THE FIRST Obiection against Cardinall Bellarmine → , of fals• imputation of the Pelagian-heresy to Protestants. §. VII.
*LET P. R. (saith •e) for a while take Cardinall ← Bellarmine → into secret confession, and first aske him,* with what conscience he hath charged Caluin with the heresy of the Pelagiās, who denyed that there was any originall sinne in Infants, especially in the children of faith∣full Christians? For he could not be ignorant, 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, that Caluin and all other Protestants are so farre from denying originall sinne, that they do monstrously extend the nature therof, euen vnto persons regenerate. This is the charge, which he pre∣tendeth (as you see) to proue, that Gregorius de Valentia (whome it pleaseth him to stile heere L. Page 153•esuite, though I know not why) disagreeth from •ellarmine in ascribing the Pelagian heresie, about ori∣•inal sin, to Calui•. Wherto I answere, first, that it is well, that M. Morton permitteth Cardinall ← Bellarmine → to •e demaunded his faults in secret confession: but •imselfe, who I presume scarce goeth to any se∣•ret con•ession at all, must be driuen to confesse his •aults in publike, with greater worldly shame, as in •his place. Who would not thinke, that after the ••ate of the question so often set downe,* and so ma∣•y bragging promises made on his part to produce •reat matters against ← Bellarmine → , he would not haue •ene ashamed to come forth now with this poore & idle obiection in the very first front of his charge, wherin if all should be granted to him, that he •biecteth, to wit, that ← Bellarmine → and Valentia had not •ully agreed in charging Caluin with the Pelagian he∣•esy about originall sinne; yet doth not this inferre willfull vntruth in either of them. For it might haue bene onely difference of iudgments, in vnder∣standing differently the doctrine of Caluin, ech man persuading himselfe, that he had vnderstood him rightly, and so still nothing had bene brought to his purpose of witting and willfull vntruthes knowne to the vtterer to be such. And is not this then mere trifling?
•9. But now the matter standeth not so well: for that there is no contradiction at all betweene ← Bellarmine → and Valentia,* as presently shalbe shewed. And M. Morton doth guil•ully corrupt them both to make them seeme cōtrary. And l•t the Reader looke vpon it, and know him and his cause by these tricks; who to frame some shew of fa•shod in others, where none is, vseth the same intolerably himselfe.
60. The Reader then must know, that Cardinall ← Bellarmine → in the 9. Chapter of his fourth Booke de Page 154 Ecclesia,* handling the notes of the Church (which booke and Chapter are heere cyted by M. Morton) ta∣king vpon him to shew, that one principall note of the Church is, to agree in doctrine with the an∣cient Fathers from time to time, and of the con∣trary false Church, to participate with heretikes; he recounteth twenty seuerall heads of heresies held by twenty different Heresiarches, with sundry bran∣ches therunto belongi•g, condemned by the anci∣ent Christian Church, which also are defended by the Protestāts of our time, some more and some lesse.
61. And this h• proueth so substātially, as nothing in effect can be said against it: which M. Morton ha∣uing perused, and desirous to picke some matter a∣gainst him, that might seeme to haue some shew of probability, he beginneth with the Pelagians, as you haue heard, which is the fourtenth old condemned heresy, shewed by ← Bellarmine → to be reuiued againe in diuers points by Protestants, thinking best to ouer∣skip thirteene at on leap. As for example,* wheras the Pelagians did hold two principall heresies among o∣ther, saith ← Bellarmine → , the one, That euery sinne though ne∣uer so little is mortall, & depriueth vs of Gods grace: That there is no originall sinne in man, especially in Infants of faith∣full parents,* he auerreth that the Protestants of our dayes do concurre in both points. In the first all ge∣nerally, that there is no sinne Veniall of his owne nature: in the second with some distinction, for that Zuinglius (•aith he) denieth Originall sinne in all, Caluin and Bucer in Christian Infants only. This is Cardinall Bellarmines assertion, his latin words be these.
62. Zuinglius negat simpliciter peccatum originale in quo∣libet homine, Bucerus autem & Caluinus solùm in filijs •i∣delium, quos dicunt sanctos nasci, & saluari etiam sine baptismo. Zuinglius doth absolutly deny originall sinne to be Page 155 in any man, but Bucer and Caluin do only deny the same in the children of the faithfull, whome they say to be borne Saints, and to be saued also with∣out baptisme. So as ← Bellarmine → is guilfully abu∣sed by M. Morton, in setting downe his opinion, as though he had said that Caluin had denyed with the Pelagians, that there is any originall synne at all in Infants, though lesse in the children of the faithfull, citing his latin wordes in the margent peruersely •hus: Pelagiani docebant non esse in hominibus peccatum ori∣•inale, & praecipuè in filijs fidelium, idem docent Caluinus & Bucerus.* The Pelagians did teach that there was not originall synne in men, and especially in the chil∣•ren of the faithfull, the same do teach Caluin & Bu∣•er. Thus he. Whereas he saith differently, as you •aue heard, that Caluin & Bucer denyed it only in the •hildren of the faithfull, granting it in the rest: and •his could not M. Mortō but see & know, & conse∣•uently is taken in a witting formall lye that know∣•th one thing & yet writeth the contary.
63. And herupon, wheras he willed me to aske of Cardinall ← Bellarmine → in secret Confession with what consci∣ence he had charged Caluin with the heresy of the Pelagians, •hat denyed originall synne in all men, I must aske him in open confession, with what conscience he could so •alsify ← Bellarmine → in making him to say that which he •id not: for that he doth not say also absolutly, that Caluin denieth all originall sinne in all Infants,* but only in the childrin of the faithfull, & this doth not the L. Iesuite Valentia any way contradict, as false∣ly heere is insinuated, that he doth; but rather to the contrary he expresly auouch•th the same, & this in the very place heere cited by M. Morton, saying: Zuinglio & Caluino visum est filios •idelium non contrahere peccatum originale; It seemed to Zuinglius and Caluin that the children of the faithfull do not cōtract originall Page 156 synne, and he quoteth the places where it is to be found in their workes: and the same he doth in his 4. Tome vpon S. Thomas,* ci•ing other places of Calui• where he houldeth the •ame doctrine. So as in this point ← Bellarmine → and Valentia haue no more contradi∣ction betweene them, then it pleaseth M. Morton to deuise of his owne head, and to publish in their names, contrary to their owne apparent wordes & meaning.
64. But he citeth a place of Valentia that may seeme to make to the contrary, where he saith:*Caluin and other Protestants are so farre o• from denying Originall sinne, that they do monstrously extend the nature therof, euen vnto per∣sons regenerate,* and for this he quoteth certayne pla∣ces o•Valen•ia (as he might also haue done diuers of ← Bellarmine → •or he relateth of Caluin the very same) and setteth downe the latin according to his owne En∣glish, though not a litle differing from the wordes of the Author: but that which most importeth, is, that he wittingly and deceiptfully abuseth the Rea∣der with this citation, as though Valentia did con∣tradict both himselfe and ← Bellarmine → ,* and said, That Caluin and Bucer were •arre of from denying Originall sinne in the children of the faithfull: Wheras he saith not so, but that, they do not absolutly deny all originall synne, as the Pela∣gians did, and as Zuinglius before is charged to haue done, togeather with the Anabaptistes, as Melancthon witnesseth, and before them agayne the Armenians, Albanenses, and others, but only denyed the same in the children of the faithfull, as hath beene said, and in the rest they graunted it: and not this only, but monstrously also do the said Caluin, Luther, and other Protestants extend the nature and guylt of originall synne, euē vnto such as are regenerate & christened, which is to be vnders•ood in that they hold, that the very motions of concupiscence called (fo∣•es) Page 157 are synnes in themselues, euen without the con∣•ent of our mindes, which is an other extreme op∣•osition to Catholicke doctryne, that teacheth these •otiōs not to be synnes at all, without some cōsent •ealded vnto them: but yet this assertion of Valentia•s not contrary, nor contradictory to that which •ardinall ← Bellarmine → , and himselfe affirmed before of •aluin; to wit, that with the Pelagians he holdeth •hat the Infāts of faithfull people are deuoyd of ori∣••nall synne, for that those motions of concupiscēce •hich he calleth originall synnes in Christians a∣••lt, are not in infants and therby he denyeth origi∣•all sinne in Christian Infants, and granteth it in ••em that be of age, in both which he is oppo∣••te to the Catholicke Church. Let M. Mort. see how 〈◊〉 can defend him from contradiction to himselfe, 〈◊〉 I haue defended Cardinall ← Bellarmine → , and Gregorius de •alentia.
•5. There remaineth then only to examine the •eason alleaged by M. Morton why Bellarmines charge •f Pelagianisme against Caluin could not be true,*for that•saith he) this doctrine o• denying originall sinne was the pro∣•er heresy of the Pelagians, out of which confession of •he L. Iesuite Valentia,*M. Morton would inferre, that •or so much as this was the proper heresy of the Pe∣••gians, therfore it could not be of the Protestants: •hich reason is so wise, as it can serue to nothing, •ut to make the reader laugh. For alb•it the Pela∣••ans were the peculiar Authors of this heresy; yet •ight the •ame be made cōmon by participation, & •o doth Valentia expresly say, that this heresy was •aken vp afterward both by the Arm•nians, Albanenses, Anabaptists, citing Castro and Melancthon for the same. So as to cite this reason or a proofe, that Caluin did not deny orgina•l synne in Infants, •or that our owne L. Iesuite Valentia doth say, that it was the Page 158 proper errours of the Pelagians (which yet are not his words but S. Augustines cited by him for the same) is as ridiculous an inference,* as if a man should say, it was the proper errour of Arius, and his fellowes in old time to deny the equality of the Sonne of God with his Father, ergo, it cannot be that the moderne Arians of Transiluania, and other places, do hould the same now: and it was the peculier doctrine of Be∣rengarius, and his adherents to deny the Reall Presence, ergo, the Protestants of England at this day cannot be charged with that doctrine. And doth not euery body see the vanity of this inference? Wherfore his conclusion is to be noted, I let passe (saith he) a doze• such criminations, cast by him vpon Protestants, which by the testimonies of his owne Doctors may be proued to haue byn lewd and intollerable slaunders. Wherto I answere, that hi∣therto he hath not beene able to shew any one: we shall see what he will say afterward. But in the meane space I leaue it to the modest Reader, to iudge where the lewdnesse doth remayne, if any be.
66. And to this consideration I add another, that wheras Cardinall ← Bellarmine → did charge Caluin, and Cal∣uinists with two principall errors of the Pelagians, the one, that which now hath bene handled, of denying Originall sinne in children, and Infants of the faith•ull,* and the second, of denying the difference of Veniall and Mortall sinnes, and holding that by euery least sinne we leese our iustice, and consequently that all sinne is mortall, ← Bellarmine → citing for the same the testimony of S. Hie∣rome, who ascribeth that for heresy vnto the Pelagi∣ans: and wheras in like manner he proueth the same heresy, not only to be held by Luther, and Melancthon, but also by Caluin in diuers parts of his workes, as lib. 2. Instit. cap. 8. §. 85. lib. 3. cap. 4. §. 28. &c. M. Morton taking vpō him to cleare Caluin in the former charge Page 159••out originall sinne, though so vnluckely as you ••ue heard, saith neuer a word against this second ••out the distinction of veniall and mortall sinnes;*•herby is •uident in all probability, that he admit∣••ed that for true, and consequently yealded secretly, ••at Caluinists do agree with the Pelagians in this he∣••sy, though he storme sharply as you haue heard a∣••inst ← Bellarmine for charging Caluin with any point 〈◊〉Pelagianisme at all. And this fraud or frailty he cō∣•itteth commonly in all the rest of the heresies ••iected, denying the one weakly, and by his silence ••anting the other, as now by experience you shall 〈◊〉.