OF INSTANCES AGAINST CARDINALL Bellarmine → in particuler, touching imputa∣tion of old heresies. §. VI.

IF you haue seene how litle able M. Morton hath byn to performe his pro∣mise before, for wilfull falsityes com∣mitted by any of our writers hitherto, much more shall you see it now, when leauing the multitude of other Authors, he sin∣gleth out Cardinall ← Bellarmine → alone to deale withall: who as he hath written much, so were it not great maruaile, if in so many bookes he should haue left some things, whereupon his aduersaryes might pro∣bably wrangle:* but as for wilfull vntruth, it is so farre from his knowne, and confessed integrity, as M. Morton could neuer haue made choice of an vnfit∣ter match for that poynt. Nor can it be thought that he chose him vpon hope to find any such aduan∣tage in him in deed, but only to honour himselfe somwhat by contending with such an aduersary, Page  150 and to cast some cloudes, at least in the mindes of the simpler sort, vpon the shining beames of Car∣dinall Bellarmines estimation, by obiecting the name of wilfull falsityes vnto him. But as when the said cloudes are driuen away from the ayre, the force of the sunne is more sensibly felt: so Card. Bellarmines workes being cleared heere from M. Mortōs calum∣niatiōs, will be more highly esteemed by euery iu∣dicious Reader, as not lending any least true aduā∣tage vnto any impugnatiō of the aduersarie: & this is al the hurt that he is like to receaue by this assault.

••. And haue you euer heard more confident •each? This now may be called present desperate in∣••ed, if presently it be to be prooued,* that he hath 〈◊〉 one instance of any one falsity against Cardinall •ellarmine, throughout all his works, as heere is re∣••ired. And may not then his owne wordes be re∣••rned vpon him, that neither Thraso on the stage, nor •oliath in the field, nor Gorgias in the scholes, did euer vse such •asting? My boasting, if any were, was out of the ••ctitude of a good conscience, este•ming no good •hristian man to be so wicked, as to lie so willfully 〈◊〉 before hath bene set downe: and therfore estee∣•ing all our writers to be free thereof, I sayd, and •ust say still, that if in any one of them there should 〈◊〉 foūd that deplored & inexcusable fraud, I should ••uer beleiue him afterward, as a man, not regar∣••ng truth, nor speaking out of conscience, but of •ilfull fraud: which speach M. Morton calleth pro∣••gall and prodigious, as you haue heard. And thus he •ust do, either in regard that he esteemeth it not •or so great a crime to lye wilfully (as Catholicks do •steeme it) or that he can proue it to be vsed also by •ur men. The first I suppose he will be ashamed to •onfesse: the second I expect how he will be able to •roue; and so I passe to the examen it selfe. And by Page  152 the triall of his successe with this one Antagonist, that he hath chosen out, the Reader may make a ghesse, what he were able to do, if he should enter combat with so many of our writers, as heere he hath named. And for better vnderstanding of the matter, it is to be obserued, that he endeauoureth to condemne Cardinall ← Bellarmine → of wilfull •alsities in two points.* First in imputing certaine heresies to Protestants, which (he saith) they do not hould: the second in falsifying other mens testimonies, al∣ledged by him. Both of them were grieuous, if either of them by any one example could be proued in ← Bellarmine → . Now then to the tryall.

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 〈◊〉.

THE SECOND INIVRIOVS ••i•ction, against Cardinall ← Bellarmine → , for false imputation of the Nouatian-heresy. §. VIII.

FROM the fourteenth heresy, wherin Cardinall ← Bellarmine → sheweth the Protestants to participate •ith the Pelagians, as you haue heard, M. Morton star∣••th backe to the sixt,* of participation with the No∣••tians in these words. He (that is ← Bellarmine → ) maketh •rotestāts guilty (saith he) of the heresy of the Nouati∣••s in taking frō the Church all power of reconciliating men vn∣•• God, when as his owne * Authors do note, that the •eresy of the Nouatians was this: videlicet, to deny •ny man, that should sinne after Baptisme, all hope of remission 〈◊〉 sinnes, although he should repent. Yea, and also Bellar∣•ine himselfe in behalfe of Protestants confesseth •lse where, that they require repentance and faith in Chri∣•tians, that they may be iustified, and obtaine remission of sinnes. Nor this only, but there is no difference betweene vs (saith Page  160 he) and Protestants about repentance, as it is a conuersion vnto God,*wi•h detestation of sinne, or as it consisteth in outward sig∣nes of sorrow, weeping, conf•ss•on, and outward chasticements• yea and almost all o• them allow an outward rite of absolution. But the only cōtrouersy betweene vs is, whether Pennance be pro∣perly a Sacrament.

68. And if we stand attent in this place, we shall see no lesse fraudulent dealing then in the former, if not more, to make apperance of contrariety & diffe∣rence betwene Cardinall ← Bellarmine → & other Catholick Authors,* about the heresy of the Nouatians: which though it could be proued, yet doth it not inferre as euery man may see, the principall conclusion o• the question, that there were willfull malice. But all is full of fraud, as you will perceaue, and the reason is not so much, I suppose, for that he delighteth him∣selfe in lying wilfully, as before hath byn touched, as the necessity of his cause, which driueth him to vse the helpe of these shifts, or els to say no∣thing. And this am I forced often to note to the Reader, for that it is lightly a perpetuall obseruati∣on in him.

69. His dri•t then is, if you marke it well, to ar∣gue Cardinall Bellamine of falsity, in that, he affirmeth the Protestants of our dayes to ioyne with the old heretickes the Nouatians,* in taking from the Church all power of reconciling men vnto God, for those are Bellar∣mines words, though curtally rec•ted by M. Morton out of his latin text, as presently you shall see: and to con•radict the Cardinall in this, he cyteth the wordes of Alphonsus de Castro, that saith, that the heresy of the Page  161••uatiās, was to deny any man, who should sinne aft•r Baptisme 〈◊〉 hope of remission of synnes, although he should repent.* But •ow these two are neyther contradictory, nor con∣••ary, if they be well considered. For that the Noua∣•••ns are held to teach both these poynts,* first & prin∣••pally that there was no power left in the Church ••to Priests to reconcile and remit sinnes, to such as ••ll after Baptisme, especially into grieuous sinnes 〈◊〉 testifieth S. Cyprian in a speciall Epistle against No∣••tianus, and S. Ambrose in his booke de Poenitentia, and •thers. And this first part of their errour was contra••ues Ecclesiae, against the keys of the Church, or power •• Priests to remit sinnes: and heerin all authors do ••ree. But the second part of their errour went fur∣••er, as some do gather out of the ancient Fathers, 〈◊〉 testifyeth aSuarez (though b others be of differēt ••inions) which was to deny furthermore besydes ••e Sacramēt, all vertue of Pēnance whatsoeuer, whe∣••er priuate, or Sacramentall, especially in great sin∣•es, as by the words of Alphonsus de Castro heere recited •ay seeme to appeare.

•0. Of these two errors then, the first and not ••e second is ascribed by ← Bellarmine → to the Protestāts, •o witt, that they deny the power of Pennance, as 〈◊〉 is a Sacrament, that is to say, as it conteineth not •nly a priuate detestation of sinne in the synner, but ••so the absolution or remission therof by the Priest 〈◊〉 the publicke Minister of the Church. The other ••rour of denying all vse of priuate repentance, ey∣••er inwardly, or outwardly by sor•ow, sighes, tears •nd the like, is not ascribed to Prot•st•nts by Bellar∣•ine: so as for M. Mortō to bring in the one as contra∣•ictory to the other, that for as much as Alphonsus de Castro saith, that the Nouatians did deny all power of •ēnance, therfore ← Bellarmine → saith not truly that they denyed the Sacramentall vse therof: Or for so much Page  [unnumbered]〈1 page duplicate〉Page  [unnumbered]〈1 page duplicate〉Page  [unnumbered]〈1 page duplicate〉Page  [unnumbered]〈1 page duplicate〉Page  [unnumbered]〈1 page duplicate〉Page  [unnumbered]〈1 page duplicate〉Page  [unnumbered]〈1 page duplicate〉Page  [unnumbered]〈1 page duplicate〉Page  [unnumbered]〈1 page duplicate〉Page  [unnumbered]〈1 page duplicate〉Page  [unnumbered]〈1 page duplicate〉Page  [unnumbered]〈1 page duplicate〉Page  [unnumbered]〈1 page duplicate〉Page  [unnumbered]〈1 page duplicate〉Page  [unnumbered]〈1 page duplicate〉Page  [unnumbered]〈1 page duplicate〉Page  [unnumbered]〈1 page duplicate〉Page  [unnumbered]〈1 page duplicate〉Page  [unnumbered]〈1 page duplicate〉Page  [unnumbered]〈1 page duplicate〉Page  162 as Protestants do not concurre with the Noua•ians in the one, they do not in the other, is a most absu•d kynd of reasoning called by Logitians à dispara•i•, fo• that both may be true, and one excludeth not the o∣ther. For it is most true which Bellarmin saith, that No∣uatianorū error praecipuus erat &c. The principall errour of the Nouatians (which word [principall] importing that they had other errors besids, is craftily cut o• by M. Mort.) was, that there is not power in the Church to recō•le men to God, but only by Baptisme: which last words also bu• only by Baptisme) were by M. Mort. and by the same art shifted ou• of the text, for that they haue relation to the Priests of the Church, to whom it appertayneth by publicke, & ordinary office to baptize: and in this the Protestants are accused by ← Bellarmine → to concur•• with them in denyall of pēnance, as it is a Sacramēt.

71. And togeather with this it may be true, that besides this praecipuus error,* the principall errour, the Nouatians, some, or all denyed the fruit of all kynd of priuate, and particuler pennance, as sorrow, teares, punishment of the body, and th• like, wherin di∣uers Protestants do not agree with them, nor yet are accused therof. Wherby it appeareth that all this counterfait contradiction which M. Morton hath so much laboured to establish heere betweene Bellar∣mine on the one syde, and Castro, Vega, & Maldona•e on the other, commeth to be right nothing at all, for that ← Bellarmine → speaketh expresly of Pennance, as it is a Sacrament, and in that sense only saith, that the Pro∣testants deny it, togeather with the Nouatians, as they do also the vse of Chrisme in the Sacrament of Con∣•irmation, which was an other errour of theirs obie∣cted by ← Bellarmine → to Protestants, as much as the for∣m•r, but wholy dissembled by M. Morton. The other three Authors, as they do not exclude but rather in∣clude the Sacrament of Pennance: yet do they m•ke Page  163•ention of the other part of the Nouatian error, ••at seemed to deny all pennance in generall, whe∣••er Sacramentall or not Sacramentall: and of this ••e not Protestants accused by ← Bellarmine → ,* but expre∣••y rather exempted by the words, which heere M. •orton setteth downe of his. So as for him to play ••on his owne voluntary Equiuocation, and mista∣••ng of the word Pēnance, & Nouatian heresy about the ••me, is toto grosse an illusion. Wherfore if you ••ease, let vs briefly see how many false trickes he ••eth in this place.

•2. The first of all may be, that wheras Cardinall [ 1] ••llarmine to proue that our moderne Protestants do ••mbolize and agree with the old Nouatian heresyes,*••leageth two particuler instances, the one in deny∣••g the power of the Church to remit synnes by ••e Sacrament of pēnance, the other in denying the 〈◊〉 of holy Chrisme in the Sacrament of Confirmatiō, •. Morton hauing nothing to say to the second, reply∣•th only to the first by an Equiuocation as you haue ••ard: and yet if the second only be true, ← Bellarmine → 〈◊〉 iustified in noting the Protestāts of Nouatianisme: •nd therfore to deny the one, & dissemble the other, •ust needs proceed of witting fraud, granting that which is chiefly in controuersy, to wit, that Pro∣•estants do hold in somewhat Nouatianisme.

•3. The second fraud is, for that in reciting Car∣dinall [ 2] Bellarmines charge against Protestants, he cut∣•eth from the latin sentence of ← Bellarmine → , being very small & short in it selfe, both the beginning & end, to wit, Praecipuus error, & post baptismum, as yow haue heard, and that for the causes which now I haue declared.

74. Thirdly he doth bring in guylfully the fore∣said [ 3] testimonyes of Castro, Vega, & Maldonate, as con∣trary to ← Bellarmine → : whereas they speake of an other Page  164 thing, to wit, of pēnance in another sense: & b•syde• this do all expres•y set downe the two errou•s o• the Nouatians, to witt, that they did deny as wel• the Sacrament of Pennāce, as also the priuate vse ther•f as it is a particuler vertue: and that the Protes•an•• of our dayes do concurre with them in the fi•st• though not in the second: and that he could not bu• euidently see and know this, and so did write it against his conscience to deceyue the Reader.

[ 4] 75. Fourthly when M. Morton doth alleadge B•l∣larmine lib. 3. de Iustis. cap. 6. to confesse that Prote∣stants do require repentance in Christians, that they may be iu•tified, he well knew that this was not cō∣trary to that which he had said before in his ac∣cusation lib. 4. de Notis Ecclesiae cap. 9. that Prot•stants did ioyne with the Nouatiās in denying all power of the Church for r•conciling men to God: for he knew that in the former ← Bellarmine → meant of priuate pennance as it is a vertue which euery man may vse of himsel•e, but in the second he meant of the Sa∣crament, and keyes of the Church, which require ab∣solution of the Priest. Heere then was wil•ull and malicious mistaking: and so much the more, for that in the very next wordes heere set downe by him both in English & latin out of Bellarmines first booke de po•nit•ntia cap. 8. the Cardinall doth expresly de∣clare, that only Controuersy betweene Catho∣lickes and Protestants in this matter, is about the sa∣crament of pēnance with absolutiō of the Church, & not the priuate pēnance which euery particuler man may vse of himselfe. So as vnder the cloud of priuate, and sacramentall pēnance he craftily endea∣uoreth to make some shew of a contradictiō, which is none indeed.

[ 5] 76. The fifth falshood is, that M. Morton to make Cardinall ← Bellarmine → contrary to himselfe, or very for∣getfull, Page  165 he alleadging heere his latin wordes, ma∣keth him to say, first, that Protestants require faith & re∣pentance to iustifica•ion, and then presently in another place, Luther reiec•eth pennance, as though Luther were no Prote••ant: wheras this is no contradiction in Cardinall ← Bellarmine → , but in Luther himsel•e, and ano∣to•ious fraud in M. Morton, so pa•pably to d•ceaue his Reader: for that Cardinall Bellarmines wordes are these:*Lutherus lib. de Captiuitate Babylonica, tria tan•um agnoscit Sacramenta, Baptism•m, Poenitentiam & Panem; tamen infra cap. de extrema Vnctione, reij•it Poen•tentiam. Luther in his booke of Babylonicall Captiuity (in the Chapter o• the Eucharist) acknowledgeth only three Sacramēts, Baptis∣me, Pennance, and Bread,* and yet afterward (in the same booke) and in the Chapter of Extreme Vnction he reie∣cteth pēnance. These are the wordes of ← Bellarmine → which M. Morton could not but haue seene and con∣sidered• and yet to make some litle shew of ouersight in ← Bellarmine → , he was content against his cōscience to set downe, Lutherus reijcit Poeni•entiam, and to conceale and dissemble all the rest of the sentence alleadged. When will he be able to produce one of our Au∣thours with so manifest a wilfulnes.

77. Let vs conclude then, that M. Mort. is in a poore case, when he is driuen to all these shifts to seeke out contradictions amongst vs, and to fynd none: and yet let vs heare and marke his Conclusion, and see what māner of contradictiō he frameth against ← Bellarmine → ,* for it will be substantiall (I warrant you) out of these premisses.*The contradiction is this (saith he) to impute vnto Protestants an heresy which taketh away all manner of repentance, and hope o• remission of sinne past: & yet to acknowledg in them a contrary orthodoxall truth, which is to professe necessity of repentance, reconciliation, and remission o• sinnes Wherto I answere, that heere is no contradi∣ction at all, as ← Bellarmine → setteth it downe, both Page  166 these propositions being false in themselues. Fo• first ← Bellarmine → doth not impute vnto Protestants that they do take away all māner of repentance, & hope of remission for sinnes in their sense, but only that they take away and deny the Sacrament o• reconci∣liation by pennance, and absolution of the Church• and secondly Catholicks are so •ar o• from acknow∣ledging an orthodoxall truth in Protestants, about repentance, reconciliatiō, & remission of sinns, that albeit they graunt that Protestāts do in words con∣fesse, and prescribe vnto their followers repentance, faith, newnesse of life, and such other points, vt∣tered and practized after their fashion: yet are they little auaylable, and much lesse orthodoxall, but a priuate manner and forme of their owne, reiected and condemned by the Catholick Church, for that it excludeth the Sacrament, and absolution of the Priest, without which after baptisme, either in voto, or, in re (as Deuines do distinguish) in Christian Religion, no pardon, or hope of re∣mission of synnes, can orthodoxally be concea∣ued. And thus much for this second obiected fal∣sity to ← Bellarmine → .

THE THIRD OBIECTION against Cardinall ← Bellarmine → , for false imputa∣tion of the Manichean heresy vnto Protestants. §. IX.

HIs third obiection against Cardinall ← Bellarmine → , of vnlawfull dealing, cōcerning the imputatiō o• some points of the Manichean heresy vnto Calui∣nists, he setteth downe in these words: Belarmine attri∣•••ethPage  167 (saith he) vnto Caluin the heresie o• the Manichees• who ••d condemne the na•ure of men, depriuing them o• freewill,*〈◊〉 ascribing the originall and beginning o• sin vnto the nature 〈◊〉 man, and not vnto his freewill, seeing he hath himselfe ••serued, that Caluin*teacheth, that man in his first crea∣•••n had freewill, wherby in his integrity he might, i• he would, •••e attained vnto eternall lyfe. This contradiction in this point 〈◊〉•o more then this to charge Caluin with that which he did not •••e•ue. Is not this singular falshood? and yet behould a more no∣ble then this. Wherunto I answere, that if it be more ••table in folly thē this, or els in fraud, it is notable ••deed: Let vs heere the folly. This cōtradictiō in this point•aith M. Mort.) is no more thē this, to charge Caluin with that •hich he beleeued not. So he. Wherof I inferre that it •as no contradictiō at all. For to accuse a man to •ould that which he holdeth not, hath no contradi∣•tion in it, but a false accusation: nor is it alwaies ••lshood, for it may be vpon errour: and this for ••e folly. Let vs passe to consider the fraud.

•9. I do suppose that M Morton would haue said, •r should haue said, that Cardinall ← Bellarmine → was ther∣•ore noted by him of a contradiction: not so much •or cha•ging Caluin with that which he did not be∣•eeue, for this is no contradiction (as hath beene •aid,) as for that ← Bellarmine → accusing Caluin of concur∣•ing with the Manichees,* in denyall of Free-will vnto •an, doth notwithstāding in another place cōfesse, •hat Caluin graunted Free-will to haue byn in man in his first creation: but neither in this is any contradicton at all. For that Caluin granting Free-will to haue byn in man at his first creation, and lost a•terward by the fall and synne of Adam, may con∣curre with the Manichees in this, that after the fall of Adam, and as now we liue,* we haue no Free-will: & so doth Cardinal ← Bellarmine → take him, & proue it out of his owne words in sundry Chapters o• his Page  168 booke, that he doth hold indeed, and concurreth fully with the very sense of the Manichees therin, which authorityes of Caluin M. Morton ought to haue answered in some sort, if in earnest he had meant to haue defended him.

80. This then is one egregious fraud, and the chiefe in this place, to delude his Reader with the ambiguity, and Equiuocation of different tymes. The Manichees taught, that man after Adams fall had no free will, as both S. Hierome and S. Augustine do te∣stifie in the sentence of M. Morton heere set downe (though craftily he couered their names) and Bellar∣mine proueth Caluin to hold the same, out of his owne wordes and workes. What answereth M. Mor∣ton? Caluin (saith he) is con•essed by← Bellarmine → to grant free-will in man before the fall of Adam in his first cr•••io•: Yea but the question is, a•ter that fall. How then doth M. Morton answere to the purpose? And how doth he alleage ← Bellarmine → as contradicting himselfe, in that, in one place, he saith that Caluin confess•th Freewill, and in another saith, that he denyeth it, for so much as it is in respect of diuers times. For I would aske M. Morton in his Logicke, is it a contra∣diction to say that Caluin confesseth Freewill in man before his first fa•l, & denieth it afterward, seing they are distinct times, and import distinct estates? and if this be not any contradiction, as any child will confesse that it is not, why doth he seeke to abuse his Reader with such a fallacy?

81. Another fraud, though somwhat less• per∣hap• then the former,* is, that in setting downe the charge of Bellarm•ne against Caluin, he recounteth the same as in Bella•m••es owne wordes, thus: He attri∣bueth vnto C•lu•n the heresy of the Manichees, who (saith he) d•d co•••mne the nature of men, depriuing them o• free-will, and •s••i•ing the originall and beginning o• sinne Page  169•nto the nature of man, & not vnto Free-will. This sentence 〈◊〉 say, though M. Morton put downe in a different •etter, as Bellarmines words, and affirmeth him to •peake thē; yet indeed they are not his, nor set downe •y him as his owne, but are the words of S. Hierome,•nd S. Augustine with some inserted by M. Morton him∣•elfe, for thus are they related by Cardinall ← Bellarmine → : •anichaeorū•inquit Hi•ronymus) est hominūdamnare na∣••ram, & liberū auferre arbitrium.* Et Augustinus: Peccato∣•um originem non tribuūt Manichaei libero arbitrio. S. Hierome•aith it is the heresy of the Manichees to cōdemne the •ature of men, and to take away Free-will. And S. •ugustine saith,* that the Manichees do ascribe the ori∣•en of sinne not to Free-will. And why thinke you •id M. Morton conceale these two Fathers names? The •auses are euident. First for that he was loath to •ublish, that the deniall of free-will in man, 〈◊〉•o generally taught and defended by the Prote∣•tants of our dayes, should be pronounced for an •eresy, and a Manichean heresie, by two such graue Fathers, as S. Hierome and S. Augustine are. Second∣•y, for that if he had vttered the matter plainly, •s it lieth in ← Bellarmine → , he had marred his sleight of •unning to Free-will, gra•ted by Caluin in the first •reation of man: for that it is euident, by these •wo Fathers, that they speake of Free-will after •he fall of Adam: Therfore it was necessary for him •o conceale their names, which yet was fraudulent.

•2. The third fraude is,* that wheras Cardi∣•all [ 3] ← Bellarmine → doth alleadge two poynts wherein •he Protestantes of our tyme, but especially Cal∣•in, doe concurre with the Manichean heresie; the one, that which hath bene sayd, of the denying of Free-will, the other in reprehending and con∣demning Abraham, Sampson, Sara, Rebecca, Iudas Machabaeus, Sephora &c. and other Saintes of the Page  170 old Testament, as S. Augustine testifieth, that the Ma∣ni••eans did,* and ← Bellarmine → sheweth that Caluin doth hold the very same, prouing by multiplicity o• pla∣ce• quoted out of his * workes; M. Mort. passeth euer with silence this latter proo•e as vnanswerable, and yet will haue vs thinke that ← Bellarmine → did iniure Caluin in noting him with the Manichean heresy: which is as much, as if a man hauing two writings to shew for a suite in Law, the Attorney of the ad∣uerse part, should suppresse the one which is most playne and euident, and cauill about the other. And this shall suffice for this third obiection. Now let vs passe to the other more notable, which was promi∣sed before.

THE FOVRTH OBIECTION against Card. Bellarmin•, about pretēded false im∣putation of Arianisme vnto Protestants. §. X.

Page  171•4. For better conceauing wherof, the Reader •ust know, that Cardinall ← Bellarmine → in the Preface to •is fiue bookes de Christo, proposing dyuers sortes of •duersaryes among our moderne Protestants, that ••ther openly or secretly did impugne the diuinity •f Chri•t, or some article therunto belonging, after •e naming of many others, he writeth thus of •ullinger: Henricum Bullingerum (saith he) non puduit •ibere &c.

•5. Thus wrote ← Bellarmine → : and what now saith •. Morton against it? He knew (saith he) that this was •e very sentence of Tertullian.* True it is, but euery •hing that is in Tertullian, who wrote before the Councell of Nice, wherin matters and formes of •peach about the persōs of the blessed Trinity were ••ore exactly discussed, is not fit, nor secure for a •euyne of our times to follow. And if M. Morton had •onsidered well o• the paradoxes of Tertullian gathe∣•ed together by learned Pamelius in his last edition 〈◊〉 wherfore this is one and the last of all and censured •or dangerous by the said Author and other learned men;*) it is likely that he would not so •ashly haue obiected the same to ← Bellarmine → , for reprehending it in Bullinger.

86. But M. Morton bringeth a twofould argument for ground of his challenge, the one in latin out of Gregorius de Valentia, as though he had alleadged the foresaid sentence out of Tertullian, with approuing Page  172 or at least wise not improuing the same. For thus is the matter a•• aged by M. Morton in his margent out of •alentia: Sic 〈◊〉•ertullianus in libro aduersus Praxe•m, tres sunt, non statu sed gradu, non substan•ia sed •or•a. non po∣testate sed sp•cie. Gregor. Valentia Iesuita l. de Vnitate & Trinitate cap 9. And then in the English text, he saith as yow haue now heard, that ← Bellarmine → himselfe els where in his works, expoundeth the same sentence of Tertullian, as orthodoxall and iustifyable.

87. But in both these instances are fraudes on M. Mortons behalfe, and no such sincere dealing as were requisite among men that handled good cau∣ses. For that first, there is no such narration o•Tertul∣lians sentence in Valentia, as heere is set downe, with∣out reprehension therof: nor is Tertullian so much as named by him in the place alleaged, but a greiuous reprehension is vsed by him against Bullinger, for v∣sing the said sentence as orthodoxall.*Bullingerus Sacra∣mentarius (saith he) tres in Diuinitate personas differre di∣cit, non statu, sed gradu &c. Bullinger the Sacramentary affir∣meth that there are three persons in the Deity, which differ, n•t in state, but degree, not in substance, but forme, not in p••er, but kind: by which wordes he doth not only ouerthrow th• God∣head of the Sonne, but euen the whole mystery of the most •oly Trinity. So Valentia. And this was his Iudgement of that sentence, which M. Morton would haue his Rea∣der thinke, that Valentia had allowed of, as of an or∣thodoxall sentēce of Tertulliā. Can there be any more wilfull & witting fraud, then this?

88. Now as for the allowance therof els where by Cardinall ← Bellarmine → himselfe, M. Morton doth o••er him great abuse, for he neuer alloweth any where of that sentence, as it standeth wholy in his booke against Praxea, or as it is accepted and vsed by Bullinger, but only taken in hand in his first booke de Christo, to in∣terprete in good sense certaine speaches of Tertullian,Page  173 obiected by Arians and Trinitarians against the God∣head of Christ,* as though he had fauoured them ther∣in, & cōming to a place cited out of the same booke, against Praxea, where he saith, Dum sili•m agnosco, s•cun∣d•m à Patre desendo, for so much as I acknowledge the Sonne, I do defend him as second after the Father (wherby the Hereticks would proue the Sonne not to be equall to his Father,) Cardinall ← Bellarmine → an∣swering to this place, saith, that the Sonne is called second (by Tertullian) not because he is inferiour,* or not equall to the Father, but only according to the order of beginning or origen, for that the Sonne is origi∣nally of the Father: and by this occasion he expoun∣deth also the first two words of the foresaid sentēce, statu et non gradu, saying, that, per gradum intelligit ordinē personarum: Tertullian by degree in this place vnder∣standeth only the order, of the three persons among themselues, but not a different degree in perfection. For that Tertulliā in another place hath these words: Diuinitas gradus non habet, vtpote vnica: the Godhead of the three persons hath no degrees, as being only one.

89. Thus then did Cardinall ← Bellarmine → seeke to ex∣pound in good sense the first two wordes of the sē∣tence, by another place of Tertullian himselfe: but the whole sentence he neuer defended, nor admit∣ted, but held it rather for erroneous in Tertullian, & hereticall in Bullinger. And now yow see what nota∣ble aduantage M. Morton hath gotten out of this his so notable obiection, which is nothing els, but the discouery of two or three notable shiftes, and fraudu∣lent trickes of his owne. And yet do you consider how he insulteth as if he had proued somwhat a∣gainst ← Bellarmine → indeed. For thus he continueth his speach for his fifth instance.

THE FIFTH OBIECTION against Cardinall ← Bellarmine → , for false imputati∣on of heresies vnto sundry Protestants. §. XI.

THOVGH P. R. require (saith he) but three ex∣amples o• f•• shood, yet may I not enuie h•m a further choice,* because I know not the curiosity of his palate. Therfore let him againe consult with Cardinall Bella•mine in another taxation of Prote•••t• saying in one place that, they teach that the soule of •aith∣ful men departing this li•e, doe not goe directly vnto heauen. In another place he hims•lf•,* togeat•er with his fellow Iesuite, haue publiquely recorded• that it is a common obiection of Protestants prouing from Scr•ptur• against the doctry•e of purgatory, that the soules of the •aith, all pre•e••ly after death goe di•ectly vnto heau•n. So he.

*91. And truly it seemeth strange to me that M. Morton in this his peculiar •tryfe for sinceritv, can∣not set downe any one thing sincerely, with•ut some admixture of fraud. Let him consult (saith he) with← Bellarmine → in another taxation of Protestants,*that they teach, that the soules o• the faithfull departed do not go directly to heauen. I haue consulted with him, at leastwise with his booke, and he answereth, that the word Protestants twice heere re•eated is not to be found •n him, in the place by you cited. For that he ascribeth not this heres• vnto all Protestāts in gene•all, but on∣ly vnto three in particuler of our time, to with Luther, Cornelius Agrippa, and Iohn Caluin, a•ter diuers o•d here∣sies named by him, as of •ertullian, Vigilantius, Ar∣menians• and the like, that held the same; his words a••: Eundem errorem habet Caluinus &c. Caluin hath the s•me Page  175 error, that soules of the faithfull do not enter into heauen, nor enioy the vision of Almighty God, before the day of Iudgement, but Christ only is admitted therunto, reliquos omnes residere in atrio, ib.{que} expectare vs{que} ad mundi consummationem, that all the rest besides Christ, do not enter the San∣ctuary of heauen, but do expect without in a cer∣tayne porch (or entry) vntill the consummation of the world. And this opinion of Caluin, ← Bellarmine → proueth out of his owne cleare words in sundry places of his workes, as namely lib. 4. Instit. cap. 20. & §. 24. & 25. §. 6. So as in setting downe this assertion of Car∣dinall ← Bellarmine → , M. Morton hath made him to tax all Protestantes, and to say, they do teach &c. wheras he taxeth only three particuler men. Neyther haue I yet read any other that defendeth the same. Let vs see now how he maketh ← Bellarmine → to contradict himselfe, for herin stands the principall drift of M. Morton, in this place, to seeme thereby to say some∣what against him.

92. First then he bringeth in these words as of ← Bellarmine → : It is a cōmon obiection of Protestantes prouing from Scriptures against the doctrine of Purgatory, that the soules of the faithfull presently after death, go directly vnto heauen Out of which words M. Morton inferreth it cannot be, that Protestants should hold the foresaid contrary doctrine of expecting in the porch.* Wherto I answere, that for this, to frame this litle shew of contradictiō M. Morton hath concealed craftily the name of Caluin in all this obiection, and turned it into Protestants, wheras the assertion is ascribed by ← Bellarmine → namely and chiefly vnto Caluin, and not to other Protestāts: and therfore we graunt that Caluin (supposing his former assertion to be true) cannot vse this obiectiō against Purgatorie, that soules go directly to heauen, except he would say, that his foresaid atrium or porch, and outward place of stay, is also heauen, or a peece of Page  176 heauen different from that Sanctuarium Caeli, into which, he saith, that only Christ is admitted vntill the day of Iudgment.

93. But other Protestants that hold not this fond opinion (as few or none perhaps do) may vse their former argument still, if it were true, that soules go directly to hell, or to heauen. And it is to be noted how cūningly M. Morton hath borne himselfe in this matter, not once vttering the name of Caluin, but Pro∣testantes in common; wheras Caluin chiefly is meant, yea only perhaps for the Porch:* for that it seemeth to haue beene his owne particuler deuise, wherby the sly dealing of M. Morton is discouered in euery thing, and yet (forsooth) will he be still A Minister of simple truth, and conuince Cardinall ← Bellarmine → of wilfull fal∣shood. But let vs go forward, and search further in∣to his simplicitie.

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.