A preamble vnto an incounter with P.R. the author of the deceitfull treatise of mitigation concerning the Romish doctrine both in question of rebellion and aequiuocation: by Thomas Morton. Published by authoritie.

A Satisfaction to his first demand in a particular instance of a noble Falsificator on his side.

§ 15.

66 P. R. requireth an example of Any one, who hath been found so grosly false, that in the eie of man hee may not be acquitted either by Ignorance of translation, &c. Which demand if it proceed from vnfeinednesse, it seemeth vnto mee so intolerably reasonable, that now I am driuen to a twofold trouble in yeelding satisfaction; the one is that I know not with what one to begin first, the falsificators be so many: the second is, when I shal begin with any choice one, how to make an end, so manifold are their falsifications. Therfore in respect of the falsifiers I would require of P. R. to propound vnto mee any one of his Doctours, in whom hee hath best assurance of integritie, whether Greg. de Valentia, Stapleton, Bellarmine, Coccius, Suarez, Turrian, Campian, Gretzer, Fuerdentius, the Remish Translat. in their Annotations: or any, I say, of those which haue beene publikely authorised of their Chruch, and I will not doubt but to giue him thrice three examples of their fraud. In the meane time I thinke it requisite to single out of all such an one as is commended of all: to wit, Cardinall Bel∣larmine, that P. R. may not repine, saying: hee hath chosen a Dauid the least in his fathers house: but confesse that I haue preferred a Saul, one higher by the head and shoulders than any of the rest: not a dead man, who cannot interpret his own meaning, whether he had falsified vpon ignorance, negligence, &c. but one, which now liuing is able to answer for himselfe, whose credit P. R. doth tender, and with whom he may con∣sult to know whether I do him iniury or no. Now to the point.

First, examples of such kinde of falsities in wilfull slanders, whereof Cardinall Bellarmine hath beene guilty, as will ap∣peare euen by the euidence of his owne confession.

67 Let P. R. for a while take Cardinall Bellarmine into secret

confession, and first aske him with what conscience hee hath charged Caluin with the heresie of the1 1.1 Pelagians, who denied that there was any originall sinne in infants, especially in the chil∣dren of faithfull Christians? For as hee could not bee ignorant 2 1.2 That this doctrine of denying originall sinne was (as their owne L. Iesuite confesseth) the proper heresie of the Pelagians. And not so only, but saith furthermore that3 1.3 Caluin and all other Protestants are so far from denying originall sinne, that they doe monstrously extend the nature thereof euen vnto persons regenerat. I let passe a dozen such criminations cast by him vpon Prote∣stants, which by the testimonies of his owne Doctors may be prooued to haue beene lewd and intolerable slanders. I insist now only vpon such his confessions, whereby it may appeare he hath been, in his iniuries against his Aduersaries, the greatest Aduersary to his owne conscience.

68 First he maketh Protestants guilty of the heresie of4 1.4 The Nouatians, in taking from the Church all power of reconciling men vnto God. When as his own Authors note that,5 1.5 The heresie of the Nouatians was this, viz. to deny any man, who should sin after baptisme, all hope of remission of sins, although he should repent. Yea and also Bellarmine himself in behalfe of Protestants confesseth else-where that6 1.6 They require repentance and faith in Christi∣ans,

that they may be iustified and obtaine remission of sinnes. Nor this only, but7 1.7 There is no difference betweene vs (saith he) and Protestants about repentance as it is a conuersion vnto God with detestation of sin, or as it consisteth in outward signes of sorrow, wee∣ping, confession, and outward chastisements, yea and almost all of them allow an outward rite of absolution. But the only controuersie betweene vs is, whether Penance bee properly a Sacrament. The contradiction is this, to impute vnto Protestants an heresie which taketh away all maner of Repentance and hope of remis∣sion for sin past, and yet to acknowledge in them a contrary or∣thodoxall truth, which is, to professe a necessity of Repentance, and reconciliation and remission of sinnes.

69 Againe, he attributeth vnto Caluin the heresie of the Ma∣nicheis, 8 1.8 Who (saith he) did condemne the nature of men, depri∣uing them of freewill, and ascribing the originall and beginning of sin vnto the nature of man, and not vnto his freewill. Seeing hee hath himselfe obserued that,9 1.9 Caluine teacheth that man in his first creation had freewill, whereby in his integrity he might, if hee would, haue attained vnto eternall life. This contradiction in this point is no more than this, to charge Caluin with that which he did not beleeue. Is not this singular falshood? and yet be∣hold a more notable than this.

70 He accuseth M. Bullinger of10 1.10 Arianisme, because of this sentence [Tres sunt, non statu sed gradu, &c.] Notwithstanding hee knew this was the very sentence of11 1.11 Tertullian. And is

therefore else-where expounded as orthodoxall and iustifiable by12 1.12 himselfe.

71 Though P R. require but three examples of falshood, yet may I not enuie him a further choice, because I know not the curiositie of his palate. Therefore let him againe consult with Cardinall Bellar. in another taxation of Protestants, saying in one place that,13 1.13 They teach that the soules of faithfull men depar∣ting this life doe not goe directly vnto heauen. In another place he himselfe together with his fellow Iesuite haue publikely recor∣ded that it is a common14 1.14 Obiection of Protestants proouing from Scriptures against the doctrine of Purgatory, that the soules of the faithfull presently after death goe directly vnto heauen.

72 He resteth not heere, but once againe challengeth15 1.15 Cal∣uine for (as he calleth it) an ancient heresie alleged by Theodoret, affirming, that there is only a figure of Christs body in the Eucha∣rist. And yet in another place affirming both16 1.16 That that opi∣nion is not ancient, nor yet now to be found in Theodoret, and also that,17 1.17 The foresaid doctrine of Caluine doth teach that in the

Eucharist there is to be exhibited vnto the faithfull not only a signe of Christs body, but also the body and blood it selfe by which mens soules are nourished vnto eternall life. Or as another Iesuit testi∣fieth for Caluine,18 1.18 That our soules communicate with the body of Christ substantially. Heere is no more oddes in this accusati∣on, than ancient and not ancient, heresie and not heresie. All these contradictions do certainly euince that he hath by pub∣like imputations slandered those, whom in his conscience hee did acquit. And shall we thinke that his conscience could bee sincere in alleging other mens testimonies and witnesses,* 1.19 who is found thus perfidiously vniust in exhibiting his owne? I spare to produce multitudes of this kind which I haue in store, and will be a debter to P. R. for many of this sort, ready to pay my debt as soone as this my promise shall be exacted.

Notes

• 1 1.1

  Pelagiani docebant non esse in homi∣nibus pecca∣tum origina∣le, & praeci∣puè in filijs fi∣delium. Idem docent Cal∣uinus & Buce∣rus, &c. Bellar. lib. 4. de Eccl. milit. c. 9. §. Pelagiani.
• 2 1.2

  Hic propri∣us erat Pela∣gianorum er∣ror, negare peccatum o∣riginale esse haereditariam naturae nostrae corruptionē. Greg Val. Jes. lib. De orig. pet. c. 2. in initio.
• 3 1.3

  Caluinus & Lutherus, caeteri{que} Protestantes adeò non negârunt originale peccatum, vt illud prodi∣giosis loquendi modis exagitant, etiam in renatis manere dicunt, &c. Idem Ib. cap. 8. & in Tom. 2. disp. 6. q. 11. punct. 1. §. Quam quaestionem.
• 4 1.4

  Nouatianorum error prae∣cipuus erat, non esse in Ecclesia potestatem reconciliandi homines, nisi per baptismum: Posteà etiam addiderunt, non debere baptizatos inungi chrismate ab Episcopis. Calui∣nus negat vllum esse Sacramentum poenitentiae praeter Baptisma, Lutherus Poenitenti∣am reijcit. Bellar. l. 4. De not. Eccle. cap. 9. §. Nouatianorum.
• 5 1.5

  Nouatianorum haeresis peccantibus omnem poenitentiae virtutem tollit, dicens eos, qui semel post Baptismum lapsi sunt, nunquam posteà consequi remissionem peccatorum, etiamsi eos poeniteat. Alphon. De castro. lib. 12. haeres. 3. tit. Poenitentia. Omne peccatum lethale post Baptis∣mum commissum irremissibile censuerunt. Vega. l. 13. de Justif. c. 2. pag. 486. In Ioh. 5. 4. Dixit Christus, Noliampliùs peccare, nè deterius aliquid tibi contingat. Ex quo lo∣co probat Pacianus contra Nouatianos, non negandam esse poenitentibus veniam, nec enim dixisse Christum iam noli peccare, quia non sanaberis iterùm, sed, nè deterius a∣liquid tibi contingat. Maldonat. Jes. Comm. in ••um locum Joh.
• 6 1.6

  Dicunt Protestantes in Christianis post Baptismum requiri fidem & poenitentiam, vt iustificentur & remissio∣nem consequantur. Bellar. lib. 3. de Justif. cap. 6, & saepè aliâs.
• 7 1.7

  Non de quauis poeni∣tentia inter nos & Prote∣stantes con∣trouersia ha∣betur, potest enim vera poenitentia vel in sola mentis con∣uersione, at{que} interna pec∣cati detesta∣tione consi∣stere, vel in externis sig∣nis, vt moero∣re, lachrymis, confessione, corporis affli∣ctatione se prodere, ne{que} de hac re vlla est contro∣uersia. Ipsi ad∣uersarij Cal∣uinus & Chē∣nitius opera externa labo∣riosa, vt signa verae poenitentiae internae non reijciunt. Deindè absolutionis ritum aliquem fere om∣nes agnoscunt. Sed hic est status controuersiae, vtrùm poenitentia signis externis mani∣festata, accedente ad eam verbo absolutionis, sit Sacramentum propriè dictum. Bellar. lib. 1. de Poenit. cap. 8. §. Vt igitur.
• 8 1.8

  Manichaeorum est (inquit Hieronym.) hominum damnare naturam, & hominum auferre arbitrium, & peccatorum originem non tribu∣unt Manichaei libero arbitrio, inquit Augustinus. Idem Calunius. Bellar. l. 4. de Not. Ec∣cles. cap. 9. §. 8. Manichaeorum.
• 9 1.9

  Iohannes Calunius docet quòd in initio homo habu∣erit liberum arbitrium, nunc non habet. In hac integritate (inquit) libero pollebat ho∣mo arbitrio, quo, si vellet, adipisci posset vitam aeternam. Bellar. l. 1. degrat. primi homi∣nis. §. in eodem principio.
• 10 1.10

  Henricum Bullingerum non puduit scribere tres esse in diuinitate personas non statu sed gradu, non substantiâ sed formâ, non potestate sed spe∣cie differentes. Certè personas gradu, formâ, specie differentes, vix Ariani ipsi dicere ausi essent. Bellar. praef. in Contro. de Christo. §. Henricum.
• 11 1.11

  Sic scribit Tertullianus in libro aduersus Praxeam, Tres sunt non statu sed gradu, non substantiâ sed formâ, non pote∣state sed spe∣cie. Greg. Val. Jes. lib. de vinit. & Trinit. c. 9.
• 12 1.12

  Tertullia∣nus in libro aduersus Pra∣xeam cùm di∣xit filium di∣stingui à Pa∣tre non statu sed gradu, per gradum intel∣ligit ordinem personarum. Bellar. l. 1. de Christo, c. 10. §. Respondeo secundum.
• 13 1.13

  Secundùm errorem Cal∣uinistarum (speaking of a Christian soule departing this life) non ad Deum ibat, sed ad inferos, aut alium locum extra coelū, vbi non magis Deus est, quàm hic nobiscum. Bellar. l. 1. de Beat Sanct. cap. 4. paulo post initium.
• 14 1.14

  Octaua obiectio (answering to the obiection of Protestants) sumitur ex 2. Cor. 5. [Si domus terrena nostrae habitationis dissoluitur, habemus domum non manu factam in coelis] rectâ igitur post mortem sinè Purgatorio pij homines transferuntur in coelum. Respondeo &c. Bellar. l. 1. de Imag. c. 8. §. Octaua obiectio. And Obijciunt nobis Prote∣stantes loca Scripturarum & Patrum, in quibus duplex status eorum, qui moriuntur, sig∣nificatur, impiorum in supplicium aeternum, & iustorum in vitam aeternam. Deinde hu∣iusmodi loca Scripturarum vrgent, quibus determinatè significari videtur, eos qui ex hac vita discedunt in statu gratiae statim recipi ad beatitudinem. vt Apoc. 14. Beati qui mori∣untur in Domino, requiescunt à laboribus: Si (inquiunt) omnes beati, tùm nulli in Pur∣gatorij cruciatibus continentur. Greg. Valent. de Purg. c. 8. and the Rhemish Annot in Apoc. 14. 13.
• 15 1.15

  Quidam antiqui haeretici fuerunt, qui negabant Eucharist••am esse veram car∣nem Christi, & tantùm esse volebant signum & imaginem corporis Christi. Hanc haere∣sin refert Theodoretus, eandem docent hoc tempore Zuinglius, Caluines. Bellar. l. 4. de not. Eccl. c. 9. ad finem.
• 16 1.16

  Quae sententia citatur à Theodoreto in Dialogo, vbi tamen nunc non habetur. Sed nè glorientur Caluinistae sententiam suam valdè antiquam esse, illud est obseruandum, antiquissimos illos haereticos non tàm sacramentum Eucharistiae, quàm mysterium incarnationis oppugnâsse. Bellar. l. 1. de Euchar. c. 1. in initio.
• 17 1.17

  Docet Caluinus symbola & corpus Christi, licèt inter se loco plurimùm distent, tamen con∣iuncta esse non solùm ratione signi, quia vnum est signum alterius, sed etiam quia vnà cùm signo Deus exhibet verum Christi corpus & sanguinem, quo animae nostrae alan∣tur ad vitam aeternam. Bellar. ib. §. Secundò docet.
• 18 1.18

  Docet Cal∣uinus corpus Christi ab a∣nimis nostris in Euchari∣stia substan∣tialiter com∣municari.
• * 1.19

  Greg. Valent. Jes. tom. 4. disp. 6. q. 3. punct. 1. §. Item.