IF I could produce no other presumption, or argument of wilful corruptions, falsyfications, slaunders, and other enor­mious dealings of that kinde, in the published writings of M. Doctor MORTON, Protestant Deane of Glocester, (as I [...]m informed) then only his Ministerial function and calling it else: yet the late (and present also) Protestant Professors, Do­ [...]tors, and chiefest handlers of Diuinity, of his owne profession, [...]nd the publikely authorized Examiners and Approuers of their [...]rinted bookes, doe testific it to be so vsual and general a cu­ [...]tome among them, to corrupt, falsyfie, slaunder, and abuse the [...]oly Scriptures, Councels, Fathers, and al sacred Authorities, for the countenance of their cause, with the ignorant readers: That [...] man may without any rash, precipitate, or vncharitable judge­ [...]ent suppose, that neither D. Morton, nor any other in particu­ [...]ar among the The not̄o­rious corruptiō vsed by english Protestāt wri­ters by their owne wordes. writers of his degree, and religion in England, [...]an be freed from those and such like vnchristian, prophane, and [...]religious behauiour.

For a short tast, of which distastful testimony, of these men [...]gainst themselues: The Protestant Bishop of Winchester D. Bilson Sur. of Christs suffer. pag. 274. 275. &c. Couel de [...]. of Hooker, pag. 7. 9. Exam. pag. 28. 71. 139. against Burg. pref. & pag. 24. Parks ag. Limb. sect. 18. 21. pag. 181. 166. 101. 100. sect. 10. 11. 20. 7. 12. 15. 16. Ormerod. pict. pur. l. 1. Paga­nop. pag. 56. Willet Antilog pref. Loydoro. in tit. & pert [...]t. Burges Apol. offer. of confer. pag. 8. 9. 13. 14. 22. 18. 25. 28. 29. 30. Relation cap. 32. Sutuey, pag. 7. 160. def. of Minist. reas pag. 33. 3 [...]. 11. 22. Prach. ex­cept. 11. D. Bilson, D. Couel, M. Parkes, M. Ormerod, D. Willet, M. Burges, the Protestant authours of the offer of conference, The relation of religion, Suruey of the booke of common praier, The defendor of the Ministers reasons, The 22. Preachers of London, with others (too many to be recited) haue published in [...]heir writings, printed and applauded, that the English Mini­ [...]ters of this Kingdome haue so falsly translated, corrupted, in­ [...]ignely handled, clipped, abused, vntruly alleaged, misquoted, [...]aimed Scriptures. Fathers, and other Authorities, so peruerted the true arguments, deceaued the world, belied Catholike writers, shifted of obi [...]ctions, and so abused this present age, and preiudiced posterity, in relation of thinges, (loue and disake so dazeling their [Page 8] eies) that they cannot be beleeued. Therefore, the testimony of English Protestant Doctors and writers, being this, of their pre­sent writing Ministers, and bretheren in religion, it shal be suffi­cient to excuse a Catholike opposite, to suspect D. Morton a man of that calling, to be infected also, with that their most filthy wickednesse of corruptions, falsyfications, and especially if we consider how this aduersary of true religion, neither by name, Etimologie of Morton. age, industry, wisdome, or Diuinity, excelleth al Protestants, which went before him, neither fooles in tune, nomine, or re, and yet chargeth Catholikes with such doctrine and dealings, as ne­uer The descanter of the letters P. R. in his Preamble. any of his profession before him, hath attempted to doe. And the Protestant witnesses of such ordinary falsyfications, and abuses among them are so many, so great, and for the most part allowed with publike Protestant priuiledge, to be truly verified of these men.

ANd I am rather induced to giue this sentence, vpon this Doctors corrupt, and falsifying dealings, being animated thereunto, by his owne free and voluntary confession of this his vile and abhominable proceedings, either through grosse and in­excusable ignorance, which a man would not thinke to finde in a person representing his place, or challenging to himselfe such skil and d [...]xterity in writing: or wilful and determinate desire he hath to plant errours, conceale and abandon truth, and mali­tiously condemne himselfe, to deceaue his readers. For in a worke intituled the first part of an Apologie, himselfe so farre Mo [...]t. 1. part. Apol. Part. 2. [...]pol. epist. dedicat. Apol. part. 2. in fine in tabul. D. Mort. worke of ten years la­bour, how sin­cere it was, by his owne testi­mony. acknowledgeth his owne errours in that booke, (which as he witnesseth cost him ten yeares study) that in his second part of the same worke, published the yeare following 1606. he spen­deth almost fiue leaues, with breuiates of faultes, printed in a ve­ry smal character, to correct his corruptions, or mistakings, (as he would haue them named) committed in his first booke, a child of so great trauaile by the fathers confession, and not great in [Page 9] quantity. Now whether so many and material thinges (by his owne testimony) are more like to be grosly ignorantly, or ma­litiously wilfully falsyfied, when they escaped his diligence of ten yeares, and were found after within lesse then ten moneths, I referre it to be censured (an hard choise for so respect [...]d a wri­ter) by his best friendes and followers: for if my selfe should sentence vpon him in this case, he hath giuen me occasion in his owne wordes, to thinke him so culpable, that I should meruaile he should either dare to stand so much, and so often vpon his integrity in writing sincerely, or not to blush to publish any thing after his so foule and vnexcusable (yet priuileged) abuse: for that we may easily see him to be in this desperate condition, without further examining his bookes in particular: the very Titles of his two tables, of his remembred escapes or corrupti­ons, are more then sufficient argument, and registred by him­selfe in these wordes. Tabula prima ea vitia continet quae in ci­tatione Morton part. 2. Apol. sup. in fin. testimoniorum: secunda quae in testimonijs citat is depre­henduntur. The first Table containeth the faults (or vices) which are found in the citation of the testimonies: The second Table containeth those faults (or vices) which are found in the testim [...]ies cited. So that by the authours owne acknowledge­ment, [...]either his manner of citing authorities, nor the authori­ties (or supposed authorities) there cited can be beleeued; And yet that worke (if any wil thinke it worthy reading, as I cannot encourage him to doe) wholy or principally consisteth of mat­ters of that kinde. If D. Morton wil say this was wilful corru­ption in him; and his badde cause cannot otherwise be main­tained, I request no more, my intent is obtained: If he wil fur­ther shame himselfe, M. Doctor and M. Deane in actu, and Lord Bishop in potentia, and pretend ignorance, negligence, or any such idle and vaine pretence, in so serious and important businesse; it redoundeth to his as great disgrace, and ignominy in the same kinde. For no man but voide of al shame and con­science, can expect or request to be commended for integrity and sincerity ( [...]s he often challengeth to himselfe) who by his owne wordes is conuicted of so childish, boy-like, and banke­rupt behauiour. Or who (except altogether ridiculou [...]) can or [Page 10] wil hope, that juditious readers, or any (but madde or frantike) wil giue credit to the writing, assertion, or protestation of such a Protestant, so palpably prostituted either in shameful igno­rant, or malitious wilful corruptions, in thinges of greatest moment, Religion?

THirdly, I may justly suppose, that if this Doctor would or could shew sincerity and true dealing in any thing, he would haue made manifestation of it in that worke, and his de­fence where he so vnchantably and vntruly (as hath beene pro­ued against him long since) accuseth Catholikes, especially in matters of alleageance, and duty to Princes, for which in ap­parance he hath proctored so much: and not be of that bold­nesse and so voide of either integrity or shame, that he doth not blush to enter both into the state of desperate disloialty in him­selfe, but the rather to procure partakers in his wickednesse and D. Morton his dutiful loue to Protestant Princes what it is by his owne doctrine. vndutifulnesse both to Queene Elizabeth deceased, and our So­ueraigne liuing (whom God long and happily preserue) both Protestant Princes and Patrons of his profession, he contem­neth and denieth the very publike, and knowne lawes, and sta­tute of this Kingdome, and in the greatest point of obedience, wherein euery one (though of smal experience) can tel him how farre he is fallen from his promised integrity and sincerity: And al men louing and dutiful to our late Queenes, and present King, and his posterity, wil and must reject and detest him, as vndutiful and injurious (I write too modestly of this man) vn­to them al. For whereas the Catholike authour of the Moderate answere to his fond positions had shewed, that both Queene Mary and Elizabeth (though formerly disinherited by their Father King Henry the eight) yet were both by the same Prince in publike Parliament, restored againe to the right of the Crowne, and so both of them enjoyed it: This sincere Doctor and man of integrity answereth in these wordes: [Page 11] I haue enquired in the Acts which are extant, and I finde three Morton in his Iustification of Protestants, pag. 100. Acts whereby the a-foresaid daughters (Mary and Elizabeth) were disabled, as namely in Annis (the yeares) 25. 28. 33. of King Henry his raigne: but for establishing of them in the right of succession, I thinke you cannot shew it, except it be in anno nunquam, canone nusquam, in the yeare neuer, the canon no where. Hitherto his owne wordes, in his so priuileged booke, and he calleth it boldnesse to affirme the contrary. Therefore, least my selfe should seeme too bold, in sodainely presuming to censure this sincere Doctor, so absolute in this matter, I wil first desire D. Barlow now Protestant Bishop of Lincolne (I hope his equal) to take this boldnesse vpon him, and to tel D. Mor­ton that he is fouly and shamefully too bold, and farre from in­tegrity in this great businesse. This Bishop writing expresly a­gainst this vnsincere opinion of M. Deane of Glocester, and charging a Catholike writer (though manifestly vntruly) to be of the same minde, excusing the first disinheriting, and shew­ing the legittimation againe of those Queenes, writeth thus: Princes are men, and Parliaments are assemblies of men, and men Barlow answ. to a namelesse Cathol. pa. 88. (as the Philosopher said to a great King) are changeable crea­tures: looke therefore backward; the same both Prince and Par­liament but two yeares before, had ratified the marriage with her Mother for lawful: and inuested the off-spring of her body with the succession to the Crowne. Looke forwardes, but seauen yeares Statut. An. 35. after, and the same both head and body, reuiued the legittimation, repealed the annulling statute, and pronouncing the Lady Eliza­beth for his lawful daughter, reduced the Crowne to her right and interest againe. Hitherto the wordes of this Protestant Bishop, against this Protestant Deane, and although he doth not mention Queene Mary, because he entreateth only of Queene Elizabeth, yet the statute cited by him comprehen­deth them both, as I shal now alleage boldly, against Doctor Morton, much more bold, then sincere: And for the yeare which he callet [...] nunquam. neuer, I assigne the Statut. He [...]i [...]. 8. [...]. 35 Regni West­min. c. 1. collect. of Statu [...]s prin­ted, An. 1603. titul. Crowne. same 35. yeare of King He [...] the eight, which Bishop Barlow hath al­so assigned vnto him before: for the place, I name West­minster, vvhere the Parliament vvas kept that yeare: [Page 12] and for the Canon or Chapter (which his integrity tearmeth nusquam, I cite and tel him it is in the first Chapter; The words of the Abridgement of the statutes lately enough printed, in the yeare 1603. are these: The crowne of England is entailed to the Kings daughter, the Lady Mary, and to the heir [...]s of her bo­dy: and for lacke of such issue to the Kings daughter the Lady Elizabeth. The statute at large wil more largely shew the great insincerity and little integrity of this Protestant Minister. And the regiments of those two Queenes, so ratified and publikely applauded, wil argue too much boldnesse in this dutiful writer. But perhaps D. Morton would desire to be thought to beare so respectiue loue to his Majesty and his Catholike M [...]ther, Queene of Scotland before him, that he wished the Crowne of England should then haue descended vnto his, by the first Par­liament illegittimation of those English Queenes, Mary and Elizabeth, because he seemeth to suppose in his positions that a person illegittimate cannot be made legittimate. And this I should (rather then anything contrary) haue expected of him, which in so much sincerity and integrity, would see me to pleade so earnestly for our present Kings, safety and security: although I could neuer yet reade a Protestant Minister, which in since­rity might be thought to desire that any Catholike Prince (such as his Majesties Mother liued and died) though neu [...]r so true Inheritour, should possesse or ke [...]pe their Crowne. But Doctor Morton cleareth his meaning in this matter, and neither respe­cteth D. Morton in Iustification supr. pag. 101. the Catholike Mother, no [...] the Protes [...]ant Sonne our So­ueraigne: for in the same Treatise, fi [...]st he j [...]stifiet [...] Crammer, Ridley, and al other Protestants wh [...]ch j [...]yned with Lady Iane Seymer, (mained to the Lord Gilf [...]rd Dudley) to aduaunce a Title in her to the Crowne, absolutely to barre & illegittimate according to his former doctrine, both the Titles of our Queens, Mary and Elizabeth, in England; and for euer to inualidate the lawful and just descent and interest of the daughter of King Henry the seauenth, married to [...]ing Iames of Scotland, of whom his Majesty is truly and lineally descended. And expres­sing his affection in this businesse, and to shew how much this pleader for Princes, loueth and fauoureth their true right and [Page 13] possession, speaking of the Protestants rebels against Queene Mary of England, who next succeeded King Edward the sixt, and was to suppresse (for her selfe, her sister Queene Elizabeth, and the line of his Majesty) the pretended claime of Lady Iane, so much approued by this Doctor, he breaketh intempe­rately into these wordes: If King Henry (the 8.) might haue Pag. 101. sup. spoken from the dead, in the day of the succession of Queene Mary, he would haue pleaded the cause of the apposites. Those he mea­neth, which with him maintained Lady Iane for Queene: and laboured to frustrate the right of Queene Mary, Elizabeth, and our present Soueraigne King Iames. And further he parti­cularly Morton sup▪ defendeth the letters patents of King Edward the sixt, a child, supposed to giue the Crowne vnto the same Lady Iane, and vtterly disinherite al others, Queene Mary, Elizabeth, and the house of King Iames. Such is the integrity, sincerity, and incorrupt behauiour, of this worthy Deane and Doctor, euen in that matter, and that b [...]oke, wherein he so vehemently ouer­breadeth himselfe, to finde any exception against Catholike subj [...]ct [...]. And besides these, in the same his named Iustification Morton Iustifi. of Protest. of Protestants, he justifieth for true, so many and monstrous disobedient and rebellious assertions of Caluin, and other Pro­testants, that this place of breuity permitteth not, and I am a­sh [...]med to repeate them. Then what sincere dealing is to be hoped for at this mans handes, so guilty and impudent, to de­fend those horrible crimes in himselfe and Protestants, which he so condemneth in others, I leaue to censure.

ANd to come somewhat nearer the vnsincere and corrupt dealing of D. Morton in particular, in that his booke (or first part whereof) I am to examine: his owne bretheren in D. Mortons shifts by Pro­testant witnes­ses in his full satisfaction. religion the Protestant authours, and consenters vnto the booke intituled, A Christian and modest offer, of a most indifferent con­ference, entreating of my arguments against D. Morton, giue [Page 14] their censure against him in these wordes: In a late reply vnto Christian and modest offer pag. 19. the Papists, the matter is pittifully shifted off. A pittiful thing, that a man so sincere as he valueth himselfe, and worthy a wri­ter, as he would be esteemed, should thus be sentenced by his owne friendes. And he is so bold with the whole conference Confor. pag. 47. at Hampton-Court, before the King, and the Kings speach it selfe, not knowing how to auoide my answere without some o­ther shameful deuise, that the same his Protestant consortesin religion taxe him againe of his pittiful shifting in that businesse, and thereupon cal the credit of the Narration of the Hampton conference, (penned by D. Barlow now Protestant Bishop of Lincolne) into question. Their wordes are these: That which Christian and modest offer, pag. 28. is set forth as the true report of it, deser [...]eth no credit: the rather considering, that D. Morton hath beene allowed to cal some part of it into question, euen some speaches fathered vpon his Maiesty. Therefore seing the matter is come to this issue, euen by the testimony of Protestants themselues, that either the Bishops, and the rest of the Ministry, assembled at Hampton, haue a licence by their religion to say and vnsay, in such thinges, or Bishop Barlow is a false reporter, or these Protestants charging M. Morton be wicked slaunderers (let them take among them) this Deane of Glocester, of whom I entreate is culpable of that, whereof he is accused.

And now I haue proued my purpose, and his wickednesse by his owne fellowes in profession, I may more confidently sup­pose, that which an other not inferiour to these men in ver­tuous learning, hath written of him in the same businesse, and is vertually graunted to be true by D. Morton himselfe. For better justifying whereof, this Protestant Deane writing of the like businesse, whereof we now entreate, concerning corruptions, false allegations, and such, in the same booke (for which I now challenge him of these proceedings) citeth and setteth downe a law, for trial of such thinges, in these wordes: He that excepteth in some, doth yeeld to the rest. Morton reply, pag. 49. Yet when a Catholike aduersary had charged him, of so many and notorious corruptions, falsyfications, as are not Mitigat. p. 102. easily to be recompted, this sincere Doctor doth only except [Page 15] against 14. or thereabouts, as appeareth from the 88. page Mortō Preamb. pag. 88. of his Preamble, to the end thereof, and although he is farre from excusing himselfe in those, yet he mentioneth none D. Mort. foiled by the Mode­rate answerer, by his own [...] lavv, &c. wherewith I shal hereafter accuse him, neither speaketh any thing to free his booke from such vile corruptions, as he is ac­cused and consequently (by his owne law before) condemned off, in general tearmes by the authour of the Mitigation, con­cerning his satisfying of my answere. Some whereof doe fol­low in this manner: This replier (D. Morton) is so farre Mitigat. supt. from performing his promise, of a ful satisfaction, and that he hath scarce satisfied fully or meanely, one argument or authority alleaged by his aduersary. To this accusation this Doctor ta­keth no exception at al, but by his former law confesseth him­selfe g [...]ilty. But this shal not be al, whereof he is conuicted: for he is accused further, in these wordes, and by his owne law also thereof condemned. This Minister T. M. in his reply Mitigat. pag. 113. 114. doth vse al the arte possible, to dissemble the same, telling a peece of his aduersaries allegations in one place, and another peece in an other, altering al order both of chapters, matter, and methode, set downe by the answerer, so as neuer Hare when shee would sit, did vse more turnings and windings, for couering her selfe (which the reader may obserue, euen by the places themselues quoted by him out of his aduersaries booke:) yet are his answeres such, where he doth answere, (for to sundry points he saith nothing at al) as doe easily shew, that in substance he confesseth al, and can­not deny what is obiected. Al this Doctor Morton taketh quiet­ly, being truly affirmed of him, and himselfe by his owne law and judgement (as before) justly so to be reprehended. And he disgesteth in an other place, with as great con­tentment, this which followeth. To the point it selfe of his Mitigat. pag. 92. 9 [...]. reply, which he calleth A ful satisfaction: it seemeth to me, as ful pipes and hogsheads are wont to be here in these Countries, at the time of Vintage, when they are ful, only of winde and aire, and nothing else: so you shal see afterwardes, that his reply is ful of wordes, without substance, of flourish without truth, of fraude without real dealing: for that lightly he scarcely alleageth any text of his aduersaries writing, without some sort of sophistication, [Page 16] both of wordes and sence, or other like knacks. And further so distracteth and dismembreth his aduersaries threede of speach, ci­ting one branch of it in one part of his reply, an other in another, one sentence first, that should haue beene last, and an other last, that should haue beene first, thereby to confound the readers me­mory: one periode halfe deuided, the other quartered, the third left out, the fourth disguised: So that it is euident, that he sought rather to fly, to couer, shadow, and hide himselfe, then really and substantially to come to the combate. When we come to the sub­stance, we find that neither he alleageth his aduersaries speach sin­cerely, nor answereth truly to the sence, but either dissembleth the same or runneth aside, or confirmeth his aduersaries argument by his feeble answers. Hitherto the sentence and judgement against D. Morton: to which he pleadeth nothing, nor excepteth a­gainst it, but (by his owne law and position) acknowledgeth he is a man justly condemned of these enormious crimes obje­cted. Which al readers, which wil not grosly voluntarily be seduced and dwel in errour, shal acknowledge also by those so many particulars, joyntly without intermission which I shal de­monstrate against him.

NExt vnto these, and before I enter into the particular cor­ruptions, and abuses of this Doctor, in his firnamed Ful satisfaction; because I wil not accuse an other, of that whereof my self should be culpable, I wil examine whether he doth, or can (for if he could I doubt not of the good wil and desire of so louing a friend) charge me of any such dealing, as is pro­ued against him in this examination. First, in his Preamble be­ing Mortō Preamb. pag. 50. 62. charged by a Catholike aduersary to challenge (if he could) any one Catholike writer of this wickednesse objected against him, though I was then fresh in his memory, and next at his el­bow for the bookes written betweene vs, yet he leaueth me quite out, as freed from al such accusation. Yet in the Preface Morton Pref. Reply. of his reply he affirmeth that I scarce examine one of twenty of [Page 17] the testimonies which he bringeth: a foule fault, if it were true, and as great a sinne and slaunder in D. Morton, if it be false, as al men that euer did or shal reade his positions and my an­swere, wil presently pronounce it is. For in his booke of posi­tions Mort. positions hath about 90. citat. there be not one hundred of testimonies alleaged: Then I haue not examined fiue, or else the whetstone belongeth to D. Morton. Which he wil quietly take vnto him, because I was so careful and diligent to examine his authorities, that him­selfe forgetting himselfe, what he had vttered in this place, in the 76. page of the same booke maketh a wonder both in Reply pag. 76. wordes, and blanke space, for a signe, and in these wordes; (what nothing? not one word in behalfe of Pope Sixtus?) when I passed ouer to make answere to a supposed oration of Sixtus Quintus, for which he bringeth no one authour, as is euident in his positions. Therefore, it is not one in twenty testimonies, Rom. posit. pag. 28. 29. which I only examined: but it is oddes twenty to one, that D. Morton is a corrupt, false, and consciencelesse writer. Againe, in an other place of this his reply, he chargeth me only Reply pag. 5. to answere Panormitane, when he alleaged other authours, and that I had written three vntruthes: which hereaf [...]er I must put to the number of his corruptions: for the vntruthes with which he chargeth me, are his owne false corruptions of my writing, as I proue against him at large in their place to be exa­mined, Cap. 11. infr. and answere the other au [...]hours also cited with Panor­mitane, as wil and doth appeare in the place following, and my first answere also in the 5. Chapter thereof. And these be al Moderat. answ. cap. 5. §. Let vs heare. the quarrels I finde him to aduaunce against me in this kinde of contention: whereof hauing freed my selfe and proued them particulars of D. Mortons corruptions and falsyfications. I wil proceede to my examination of his dealings as I haue pro­mised before: thinking it is a new corruption in himselfe, if in Morton Pre­amb. cap. of his stage. general he speaketh, as though I falsyfied, when he bringeth no reason of such conjecture, nor further in particular accu­seth me.

NOw M. Doctor Morton, with al your Protestant helps, fraudes, and friends, defend (if you can) your reply, cal­led by you, A ful satisfaction: for I am so farre from accepting it, for a ful satisfaction to my answere, that I say it is no satis­faction at al, in any true moral judgement: But my answere and arguments stand stil to this day, by you vnsatisfied. And that your sirnamed, A ful satisfaction, concerning my answere is rather a ful foolery, forgery, or soile to you the authour, or a fool [...]sh satisfaction (one more, or al if you please:) which I wil presently proue.

And first concerning the Title of your booke, (A ful satis­faction:) In the very first page and inscription thereof, it being Mortons reply in titul. by you deuided into three partes: you say (to vse your owne wordes) The two former belong to the reply vpon the Moderate answerer: Then I demaund of you, M. Doctor Satisfier, whe­ther to satisfie an argument, reason, booke, author, aduersary, or opponent, is not (at the least) to shew some insufficiency, inualidity, or defect in it, or in any wise to say somewhat vnto them: otherwise they remaine both vnanswered, and vnsatis­fied, as also vntouched and vunamed, euen as they did before: And a ful satisfaction must consequently, fully, and to al pur­poses, satisfie: And ridiculous it were, so to be named, if it per­formed no such thing, otherwise it can not be a ful, but no satis­faction: things, for al that, remaining as they did before, and wholy and fully vnsatisfied.

Then M. Doctor, that booke of mine which you say is fully satisfied, consisted of foure partes: first Apologetical epistic Moderate ans. epist. dedic. c. 1. to his Majesty, for the defence of Catholikes: secondly, a ge­neral censure of your positions in the first chapter, truly intitu­led (as it did performe:) A general censure of this slander ous Cap. 2. 3. 4. 5. & Conclus. pamphlet: prouing that no one argument therein, can conclude the authours intent. The third a particular answere to your reasons; [Page 19] the fourth a very long defensiue conclusion: when I had confu­ted your then by me condemned (and since by greater and Apolog, for the oath. D. Barlovv against a name. Cathol. B. An­drovves. Doct. Field, &c. more worthy Protestants then yourselfe) inuectiue arguments. In your (so called) ful satisfaction, you haue not so much as made any mention at al, of any but the third part, excepting that in your Mort. reply epist. dedicat. Epistle dedicatory, you doe hystorically only, and impertinently relate six or seauen lines, from one of the o­ther: so that three parts in your reply satisfactory (as pleaseth you) be not so much as named, or any one thing in them either satisfied or spoken off: And how the other third part is satisfied, and how fully, you haue heard to your shame already, and by your owne law & silence granted it: and you shal haue sufficient satisfaction hereafter that it is so, whether we haue your consent or no. And although, that third part which among foure you haue chosen to answere, and said somewhat vnto, is the greatest of al, yet the other being of such consequence for Catholikes, as I haue shewed (and wil more hereafter appeare) and vtterly condemning your position, it was neither ful satisfying dealing, sincerity or integ [...]ity, (the coate which you would giue) wholy and fully to omit them. But as I said before, you haue not so much as spoken of the fift part of my booke in your denomina­ted ful satisfaction, which I thus demonstrate. There be in that my answere (thus careful I haue beene to giue you satisfaction) thirty leaues, cuery leafe containing threescore & sixteene lines, except it be interrupted by a smal space, for the beginning of chapters or such li [...]e, not frequent in that worke, containing on­ly eleauen chap [...]ers, besides the Conclusion and Epistle dedi­catory: so that the number of the lines amount vnto, about or aboue 2000. And you (M. Doctor) make shew vnto your rea­der as though you doe & would cite my very wordes, and who­ly. And yet of these 2000. lines (or more) he doth not so much as mention 400. in his whole booke, called a ful satisfaction. So that by his owne accompt he hath not either satisfied fully, or once spoken off, more then the fift part of my booke.

And that he may know I deale friendly, and plain [...]l [...] with him (seeking his amendment) I haue taken paines to help him, and direct the reader (otherwise not worth labour) particularly [Page 20] to gather the number of the lines, which he hath cited and where (not exceeding mine in greatnesse and number of let­ters) to make a perfect proofe or disproofe of A ful satisfaction, (if his reply were fully satisfactory:) which I recompt in this order. In his Epistle dedicatory he reciteth six or seauen lines, In defence of his first reason and chiefest (which I examine) 83. lines. in the 2. reason 47. in the third 26. in the fourth 40. in the fift 8. or 9. in the sixt 47. in the seauenth 13. in the eight 11. in the ninth 26. in the tenth 10. Then to delude his reader he deuiseth an other part of his booke, out of al or­der, by his owne first writing, calling it Iustification of Prote­stants: (wherein what vile disloyalties be defended by this ac­cuser of Catholikes, I leaue to others) And in that he citeth ab­out one hundred. Al which collected together (and be al he vouchsafeth to acquaint the world with from my booke, by such men and their meanes suppressed) doe not make 400. not the fift of my booke as is euident before. Then no satisfaction, much lesse a ful satisfaction. But it is my answere, and not his reply, which hath fully satisfied, and stil remaineth by him vn­satisfied, euen by his owne judgement; except one is more then foure, or foure fewer then one: though his counter-coine (as I shal shortly demonstrate it to be) might passe for true paiment and satisfaction. And if M. Doctor could giue denial vnto this, or with any face before, haue wished me to haue written against his named ful satisfaction, he might now doe wel (I request him, hauing command of print, vnto it) to cause to be printed, word by word, without any addition, detraction, or alteration at al, (as they were published first by him, and me) his posi­tions; my answere vnto them: and his called ful satisfaction, only so much as concerneth my booke. And let the world judge, who hath giuen best satisfaction; I wish and desire him to accept, this disaduantage (if he dealeth sincerely) vnto my selfe.

ANd M. Doctor, that it may be manifest, I doe not charge you for concealing and passing ouer, either without satis­faction or any memory at al, thinges of smal moment but of greatest consequence, and fully satisfying (because it is your phrase) al indifferent mindes, both of the sincere and loyal af­fection to Superiours, and holy Doctrine in Catholikes, and falsly suggested crimination of you, against them: I beseech you to remember that your positions were grounded vpon sup­posed doctrine, and practise of Catholikes denial, of dutiful alleageance to Prince, and yeelding communications of hu­mane and ciuil respects, to Protestant subjects in their degree. And if we graunt al these, then al your positions, reply, defence of them, and your baptized ful satisfaction be out of date. And if you knew it in your owne conscience, and by testimony of your owne Protestants, and my writing, and yet you concea­led it from the world; as though I had neuer written to such purpose, and you by that meanes perseuered in your former calumniations, (as you did in your reply) we are to be pronoun­ced innocent: and your selfe proued to be such a man, as I doe intitle you. And that we were thus innocent, and you thus guilty, euen in your owne knowledge, thus I presume against you; first in that, you know no Catholike teacheth that equi­uocation No Catholike can equiuocate in any point of religion, by any Catholike opi­nion. or concealed meaning, may be vsed in matter of faith and religion, such as expresse dogmatical principles (your first and againe vrged positions in your judgement) are to be estee­med. And to hold otherwise was the heretical excuse and pra­ctize of your Cranmer, as I proued against you from your friend Moder. ansvv. c. equiu. and father Fox. Then much lesse may any Catholike dissem­ble, or equiu [...]cate, in oath in such businesse, which you wel [Page 22] knew, by the lamentable losses and extremities, of those of our religion, about the oath of Supremacy in late daies, and later how prepared many were in this time of his Majesty in a case not so cleare, then in some judgements to suffer the like, had not his gratious Clemency and most honourable Councel, more pittied our distresses, then you and such Teachers of Diuinity had perswaded. Then hearken vnto your owne confession, concerning doctrine: your owne wordes vnto me, are these: Mortons reply pag. 23. If al your sect would allow your answere, we should neede no cla­mours. And thus againe: But to conclude with your owne wordes, Page 14. those duties are not to be denied vnto Protestants. It were wel, if either you writ, as you thought, or that your Doctors did thinke, as you write: and so should we haue lesse cause of scruples to feare, either you or them. Good M. Doctor hitherto your wordes, and I pray remember, it is a matter of religion, by your owne confession, wherein you know, I speake as I thinke, and thinke as I speake, and that what I write hath beene thought likewise by other our Doctors, euen from Rome it selfe, as your Pre­amble Mitigat. Pre­amble. telleth me. The like you haue heard often times from your owne brethren in print of late both Doctors with you, and Bishops aboue you. Wherefore, good D. Thomas, be not you alone incredulous, but beleeue me. At the least I hope you wil be perswaded if you had knowne, we would haue sworne as I taught and writ. Then hearken againe what you knew and con­cealed in my writing, without ful satisfaction: In that dedica­tory Epistle which you wholy concealed, I offered, and by war­rant for al English Catholikes in these wordes: We wil s [...]eare, Moderat. answ. epist. dedicat. An oath of fi­delity, & duty to King, and al Protestāt sub­jects, offered by Catholikes and concealed by D. Morton. protest, promise, and performe to your Maiesty, whatsoeuer loyal­ty, obedience, and duty, is due from a subiect to his temporal Prince, by the word of God, law of nature, or hath beene vsed by the subiects of this Kingdome, to any your Pr [...]genitors Christian, from the first to the last: Acknowledge and render to your honou­rable Counsaile, and al Magistrates in ciuil causes, so much ho­nour, reuerence, and submission: And to al other Protestant sub­iects, like amity, and neighbourly affection, as if they were of the same religion, which we professe. Hitherto the oath of allea­geance which I offered with allowance: and it containeth the [Page 23] plaine contradictory to that which he laboured to proue a­gainst vs: and the same doctrine affirmatiue, which he acce­pted before for sufficient, to stoppe his and such mens feares, clamours, and scruples. And promiseth as much, as the law of God, of nature, and the law of duty in England allow, to Prince, and al kinde of Protestant subjects: and as much as to those of our owne religion, in those combinations, which he slaundered vs, to deny to al Protestants. In ge­neral he could not, neither doth wish for more: And that we might haue agreed in the particulars without such hisse, and like exploded clamours, we offered euen in that time of Parliament, Conuocation, and assembly of their best lear­ned, a conference and disputation to our owne great inequa­lity, and al Protestants ful satisfaction, If any thing wil sa­tisfie, but those thinges, which without sinne can neither be graunted of vs, or desired of them: and such as must needes haue accorded this contention, as I shal declare hereafter in this Chapter.

What man then, of such sincere integrity, as this Doctor is, by his owne writing, and himselfe commended, would haue dissembled and concealed offers, and conditions so ample, general, so confidently made, and (himselfe confes­sing it) stopping al clamours, and quieting contention in so great businesse? who would not shame to perseuer in that, which he knoweth a wrong? if my doctrine was so satisfactory, why was my poore person so persecuted, and extraordinarily searched for? my bookes so pleasing, and ful of contentment, why were they suppressed? why were such proceedings (as stil are) vrged against vs al by the Protestant Clergy? why did such spirits as this, so vnnaturally incense the Parliament against vs, that the Protestant Prelates made res [...]stance, as Protestants themselues haue published. The wordes of the Protestant Authours, of A Christian and modest offer, in that respect, are these. Resistance was made to the lawes inten­ded Christian and modest offer, pag. 15. to haue beene made against the Papists, especially by some and those not the meanest of the Prelates. Whereby M. Morton may see diuers things, in his owne judgement against himselfe: [Page 24] first, that Catholike Priests neither deserue their clamours, nor persecutions: secondly, how vnjustly he hath behaued himself, as wel in concealing from his readers, that which excuseth them for innocent, as in so passionate inuectiues against them, whom he thus esteemeth and findeth guiltlesse: thirdly, how religi­ously and charitably his fellowes in profession vrged such lawes and proceedings against vs, and many (by his owne confession vnjustly) and stil prosecute, which some of their owne Prote­testant Prelates are ashamed off, made resistance against.

And because M. Morton is a great man, and Doctor in his religion, let me further conferre with him in this matter of so great moment: Sir, your calling doth or should vnderstand, that although there is not euidence in faith, yet for the reuela­tion from God, in which it is founded, it is called (and so is) the greatest certainty, then men which may not Mortonize, and haue no certainty of faith, cannot easily be remoued in judgement in such thinges: and to seeke the contrary by com­pulsion, without instruction, is but tiranny, as (if you were pre­sent) you heard preached before the King, by the then Bishop Bish. of Durh. Sermon. 19. of March, 1603. of Durham, the 19. day of March in the yeare 1603. or if you were absent, I doubt not but you haue heard, or read, his Ma­jesties speach in Parliament, the same day, where he citeth and Kinges speach in Parliament, 1603. commendeth the same sentence: his regal wordes are these: For as you my Lord of Durham, said very learnedly to day in your sermon, correction without instruction is but tiranny. And a litle before he perswadeth vs thus: to be studious to reade and con­ferre with learned men: by vvhich hee meaneth the learned Protestants.

Then M. Doctor, I suppose you haue seene it lately proued, Protest. proofs cap. 6. 8. forth of your owne bretheren of England, which haue written since his Majesties entrance, and your selfe for one, that you Protestants in England haue not yet resolued anything in mat­ters of faith, which is infallibly certaine, (as faith must be) nei­ther by your proceedings haue you any such rule in religion, to resolue it by, or to binde others to receaue it, as D. Field wri­teth, Field pag. 226. 228. and your selfe is not of other minde, when you know that matters of question in religion (where agreement cannot be [Page 25] had) are to be de [...]ided by the highest judge; otherwise ap­peales may stil be, and no end of controuersies: And yet you Morton part. 2. Apolog. Epist. dedicat. in Ar­gument. l. 4. & cap. 18. l. 4. write of the King, that he is not. Supremus Iudex, the highest Iudge, But Concilium publicum, a general Council; [...]here among your 9. conditions, you finde no place for him, a [...]d yet you say, Quiuis docti Theol [...]gi v [...]ces decisinas habent: al learned Diuines haue deciding voices in it. And your Relator of religion Relat. of relig. cap. 47. putteth you out of hope. But to follow your doctrine: then before Catholikes can be condemned, you must haue some such inuincible and highest argument against them. And if quiuis docti Theologi, al learned Diuines haue, or must haue v [...]ices, in this decision; I trust neither you nor any Protestant is of mind, but some Catholike D [...]uines (euen of England) in al this your time of Protestancy, are in this number, and must be acquain­ted with such proceedings, and present at them by your j [...]dge­ment. And to proue, [...]hat the Priests of England haue not beene vnwilling, with a l [...]sse trial, then your selfe only approue for Iu­ridical; And you knew this▪ and yet both concealed it, and a­gainst your owne doctrine, so inj [...]riously proceeded: Hearke M. Doctor, what I first wrote in this matter, and you remem­bred it not: my wordes in the Epistle of my answere be these: We haue of [...]en, earnestly, and by al meanes we could, desired to Moderat. answ. Epi [...]t. dedicat. §. this is. haue a trial graunted, with equal conditions, against the most se­lected and best learned Doctors of that (Protestant) religion. If you think [...] not this plaine dealing in our behalfe, then let me take witnesse of your owne Protestants, the Authours of the cited offer of conference, which after offer made with equal con­ditions, conclude for vs in these wordes. There is such indiffe­rency Offer of cōfer. pag. 3. 4. 5. 6. pag. 11. in this offer, and it standeth vpon so iu [...]t and equal groundes, that it ought not to be refused of any Christians, no though made by Iewes, Turkes, Arrians, Papists, or any other Heretikes, whatsoeuer. Then M. Doctor if disputation is so necessary, without our c [...]nuiction in it, w [...] cannot by your owne sentence be condemned, and by your Protestants j [...]dgement it ought not to be refused vpon equal groundes: how much lesse ought an offer vpon vnequal groundes for Papists, made to a whole Parliament, and Conuocation of Protestant Doctors, and to [Page 26] their great aduantage, be either denied or so concealed, as your The offer of di­sputation made for Catholikes in the time of the last Parlia­ment, cōcealed by D. Morton. learned sincerity hath done: And yet injuriously consented vnto, and incensed persecution against vs. Wherefore hear­ken to the offer I made, and you concealed: it followeth im­mediately in my answere to the wordes last cited; And is word for word as here ensueth.

And at this present, when your chiefest Protestant Clergie Moderat. answ. Epist. dedicat. §. And at. (Bishops and others) is ass [...]mbled, we most humbly entreate, this so reasonable a Placet, that although they wil not (as we feare) easily consent to an indifferent choice, opp [...]sition and defence in questions: yet, at the least (to auoide the wonder of the world) they [...]il be content, that we may haue publike audience for those articles, opinions, and practise, for which we are so much con­demned and persecuted. If we shal not be able to defend or proue, any position generally maintained in our doctrine, to be confor­mable to those rules in Diuinity, which your Maiesty and the Protestant la [...]es of England (we can offer no more) haue confir­med for holy the Canonical Scriptures, the first general Councels, the daies of Constantine, and the primatiue Church: Let the penalties be imposed and executed against vs. If we performe it, or this Petition may not be admitted, we trust that both our office to God, and duty to Prince, is discharged in this point. Hitherto the wordes of that offer in my Epistle dedicatory, and by my aduersary D. Morton omitted, without any men­tion at al.

Wherefore as we may see both the integrity and valour of this great champion, by hiding his head for such a combate; So I trust al men of judgement wil make construction with this equity, that they which offered so publike a trial, and at such a time of Conuocation and Parliament, and the greatest assembly of Protestant Bishops and Doctors, and to them al, by their owne groundes, and for those articles, opinions, and practise, for which we are so much condemned and persecuted, are in al moral and probable sentence, men innocent, and vnjustly accused by such Positioners. And I hope Master Doctor, that you wil not hereafter, nor did not truly and with discretion say, that my selfe which made this offer, and [Page 27] was assigned to be one of the three Catholike disputants to performe it, against you al (for as some of your side gaue hope of disputation, so we did not muster multitudes against you) and remained in London to my great hazard among your searches for me, either feared scratching or biting of you, or your best biting dogges.

ENter againe M. Doctor, and excuse your selfe if you can, why the very first Chapter of my answere being intituled, (A general censure of this slaunderous pamphlet: prouing, that no one argument therein can conclude the authours intent) is quite omitted, without any memory at al, in that your stiled ful satisfaction. Sir tel me; was this integrity? was it sincere dealing, whereupon you stand so much? was I so idle a dispu­ter, to giue so glorious a name to a Treatise, and proue no­thing in it? I doubt not, but the world thinketh your memory, or your friendes would haue put you in minde of such an ad­uantage, to haue cried a victory, if my mistaking had beene so great. But whether I proued so much or no; yet seing, I contented therein (as the Title testifieth) to stoppe your course at the first entrance, by ouerthrowing that founda­tion, vvhereupon you had hazarded al; and in denying those to be dogmatical principles with vs, vvhich you stiled for such, and deduced conclusions from them (in your minde or vvordes) infallible, you should haue said some-what against me: and in omitting it, you both graunt your errour, and this notwithstanding persisting in your slaunders, detect your malice.

But you knew wel, and could not but know, that (accor­ding Moderate a [...] ­swere, cap. 1. to the Title of that Chapter) I proued so much by diuers [Page 28] reasons, as is manifest in that place of my answere, which for breuity, and to auoide repetitions, I must passe ouer at this time, and leaue them to the reader to be considered in the place re­membred, and vrge against you, but one only argument there insinuated: and yet d [...]monstratiuely proue the Title of that Chapter, and vtterly ouerthrow both D. Mortons whole booke of positions, and his conceited Satisfaction [...]n defence thereof. §. Then M. Doctor, thus I must pu [...] you in minde, that your firs [...] booke is entituled, An exact discouery of Romish doctrine, D. Mortons R [...]mish po [...]ti­ons in titul. in the case of conspiracy and rebellion. By [...]hich we are giuen to vnderstand, that in your judgement this your worke is per­fect and absolute in this kinde, otherwise the names Disc [...]uery and Exact cannot be truly app [...]ied vnto it, so that what you haue done in this businesse was such, that additions and amplificati­ons neede not to be annexed vnto it: And the [...]efore [...]ou adde in these wordes: that it is coll [...]cted out of the expresse d [...]gmatical Supr. in titul. principles of Popish Priests and Doctors. And hereupon in your ten pa [...]ticular Syllogismes, you propose these general proposi­tions. But al Popish Priests doe hold and practise this, and that: ergo. al Popish Priests, &c. is that which you would conclude: Romish posit. reas. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. &c. as appeareth by your general cōclusions in those your positions. Now learned M. Doctor, men vnder your degree and euery young Sch [...]ller doth kn [...]w, that in al Arts and Sciences, those be Principles, w [...]i [...]h be so cleare, and generally graunted of al, that it is so absurd a t [...]i [...]g for a man [...]o den [...] them, that the Philosopher telleth vs▪ Contran [...]ga [...]tem principia non est dispu­ta [...]dum, there i [...] no disputing against him [...]hich denieth the prin­ciples: but he is to be beaten [...]ith clubbes, and not vrged by rea­son. Much more, [...] they be so manifest, to be such principles, that they deserue by the c [...]mmon knowledge, which is had of them, to be called either expr [...]sse principles, or dogmatical prin­ciples; for by such epithers, or names, they are denounced to be plainly expressed, declared, and sentenced to be such. And yet for failing, you joyne altogether, and say they be the expresse, d [...]gmatical principles, of Popish Priests and Doctors. And so they had neede, which inferre your general positions or conclu­sions, al Priests and al Popish Priests, &c.

Now most sincere and learned disputer, I affirme against you (and wil presently so demonstrate) that in your whole booke you doe not proue one position, which you bring to be a prin­ciple, much lesse an expresse dogmatical principle. Then your ten seueral general conclusions must be deduced from no prin­ciple at al (a thing in true reasoning and concluding vnpossible) or else your whole booke and defen [...]e thereof is a forgery, a shamelesse lie, foolish fiction, more then satis, and no ful satis­faction.

And that I doe not fully satisfie herein, after your manner I D. Mortons p [...] ­sitions proued slaunders, by great Prote­stant [...], and him s [...]lfe al [...]o. cou [...]d bring greater Protestant witnesse, and you your selfe for testimony also in this b [...]sinesse: for first you know wel (though Rom. posit. in Prefat. you say you writ by direction, or not without direction of Su­periours) that in the Protestant booke called Apol. pag. 52. pag. 28 pag. 77. pag. 4. pa. 8. Apology, pub­lished authoritate Regia, the quite contradictory to your slaun­derous conclusions (I hope with as great warrant as you had) is contained in many places on the behalfe of Catholikes, Priests, and the [...] religion, and much more then is required to your con­sutation: where you are expresly told, that you and men of your opinion (if any more can be found) are slaunderers. The like you may learne from other bookes of that kinde since, both by Bish. Ba [...]low. B. Androw [...], &c Bishops among you, and of higher place. And before them or their question handled from D. Field, in his Adjections to his Field l. 3. pag. 21. 22. 23. cap. 17. third booke of the Church. And although these were written since your golden workes of Positions and Satisfaction: yet you cannot excuse your selfe, knowing that your opinion was de­n [...]unced an errour by his Majesties publike pr [...]clamation, be­fore Procl [...]m. a­gainst the late conspi [...]acy. it was written: therefore except you haue a supercathedri­cal command, as wel ouer the proclamations and edict of Princes, as you haue challenged before ouer their p [...]rsons and Enthronings, you might haue suppressed your spirit.

Secondly, M. Doctor [...]ourselfe hath condemned your selfe, in those vile and slaunderous assertions: for as before you haue freed al of my opinion in my answere▪ so confirmed as before. Againe, in your Rom. posit. p [...]g. [...]1. positions themselues you except many Priests, and yet in the Rom. posit. [...]at. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. &c. same you conclude with open mouth [...]ften times, Al Priests are Traitors. And in your P [...]eamble [Page 30] since, you write thus againe: Diuers of the zealous among vs Preamble, pag. 36. & in merg. Romish Professors doe abhorre such doctrines and practizes, as your positions charge al Priests withal.

And now thirdly, M. Doctor, thus I dispute against your D. Morton his dogmatical principles de­mon [...]tratiuely ouerthrowne. expresse dogmatical principles, as you cal them: you make your first Syllogisme the ground of al your booke; And yet in that you Morton po­sitions, pag. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. cite (and about diuers matters) only these authorities; Andreas Iurgiwicius, M. Reinalds, D. Gifford, Possiuinus a Iesuite, Cardinal Allen, Father Parsons, M. Thomas Wright, Simancha, Lod [...]uicus de Orleance, lib. de Abdicat. Henr. 3. Polydore, and three Glosses from Gratian: and not any other, and these be cited for diuers and distinct thinges: Then M. Morton, where is the expresse dogmatical principle, whereupon not only your ergo and conclusion of that Syllogisme, but your whole Treatise is founded? for here neither is expresse, nor impresse principle, dogma or dogmatical, as you haue promised vs; except priuate men of diuers questions, can giue this Title, which you dare not for further shame affirme.

Fourthly, tel me M. Doctor, in what page, line, or cha­pter of your booke, doe you once proue, that any one autho­rity you vse is defined, decreed, or receaued as a matter of faith, dogmatical principle, expresly or impresly; I haue per­vsed your booke, yet I finde no such probation, then it is not your denomination extrinsecal, or intituling your booke, which can make expresse dogmatical principles, and so many as you neede in that Treatise, for ten general conclusions. §.

Fiftly, M. Doctor, suppose he should be (according to Doctor Fields opinion of them of Paris) a Sorbonist or Pari­sian D. Field Adject. to hi [...] 3. booke pag. 21. Diuine (though I am not) which disputeth against you; (for many hundred such be learned Priests or Doctors) Then tel me, what one authority in al your booke there is, vvhich hath the least colour to be called an expresse dogmatical prin­ciple? There be in your booke about 90. authorities cited, among which there is neither general Councel, nor prouin­cial Councel, confirmed, or not confirmed, alleaged but only priuate writers, the authorities of some matters of fact, of not aboue fiue or six Popes at the most, Gregory VII. [Page 31] Gregory IX. Pius V. Zistu [...] V. neuer vrged as definitions or matters of faith; And yet among these the chiefest cited by you as from Gregory IX. is counterfaite or mistaken at the least by your owne confession, in your reply. And of al the rest you Mortons reply pag. 48. 49. labour not to proue any one to be a dogmatical principle, in that common Catholike opinion which holdeth that the defini­tion of a Pope in matter of doctrine is a declaration of faith. Then if you are so farre wide, that in your whole discourse of ten seueral conclusions, to be deduced from expresse dogma­tical principles, as you promised, there is not by the probable opinion of any Diuines, any one such principle: how much more haue you gone astray by the sentence of these Catho­like Doctors, Gerson, Almaine, Occhum, Adrianus sextus, Durandus, Alphonsus a Castro and most of the Sorbonists, learned Doctors and Priests of the Roman Church? vvhich would take exception to this writing, in more [...]ample manner, as your friend D. Field hath witnessed. Then in what state Field supr. of credit and reputation are those poore ten naked conclusions, standing alone vpon the word of so recalling, recanting, and contradictory Doctors. Alas, alas, to you poore conclusions; for your Master Morton learned in Cambridge long agone, when he was but a fresh man (scarcely salted and wel seasoned with good sincere dealing yet) and studied Iacke Seatons (so called there) Logicke, that Conclusio semper sequitur debilio­rem partem: The conclusion alwaies followeth the weaker part; in negation, particularity, falshood, &c. For being dedu­ced and drawne from (and in a manner th [...]ough) both the premisses, it must needes participate of the defect which is in any of them, such vvorthinesse and security we finde in these Oracles of D. Morton.

THus I haue hitherto made euident demonstration in ge­neral, so farre as is necessary for me to examine without entring into the quarrel of others (which I neede not to doe) that D. Morton his bookes of Romish positions and ful satisfa­ction, are in al probable and reasonable j [...]dgement (euen of Protestants themselues) a meere slaunder▪ forgery, or corru­ption of a wicked irreligious, or vnlearned writer, vtterly vn­worthy hereafter either to be beleeued by Protestant, or confu­ted by Catholike.

Now I wil make this matter more plaine in particular, and yet follow so friendly a course also in this combat, that I intend only to take the leauings of his Roman aduersary, and not bur­den D. Morton with any thing, he chargeth him with al, nor to take so large a scope, as to examine his whole bookes, or any great part of any one of them, to reckon his corruptions and vnconscionable dealings, which would make a volume too large, of so base a businesse, as a Protestant Doctors falshoods, and too distastful to so chiefe a champion, and learned Doctor.

Therefore I haue determined (as I said before) only to ex [...] ­mine the first portion, of his ful satisfaction, or reply vnto m [...] an­swere, in the first Syllogisme of his positions, and no further: And this also with such restriction and moderation, to my owne losse, and my aduersaries aduantage (if by any possible meanes he could cleare himselfe) that I wil passe ouer al other his citations and authorities, not so easie for euery reader to consider and discusse, and touch only his false allegations, cor­ruptions, and alterations, of my answere, in one only chapter of my booke: And yet I am bold to pronounce D. Morton (which I wil presently proue to his shame and confusion) to be a wilful, dissolute, false alleager, corrupter, and deprauer: or else a man [Page 33] grosly ignorant, vnlearned, and forgetful in so high degree, that he is vtterly vnworthy to write of diuine matters, to be credited in his Assertions, or to receaue any further answere hereafter.

For proofe whereof, in his reply to my second chapter men­tioned before (for the first as I haue declared, he neuer men­tioneth) thus he behaueth himselfe: There be in that chapter 255. lines, and he proposing this to be his methode, to cite my writing, word for word, as he would perswade his reader, by the manner of his proceedings, maketh but 83. lines by his citation, and yet they doe not exceede in number of characters, those which be in my answere, both this and his reply being printed in quarto, and yet sometimes he citeth one thing twice, as the first and sixt chapter of his booke doe witnesse in this que­stion: Reply cap. 1. 6. pag. 1. 14. So that before I complaine further, first he hath not ci­ted or handled the third part of my answere, to that his Reason or Syllogisme.

Secondly, citing my answere in this chapter in 14 seueral citations, he citeth not any one of them al without corruption, or falsyfication, more or lesse, which wil fully satisfie, that his sirnamed ful satisfaction is, as I haue tearmed it, and himselfe that man which I haue promised to proue him. And this I de­monstrate by induction and particular conuiction of euery one of these his citations, diuers containing many corruptions.

And thus I proceede in examining his first citation, in the first chapter of his reply: At the first beginning he misquote [...]h the Reply pag. 1. place of my answere, citing the second section where there is no such thing, as he citeth of the consequence. Secondly, he quite dissembleth the question, which was betweene him and me set downe in his positions, and so recited in my answere, in Romish posit. pag. 1. Moderat. answere cap. 2. §. I wil. these wordes: Their general assumption whereupon al their re­bellious positions are founded, is this, that al Protestants are Here­tikes, and excommunicate. And to declare of what kinde of Heretikes and excommunicate, lie disputed, thus he interpre­teth himselfe, in the next wordes, Heretikes so odious as vn [...]or­thy R [...]mish posit. 1. Rea [...]. of any ciuil or natural society: And of such Heretikes was our question. Now in this place of his reply, he changeth the [Page 34] controuersie, and citeth me disputing only against this naked proposition, Al Protestants in the censure of Catholikes are Reply supr. pag. 1. Heretikes, and excommunicate. Absolutely concealing, of what Heretikes, denounced or not denounced, as also of what excommunication we entreated. And not content with this, he maketh no answere at al to my cōfutation of that, which he made the ground of al, and so at his first entrance his posi­tions and expresse dogmatical principles be ouerthrowne.

In his reply to my second citation, he alleageth me vsing these wordes: No Papist doth iudge any Protestant an Heretike Reply pag. 2. §. what is. or excommunicate. Where we see he hath changed the nature of the question againe, from a conjunctiue proposition (Prote­stants are Heretikes and excommunicate) which himselfe vseth before, and to which, and no other I answered, into a disiun­ctiue proposition (Heretike or excommunicate:) betweene which there is so great difference, that the first is not true, ex­cept both parts be true, the second is true, if one part only be such: as appeareth in these propositions: Thomas Morton is a Protestant Doctor, and a corrupt writer: Thomas Morton is a Protestant Doctor, or a corrupt writer. The latter proposi­tion being a disiunctiue is true, if M. Morton were free from corruption in writing, because he is knowne to be a Protestant Doctor, and the disiunctiue proposition did not affirme both, but the one, or other. The first proposition conjunctiue and copalatiue affirming both, the one and the other, is not true, except both parts, that is, that Thomas Morton is a Protestant Doctor (which England wel knoweth) and a corrupt writer, be true, which I haue sufficiently proued.

There be also other corrupt [...]ons in M. Doctors citation, for (as before) he citeth me for this proposition: No Papist doth Reply supr. pag. 2. iudge any Protestant an Heretike, or excommunicate. When first, I doe not exclude al Catholikes in general, by the name Answere cap. 2. §. wherefore. of no Papist, or any thing equiualent to a general proposition, but speake only of the learned Catholikes in this Kingdome, which be my wordes: which he corruptly turneth into the reci­ted (no Papist) without limitation of Country, learning, state, time, place, &c. The next corruption in this citation is, that [Page 35] he chargeth me to say, that not any Protestant is iudged by vs an Heretike, & when this restriction or limitation (any) which altereth the sence, and truth of the proposition, is his corrupti­on, making that a particular, which in our question was gene­ral: as appeareth both in his positions and my answere, where Romish posit. page 1. Moderat. answ. cap. 2. §. 1. 2. the proposition is this: Al Protestants are Heretikes and excom­municate. And yet we dispute of denounced Heretikes and subject to the penalties of the Canons, and not of al kinde of Heretikes, as he pretendeth.

And yet againe, in the same page of his booke, he citeth my Reply pag. 2. §. I suppose. wordes indefinitely without either general or particular signe, that the Catholikes of this Kingdome wil not defend this opini­on, that Protestants are Heretikes and excommunicate. Where besides his different citation, touched, he againe confoundeth himselfe, first in shewing we contended of a copulatiue propo­sition (Heretikes and excommunicate) which he before hath chopped into a disiunctiue (Heretikes or excommunicate.) And Romish posit. pag▪ 1. Moderate an­swere cap. 2. here also he dissembleth the state of the controuersie, which was of Heretikes subject to the penalties pretended by him, and not of Heretikes absolutely without that addition. By such sin­cerity and integrity as D. Mortons is, a man may proue any thing, and disproue whatsoeuer, when the aduersary and his booke be absent.

MAster Doctors second and next chapter, is thus intituled: Chap. 2. Containing fiue of the arguments of the Moderate Reply cap. 2. pag. 2. answerer. And why Sir I pray you, should it not in true dealing haue contained 8. arguments? (if you so tearme them) for so many be vsed in my answere: only with caueate for the printers mistaking, printing (sixtly) twice, that the latter sixtly should be seauenthly, and this eightly or the eight in number.

Againe M. Doctor, your citation consisteth only of 9. lines, and yet a part of them is your owne, & not my wordes: is it then likely, that either eight or fiue argumēts (to vse your phrase) are truly & substantially alleaged in so short a breuiate? And further [Page 36] sincere Sir, where I recompted them in order, first, second, third, and you to abuse your reader, and shift them ouer, doe recite Reply supr. pag. 2. 3. them with this disorder, naming that first, which is the fourth, then you returne to the first, next you jumpe to the second and third, after you rebound againe to the first, and from thence you leape and skippe to the fift.

And in these citations you further behaue your selfe with this sincerity, M. Doctor: first, you cite my answere to be in these wordes: No man doubting in faith, but only such as be obstinate: no ignorant beleeuer, or deceaued of Heretikes, but he to hom the truth hath beene made knowne: none only internally infected, but he that is a manifest Professor, is subiect to the censure of excom­munication for heresie. Now Sir, I must tel you that there is not any one such proposition, in the places you cite from my answere, as is manifest in my answere; for proofe whereof I Reply cap. 1. 2. Answere cap. 2. §. fourthly, ibid §. for f [...]rst, & §. secōdly, §. thirdly, [...]. for first, fiftly. haue set downe the sections which you cite in this marg [...]ne, that al men may see your corruptions, too tedious to be particularly here discussed. And I am so farre from writing as you haue a­uouched in the places cited by you, that in my whole answere they are not to be found, only in the f [...]ft place I write in these wordes: Fiftly, al Heretikes (as internal) be not subiect to cen­sure Answere cap. 2. §. Fi [...]tly. and excommunication. And yet I hope there is great dif­ference betweene this, and to say as you cite, That none but he that is a manifest Professor is subiect to the censure of excommuni­cation, for heresie. For by internal Heretikes we vnderstand them, which approue heresie only in their minde, and neuer si­gnifie it with external signe, word, writing, and to bring it to the notice and jurisdiction of the external court: which cannot proceede but by external allegations and probations, which of a thing meerely internal (such as that I suppose in this cogita­tion) cannot be had in such a case. Yet many may, and doe, outwardly speake or hold heresie, which be not manifest Pro­fessors, Doctors, or Teachers of it, as D. Morton and such o­thers, by preaching, writing, printing, teaching, defending, and are made manifest.

Neither is this sincere disputer and learned Doctor, fully sa­tisfied with these so odious corruptions, in this one citation, [Page 37] but adding new and more glosses of his owne inuention, for my writing telleth his reader, I conclude, That Protestants in our Reply supr. pag. 3. opinion be not Heretikes. When I neuer meant any such abso­lute proposition, neither was that in question, but who be, or whether English Protestants are denounced Heretikes, and (to vse the wordes of D. Morton, being the foundation of his Romish positions) so odious as vnworthy of any ciuil, or natural Romish posit. pag. 1. §. they who. society, or to be denied al ciuil or natural respects. Which in his first Syllogisme he hath re [...]orded, accordingly as is here cited, and in my answere I disputed against him.

But M. Doctor now clearely perceaueth, that this the ground of his cauils and clamours (to speake in his owne phrase) Reply pag. 24. is ouerthrowne, and that the Priests and Catholikes of England doe not esteeme their Country Protestants, to be in that odious and vnworthy state, to which this worthy writer hath assigned them, but doe and wil yeeld vnto them al ciuil, and natural so­ciety, and respects, in as ample manner, as if they were of the same religion with vs: Therefore he hath diuised a new tricke, further to shame himselfe for euer, and to discredit his whole writing, to proceede from a very ignorant or wilful Doctor. His diuise and wordes be these: Seing the nature of heresie is such, Reply pag. 3. §. we may not. that it is a vice proper to the minde: it may denominate the sub­iect whatsoeuer an Heretike without obstinacy, which is only a peruerse obliquity of the wil: And therefore man may be an Here­tike, though he be not obstinate. This is the excellent reasoning of this Syllogist: in the former proposition he would haue al Heretikes and Protestants especially, so odious and vnworthy of D. Morton m [...] ­keth not only al Protestants, but the ancient Fathers, and Christs Di [...]i­ples also to be [...]r [...]tikes. ciuil society, as is declared: And in this last doct [...]ine, he doth not only make al Protestants, by their owne proceedings, to be Heretikes, and such Heretikes by reason of their manifould errours, by themselues acknowledged, but would accuse al the auncient Fathers (whom the Protestants charge with errours) and the Disciples themselues of Christ, (as D. Doue pe [...]w [...]sion pag. 13. D. Doue h [...]th noted) of heresie: So that by this argument, if al those holy Fathers and Disciples of Christ were now liuing, D. M [...]rt [...]n could not by his doctrine, giue any ciuil or natural respect vnto them, not so much as to salute them. And (except heauen is [Page 38] prouided for Heretikes) they are al damned in hel for euer by his sentence.

But this absurdity of D. Morton hath beene more then suffi­ciently confuted by his other aduersary, in the Mitigation: wherefore I wil briefly confute him in this point, only with his present Protestant brethren in England. And first D. Couel writeth thus: Heretikes are neither simple Infidels nor Idolaters, Couel Exami­nat. pag. 202. but obstinately erring in some fundamental point. B. Doue hath these wordes: I define an heresie in this manner: it is an errour Doue perswas. supr. pag. 13. st [...]fly and obstinately defended and maintained, and for example, the Disciples (Act. 15.) erred when they held it necessary to be cir­cumcised, yet were not Heretikes, because they were not obstinate, for they submitted themselues to the iudgement of the Church, and after due consultation was had, they consented to the truth. Hitherto B. Doue; where D. Morton may learne, that obsti­nacy is required to heresie, and that himselfe not submitting to the judgement of the Church, but remaining in obstinate writing against it, is an Heretike, §. M. Ormerods sentence is Ormerod pict. pur. Dialog. 2. & Pict. pap. pag. 114. this: He is an Heretike which so swarueth from the holsome do­ctrine, as contemning the iudgement both of God, and the Church, persisteth in his opinion, and breaketh the vnity of the Church. And againe in these wordes: It is not denied by any sort of Di­uines, Dialog. 2. supr. auncient or recent, but that he is an Heretike, which doth stifly and obstinately defend any errour, that doth either directly impugne some article of the faith, or the true sence and meaning of the same article of faith. And citing Beza and Danaeus for the same doctrine, he addeth thus: And of the same iudge­ment are al other writers of note. Then D. Morton by this Pro­testant judgement, is no writer of note, for al such condemne him, whether they be Catholikes or Protestants, auncient or recent. And the note which is left for him, is to be notable, or notorious, for singularities, forgeries, slaunders, corruptions, errours, and vices of like note. ∵

DOctor Morton hauing thus sincerely and learnedly beha­ued himselfe, in his second and third chapter, in reciting my answere, and expressing his owne opinion about heresie, as is declared; In his fourth chapter maketh his fourth citation of my answere, that before excommunication, communion is not for­bidden, Reply cap. 4. pag. 5. where among other authorities reciting the Laterane Councel, to delude his readers, he quite leaueth out these words: By whose decree the party must be both so censured, and requisitus Moderat. answ. cap. 2. 3. sixtly. & monitus ab Ecclesia, required and monished of the Church; In which the force of the argument, and authority consisted, for the matter questioned.

And yet, the more to colour his owne behaviour, he chal­lengeth me of three vntruthes, which he vttereth in these wordes: 1. No communion forbidde to any before excommunica­tion. Reply pag. 5. §. I haue justly. 2. No Heretike excommunicate by name, is subiect to any penalty. 3. No Protestant is excommunicate by name. Hitherto M. Doctors accusation of three palpable vntruthes commit­ted by me. But I wil discharge my selfe, and lay both the vn­truthes, and palpability vpon him. And concerning the first: (No communion forbidde to any before excommunication.) If he meaneth, I speake it absolutely of men not excommunicate by any excommunication: how is it vntruth? can a man not excommunicate, be excommunicate? or a man in communion, be not, in, but out of communion? if these contradictories cannot be true, this cannot be an vntruth palpable, or vn­palpable; for a man in communion, is not excommunicate, which is to be out of communion. If he expoundeth it of men excommunicate by name (which his wordes expresse not:) Then Antonin. part. 3. tit. 25. c. 3 Tolet. Instruct. l. 1. c. 9. Fum. sum. v. excom. num. [...]. Sil [...]. v. excom. num. 5. §. 7. Sci [...]nd. c [...] 4. M [...]ior. 4. dist. 18. q. 3. Sot. 4. dist. 22. Ledesm. 4. q. 23. art. 1. Victor. sum. de Sacram. tract. de excom. Angel. excom. 8. num. 3. Tabien. Interdict. 3. q. 9. Azor l. 8. instit. cap. 11. Rosell. v. excom. 6. num. 44. &c. Ioh. Molan. tract. 1. cap. 16. concl. 2. Coua [...]. c. Alma. mater▪ Nauar. de orat. cap. 9. & manual. c. 27. Sa. v. v. excom. Concil. Const. apud S. Anton. part. 3. titul. 25. cap. 3. & Caiet. sum. v. excom. Moderat. answ. c. 2. §. seau [...]nth­ly. & [...]. supr. S. Antoninus, Tollet, Fumus, Siluester, Maior, Sotus, Ledesm. Victor. Angel. Tabien. Azor, Molanus, Rosell. Couaruvias, Nauarre, vvith others, [Page 40] and the general Councel of Constance it selfe, doe tel him, that in our question of ciuil communications, there is truth, and no vntruth in that proposition: And this hath beene so palpably already proued against him, that he giueth no contradiction to it: but thus shifteth vp and downe.

The second citation is D. Mortons corruption, and not my assertion: for my proposition is only this: No Protestant, or Heretike not excommunicate by name, lieth subiect to any penalty pretended. When (as before) my sincerely dealing aduersary citeth me to say: That such are not subiect to any penalty at al. Which is his corruption and not my proposition, as is manifest.

The last also is his forgery, and not my opinion, which is this: No Protestant in England is excommunicate by name: which limitation (in England) for which our controuersie was, he leaueth out, and maketh it an vnlimited proposition, contai­ning al Protestants, of al times and places, wholy changing the state of the question.

He raiseth further a new slaunder against me, as though Reply pag. 5. 6. when he cited diuers authorities besides Panormitane, I should only answere the authority of Panormitane; when these autho­rities be alleaged by D. Morton, only in his fourth reason, and Romish posit. ration. 4. pag. 15. 16. not in this place. And in my answere to that reason, I answered them al by name particularly, which be these, there recounted, Tollet, Massouius, Panormitane, Gregorius de Valentia, Answere cap. 5. §. let vs heare. Bannes, and Philopater. And there I shewed how he misallea­ged their authorities, and they rather made against himselfe. And these be the wronges which he complained before I had done: whereof (as I promised in my fift chapter) I haue freed Cap. 5. supr. my selfe, and put them among his falshoods.

THe next citation from my answere, he citeth in his fift chapter, and is set downe in these words: (None is excom­municate, Reply c. 5. p. 8. §. this your. who is not excommunicate by name:) and he calleth this my proposition, when himselfe in the very lines before ci­teth [Page 41] my opinion in this manner: No Protestant in England is in Reply pag. 8. supr. §. No Protestant. our opinion excommunicate by name: and therefore lieth not sub­iect to the penalty pretended, ergo, the foundation of this discoue­ry is ruinate. Now M. Doctor (your selfe being judge) that is not my proposition, but your corruption: And this you further confirme, in your next citation in the same chapter, thus al­leaging my opinion: We doe not esteeme al Protestants for He­retikes Reply pag. 12. §. thus haue. and excommunicate, as he pretendeth: neither that they are subiect to such penalties, as he alleageth. This M. Doctor doth not agree with that, which you cited before, therefore you are at shameful disagreement and variance with your selfe. And yet in this very last citation, you are not forgetful of your vsual art, and custome of false dealing: for you passe ouer the most material wordes, which immediately follow and be these: Nei­ther Moderat. answ. c. 2. §. thus haue that they are subiect to such penalties as he alleageth, that they are not censured, or as such to be depriued of any ciuil society, English Ca­tholikes loue to English Protestants. communication, their goods, liues, liberties, dignities, honour, homage, fealty, subiection, duty, loue, or any thing pretious, their proper and peculiar: but contrariwise to enioy and possesse their priuileges, in as ample manner and freedome, as if they were of the same religion which we defend. Hitherto the wordes of my con­clusion, which he wholy omitted, [...]o reserue some colour of countenance his slaunders against vs: for what semblance, or least shew of reason can he deuise, to persecute and prosecute those Catholike Priests for temporal enimies, which teach, hold, write, and wil sweare to performe al such ciuilities, duties, and loue, and liue in as great amity with Protestants (though obstinate in their opinion) as if they were of the same religion with vs? To al this, to his confusion, and whole ruine of his cause, he maketh no answere, but with lying euasion graunteth victory: In your minde you gaine-say that, which with your pen Reply pag. 13. §. thus haue you. you publish. Why M. Doctor, is the issue come to this, with al your expresse dogmatical principles, that except my pen and minde disagree, your cause quite is ouerthrowne as I argue in that place?

Then Sir, to perswade you (as before, and if not you, yet al that be not infected with such your obstinacy and malice) that [Page 42] my minde and pen and the mindes of other Priests and Catho­likes herein agree; Tel me I pray you, is it not a question of do­ctrine and religion, which was betweene D. Morton and the Moderate answere [...]? yes Sir, you affirme it to be Romish doctrine: Romish posit. in titul. Then I demaunde againe where you finde it in our doctrine, that any Priest or Catholike writer, or not writer may dissem­ble his religion, or equiuocate in the least question belonging to faith, and the honour of God? for this cause M. Doctor, so many Priests and Catholikes in England endure persecution, because they wil not, and may not dissemble, or deny their in­ward minde and opinion, by pen, word, or any external signe. For this cause so many renowmed of that holy function and re­ligion, haue rather chosen to suffer most cruel death, in a late Protestant regiment in this Kingdome, & for this quarrel, then to equiuocate or halt in professing any point of faith, though with such meanes al penalties might haue beene auoided. There fore as it cannot be doubted, but my minde and pen agree, so it is euident your cause is desolute and ouerthrowne, and you ought to cease persecution and clamour against vs.

And yet further for the wrapping vp of this matter, take a lie, or two more of your making, with you in this place: within the space of two lines you ingeminate and twice cite for my words this proposition: Protestants are no Heretikes: Protestants are Reply pag. 13. no Heretikes. When I neuer spake, writ, or thought any such absolute assertion, therefore it is to be added to the number of your inuentions. And concluding this chapter with these words from my answere: Thus is his chiefest building of slaunders a­gainst vs ruinate. In which you first leaue out, (al these) which destroieth your vvhole booke of Principles. Secondly, you haue passed ouer al those essential thinges, which I cited before, and were assigned the cause why the chiefest buildings of althes [...] your slaunders was ruinate. Thirdly, you answere nothing to that which you cite, but only that which condemneth you by your owne silence, and law of exception before: your only re­ply is this: O good Sir, you might haue learned this good by others Reply pag. 13. [...]pr. late euils, to take heede you entermeddle not in ruinating of buil­dings. Therefore (O good Sir) I may safely conclude you haue [Page 43] nothing to say, to saue your expresse dogmatical principles from a forged slaunder, so expressed or impressed by your owne wri­ting. And as my art in ruinating, consisteth in ruinating and destroying such rotten arguments and corruptions, as you haue vsed: So other kinde of ruinating here insinuated (out of the matter) by you, I leaue to the Authour of Iustification of Pro­testants, &c. as before I proued.

AFter this D. Morton recoileth backe, no further then to the very place where he beganne, as appeareth both by the citation, and his marginal quotation of my answere (initio, in the beginning.) A large jump backward, 9. pages long: though not so Doctorlike, after he had handled the conclusion, as is be­fore declared: Yet before he citeth my answere, he giueth this Title to this his sixt chapter. Hitherto haue we only confirmed Reply pag. 14. cap. 6. our Autecedent, namely that Protestants in the common censure of Papists, are esteemed Heretikes, &c.

Now M. Doctor, let vs haue a little sincere dealing, though you must be haled, pulled, and drawne vnto it: you tel vs, you haue confirmed your Antecedent, and that this Antecedent was this, Namely that Protestants in the cōmon censure of Papists are esteemed Heretikes: But I pray you, be remembred first, that this was not your Antecedent: Because your memory is badde, when you are at a non plus, and know not what to say, I wil make repetition of your (so called) Antecedent. Your wordes be these in the beginning of your reasons. The first reason: Their Romi [...]h posit. pag. 1. general assumption, wherupon al their rebellious positions are foun­ded, is this, that al Protestants are Heretikes, and excōmunicate. This M. Doctor I thinke you make as a supposition, and not An­tecedent in any argument, for it is thus alone set by it selfe. And yet, if it were your Antecedent, you must needes graunt me, that your last citation is false: first, because in your positions you cal it their general assumption, which word (general) you know cōprehendeth al, and excludeth none: and yet in this place you [Page 44] only name it the cōmon censure (or opinion) of Papists. Which is not the same, with your former, because besides the common censure and opinion, there be often many or diuers o [...]hers, and not condemned. Secondly M. Doctor, in your first assertion, you make it only the assumption of Priests, to make them only worthy of death, here you cal it the common censure of Papists, making Papists, not Priests, as deepe in these positions as Priests, and so worthy of equal punishment. Then Sir I pray you, how doth this agree with your late Preamble, where you Morton Pre­amble pag. 36. haue these wordes? I write against our aduersaries (Papists or Priests) but not without note of difference and distinction, being D. Morton con­demneth [...]is owne positi­ons, and false accusation of Catholikes. verily perswaded that diuers euen of the zealous amongst them, doe abhorre such doctrines and practizes, as haue beene discouered in the cases of rebellion and equinocation. Now Sir, here you ex­cuse diuers euen of the zealous of our religion, then generally your doctrine is not true, and your latter interpretation of Pa­pists common censure, is like to be as false.

And to make euident demonstration againe, that you haue ouerthrowne your expresse dogmatical principles, in the cited place of your Preamble, you note in the margine in these wordes: A difference of Romish Professors, concerning the case Preamble pag. 36. in marg. of rebellion. Therefore seing you are a Doctor, and wil speake like a Scholler, only calling them Professors, or Romish Profes­sors, which be Doctors, Priests, and Diuines, as the manner of speaking is, you doe exclude diuers Romish Professors, from holding those opinions which you cal expresse dogmatical prin­ciples, which be such (as before) that no Professor may deny them. Therefore your expresse dogmatical principles by your owne sentence are expresly ouerthrowne. And M. Doctor, further if that assumption were your Antecedent▪ you haue com­mitted two other errours in your citation; first you leaue out the word (al) which altereth the proposition: secondly, you haue clipped away these wordes (and excommunicate:) in which by your owne interpretation, the force of al consisted. For if men be Heretikes, and yet not excommunicate, or not so excommunicate, that they are to be depriued of ciuil socie­ties, and al your arguments be fallacies, and conclude nothing.

And this I demonstrate, by your owne Antecedent, ex­pounded by your selfe, which is in this manner: After you had in your positions set downe the assumption, of which I haue en­treated: in your first Syllogisme you expound it for your Ante­cedent thus, and in these wordes: They who by their slaunde­rous Romish posit, pag. 1. supr. doctrine make al Protestants (in their common censure Here­tikes) so odious and vnworthy of any ciuil or natural society, must necessarily be adiudged seditious and intollerable amongst the Protestants: This is your owne Antecedent M. Doctor, or your interpretation thereof, word for word: recited in the same place, where you named that general assumption. And imme­diately following the same, only with these conuecting wordes betweene them: Now then we may argue, first: after which fol­loweth Pag. 1. sup. your recited interpretation of your Antecedent, which you make the first proposition of your first Syllogisme; And then recite the second proposition thus: But the Romish Seminaries Supr. pag. 1. and Iesuites, doe brand al Protestants with detestable crimes: thereby to deny them al ciuil or natural respects: And imme­diately from hence you inferre your Ergo, or Conclusion. Now M. Doctor, let the world judge, whether your Antece­dent was, as in this place you cite it: (That Protestants in the Reply pag. 14. common censure of Papists are esteemed Heretikes) and in no other manner.

After this let vs come to his citation of my answere in this place: thus he alleageth it: His assumption being ruinate, that Reply pag. 14. supr. Protestants are not esteemed of vs Heretikes, or excommunicate: it followeth, that no p [...]sitions which we maintaine are rebelli [...]us: because he telleth vs, that al such are built vpon this assumption. Hitherto his citation from my answere: in which question I first desire al readers, to keepe in memory what interpretation D. Morton hath made of that Assumption before, and in what sence I did and was enforced by his owne exposition to an­swere, as is before declared.

Then I must further tel him, that besides that his corrupt dealing, he hath againe corrupted the wordes of my answere: for my position is, as followeth: This position (al Protestants Moderat. answ. cap. 2. [...]. where­fore. are Heretikes and excommunicate) is no general assumption in [Page 42] Catholike Religion. For al men in errour are not Heretikes, ex­cept they be obstinate as D. Morton is, as I haue proued euen by his owne fellowes in religion, the present Protestant wri­ters of England. Secondly, M. Doctor leaueth out the word (al) which changeth the nature of the proposition. Thirdly, (as he hath done in a former citation) he turneth the copulatiue proposition into a disiunctiue, altogether altering the sence and truth, of that which is questioned.

Next let vs heare what he answereth to that last citation, o­uerthrowing al his arguments at once: his wordes be these: Which (it followeth) wanteth feete to follow, because there be two Reply pag. 14. supr. other reasons to proue your doctrine rebellious. The first from the effects we see: the second from an other principle of doctrine, which you generally maintaine. Which he after expoundeth to be the Popes excommunications. Concerning these his two reasons, I Christian and modest offer, An. 1606. p. 19. Offer of cōfer. haue reasoned so much with him already, that his owne friends haue told him he doth pittifully shift off the matter in a late reply vnto the Papists. And so many other Protestants in England at this present, and of chiefe account, haue before condemned him. And himselfe being often charged, how I haue confuted him, in his late Preamble is so silent to deny it, that by his owne law and rules of arguing, he hath graunted victory. And to this passe he is also brought in this place, for he doth not deny but my consequent (that Priests and Catholikes be innocent, and his positions be slanders) doth follow vpon the ouerthrow of his Antecedent or Assumption; but he would finde an euasion by those other two reasons, already also confuted. Which how vnseeming a thing it is for a Doctor to write, I leaue to al young Schollers to teach him, that no new supply (yet those here be confuted) can make a former erroneous argument, or fallacy to be of force. Therfore there be feete, and legges also, to make this consequent to follow; Where the foundation is ouerthrowne; that which was builded vpon it, cannot stand. And if M. Doctor is so much decaied in his owne sences, that he cannot perceaue this, except he be also admonished of his brethren Protestants; the wordes of the Protestant Apologie of the oath of alleageance (so priuileged as before) be these: The ground failing, the buil­ding Apolog. pag. 82. [Page 47] cānot stand. Therefore, except Catholikes and Protestants be deceaued by their sences, except a building can be without foundation; an effect without a cause; a consequent, when the an­tecedent is not; a Syllogisme without a medium: two things con­nected or seperated in a third, where there neither is any such connection or seperation, or any third at al, to joyne or diuide them, (al which be things vnpossible) al D. Mortons expresse dogmatical principles are vtterly ouerthrowne, and turned into expresse principal lies, falsyfications, and forgeries.

THe next place of my answere which D. Morton citeth in his reply, is foure leaues from the former, and alleaged by Moderat. ansvv. cap. 2. §. novv I wil. Reply cap. 7. pag. 16. him in these words: My answere is absolute before, that no lear­ned Catholike reputeth the Protestants, or any one Protestant of this Kingdome an Heretike. Hitherto the wordes of his citation: And to shew a little further, the integrity of this holy Prote­stant Doctor, both in this and other thinges of like nature be­fore, because the section of my answere from whence he would cite these wordes, is but briefe, and yet containeth the question betweene him and me, which he hath so often dissembled, and corrupted my writing to conceale it, I wil craue pardon to cite it word for word in this place, and it is as followeth.

Now I wil with breuity answere to his particular pretended rea­sons, Moderat. answ. cap. 2. §. now I wil. grounded vpon the general before confuted: And first to his Syllogisme, or rather Sophisme: the maior proposition whereof is al­ready ouerthrowne, and only requiring repetition, is as followeth: They who by their slanderous doctrine make al Protestants (in their common censure Heretikes) so odious and vnworthy of any ciuil or natural society, must necessarily be adiudged seditions, and intolle­rable among the Protestants: My answere is absolute before, that no learned Catholike so reputeth the Protestants, or any one Prote­stant of this Kingdome: but attributeth (or ought so to doe by his Catholik [...] duty to Prince, and affection to al English Pro­testants. religion) as much terrene honour, homage, duty, and loue, to our King, his Honourable Counsaile, and al in authority, in their degrees, and vnfained affection to the rest, as if they were [Page 42] [...] [Page 47] [...] [Page 42] [...] [Page 47] [...] [Page 48] of the same faith and profession in religion. Hitherto the whole section in my answere from whence D. Morton alleageth that, which he cited before in these wordes: My answere is absolute Reply supr. pag. 16. before, that no learned Catholike reputeth the Protestants, or any one Protestant of this Kingdome an Heretike. When we see, there is not any such sentence in my answere; but our question was this, whether in the doctrine of Catholikes al Protestants were made so odious and vnworthy of any ciuil or natural society: which he in his positions did set downe for his ground, and se­ing it so euidently confuted, is forced to such corruptions, to conceale and dissemble the question, and the wordes of my answere to his confusion.

But yet he wil not amend, for in the next citation from my Reply pag. 17. answere, whereas in true dealing it should proue (as my answere there doth) that the Protestants themselues as much cōdemne Protestants, as Catholikes doe, and so make (by D. Mortons argument) Protestants intollerable among Protestants, and in the same condition with Priests & Iesuites among Protestants in his opinion: This Doctor not willing to vnder-goe the in­conueniences of his owne disputing, and positions, being per­fectly instructed and practized for his aduantage, in the Arts of contraction, dilatation, amplification, diminution, alteration, subtraction, corruption, falsyfication, and other vndoctor like behauiours, vseth his cunning of contraction in this place; for that which in my answere consisted of aboue 20. lines, he in his citation by his omnipotent faculty of penetration, hath couched and condensed in foure lines, one word, and an halfe: and yet vseth no abridgement at al, but skippeth it ouer, and moueth from bound to bound without passing by the middle. And that The Protestant Deane & Col­lege of Tubinge Reply pag. 17. §. that which. which he citeth being of a learned Protestant Deane and Col­lege among them, he answereth in these wordes: Protestants w [...]ting in op­position, not much to be re­garded, by D. Mortōs judge­ment. That which they did in the spirit of opposition and contention, is not much to be regarded. I thanke you M. Doctor, for this your sincere dealing, though but little; for if that is not much to be regar­ded, which Protestants and of such credit among you, as Philippus Nicholaus and the College of Tubinge, did in the spi­rit of opposition and contention; it is not much, but very little, [Page 49] or nothing to be regarded, what your Doctorship endued with a spirit of opposition, and contention to Catholikes, P [...]ote­stants, and your selfe also, (as hath beene proued) haue done or published in your writings.

NEither is D. Mortons contracting and penetrating art for­gotten in his next citation, nor his corrupt and prophane dealing any thing at al amended: for first he hath drawne my section of 23. lines, into three lines, and an halfe: And to giue some experi [...]nt thereof, he only citeth from my answere, concerning M. H. Broughton his dislike of English Protestant proceedings, these wordes: Who telleth the Bishops of England that their translation of the Scripture is corrupt, and that Chri­stianity is deuied here in England. Hitherto his citation, in which there is no mention, what and how great this corruption, nei­ther who they be, which thus deny Christianity, but a man would by such citation rather thinke they were some few vp­st [...]t Atheists or nullifidians, rather then chiefe Protestant Pro­fessors: But to make the matter and this mans sincerity some­what more manifest, I wil recite some of the assertions of this great Linguist & learned Protestant, set downe in my answere, and forgotten by D. Morton: which follow in this manner.

The English (Protestant) translation of Scriptures is such, Moderat. answ. cap. 2. §. I wil. H. Brough. ad­uertis. of cor­rupt. An. 1604. that it causeth millions of millions to reiect the new Testament, and to runne to eternal flames, the text of the old Testament is peruerted in eight hundred and eight and fourty places. The Archbishop of Canterbury might with as good learning haue subscribed to the Alcaron, as consent with such Protestants as he did. Christianity denied in England by publike autho­rity. The Bishops betray the Ghospel to the Iewes, and agree with the enimies of our Lord. Their Bible is inferiour to the Alcaron. The Bishops notes betray our Lord and redeemer, and befoule the Rocke of saluation. They are the very poison to al the Ghospel, &c.

Now M. Doctor, you may see your sincerity and integrity, vpon which you stand so much, by the difference there is be­tweene the citation you vsed, and that which I haue here re­peated from my Answere, and the Aduertisement of this your Morton reply pag. 18. learned friend, and companion in religion, and so much com­mended by your selfe in this place.

Secondly, tel me M. Doctor; of what religion you are, a D. Morton his Religion most wicked or none by his argumēt Protestant, or of none at al? or what you would be esteemed? for Atheisme or some strange kinde of Infidelity may seeme by your writing (presently to be recited) to be your profession. For first, you affirme of this Aduertiser and condemner of your Bi­ble, and Religion to be worse then the Alcaron, and (conse­quently) Turcisme, these wordes: that he is sequestred from you, (the English Protestants) rather by impotency of passion, then a­ny difference in religion. By which sentence, except you wil deale plainly and say both he and you be of a most wicked and lying religion, which and more you graunt in effect: (because true religion cānot write so slaunderously of true religion, as he hath done of English Protestancy, which you practise;) you haue graunted these and more absurdities against your self: that Bible which you vse, and Religion which you professe, are worse then the Alcaron and Turcisme; you deny Christianity; betray the Ghospel; agree with the enimies of our Lord, &c. for these and more straunge things are affirmed of your religion, by that your Protestant, and so much esteemed friend.

Thirdly, tel me M. Doctor, with what species or kinde of qua­lity, Protestant pas­sions of what vehemency. your wit & judgement was possessed, when you wrote these thinges? were you in a passion, habite, power, forme? or what? be the passions of Protestants so great, so large, so long, of such force & efficacy, that they doe not only endure a short moment and passe away (as true passions doe;) but dwel, inhibite, and continue with you, in thinking, writing, printing, and publish­ing of bookes, and booke vpon booke, (as is knowne of that your beloued Protestant brother) and al and euer condemning your religion as I haue recited? Therefore, sincere and learned Sir, if this man and you be of one religion (as you say) and you a Protestant, you and your Protestancy are absolutely guilty of most horrible Infidelity. Againe, if Protestant impotency of [Page 51] passion is such, of that extremity and duration, that you know not, or care not, what you speake, write, or publish, we may lesse meruaile at what you haue written: and nothing regard what you doe hereafter.

In your next citation, you haue practized againe your former contracting faculty, drawing 23. lines into fiue, and one word. That which you cite is contained and repeated by you in these wordes: That no man, in whom there is any sparke of grace or con­science, Morton reply pag. 19. can liue in the Church of England, whose inhabitants be al Infidels, going to the Churches of Bishops and Archbishops, whose Gouernement is Antichristian and Deuilish. Hitherto D. Mor­tons citation. But Sir, why did you forget that which followeth Moderat. answ. cap. 2. §. The Admonition. Admonit. 2. p. 25. 33. suppl. vers. 56. in the same place, from the same admonishing Protestant au­thority, and is in these tearmes: Antichrist is among them. It is traiterous against the Maiesty of Christ. It is accursed. It is an vnlawful, false, and bastardly Gouernement. It shal be easier for Sodome and Gomorrhe in the day of iudgement, then for the Court of Parliament, where the Protestant Religion was confirmed: there D. Morton and Protestant wri­ters (by his ar­gument) more intollerable in England, then Priests & lesuits is no right Religion established in England. Hitherto that Pro­testant testimony of the English Protestant Church & religion: Then M. Doctor tel me, what Catholike euer did, or can more condemne you and your religion, then these Protestants haue done, and then your selfe haue done and doe, joyning with these men in religion. Then by your argument Mort. reply pag. 18. Barl. ag. a nam. Cath. p. 115 120. Doue persw. pag. 31. Sute. ag. Keliis. pag. 42. D. Field p. 170. D. Abbot ag. D. [...]il p. 101. 102. 106. 2 [...]6. 237. 347. Willet Antileg. p. 275. Wo [...]ton def. of. P [...]rk. p. 28. Mid­dleton papisto. p. 201. Powel Cōlid. p 17. ag. an Apologe [...]i­cal epist. p. 48. 52. Abridge­ment pag. 39. your selfe, Bishop Barlow, Bishop Doue, D. Sutcliffe, D. Field, D. Goerge Abbot, D. Willet the Professor, M. Wotton, M. Powel, the Authour of the Protestant Abridgement, and other Protestants in England, at this present publike writers among you, (as your writings t [...]stifie) being of the same religion with these men, which cōdemne Protestant English religion for so vile a thing, are as vnsufferable (and more by your doctrine) in this Prote­stant Kingdome and Gouernement, as any Catholike Priest or Iesuite. And you with al the rest recited, and others are voide of any sparke of grace or conscience, are Infidels, liue in a Deuilish Gouernement of religion, are traiterous against the Ma­iesty of Christ, haue no right Religion, &c. These and more such inconueniences, you M. Doctor a chiefe Apologist and champion for the English Protestant Church, haue heaped vp­on [Page 52] your owne heades, by your worthy writing.

Neither are you either more free from corruption, or a more prudent disputer in that which followeth: for in the next cita­tion, whereas I taxed D. Fulke and M. Willet for their straunge doctrine, that Christ is Autotheos, God of himselfe, thus you alleage my opinion: The denial of Christ to be God, which Reply pag. 19. 20. M. Willet and D. Fulke d [...]e, denying Christ to haue receaued the substance of his Father: or that he is Deus de Deo; God of God▪ as the first general Councels defined. Which citation first hath no sence, not being any perfect sentence, as is mani­f [...]st, in that manner as it is here cited. Secondly, I am cited to write, that M. Willet and D. Fulke doe deny Christ to be God: Moderat. answ. c. 2. [...]. there­fore first. when my wordes be only these: Philippus Nicholaus a learned Protestant Minister, and the Protestant Deane and College of Tubinge, bring in Luther pr [...]phesying (as he calleth it) that the Sacrame [...]taries would neuer cease, vntil they denied Christ to be God, which M. Willet and D. Fulke, and others haue almost fully effected, denying Christo to haue receaued his substance of his Father, or that he is Deus de Deo, God of God, as the first general Councels haue defined. Where I doe not say (as D. Mor­ton citeth me) that M. Willet and D. Fulke doe deny Christ to be God; but only th [...]s, that they haue almost fully effected it. Which doth not affirme the thing done, but almost done. Thirdly, he citeth me to say: Christ receaued the substance of his Father: when my wordes be: receaued his (that is his owne) substance of his Father. So that if it were in ordinary procee­dings, the question is therby quite altered, by this his alteration.

Now let vs come to the learn [...]d Diuinit [...] of these positions: Christ is God of himselfe: Christ hath his essen [...]e of himselfe, D. Morton an Infidel by his doctrine. and not of his Father, &c. as these Protestants tel vs: (for con­cerning D. Mortons vsage towardes Cardinal Bellarmine, he hath heard sufficiently from his [...]ther aduersary:) wherefore briefly thus I argue in this question.

If Christ hath only his Person, and not his substance of his Father, but this essentially of himselfe, as these Protestants affirme: Then the person and substance in Christ must needes be essentially and really diuers; because that which is essen­tially receaued, and that which is not receaued, but one hath [Page 53] it of himselfe, must needes be really distinct: But this de­stroieth the mistery of the Trinity, and the nature of God, making real composition in God, most simple; and further proueth three Gods: because there must needes be three di­stinct essences, which maketh three Gods. For if the Sonne hath his essence of himselfe, then the holy Ghost also, then euery person aswel that of the Father, the Sonne, and holy Gh [...]st being distinct really, and hauing essences thus really distinct, they make three Gods.

Secondly, because wheresoeuer there is a substance in God, there is a person, (which is not really distinguished from one another;) by this diuinity it must needes follow, that there is no generation, no procession, and consequently no Father be­getting, no Sonne begotten, no holy Ghost proceeding: And so againe either three Gods, or no God at al.

Thirdly, howsoeuer the case standeth by their doctrine; that God vvhich these Protestants haue made, must be such an aggregatum per accidens, that no Infidels in the world were at any time greater Idolaters, then those Christians, which wor­ship such a God, which be these Protestants. And because D. Morton hath Diuinity of as straunge a nature, in an other place of his writings; which is, that Pater est trinus v [...]us: Th [...] Morton 1. part. Apolog. concl. in fine. Father is three and one: Thus I must instruct him of this matter: if that position is true, then seing in this mistery there is only essence and persons, the Father must needes be either three persons and one essence, or three essences and one person. If the first, then there is no person of the Sonne, or of the holy Ghost: because the Father is supposed by this doctrine to haue three, and in the whole Trinity there neither be, nor can be more, for so it should not be a Trinity, but a Quadruplity, Quinquplity, Sexuphty, and except we should likewise diuide them into their Triplicities, and make 9. persons in Diuinity.

If D. Morton meaneth the second, of one person, and three essences, or substances, in the Father; then the Father himselfe must needes be three Gods, because the substance is not many, except the things (in this case Gods) be many: Then seing there is equality in this mistery, and the Sonne and holy Ghost be equal to the Father, there must n [...]edes be 9. Gods, by the Di­uinity [Page 54] of this learned Doctor. And other absurde inferences which may be demonstratiuely made from hence are too many irreligious, vnchristian or Athe [...]stical to bee published in writing.

After this M. Doctor reboundeth backe againe two leaues Reply pag. 23. at the least; and in his citation vseth his old art of penetration, condensing 40. lines in 14. And yet the contents is of that Reply p. 23. 24. force and efficacy, that by his owne judgement, it stoppeth the clamours of Protestants against Catholike Priests: And yet in these few lines his sincere dealing is in this manner; In the first three lines he maketh none or a defectiue sence. In the fourth and fift he citeth me to say: We doe not esteeme the Protestants Reply pag. 23. of England in the case of Heretikes: where he quite leaueth out the substantial point of the question, that is, Heretikes to whom al ciuil society is to be denied, as D. Morton objected: where­vpon my answere and wordes be: These societies are not to be Moderat. answ. 6. 2. §. the rest. denied to the Protestants of England, because we doe not esteeme them in that case of Heretikes and excommunicates. Besides this, he quite omitteth the chiefest reasons of that section; And yet that which he citeth is of such effect and purpose, that it enfor­ceth him to these wordes, to his owne confusion: If al your sect would allow your answere, we should neede no clamour. There­fore seing my answere is so generally allowed, as is shewed be­fore, and this man is not ignorant thereof, al his clamours in his Positious, his counterfaite Ful satisfaction, his Preamble to a further Encounter, and the Encounter it selfe (if it proue not an Abortiue) are needlesse clamours, and with the shame of this Doctor, and such Protestant accusers, to be recalled and re­ca [...]ted.

And thus I haue passed ouer al his citations, which I pro­mised to examine, only one the last consisting but of three lines, excepted: And to justifie my former assertion, that they be al more or lesse corrupted, this also leaueth out the chiefest Reply pag. 25. and most effectual wordes: (In whose Dominions they be in force) in which a great efficacy of the sentence consisted. So that without any one exception, he hath corrupted and falsi­fied my answere in euery citation, in defence of his first Syllo­gisme, which he planted as the ground and foundation of al.

And as I haue clearely demonstrated in euery one of these [...]itations, his ignorance, corruption, falsyfication, or prophane proceedings: So it is as easie to proceede to the end of his re­ply: And I shal remaine most ready and willing (if it be requi­red) to proue or defend against him, that not the fourth part of those which follow, for defence of his Syllogismes, are free from corruption or shameful vsage: But these are more then suf­ficient, to proue this Doctor guilty of the crimes objected.