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  185


CONTEYNING THER OBIECTIONS against Cardinall Bellarmine → , for falsifica∣tions in alleadging of othr mens au∣thoritis: and first about S. Cyprian. §. XIII.

MAISTER MORTON passing from Cardinall Bellarmines accusations & imputations against Protestants for he∣resies, vnto his allegations of their te∣stimonies (corruptly as he pretendeth) andled by him;* he beginneth his accusation with a entence of S. Cyprian about traditiōs in these words:*S. Cyprian (saith he) hath this qustion (he going about to refute 〈◊〉 tradition:) VVhence is this tradition? It is deriued from the Lords Authority, or frm the prcpt of the Apostles? For God willth that we hod do those things which are written. From whence Protestāts conclude, that the Scriptures are Page  186 of sufficiency for our direction in all questions of faith. Bellarmine → answereth,* that Cyprian spake this, when he thought to defend an error, and therfore i is no mer∣uaile, i he erred in so reasoning, for the which cause S. Au∣gustine (saith he) did worthily reute him. The question is not, what error Cyprian held, but whether his manner of reasoning from the sufficiency of Scrip∣ture were erroneous or no. Bellarmine → pretendeth, that S. Augustine did worthily reproue him. But whosoeuer shall consult with S. Augustine in the Chapter specified, shall find, that this poynt by him is excellently commended, That Cyprian warneth vs (saith S. Augustine) to runne vnto te ountaine,*that is, vnto the tradition o the Aposles; from thence to deriue a con∣duct to our tymes, it is chifly good and doubtlesse to be peror∣med.

*105. This is M. Mortons whole obiection, wherin we must examine what wilfull deceipt to falsifica∣tion he findeth here in Cardinall Bellarmines allegati∣on of Cyprian. For if he find not this, then findeth he nothing to his purpose, he hauing intituled this his Paragraph of Bllamines falsiications: but if he find no falshood nor falsity at all, either wilfull or not wil∣full, then is he more in the briers: but most of all if finding nothing in his aduersary, himselfe be taken in manifest falshood, both witting and wilful. Let vs examine then this poynt more particulerly.

*106. And first I do note, that he proposeth this ob∣iection very obscurely, & that for the cause, which will presently be sene, for he doth not explicate vpon what occasion these words of S. Cyprian were vttered by him, nor alleadged by Protestants as an obiection against vnwritten traditions. Wherfore the Reader must know, that the holy man S. Cypian huing conceaued an infinite auersion frō hereticks and hersies of his time, did vpon indiscreet zeale Page  187all into this errour, that as their faith was not goodo neither their baptisme, and consequently that uch as left them, and were conuerted to the Catho∣icke religion should be baptized againe after the Catholicke manner: and hauing found some other Bishops also of Africk, vpon the same groundes, to ioyne with him in the same opinion, for that it seemed to them to be most conforme to Scriptures, that detested euery where hereticks and heresies, he wrote therof vnto Stephen Bishop of Rome, who standing vpon the cōtrary custome alwayes vsed in the Church, not to rebaptize such as were conuer∣ted from heresie, misliked S. Cyprians opinion, and wrote vnto him against the same: wherwith the good man being somwhat exasperated, wrote a letter vnto Pompeius Bishope of Sabrata in Africk, cited heere by M. Morton, wherin amongst other sharp speaches he hath this interrogation here set downe: Vnde est ista traditio &c? From whence is this tradition (of not rebaptizing heretickes?) Is it deriued from our Lords Authority? &c. vpon which forme of argu∣ing in S. Cyprian, M. Morton saith, that Protestants do lawfully argue in like manner, this or that tra∣dition is not in the Scriptures, ergo, it is not to be ad∣mitted.

107. But saith Cardinall Bellarmine → , this was no good forme of arguing in S. Cyprian,* nor euer vsed by him, but in this necessitie for defending his errour as Protestantes also are driuen to vse the same for de∣fence of theirs, and this he proueth by two wayes. First, for that S. Augustine doth of purpose out of the sense of the vniuersall Church of his dayes refute that inference, and forme of argument: and second∣ly, for that S. Cyprian himselfe in other places where he was not pressed with this necessity, doth yeald, and allow the authority of vnwritten traditions, Page  188 which later proofe as the most conuincent, M Mor∣ton doh suppresse with silence, in reciting Bellar∣mines answere, and saith only to the first, that S. Au∣gustine is so farre of from condemning S. Cyprians man∣nr of reasoning from the sufficiency of Scriptures, as he doth excellently commend the same: this then is briefly to be examined out of S. Augustines ovvne wordes.

108. And first I graunt (as S. Augustine also doth) that when any Tradition, or doctryne, can cleerly be shewed out of the Scriptures, optimum est, & sie dubitatione faciedum,* it is the best way of all, and que∣stionles to be obserued. And for that S. Cyprian in that his errour did certainly perswade himselfe to be able to prooue the same out of holy Scriptures, as appeareth by the many places alleadged by him to tht effect (though wrongfully vnderstood) espe∣cially in the sayd Epistle to Pompeius, and else wher, which places of Scripture S. Augustine doth particu∣lerly ponder and refute, and shew not to be rightly applied by S. Cyprian, who seeing the generall custo∣me and tradition of the Church to be contrary vn∣to him, in this cause prouoked to the Scriptures alone, as the Protestants do in as bad a cause. But now let vs see what S. Augustine teacheth in this be∣halfe, and how he confuteth S. Cyprians prouocatiō to only Scriptures, in this case of controuersy bet∣weene them,* notwithstanding he allowed for the best way to haue recourse to the fountaynes, when things from thence may, as I sayd, cleerly be pro∣ued.

109. Let vs heare (I say) S. Augustine recounting the case betweene S. Cyprian on the one side, & himselfe with ll Catholike mē of his dayes on the other.

Nō∣d•••rt••aith he diligentrilla Baptismi qustio pertracta &c. The question of Baptisme (or rebptizing here∣tiks Page  189 was not in S. Cyprians tyme diligently discus∣sed, albeit the Catholike Church held a most whol∣some custome to correct that in Schismatiks & He∣retiks which was euill, & not to iterate that which was giuen them as good: which custome I belieue to haue come downe from the Apostles tradition, as many others which are not found in their writings,* nor yet in the later Councels of their successours, & neuerthelesse are obserued through the whole vni∣uersall Church, and are belieued not to haue beene deliuered, and commended vnto vs, but from the sayd Apostles. This most wholsome custome then S. Cyprian sayth that his predecessour Agrippinus did begin to correct, but as the truth it selfe being more diligently after examined did teach, he is thought more truly to haue corrupted thē corrected the same.
Thus S. Augustine of the state of the question, and of the authority of Customes and Traditions vnwrit∣ten. Now Let vs see what he saith to S. Cyprians mā∣ner of reasoning, from the sufficiency of Scripture as M. Morton tearmeth it.

101. Ad Pompeium (saith S. Augustine) scribit Cypria∣nus de hac re &c.*

S. Cyprian doth write to the Bishop Pompeius about this matter, where he doth manifestly shew, that Stephen, whome wee vnderstand to haue beene Bishop of Rome at that tyme, did not only not consent vnto him, verùm etiam contra scripsisse at{que} prae∣••pisse, but also did write and gaue commandement to the contrary &c. S. Cypryan did obiect Apostoli nihil quidm 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 eorm traditione exordium sumpsisse credenda est, s••u sunt multa quae Vniuersa tenet Ecclesia, & ob hoc ab Apo∣st•••s prcpta bene creduntur quamquam scripta non reperian∣tur: But that custome which was opposed to S. Cy∣prianPage  190 by the Church, is to be belieued to haue taken beginning from the tradition of the Apostles: as there are many things which the Vniuersall Church doth hold, and they are therfore rightly belieued to haue beene ordayned by the Apostles, though they be not found written.
Thus S. Augustine.

111. Wherby we vnderstand, 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 ca∣ses it is good and lawull to runne to Scriptures, when the matter may be clearly by them decided; yet is it no good argument alwaies to say, It is not in the Scripture, and therfore we are not bound to belieue it, which was the argument of S. Cyprian when he was in errour, and for maintenance of the same, as M. Morton cannot deny:* nor dareth reproue S. Augustine and the Church of his time that con∣demned this manner of reasoning in S. Cyprian. And what now doth there result against Bellarmine → in all this obiection? Is he found false in any one thing which heere is said? Nay is not M. Morton cōuinced of euident fraud in setting downe this accusation? First for concealing the true state of the question then for that S. Augustine doth not reproue, but ex∣cellently commend the manner of reasoning in S. Cyprian; pretermitting all that I haue alledged out of S. Augustines expresse words to the cōtrary, which he could not but know and haue read? Thirdly by cutting of the words immediatly following in Bel∣larmine, conteyning his second reason, which was that S. Cyprian in other traditions besides this of not rebaptizing heretickes (which erroneously he thought to be repugnant to Scripture,) he allowed & vrged also the force of Traditions in the Church of God, though they were not written wherof Page  191Cadinall Bellarmine → himselfe alleadgeth two euident exāples,* the one about the necessity of holy Chrisme or Vnction, vrged by S. Cyprin out of only Tra∣dition lib. 1. Epist. 12. and the offering wine to∣geather with water in the Sacrifice, which he vr∣geth as Dominicam Traditionem, a Tradition of our Lord lib. 2. Epist. 3. whereas notwithstanding no∣thing is found written in the Scriptures of ei∣ther of these traditions.* And if I would alleage other traditions allowed by him, though not written in the Scriptures, I might be large heerin: as for ex∣ample, that of renunciation accustomed to be made in the Church before baptisme, wherof he treateth in his 7. and 54. Epistles, and in his booke de disci∣plina & habitu Virginum: as also of the demaundes, & answeres accustomed to be made in the Church, a∣bout the articles of the Creed, Epist. 70. of Exor∣cismes to be made before baptisme, Epist. 2. & 72. & lib. conra Demetrianum.

112. The tradition of baptizing Infants, Epist. 59. which S. Augustine holdeth to stand only vp∣on vnwritten tradition, and the like. This second argument then of Bellarmine → being craftily left out, and his former from S. Augustines authority witting∣ly peruerted, M. Morton insteed of an obiectiō against the Cardinall, hath brought in a flat condemnation of two notable fraudes against himselfe. Let vs see another of like sort and suite, if he can haue patience to heare it.

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.

Page  196

THE THIRD OBIECTION against Cardinall Bellarmine → or false allegations about Platina. §. XV.

HIS third obiecton against Cardinall Bellarmin beginneth in these wordes:* Againe (saith he) where Bellarmine → citeth the testimony of Plaina for the commendation of Pope Hildbrand:

And in ano∣ther place finding Platina obiected in the question of Confession, answereth for the disabling of the Au∣thor, saying, that Platina had no publike authority to pen the liues of the Popes from publike Recordes. Which is nota∣bly false, Platina himselfe in his Epistle dedicatory vnto the then Pope writing thus:*Thou (ô Prince of Deuines, and chiefe of Bishops,) hast commanded me to write the liues of the Popes. Whose history is therfore greatly commended by Ballus, as being true, and takn out of publike Monuments. I could furnish P. R. with infinite such like delusions, and will also whenso∣euer my Aduersary shall renew his demaūd:* for such a multitude of examples I could bring, that I find it a greater difficulty for me to subtract, then to mul∣tiply.
So he.

*120. And I answere, that the more he multi∣plyeth in this kind the greater store of testimonies and suffrages he produceth of his owne folly, and impertinent dealing: for that Cardinall Bellamine his denying of Platina to be of absolute credit & publick authority in all matters touched by him in his histo∣ry, doth not proue wilfull malice in the Cardinall but rather a true & prudent censure concurring with the iudgment of diuers learned men of our time, especially of Onuprius Panuinus, who writing obser∣uatiōs Page  197 vpon the history of Platina concerning Popes liues,* doth oftentimes note the said story of diuers defects both in the Chronologie of times, and truth of matters set downe by him: and I doubt not, but whosoeuer shall haue read the works of Onuphius & of Balbus heere cited in commendation of Platina, will greatly preferre the iudgmnt of the first, before the later in matters of history. But let vs see, what Cardinall Bellarmine → saith of Plaina, and vpon what ground, and to what effect, and so shall you see al∣so how weake a calumniation M. Morton hath taken in hand in this obiection.

121. The occasion of censuring Platina, was in the confutation of a certaine manifest lie auouched (as the Cardinall saith) by Caluin, who affirmed that there was neuer any certaine Ecclesiasticall law ex∣tant, binding men to Sacramentall Confession, before the Councell of Lateran vnder Pope Innocenius the third, some 300. yeares past, and for proofe of this, Caluin citeth the story of Platina as affirming the same with this preface of his owne to authorize more the writer, Eorum Annales narrant, their An∣nales, or publike histories (of the Catholickes) do declare. And againe:*Ipsis testibus nondm clpsi sunt anni trecenti, themselues being witnesses (to witt the Ca∣tholickes) and their publike histories, there are not 300. yeares yet past since the law of Confssion began. Which manifest vntruth Bellarmine → cōfuting by great store of antiquityes,* commeth at length to Platina who in the life of the Popes Zepheinus & Innocentius, writeth that the decree that was made by Zepherinus for receauing the communion, at least once a yeare about Easter, was extended also to Confession by Pope Innocentius, which only is found written by Platina, saith Bellarmine → , and not by any other Ecclesiasticall historiographer: adding further these wordes: Sed Page  198 neque Platina &c. But neither Platina did write those liues of Popes by publike authority,* nor out o pub∣like records in such sort as they may be called our Annales: and oftentimes is he reprehended by our Historiographers, for that he fell into diuers errours in his history, by following of Martinus Polonus: and yet doth not Platina say,* that which Caluin saith, that there was no law extant about the necessity of Confssion before the time of Zepherinus and Innocentius, but only that the certaine time, when, and how "often a man should confesse and communcate, was then prescribed more in particuler.

122. So as heere you see Platina doth make no∣thing for M. Caluin, and lesse for M. Morton, who dealt fraudulently according to his fashion, and neuer commonly doth otherwise, when reciting in his margent the latin text of Bellarmine → , he cut out the words immediatly following, Vt annales nostri dici possint, Platina did not write the liues of Popes as they may be called our Annales. And albeit Plaina saith in the Preface of his history vnto the Pope Sixtus 4. who liued somwhat aboue 100. yeares past, that he had cōmanded him to wrie the Popes liues, yet this proueth not, that his collection is an Authenticall history of our Church, or so well per∣formed by him, as all things therin contained must be held for exact truth, and we bound to accept of the same, which is all in effect, that Cardinall Bellarmine → auoucheth. And who would haue brought in this for an example of wilfull falshood but only M. Morton? Nay who would haue made oftentation therof saying, that he findeth greater difficulty to subtract, then to multiply such examples, but himself, that seemeth not to discrne betweene saying somewhat in words, and nothing in effect? But yet we must passe a little further to see an impertinency or two more.

Page  199

THE FOVRTH Obiection against Cardinall Bellarmine → , touching, false allegations about Purgatorie. §. XVI.

AFTER long prying vpon Cardinall Bellarmines bookes, being aboue 60. in number, and the notes therout gathered, which before you haue heard, M. Morton commeth at length to seeke some quarrels at that which the Cardinall hath written in defence,* and demonstration of the doctryne of Purgatorie, and saith that he will end with that matter. His wordes are these: I will now (saith he) confine my selfe within the precincts of but one onely controuersye concerning Purgatorie, where Bellarmine → distinguishing of the diuers acceptions of the word aFire in the writings of ancient Fathers, concludeth that, bwhen the Fathers speake of the Fyre of the day of doome, when all the world shall be of a flame, they meane not Purgatory-fire, which soules suffer imme∣diatly after death. After this he alledgeth cmost playne places (as he calleth them) out of the Fathers for proofe of Purgatorie. Amongst others in his first booke (de Purgatorio) S. Ambrose serm. 20. in Psalm. 118. for proof o Purgatory-fyre, which he himselfe confesseth in his next booke notdto be meant of Purgatorie. So he dealeth also with eS. Hillary, vrging his sentence vpon the Psalm. 118. as an euident place for Purgatory, which by his owne iudgement, seemeth not to signify Purgatory. And yet f againe, among his manifest places of the Fa∣thersor Purgatorie he alledgeth the testimonyes of Origen, Basil, Lactantius, Hierome, Ambrose: all which are Page  200 acknowledged expresly by Sixtus Senensis,* from the euidence of the contexts to haue spoken only of the fyre of the day of iudgement, and consequently as Bellarmine → hath taught vs, not of the fire of Purgato∣rie. Lastly he proesseth to confirme the doctryne of Purgatorie out of most of the Greeke and Latin Fathers.* And another Iesuit••ith more largely gof all the Greek Fathers: which is an assertion as false as peremptory, euen by the confession of their owne hBishop saying: That there is very rare mention of Purgatory in the Greeke Fa∣thers:* and that the latin Fathers did not all at first ap∣prehend the doctryne therof. Thus far he.

124. And now let the Reader note how many impertinent poyntes (to say nothing of their falsity that ioyntly also will be discouered) are heere cou∣ched togeather, that io say, all that are heere han∣dled, for that all conioyned together do not con∣uince any one wilfull, or witting vntruth in Bellar∣mine, though there should be found any ouersight, as there will not be; but rather yow will discouer the most cunning dealing in M. Morton (if iugling be cunning) therby to make Bellarmine → seeme to haue some contradiction in him, that euer perhaps yow read.* For first, where the said Cardinall writeth, that when the Fathers speake of the yre of the day of doome, when all the world shall be in a flame, they meane not Purgatory yre, though the thing it selfe in some sense may be graū∣ted: yet in the places by him cyted, Bellarmine → hath no such thing, but only treating of that fire men∣cioned by the Apostle 1. Cor. 3. Vniuscuius{que} opus quale sit, ignis probabit: Fire shall proue what euery mans worke is, he saith: Aliqui Patrum per ignem non intelligunt ignem Purgatorium, sed ignem diuini Iudicij, per quem saten∣dum est omnes etiam Sanctos, Christo excepto, transire. Some Fathers do not vnderstand by this fire (that must try euery mans workes) the fire of Purgatory, but Page  201 the fire of Gods iudgment, through which we must confesse that all Saints also must passe, except Christ himselfe.

125. And for this opinion he cyteth S. Hilary and S. Ambrose vpon the Psalme 118. as also S. Hierome,* who seeme to vnderstand by this prouing-fire men∣tioned by S. Paul, not the purging-yre of Purgatorie, which is mētioned presently after in the same place of the Apostle, when he saith, ipse tamen saluus erit, sic tamen quasi per ignem: which later fyre to be vnder∣stood of Purgatory after death, Bellarmine → proueth by the playne exposition of S. Cyprian, S. Ambrose, S. Hie∣rome, S. Augustine, S. Gregorie, and others.

126. Now then M. Morton seeing this discourse of Bellarmine → would needs pick a quarrel therat, and frame vnto himself some shew of cōtrariety in him, by voluntarie mistaking of the fire of Gods iudge∣ment and triall, due to euery soule immediatly after death, for the fyre of doomes day when the world shall be in a flame, wherof Bellarmine → neyther speaketh,* nor had occasiō to speake: nay he doth expresly deny, and shew, that the prouing-yre of Gods iudgmēts mentio∣ned by S. Paul, is not the fyre of the conflagration of the world: and then doth M. Morton frame to himselfe a contradiction in Bellarmine → , as though he had said, that S. Ambrose, and S. Hilarie in the selfe same places of their works, had held for Purgatory, & not for Purgatory, to wit, vpō the Psalme 118. which may be true in different senses, & sentences of theirs, & in different acceptions of the word fyre, as hath beene shewed, for that by the former wordes of S. Paul, Ignis probabit,* fyre shall proue euery mans works, they thinke that Purgatory fire is not vnderstood, but rather the examen of Gods iudgments as hath bene said, through which examining fyre both Saints and not Saints must passe: but by the other fyre that Page  202 followeth in the said Apostle, Damnum patietur, ipse tamen saluus erit, sic tamen quasi per ignem, he shall suffer losse or punnishment, but yet he shall be saued as by fire, all the forenamed Fathers do hold that the purging fyre is vnderstood, through which only imperfect men shall passe, so as they vnderstanding of different fires, in the selfe same sentence of S. Paul, no maruayle though they affirme of the one, and de∣ny of the other, without all note of true and reall contradiction: for that a contradiction must be in the self same thing, and in the same respect, other∣wise it were a contradiction to say, that Christ was mortall & immortall, passible & impassible, which are not contradictory, but most true in different re∣spects, and other such like speaches: yet let vs see how M. Morton frameth his contradictories heere more in particuler.

*127. Among other Fathers (saith he) Bellarmine → cy∣teth S. Ambrose ser. 20. in Psal. 118. for proofe of Purgatorie fire, which he himselfe confesseth in his next booke not to be meant of Purgatory. Marke heere the fraud. A place of S. Ambrose is alleadged by Bellarmine → for purgatory out of his Cōmentary vpon the 36. Psalme, after which he sayth:*Vide etiam eundem, serm. 20. in Psalm. 118. See also the same S. Ambrose in his 20. Sermon vpon the hundred and eyghtenth Psalme, signifying, that in this place the said Father hath somwhat more, worthy the consideration to the same effect of pro∣uing Purgatory, and then in his second booke, Bellar∣mine cyting a place out of the forsaid 20. Sermon, where vpon the wordes of Genesis the 4. God placed be∣fore paradise a sword of fire, saith: that S. Ambrose affir∣ming that fiery sword to be ignem Purgatorium, by which all must passe, both good and euill, see∣meth rather to vnderstand the prouing fire of Gods iudgments to euery soule immediatly after death, Page  203 both good and bad, then the paynull purging fire that is to ensue after, wherby the bad or faulty do only passe. And what contradiction is there now betweene this reference of the Reader by Bellarm. (for he saith but Vide) to the sermō of S. Ambrose, and this other place cyted out of the same sermon? may not there be in the selfe same sermon different sentences, and different senses vpon different occasions, and to different purposes? Who would wrangle thus but M. Morton for lacke of better matter? If he had shewed Bellarmine → to say that the selfe same sentence or dis∣course of S. Ambrose had beene alleged by him for Purgatory, and against Purgatory, he had performed somewhat: this other picking of quarrels is poore and miserable, and sheweth his wantes in the midst of his braggings: we haue deliuered S. Ambrose from the calumnation of contradiction, let vs passe to S. Hilary.

128. So Bellarmine → (saith he) dealeth also with S. Hilary,* vrging his sentence vpon the Psalme 118. as an euident place for Purgatorie, which by his owne iudgment (in his next booke) seemeth not to signify Purgatory, but rather Ignem diuini iudicij,* by which our B. Lady and Saints must passe, which cannot be vnderstood of true Purgatory. Whereto is answered, that both are conteyned in the dis∣course of S. Hilary vpon the 118. Psalme, to witt, the prouing fire of Gods iudgment after our deathes, and purging fire of Gods iustice after our iudgment, S. Hylaries wordes are these vpon that Verse of the Psalme, My soule hath desyred thy iudgements:* Meminit Propheta &c. The prophet Dauid hath recounted vnto vs how hard a thing it is to desyre the iudg∣ments of God:*

for as no man lyuing is cleane in his sight, how may a man desyre that iudgement of his, in which that indefatigable fire is to be vndergone Page  204 by vs, in which those greiuous punisments of pur∣ging our soules from synnes, are to be susteyned, the B. Virgin Maries soule was passed with a sword to the end that the thoughts of many hartes might be reuealed. If then that Virgin that was capable of God, must come into the seuerity of Gods iudgment, who will dare to desyre to be iudgd by God?
So farre S. Hilarie.

129. In which discourse it is euident, that he comprehendeth both the fire of Gods iudgement, when he saith, that our Lady must vndergoe the seuerity of that iudgement, as also the other purging fire in which he saith so greiuous punishments must be suffered for purging of our soule, which may both well stand together, as acts of the selfe same iustice, to witt, the examination of our lyfe, and punishment of our defects therin found. And how impertinent then is it for M. Morton in these two things to frame a contradiction? but let vs passe to a third.

130. And yet agayne (saith he) among his manifest places of the Fathers for Purgatory he alleageth the testimonies of Origen,*Basil, I actātius, Hie∣rome, Ambrose, all which are acknowledged expresly by Sixtus Snnsis from the euidence of the contexts to haue spokē only of the fire of the day of iudgmēt.
Wherto I answere, that here are many delusions to∣gether. For first suppose that Syxtus Senensis that ly∣ued somwhat beore Bellarmine → were of a different oinion from him, about some Authoryties allea∣ged of these fue Fathrs, concrning the fire of Purgatory, doth not Bellarmine → alleage almost fifteen besydes 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 alleage vpon the Page  205 poynt of 60. ancient Fathers,* Greeke and Latin within the compasse of the first six hundred yeares next after Christ, who held the same do∣ctrine? And for the first of these fue, to wit Origen, doth he not besydes the place heere excep∣td against by M. Morton out of Sixtus Senensis his Censure, to witt, Hom. 6. in Exod. doth he not (I say) alleadg fiue other mani••st places out of the same Author confirming Purgatory,* 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 haue not only the single places against which M. Morton so triumphantly excepteth out of Senensis, but diuers other that sufficiently declare their iudg∣ment in that behalfe.

131. Secondly I would demaund of M. Morton why we should ascribe more vnto the iudgement of Senensis in censuring these places of the Fathers then vnto other learnd, that thinke the contrary: They are all acknowledged (saith M. Morton) expresly by Syx∣tus Senensis ••om the euidence of their contextes to haue spoken only of the ire of the day of Iudgemnt, and consequently not of Purgatory. This now is properly to help a dye in deed, for that Senensis doth not talke of any such euidence of the contextes,* but speaketh rather doubtfully, and by conictue, saying of Origen, that his opinion (that both good and bad should be purged by fre) is confuted by S. Augstine in his bookes de Ciitate Di, but yet for excusing the same from errour he saith:*Tu vide an Origenis verba interpretari queant de igne vlimae coflagrationis. Do thou (Reader) consider whether the wordes of Origen may be interpreted of the fire of the last cōflagration or ot? So as he did not exprsly acknowledge from the euidenc of contexts (as M. Mort. shifting & lying wordes Page  206 are) that these authorityes must needes be vn∣derstood of the last combustion of the world;* but ra∣ther leaueth it as vncertayne to be considered by the Reader: and there are diuers of them, that can∣not be so vnderstood, as that of Origen vpon the E∣pistle to the Romans: haecipsa purgatio quae per poenam ignis adhibetur &c.* This purgation of synnes which is ap∣plyed by the punishment of fyre, how many yeares, and how many ages it shall afflict sinners, only he can tell to whome his Father gaue power of iudge∣ment: which wordes cannot well be vnderstood of the last conflagratiō of the world, which no man can affirme to be likely to indure many ages toge∣ther.

132. And many like sentences may be obserued in the other Fathers speaches, which he expresly alleadgeth 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 passe also through this fire, though without hurt, Ex∣purgabit Hierusalem (saith S. Basil) Dominus in spiriu iu∣dicij, & spiritu ardoris, quod ad am probationem siue exam̄ refertur, quod per ignem fiet in suturo saeculo. God shall purge Hierusalem in the spirit of Iudgment, and the spirit of burning, which is referred to that pro∣bation, and examination which shall be made by fire in the world to come. And this I thinke Sixtus Senensis,* or M. Morton for him will hardly apply from the euidence of the context it selfe, vnto the last cō∣flagration of this world, which indeed is but a meere coniecture of his, and for such he willeth the Rea∣der to consider of it, as now you haue heard. But M. Morton doth magnifie the same, as somwhat hel∣ping him in his opinion to diuert the authorities of these Fathers from inferring the true fire of Purga∣tory: but the truth is that they may include both, as Page  207 before we haue noted, to wit, the fire of Gods iudgment in examining sinnes after their deathes, and the fire of Gods iustice in purging and puni∣shing thē temporally, that were not purged before. Of which later execution of Iustice, and purging sinnes, the last conflagration of the world may be a member or part for those that shall liue vntill the last day of iudgment. Wherunto S. Ambrose in the very place heere alledged seemeth to allude, when he sayth:*Cùm vnusquis{que} nostrûm venerit adiudicium Dei, & ad illos ignes quos transituri sumus &c. When euery one of vs shall come to the Iudgment of God, & to those fires through which we must passe, then let euery man say as the Prophet did, respect my humility, and de∣liuer me. Where it is euident, that S. Ambrose spea∣keth of more fires then one. And so this third con∣tradiction 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 ve∣ry rare mention of Purgatory in the Greeke Fathers, is vn∣derstood by him as well of the name of Purgatory not then so much in vse, as that the most ancient writers next after the Apostles tyme, when many thinges were not discussed so exactly, (as in processe of time they were) did not so clearely handle that matter: Nemo iam dubitat orthodoxus (saith he) an Purgatorium sit, de quo tamen apud priscos illos nulla, vel quàm rarissima fiebat mentio. No rightly belieuing Christian doth now doubt, whether there be Purgatory or no, of which notwithstanding,* there was none, or very rare mention made among those most ancien Fathers. Wherof he giueth diuers reasons, and indeed the same may be said of sundry important other articles of Catholike Religion: for so much as in the first primitiue Church when the said Fathers were vn∣der persecution, and occupied in other weighty Page  208 affaires against heretickes and persecutors, they had not time, nor occasion to discusse many things, which the holy Ghost afterward did make more cleare vnto the Church by successe of time: and yet doth not Bishop Fisher say, that there was no know∣ledg of this article of Purgatory in the very first Fa∣thers; but only his meaning was, that the name, na∣ture, & circumstance therof was not so well discus∣sed, & consequently the thing more seldome menti∣oned by them, then afterward by the subsequent writers.

134. Wherfore comming afterward in his 37. article to answere Luther, that sayd, that Purgatory could not be proued by any substantiall argument, he vseth this demonstration against him:*Cùm à tot Patribus (saith he) tam à Graecis quàm Latinis Purgatorium affirmetur, non est verisimile, quin eius veritas per idoneas probationes illis claruisset. Wheras Purgatory is affirmed by so many Fathers, as well Grecians as Latinists, it is not likly, but that the truth therof was made cleare vnto them by some sufficient proofes. And then after the citing a multitude of Fathers of the one and the other Church, he commeth to proue Purgatory first by Scripture out of both testaments, and then by great variety of testimonies and autho∣ries of the said Fathers. And if this will not suffice M. Morton, let him see the threescore before men∣tioned by me out of Coccius, wherof 30. or ther∣about were of ancient Greeke Fathers within the first 600. yeares after Christ.

Page  209

MAISTER MORTONS conclusion and obseruation about the article of Pur∣gatory examined. §. XVII.

MAISTER MORTON hauing plaied his prize as now you haue heard, in charging Cardinall Bellarmine → with contradictions, and absur∣dities about the doctrine of Purgatory, he maketh this conclusion.

If any (saith he) shall but obserue in this one controuersy the number of witnesses brought in for the confirmation of this their new article in the name of ancient Fathers, which are by confessiō of our aduersaries meerely counterfaite,* as Clemens his Constitutions, Clemens Epistles, Atha∣nas. in quaest. Eusebius Emissenus, Iosephus Ben-Gorion, Hie∣ron. in Prouerb. August. ad Fratres in Eremo. the Litur∣gies of Iames and others: all which as they are vrged for profe of Purgatory, so are they reiected by their owne men (I desire to be challenged for proofe heerof) as forged, or corrupted, or Apochrypha: and in∣deed no better witnesses for truth, then the Knights o the Post be fit men for a Iury. If further he shall marke how true Fathers, and Scriptures are in∣stanced in for proofe of the same article, wher∣of (when I speake of Fathers) most of them (whē I speake of Canonicall Scriptures) all of them are found by the iudgment of their owne doctours to be tortured, wre∣sted, and forced, as it were to say that which they neuer meant: if hee, lastly, consider how almost euerie one of thē indeauoring the defence of the same doctrine, is in his owne assertions contradicted by himself, which may be in this one controuersie concerning Pur∣gatorie, Page  210 a late article of their faith, most plainly dis∣cerned.
So ar hee.

136. And this his conclusion, or repetitiō in the end of this last obiection about Purgatorie, seemeth to me a recapitulation and briefe represntation of all his former vnsyncere dealings concerning the same; and that he cannot be trusted in any thing he saith, though he struggle still to say somwhat. For first of this number of witnsses which heere he saith to haue bene brought in as Knights of the Post for confir∣mation of this new article of Purgatory, to wit, Clmens his Constitutions and Epistles, and the other six or seauen authorities heere cited, they, and the rest, vnder the names of ancient Fathers,* are not so much as named by Bellarmine → (except only the two first in a word or two) and much lesse are they brought in for principall authors in the Cata∣logue of ancient Fathers, whose testimonies and authorities he setteth downe for proofe of Purgato∣ry: so as this is one deceiptfull vntruth to make his Reader beliue that these are our chiefe Authors, wheras Bellarmine → besides these, doth alleadge twen∣ty, viz. ten of the Greeke Church, and as many of the Latin, as namely S. Gregory Nazianzen, S. Basil, S. Ephraim, S. Epiphanius, S. Cyrill, S Chrysostome, u∣sebius, Theodoretus, Theophilactus, and Damascenus, all Fathers of the Greeke Church: and Tertullian, S. Cyprian, S. Ambrose, S. Hirome, S. Paulinus, S. Au∣gustine, 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 heere, and consequent∣ly are so many good and lawfull witnesses (and not Knightes of the Post) for a complete Iury against M. Moron.

137. Secondly it is another manifest vntruth, Page  211 that he saith his aduersaries (to wit Catholicke writers) do confesse, these seauen or eight Authors, and autorities by him mentioned, to be meerely counterfaite. For albeit some of them be excepted against, or called in question by some writers, whether they be the true workes of the Authors whose names they beare, or not, and therof all re∣puted Apocryphall,* that is hydden and obscure: yet it followeth not that they are merely counterfaite, for that they may be ancient workes, and not to be contemned, though not of those Authors. As for example, that worke intituled: Opus imperectū in Matthaeum, ascribed to S. Chrysostome, and the Ser∣mons ad Fratres in Eremo, ascribed to S. Augustine, the Homilies also attributed to Eusebius Emissenus, proued by Baronius to haue bene written by S. Eu∣cherius Bishop of Lyons, that liued aboue eleuen hundred yeares gone, all these workes cannot be denied to be ancient and learned,* though Apo∣cryphall, hidden, and doubtfull, for so much as concerneth their true Authors, which yet our wri∣ters do not call meerely counteraite, as heere M. Morton doth falsely affirme.

138. His third manifest vntruth is, where he saith, that, of Fathers, the most of them, and of Cano∣nicall Scriptures all of them, are found by the iudgment of our owne Doctors to be tortured, wrested, and forced to say (for Purgatory) that which they neuer meant.* This now whether it be not such a wilfull and wit∣ting lye, as before I described, for a formall mali∣cious lye, such as the writer did know to be a lye when he wrote it, I am content to remit my selfe to any iudicious, and ciuill Protestant in the world. For if our owne Catholike doctors that make profession to belieue Purgatory, do fynd in their owne iudgement, as heere is said, that of Fathers Page  212 alleaged or the prooe therof the most of them, and of Scriptures all of them, are tortured, & orce to say that which they neuer meant;* how then do these doctors belieue the do∣ctryne of Purgatory to be true? Why do they not change their opinions, and become Protestants? Is it credible, that they will belieue that for truth, & for an article of faith which all Scriptures, & most Fathers in their owne iudgments do impugne? Can M. Morton answere any thing to this so lewd & wil∣full absurdity? And did not he know, that he lyed when he wrote this? And that it was impossible to be true?

139. Moreuer I haue now shewed that Cardinall Bellarmine → in setting downe the Fathers opinions a∣bout Purgatory, besydes those excepted against by M. Morton, hath twenty others, and Coccius in his The∣saurus hath neere threescore within the compasse of the first 600. yeares after Christ: and will any Ca∣tholike doctour or writer (thinke yow) say that the most of these Fathers are found in their iudgements to be orced to speake against their owne meaning? And yet saith M. Morton, I desyre to be challenged for proofe herof. And to the end that he may haue somewhat to do, I do earnestly challenge him herein,* requiring at his hands, that of those first threescore mentioned by Coccius, within the first six hundred yeares he doe really & sincrely proue thirty one at least, which is the maior part, to be so tortured, and so graunted to be by the Iudgement o our owne writers, or els he falleth wholy in his cause.

140. And againe let him proue that all Ca∣nonicall Scriptures alleaged by Bellarmine → and others for Purgatory, are found also by the iudgments of our owne doctors to be so tortured, wrested, & forced, & he shall proue himsef an admirable man indeed. But in the meane space, let vs examine a litle the probability Page  213 of this fond vaūt, to wit, what he will be able to do, when he commeth to the proofe. Bellarmine → doth al∣leage ten surall places out of the old estament for proofe of Purgatory, with the expositions of the ancient Fathers vpon them, and all ae confessed by Protestants thēselues to be taken out of Canonicall Scripture,* except the first two out of the bookes of Machabees and oby, which ere notwithstanding accompted for Canonicall in S. Augustines tyme, as ap∣peareth by the third Councell of Carthage, in which himselfe was present: and out of the new Testamēt he alleageth other fiue places, with the expositions in like manner of the ancient Fathers vpon the same that vnderstood them to mane of Purgatory:* and will our owne doctors thinke yow, say, that these fiteene places are all tortured and forced against their mea∣ning? and all the Fathers expositions violented against their owne iudgement? 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 vaūt, when he concludeth thus: Lastly (sayth he) almost euery one of the indeauouring the defence of the same doctryne, is in his owne assertion contradicted by himsele &c. For what one example hath M. Morton beene able to bring hither∣to to proue this?* All his assaults against Cardinall Bel∣larmine haue bene sagittae paruulorū, arrowes of childrē, weake in force,* and returned commonly vpon him∣sele. All which notwithstanding, let vs see how pe∣remptory he is in the end of this Chapter,* in iusti∣fying of himselfe, and condemning his aduersary.

142. These obseruations (sayth he) may giue our Reader such a scantling of their dealing,* that we may iustly pronounce P. R. his censure vpon them∣selues, Not to be belieued heereafter.

So desperate hath his demand bene, when he required any one ouertaken in a triple alsitie, as though he would venture all the Page  214 credit of all the Annotations vpon the Rhemish Testament, all the Volumes of Baronius his Annales, all the Monu∣ments of Counces in their Binius and Surius, all the disputes of Bellarmine → , oGreg. de Valentia, oCocius, and all other their late doctors, vpon (as I may so call it) only tre-trippe, a triple falsity, and then neuer to be crdied agane. I am perswaded that no Protestant, who hath bene conuersant in reading and exami∣ning their Authors, but he will stand astonished to heare this grant our Mitigator maketh, as being as I haue sayd) intolerably disaduātagious vnto the Ro∣mish part: but he will easily cease to maruaile when he perceyueth by whome it is made, to wit P. R. the Authour of the Booke of Mitigatiō, who himselfe is guilty of thrice three palpable falsityes, so that none shall hereafter need to wonder, why he hath beene so lauish in hazarding other mens credits, seeing he is so desperately prodigall of his owne.
So farre he.

143. Wherunto that I may answere briefly, I say, that for my selfe if there may be found thrice three palpable falsities, such as before we haue descri∣bed, and agreed vpon, to wit, as cannot be excu∣sed by any ouersight or errour, but must needes be iudged malicious, and wittingly vntrue, I do not demand any pardon or relaxation from my first of∣fer, that I be neuer credited more, yea if it be but thrice, which is the measure that I offred to others. Hytherto we haue seene no one alleaged & proued: and truly I do confesse, that if I did perswade my self or doubt that M. Morton, or any other could proue any such one vntruth vttered by me, I should be much troubled in conscience therwith: but for that I am sure I neuer had such meaning, I stand very confident that he will neuer be able to bring any one example, and much lesse thrice three, as he brag∣geth.

Page  215144. And whras he semeth to accuse me of lacke of prouidnce in adunturing the credit both of my selfe,* and all other Catholicke writers vpon only tre-trip, as he calleth it, or triple alsity; I do not lay any thing theron, or that falsities may poceed of diuers caues, and in diuers degrees, and with sundry circumstances of more or lesse ault, so as there may be a falsity without falshood, whereof my meaning is not in this place: but whosoeuer shall be found in a wilfull and witting falsity, or rather falshood, such as often before hath bene spo∣ken of, that is knowne to be such by the vtterer, I do thinke it to abhorre so much from the nature it selfe of an honest ciuill man, as of what religion souer he be of, he will not commit it once, and much lsse thrice. And vpon this tre-trip I thinke I might aduenture the credit of all those that would be accompted honest in both religions. And it seemeth to me, that except M. Morton and his fel∣lowes were much interessed therin, and mistrusted their owne partes,* he would neuer so often and so earnestly mislike the same offer, calling it despeatly prodigall, which notwithstanding I hold to be so iust and reasonable, yea strictly necssary also to be exacted, as no man that hath care of his consci∣nce or estimation, can repine against it, or seeke exemption therin. And so much of this.

Page  216

THE SVMME And Reckoning of all this whole Chapter. §. XVIII.

NOW then M. Morton to ioyne friendly with you, and to make vp the Reckoning quietly of all this Chapter, wherin you tooke vpon you to proue, that our Catholicke Authours were to be conuinced of manyfold witting vntruthes, o vttered by them, as they must needs be presumd to haue knowne that they were vntruthes, whē they wrote them: you see what poore successe you haue had in the enterprize,* in that you haue beene able to proue no one thing of any moment, eyther against Popes, or Popish Authours by you impugned, and much lesse against Cardinall Bellar∣mine, whome you singled out in particuler: but much hath bene proued against your selfe in that kind, wherof you wrongfully accused him. The three Popes Zozimus, Bonifacius, & Celestinus, haue beene cleared from the slaunder of falsifying the Councell of Nice: and Costerus and Gratian, haue complayned of your wilfull falsifying their words and meaning, and with euident arguments haue iustified their complaint. Your obiections of dif∣ferent [ 1] expositions of our Authours concerning the Councells of Eliberis in Spaine and Franckeford in Ger∣many [ 2] about the vse of Images, haue byn shewed both to be impertinent to the state of our question to proue wilfull malice,* and further also intangled with duers alsties of your owne: and the like [ 3] about the Authority of Epiphanius concerning the same controuersy of the Catholicke vse of Ima∣ges.

Page  217146. And when you come to ioyne with Bel∣larmine in both the heads by you set downe, first of wilfull falsities,* and slanders euicted (as you say) by his owne confession, and then of falsi∣fications in the allegation of other mens testimo∣nies, though you stretch your selfe farre, I meane not only your wit, but your conscience also, to charge him with somewhat that may seeme pro∣bable against him, for which you haue threescore bookes of his to offer you variety of matter: yet are you so farre of from hauing produced any one thing of substance, whereunto the name or nature of a witting and wilfull vntruth may agree, as you haue wonderfully established the credit of his workes, by these your vaine assaults made against the same, and disgraced your selfe with the note of many witting and wilfull vntruthes, so vttered by you, as they make you in euery indifferent mans iudgment inexcusable; in that obiecting falsely such vntruthes to others, haue so excee∣dingly multiplied the same your selfe.

147. And as for the last matter handled by you heere against Purgatory, and the testimonies pro∣duced for the same, I cannot but lay before you a certaine frendly considration,* tending to your eternall good. You and I, that are now so con∣trary in this point one against the other: you in dening, and I in belieuing the truth of that dredfull purging fire, cannot but assure our selues, though our age perhaps be vnequall, yet that short∣ly w shall both come to try the matter by expe∣rience, and therof will depend our euerlasting good or euill.* You haue noted me of indiscre∣tion or venturing (as you call it) all the credit of the Annotations of the Rhmish Testament, all the Volumes of Baronius his Annales, all the monuments of Councels, all Page  218 the disputes of Bellarmine → &c. vpon only tre-trip, or triple wilfull falsitie. But you do aduenture a farre greater matter, the eternity of your owne soule, vpon a far worse chance then tre-trip, for that you haue the whole dice of Christian antiquity against you.

148. I haue shewed before how that Cardinall Bel∣larmine hath produced 15. seuerall places out of the old and new Testaments with expositions of anciēt Fathers vpon the same,* wherby the vse of Purgatory is proued from the beginning of Christian Religiō, & the same he proueth out of diuers ancient Coun∣cels, both of Afrike (wherin S. Augustine was present) as also of Spayne, of France, of Italy, of Greece, which giue their testimonies to the same effect. I haue she∣wed also, that he alleageth almost twenty different Fathers of the ancient Church, testifying the same in their dayes. And that Coccius produceth vpon the poynt of threescore within the compasse of the first 600. yeares, that confirme the common faith of the Church in those dayes, to haue held Purgatory, and prayer for the dead for Catholike doctrine, and for the practice also of praying for soules departed, vsed in all ancient formes of Masse, Christian Sacrifices, & Lyturges, throughout all Nations of the Christian world, the same Coccius alledgeth ten seuerall Lytur∣ges,* as that of Hierusalem, that of Rome, that of Ale∣xandria, that of Athiopia, that of Constantinople, Syria, Milan, Arabia, Gothia, and Armenia: all which, or the most of them were in vse in the Churches of those Christian Countryes for aboue 1000. yeares gone, and in ech one is there expresse order prescribed, to pray for the soules departed, which necessarily sup∣poseth Purgatory. He produceth also the large testi∣monyes of fiue or six & twenty learned Doctors of the Hebrew Iewish Church, some lyuing before Christ, and some after: all which do testify the Page  219 conformity betweene Christian doctrine & theirs, in this behalfe.

149. And fynally Iohn Caluin himself treating of this matter,* confesseth that the vse of prayer for the dead (which supposeth Purgatorie) was practized in the Primitiue Church aboue thirteene hundred yeares gone. Ante mille & trecentes annos (saith he) vsu receptum fuit, vt precationes fierent pro defunctis: It was re∣ceyued into vse aboue a thousand and three hundred yeares past, that prayers should be made for the soules of them, that were departed. Wherunto I do adde, that neuer any Father since that tyme will be found to haue reproued, or written against the same, or to haue accompted it for an errour or here∣sy, but rather haue condēned the opposite doctrine for impious, and hereticall in Aërius, and other heretikes.

150. All which being so, consider I beseech you, euen for the loue of your owne eternall good, vpon what tre-trip or hazard you do cast your soule in, standing so resolutly vpon this deniall, which heere you do.* For if all this Senate of Antiqui∣ty, and consent of the Christian world, for so many ages, aue not byn deceaued, you are gone euerlastingly. If they be saued, you must be dam∣ned.* If any of them went to the fire of Purgatory, you must needs go to hell-fire. And this is an∣other manner of tre-trip, then to aduenture the cre∣dit of Annotations, Bookes, Treatises, and Au∣thors which you name.

151. For as if a man being prisoner for a grei∣uous criminall case of life and death in a strange Country, should find all the ancient lawyers ther∣of from time out of mind to haue byn of vni∣forme opinion, that except such and such course e taken in his defence, he must certainly be con∣demned, Page  220 and put to execution: and that these should leaue diuers and sundry records for the same; and that some yonger lawyer or two of a boulder spirit, but of farre lsse learning, and au∣thority, should laugh and make light therat, en∣couraging the said prisoner to contemne, as threats and vaine feares, all that which the ancients said, or had left written in that behalfe, as Iohn Caluin doth in the former place cited,* where after his con∣fession of the receaued vse of prayer before 13. hundred yeares, saith, Sed omnes fator in errorem ab∣rpi uerunt: But all of them, I confesse, were car∣ried away with errour:* If this case (I say) should fall out in a matter of temporall life or death, I doubt nothing, but the prisoner would stand in feare to follow the yonger lawyers venturous o∣pinions, with so great danger and doubtfullnes of his temporall death and vtter destruction to ensue therby. And yet is M. Morton content in this mat∣ter, concerning the euerlasting losse or perill of his soule, to aduenture against all the said Antiquity, yea glorieth therin to make an opposition to them all, for that Caluin & Beza, & some yonger-Deuines haue put him in that gogge. And is not this to play his soule vpon lesse then tre-trip? But now let vs passe to other matters that are to ensue, for that he hauing made this vaine assault against Cardinall Bellarmine, and other Catholick authors before mē∣tioned, he commeth now to set vpon his aduersary P. R. with all the forces he can gather togeather, though with no better successe indeed, then in the former skirmishes, as by experience you will prooue: wherunto I remit me.

highlight hits: on | off