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 ca•leth 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 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 T•eodoret 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:
••. 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 Bell•rmine.
•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 cita•ur 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 ci•a∣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 Epi•tle 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.
•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 Valen•ia 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 → d•th set downe seauen s•u•r•ll 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 h•au•n, 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 no•withstanding, he saith (as heere is cyted by M. Morton) cthat in the supper the true body of •h•ist is exhibit•d 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 b•tweene 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 Chr•stes body vnto vs, but by a certaine substa••ial force deriued from his flesh by his spirit.* Where he seem••• to s•y, 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∣prehensi•n 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 wi•ked 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 th•re 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 cons•ience he did acquit: and shall we •hinke,*that his conscience could be sincere in alleadging other ••ns testimonyes, and witn•sses, who is sound thus persidiously ••iust in ex•ibiting 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 obiectio•s made against Cardinall ← Bellarmine → for imputing old heresyes to Prot•stants, 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 tw•nty seuerall condemned old Heresiarches, or chiefe Heretiks, and therof in•erreth, that as the v∣nion and agre•ment 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, th•t 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.