Anti-Mortonus or An apology in defence of the Church of Rome. Against the grand imposture of Doctor Thomas Morton, Bishop of Durham. Whereto is added in the chapter XXXIII. An answere to his late sermon printed, and preached before His Maiesty in the cathedrall church of the same citty..

SECT. IX. Of the first occasion of Luthers reuolt from the Church: and that Doctor Morton to defend his doctrine a∣gainst Indulgences, falsifieth sundry Authors.

POpe Leo the tenth hauing giuen out certaine Indul∣gences for the people of Germany, that would contri∣bute any almes to the building of that sumptuous Church, which Iulius his predecessor had begun in honor of S. Pe∣ter, Cardinal Albert B. of Mentz, and the Marquis of Bran∣deburg (to whom the publishing of the Indulgences, and collecting the almes was committed) for the publishing of the indulgences, made choyce of Tetzelius a famous prea∣cher of the Order of S. Dominick: Wherat the Friers of S. Augustines Order, and especially Staupitius the Vicar ge∣nerall, and Martin Luther being offended, opposed them∣selues, hoping by fauor of Frederick Duke of Saxony, to get the place for themselues. But missing of that, they began to reprehend the abuses committed (as they pretended) in

the promulgation of those indulgences. But Luther being of a fiery nature, and of a contentions spirit, rested not here, but published in print 95. propositions about the nature, institution, end, and effect of indulgences; diuers of which were censured by Tetzelius as hereticall, and Luther ther∣vpon complained of to the Pope, and cited to appeare at Rome. But by mediation of friends which he procured, the hearing of his cause being remitted to Cardinall Caietan, who was then the Popes Legate in Germany, Luther ap∣peared before him, and gaue vp a protestation of his sub∣mission, promising to follow the holy Roman Church in all her sayings, and doings, present, past, and to come. But neuerthelesse being gotten from the Cardinall, he went forward in his former contentions, and beside a publike disputation, which he held with Eckius at Lipsia against indulgences, he diuulged many other scoffing pamplets, & treatises, to call in doubt, and bring in contempt, diuers o∣ther points of religion: from whence hath followed all the calamity, that in these parts of the world hath ensued since that time, in the Church of God.

This was the occasion, these the beginnings of Luthers reuolt, proceeding merely from his couetousnesse, pride, enuy, and grudging, that the promulgation of those indul∣gences was not committed to him, and his Order: for he protested afterwards, at that time he neither intended nor dreamed of any change, but fell into those contentions ca∣sually, and against his will, not well knowing then, what Indulgences meant(c)

Now you come in, to act your part(d) and promise to proue by a cloud of witnesses, the falshood and impiety of the Popes doctrine concerning indulgences, and the iniquity of his practise, hea∣ping vp riches by them. And first you except against the Pope(e), for condemning this proposition of Luther, It is not in the power of the Church, to make new articles of fayth. This hath bene alleady answeared(f), and declared what power the Church hath, or hath not herein.

2. To prone, that the doctrine of Indulgences is a new article of fayth, you produce many Authors(g), which may

be reduced to three classes. The first is of heretikes, as Corne∣lius Agrippa, a Magicians; Paul, a Venetian Fryer, condemned a few yeares since for heresy; Fasciculus rerum expetendarum; Acta Concilij Tridentini; Controuersiae memorabiles; all of them be∣ing Treatises of Protestants, set forth without names of their authors, and prohibited. To these you adde Thuanus(h) whom you call our noble Historian: but we bequeath him to you, as one whose writings shew him to be yours. Nor are you contented to cite him, as a Catholike author, but falsify him. He raileth against Pope Leo, for ordaining, that when a Bishoprick or Abbacy in France is vacant, for the auoiding of simony, and other inconueniencet, a per∣son fit for those dignities be presented by the King, & ordai∣ned by the Pope. His words in Latin, as you cite them, are, Peccatum in sacris muneribus dispensandis Leo mox grauiore cumu∣lauit &c. In which words he makes no mention of indul∣gences, but only of conferring sacred or Ecclesiasticall dig∣nities, and offices. But you, to make them serue, your turne against indulgences, corrupt them, translating in sacris mune∣ribus dispensandis, thus: of ill dispersing indulgences. Leo (say you) to his sinne of ill dispersing indulgences, added a farre greater. Is not this a great imposture? And the like you commit againe(i), when speaking of Luthers separation from the Roman Church, you say: Luther was a passiue therin, as appeareth out of the proceedings of Pope Leo against him: Els why is it, that your owne Thuanus speaking of this separation, sayd, That some in those dayes laid the fault vpon Pope Leo. This is a greater imposture then the former: for Thuanus speaketh not those words of Lu∣thers separation from the Church of Rome, but against al∣tering the custome formerly obserued in the election of Ec∣clesiasticall Prelates in France; which he attributeth to An∣tonius Pratensis, Chancellor of that kingdome; though out of his owne splene against the Pope, he adde, that there were not then wanting some, that laid the fault vpon Pope Leo. What con∣nexion hath this with Luthers reuolt from the Church of Rome, or with the doctrine of indulgences? You cannot excuse it from a Grand Imposture.

To the second classe, may be reduced Massonius, Polydore

Virgill, and Erasmus, who speake not aggainst the doctrine of Indulgences, but against the abuse of them. And for as much, as in many other things, and particularly, in that very point, they speake temeraiously and ouerlash, those their workes, you know, are forbidden by the Church: Why do you alleage them, as of authority against vs?

The third classe is of approued Catholike Authors, of whom you first produce(k) Roffensis, saying: There was no vse of indulgences in the beginning of the Church Christian. But you change the state of the question, passing from the vse of in∣dulgences (of which Roffensis speaketh) to the doctrine of indulgences; and inferre, that because Roffensis found not the vse or practise of them, in the begining of the Church, he denieth the doctrine, and lawfulnesse of them, which in that very article he effectually proueth out of the power of binding, and losing, giuen by Christ in the Ghospell to S. Peter, and his Successors. 2. He yeildeth the reason, why there was not so much necessity of vsing thē in those beginings, as afterwards. 3. He sheweth, that Catholike Deuines proue the vse of them, to be most ancient, out of the stations so much frequented in Rome; and that S. Gre∣gory the great granted some in his time. 4. His owne opi∣nion is, that it is not certainly knowne, when they began first to be vsed in the Church: from whence it must follow by the rule of S. Augustine(l), that the practise of them is from the Apostolicall time.

The second author you produce(m), is Alphonsus de Castro, who sayth: Neque tamen hac occasione sunt contemnendae (indulgentiae) quod earum vsus in Ecclesia videatur sero receptus: which words you peruert changing videatur, into fit; but most of all, by translating them falsly: for you render them thus; Indulgences are not therfore to be contemned, as being admit∣ted but of late: which is not only a false translation, but a manifest peruerting of the sense: for Castro speaketh not of the doctrine or lawfulnesse of granting indulgences, but de earum vsu, of the vse of them, which therfore in your english you cunningly omit, that ou•• of him you may proue the doctrine of them to be new. Yea, and concerning the very

vse of them, he proueth it to be most ancient, by the same arguments Roffensis before him had done, concluding, that you, and all others which contemne a thing practised so many hundreds of yeares by the Catholike Church, and established by generall Councels, are iustly accounted heretikes. So farre is Castro from fauoring Luthers cause.

The third Author is Bellarmine, out of whom you cite these words(n):Thesaurus Ecclesiae spiritualis est fundamentum indulgentiarum: Which words you english Thus: The ground of indulgences is the spirituall treasury of workes, consisting in the sa∣tisfactory, and meritorious workes of supererogation, done by the fai∣thfull. Which treasury to haue bene anciently wanting, you proue also out of Bellarmine, setting downe these words as his: Hoc caruisse dicunt Ecclesiam Doctores Louanienses. This your Doctors of Louaine, and some Scholemen (as you know) affirme, was anciently wanting in the Church. So you: and then you tell vs(o) out of Suarez, who those Schole men were, namely Mayzo, and Durandus. In this short passage of yours, there are almost as many vntruthes, and falsifications, as words. For first the Latin words are not Bellarmines, but your owne fathered on him. And so also are the English, (which ne∣uerthelesse you set downe in a different character as his) & not only disagree from the Latin, but containe false do∣ctrine repugnant to all Catholike Diuines, and in particu∣lar to Bellarmine, who in that very place(p) teacheth, that meritorious workes, as such, cannot be applied to others, nor belong to the treasure of the Church, but only as satis∣factory. 3. You falsify, making Bellarmine to limit the spi∣rituall treasure of the Church to workes of supererogation only; which is ignorantly spoken, and not taught by Bel∣larmine, nor any Catholike Diuine. 4. You father on him falsly those last words, Hoc (thesauro) caruisse dicunt Eccle∣siam Doctores Louanienses: for they are not his, nor doth he attribute any such doctrine to the Deuines of Louain, nor so much as once name them in all that Chapter. Is it not then great perfidiousnesse, so to abuse and falsify both him, and them?

Nor is your dealing better with Suarez: for (to omit

that in the place you cite, he treateth of no such matter) ne∣ther he, nor Bellarmine euer say, that Duraud denied this treasure of the Church, but only, that he held it to consist of the satisfactions of Christ, and not of the Saints. Which yet he speaketh by way of doubt, & Theologicall dispute, rather then affirmatiuely: for coming to deliuer his owne opinion, he sayth plainly and resolutely(q): Est in Ecclesia &c. There is in the Church a spirituall treasure of the passion of Christ, and his Saints, who suffered farre greater torments, then their sinnes deserued: And therfore the Church out of this treasure may communicate to one, or more, so much as may suffice to make satisfaction for their sinnes, either in part, or in whole, according as the Church shall please to communicate this treasure, more or lesse, which is nothing els, but the sufferings of Christ, and his Saints communicated to vs, to satisfy for our sinnes. Wherfore indulgences auaile by way of payment, for so much, as by Christ, & his Saints, the paine, to which we are lyable, is paied. But if he had held that the spirituall treasure of the Church consisteth of the satis∣factions of Christ only, that would auaile you nothing: for he defendeth Indulgences, which you deny: and if he er∣red in any thing, he errred not with obstinacy, as you do, but submitted all his workes to the correction of the holy Catholike Roman Church, as you haue read in Bellar∣mine, but conceale it.

I conclude therfore, that the great cloud of witnesses, which you haue brought to iustify Luthers doctrin against indulgences, is either of Heretikes, or of Catholikes in workes prohibited by the Church, or if not prohibited, abused and falsified by you.

Notes

• (c)

  See Brerel. Luthers life. Chap. 1. sect. 1.
• (d)

  Pag. 381. fin. 382. init.
• (e)

  Pag 383.
• (f)

  See aboue Chap. 4.
• (g)

  Pag. 382. 383. 384. 385. 386. 389.
• (h)

  Pag. 385.
• (i)

  Pag. 389.
• (k)

  Pag. 384. fin.
• (l)

  L 4. de Baptism. c. 24.
• (m)

  Pag. 135.
• (n)

  Pag. 385.
• (o)

  Ibid.
• (p)

  L. 1. de In∣dulg. c. 2. pro∣posit. 2.
• (q)

  4. Dist. 20. q. 3.