CHAP. VII. A note of certaine notorious vntruths, and lies boldely auouched by Bellarmine.
NExt after falsifications, we are to report some fewe vntruthes boldly auouched by Card. Bellarmine. which albeit he vttered, being yet in mino∣ribus, as they call it; yet we are not therefore to estéeme them to be lesse materiall, séeing hee is the Popes principall proctor.
[falsification 1] Habemus in eodem testamento ve∣teri saith he, Heliam & Helizeum ac filios prophetarum,*sine vxoribus & diuitijs in hoc mundo vixisse. That is, we learne in the same olde testament, that Helias and Helizeus, and the sons of the Prophets liued without wiues, and riches in this world. A plaine & euident vntruth refuted by a plaine text of scrip∣ture 2. Reg. 4.1. where we reade, how a certaine woman of the wiues of the Prophets cried to Elizeus. there also we read, that she had sons likewise. I doubt not therefore, but Ow∣lyglasse will confesse this to be a lie.
[falsification 2] Likewise in the same place he affirmeth, that almost all the fathers write, that Iohn Baptist was the first founder of monks, and eremites. Ioannem Baptistam saith he, *Monachorum & E∣remitarum principem fuisse scribunt ferè omnes patres. and af∣terward he nameth Nazianzen, Chrysostome, Hierome, Cas∣sian, Sozomenus, Isidorus, and Bernard. But this is a nota∣rious vntruth consisting of diuers parts. For first this num∣ber Page 148 is farre from almost all the fathers. Secondly, Nazian∣zen in the place quoted doth not speake so much as one word of monasticall life, * much lesse of the vowe of Iohn Baptiste. Thirdly, Chrysostome and Hierome speake not of cloyster monks, but of ermites, that liued in the wildernes. Fourthly, Cassian collat. 18. c. 6. doth make Paule and Antony, and not Iohn B ptiste, the founders of ermites life. Fiftly, Sozomen, lib. 1. c. 12. speaketh of Ermites and that not according to his owne, but according to other mens opinions, Sixtly, Isidore and Bernarde doe not say, that Iohn Baptist was the first founder of eremitical, and monkish life but rather, that Ere∣mites went into the wildernes after the example of Elias and Iohn baptist. Finally I. Baptist in nothing was like to monks. for he was not shut vp within a cloyster, nor did he forswere mariage, nor obserue a certaine rule, but was the forerun∣ner of our Sauiour, the minister of baptisme, and a greate prophet and a most excellent good man. Furthermore he had course clothing, and a thin diet, and was no tamperer in matters of state. Contrariwise the Iebusites, & other monkes liue in gorgeous houses, fare dayntily, are cladde richely, drinke wine, and albeit they be a sorte of locusts, yet neither care to eate locustes, nor wilde hony. Further they obserue a certaine rule, forsweare mariage, and disturbe states and common welthes, and are neither Préestes nor Pro∣phets, nor any way profitable for the Church or common welth.
[falsification 3] Speaking of Tertullian & Cyprian he saith, that both of thē spoke of religious wemen or nuns, and such as by solēne vowe had consecrated thēselues to God. Vterque loquitur saith he, de virginibus religiosis,*& p•r solennem professionē deo consecra∣tis. A matter most vntrue▪ for albeit Tertullian wrote de vir∣ginibus velandis, & Cyprian de habitu virginum: yet ye vele and habit was such as those fathers thought fitting for all christi∣an wemen. For no man doth thinke it fit, that all christian women should become nonnes and religious women. Se∣condly, neither of those fathers talketh of any solemne vowe, or denieth liberty to those Virgines to mary, or thought it fit they should be shut vp in cloysters, or gouerned by peculier Page 149 orders or rules. But popish nunnes make solemne vowes, and after them may not mary. Beside that they liue in cloi∣sters, and are subiect to rules, and yet which is most strange, are not so good maydes as those, which Tertullian and Cypri∣an talketh of, though no votaryes.
[falsification 4] Speaking of the Apostles: verè primi fuerunt monachi Chris∣tiani, saith Bellarmine. that is, most truely the Apostles were the first monkes among Christians. But it is not the first lye, * that he made among the Romanistes. Howbeit a lye it is, and that very apparent. For Christ sent his apostles abroade into the world to teach & baptize, and not to liue in eremitages or cloysters. Secondly, the Apostles neuer tooke bond of vowe vpon thē, nor liued vnder monkish law. But saith he they had all thinges common. So had also all the first christians▪ yet it is ridiculous to say, that all Christians of those times were monkes. He alledgeth also Saint Augustines words, lib. 17 de ciuit dei. c. 4. hoc votum potentissimi vouerunt. but by vo∣tum there, he vnderstandeth no monkish vowes of obedience chastitie and pouerly; but of leauing all for Christes sake▪ which manner of vow not only the Apostles, but all christi∣ans also doe make, and perfourme, as oft as occasion requi∣reth.
[falsification 5] In his booke de monachis. c. 5. speaking of Luther: asserit mu∣lieres, saith he, non nisi ad matrimonium creatas fuisse. that is, he affirmeth, that wemen were created for no other purpose, but for mariage▪ but this is a most impudent vntruth. For Lu∣ther hath no such words, nor meaning. * For he affirmeth on∣ly, & viros & mulieres ad generandā sobolem creatos esse, that is, that both men and wemen were created for bringing of chil∣dren into the world. So it is apparent, that he foisteth in his words, non nisi, and turneth that to women, which Luther spoke both of men and wemen, and finally maketh Luther to exclude all other endes of the creation of women, where hée speaketh of one ende, and excludeth none besides that one.
[falsification 6] In the same place he auoucheth, that Luther taught, that it was all one to consult, whether a man should mary a wife, as if he should consult, whether he should eat and drinke. dicit.Page 150 saith Bellarmine, idem esse consultare, sit ne ducēda vxor, & sit ne comedendum & bibendum. But Luthers words do playn∣ly discouer his packing & lying. *Stultum est dubitare saith hée, an mulieres copulandae sint matrimonio, vel an aliqua in vxorē d•cenda sit. perinde enim quaeri posse, an edendum, vel biben∣dum sit. And his meaning is, that when a mans frailty will not permit him to conteine, it is then all one to aske whether a man shall mary a wife, or whether hee shall eat and drinke. Now betwene these words, which are ascribed to Luther by Bellarmine, & the words written by Luther, there is great difference▪ for Luther speaketh indefinitly First, & saith, that it is a folish thing to doubt, whether wemen are to be ioyned in mariage, or not: and then in case he cannot containe, whe∣ther a man is to mary a wife or no▪ and Thirdly, he talketh of doubting, and not of consulting betwixt which there is no small difference▪ for of things, which we are to resolue accor∣ding to our owne knowledge, it is folly to consult with o∣thers yet may we doubt, before we resolue▪ so it appeareth, that Bellarmine leaueth out the indefinit proposition of Lu∣ther, and expresseth not Luthers case, where he reporteth his words, and falsely and leudly changeth doubting into consultation.
[falsification 7] He doth also affirme, that Luther taught, that Moyses com∣manded all the Iewes to marry, so that it was not lawfull by a∣ny meanes to be without a wife in the old testament.*dicit saith Bellarmine Moysem praecepisse omnibus Iudaeis matrimonium, ita vt nullo modo licuerit in vetere testamento carere vxore. But the words of Luther doe playnly conuince him to haue vttred vntruth. * For he saith only, in Iudaismo neminem non coniugatum esse oportuisse: that is, that the Iewes ought to be maried. But he doth not say, non licuisse vllo modo in veteri testamento carere vxore, as Bellarmine affirmeth. Nor doth he absolutely deny all exceptions to the ordinary rule & course. Finally; he talketh of the custome of Iewes, and not of an ex∣presse written law, whereas Bellarmine notwithstanding maketh him to speake of a written law.
[falsification 8] Hée affirmeth that Athanasius telleth, how Antony the er∣mite did heare holy Angels in a vision to saye that all his sinnes Page 151 were remitted, when first he entred into a monasticall life.*Tes∣tatur Athanasius in vita Antonij saith Bellarmin, B. Antonium in visione audiuis•e sanctos angelos dicentes, omnia pec∣cata sibi remissa fuisse, quando monasticam vitam suscepit. A notorious vntruth, notwithout some touch of forgery also▪ for first, ye very discourse of Antonies life, that passeth vnder ye name of Athanasius is forged. Secondly that counterfect fellow saith no more, but that Antonies former sins by Christs boun∣ty were sopited or couered. quod priora peccata Christi boni∣tate fuissent sopita. of remission of si•… by vertue of a monasti∣call Coule, which Bellarmine intendeth to proue, there is no inkeling.
[falsification 9] In his booke de monachis. c. 13. He hath these words; Au∣gustinus, Bernardus, Thomas existimant hoc praecepto, diliges dominum deum tuū ex toto corde tuo, simul imperari medium & indicari finem; ideo docent, non posse impleri perfectè hoc praeceptum in hac vita; & tamen non esse praeuaricatorem,*qui non perfecte illud implet. And againe docet idem Augustinus motus inuoluntarios concupiscentiae, licet hoc praecepto pro∣hibiti sint, tamen adeo non esse peccata, vt non sit opus dicere pro eis dimitte nobis debita nostra. But in these words he laypeth vp together diuers round lyes. For first false it is-that Saint Augustine saith, that such as fulfill not the lawe, whereby we are to loue God with all our soule and all our strength, are not thereby made transgressors,* but rather the contrary▪ for he sheweth, that it is necessary for euery man to giue that he may receiue, & to forgiue, that it may bee forgiuen him, & in the latter ende of the booke de perfectione iustitiae, hée teacheth vs, necesse esse dicere, dimitte nobis debita nostra, that it is necessary for vs to say, forgiue vs our trespasses. Second∣ly, Saint Augustine doth not deny, that motions troubling vs against our willes are sinnes. Thirdly, he speaketh not one word, of shewing the end, and commanding the meanes. Fina•∣ly, neither doth Bernard, nor Thomas Aquinas so write, as Bellarmine affirmeth▪ would his cardinalship therfore proue, what he written, and verifie his assertion by their words, he should deliuer himselfe from a note of great falshood and vntruth.Page 152
[falsification 10] Expounding a testimony out of the first to the Corinthians 9. chapter: *quo toto capite saith he, Paulus conatur ostendere, se plus fecisse, quàm sibi esset praeceptum, & propterea singula∣rem gloriam apud deum meruisse. And afterward he saith, ita exposuerunt omnes patres. that is, the fathers do also expound the Apostle, viz. that it may appeare, that he taught workes of superogation. But neither doth Paul in the whole chapter, nor in any part of the chapter shewe, that he did more, then was commanded, nor doth he signifie, that therefore he merited any singular glory. Secondly, it is vntrue, that all the Fa∣thers doe so expound the Apostle, as Bellarmine reporteth. for he citeth none, but Chrysostome, Ambrose and Augustine: whereof Ambrose in 1. cor. 19. doth not so much as once men∣tion workes of supererogation. Chrysostome commenting vpon the same chapter, talketh of workes done ouer and a∣boue the thing commaunded. But hee speaketh not of the whole lawe, which requireth all, that we can doe; but of some one particular precept. Saint Augustine lib. de ope∣re Monachorum c. 5. saith, that Paul did erogate more (ero∣gasse amplius) because he did remit that stipend, which hee might haue exacted. So it appeareth, that he speaketh of do∣ing more, then was required at his hands, by one particu∣lar precept; but not more, then the whole lawe required. Fi∣nally, none of these fathers that he speaketh of, mentioneth singular glory, nor saith, that the same is due for workes of supererogation.
[falsification 11] Where he citeth Iustine Martyr Apolog. 2. and Tertullian Apologet. c. 9. he telleth vntruth of them both. Iustinus ait saith he, apud nullam gentem coli Caelibatum, vt apud Christi∣anos, vbi sunt plurimi vtriusque sexus vsque ad senectutem in virginitate permanentes▪ quod idaem scribit Tertullianus. But neither doth the one, nor the other speake de Caelibatu, in which state of life both widowers and hoore-mongers maye liue, but de virginitate, that is, of chastitie and virginitie, a matter, with which the Romanists haue not much to doe, al∣beit their monkes, friers, and priests be Caelibes.
[falsification 12] He mistaketh also Hieromes wordes in epist. ad Eustoch. de virginitate. for Hierome saith not, fuisse suo tempore in coe∣nobijs Page 153 homines omnis aetatis pueros, viros, senes: as Bellarmine reporteth lib. de monachis c. 35. for he mentioneth no boies, but deuideth the whole company into senes & paruulos, that is, into the elder sort, and such as were nouices, and paruuli. By which, not children are to be vnderstood, but those, that were newly entred, albeit men of ripe yeares.
[falsification 13] In his booke de nocis ecclesiae c. 9. he signifieth, that wee confesse, that the doctrines taught by the Papists were also hol∣den by the fathers. He saith directly, that Caluin in diuers pla∣ces of his Institutions confesseth, that he dissenteth from all an∣tiquitie. Finally, speaking of the Centuriastes: in singulis Centurijs saith he, ad finem quarti capitis annotant omnes fere doctores illius seculi docuisse ea dogmata, quae nos tuemur. All which thrée points are so many vntruthes. for neither do we confesse, that the doctrine of the papists, wherein we dissent from them, is auncient: nor doth Caluin in any place affirme, that he dissenteth from all antiquity: nor doe the writers of the centuries either in so many places, or any one place con∣fesse, that all the doctors of euery age almost, did teach the doctrines maintained by papists. Nor finally doth it follow; because Caluin, and they of Magdeburge, or other priuat men doe holde strange points of doctrine, that all our Churches concurre with them; or because in some one point, or two they differ from vs, that therefore they maintaine the whole doctrine of the papists. Wherfore as his premisses be false, so his collections vpon them are fond, foolish and foppish.
[falsification 14] In the same chapter he saith, that the Eunomians taught, that no sins could hurt a man, so he had saith. And that this was Simon Magus his heresie to holde, that a man was iustified by grace, and not by workes. Eunomiani docebant non posse ho∣mini vlla peccata nocere, modo fidem habeat, vt testatur Augu∣stinus lib. de haeresib. c. 54. And againe: haec erat impijssima haeresis Simonis, qui dicebat hominem saluari per gratiam, non per operas iustas. And these heresies he affirmeth to be hol∣den by Luther, Caluin, and Brentius and others. But to cast some good colour vpon his accusation, he hath made diuers grosse lies. First, the Eunomians taught not, that no sins could hurt a man, so he had faith: but so he were partaker of that faith, Page 154 which he taught.*Docebat Eunomius saith S. Augustine, nihil obesse cuiquam quorumlibet peccatorum perpetrationem, & perseuerantiam, modo eius, quam ille docebat, fidei particeps esset. Secondly, neither doth any of vs, nor did Luther, or Caluin, or any true Christian euer holde, that perseuerance in sinne doth hurt no man▪ nay we say, that he that beléeueth truely, worketh also by charity. Why then doth he charge vs so impudently with this error? Thirdly, we speake of a true faith, and not of the heresie of Eunomius. Fourthly, not Simon Magus, but the Apostle Paul taught, that we are saued by grace. As for the disciples of Simon, they taught, that men are saued by the grace of Simon.*Docebant saith Irenaeus, ser∣uari homines secundum gratiam Simonis, non secundum ope∣ras iustas. Fifthly, we say anathema to all, that beléeue to be saued by Simons grace, or the Simoniacal Popes indulgences. Are the papists then not ashamed, to sée their champion ouer∣lash so farre in the report of these matters? Finally, we doe not deny, but good workes are the way, we are to walke in, if we meane to attaine the kingdome of heauen, though not the causes of obtaining that kingdome.
[falsification 15] He saith further, that as Florinus taught, that God was the author of sinne,*so Caluin did likewise teach. Florini haeresis erat saith Bellarmine, deum esse causam peccatorum. And a∣gaine, eadem sine vllo pudore docet Caluinus lib. 1. instit. c. 18. §. 2. Non solum permissu inquit, sed etiam voluntate dei homines peccant. &c. & lib. 3. c. 23. §. 24. dicit non solum dei praeuisione & permissione, sed etiam voluntate in peccatum lapsum esse Adamum. & infra c. 24 §. 14. quod, inquit, aliqui audire verbum dei contemnunt, ipsorum est prauitas, sed in hanc prauitatem à deo addicti sunt, vt in eis potentiam suam & seueritatem ostendat. He doth say also, that Luther, Peter Mar∣tyr, and Melancthon held the same opinion. Dicit Melancthon in comment. in c. 8. ad Romanos saith he, ita fuisse opus dei Iudae proditionem, ac Pauli conuersionem. But here néedeth a fellow with a talye, to score vp the Cardinals maine lyes. For first Caluin doth expressely deny, that God is the author of sinne, as may appeare by his first booke of his institutions chapt. 18. Secondly, it came neuer in Luthers, Peter Martyrs,Page 155 or Melancthons minde, to holde any such wicked opinion, as Bellarmine doth ascribe vnto them. Thirdly, Caluin hath not these wordes, non solum permissu, sed etiam voluntate dei ho∣mines peccare; or that God is author, or cause of sinne. Nay he directly teacheth, that the next cause of sinne, is the depra∣uation of mans will. Fourthly he forgeth lies, where he saith, that Caluin writeth, that men are addicted to doe euill by God, and that Adam did sinne by the will of God. for neither of these points will be found in his third booke of Caluins insti∣tutions, from whence Bellarmine would seeme to deriue thē. Fifthly, he doth impudently and without shame charge Lu∣ther and Peter Martyr with teaching, that God is authour of sinne. And if Robert Parsons be not able to alleadge their wordes, out of which this may be proued, he cannot deny, but that the Cardinall is a lyar. Finally, he doth slander Phi∣lip Melancthon, and without colour belye him▪ for if Melan∣cthon had taught any such wicked doctrine, as he reporteth; then would he neuer haue fayled to set downe his wordes. Which not being done, we will not fayle to charge him with vntruth▪ which I doubt not but Rob. Parsons will discharge him of, if he can.
[falsification 16] Origenis fuit error, saith Bellarmine, infernum nihil esse, nisi conscientiae horrorem, teste Hieronymo in epistola ad Auitum.*idem docet Caluinus lib. 3. instit. c. vltimo. §. vlt. But he doth impudently belye Caluin. for he neuer thought, much lesse taught any such matter. if he had done, Bellarmine vseth not to conceale his wordes. He belyeth also both Hierome and Origen, as I haue shewed •… the chapter •…ing before.
[falsification 17] He saith very impudently, that in England a woman is our chiefe bishop. Et iam reipsa saith he, *Caluinistis in Anglia mu∣lier quaedam est summus pontifex. A shamelesse lye of the Popes chiefe parasite. for albeit we giue her Maiesty su∣preme authority in ecclesiasticall •am•es; yet the same doth not include any power of ministeriall 〈◊〉 in preaching the word, and administring the sacraments, or vsing the keyes; nor doth it comprehend more, then doth belong to the French king, and all other kings, if they will take it, and not suffer the same to be vsurped by Antichrist, and his adherents. Page 156 His slandrous wordes, where hee like a slaue of antichrist doth call vs Caluinists, doth shew his had humor, and howe without lying and rayling, neither he, nor his consorts can maintaine their credit.
[falsification 18] Proclus Haereticus apud Epiphanium haeres. 64. saith Bellar∣mine,*dicebat peccatum in renatis semper viuere. concupiscen∣tiam enim verè esse peccatum, nec tolli per baptismum, sed so∣piri per fidem, quod idem docuerunt Meslaliani haeretici apud Theodoretum lib. 4. de haeret. fabulis. haec est ipsissima senten∣tia Lutheri artic. 2. & 31. Item Philippi in locis communibus c. de peccato Originis, & Caluini lib. 4. instit c. 15. §. 10. But to report somewhat, that may tend to slander vs, he hath re∣ported a number of lies all vpon a heape. for neither did Pro∣clus say, that concupiscence was sinne, and that it was not ta∣ken away by baptisme, but onely made dull by faith: nor did the Messalians teach any such matter. nor doth either Epi∣phanius say that of Proclus, or Theodoret of the Messalians, that Bellarmine reporteth. nor doth either Luther, or Melan∣cthon, or Caluin teach, that sinne doth liue alwaies in the re∣generat. Proclus beléeued, that the body was vinculum ani∣mae, and that the soules were created before the body: which was also the heresie of Origen. But this which Bellarmine talketh of, he neuer taught, nor was any such thing condem∣ned in him as an heresie. Luther, Melancthon, Caluin and we all doe holde, that euery christian man ought to mortifie his earthly members, and concupiscences, and that some doe it more, some lesse. Neither doth any man teach, that con∣cupiscence doth reigne, or liue in the regenerat, as this lying and slandrous mouth affirmeth.
[falsification 19] Whereas Nouatus denyed reconciliation to such as had fallen in time of persecution, * or as Bellarmine saith, power to reconcile men to God, otherwise then by baptisme, he char∣geth Caluin with this heresie, as if Caluin did deny reconci∣liation to repentant sinners, or had said, that the church hath no power to reconcile such as are fallen. As not this therfore grosse impudency, to lye so manifestly? But saith he, Caluin denied, that there was any sacrament of repentance, beside bap∣tisme. as if he, that denied this, must néedes say, that the Page 157 church hath no power to reconcile sinners to God. This certes, is not onely vntruth, but want also of all vnderstan∣ding, and modesty.
[falsification 20] He doth impudently affirme, that Luther and Caluin deny∣ing freewill, doe fall into the heresie of Manicheisme. Mani∣chaeorum est, inquit Hieronymus, saith Bellarmine,*hominum damnare naturam, & liberum auferre arbitrium. & Augustinus de haeres. c. 46. peccatorum originem, inquit, non tribuunt Manichaei libero arbitrio. idem apertè sectarij omnes. Now by sectaries he vnderstandeth all, that professe the truth. Af∣terward he doth specially name Luther and Caluin. but if he had any shame, he would not haue said, that either Luther, or Caluin doth condemne the nature of man, as the Mani∣cheyes doe, or teach that man doth sinne necessarily, and not by his fréewill. And albeit they deny the force of mans will (which is called commonly liberum arbitrium) to be suffici∣ent to vnderstand the will of God, or to performe the same; yet it doth not therefore follow, that they sauour of Mani∣cheisme. But how the papists sauour of this heresie, we haue shewed heretofore.
[falsification 21] Ho• tamen est magis impius Caluinus Manichaeo, quod Ma∣nichaeus deo malo tribuat peccatorum originem, Caluinus deo bono. Herein, saith Bellarmine,*doth Caluin shew himselfe more wicked, then the Manichey, because he attributed vnto an euill god the beginning and cause of sinne, and Caluin to a good God. But if he passed not the Manicheyes, and all o∣ther heretikes in impudent lying, he would not haue thus falsly affirmed this of Caluin, who in his first booke of institu∣tions chap. 18. doth expressely prooue, that God is not the au∣thor of sinne; and in all places doth detest this opinion. Why then did not Bellarmine alleadge his wordes, if he had said any such matter? In the place quoted certes he teacheth the contrary of that which Bellarmine affirmeth, and bellow∣eth out against him.
[falsification 22] He is not ashamed also to affirme, that all of vs teach, that the visible church hath been lost now this many yeares. * eccle∣siam visibilem à multis seculis perijsse saith he, & nunc solum esse in septentrionalibus partibus, vbi ipsi sunt, docent omnes, Page 158 praecipuê Caluinus lib. 4. instit. c. 2. §. 2. But he doth belye Caluin, and all the rest. for we beléeue, that in Italy there is a visible church now, albeit the Pope sée it not. and that the church at all times consisted not of spirits, but of men visible, albeit euery one did not know them. neither doe we say, that the church at any time shall faile, or hath failed. nor is this ly∣ing cardinall able to prooue it out of our writings.
[falsification 23] Of Luther, Melancthon, and Caluin he affirmeth, that they cannot deny,*but that the seeds of Arianisme are sowne in their writings. Which is a lye most odious and malicious. for all the points of Arianisme they not only detested, but haue lear∣nedly refuted. and those proofes that Bellarmine bringeth in his preface to his treatise, de Christo, are nothing but rayling termes, and proofes of his owne malice.
[falsification 24] He saith, Iouinian taught, that a man after baptisme could not sinne,*especially if he were truely baptized, and the same error he doth impute to Caluin. But he lyeth both of the one and the other. for neither did Iouinian teach so, nor Caluin: though by his lying reportes he doe endeuour to conioyne them in one opinion.
[falsification 25] Hierome doth impute these heresies to Vigilantius, first, that he taught, that the bodies of the Saints were vncleane, and to be throwne out: next, that the prayers of the Apostles and Martyrs are not heard: and lastly, that the ministers of the Church ought to be married. But if Bellarmine do say, that in these thrée points we agrée with Vigilantius,* as he doth; then doth he make a thréefold lye. For neither doe we allow those, that would haue mens bodies thrown out to the beasts of the field, and fowles of the ayre, or otherwise vse the bo∣dies of holy men departed this life vnreuerently; nor doe we doubt, but that God doth heare the prayers of the church tri∣umphant; nor doe we thinke any man is to be constrained either to marry or not to marry. Would thē Bellarmine shew more plaine and true dealing in his disputations, his rea∣ders would better like of him, and his cause.
[falsification 26] Of Pelagius he affirmeth, that he taught that righteousnesse is lost by euery little sinne,*and that therefore euery sinne is mortall. and this saith he, is confirmed by the testimony of Page 159Hierome lib. 2. contra Pelagianos. But neither was this the error of Pelagius, who rather, as the papists suppose & teach, held, that a regenerat man may be without all sin, and that he is able to performe the law; nor doth Hierome affirme any such thing of Pelagius.
[falsification 27] Of Zuinglius he reporteth, that he did simply deny original sinne to be in euery man. He saith also, *that Caluin and Bucer deny originall sinne to be in the children of the faithfull. Mat∣ters vtterly false, and which by the whole course of their wri∣ting is refuted. neither doth it follow, albeit the children of the faithfull be holy, that therefore they are not borne in ori∣ginall sinne. For this holynesse they do not otherwise ascribe vnto them, but in regard of spirituall regeneration, and re∣mission of sinnes. But if it be Pelagianisme to teach, that o∣riginall sinne is not in all men, then are the papists Pelagians by Bellarmines confession, which exempt the blessed virgin from this sinne.
[falsification 28] Xenaias persa primus palam asseruit, saith Bellarmine, Chri∣sti & sanctorum imagines non esse venerandas. testis Nicepho∣rus lib. 16. c. 27. But this lye is confuted by the law of God against the worship of images, by S. Augustine, that con∣demneth Marcellina for worshipping and burning incense to the images of Iesu & Paul, by Epiphanius and other fathers, which I haue cited as witnesses against the idolatry of pa∣pists in my former challenge. He doth also falsifie Nicepho∣rus, in adding these wordes primus palam, vnto him.
[falsification 29] In the 14. chapter de notis ecclesiae: he telleth vs, howe Dominick raysed three dead men to life, and that he and Fran∣cis did many miracles, as they are record do in the discourse of their liues. He saith also, that Francis de Paula did great mi∣racles, and that Xauier a Iebusite did cure deafe and dumb men, and those that were sicke of the palsey, and restored one dead man to life. But all these report• of miracles are nothing but miraculous lyes. for Ignatius doing no miracles, how is it likely that Xauier should doe so many?
[falsification 30] In the 17. chapter of the same booke, he telleth how Luther died sodenly, that Oecolampadius was found dead in his bed, lying downe in good health, that Carolstadius was killed by Page 160 the diuell, that Caluin died eaten of wormes, as did Antiochus and Herod and others. Lies deuised by men hyred to rayle vpon honest men, and refuted by the histories of their life and death, and by the testimony of all that were present at their endes.
[falsification 31] In his second booke de eucharistia c. 6. he hath these words: Irenaeus probat Christum esse creatorem, ex eo quod panis fit corpus Christi per consecrationem. But Irenaeus hath no such matter. nay if he should haue vsed any such argument, then must it follow, that Christs body is created, as oft as masse is saide. Furthermore it appeareth by the place of Irenae∣us lib. 4. contr. haeres. c. 34. that he disputeth not against those, that denied Christ to be the creator, but which denyed God to be the creator. And that he prooueth, not as saith Bellarmine, because by consecration the bread is made Christs body, but because heretikes offered to God bread, which by consecra∣tion was made Christs body, and because this sacrifice had béene vngratefull, vnlesse it had consisted of Gods creatures.
Finally, because it were long to set downe the particulars of all sorts of lyes vttered by Bellarmine, this I doe giue the reader to vnderstand in generall, that almost all his reports of his lying legends, vnwritten traditions, feyned miracles, new deuised prophecies, and of the fathers testimonies concer∣ning the speciall points of the late Romish religion establi∣shed in Trent, are either plaine lyes, or vntruly let downe by him. and that shall euery man perceiue, that listeth to reade my bookes de missa papistica, de Pontifice Rom. de purgatorio, de ecclesia, de concilijs, de monachis and others set out a∣gainst him; especially if he list diligently to com∣pare the fathers writings with that poyson, which he like a spider hath sucked out of them.