthodoxal and justifiable, the foresaid heretical paradox of Tertullian, whereas he expoundeth only in good sen●e the former part thereof: So as here are two convinced falsi●yes, whereof you may read more largely cap. 3. num. 88.89. etc.  
16. There falleth out a question between M. Morton, and Cardinal Bellarmine, whether the form of arguing used by S. Cyprian were good and sufficient or no, 
9 About S. Aug. & S. Cyprian.  wh●̄ he defended the error of rebaptizing heretics à sufficientia scripturarum exclusiuè, to wit, this or that is not in the Scripture, ergo, it is not to be defended, it being the common form of arguing in the Protestants of our days; and Bellarmine saith, 
Supra c. 3. num. 107.108. & deinceps. Bellar. lib. 4. de verbo Dei c. 7. Aug. l. 5. de bap. cap. 23.  no; alleging S. Augustine for his Authority, who defending the negative against S. Cyprians error, to wit, that men returning from heresy were not to be rebaptized (which was the opinion of the whole Church in his time, & grounded upon unwritten tradition of the said Church;) reprehended that form of arguing in S. Cyprian, as not good●, and sufficient, showing both that many things besides this, are taught and believed in the Church by tradition, which are not in Scripture, & that S. Cyprian himself when he was out of necessity of defending this article, made recourse unto unwritten traditions, whereunto M. Morto● answereth thus. But whosoever shall consult with S. Augustine in the Chapter specified, 
Pream. pag. ●6. & 67.  shall find that this point by himself is excellently commended, saying, that, whereas Cyprian warneth us to run unto the fountain, that is, unto the traditions of the Apostles, from thence to derive a conduct unto our times, is chiefly good and doubtless to be performed. So he.  
17. But when S. Augustine's discourse is examined, it is found wholly against M. Morton: 
S. August. against M. Morton.  for though he do allow and praise recourse unto Scriptures when things may evidently be proved from thence: ye● doth he not hold that only such things are to be believed as are expressly therein contained, but rather both in this controversy of rebaptisation, wherein S. Cyprian doth pretend to hold the affirmative by Scripture & S. August. the negative by custom and tradition of the Church, and prevailed also therein and in many other examples that scripture only must not be the rule of belief, for that there are many things which are, and must be admitted though they be not expressly in Scriptures. 
An audacious untruth.  This is S. Augustins discourse, which being so, it showeth a notable fraud, and desire to deceau● in M. Morton, that telleth his Reader that S. A●gustine did excellently commend that form of arguing in S. Cyprian, which he indeed doth largely and expressly impugn, whereof see more before Cap. 3. num. 107.108.109. etc.  
18. In the 70. page of this his Preamble writing of Purgatory, 
10 About Purgatory  he seemeth to have set down one of the most manifest, and boldest untruths that ever commonly I have read; for thus he writeth: When I speak of Fathers (for proof of the article of Purgatory) the most of them; when I speak of Canonical Scriptures, all of them are ●ound by the judgement o● their own Doctors to be tortured wrested and forced, as it were, to say that which they never meant. 
A most absurd assertion.  This untruth I say, seemeth so manifest & plain, as there needeth, no other proof to convince i●, but only the bare narration thereof. For how can it be possible, that our Doctors do believe the article of Purgatory, if in their own judgements they hold & teach that all Scriptures alleged for the same, and the most part of Fathers, are made to say that which they never meant therein, and this by turning, wresting, and forcing? Is there any man that will admit so violent a fact as this? Or is there any man so light & foolish, either Protesta●t or Catholic, as will give credit to so fond an assertion? Whereof see more before, Cap. 3. num. 138.139. etc.  
19 In the 71. page of this his Preamble M. Morton taking upon him, 
11 When the two letters of T. M. were understood.  and promising to discover such notorious fashoods against me, as that he would enforce me by virtue of mine own promise (as he saith) never hereafter to credit myself, beginneth with this in the first place, that I in the end of the common Preface prefixed before my treatise of Mitigation did signify, that when I wrote that Preface, I did not know whom the letters T.M. did signify: & yet that in the dedicatory Epistle that goeth before the said Preface I did sundry times signify that the said letters T.M. did import Thomas Morton, and this he setteth down for the first notorious falsehood, that he was to handle against me: but when matters are examined it is found that my said dedicatory Epistle was written long after the Preface, and in the last place after the whole Book was ended; and that this could not be unknown to M. Morton himself, for that it is expressly set down both in the said dedicatory Epistle as also plainly declared in the third Chapter of the treatise, when, and by what means I came to know first the true signification of those two letters T. M. after the writing of the common Preface, 
A ridiculous ouer●ight in M. Morton.  wherein I denied to know it. So as this is convinced not to be any notorious falsehood or falsity at all in me, but to be more than wilful, and ridiculous in himself to charge me with it, as is showed more at large before, Cap. 4. num. 10.11. etc.  

12 About Holinshed Fox & Stow.  20. There followeth pag. 80. of his Preamb. a great conviction of M. Mortons' wilful falsity, which I do not see how any ways possible he can avoid or excuse: and the matter is, concerning the testimony of Holinshed in his Chronicle, about the cause of Sir Thom. Wiat's Rebellion, which M. Morton had stoutly denied in both his former Books of Discovery, & Full Satisfaction to have had any relation to Religion, or mention thereof in his pretence, for which he citeth in his margin Holinshed only Anno 1553. and when against this his Adversary P. R. cited the plain testimonies of M. john Fox as credible an Author in his opinion as Holinshed, 
M. Fox an. 1554 pag. 1289.  M. Morton in this his last Reply shifteth of this, with saying that his adversary played the Fox, 
Strange impudence  seeking to pray furthest of from home, for that he had cited Holinshed, and to Holinshed he would stand, to wit M. Morton: whereupon P. R. looking better into Holinshed findeth the very self same testimony and words in effect, which were alleged before out of Fox; and the like also set down by john Stow in his Chronicle, which M. Morton could not probably but have seen. And how then did he make that stout denial before mentioned in two or three bouts, and now the third time doth stand in it also? can this be excused? can this be thought tolerable? can this be defended from wilful falsehood known to the speaker? you may see more of this matter before, Cap. 4. num. 54.55. etc.  
21. Furthermore page 94. of this his Preamble he going about to prove by examples that some Popes have died disasterously, 
13 About the death of Pope Anastasius.  nameth Pope Anastasius the second, and for testimony thereof citeth in the margin Ioan● de Turrecreniat. lib. de sum. Ecclesiae, de Anastasio, whose words he saith are, bene legitur Anastasium divino n●tu percuss●m i●●ter●sse, It is well read that Pope Anastasius died strooken by the appointment of God: & then he insulteth, that this is the testimony of one of our own Doctors; but when the place is examined only it is found that Turrecreniata bringeth in this by way of objection in the behalf of others, for these are his words: Tertium etiam hic inducunt exemplum de Anastasio, qui licèt volueri● revocare Acatium, non tamen p●tuit, quia divino nutu percussus est. 
Turre●r. l. 2. de sum. Ecclesiae cap. 112.  here also they bring in a third example of Anastasius, who albeit he had a mind to recall the heretic Acatius (to wit, to his communion at the urgent instance of the heretical Emperor called also Anastasius) yet he could not do it, for that he was strooken by the hand of God, and so thereby prevented from falling into that inconveniences which is the end whereunto Turrecremata reciteth the example, to show the providence of God in preserving the Bishops of Rome from falling into such inconveniences, though o● 〈◊〉 Authors also do deny this example, for that Acati●● was dead long before, which M. Morton dissembling, as also that it was brought in the behalf of Popes, and as an objection: 
Three falsities in one.  others by Turrecremata, and not setting down his true words, as now you have heard, doth by all these three means show that he wittingly dealt falsely, whereof you may see more, Cap. 5. num. 30.31. etc.  
22. It followeth page 111. of the said Preamble that M. Morton to disgrace and discredit the decretals & Extravagants of Popes, 
14 About Pope Gregory's licence for printing the Canon Law.  avoucheth that Pope Gregory the 13. of late in this our time, did (by a special breve) ratify the Glosses and Annotations (upon the said Decretals) and gave them authority equivalent and answerable to the Decretals & Extravagants themselves, which seeming a strange fact of the Pope, the said Breve prefixed, before that edition of the Canon law, was examined and it was found that Pope Gregory did only therein give licence and privilege, according to custom, for printing the said Decretals, Extravagants, and Corpse of the Canon law, together with their Glosses and Annotations, as they were set forth in Rome, and Roman edition, without any one word of equalling them in authority the one with the other: which seemeth so notorious an abuse and imposture, as unless we should imagine M. Morton to be a very simple and senseless man in mistaking quid for quo, which I think he would be loath to be accounted, he cannot be excused from manifest wilful fraud, whereof we have written before, Cap. 5. num. 92.93.94. etc.  
23. In the page. 64. of this preamble M. Morton accuseth Cardinal Bellarmine falsely to have ascribed unto Calvin the heresy of the Manicheans, 
15 About the Manichean heresy imputed to Calvin.  saying: Again he at●ributeth unto Calvin the heresy of the Manichees, who (saith he) did condemn the nature of men, depriving them of free-will, and ascribing the Original and beginning of sin unto the nature of man, and not unto his free-will. So he. But when the Original text of Bellarmine is examined, 
Bellar. l. 4● de notis Ecclesiae cap. 9 §. 8.  it is found that M. Morton instead of the words, saith he (to wit Bellarmine) should have said S. Hierome and S. Augustine do say so, for that Bellarmine citeth the first part of the words of S. Hierome, and the second as the words of S. Augustine, which names of authority M. Morton cunningly clipping of, to the end the Reader should not be moved therewith to see the common doctrine of Protestants about free-will to be accounted Manichean heresy by those two Doctors, he reciteth the sentence as Cardinal Bellarmine's own speech, and not as of the other: and this the first trick of falsity in this point.  
24. The second is, that whereas Bellarmine doth accuse Calvin to deny free-will with the Manicheans, M. Morton objecteth unto him a contradiction in this matter, as though he had granted elsewhere that Calvin had held the doctrine of free-will: whereupon he urgeth Bellarmine in these words: 
Pream. pag. 64.  This contradiction in this point is no more than this to charge Calvin with that which he did not believe: is not this singular falsehood? But when the matter is examined it is found that M. Morton endeavoureth to deceive his reader with a notable equivocation about the tyme. For that Bell●●mine granteth, that Calvin a●cribeth free-will to man before his fall, but not afterward, wherein standeth the controversy between us and Protestants, and therefore when he saith Calvin with the Manichees doth deny free-will (to wit, after man's fall, granting it before) it is no contradiction at all; for that both are true: and consequently I do not see how it can be excused from wilful fraud, that M. Morton here went about to deceive his Reader with so gross an Equivocation in fact, & practise, the name whereof otherwise in sound of words he doth so eagerly impugn: about which matter see more Chap. 5. num● 79.80.81. etc. So as here are two notable frauds as you see.  
25. But in the next place there is a greater multitude of frauds discovered by me together, to wit, five, 
16 About the Novatian heresy.  and I cannot see how any one can be excused● For whereas M. Morton pag. 63 & 64. complaineth that Cardinal Bellarmine doth make Protestant's guilty of the heresy of the Novatians in taking from the Church all power of reconciling men unto God (he should have said heresies in the plural number for that Bella●mine reciteth two, 
Bellar. l. 4. de notis Ecclesiae c. 9 §. Novatianorum.  to wit this, and the denying in like manner the use of holy Chrism;) he so goeth about to deliver his Protestants from this imputation (I mean of the first only, without saying any thing of the ●econd) as partly under the Equivocation of the word Pennance, understanding it now for private Penance as it is a virtue only, and may be exercised by every man of himself, both inwardly and outwardly of what religion soever he be: and then taking it as it is a Sacramental Penance, which prescribeth a certain external form, and requireth absolution of the Church; he so entangleth himself and his Reader (I say) with his defence, as he is convinced before in this our answer to have committed five several falshoodes which cannot possibly be excused from witting and wilful, whereof you may see more at large, cap. 3. of this our Answer, num. 67.68. etc.  
26. But yet there followeth a more notable conviction of falsehood against him for alleging pag. 84● & 85. of his Preamble the jesuit Doctor Azorius, 
7 About Doctor Azorius.  as condemning all use of Equivocation, and that by five rules: whereof the last is urged by him, as hitting the nail on the head, to use his phrase: but when the matter is duly examined, it doth so hit M. Morton on the head, that I take pity to consider how he reeleth at the blow: for it maketh him to fly and conceal four rules of the five, for that they make wholly against him: As namely the first which resolveth that a Priest may Equivocate, & say he knoweth nothing, when he is demanded any thing concerning Confession: the second, that any man may Equivocate, when he is demanded by an incompetent judge, even with an Oath, whereof he setteth down 4. or 5. several cases resolved by him, directly against M. Morton in this doctrine. His 3. rule also, which concerneth common conversation of men, determineth, That whensoever any injury is offered to any man, it is lawful for him to use Equivocation, either in Oath or speech: & by this he resolveth four other several cases against M. Mor. whereof one is the famous Coventry-case so often by him mentioned. The fourth rule setteth down no particular cases, 
Ten lies about Azor.  but only giveth direction how we may not use certain forms of Equivocation if no injury be offered us: & to like effect is the fifth rule so much esteemed by M. Morton: but for the former three containing the resolution of ten several cases all directly against M. Mort. & his doctrine, being by him both seen & read, & yet concealed and dissembled, do convince him of ten several witting falshods, and cannot possibly be excused, for so much as he allegeth Azor, as denying all Equivocation, except he will say, that in reading the self same pages and lines of Azor his eye sight did not serve him to read the precedent four rules that resolved so many cases against him, but only opened itself upon the fifth, which were a strange case. Or if he did read them all, than it was a much more strange resolution to suppress and embezzle them, & yet to allege Azor against his Adversary with this confident title, 
Preamb. pag. 84  ●hat P.R. his Equivocation is proved a lie, & himself a falsificator by the Confession of three jesuits; whereof the first convincing him is Azorius, a great Casuist, and learned jesuit, How will the poor man defend himself here? See more of this before Cap. 4. num. 69.70.71. etc.  
27. In the next place after this, M. Morton introduceth for a second witness, to use his words (for convincing P. R. of falsehood) one Emanuel Sa another learned jesuit, 
18 About Emanuel S●: whether he contradicteth all Equivocation?  in his Aphorisms, alleged by his former Adversary the Moderate Answerer, which Emanuel saith that some Catholic Authors there be, who do not allow that in all Cases where the party demanded is not bound to answer, he may lawfully Equivocate: and perhaps (saith he) these later speak with better reason than others that hold the contrary: 
Pream. pag 86. Moderate Answer. cap. 10.  whereupon M. Morton doth triumph exceedingly as though he had evicted, that Emanuel Sà the jesuit had contradicted all Equivocation, and thereupon entereth into this vain and childish insultation: Is it possible (saith he) that my Adversary can free himself from a falsity h●ere, 
Pream. pag 86.  corroding the conscience? the Edition is but one, the translation is the same, the place is well known etc. So he. And yet when the matter is examined he himself is found to have both the corroding and corroded conscience, for the many wilful falsityes used in this point.  
28. As first, for that this is brought in and urged, as though Emanuel Sà did affirm, that divers Catholic Authors did contradict all Equivocation in general, whereas he expressly speaketh of some particular cases, that may fallout, wherein the party demanded though he be not bound to answer: yet hath he not liberty at his own pleasure to equivocate without necessity, but ought rather to hold his peace, especially when no violence or injury is offered by the demander: which yet not withstanding was avouched to be but a particular opinion of some, and left afterward by Emanuel himself.  
29. Secondly he cutteth of the beginning and ending of his adversaries words, which do clearly expound his meaning: and thirdly he doth conceal wittingly five particular cases resolved by Emanuel Sà in favour of Equivocation against M. Morton: 
Eman. Sa A●hor● 25. de Confus 8. de testib●  so as these be seven witting & wilful falsityes which by no art of tergiversation can be avoided. And by this you may see how the number of his falsehoods would multiply upon him, 
Seven wilful untruths uttered together.  if I should pre●●e him with every one severally, and spend time therein: but this would corrode too much, and therefore I remit the reader to that which hath been said hereof before, Cap. 4. num. 77.78.79. etc.  
30. And now we shall draw towards an end, though many more of this kind do yet remain which might be produced in this brief collection: as namely, 
19 About not answering of Maldonate.  that which is handled by me before in the fourth Chapter of this book, where M. Morton accusing me boldly and mo●t eagerly, that I going about to satisfy in my Treatise of Mitigation two different Authors Sotus & Maldonate, 
Pream. pag 87. Mitig. c. 14 pag. 409.410.  that do impugn the vile art of Equivocating (to use his contumelious words,) I do pretermit wittingly Maldonate the third witness (as the weaker adversary will do his overmatch) though he were cited by him in the self same place, to the self same effect: But all this I do prove to be as full of falsehood and forgery, as the former, containing at least fourer or five wilful untruths. For that in the place of my book by him cited, neither do I treat of Genesius & So●us together, but of Genesius alone: nor do I there endeavour to satisfy any of their testimonies, for that there are none brought forth against me. And thirdly I do urge M. Morton with an unanswerable testimony of Genes. in that place, 
Five untruths together.  affirming the lawfulness of some Equivocation, which he doth neither answer, nor go about to answer in this his Preambling Reply. Fourthly I do not join Genesius and Sotus together in any one place throughout my whole Book. Fifthly and lastly (for I will touch no more points) it is proved that the authority of Maldonate brought in by M. Morton, maketh nothing at all against Equivocation but rather for the confirmation thereof, wherein I remit me to that which is more largely treated before of this matter, num. 83.84.85. etc.  
31. And now though I grow weary in recapitulating so large & loathsome a list of wilful untruths, as you have heard, pretermitting many for avoiding prolixity: 
20 About Polidore Virgil falsified.  yet cannot I altogether let pass in this last place one which is very solemn. For whereas M. Morton in the Epistle Dedicatory of this Preamble to to the Earl of Salisbury, had made a solemn protestation, that it should be to him the greatest crime of all others if it could be proved that he durst to make a lie before his Lordship; & before this again had affirmed the same in effect to the King's Grace himself in his Epistle dedicatory of his Full satisfaction, assuring his Majesty of the uprightness of his conscience, and that he was a Minister of simple truth etc. now notwithstanding both to his Majesty as also to the Earl, he blusheth not to utter many lies together, to wit so many as you have heard by me convinced, but two especially in this very place concerning an observation out of Polidore Virgil. For whereas in the said dedicatory unto his Maies●y●e ●e hath these words: Polidore observeth that the Popes a long time in their election, had their names changed by Antiphrase viz. the elected of he were by natural disposition fearful, was named Leo, if cruel, Clement, is uncivil urban, if wicked ●ius, etc. 
Preamb. pag. 90.  Now in this Preamble dedicated to my L. of Salisbury he being priest to bring forth his authority and words of the Author, he is constrained to convince himself of two notable falshoodes and deceits: first for that Polidore in his latin text by himselve alleged doth not say, that the Popes for a long time in their election had their names changed by antiphrase, 
Polid. l. 4. de Invent'st cap. 10.  as M. Morton falsely avouched, but, ut ei statim creato liceat nomen mutare, that it was lawful for him that was made Pope presently after his election to change his name, i● he would: and this is only, and that a good one, to affirm that Polidore observeth that Popes for a long time did change their names by Antiphrase: whereas he said only that they might do it if they li●t, but he do●h not, nor cannot give any true example that ever any one did it for this cause.  
32. But the second delusion is much more singular: for whereas Polidore said that he bringeth in this contemplation of his but in jest, and not in earnest. non ex●raiocum dict●m sit, 
Pream. vbi●supra.  be it spoken but in pastime; M. Morton in his first allegation thereof in his dedicatory to his Majesty as a Minister of s●mple truth, quite leaveth out these words, thereby to make his Highness think, that Polidore uttereth this devise in good ●arnest without any excuse or interpretation thereof: but now here in this other work to my L. of Salisbury being forced to lay them forth, he deviseth a new interpretation, saying, that non extra iocum dictum sit, doth signify that it may not be spoken without a jest, which is a very jest indeed, but a lying and malicious jest. And 〈◊〉 with these two new lies, I shall end this recapitulation, referring the Reader for more particulars in this last twofold lie to that we have handled more largely before in the fourth Chapter, num. 12.13. etc.  
33. And thus having made this short review and collection of these 20. branches of new, witting, and wilful untruths, 
The Conclusion.  containing in particular above fifty, as the Reader will find in perusing them over, I shall pass to the tenth and last Chapter of all wherein, notwithstanding all these evictions, you shall find the most strange confident animosity of his own singular and simple truth, and the rarest brags, vaunts, protestations, provocations and new Challenges, that ever, perhaps, you heard in your life: so as he proveth himself a Cock of the game indeed, in crowing loudest, when he is most battered. We shall pass on then to see his crowings.   

THE TENTH, AND LAST CHAPTER, CONTAINING NEW CHALLENGES, PROTESTATIONS, VAUNTS', AND OTHER VEHEMENT assertions of M. Morton, that inwrappe him in bands of further absurdities, than any of his former errors or oversightes before laid down.  

PREFACE.  
ALBEIT from the beginning of this Book, and especially in our Epistle prefixed before the same, as well Dedicatory to the Universities, as also Admonitory to M. Morton himself, we have made manifest, that the manner of his answering in this his last Preambling defence was nothing else but a certain flourish and outcry of words, thereby to astonish the Reader, and to divert his attention from the substance of the matter itself, by protesting, promising, threatening, vaunting, challenging and the like: yet for that he multiplieth more these shifts, and relieth more upon them in the Conclusion and last Paragraph of his said Preamble, than any where else before, intituling the same a Challenge against P.R. I am forced in this place to call again into view this idle argument of bragging, craking, 
Bragging and craking.  and outfacing, called in latin lactantia, savouring either of a very vain mind, or desperate cause, or both.  
2. And to begynue with the matter itself, and with his manner of proceeding herein, you have heard before what solemn protestations he hath made, what severe conditions he hath specified, what grievous punishments he hath appointed to himself, if he essectuate not great matters in this his Preamble: If he make it not manifest (to use his own words) that I have prevaricated in my whole cause, 
Epist. dedicat. pag. 3.  betrayed my countries State, disgraced the Roman Schools, and strangled my own conscience, he refuseth not to be condemned: and that above all other crimes against him, he is content that this be added, that he durst affirm thus much before my L. of Salisbury his honour.  

Preamb. §. 12. p. 43.  ●. You have heard more over how he threateneth so to press me in the matter of Equivocation, as no wit of man should be able to excuse me. And again in the next Paragraph ensuing: if I prove not (saith he) their doctrine to be as bitter as the water of Meribah (he should have said Marah, 
A gross error about Meribah.  as appeareth Exod. 15. v. 23. for Meribah was the sweet water that guished out of the Rock, 
Pream. 49.  whereof both men and beasts did drink, Exod. 17. v. 7, 
Exod. 15.  and I marvel he would err so grossly) then let them note me (saith he) for a man above the nature of man malicious. 
Exod. 17.  He threateneth to drive me to a vertigo and gyddines, that I shall repent, that ever I took this matter in hand: but here he entereth into more vehement and pathetical protestations, which yet I do not see how he may well call Challenges, 
Three parts of this chapter.  but rather certain discharges or deprecations for himself, which he divideth into three sorts, the first for his own person, the second against me his adversary, the third concerning the cause in hand between us: and in every one of these parts he hath four members of challenge, so as in all they are twelve in number: we shall run them over in order as they lie.   

CONCERNING M. Mortons' own person, and what new Protestations and Challenges he maketh thereabout. §. I.  
HIS first challenge is this: 
His first charge concerning himself.  As for the integrity of my conscience (saith he) I do avow, that if I have not in the jealousy of my infirmity done that which no one to my knowledge hath done these many ages, to wit, reviewed some of mine own books, and examined them not as an Author, but as a Censurer, discovering such my escapes, as I could at any time find, and publishing them in print with open animadversions, to the end that mine own correction might be my Readers direction: then I say I will contesse myself worthy of all the criminations of frauds, tricks, deceits, cozenages, & whatsoever opprobrious imputations P. R. either hath, or can fasten upon me.  
5. This is his first protestation: 
To the 1. protestation.  whereunto first I say, concerning his last words, that albeit it were true, that M. Morton had used this diligence which here he mentioneth of reviewing and censuring his own works, which yet I never saw published, this doth not so defend him, but that his adversary P. R. may justly fasten upon him the imputations of falsehood, which he pretendeth to do: for so much as he might slightly or partially overuiew his own works, & either out of blindness of self-love not see his own errors (which were hard to believe, they being so manifest as before hath been showed) or rather loath to strike than out for want of other better matter to supply their place. And howsoever it be, P. R. standeth to the auouchment of his imputations, and appealeth to the trial already made: which being apparently true, and in many manifest points not reprovable, M. Mortons' review must needs condemn himself, either of lack of sight, or want of conscience.  
6. Secondly how is it probable, that M. Morton out of the jealousy of his infirmity, as he calleth it, did make so diligent a search and inquiry upon his works, as here he saith, for so much as in this very book of Preamble in the few points that he taketh upon him to answer, he is forced to confess for his own defence, that sometimes he did not see the Author whom he citeth, as of 
a Preamb. pag. 91.  Nauclerus about the false allegation, that Pope Adrian was choked with a fly, in his second objection, and 8. Paragraph. And oftentimes he layeth the fault of his false allegations upon others, as upon one Richard 
b Preamb. pag. 1●4. & 106.  Sto●ke Minister of London in sundry false citations of Gratian: as also upon 
c ●ream. 84.  Tol●ssanus about Otto Frisingensis; and upon 
d Preamb. pag. 100  Ri● Can. for the falsification of M. Reinolds testimony: may this be called an exact review of his own works? what exact & diligent censure did he use in this review? How did he discover his escapes therein, as here he professeth? How doth he give me special 
e Preamb. pag. 104.  thanks for pardoning him in one of his escapes, and for ascribing it to that he had not seen the Author himself? calling this my courtesy a dram● of sugar? Was this diligence? Was this jealousy of his own infirmity? Nay he saith more, that he hath performed greater exactness in this point, than any one Author to his knowledge for many ages. Is not this excessive overlashing against others, and overweening in himself? What one Author can he bring ●orth among Catholic writers, who in a book of this small bulk and bigness may be found to have uttered the least part of such manifest untruths, as here have been proved and convinced against him  
7. He hath taken in hand before, 
Preamb. §. 15. p. 62●  as you have seen, Cardinal Bellarmine, to search & pick some matter out of him, that might seem to bear some show of untruth: but hath been able to find no one, as we in the third Chapter of this our Answer have made it plain: and yet is there great difference between the case of Cardinal Bellarmine and M. Morton, 
Preamb. p● 128.  if you consider it. For whereas he writeth for some excuse of himself in this place, that it is almost impossible for any man citing ●oure or five hundred testimonies, 
Preamb. 128.  as factors in their accounts, but that by chance he will err in some particulars without note of ●raude or Cozenage: then much more may this be yielded to the cardinals works and authorities cited therein, 
Comparisons of the exactness in writing between Cardinal B●larmin, and ●. M.  which no doubt are fifty for one at least, in regard of this Preamble, and then ensueth this comparison, that M. Morton having uttered so many gross and witting untruths in so little a book, & the Cardinal so few, or rather none at all, that M. Mort. can find and prove in so many thousand authorities as in his volumes are cited, it maketh more notable the vanity of this first challenge or brag, that he hath done more in strict examination and censuring of his own books, than any other author for many ages together.  
8. Thirdly the reckoning is now made so clear and perspicuous, subductis ex utraque part rationibus, by casting the accounts most exactly on both sides, especially by our last three precedent Chapters, to wit, of the fourteen falsehoods objected against him which he chose out to answer but could not: and then by the twice fourteen which he wittingly pretermitted as unanswerable: and lastly the number of new lies and falsehoods uttered in discharge of the former; the reckoning (I say) is made so evident and palpable, as it must needs cause great laughter to see M. Morton come forth, 
The penalties whereunto T. M. is alliable● by his own obligation.  and say after all this, That if he have not in the jealousy of his infirmity so reviewed and examined his book, not as an Author but as a Censurer, discovering his own escapes etc. he will confess himself worthy of all the criminations, frauds, tricks and deceits laid against him by his adversary: wherein I see no other way can be taken by justice, but as in suits of obligation when the conditions are not fulfilled, the penalties must be undergone by the obliged, whereunto by band and obligation he is liable; that is to say M. Morton must be condemned of all the imputations before recited.  
9 Fourthly, to the end it may appear, that not only I, who am his Countryman, have observed this manner of dealing in his treatises written in English but strangers also in such pieces as he hath set forth in the Latin tongue (though I confess in all truth & sincerity, that I never read or saw any thing of his in that tongue) I shall here set down the words of a learned stranger, that some days past wrote a letter out of Germany to a friend of his about two books of M. Mortons' confuted by him, and almost ready to go to the print. I know not the very title of the said books, but I have the original Letter of the writer imparted unto me by my learned friend, to whom it was written, & I have showed the same to sundry others, who will testify that it is not feigned by me. By which letter is evident, what stuff is contained in the said two Books, and what opinion he hath of the Author. And if I shall understand that any fraud or falsehood is suspected on my part in this relation, I shall procure the Answerer to cause this Epistle of his to be printed with the said Answer: his words therefore are these, treating with his friend of the edition of his said Answer.  

The Censure of a stranger concerning two books of M. Mortons, set forth in Latin, against the jesuits.  
Quid Mortoni editionem retardârit, in proximis iam perscripsi. Liber, quin magnus sit, nullo breui●atis studio effici potest. Nam & Mortoni liber crassus est, & ex nostrorum potissimùm scriptis mendaciter citatis, totus ille cento consutus est. unde, ut hominis mendacissimi impudentia prodatur, necessarium est singulorum verba sic primò poni, ut abillo relata sunt; eadem deinde cum fide ex ipsis Authoribus recensenda, cum tempestiva aliqua Mortonianae artis commendatione. Primum librum (habet ille ad 100 circiter Capita, & varias materias, imo omnes pene iam controversas continet) prout ab illo emissi● est, totum confutavi: & tot in illo, adeoque crassa mendacia demonstravi, ut frustra sit ad alterum progredi: in quo homo insulsissimus plerumque ex primo repetit, & familiarissimis sibi figuris, hoc est mendacijs aliis, aliterilla exornat: itaque ex hoc paucula tantùm delibabo. Si Scribam invenero legendi gnarum, dabo operam, ut exscribatur etc. Nam in hoc labore suscipiendo non aliud spectavi, quam ut errantibus asieno sub nomine viam & veritatem ostenderem. unde in singulis Capitibus Catholicum primo sensum, quem Mortonus pervertit, exposui, & aliqua Scripturae vel Pa●rum authoritate stabilini. Mortoni deinde mendacia & calumnias detexi. Quòd factu non admodum suit difficile, nisi quod laboriosum fuit Authores quos citat conquirere, singulos excutere, ut de Mortoni perfidia evidenter constaret. Librum Passavij reliqui, quò simul atque rediero (spero autem nosilluc ante Pentecosten redituros) me operi ac●ingam etc.  
Grecij 20. Aprilis 1608. G. I.   
11. Thus that learned stranger: who I assure myself must needs laugh heartily, if he shall understand that M. Morton maketh such special protestations and challenges of the integrity of his conscience and iealosy o● his infirmity, and of the severe examining and censuring his own books before they come abroad, and yet that they come forth with so many gross falsities, as both he, and we, and all other his Readers that be not passionate do find. I have not thought good to translate this Epistle into English, for that there be some words more sharp therein, than I would willingly use against an Adversary, whom I seek rather to pacify and satisfy with reason (if it be possible) then to exulcerate by sharpness of speech: albeit I cannot let pass to set down the judgement of another learned stranger, extant in a printed book of his in defence of Cardinal Bellarmin, whom M. Morton chiefly pretendeth to impugn, but so weakly and absurdly, as the said learned man giveth a very contemptible censure of the whole work, saying: 
Gretzerus in defence. B●lla●m. pag. 435.  Hoc opus merito suo inter stulcissima, quae ex Novatorum officina prodierunt, sedem sibi deposcit; adeò fatuè, stolidè & insulse non dissertat, sed delirat. Which words also for the foresaid cause I leave untranslated. And this may suffice for his first challenge: there followeth the second.  
12. If I have not earnestly desired (saith he) and by the law of love challenged of my friends strict justice, in noting such depravations as might any way occur: 
His second Challenge.  and (lest they should suspect their reprehension to become less acceptable unto me) if I have not pro●essed it to be my greatest offence, not to be in that manner offended: If I have been ever so perversely obstinate, as not willing to be reform by any adversary: then I will confess myself worthy of all criminations, frauds, tricks, deceits, cozenages etc.  
13. To which challenge I answer, that if M. Morton have had this earnest desire indeed, which he speaketh of, and have requested his friends by the law of love, to note in strict justice his d●prauatiōs, as he protesteth, we must needs conclude, that either he hath had few faithful friends to perform that friendly office unto him, or that they were very careless in their annotations, or he not very prompt to follow their advertisements, supposing the multitude of faults that are found, whereof neither he, nor they did take any notice, or seek to correct them. And as for his willingness to be reform by any adversary, 
M. Mort. prevaricateth his promises.  and that his greatest offence was, and is, not to be in that manner offended, I do not see how it can be true or held for probable: for so much as myself being his adversary in the cause and controversy between us, having sought friendly in my book of Mitigation to admonish and reform him in many errors and falsities uttered by him, he hath been so far of from taking it in good part, or not being offended therewith, as he hath utterly lost himself through impatience in divers passages in this his answer, as before you have heard upon divers occasions, & no where will it more appear, then by the second part of this his challenge concerning his adversary presently to ensue: wherein he passeth the scolding of any bad woman lightly that ever I have heard of, if invective scurrility be scolding. Wherefore in this he protesting one thing and doing the contrary, within so few lines, it may easily be seen what credit may be given to his words. Let us pass to his third challenge.  
14. Although I can not (saith he) but choose to be struck rather of a friend who woundeth, 
His 3. challenge.  that he may heal, t●en of an enemy, who intendeth only to hurt: 
Preamb. p. 127.  a friendly animadversion, being as an Antidote, which is a reprehending of me, lest I might be reprehensible: and the taxation of an enemy being as toxicum calummously poisoning whatsoever deserveth good: yet if I have ever been so wickedly perverse as not (whensoever justly) to be willingly reproved by my adversary, turning his venom in●o treacle, his deformation into reformation, than I say, I will confess myself worthy of all the criminations as before.  
15. This Challenge if we consider it well, is only a multiplication of words without new sense or substance, 
The Answer.  for that in the later part of the former Challenge, he protested the same that he doth here: that he was willing to be reform by any Adversary, which here he repeateth again with some more Rhetoric of phrases, but no more truth. For that I being his Adversary and reproving him of so many untruths, and offering to stand to the trial, as now I have done, he hath not only not taken it patiently nor turned venom into treacle, but quite chose treacle into venom: for that my admonitions were treacle indeed to resist the venom of a lying spirit infused by heresy, if he would have taken the benefit thereof. And as for the Antidote, which here he speaketh of to be reprehended friendly, lest he might be reprehensible; if it be so much to be esteemed as he saith (& so it is indeed) then much more obligation is there to be patient in receiving reprehension, where a man is actually reprehensible indeed, and that in so high a degree as I do pretend and prove that M. Morton is, by his false dealing before laid down, which yet he holding for toxicum, I have very little hope though much desire, that it may do him good: but to others I trust it will, that are not so partially and passionately interessed in the matter.  
16. His fourth Challenge is uttered in these words: If in my ordinary course of life (saith he) any man can charge me with a bent to this vice of falsity, though it were for hope of whatsoever advantage etc. then I will confess myself worthy etc. 
His fourth Challenge.  Unto which Challenge, if so he will needs call it (for I never saw Challenges run in this form) I have this only to answer, 
The Answer.  that the falsifications objected are extant à part rei, and avouched out of his Books published in his name: and whether he wrote the same either of a bent to this vice, or of a back, that is to say, of a necessity or kind of compulsion for manteyning of a bad cause, I will not stand to dispute or determine. Neither will I allege any thing injuriously against M. Mortons' person, which I do love from my hart in the true love of Christ our Saviour, wishing his best spiritual good as mine own, and do esteem him also for the good parts that God hath bestowed upon him, though I do pity the evil employment thereof, in the cause he defendeth. And this shallbe sufficient concerning his challenges & protestations about his own person. Now to the person of P. R. his Adversary.   

CONCERNING the person of his Adversary P. R. and absurd Challenges made against him. §. II.  
IF in any other place of his whole Book (which yet are many, as you have seen, by the perusal thereof, and of my answer) M. Morton forgot himself, or rather lost himself by vehemency of passion, grief and choler, he seemeth principally to have done it in this place, where he censureth his adversary in four several challenges, which I have thought best to set down together, & not to answer them severally, as I did in the fo●mer Paragraph. For that indeed there is nothing in these but excess of intemperate heat in contumelious speech. Thus than he writeth.  
18. Concerning the disposition of my Adversary (saith he) if he be not manifested to have so behaved himself in terms, 
Preamb. p. 128.  so despitefully malignant, as if the Capital letters o● his name P. R. did justly betoken Princeps Rabulatum. 
4. absurd Challenges.  ●f not so dotingly ●a ne in ostentation of his own wit and learning, as if P. R. did truly signify Phormio Romanista. If not in defence of his cause in both the questions of Rebellion and Equivocation so dissolute, as if P. R. might be worthily interpreted Praevaricator Rasus. If not in his criminations and objections of falsifications so unconscionably and impudently unjust, as if P. R. naght certainly deserve the interpretation of Perfidiae Reus etc. then will I assume all his odious attributes, as proper unto myself &c. So M. Morton.  
19 And doth not the discrete Reader see by these manner of Challenges, 
The Answer.  that the man hath more need of compassion & commiseration from me then confutation? Truly I cannot think so ill of his nature or condition, that he would have fallen into this ridiculous distemperature of words, but upon some great straits and extremities of mind. For first what Grammar scholar is there, that hath never so small measure of a malicious wit, that cannot invent twenty of these opprobrious terms and combinations upon any two letters, that shallbe given him to that purpose? And do you not think that the letters T. M. may receive in like manner variety of such allusions? at least wise the interpretation of T. M. Thomas M●ndax or lying Thomas, 
The vanity of his Challenges confuted.  could not fail to offer itself to every man's cogitation that had read the multitude of witting and wilful untruths convinced by me against him before. Wherefore this invention of revenge was a very poor and feeble one.  
20. Secondly these opprobrious interpretations used here by M. Morton have not only any truth, sap, salt, or acumen in them, but neither any mean conveniency or congruity with the things whereunto they are applied. As in the first, in regard of despitefully malignant terms, he will have P. R. to signify Princeps Rabularum, 
Princepa Rabularum.  as though Rabula did signify a railer which is more I think then either his dictionary or Lexicon will allow, though it import a more intemperate kind of action or defence then M. Morton can with any shadow of truth justly ascribe to his adversary P. R. in this respect.  
21. Phormio Romanista in like manner is very unfitly applied; 
Phormio Romanista.  for whether he will allude to Phormio Captain of the Athenians; or to Phormio the Philosopher in Hannibal's time, or to Phormio the parasite in Terence, I do not see how the said allusion may agree with any correspondence to the thing here objected of doting vanity and ostentation of wit & learning. For flattery is rather of other men, then of ourselves.  
22. But most impertinent is Praevaricator Rasus in the third Challenge ascribed to dissolute defence of his own cause: 
Praevaricator Rasus.  whereas a Prevaricator is he that colludeth with his adversary-attorney to betray the cause, for which he will seem to plead. And whether I have done so, and have betrayed mine own cause, giving the victory and conquest to M. Morton, under pretence to impugn him, let the Reader be judge that hath seen both our plead: only I must say that my will was not to do it. And as for the word Rasus, it was put in and joined to Praevaricator, without sense or salt, as the proverb is. For what can it import either to be shaven or be long-bearded, to use collusion in treating of a cause? Wherefore this only came in to correspond with the letter, & from some good esteem perhaps that M. Morton holdeth of his own beard, with contempt of us, for that some among us do use sometimes to cut or shave our beards: which custom notwithstanding he cannot deny to have been in use in the ancient Christian Church, & held for Religious for many ages past.  
23. As first, to pretermit lower ages, 
a l. ●. c. 22.  Venerable Bede doth testify in his history of England, where also he giveth the reason thereof, and showeth that the use o● tonsure, & of crown, made in their hair, was from the time of the Apostles themselves. Which in like manner 
b Lib. 2. c. 4. de divin. office.  S. Isidorus almost 200. years before him doth affirm, though he yield another reason also thereof. Before S. Isidorus again 
c Ep. ad Aug. quae est 26. inter Ep. Aug. & ad Sabinian. Diac.  S Hierome, and 
d Ep. ad Procul. Ep. 147. & l. de opere monach.  S. Austin do make mention of the same religious use of cutting their hair. And so do the two councils of 
e Conc. Carth. 4. can. 44.  Carthage, and of 
f Conc. Tolet. 4. can. 40.  Toledo in Spain, the one holden at that time, the other a little after. Yea the matter was so usual then, as the old 
g Authent. collat. 7. tit. 5. c. ●.  Emperor justinian speaketh thereof in his Authentikes. And yet before these two Fathers, also mentioneth the same 
h In pamnar. haer. 80.  S. Epiphanius Bishop of Cyprus, and doth sharply reprehend certain Monks of his days, that would needs be criniti, that is to say, to w●ar● their hair: and the same doth 
i Cap. ult.  S. Augustine in his book De opere Monachorun. And yet above this and before this 
k Lib. de virg..  S. Athanasius in his book De Virginitate doth not only affirm Monks but Nuns also and holy Virgins to have had this religious use in his days to be shorn in the hair of their head. And with him do testify the same both S. 
l Ep. ad Sabin. Diac.  Hierome, and 
m Hist. Laus. c. 41.  Palladius an ancient Historiographer of the same time. And before all these again for divers ages 
n Lib. de Ecclesiast. Hierar. cap. 6.  S. Dion●sius Areopagita scholar to S. Paul maketh mention of this use of cutting of hair and changing apparel in them that professed solitary or religious life.  
24. So as M● T. Morton scoffing at us & our Church for this use and custom of so many ages, scoffeth also at all Christian antiquity therein. But this perhaps is the glory of such Yonkers to scoff at their elders, and to frame to themselves conquest and Victories upon their contumelies. But let us make an end of this wise censuring of his Adversary.  
25. His fourth and last contumely of Perfidiae Reus, 
Perfidiae Reus.  guilty of perfidy, is so devoid of all faith and tru●h, as the guilt of perfidy, if any be, must needs fall upon the unfaithfulness and infidelity of the accuser, that raileth so bitterly without all ground or substance. For what one thing hath he proved before of perfidious dealing in me, who do cyte my Authors, my arguments, my proofs, my demonstrations for every thing, whereof I do argue or accuse him? And now in the review thereof in this last Reckoning, 
The upshot of the Reckoning.  I do so establish my accounts against him, as there seemeth scarce any place to remain for any probable defence on his part: If there be, let us have it, the Book is extant, the Chapters are set down, the places are quoted, the words are recited, the arguments and all●gations are examintd on both sides, not one wilful falsity hath been able to be proved against P. R. or any one Catholic writer that could be picked out for that purpose; but many, and manifest, gross, witting, and wilful have been proved and defended and convinced against M. Morton, though he profess protest and proclaim never so much his innocency and s●mple truth to the contrary. Where then remaineth the Charge of Perfidiae Reus? I am content to remit myself to the judgement of any two civil learned men of either of the Universities, to give sentence in this behalf, though never so alienated from us in opinion of Religion. And thus much of the men. Now of the matter, book, and cause itself ●.   

CONCERNING his Book and Cause itself, four other of M. Mortons' Challenges. §. III.  
IN the last place M. Morton maketh new Challenges about the Cause and matter itself, wherein he threateneth great things to be performed by him; & that upon great and severe penalties if he achieve not all that is put down in his Challenges, to wit: That his Treatises be purged with fire, and himself forced to recantation. Which conditions if his Adversary should accept, I doubt not but he would quickly find himself in inextricable brakes, if we may frame a judgement of things to come, by things past: and of his prowess what he can do, by that which he hath done in time of most necessity. For if ever he could do much, it was time to do it now, and show his valour when he was most pressed, as you see he hath been in these precedent Chapters, wherein he found himself overloaden with multiplicity of apparent witting and inexcusable untruths, so fastened upon him, and so earnestly exacted, as all his credit, honour and honesty lay upon it to defend himself or give satisfaction. Which not being able to do but by pretermitting wholly the most and chief points, and falling down under the burden of the other; we may imagine what he will be able to do for the time to come, 
T. M. a cock of the game.  especially seeing that he is so recharged with new Charges in the last precedent Chapter, as if before he shrunk under the burden, he must needs now both sink & fall down. And yet let us hear him crow once more at this very last cast, like a battered Cock of the game beaten out of the Cockpit, as before we have likened him unto.  
27. Lastly (saith he) for the cause, 
Preamb. 128.  if I do not avouch the Discovery of Romish positions and practices of Rebellion to be just: I● I prove not the Treatise of Mitigation to be like an Apothecary's box of poison, with the outward inscription of Antidote. If I manifest not his specious and glozing reasons for defence of their Mental Equivocation, to be no better than the apples of Sodom which vanish into ashes at the first ●ouch: If lastly I show not that the chiefest advantage of Romish adversaries doth consist in falsifications: all which this Preamble hath but touched, and my Encounter (god willing) must handle: then let my Treatises be purged wi●h fire, and myself challenged to a recantation. So he. And these conditions I accept willingly. but well knoweth M. Morton, that bargain, promise, or leesses he what he will, there willbe no execution made against him, and therefore he may be as liberal as he list in offering large conditions. But let us examine in a word or two the particulars.  
28. If I do not avouch (saith he) the Discovery of Romish positions, and practices of Rebellion to be just. 
The first challenge about the cause.  If he do not: But when? What time will he take? What day will he appoint? He hath had now three or four boots and hath done nothing. For ●irst he proposed his contumelious Discovery, alleging ten fond reasons for the same, which were beaten back and turned against him●elfe by his first adversary the moderate Answerer: which he taking upon him to defend in his reply, entitled his full Satisfacti●̄, did so fully overthrow his ow●e cause, as hath been seen by my Rejoinder, or Treatise tending to Mitigation, but much more by this his Preambling answer, which lightly passeth and walk●th over all, and toucheth scarce any one point of moment appertaining to the matter. And for this I allege ●or witnesses the former Chapters, wherein the exact view of all hath been made.  
29. Secondly (saith he) ●f I prove not the treatise of Mitigation to be like an Apothecary's box o● poison with outward inscription of Antidote: then etc. 
The second Challenge or brag.  But what poison there may be in mitigation of exasperating proceedings toward subjects that desire to live quietly and dutifully, reason teacheth not: and much l●sse I think Religion, whereof this man in word is a great professor. And what ruins and rueful ends the contrary hath wrought upon sundry occasions, experience the best Mistress of ●●ue prudence hath t●ught the whole wo●ld.  
30. I do show and demonstrate in the first Part of my said Treatise, that M. Mortons' malicious humour in sowing diffidence and distrust between Prince and people, and in egging forward the Magistrate by Sycophancy to exasperation, 
M. Mort. sycophancy.  is neither holy nor wholesome, nor profitable, nor secure, nor any way fitting a Christian Commonwealth. And that whatsoever he objecteth to move envy against either doctrine or practice of Catholic Religion for disobedience to temporal Princes, is false; first in itself in regard of Catholics, and then is found infinitely more in those of his Religion. Why had he not answered to these things in this his last Reply, & opened his Apothecary's box which now he promiseth?  
31. Thirdly (saith he) If I manifest n●● his specious & glozing Reasons for de●ence o● their mental Equivocation to be no better than the apples of Sodom, which vanish into ashes at the first touch, then will I be challenged t● recantation etc. 
The third Challenge.  But many touches, yea and many batterings hath M. Morton made to these my Reasons & proofs for the lawfulness of Mental Equivocation, and never a one of them hath vanished or yielded to his battery. For if it had, we should have been sure to have seen● it in this his last Reply, when it stood so much upon him to overthrow but any one of them, if he had been able. But we have now beholden their strength and his weakness. For that I having set down my Reasons for the said mental Reservation out of Scriptures, Fathers, doctors, Schoolmen, examples and other proofs for above two hundredth and fifty pages together, M. Morton hath not found out any one instance whereof to treat in this his Reply, or to fasten his pen upon the same, but only the Equivocation of the poor woman Saphyra in the Acts of the Apostles, which yet I told him before was no Equivocation, but a flat lie, as commonly his and his fellows Equivocations are, whereof I have given many examples in the last Chapter of my Treatise of Mitigation, both in himself, and his antecessours, M. jewel, M. Horn, M. Fox, Hanmer, Charke, Perkins, Sir Francis Hastings, Sir Edward Cook, and some others: whereof M. Morton thought not best to take upon him the defence of any one in this his last Reply, but by silence rather to condemn them all, and consequently here were no apples of Sodom to be found that vanish at the first touch, but all are dusands and hard wardens that will weary his fingers to bruise them, if I may trifle with him a little in following his own comparison of apples.  
32. Fourthly and lastly, saith he: If I show not that the chiefest advantage of Roman adversaries doth consist in falsifications, than etc. 
His 4. & fondest challenge, or rather calumniation.  Whereunto I must answer with this distinction, for so much as M. Morton speaketh somewhat doubtfully, that if falsifications be taken here passively with relation to Protestants, than I grant, that one of the chiefest advantages which their Roman adversaries hau● against them consisteth in falsifications discovered daily in their books and writings. For that I confess that no one thing doth more confirm a Catholic mind in the truth of that Religion which he pro●esse●h, then to see the enemies and adversaries thereof, 
How falsifications of Protestants do help Catholics.  to be driven to utter such and so infinite apparent wilful falsities in defending the contrary. For that no man doubtless of any credit, honesty, or good nature would lie or falsity willingly, if he could defend his cause with truth: Which consideration doth greatly work also with many Protestants, that be judicious, and desire indeed the truth it ●el●. So as in this sense I confess, that one of the chiefest advantages of Roman Adversaries doth consist in the fal●ifications of Protestant writers.  
33. But if we take it, as I think M. Morton meaneth it, actively in regard of Catholic writers, as though our own fal●ifications were our chiefest advantages against the Protestant Religion's it is merely false. For how poor should our Cause be, if we had no better proof for the truth thereof, than our own fictions and fal●ifications deu●●ed by ourselves? whereof M. Morton hath not been able to prove any one, against any sort of Catholic writers in all this his Preambling Reply, though wholly it was bend and intended by him to that end, as may appear by the third and fourth Chapters of this our Reckoning. And on the other side, there are so many proved & convinced against him, 
judgement demanded against M. Mort.  as he neither is, nor ever will be able to answer the half of them, as you may behold in the fifth, sixth, and eight Chapters immediately going before So as this contradiction being so manifest in itself, I see not why I may not call for judgement and justice against M. Morton, that his books be purged with fire, and himself challenged to recantation.  
34. But presently he leapeth away to the contrary side, and placeth himself in the ●ea●e of a Conqu●●our, saying thus: But these things being 〈◊〉 God's grace directly by me performed, the fruit thereof wi●●be (Chr●stian Reader) to establish thee in the truth of speech, and dutiful allegiance, and to put my adversary P R. I hope unto silence, I pray god, to repentance. So he: and with this he endeth his Book.  
35. And as for my silence, 
About his putting me to silence.  what success M. Mortons' hope hath had, you see by this my Answer, which hath been drawn out to somewhat more prolixity, as I suppose, than my ●ormer Treatise itself of Mitigation, which notwithstanding was far from my intent and purpose at the beginning, meaning only to have made a brief conference of things uttered by me in my Treatise of Mitigation, with the Answer of M. Morton in his Reply: but I found such great store of advantageous matter ●ast out by him upon necessity of his bad cause, as I could not possibly pass over the same without saying somewhat to each point; so as I have been enforced to write more than I had thought to have done, for that he hath given more advantage, than I imagined he would o● reasonably could in so short a work. And thus much for my silence.  
36. But as for my repentance for which he prayeth, I must profess that hitherto I find no least motion of mind thereunto, nor yet cause to move that motion, for the substance of the controversy itself: 
About my repentance.  though for the asperity of speech, I could have wished that sometimes it had been more mollified, but the reasons inciting thereunto are s●t down more largely in the Admonitory Epistle to M. Morton himself. Here only I will add, that if I could persuade myself, that he could prove or perform directly or indirectly the things which here he promiseth, I should not only be sorry, that I had written against him in these matters, but should endeavour al●o to do the works of true repentance indeed, which were to recall my said writings, and confess that M. Morton had reason and truth on his side, and were not i● these points to be contradicted. But having seen, read, and examined with attention so much of his works as I have, and this also with so great equanimity and indifferency of judgement, as the love of truth and regard of mine own soul could work in me; I have not found any one thing in the matters themselves affirmed by me, that might cause the least scruple of mind: th●y being clear and evident truths in the sight of him, that hath the light of a Catholic conscience. And for the manner of M. Mortons' dealing, I must protest, that I find it so unsyncere (which I ascribe to the necessity of his cause) as I take great compassion of him, and do beseech almighty God to give him true light to see the dangerous way wherein he walketh, whilst he seeketh by sleights and indirect means to defend fancies of his own, & of his sect against the truth, gravity, and authority of his Mother the Catholic Church.    

AN APPENDIX CONCERNING A CASE OF EQVIVOCATION LATELY written out of England, wherein resolution is demanded about the false Oath of two Ministers: Whether it may be salved by the licence of Equivocation or no? TOGETHER WITH A NOTE OUT OF DOCTOR King his Sermon, preached at the Court 5. Nouemb● 1608. so far forth as it toucheth Equivocation. TO THE READER.  
I Received, Gentle Reader, not long since by a letter of the 8. of November anno 1608. from a fri●nd of mine dwelling in the North parts of England● a certain Advertisement about a case of Equivocation, fallen out in those parts, wherein my said friend requested my judgement, whether the same where tolerable or excusable or not? And for that it seemed he had some right to urge me in this matter, in respect of the Treatise written by me of that argument against M● Morton, I thought myself the more bound to yield him some satisfaction to his demand. The case then in effect was this.  
2. A certain Minister in Yorkshire named Wh. (for I think not good to set down all the letters thereof) dwelling at a town called Thorneley, if I miss not the name, 
The case proposed.  being married and loaden with many children, and there upon ●ot content with the ordinary ti●he●, that we●e wont to be given and paid in that parish, beg●n to urge one of his parishioners to pay him other tithes also out of a certain close or field, that was pretended not to have paid tithes before to other precedent Incumbents. Whereupon this Minister devising with himself, how he might further his own cause, resolved upon this mean among others, to deal with another Mininister, which immediately before had possessed that benefice, entreating him aswell by request, as by offering him a piece of money (as hither is written) to assist him in this behalf, by lending him the aid of an oath, that he had received tithes before that time out of that close or field. Whereat though for a time the second-Minister did seem t● stick much, ●aying that he could not do it with the peace of his conscience; yet afterward i● seemeth by the earnest persuasion and inductions of the other Minister, his repugnance of conscience was so mortified, as he yielded to the others entreaty; especially, for that he told him, ●hat he had so great friendship and acquaintance with those, that must be judges and examiners of the cause in York, as he doubted not, but that their two oaths would carry it away.  
3. To York Assizes then they went, where having taken their oaths, and pleaded the case, at length they found not that success, which they expected: For that the whole town and parish of Thornley offering themselves confidently to swear & depose the contrary in behalf of the defendant (to wit, that tithes were not accustomed to be paid out of that place) the Ministers had sentence given against them, with no small note of public perjury. Whereof one that was a particular friend of M. Wh. demanding the reason, how they could swear or rather softweare in such manner, the thing being known to be so notoriously false? He answered, that they in their own sense did swear truly (behold then the case of Equivocation) & that so they were ready to prove it, if they had been urged by the judges therein, 
A fraudulent and lying Equivocation.  to wit, that their meaning in swearing was● that the former Incumbent had received tithes out of that close or field, or without that close or field, namely, in other closes adjoining, though not in the field. And with this Equivocation of (out) and (in) they thought themselves cleared, both for deceiving the judges, and their parishioners. Now then to the resolution of the case.  
4. And first of all by this we see, how these good fellows that do cry out so hideously, and revel every where both in books, sermons and common speech ●gainst the moderate & lawful use of Equivocation in just and necessary causes, and for just and lawful ends, without hurt of any, do notwithstanding use and practise themselves the same with contrary unlawful circumstances, wicked ends & purposes. For that here ●hese two Ministers end was their own interest, and hurtfully to deceive their neighbour and parishioners. Their conspiracy together by way of money, corruption, and bribes, was detestable. Their guileful deceiving their lawful judges, that were competent in the cause, & proceeded iuridically, was abominable. The scandal given to them that knew they swore falsely, was impious. The obligation they had to answer directly unto the sense and meaning of the said judges, 
The resolution of the case.  was indispensible: all which points are different in a lawful Equivocation. Whereof I do infer, for resolution of the case, that this was no true or proper Equivocation at all, but rather a flat lie, and open perjury, as by that we have treated before with M. Morton in the s●cond Chapter of this book may appear more largely; but much more throughout divers Chapters together in my former Treatise of Mitigation.  
5. And here now I would end with this alone, were it not that a new peart-Brother-Minister of M Mortons' is come forth of late with a new printed Sermon, wherein he taketh occasion after the imitation of M. Mortons' vain, to rail exceedingly against all Equivocation whatsoever, without exception, & to inveigh most impotently against jesuits for defence and practise thereof, as though they were the only and principal men, that did either allow or use the same. Which is so shameless an assertion after he hath seen what I have written in my said book of Mitigation, concerning the multitude of learned authors that for many ages have taught the same doctrine in public schools, before jesuits were heard of in the world, as this latter Minister can never defend or excuse so manifest an untruth about Equivocation, but by Equivocation; feigning to himself some such absurd reservation in mind as his foresaid brethren the ●orekshire-Ministers did, for saving their public perjury. But let us hear what he saith of the jesuits about Equivocation.  
6. What hope of truth (saith he) or simplicity may be had from these men (the jesuits) or their imps, when they have not only practised through infirmity of flesh and pusillanimity, 
D. john King in his sermon at the Court p. 27  but with the faces of Sodom and Gomorrah ●aue patronized, published, and persuaded to the whole world, the lawfulness o● their Heterogeneous and Mongrel propositions. From henceforth let them ●ase the inhabitauts of Crete from the deserved infamy, which the Apostle layeth upon them, that Cretensians are liars etc. So he.  
7. But I would demand of this New-prachant-Minister, that is so hot and vehement in his calunniation, when he, or his can prove, that any one jesuit in the world, amongst so many thousands as are extant, hath ever practised, patronized, published, or persuaded any such Equivocation as this, which was used by the Ministers of Yorkshire? When would either M. Southwell or M Garnet, whom they are wont to accuse for this doctrine, have taken such an oath, for deceiving their neighbour as those Ministers did? Was this out of the infirmity of the flesh and pusillanimity, or rather out of covetousness and iniquity? Was it with the faces of Jerusalem and juda, or not rather of Sodom and Gomorrah? Nay I would ask of this new Gamester, that is so exorbitant in his outcries, with what face he can avouch so many manifest untruths in this idle invective of his, that cannot be excused from flat lies, 
Pag. ●3.  but by the pretence of some fond Equivocation or exaggeration? as namely when he saith and averreth of Q. Elizabeth now dead, 
About Q. Elizab. sanctity & meekness.  that she was a Saint, and never did any thing against the Catholics in her li●e: justa quid fecit? (saith he) Mansueta quid fecit? Gracious and meek Lady what hath she ever done? whose finger did she ever cause to ache, and her hart ached not with him? Whereto I answer, that the prisons filled, the mulcts imposed, the confiscation exercised, the bowels of them that were quartered, the heads of them that were beheaded, may suffice to satisfy this idle question of the Minister, especially and above all, the royal and sacred Head of his majesties Mother, most injuriously against all law of nature & nations, cut of, and so many continual toils given by the said pretended Saint to the kingdom of Scotland, 
See Buchanan, Holinshead, Hooker & others in the histories of Scotland.  whenby his majesties peace & person, life and state were not a little, nor seldom endangered, as is evident to the whole world, and testified not only by the writings of Catholics, but of Protestants also themselves. These things, I say, do easily answer the flattering Ministers demand of, Gracious meek Lady, what hath she ever done?  
8. And as for the other part, whose finger did she ever cause to ache, and her hart ached not with him, is too to childish and ridiculous; & no man can read or hear it, but with derision and laughter, her hart being known to have been of other metal, then to ache for other men's fingers. For to pretermit these particular afflictions laid upon particular people, whom now I have mentioned, without compassion or aching of her hart, who doth not know, that when all Countries round about her, France, Flanders, Holland Zealand, Scotland, Ireland, and some other states, were all in war and combustion, killing and destroying one another, about quarrels of Religion, principally set one foot and maintained by herself, she passed her days in England in mirth & joy, as all Courtiers of that time will remember: nor did so much as her finger ache for their heart's aching, 
Q. Elizabeth made others hearts to ache, when her own ached not.  for any thing that ever I heard of to the contrary. How then can this be excused without some shift of Equivocal meaning in this false Minister, saying one thing, & meaning another? For that in no sincerity of conscience can he possibly think it to be true. This is then one example, let us see another.  
9 He writeth of the jesuits thus in the same place: That their whole order, institute, and practice are such, as they say in effect unto Christ, as the Devils did, 
Pag. 26.  Quid nobis & tibi est jesu? What have we to do with thee o jesus? This sentence being uttered in such an auditory, as that was, wherein his Majesty was present, and much of the Nobility of the land, & so many learned hearers beside, must needs presuppose, as to me it seemeth, that the utterer had perused well the jesuits institute, 
An exaggeration about the Jesuits institute.  and had conferred the same exactly, as also their life and practice with the law and life of jesus, and had found therein this extreme opposition and contradiction between jesus and Jesuits, no less than between him, and the Devils themselves. But then me thought on the other side if this had been so, he should have alleged some particulars at least: wherein this contradiction did stand: and it had been perhaps no unfit argument to be handled in that so great an assembly for discrediting that sort of people, throughout the world: and tho●e of the same order in England would have blushed to have made any answer for not discovering further their own wickedness, wants or imperfections.  
10. But now seeing nothing at all brought forth to the view or trial, except only certain idle Nicknames, 
Nickname of jesuits.  as that, the Jesuits are the great Mercurialists of the world, Archimedians, Centimans (or men of a hundred hands a piece) o● counterfeit names, jesuits by antiphrasis, Suitae by apheresis, flyers of jesus by diëresis, jebusites by agnomination, Ignatians in Spain, Theatines in Italy, jesuines in Campania, Scotiots in Ferrara, Priests of S. Lucia in Bononia, reformed Priests in Modena, and other such like inventions of a ridiculous Grammatical and Hystrionicall head, far unfit for that place and noble auditory. Seeing this, I say, I assured myself, that the Author had no substantial matter to produce against them: for that otherwise this had been a worthy market to have sold his wares with great gain and applause, if any he had had worth the bringing forth,  
11. Wherefore I conclude with myself that this speech of the Minister concerning the opposition between jesus and Jesuits was as false an exageration and lying Equivocation as that other before of the aching of Q. Elizabeth's hart at the aching of other folks fingers. And furthermore I considered, what a compari●● might be made between the Institute and life o● Jesuits, and this Minister with his fellows in England, in respect of the law and life of jesus, which of them go nearer the same. And albeit I do not mean to ent●r in●o that matter, but rather leave it to some other, that may chance to answer that idle & vain Sermon, & handle this point more largely & particularly: yet are there so many things apparently seen and known in the world, which do lay fo●th this d●fference between jesuits and Ministers actions in this behalf, as no intelligent man can but observe the same.  
12. For what shall we say of the labours of Iesuite● throughout the whole world for conversion of Infidels, as in Mexico, Perù, Brasile, Aethiopia, China, japone, 
Differences between the life & actions of Jesuits and Ministers.  and in other vast Kingdoms, wherein above a hundred of them besides other afflictions have shed their blood? Is this opposite to jesus or no? Is this to be compared to the actions of Devils? Do English Ministers take upon them these labours? What shall I say of their manner of life, bare diet, simple apparel, punctual obedience, straight poverty, exact chastity, much prayer, severe discipline, continual mortification? Do not these things symbolize with the life of jesus? Or do Englsh Ministers trouble themselves much with such matters? And hath not this contumelious Minister, that so desperately presumeth thus to speak, a wi●e and good benefices? fareth delicately? sleepeth his fill? fasteth seldom or never? pestreth the College with his brats, which the founder never thought of? decketh his body with the best apparel he can get? pampreth his flesh? pursueth all ways and means of ambition? flattereth, raileth, lieth in this his Sermon against Catholics, without all respect of truth, civility, or honesty? Are not these actions opposite to Jesuits? opposite also to jesus himself, and conform to those of Devils, whom he bringeth in saying, quid nobis & tibi est jesu?  
13. But I would not the Reader should think that the impotent & passionate behaviour of this Minister had put me also into passion, though somewhat I confess it hath moved me. But I shall pass no further therein: it may be that some other will supply hereafter more fully, as before hath been said. For as for matter it will not want him: for if ever there was published a more fond, unlearned, malicious, spiteful, opprobrious, and contumelious libel, than this, I am much deceived: and hardly can it be answered with patience, which yet I wish the Answer●r●  
14. But yet notwithstanding I cannot but add some few words more, about the point itself of Equivocation, in regard of the excessive intemperate scolding, which (as now in part you ha●e heard) our English Ministers do use against the same, and I take it to be peculiar to them alone: and this not so mu●h out of ignorance or stupidity, as some may imagine (in respect of the clearness of the cas● itself) as of obstinate wilful pervicacity in defending an absurd cavillation, which once they have taken in hand to prosecute by right or wrong. And so you have seen● that the last named Minister King; though a very trifler, and not able to answer any one of the arguments, reasons, Scriptures, Fathers, examples and other anthorities alleged for the lawfulness of Equivocation in the book of Mitigation, or at least wise did attempt to answer none (wherein notwithstanding he should have yielded great assistance to M. Morton, 
The Ministers agree to rail together.  that durst undertake the answer of no one) yet doth he fall in jump with him in raging and railing against the same: though if a man might come to deal calmly with them hand to hand, & enter into a quiet and sober Reckoning about the matter, as we have done before with M. Morton, I doubt not, but that they would be forced to reason, even by common sense and experience itself, and thereby see their own egregious folly. For I would demand them in good earnest, what they think of the better and wiser sort of men, not only of our religion, but of theirs also, who make a conscience to lie, for that they hold it for a damnable sin, & yet would be loath to utter matters of secrecy or prejudice against themselves or others; and that these men be of the best sort for example, which we have in E●gland, as namely privy counsellors, judges, Magistrates and others, to whom businesses of importance, that require secrecy, are committed: if these men should be demanded by persons of respect, whom by a flat denial they would not willingly offend, what passed in this or that matter, 
A case and instance proposed to the Ministers.  which were not convenient to be uttered, or that themselves by way of speech or narration should fall into mention of such matter, whereof they would disguise for the present the certain truth: what in this case would they do think you? What would the say? What cuasion would they find to free themselves from these inconveniences? For if they uttered simple truth● they should break secrecy: if they denied the same ●latly without Equivocation, they should lie: if they refused to answer, they should both offend the person, whom they would not, & oftentimes thereby confess that which they would conceal. For that to say, I will not tell you, besides the offence, inferreth oftentimes a secret confession of that, which he denieth to tell. Wherhfore who seeth not, but that commonly the refuge must be to Equivocation, that is to say, to utter so much as in their sense is true, though the hearer mistake it in another sense, and thereby the secrecy of the thing itself is conserved.  
15. And is not this an ordinary practice even amongst the best men of what religion soever, and such as most of all do detest lying? And how then do our Ministers so rave against it? Nay can the common conversation of human life be without it, where lying is avoided? Let us imagine that there were a man both learned, prudent & godly, & adorned with all gifts belonging to a wise and good man, but yet were of our Minister's opinion, never to conceal any thing by Equivocation, and further than this had also a resolution more than our Ministers have, to wit, not to lie at all for any respect whatsoever, out of which two determinations it must needs follow, that he would simply deny or confess whatsoever should be demanded of him: would any man ever commit matters of counsel or secrecy unto him? Or were he a man tractable or conversable in a commonwealth? or fit to mamnage any matter of importance, though otherwise never so learned, never so prudent, never so good, never so godly? I think no. here then the absurdity or rather senseless stupidity of our Ministers continual clamours and outcries against us for the moderate use of this Equivocation in lawful occasions, is evidently discovered & rejected.  
16. Neither shall it be needful for me to adjoin in this place any further store of examples & authorities out of Scriptures for proof of the exercise and continual use and practise of this kind of Amphibology, Equivocation, or doubtful speech, when occasions require it, having showed the same largely and abundantly before, even in the best men that ever were, as patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, and especially in our Saviour Christ himself, that was truth itself, and the wisdom of his eternal Father, it shall be sufficient to remit the Reader to the particular place itself of my Book, which is the ninth Chapter of the Treatise entitled of Mitigation, 
See the examples of Equivocation in holy men throughout the 9 Chapter of my Treatise thereof.  divided into four parts, & all handling this only matter o● examples of Equivocal speech used by the best men: yet must I needs say, that having considered since that time, & made some more particular reflection upon divers passages of the new Testament & speeches of our Saviour, I find them so frequent every where in this manner of concealing secrecyes, or things not fit to be plainly uttered, by this doubtful and ambiguous kind of speech, as in one only Chapter of S. john's gospel I find Christ to have used the same above 7. 
joan. 8.  or 8. times at least, setting down certain propositions, that of themselves, and as they lie, are in the common hearer's ear false, though true in the speakers meaning by some mental reservation: which reservation though he uttered not in words, yet is it necessarily understood: and this is properly Equivocation in our sense & doctrine. And if our Kingly Minister in the heat of his exaggeration will call these also mongrel and heterogeneous propositions, or M. Morton, out of his modesty, will term them, monstrous, and impious illusions of the black-art, they would in these countries be punished both of them for blasphemy, though at home among their friends I know not how favourably the censure might pass upon them: but of less than fond impiety I think no man of judgement and discretion will, or can condemn them.  
17. The place then which I mean is the 8. Chapter of S. john's Gospel, where Christ our Saviour entering into a large speech with the jews, useth first these words, which I have examined before in my said Treatise of Equivocation: 
Sundry Equivocations in our Blessed saviours speech.  Ego non judico quemquam, I do not judge any man: which seeming to be contrary to that other saying of himself, within a very few lines in the same Chapter: I have many things to speak and judge of you: and further in the same Gospel three Chapters before: For neither doth my Father judge any man, but hath given to me his Son all judgement: it doth not appear how the proposition can be true but by some mental reservation in the mind of our Saviour; which being examined by the ancient Fathers, what it might be, S. Chrysost. with Leontius Theophilus, and others, do think the said secret meaning or reservation of our Saviour to have been this: I do not judge any man in this my first coming, but do reserve it for my next, at the day of judgement. Other Fathers gather another, as though he had secretly meant: I do not judge any man, as you the Scribes and pharisees do, according to the flesh and outward show, but in truth: yet neither of these reservations being uttered, they do make the speech to be ambiguous and Equivocal, as cannot be denied.  
18. In the same place he saith to the jews: If you persevere in my sayings, you shall truly be my disciples, and know the truth, and the truth shall free you: which freedom or deliverance the jews understood from temporal bondage● and therefore answered him, that they were the seed of Abraham, and had never been in bondage to any: which error of the jews proceeded from the ambiguous speech of our Saviour, reserving in his mind, and not expressing in his proposition, what bondage he meant: for that his reserved meaning indeed was of the bondage of sin.  
19 The like may be observed in those words: Ego non quaero gloriam meam: 
Versu 5.  I do not seek my glory: & yet doth Christ most justly seek his own glory that is due unto him, and punisheth them that give it not unto him: and so in the verse immediately before he objecteth this unto them, Vos inhonorastis me: you have dishonoured me: and in another place to his disciples he saith, 
joan. 13. v. 13.  Vos vocatis me Magister & Domine, & bene dicitis, sum etenim. You call me Master and Lord, and do well therein, for that I am your Master & Lord indeed. 
joan. 14. v. 1.  And in another place, Creditis in Deum, & in me credit. You do believe in God, believe also in me, which is the highest honour, that he could exact: and consequently there must needs be some mental reservation in this other speech, when he saith, that he seeketh not his own glory, which the Fathres do endeavour to seek out in their Commentaries.  
20. It followeth in the ●ame place: Amen, Amen, I say unto you, if any observe my words, he shall never see death. 
vers. 51.  Which the Scribes and pharisees (though otherwise learned in their law) understood of corporal death; and in that sense gave an instance of Abraham and the Prophets that were dead, notwithstanding they had observed the words and commandments of God; and consequently in their sense Christ's sentence could not be true: but our Saviour had another intention and meaning reserved in his mind, by which reservation the truth of the sentence was justified: to wit, that they should not die in soul.  
21. It followeth yet further in the same place: If I do glorify myself (saith Christ) my glory is nothing: 
vers. 54.  which yet I think no man will grant to be true according to the letter, and as it lieth. For albeit Christ should ●et forth his own glory, yet may it not be said, that this glory so published by himself, is nothing or vain. Wherhfore some reserved sense must here also be sought out; which according to the opinion of sundry expositors is, that he meant this according to the opinion of the jews, who esteemed that for nothing, which came from Christ himself. 
Cap. 5. v● 31.  As also a little before in the fifth Chapter, he used the like speech saying; If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. Which sentence I think our Ministers themselves will not hold to be true in the sense which here it beareth: for than should they condemn our Saviour of falfity, as often as he affirmeth any thing of himself: and then must we of necessity run to ●ome reserved sense in Christ's meaning, which is the thing that we call Equivocation, so reviled by our Ministers.  
22. Furthermore in the very next verse, talking of almighty God, he said to the jews: 
vers. 55.  Non cognovistis eum: you do not know him: which seemeth untrue in itself, for that the jews did profess to know him, and serve him above all people in the world. And in the old Testament it is often said of them, that they of all other people did best know God: and therefore some other reserved meaning must Christ our Saviour needs have had, than these external words do insinuate: which reservation S. Chrysostome, S. Augustine, S. Bede, and Theophilact upon this place do think to have been this in Christ his secret meaning, that they did not know God, as they ought to know him, by serving him, as he would and ought to be served, according to the speech of S. Paul to Titus: 
Tit. 1. v● 16.  Confitentur se nosse Deum, factis autem negant. They confess to know God in words, but do deny him in deeds. So as here also an Equivocation of speech was used by our Saviour.  
23. Again in the ensuing verse, which is the 56. Christ said to the jews: 
vers. 56●  Your father Abraham did rejoice to see my day: he saw it, and took joy thereby. Which words in the common sense do seem to import, that Abraham had lived with Christ, and had seen the day of his birth and life, and taken great joy thereby: and so did the jews understand his meaning to be, not only the common people, but the Scribes & pharisees also, when they said unto him: thou hast not yet fifty years of age, and hast thou seen Abraham? wherein notwithstanding they were greatly deceived, for that Christ our Saviour had another reserved meaning in his mind, which the holy Fathers do labour greatly to expound unto us, what it was: and in what true sense our Saviour said that Abraham had seen his day: whose different opinions, reasons and conjectures I will not stand to relate here; It is sufficient for me to have showed, that this was an Equivocal speech of our Saviour, whereby the hearers being deceived, the truth of the speech may only be defended by a reservation in mind of the speaker.  
24. And finally in the next verse after this again Christ useth a greater Equivocation, than any before, saying unto them: Amen, Amen, dico vobis, antequam Abraham fieret, ego sum. Amen, Amen, I say unto you, that before Abraham was made, I am: which being an earnest speech, and as it were an oath, as elsewhere we have noted, the jews understood it, as it lieth, that Christ our Saviour was borne in flesh before Abraham: and so it seemeth that he should have meant according to his former speech, when he said, that Abraham desired to see his day, and saw it, and rejoiced thereat: which was understood of his incarnation or day in flesh, which Abraham in faith & spirit did see and rejoice. But yet here when he saith that he is before Abraham was made, he must needs mean of his Divinity, and in that he was God: which S. Augustine upon this place doth excellently note to be so by the difference of the two words, Abraham fieret, & ego sum, the one belonging to the creature, saith he, the other to the creator. So as more than one Equivocation is used by our Saviour in this one sentence: and if we lay all these Equivocal speeches together, which are 8. or 9 at least contained within a piece of one only Chapter of our saviours talk with the jews, Scribes and pharisees, we shallbe able to make some guess, how many might be found throughout the whole new Testament and Bible, if we would examine the same particularly, as we have done this: and thereby see how true M. Mortons' bold assertion was in his book of full Satisfaction, that no one iota in all Scripture, 
pag. 49.  no one example in all Catholic antiquity could be ●ound for the same: His terms also of, heathenish, hellish, heinous and impious Equivocation, 
Ibidem.  with other infamations of his brother-Minister King, may appear what substantial ground they have.  
25. For here except they will condemn our Saviour himself of all these objected impieties, they cannot condemn the manner of speech used by him, especially in so grave and weighty matters: and if they permit the same in him, then can they not condemn it in us, who have so good a warrant & precedent for the same, especially seeing we do restrain our use thereof with many limitations, as in our larger Treatise of that matter is set down, to wit, that it may not be used in matters of religion, where confession of our faith is required, nor yet in common traffic, and conversation of human life, where any may be prejudiced or damnified thereby: neither to any judge or lawful Magistrate, that proceedeth lawfully, and hath just authority to demand us, and we obligation to answer him to his meaning. And finally except some injury or prejudice be offered us (for avoiding whereof it is convenient to use the refuge of this manner of speech) and except our speech be all ways true in our own lawful meaning, we are not permitted by Catholic doctrine to use the same, and much less with open lying, as the two Ministers before alleged, and many of their fellows are showed to have done. And this I think is so much as needeth to be treated of this matter at the present, by occasion of this Appendix.  
FINIS.   

A TABLE OF THE CHAPTERS AND PARAGRAPHES.  


THE FIRST CHAPTER,  ANswering to the first of M. Mortons' three vain Inquiries, concerning the wit, memory, learning, charity, modesty and truth o● his adversary P. R. (It hath 10. Paragraphes.) 
pag. 1.  §. 1. M. Mortons' imputation of P. R. his with examined (about the sleeping soldiers of Jerusalem.) 
pag. 3.  §. 2. M. Mortons' objection against P. R. his memory. (about the clause of reservation utterred in Latin.) 
pag. 10.  §. 3. Against the learning of P. R. especially in Logic. (about a Logical argument of the competency of God.) 
p. 15.  §. 4. The examen of that which M. Mort. objecteth against P. R. in the same faculty. (about a division and subdivision.) 
p. 32.  §. 5. The confutation of what M. Morton objecteth against the skill of P. R. in Greek and Hebrew. (touching the verse of the Prophet Isay cap. 29. vers. 9) 
pag. 41.  §. 6. What M. Morton allegeth against the Charity of P. R. (about verè and verò in Carerius.) 
pag. 46.  §. 7. The objection of M. Morton against the modesty of P. R. (touching a false allegation of Doleman.) 
pag. 49.  §. 8. An answer to M. Mortons' calumniation of the truth o● P. R. (about the authority of Otho Frisingensis.) 
pag. 55.  §. 9 The examination of this controversy of F●isingensis more at large. 
pag. 60.  §. 10. The Conclusion & general Reckoning of all this Chapter, or Inquiry. 
pag. 70.    


THE SECOND CHAPTER,  ANswering to M. Morton● second Inquiry, whether P. R. may be judged a competent Advocate in this cause, which he ha●h assumed: and o● some other points belonging thereunto: especially touching the title or argument o● the Book of Mitigation. (It hath 2. Paragraphes.) 
pag. 76.  §. 1. What M. Morton answereth to the former part o● my Treatise about Rebellion, and against the title thereof, which in effect is nothing but a Cavil. 
pag. 79.  §. 2. What he answereth about the later Treatise, concerning Equivocation. 
pag. 91.    


THE THIRD CHAPTER,  ANswering to M. Mortons' thi●d Inquiry, concerning falsities objected by him (though falsely) against Catholi●ke writers, but especially against Card. Bellarmine, whereof no one can be proved. (It hath 18. Paragraphes.) 
pag. 115.  §. 1. Of wilful falsehoods objected by M. Morton to sundry Catholic writers: and namely his abuse offered to Franciscus Costerus. 
pag. 118.  §. 2. His first example of voluntary falsehood falsely objected against three ancient Popes. 
pag. 125.  §. 3. His second example of wilful fraud falsely objected against modern Catholic writers. (about the Council of Eliberis in Spain.) 
pag. 133.  §. 4. His third example o● like deceit objected against the same Catholic authors. (about the Council of Frankford in Germany.) 
pag. 140.  §. 5. His fourth example of like falsehoods objected against the same authors. (about the Epistle of S. Epiphanius touching images.) 
pag. 144.  §. 6. The second part of this Chapter of instances against Card. Bellarmine in particular touching imputation of old heresies. 
p. 149.  §. 7. The first objection against Card. Bellarmine of false imputation of the Pelagian heresy to Protestants. 
pag. 152.  §. 8. The second injurious objection against Card. Bellarmine of false imputation of the Novatian heresy. 
pag. 15●.  §. 9 The third objection against Card. Bellarmine for false imputation o● the Manichean heresy unto Protestants. 
pag. 166.  §. 10. The fourth objection against Card. Bellarmine about pretended false imputation o● Arianisme unto Protestants. 
p. 170.  §. 11. The fifth objection against Card. Bellarmine for fa●se imputation of heresies unto sundry Protestants. 
pag. 174.  §. 12. His sixth and last objection against Card. Bellarm. ●or false imputation of the Sacramentary heresy unto Protestant's. 
p. 176  §. 13. The third part of this Chapter containing other objections against Bellarmine●or ●or falsifications in alleging other men's authorities. 
pag. 185.  §. 14. His second objection against Card. Bellarmine touching false allegations. 
pag. 192.  §. 15. The third objection against Card. Bellarmine touching false allegations. 
pag. 196.  §. 16. The fourth objection against Card. Bellarmine touching false allegations. 
pag. 199.  §. 17. M. Mortons' Conclusion and observation about the article of Purgatory examined. 
pag. 209.  §. 18. The sum & Reckoning of all this whole Chapter. 
pa. 216.    


THE FOURTH CHAPTER,  Containing certain imputations of falsities and falsehoods falsely objected by M. Morton against his adversary P. R. which are showed not to be such, but that the obiectour falsifieth also in objecting them. (It hath 15. Paragraphes.) 
pag. 221.  §. 1. His first objected falsehood against P. R. (about Tho. Mortons' name.) 
pag. 225.  §. 2. His second falsehood against P. R. (about the clause of reservation in Latin.) 
pag. 230.  §. 3. His third objected falsehood against P. R. (about presumptuous Doctors mentioned by S. Paul, 1. Tim. 2.) 
p. 232.  §. 4. His fourth objected falsehood against P. R. (about justifying of Goodman.) 
pag. 235.  §. 5. His fifth objected falsehood against P. R. (about Knox & Buchanan.) 
pag. 239.  §. 6. His sixth objected falsehood against P. R. (about Calvin's Autotheisme, and misplacing of Card. Bellarmine's name in the margin.) 
pag. 242.  §. 7. His seventh objected falsehood against P. R. (about the justifying of Protestants from rebellion.) 
pag 246.  §. 8. His eight objected falsehood against P. R. (about dissembling the wicked practices of Calvin, Beza, and others.) 
pag. 248.  §. 9 His ninth objected falsehood against P. R. (about Sir Thomas Wiat's Rebellion, and the Duke of Suffolk, and others.) 
pag. 251.  §. 10. Four other objections of M. Morton against P. R. in matter of wilful falsity: to wit, the 10.11.12. and 13. in M. Mortons' Catalogue. (about the text of Isay, Carerius, Frisingensis &c.) 
pag. 260.  §. 11. His fourteenth and last objected falsehood against P. R. (about the doctrine of Equivocation granted for 400. years.) 
pag 264.  §. 12. The opinion of the Doctor- jesuit joannes Azor, about Equivocation objected by M. Morton as making for him. 
p. 269.  §. 13. M. Morton his second witness pretended against Equivocation, is the Doctor-Iesuit Emanuel Sà. 
pag. 275.  §. 14. M. Morton his third jesuit-doctor joannes Maldonatus brought in to witness against Equivocation. 
pag. 280.  §. 15. The final Reckoning about this whole Chapter with the conclusion of all these 15. Paragraphes. 
pag. 288.    


THE FIFTH CHAPTER,  CONcerning the chief point intended by M. Morton in this his last Reply, which is the clearing of himself from many notorious untruths, objected as wilful and wi●●i●g by his adversary P. R. and how insufficiently he performeth the same. (It hath 15. Paragraphes.) 
pag. 292.  §. 1. The first objected falsity pretended to be answered by T. M. (about Pope's names changed, out of Polidor.) 
pag. 295.  §. 2. The second Charge of wilful falsehood against M. Morton. (about the death of Pope Adrian by a fly.) 
pag. 305.  §. 3. The third Charge of falsehood against M. Morton, which he pretendeth to answer. (about the assertion of Doctor Boucher perverted.) 
pag. 318.  §. 4. The fourth Charge of falsehood pretended to be answered or rather shifted of by M. Mort. & cast upon the Lord of Canterbury (about the abuse of M. William Reynolds.) 
pag. 324.  §. 5. The fifth imputation of lying pretended to be answered by M. Morton, or rather by M. Stock for him (about the decree of Gratian wrongfully alleged.) 
pag. 332.  §. 6. The sixth imputation of falsehood pretended to be answered by M. Morton with the help of the same M. Stock. (about another false pretended decree in Gratian.) 
pag. 342.  §. 7. The 7. imputation of falsehood pretended to be answered by M. Mort. (about the Extravagant for the Gloss.) 
pag. 352  §. 8. The eight imputation of falsehood pretended to be answered by T. M. (about the heresy of Autotheisme objected to Calvin, and the corruption of Bellarmine's words therein.) 
pag. 358.  §. 9 The ninth imputation twice handled before Cap. 1. §. 5. and cap. 4. §. 10. and now again brought in by M. Morton. (about a place of Isay. cap. 29.) 
pag. 364.  §. 10. The tenth imputation twice also handled before Cap. 1. §. 6. and Cap. 4. §. 10. (about verè and verò in Carerius.) 
p. 365.  §. 11. The eleventh imputation pretended to be answered, which is handled also before Cap. 1. §. 7. (about Doleman falsely alleged.) 
pag. 366.  §. 12. The tweluth imputation handled before Cap. 1. and pretended now again to be answered● (about the succession of Protestant princes.) 
pag. 367.  §. 13. The 13. imputation handled before Cap. 1. §. 8. and Cap. 4. §. 10. and now brought in again by T. M. (about Otho Frisingensis perverted.) 
pag. 367.  §. 14. The fourteenth and last imputation of falsehood pretended by M. Morton to be triumphantly answered. (about Lambertus Scafnaburgensis perverted.) 
pag. 368.  §. 15. The Sum & final reckoning of this whole Chapter. 
p. 390.    


THE six CHAPTER,  Containing a recapitulation of many manifest untruths, wherewith M. Morton being charged by his adversary P. R. did wittingly pretermit to mention them in his last Reply, and thereby left suspicion that he could not answer them. (It hath 23. Paragraphes.) 
pag. 392.  §. 1. The first pretermitted falsehood by T. M. (Vasquez mistaken and slandered about the nature of heresy and pertinacy.) 
pag. 393.  §. 2. The second pretermitted falsehood by T. M. (Azor corrupted about the word pertinaciter.) 
pag. 398.  §. 3. The third pretermitted falsehood by T. M. (Azor corrupted about the case of Coventry.) 
pag. 399.  §. 4. The forth pretermitted falsehood by T. M. (Azor falsified as rejecting a case which he plainly alloweth.) 
pag. 403.  §. 5. The fifth pretermitted falsehood by T. M. (Card. Tolet abused about gross and a●fected ignorance.) 
pag. 407.  §. 6. The sixth pretermitted falsehood by T. M. (Card. Bellar. egregiously injured about the question of ancient gathering of councils.) 
pag. 409.  §. 7. The seventh falsehood pretermitted by T. M. (The jesuit Salmeron much perverted in sundry points.) 
pag. 415.  §. 8. The eight pretermitted falsehood by T. M. (Salmeron again abused by egregious cavillation.) 
pag. 420.  §. 9 The ninth pretermitted falsehood by T. M. (about Dolman and other writers abused by him.) 
pag. 423.  §. 10. The tenth pretermitted falsehood by T. M. (Carerius injuriously handled about his opinion of Priesthood, and Kingly authority.) 
pag. 425.  §. 11. The eleventh falsehood dissembled by T.M. (Fra. de Victoria abused touching the exemption of Clergimen.) 
p. 428.  §. 12. The twelfth falsehood pretermitted by T. M. (S. Bonifacius Archbishop falsified notably in the question, whether a Pope may be an heretic.) 
pag. 432.  §. 13. The th●rteenth falsehood wittingly pretermitted by T. M. (S. Leo deceitfully alleged about the oath of supremacy.) 
pag. 436.  §. 14. The fourteenth falsehood pretermitted by T. M. (Sepulueda abused about Equivocation.) 
pag. 439.  §. 15. The fitfeenth falsehood pretermitted by T. M. (Sotus manifestly perverted against his own assertion of Equivocation.) 
pag. 442.  §. 16. The sixteeenth falsehood pretermitted by T. M. (Cunerus falsified against his own meaning, about the nature of religion.) 
pag. 444.  §. 17. The seventeenth falsehood pretermitted by T. M. (Cass●der and Bellarmine abused at once about the mean of concord between Catholics & heretics.) 
pag. 446.  §. 18. The eighteenth falsehood pretermitted by T. M. (Royardus and Cunerus perverted against their words and meaning about obedience to temporal princes.) 
pag. 452.  §. 19 The nineteenth falsehood pretermitted by T. M. (Sayer grossly abused about Haereticus pertinax●) 
pag. 454.  §. 20. The twentieth falsehood pretermitted by T.M. (Cicero falsified in the question about swearing to a thief.) 
p. 457.  §. 21. The 21. & 22. falsehoods pretermitted by M. Morton (of two abuses offered in citing Doctor Barkley.) 
p. 462.  §. 23. Of ten other falsehoods set down together and dissembled by T. M. (Of divers authors falsified about the deposition of Popes.) 
pag. 464.    


THE seventh CHAPTER,  Wherein are set down divers other sorts of M. Mortons' omissions, besides the former; and namely in not defending certain Clients of his, whose credit was commended to his protection in the treatise of Mitigations, and amongst others Sir Edward Cook, now L. Chief justice of the common Pleas. (It hath 6. Paragraphes. 
pag. 469.  §. 1 Of the pretermission of the chiefest points concerning the argument & subject of Rebellion in my Treatise o● Mitigation 
p. 472.  §. 2. Of M. Mortons' pretermissions in the second argument of my Treatise about Equivocation. 
pag. 483.  §. 3. Other omissions of M. Mortons' concerning the defence of ten other Protestant writers charged with ●alse dealing, which defence being remitted over unto him, was wholly pretermitted and concealed by him. 
pag. 490.  §. 4. Of M. Mortons' omissions concerning the de●ence of Sir Edward Cook wholly pretermitted by him. 
pag. 500  §. 5. The discharge and reckoning about the former charge made to Sir Edward Cook. 
pag. 510.  §. 6. To the other ●oure Cases objected by M. Morton out of Sir Edward Cook. 
pag. 523.    


THE EIGHT CHAPTER,  WHich by occasion of two new Prefaces lately set forth by Sir Edward Cook doth handle divers controversies with him, aswell about a Nihil dicit objected by him to his Adversary: as also about the antiquity and excellency of the Municipal Common-lawes of England, and some other points. (It hath 6. Paragraphes.) 
pag. 529.  §. 1. Of a new Preface set ●orth lately by Sir Edward Cook now judge: wherein he condemneth his Adversary the Catholic Divine of a Nihil dicit: and with what justice or injustice he doth the same. 
pag. 531.  §. 2. That the imputation of Nihil dicit doth fall more rightly upon M. Attorney, as doth also the Nimium dicit, which is to utter more than is true. 
pag. 542.  §. 3. Whether the common Municipal laws of England be more ancient and excellent, than any other human laws of the world. 
pag. 551.  §. 4. About four several questions said to be propounded by the student in law, and solved by the judge for confirmation of the antiquity and eminency of our modern English laws. 
pag. 573.  §. 5. How that the foresaid Nimium dicit, as it importeth Falsum dicit, is notoriously incurred by Sir Edward Cook in sundry other assertions also appertaining to his own faculty of the law; which were pretermitted by the Catholic Divine in his Answer to the fifth part of Reports. 
pag. 587.  §. 6. Of another Preface instantly come unto my hands prefixed before the L. Cook's seventh part of Reports, containing new injuries offered to Catholics by him. 
pag. 604.    


THE NINTH CHAPTER,  WHich layeth together another choice number of new lies made wilfully by M. Morton, over and above the old in this his Preamble, whilst he pretendeth to excuse or defend the said old. (It hath 20. several heads.) 
pag. 625.  1. About the equivocation of Saphyra he affirmeth me to say, that there is an Equivocation, which no reservation can save from a lie. 
p. 262.  2. About Theodoret egregiously corrupted by him. 
pag. 629.  3. Claudius' Espencaeus falsified, and made to say, that which he doth not. 
pag. 629.  4. Of Doctor Franciscus Costerus notably abused, & made to write that which he never thought. 
pag. 630.  5. About Gratian falsely accused for falsification. 
pag. 631.  6. About symbolyzing of Protestants with Pelagians, three witting untruths. 
pag. 632.  7. Concerning the Council of Eliberis and Sixtus Senensis, misunderstood. 
pag. 634.  8. Of Bullingers' blasphemous doctrine about the Trinity falsely ascribed to Gregory de Valentia. 
pag. 635  9 The contention between S. Augustine and S. Cyprian about rebaptizing, misrelated. 
pag. 636.  10. Whether Catholic authors do speak contrary to their own judgements in the article of Purgatory. 
pag. 637.  11. When the letters of T. M. came to be understood what they signified. 
pag. 638.  12. About Holinshead and john Fox guilfully alleged and stood upon. 
pag. 638.  13. Fraudulent dealing in relating the death of Pope Anastasius. 
pag. 639.  14. About Pope Gregory the thirteenth his licence for printing the Cannon-law, egregiously calumniated. 
pag. 640.  15. How the Manichean heresy is imputed to Calvin: and T. Mortons' deceitful dealing therein. 
pag. 641.  16. About the Novatian heresy objected to Protestants and false tricks therein. 
pag. 642.  17. D. Azorius his five rules about Equivocation fraudulently and falsely applied. 
pag. 643.  18. Whether the jesuit Emanuel Sà doth contradict all Equivocation or no: and how egregiously he is abused therein. 
pag. 644.  19 Whether john Maldonate were against all Equivocation: and whether P. R. did fly to answer him. 
pag. 645.  20. About Polydore Virgil falsified in two very material points. 
pag. 646.   
Out of which twenty heads, above fifty particular falsities are deduced and plainly demonstrated, besides the former.   


THE 10. AND LAST CHAP.  Containing new Challenges, Protestations, vaunts, and other vehement assertions of M. Mort. that wrap him in bands of further absurdities, than any of his ●ormer errors and oversights before laid down. (It hath 3. Paragraphes containing 12. new Challenges of M. Morton.) 
pag. 649.  §. 1. First concerning his own person; and what new protestations and Challenges he maketh thereabout. 
pag. 651.  §. 2. Then concerning the person of his adversary P. R. and four new Challenges against him. 
pag. 659.  §. 3. Thirdly about his book & cause itself, four other Challenges wherewith he concludeth his whole work, offering to have it burned if he perform not what he promise●●● 
pag. 664.    


AN APPENDIX●  COncerning a case of Equivocation lately written out of England, wherein resolution is demanded about the false oath of two Ministers, Whether i● may be salved by the licence of Equivocation, or no? Together with a note out of Doctor King his Sermon, preached at the Court 5. Novemb. 1608. so ●ar ●orth as it toucheth Equivocation. 
p. 671.     

AN ALPHABETICAL TABLE OR INDEX OF THE CHIEF MATTERS HANDLED IN THIS BOOK.  


A  
ABsurdities of M. Morton cap. 2. num. 34.  
Adrian the Pope whether choked with a fly c. 5. n. 20.22.  
Ananias and Saphyra their fact discussed cap. 2. num. 23. etc.  
The ridiculous Antiquity of the Venetian laws. cap. 8. n. 40.  
Appeals to Rome cap. 3. num. 18. & cap. 8. num. 75. & seq.  
Azor alleged to condemn Equivocation in that place, where he expressly avoucheth it. c. 4. n. 69. etc. & cap. 6. n. 16.17. etc. See ibidem num. 9.10.11. etc.    


B  
BEllarmine charged to impute falsely Pelagianisme to the Protestants cap. 3. num. 58. His true assertion touching the same. ibid. num. 61. He truly chargeth Protestant's with the heresy of Novatus. ibid. n. 67. Most falsely accused of contradiction by M. Morton touching a place out of Theodoret. ibid. n. 94. etc. Item for citing S. Cyprian and S. Augustine for traditions. Ibid. n. 104.105. etc. Item for alleging S. Ambrose, S. Hilary, S. Augustine for Purgatory num. 123. Bellarmine's words cunningly clipped and changed by M. Morton concerning an error of Calvin and Beza. cap. 5. num. 96.  
Binius abused about the death of Pope Vrban, cap. 5. num. 34.  
Broughtons' censure of the English Bible. cap. 1. num. 67.  
Britan's their manners, conversation and laws in Caesar's time c. 8. n. 35.36.37. & deinceps.  
British laws. See Laws.  
Q. Brunde●ica her speech. cap. 6. num 38.    


C  
Calvin entangled about Purgatory, and concerning his atrium or porch. c. 3. n. 92.  
Caluinisme is heresy by the judgement of other Protestants cap. 7. num. 6.7. & 9  
L. of Canterbury charged to have corrupted a passage in M. Reynolds. cap. 5. num. 88  
The place in Carerius about Verè & Verò examined c. 1. n. 70.71.  
Cassander abused cap. 6. n. 79.  
The Catholic Divine defended against Sir Edward Cook. cap. 7. & 8. The particulars of his book cap. 8. n. 6.7. etc.  
Not impossible for Catholics to live together in civil obedience with Protestants. cap. 2. n. 5.6 etc.  
Greatest dangers not imminent by Catholics. c. 2. n. 14. etc.  
The Censure of a stranger upon two Latin books of M. Morton cap. 6. num. 76.  
Chrism in Confirmation, impugned by Novatians and Protestamnts alike, cap. 3. num. 71.  
Sir Edw. Cook his Equivocation cap. 7. num. 47. his proofs against the Pope's Supremacy proved to be nothing to the purpose ibid. num. 71. Item to be falsely alleged num. 73.74. etc. The case of Ed. 1. about bringing into England the Pope's Bulls discussed. n. 74.75. & c● He straingeth his law-bookes n. 94. etc. 8. n. 8.4.  
His preface to the sixth part of Reports answered cap. 8. per totum. His judgement of a Nihill dicit. ibid. num. 2.3. etc. The two causes of a Nihil dicit nu. 4.5. etc.  
His precipitant manner of speaking against Catholics. num. 19 Sir Edward charged with a Nimium dicit. num. 20. 21.2● etc. his untruth. n. 22. His railing speeches against Catholics n. 26. & n. 104.113. His Pedanteria. n. 27. & 28. His merry fiction of the Monk at Norwich. n. 59 the same auswered with a serious history. n. 60  
The four questions proposed by himself in a Students name, discussed. ibid. num. 62.63. & deinceps. his bad illations n. 67. He corrupteth Caesar's Commentaries about burning of wives for petty treason, num. 70.71. etc. His fraudulent dealing in the matter of Appeals, n. 75.76.77.  
His false alleging of the law n. 82.83. etc. He forgetteth himself num. 85, in fine  
His Preface to the seventh part of Reports injurious to catholics num. 101.102. etc. His vaunting vanity ibid. num. 105. He misliketh novelty and yet practiseth it. 106. His speech at Norwich n. 109. 110. etc. His threats against Catholics n. 116. The tale of his fatfighting-Abbot nu. 118. his dreadful commination against Catholic books n. 119. good counsel given to Sir Edward num. 121. He misliketh spiritual books. n. 123.  
The Comedy betwixt M. Mort. and M. Stock cap 5. num. 80.  
Contradictions of M. Morton for want of memory cap. 1. §. 2. n. 13 14.15. etc. Item about the maid. that examined S. Peter cap. 2. n. 33. Costerus notably abused by M. Morton c. ●. n. 10. etc.  
Touching the Council of Eliberis about Images, see c. 3. n. 33. etc. as also of the Council of Frankford c. 3. num. 46. etc.    


D  
DEcretals, see Greg. XIII.  
A hard Demand proposed to M. Morton c. 1 n. 99  
Another real Demand ibid. n. 114. Item another touching true and false writing of Catholics & Protestants c. 3. num. 7.  
Dissimulation discovered in M. Morton cap. 9 num. 6.7.  
Dolman perverted about the succession of Protestant Princes c. 1. num. 76.  
Dowries, see Laws.  
Divides c. 8. num. 71.72.73.    


E  
K. Ed. 1. abused by Sir Edw. Cook c. 7. n. 74.75. etc. etc. 8. n. 88 Item Ed. 2. c. 8. num. 86.87. Item Ed. 3. c. 8. n. 87.88. etc. ibid. n. 98.99.  
Emanuel Sà, see Equivocation.  
S. Epiphanius improved not the use of Images c. 3. n. 48. etc.  
Equivocation as it is false & lying, subdivided cap. 1. n. 45. what is material lying Equivocation, and what formal ibid. n. 49.50. Material Equivocation worse than material lying num. 56. it is never lawful n. 61. Sundry cases resolved for Equivocation by Emanuel Sà c. 4. n. 78. see more hereof cap. 7. §. 2. n. 19.20. etc. of Equivocation of Protestant's ibid. n. 32.33. etc. of Ministers and others ibib. n. 42.  
Espencaeus egregiously abused cap. 1. n. 103.  
Q. Ethelwicks Charter discussed c. n. 65.66.67. etc.  
To much Exasperation always dangerous in any state c. 7. n. 16.17.    


F  
IN what sense M. Morton said that the chiefest advantage of his Roman adversaries doth consist in Falsifications c. 9 n. 32  
His fond vaunt of Fetters and shackles cap. 2. n. 35.36  
B. Fisher's opinion concerning Purgatory wrongfully carped at cap. 3. n. 134.  
Flatterers and the effects that follow of them cap. 2. num. 10.  
Forfeiture of lands for felony cap. 8 n. ●9.  
Fox his lies ca 1. nu. 116.  
Frankford, see Council.  
Frifingensis abused concerning Gregory the 7. whom he commendeth cap. 1. num. 89.    


G  
Gratiam falsely accused by M. Morton with divers shifts cap● 3. nu. 19 Item his Gloss avouched for an ancient decree c. 5. n. 59.60. etc. again ib. nu. 73.  
Gregory the 7. Pope calumniated by M. Morton cap. 5. num. 114 etc. ibid. n. 132.133.  
Gregory the 13. falsely alleged c. 5. num. 92.    


H  
THe ancient heresy against the real presence● cap. 3. n. 101.  
Heretics severely censured by S. Augustine cap. 5. n. 76.  
The History of good counsel given to a sick man● c. 8. n. 60.  
Holinshed abused. c. 4● n. 50.  
M. horns untruths c, 1, nu, 116.    


I  
THE use of Images not improved by S. Epiphanius ca 3. n. 48.  
jewels lies. cap. 1. num. 115. etc. 6. num. 120. His Equivocation. cap. 7. n. 43.44. etc.  
The truth of a speaker may depend upon the competency of the judge c. 2, num, 29, 32.    


K  
THE case of a seditious makebate against his King under colour of providence, cap● 2, num, 12.  
Kings how they have their authority from God, and how from man, cap, 5, nu, 54.  
D. King the Minister his Equivocations in Append. n. 5.6. etc.    


L  
LAmbertus Schaffuaburgensis abused by M. Mort. c. 1. n. 90.  
M. Mortons' Latin wanteth the principal Verb cap. 3, num● 39  
Laws, the antiquity of our English common Laws ca 8, nu, 30.31.36. Whether ever altered by our Conquerors. ibid. numb, 43. etc. The British Laws altered by the Romans. ibid. n. 46.47. Item by the Saxons, Danes, Normans, ibid. n. 50. their excellency, n. 54. They are showed to be defectuous in trial of life and death. ibid. in the matter of Dowries. n. 56. in providing for younger brothers. n. 57 in the wardships of pupils n. 58. in the liberty and avarice of Lawyers, ibidem.  
S. Leo abused cap, 6, n, 62, 63.  
Lies of M. Morton. See cap. 2. n. 45. etc. 9● per totum caput.  
Logic of P. R. defended c. 1. nu. 45.46.47. etc.,    


M  
MAncinus, see Carerius.  
The Maid that examined S. Peter. cap. 2. num. 33.  
Principal points of the Mitigation repeated cap. 7. n. 5.6.7.  
M. Mort. taxation of P.R. his memory, wit, skill in Logic, Hebrew, Greek etc. discussed. c. 1. per totum. His fond comparison of Catholic Priests with jewish. c. 1. §. 1. His fond inference against his Adversary about the resurrection, c. 1, §. 1. his exorbitant & false exaggeration about the false dealing of his Adversary cap. 1. num. 114.  
M. Mortons' ridiculous interlude cap. 2 n. 2 His foolish insultation. cap. 2. n. 9 his vaunting entrance to the impugning of Equivocation. ibid. nu. 20. &. 22 he is much troubled about the example of Saphyra. ibid. n. 26.27. his childish mistaking. ibid. n. 36. his miraculous victory. cap. 2. num. 44.  
The excess of M. Mort. malice c. 3. n. 3. He useth five several false shifts and voluntary corruptions in one accu●ation of Card. Bellar. ibid., 72, 73, etc. his three frauds concerning the Manichean heresy objected by Bellarm. to the Protestants, ibid., numb, 79, etc. he calleth divers of the Fathers, Knights of the posts, ibid. n. 136, his false accusation of Catholic writers, n. 137. He is much pressed with wilful lying about the matter of Purgatory, n, 139,  
M. Morton in objecting a contradiction to P. R. lieth himself, cap, 4, n. 6, he denieth Sir Thomas Wiat's attempt to have been against either Queen or State, ib. nu, 48. Fox contemned by M. Mor●● and Holinshead belied ibid., n, 50, etc. He useth 5. different frauds at one time about Azor, cap, 4, n. 74, His fraud in alleging Emanuel Sà, n. 75, 76, etc. the like he useth in citing Maldonate, n. 82, 83:  
M. Morton citeth divers authors for that thing, which they expressly do refu●e in the same places, cap, 5, nu, 34, he confesseth an exorbitant fault, & casteth it on my L. of Canterbury, nu, 88, for want of more matter, he doth handle the self same things divers times to fill up paper, cap, 5, nu, 103, 104, etc.  
M. Mortons' corruptions in citing Cassander and Bellarm. cap. 6, n, 79. What substantial matters handled in the Mitigation, are wholly pretermitted by him cap. 6. n● 116.  
M. Mortons' debts and accounts, cap, 7, n, 2, 3, etc. & n, 29. his bad dealing n, 31, he defendeth not Sir Edw. Cook, n, 48. his helping the die, n, 75.76, etc., his five cases out of Sir Ed. Cooks Reports at large discussed and answered, ib, n, 74, 75, etc. his fond comparings, n, 95, 96. his pretermissions, cap, 6, per totum, his new lies added in his Preamble, cap, 9, per totum. His vaunting challenges. c. 10. per totum.    


N  
NAucleru● abused by M. Morton about the death of Pope Adrian the fourth, cap 5, n, 20, 22.  
The Nicene Council not falsified by Zozimus cap, 3, n, 30.  
For a Nihil and Nimium dicit, see in Sir Edward Cook.  
Two causes of a Nihil dicit c, 8. nu, 2, 3, etc.  
Novatian heresy in Protestant's, see Bellarmine.    


O  
OTho Frifingensis abused. c, 1, n, 87, 88    


P  
PElagianisme in Protestants, See Bellarmine.  
Persecuting judges come to ill ends, ca, 8, nu, 117.  
S. Peter's answer to th● maid concerning Christ. cap, 2, n, 33.  
Pius V. scoffed at by Sir Edw. Cook cap, 8, nu, 108.  
Polidore Virgil belied, c, 5, n, 12.  
Preamble of M. Morton, vain, obscure, & confused, cap, 2, n, 1. It is a great head with little wit ca, 2, num, 19  
M. Mortons' vain descants upon the letters P. R. cap, 10, nu. 18, 19,  
P.R. his just demand to have M. Mortons' books purged by fire cap, 10, n, 3●.  
Pricket pricked by Sir Edw. Cook for setting forth in print his Charge given at Norwich, cap, 8. num, 101. He is cleared from all malice against the Knight, n, 102, & 103.  
Protestant Princes never censured by the Sea Apostolic, c. 2, numero 7.  
Protestants agree with the Novatian heretics, cap, 3, n, 71, inexcusable in matters of rebellion, cap, 4, n. 39  
Providence a principal part of prudence cap, 2, nu, 10.  
Purgatory proved by Coc●ius out of many Fathers, cap. 3, n, 130.    


Q  
THe Question between M. Morton & P. R. cap. 2. n, 17.  
Of Queen Marie, see Wyatt. Of Queen Elizabeth, see the Appendix against King the Minister, In fine operis.    


R  
REbellion by what religion most taught and practised; c, 7, n, 13, 14,  
Rebellion of Protestants. c, 4, num. 39,  
Rebellion of Wiat: See Wyatt.  
M. Reynolds exorbitantly abused, cap 5. n. 88 the blame and shame cast upon the B. of Canterbury. Ibid.    


S  
THe Salamander's nature, ca, 8. n. 20.  
Saphyra, See Morton.  
The sleeping soldiers at our saviours Sepulchre. cap, 1, § 1, n. 2. etc.  
The distinctive sign of true & false spirits, cap, 3, n, 5.  
The Stage-play of M. Morton, cap, 2, num, 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.,  
Stratagems in war lawful although they be Equivocations. cap, 4, num, 88  
The Pope's Supremacy confirmed by an invincible argument of Costerus, cap, 3, num. 13. see more in S. Leo.  
Suspicions without grounds breed nothing but vexations & jealousies in Princes minds. cap. 2, n, 11, etc.  
Sutcliffs manner of answering Catholic books, cap, 6, n, 57  
The absurd syllogism of T. Morton again examined, cap. 1. num. 27●28. etc.    


T  
THe case of Tithes examined cap. 8. num, 92, 93. etc.  
Toleration of divers Religions, see M. Morton.  
Traditions unwritten allowed by S. Cyprian, cap, 3, nu, 111,    


V  
Untruths urtered by M. Morton. See cap, 6, and 8, & alibi passim.  
Untruths of other Protestant's. See under the names of jewel, Horn, Fox etc.  
Vows of voluntary poverty approved by the Father's cap, ●, num. 23.  
Pope V●banus his death. See Binius    


W  
THe sweet waters of Meribah grossly mentioned by M. Morton, for the bitter waters of Marah cap. 10. n, 3,  
Wh. the Minister his Equivocation in Append. n. 2, 3. etc.  
Witaker rejecteth all the Fathers at once. cap. 7. n. 45.  
William Conqueror changed our English laws cap. 8. nu. 50.51. Misreported about appropriations by Sir Edward Cook n. 82.83.  
The Wit of P. R. taxed by M. Morton cap. 1, n. 2, 3, etc.  
The lying Woman and lying Priests foolishly paralleled by M. Morton, cap, 2, n, 38.  
Wiat's rebellion falsely defended by M. Morton cap, 4, nu. 48. etc. See more in M. Morton.    
FINIS.