A quiet and sober reckoning vvith M. Thomas Morton somewhat set in choler by his aduersary P.R. concerning certaine imputations of wilfull falsities obiected to the said T.M. in a treatise of P.R. intituled Of mitigation, some part wherof he hath lately attempted to answere in a large preamble to a more ample reioynder promised by him. But heere in the meane space the said imputations are iustified, and confirmed, & with much increase of new vntruthes on his part returned vpon him againe: so as finally the reconing being made, the verdict of the Angell, interpreted by Daniel, is verified of him. There is also adioyned a peece of a reckoning with Syr Edward Cooke, now L. Chief Iustice of the Co[m]mon Pleas, about a nihil dicit, & some other points vttered by him in two late preambles, to his sixt and seauenth partes of Reports.
Parsons, Robert, 1546-1610.
highlight hits: on | off

HIS SIXT, AND last obiection, against Cardinall Bellarmine → , for false imputation of the Sarcamētary heresie to Protestants. §. XII.

BELLARMINE → resteth not heere (saith he) but once againe challengeth Caluin,*for (as he caleth it) an ancient heresie alledged by Theodoret, affir∣ming, that there is only a figure of Christs body in the Eucharist. And yet * in another place affirming both, that, that opinion is not ancient, nor yet now to be found in Theodo∣ret; and also that the forsaid doctrine of Caluin 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 bloud it selfe, by which mens soules are nourished vnto eternall Page  177〈◊〉. Or as another Iesuite testifieth for Caluin, that our soles communicate with the body of Christ substantially.* Heer 〈◊〉 no more oddes in this accusation, then ancient, ••d not anciēt, heresy and not heresy. All these con∣•••dictions do certainly euince, that Bellarmine → hath 〈◊〉 publike imputations slandered those whome in 〈◊〉 conscience he did acquit.

And shall we thinke at this conscience could be sincere in alleadging her mens testimonies, & witnesses, who is found ••us perfidiously vniust in exhibiting his owne? I 〈◊〉 are to produce multitudes of this kind, which I ••ue in store, and will be a debtour to P.R. for ma∣•• of this sort, ready to pay my debt as soone 〈◊〉 this my promise shall be exacted. Thus farre M. ••rton,

••. And heere now I answere, that it is suffici∣••tly seene by the payment he hath already made, ••w ready or able he is to pay his debt for any thing ••omised against Cardinall Bellarmine → , whose estima∣••on is like to be highly increased, with all indiffe∣••nt men, by this assault, both for conscience, sincere ealing, and learning, and M. Morton greatly blemi∣••ed in them all: for that cōmonly no one instance ath he alleaged of fraud in his aduersarie, but with ome fraud in himselfe, & none perhaps with more thē in this sixt & last obiectiō in that kynd, concer∣ning the testimony of Teodoret for the Reall Presence,or that heere be so many foule faults & wilfull cor∣uptions, as truly after so many admonishments, if should vse the same, it would make me ashamed to ooke any man in the face.

96. He indeauoureth to frame a contradiction ••out of Bellarmine → in that he chargeth Caluin with an ancient heresy recorded by Theodoret, which heresy did affirme, that there is only a figure of Christes body in the Sacrament, and then will he proue out of Bellarmine → Page  178 himselfe for contradiction of this: first that the said heresy is not ancient:* then that it is not to be found at this day in Theodoret: thirdly that Caluin doth not deny the Reall Presence: and so he concludeth, as you haue heard, heere is no more oddes, then betweene an••••• and not ancient, heresy & not heresy. But if in all and euery one of these three poyntes M. Morton be conuinced wittingly to haue falsifyed, and that he could not but know that he did so, what excuse then will he make, or what will the discreete, and honest Rea∣der say, or thinke of him? Novv then to the parti∣culers.

*97. The charge which Cardinall Bellarmine → maketh vpon Zuinglius & Caluin (not Caluin only as M. Mort•• text importeth) is taken from the last of those 20. old heresies before signified to be obiected by the Car∣dinall to the Protestants of our time, in his booke of the Notes of the Church,* and by him is set downe in these wordes:

The twentith old heresie (saith Bellar∣mine) wherin the Protestants of our time do par∣ticipate with old heretickes, is of them, that denied the Eucharist to be truly the flesh of Christ, & would haue it to be the figure or image of the body of Christ. So it is related in the seauenth Generall Coū∣cell, and sixt Action, Tom. 3. and long before that Theodoret in his Dialogue, intituled, Impatibilis, doth relate the same out of S. Ignatius Scholler to the A∣postles.* And this heresy is taught in these our daies by Zuinglius in his Booke De verbis Coenae Domini, & by Caluin lib. 4. Instit. cap. 17. §. 12. And so we haue layd forth the heresies of 20. Archeretickes that were cō∣demned by the Church within the first seauen hun∣dred yeares after Christ, which heresies being ••l∣den by vs for such, and by our Aduersaries for 〈◊〉 articles of their faith, it followeth that our doctrine doth agree with the doctrine of the ancient Church Page  179••d the doctrine of our aduersaries with the anci∣••t heresies.
So he.

••. And this is Cardinall Bellarmines charge. Let ••e Reader now marke how brokēly it is set downe 〈◊〉M. Morton.* For first he mentioneth only Caluin to 〈◊〉 challenged for this last heresy of the Sacramenta∣es against the Reall Presence (as now I haue said) auing out Zuinglius, who is equally charged by the ••rdinall for the same thing, which is one tricke. hen he omitteth wholy the mention of the 7. Ge∣••rall Coūcell, which so long agoe related & confu∣••d the said heresy, & this is another tricke. Further∣ore he cōcealeth in like māner the name & autho∣••tie of old S. Ignatius, who in his tyme (which was ••mediatly after the Apostles) held the denying of 〈◊〉Reall Presence to be an heresy, & this is a third icke. All which poyntes could not be pretermitted 〈◊〉M. Morton (nor any one of them indeed) but by vo∣••ntary deliberation: and consequently he must be ••esumed to haue done it of set purpose to deceyue. ut let vs come to his two heads of contradiction, hich he will needs find in Bellrmine.

9 The first is, that Cardinall Bellarmine → is affirmed y him to say that,* that hereticall opinion (cited ••fore against the Reall Presence out of Theodoret) is 〈◊〉 ancient, nor yet now to be found in Theodoret, and or this he citeth Bellarmines owne wordes, as he saith ••b. 1. de Euchar. cap. 1. initio, and that in latin, to wit, uae sententia citaur à Theodoreto in Dialogo, vbi tamen nunc on habetur. VVhich sentence of S. Ignatius against old eretiks is cited by Theodoret in his dialogue, where otwithstanding now it is not to be found. So he tel∣eth vs out of Bellarmine → both in Latin & English, ut corrupteth him egregiously in both lauguages. First in allegation, and then in translation, as now shall be demonstrated. For first the true vvordes of Page  180Cardinall Bellarmine → in latin are these: Quae sententia cia∣tur à Theodoreto in 30. Dialogo ex epist. Ignatij ad Smy•••∣ses, vbi tamen nunc non habetur.* That is to say: This sen∣tence (concerning old heretiks denying the Reall Presence) is cyted by Theodoret in his third dialogue out of S. Ignatius his Epistle (to the Christians) of Smyrna, where notwithstanding it is not now found: meaning expresly, that it is not found at this day in that Epitle of S. Ignatius, but in Theodoret it is found, and is extant both in Greeke and latyn, as euery man may see that will read the place quoted* So as heere agayne M. Morton corrupteth Bellarm••• both in Latin and English leauing out not only the mention of S. Ignatius his Epistle ad Smyrnenses, and then making his Reader belieue that the testimony of Theodoret was not to be found at this day in him: but also vpon this falsification of his owne, will needs frame a contradiction in Bellarmine → .* And can there be any more witting and wilfull falshood then this? Can this dealing stand with the solemne and extraordinary protestations which he maketh of sincerity in the end of his booke, euen against hi owne infirmityes.

100. But let vs see yet further, how he pro∣ueth that Bellarmine → ,* hauing said before, that this heresy of denying the Reall Presence was very an∣cient, contradicteth himselfe, and saith in the very same place that it is not ancient, for which he al∣leadgeth these wordes of the Cardinall: Ne autem glo∣rientur Caluinistae &c. And to the end, that the Cal∣uinists may not glory, that their opinion (against the Reall Presence) is very ancient, it is to be noted, that those most ancient hereticks (mentioned) by S. Ig∣natius) did not so much impugne the Sacramēt of the Eucharist, as the mistery of Christ his incarnation. For so much as therfore they denied the Eucharist Page  181o be the flesh of Christ (as S. Ignatius doth signifie in he same place) for that they deny Christ to haue lesh &c.

01. Which testimony if you consider it well, oth not proue at all that the denyall of the Reall resence was no ancient heresy,* but only that it was not altogeather the same with that of the Pro∣estants at this day, and had an other foundation or otiue: to wit, for so much as those hereticks did ot belieue that Christ had taken any flesh at all, hey consequētly belieued not, that he gaue it in the acrament. But the Protestants though they beleeue hat he tooke true flesh: yet do they not belieue, that t is really giuen in the Sacrament, for that they be∣ieue not these wordes, Hoc est Corpus meum, in the ense that the Church doth: so as these do formally mpugne the Reall Presence, and the other but by a onsequence drawne from another heresy, which s the cause that they cānot properly be called Sacra∣entaries, as ours are, but most ancient they are: & o in this he contradicteth not himselfe about their ntiquity.

102. The last point of obiected contradiction in his place, is, that Bellarmine → confesseth Caluin to hold,* that togeather with the Sacrament of the Eucharist, God doth exhibit vnto the faithful, not only a signe of Christs body, but also the body and bloud it selfe, yea, and as Valenia addeth further that Caluin confes∣seth that our soules do cōmunicate with the body of Christ sub∣stantially.* Wherto I answere: true it is, that in words Caluin doth affirme as much in some partes of his workes, but denyeth it againe in others, and therup∣on do both Bellarmine → and Valentia conuince him of most euident and palpable contradictions in this matter, he seeking to say something different not only from Luther, but also from VVickli••e & Zuinglius,Page  182 therby to make a sect of himselfe, but yet not finding indeed, wherin to subsist, or be premanent in any deuise that he could find out, for proofe wherof aCardinall Bellarmine → dth set downe seauen surll propositions of his about this matter, and proueth th same substantially out of his owne wordes and discourses, & ech one of them different from the o∣ther, and some of them so contradictory, as by no possible meanes they may be reconciled or stand to∣geather: b As first, that the flesh o Christ is only in haun, and that in so certaine and determinate a place, as it is as i∣stant from the bread, as the highest heauen is from the earth: & then, this nowithstanding, he saith (as heere is cyted by M. Morton) cthat in the supper the true body of hist is exhibitd vnto the faithfull, & not only a signe: yea, that the very substance o Christes body is giuen. Next to that againe he saith, that notwithstanding the distance btweene th〈◊〉 of Christ, & thedSacramentall signes, yet are they ioyned o••a∣ther by so miraculous and inexplicable meanes, as neyther •••∣gu nor pen can vtter the same. And then further, tha〈◊〉 must not belieue, that this coniunction is by any reall com••g downe of Chrstes body vnto vs, but by a certaine substa••ial force deriued from his flesh by his spirit.* Where he seem••• to sy, that the coniunction is made, not in the sub∣stance, but in some essentiall quality. And so in the fifth place more cleerly he saith, that it is made by ap∣prehensin of faith only, wherby he contradicteth all that he sayd before of reall and substantiall coniunction.* And in the sixt place he confirmeth more the same by saying, that wiked men receaue not the body at all, quia corpus Christi solo ore fidei accipitur,*for that the body o Christ is only receaued by the mouth of fayth. And in the. and last place he concludeth, that this Sacrament doth not giue the body o Christ, or faith vnto any that hath it not alrea∣dy, but only doth testify, and confirme that now it is there, and so it is, but as a signe or seale (to vse his wordes) of that Page  183 which is thre already. And this being the variety of Caluins opinion, it proueth no contradiction in Bel∣armine, but in Caluin himselfe. And so many corru∣ptions hauing heere beene proued against M. Morton, do conuince that in him which he would proue in Cardinall Bellarmine → , but cannot, as how see, and yet e concludeth so confidently as before yow haue heard, saying:*All these contradictions do certainly euince, hat he (the Cardinall) hath by publicke imputations slaun∣ered those whome in his consience he did acquit: and shall we hinke,*that his conscience could be sincere in alleadging other ••ns testimonyes, and witnsses, who is sound thus persidiously ••iust in exibiting his owne? Thus he. And I remit me to he Reader, whether he hath seene hitherto any one point of perfidious dealing proued against the Car∣dinall, among so many as haue appeared on the part of M. Morton. But yet now he will go forward, as he saith to another subiect, to wit, to shew some exā∣ples o falsifications out of Cardinall Bellarmine → in alle∣gation of other mens testimonyes. Let vs see whe∣ther he performe any thing more then in the rest he hath done.

103. But first before we enter into this other ex∣amen, there occurreth vnto me a consideration wor∣thy to be pondered by the Reader, which is, that all these six obiectios made against Cardinall Bellarmine → for imputing old heresyes to Protstants, are taken out o on only chapter of his, which is the 9. of his 4. Booke Of the no••s of the true Church, in which 9. Chapter (as before yow haue heard) he chargeth the Protestants of our time with different heresyes of twnty seuerall condemned old Heresiarches, or chiefe Heretiks, and therof inerreth, that as the v∣nion and agrement in doctrine with the ancient Catholike Fathers is a note of the true Church, and of true Catholiks: so to participate with ancient he∣retiks Page  184 in any one condemned heresy, is a damnable note of the contrary:* which Chapter M. Morton per∣using, thought good to set vpon six only for clearing Protestants of them, to wit, the Pelagians, the Noua∣tians, the Manichees, the Arrians, and other two parti∣culer heresyes:* wheras in reason he should haue ey∣ther cleered all or none, for so much as according to S. Augustines sentence, and other ancient Fathers, the holding of any one condemned heresy, is suffi∣cient to euerlasting damnation. So as M. Morton pic∣king out only a few, leaueth all the rest as not ex∣cusable, and vnder hand by his silence granteth, tht they are held by the Protestants: which how mar∣kable a poynt it is, I leaue it to the Reader to iudge, and so shall passe to examine the other head of ob∣iections, that he hath against Cardinall Bellarmine.

highlight hits: on | off