A quiet and sober reckoning vvith M. Thomas Morton somewhat set in choler by his aduersary P.R. concerning certaine imputations of wilfull falsities obiected to the said T.M. in a treatise of P.R. intituled Of mitigation, some part wherof he hath lately attempted to answere in a large preamble to a more ample reioynder promised by him. But heere in the meane space the said imputations are iustified, and confirmed, & with much increase of new vntruthes on his part returned vpon him againe: so as finally the reconing being made, the verdict of the Angell, interpreted by Daniel, is verified of him. There is also adioyned a peece of a reckoning with Syr Edward Cooke, now L. Chief Iustice of the Co[m]mon Pleas, about a nihil dicit, & some other points vttered by him in two late preambles, to his sixt and seauenth partes of Reports.
Parsons, Robert, 1546-1610.
highlight hits: on | off
Page  192

HIS SECOND OBIECTION against Cardinall Bellarmine → , touching false al∣legations about Anacletus. § XIIII.

SECONDLY (saith he) Bellarmine → to establish the authority of the Pope,* doth giue this prerogatiue to S. Peter, to wit: That S. Peter was the only Bishop, and that other Apostles tooke their Orders from him; which he laboureth to euince from the testimonies of Ana∣cleus, Clemens, Alexander, Eusebius, & Cyprian:* where he is refelled by his owne doctors: One * saying, that indeed those Fathers meane no such thing: Another, that*the Epistles of Anacletus are counterfaite, which many vrge more then is meete, to the end they may aduance the authority of the Sea of Rome.

114. Thus farre the obiection in his owne wordes. Wherin I meruaile what wilfull falshood may be found, such as the writer himselfe must needes know it to be so, except it be on the behalfe of M. Morō, who entreth presently with a shift at the first beginning, saying (as you haue hard) that Bellarmine → giueth this prerogatiue to S. Peter: that he was the only Bishop, and that other Apostles tooke their orders from him, wheras Bellarmines saying is, some au∣thors to be of opinion, quòd solus Petrus à Christo Epis∣copus ordinatus fuerit, caeteri autem à Petro Episcopalem con∣secrationm acceperint,* that only S. Peter was ordeined Bishop immediatly by Christ, and the other recea∣ued their Episcopall consecration from S. Peter. So as in so litle a sentence he leaueth out first, that S. Pe∣ter was ordeined Bishop alone by Christ, and then changeth Episcopall consecration into holy Orders, Page  193 as though they had not bene made so much as Priests by our Sauiour himselfe, but only by S. Peter, wher∣as all authors agree that Christ in making them A∣postles, made thē all Priests though some do doubt, whether immediatly by himselfe he made them all Bishops. So as no one thing is sincerely handled heere by M. Morton without some nippe or other, as you see.

115 Secondly, wheras he saith that Bellarmine → laboureth to euince frō the testimonies of Anacletus, Clemens Alexādrinus &c. the proofe of this prerogatiue, he abuseth him egregiously, for that Bellarmine doth alleadg this opinion, that Christ hauing made all his Apostles Priests, did make only S. Peter Bishop,* with authority to cōsecrate the rest, as the opinion of Tur∣recremata, alleadging diuers manifest reasons and proofes for the same: as namely one, that either Christ did ordaine none of his Apostles Bishops, or all, or some certaine number, or one only. The first cannot stand, for that if Christ had ordained none,* then should we haue at this day no Episcopall authority among vs. Nor can it be said that he or∣dained all immediatly, for that S. Paul was ordained by imposition of handes 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. Iames 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 Iacobo, to haue beene made Bishop by S. Peter.

116. The third poynt also, that Christ ordayned some certayne nūber, he refuteth, for that it appea∣reth by the Euangelicall History that all the Apo∣stles were equall, saue only S. Peter, in whom he pro∣ueth 25. seuerall priuiledges to haue beene giuen by Christ aboue the rest, wherof this of his being or∣dayned Page  194 Bishop alon immediatly from Christ is the 22. and the second reason alleadged by Turrecremata of the Appellation of the Mother Church, giuen aboue all other Churches to Rome, by testimony, as he proueth, of all antiquity, seemeth to confirme greatly the said priuiledge, though notwithstanding it be a matter not so deter∣mined by the Church, but that there may be diuer∣sity of opinions, as in effect there are amongst lear∣ned men about the same, in which number is Fran∣ciscus de victoria heere cyted:* who albeit he confesse this opinion to be grauissimoū Virorum, of most graue Authority: yet thinking the contrary assertion more probable, that Christ himselfe did ordayne imme∣diatly all his Apostles Bishops, doth answere the argumēts of Turrecremata, saying, that the Fathers cy∣ted for the same reuerà non significant id quod Auctores hu∣ius sententiae volunt, that in truth they do not signify so much as the Authority of this sentence or opinion would haue them. And to like effect doth Cardinall Cusanus here cyted, being of a different opinion, en∣deauour to answere the said arguments: but yet not saying absolutly that the Epistles of Anacletus are coū∣terfaite, as heere is alleadged by M. Morton, sed ortassi quaedam scripta Sancto Anacleto attributa apocrypha sunt, but perhaps certayne writings attributed to S. Anaclete are Apocryphall,* which two moderatiōs of fortassi and quaedam, M. Morton craftily left out both in En∣glish and Latin; as he doth in like manner diuers o∣ther things that make against himselfe, and namely these wordes of the same Cusanus, In quibus volentes Ro∣manam Sedem omni laude dignam, plusquam Ecclesiae Sanctae expedit & decet, exaltare, se penitus aut quasi fundant, that some men intending to exalt the Roman Sea wor∣thy of all commendation more then is expedient, or decent for the holy Church it selfe, do found them∣elues Page  195 eyther wholy or for the most part vpon these pocryphall and vncertayne writings. And then a∣gayne: Non opus foret diuinam ipsam, & omni laude super excellentissimam Romanam primam Sedem &c. it shall not be needfull that the diuine Roman Primate Sea most eminently excelling in all praise, to helpe herselfe with doubtfull arguments taken out of those Epi∣stles, wheras the truth may be proued sufficiently, and more cleerly by vndoubted records &c. All this and much more is in Cusanus in the place cited by M. Morton, which he partly imbezeling, partly corru∣pting, and playnly falsifying, hath brought forth the broken sentence which heere you may see both in English and latin, far different from the Origi∣nalls.

1••. And this is his common tricke neuer lightly to alleadge any one sentence eyther in English, or latin, as it lyeth in the text, but still with some hel∣ping of the dye (as his owne phrase is) some crafty cogging must alwayes enter, which I desire the lear∣ned Reader to take the paynes but alitle to examine: & if he fynd not this fraud very ordinary, I am con∣tented to leese my credit with him.

118. And fynally let him note for cōclusion of this obiection, that all this which M. Morton alleadgeth heere, if it were graunted, as it lyeth, conteyneth nothing, but two different opinions betweene lear∣ned men in a disputable question: Whether Christ did immediatly, and by himselfe, consecrate all or some of his Apostles Bishops, or one only with au∣thority to consecrate the rest, Turrecremata and Bellar∣mine do hold the one for more probable, but Victoria, Cusanus, and some others do allow rather the other: What wilfull falshood is there in this? Or is it not singular folly to call it by that name? But let vs see an other obiection, no wiser then the rest.

highlight hits: on | off