broken pits that can hold no water what shall be the issue Et tu Domine deduces eos in puteum interitus Thou O God shalt bring them downe into the pit of destruction If you wil thus wilfully leaue God there I must leaue you But if you had not rather die returne and saue one returne to God returne to his truth returne to his Church your blood be vpon my head if you perish ADVERTISEMENTS to the Reader VNDERSTAND good reader that in all these passages following I haue brought in C. Bellarm. speaking in his owne words except in some few plaine references where I mention him in the third person 2 That the edition of C. Bellarmine which I haue followed and quoted in euery page is that in octauo the commonest I thinke set forth at Ingolstadt from the presse of Adam Sartorius in the yeare M.D.XCIX 3 That all those Authors which thou seest named ouer the head of euery Section are Papists of note whose quarrels C. Bellarmine confesseth 4 That such great Doctors could not be singular in their iudgements but must needes in all probability which yet is not confessed be attended with many followers in euery point of variance euery Master hath the fauour of his owne schoole the sides taken by their Scholers is not more secret then likely 5 That one Doctor Pappus a learned German hath vndertaken the like taske but somewhat vnperfectly for of my 303 contradictions he hath noted but 237. the edition followed by him was not the same and therefore his trust could not be so helpfull to mee Besides that two or three of Card. Bellarmines workes are since published 6 That I haue willingly omitted diuers small differences which if I had regarded number might haue caused the Sum to swell yet higher 7 That thou mayest not looke to finde all these acknowledged differences maine and essentiall All Religion consists not of so many stones in her foundation it is enough that deepe and material dissensions are intermingled with the rest and that scarce any point is free from some 8 That Card. Bellarmine acknowledges those dissensions only which fall into the compasse of his owne Controuersies if all those omitting all others For instance of all those sixtie and two differences in the matter of penance which I haue here gathered out of Nauarre and Frâ—a Victoria he hath not confessed aboue fiue or sixe So that by the same proportion wheras three hundred and three Contradictions are acknowledged there cannot but be many hundreds wittingly by him concealed GEN. 11.7 Venite igitur descendamus confundamus ibi linguam eorum vt non audiat vnus quis que vocem proximi sui atque ita diuisit eos Dominus ex illo loco in vniuersas terras cessauerunt aedificare ciuitatem idcirco vocatum est nomen eius Babel c. THE PEACE OF ROME LIB I. FIRST CENTVRY of Dissentions DECAD I. First Bellarmine against Nic. Lyra Carthusian Hugo and Thomas Cardinals Sixtus Senensis THere haue not wanted some which haue held the seuen last Chapters of the booke of Ester because they are not in the Hebrewe Text spurious and counterfet In which opinion was S. Hierom as is gathered out of his praeface and following him not onely before the Councell of Trent Nicholas Lyra Dionysius Carthusianus Hugo and Thomas de Vio Cardinals but also since the said Councell Sixtus Senensis in the first and eight booke of his Bibliotheca Sancta But that they are sacred and Diuine is sufficiently proued by all those Decrees of Popes and Councels and those testimonies of Hebrew Greeke and Latine fathers which we haue noted formerly in the fourth chapter of this booke and so those other chapters which are not in the Hebrew c. Bellarmine in his first booke of the word of God chapt 7. See at large his confutation of Sixtus Senensis in the same place pag. 30. Secondly Iohn Driedo against Bellarmine IOhannes Driedo a Catholike writer denies the booke of Baruch to be Canonical in his first book the last chapter at the last argument But the authority of the Catholicke Church perswades vs the contrary which in the Councell of Trent the fourth sitting numbers the prophet Baruch among the sacred bookes Bellarmine the same booke chap. 8. pag. 41. Thirdly Erasmus and Iohannes Driedo against Bellarmine NOt onely Heretickes Pagans Iewes but of Catholicke Christians Iulius Africanus of olde and of late Iohannes Driedo in his first booke de Script c. chap. last and of semi-Christians Erasmus in his Scholees vpon Hieroms praeface to Daniel haue reiected the story of Susanna as new and foisted into the Canon But notwithstanding it is certaine that all these parts of Daniel are truely Canonicall Bellarm. the same booke chap. 9. pag. 43. Fourthly Caietane a Cardinall and some other namelesse against Bellarmine SOme obiect that the Church receiues those books that Saint Hierome receiues and refuseth those which he reiecteth as it appeares Distinct. 15. Canon Sancta Romana But Hierome flatly affirmes all these fiue bookes not to be Canonicall so reasoneth Caietane otherwise a Catholicke a holy Doctor Some answere that Hierome saith onely that these are not Canonicall among the Iewes but that cannot be for he mentioneth also the booke of the Pastor which was accounted to the new Testament But I admit that Hierome was of that opinion because no generall Councell as yet had defined of these books except onely of the booke of Iudith which Hierome also afterwards receiued That therefore which Gelasius saith in the Distinct aboue cited is to be vnderstood of the bookes of the Doctors of the Church Origin Ruffin and the like not of the bookes of Scripture Bellarm. ibid. chap. 10. pag. 53. Fiftly Bellarmine against Erasmus Caietanus IN our times Erasmus in the end of his notes vpon this Epistle and Caietane in the beginning of his Commentaries vpon this Epistle haue reuiued and renewed a question that hath long slept in silence concerning the Author and authority of the Epistle to the Hebrewes Bellarmine vndertakes to confute their seuerall reasons drawne First From Hebr. 1.5 compared with 2. Sam. 7.14 Secondly From Hebr. 9.4 compared with 1 Kings 8.9 Thirdly From Heb. 9.20 compared with Exod. 24.8 Bellarm. ibid. chap. 17. pag. 77. Sixtly Beda Lyranus Driedo Mercator Sulpitius Genebrard Benedictus Bellarmine dissenting THere are two principall opinions about the storie of Iudith Some would haue that storie to haue happened after the Babilonish captiuity eyther in Cambyses time so Beda Lyranus Io. Driedo or vnder Darius Hystaspes as Gerardus Mercator Seuerus Sulpitius refers it to Artaxerxes Ochus some others hold it to haue beene after the captiuity either in Sedecias times as Gil. Genebrardus or Iosias as Iohn Benedictus But neither of these seemes to me probable enough saith Bellarmine who confuting all them placeth this storie in the raigne of Manasses king of Iuda Bellarm. same booke c. 12.
to looke towards our Doctrine the noueltie of our Religion you say hath discouraged you theirs hath drawne you with the reuerence of her age It is a free challenge betwixt vs let the elder haue vs both if there be any point of our Religion yonger then the Patriarkes and Prophets Christ and his Apostles the Fathers and Doctors of the Primitiue Church let it be accursed and condemned for an vpstart shew vs euidence of more credite and age and carrie it The Church of Rome hath beene auncient not the errors neither doe we in ought differ from it wherein it is not departed from it selfe If I did not more feare your wearines then my owne forgetting the measure of a Praeface I would passe through euerie point of difference betwixt vs and let you see in all particulars which is the old way and make you know that your Popish Religion doth but put on a borrowed visor of grauitie vpon this Stage to out-face true antiquitie Yet least you should complaine of words let me without your tediousnes haue leaue but to instance in the first of all Controuersies betwixt vs offering the same proofe in al which you shall see performed in one I compare the iudgement of the ancient Church with yours see therefore and be ashamed of your noueltie First our question is Whether all those bookes which in our Bibles are stiled Apocryphall and are put after the rest by themselues are to be receiued as the true Scriptures of God Heare first the voice of the old Church To let passe that cleare and pregnant testimonie of Melito Sardensis in his Epistle to Onesimus cited by Eusebius Let Cyprian or Ruffinus rather speake in the name of all Of the olde Testament saith he first were written the fiue bookes of Moses Genesis Exodus Leuiticus Numbers Deuteronomie after these the booke of Ioshua the son of Nun and that of the Iudges together with Ruth after which were the foure bookes of the Kings which the Hebrues reckon but two of the Chronicles which is called the booke of Dayes and of Ezra are two bookes which of them are accounted but single and the booke of Esther Of the Prophets there is Esay Hieremie Ezekiel and Daniel and besides one booke which containes the twelue smaller Prophets Also Iob and the Psalmes of Dauid are single bookes of Salomon there are three books deliuered to the Church the Prouerbes Ecclesiastes Song of songs In these they haue shut vp the number of the bookes of the olde Testament Of the new there are foure Gospels of Matthew Marke Luke and Iohn the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke of Paul the Apostle fourteene Epistles of the Apostle Peter two Epistles of Iames the Lords brother and Apostle one of Iude one of Iohn three Lastly the Reuelation of Iohn These are they which the Fathers haue accounted within the Canon by which they would haue the assertions of our faith made good But we must know there are other bookes which are called of the Ancients not Canonicall but Ecclesiastical as the Wisedome of Salomon and another booke of Wisedome which is called of Iesus the sonne of Sirach which booke of the Latines is termed by a generall name Ecclesiasticus of the same ranke is the booke of Toby and Iudith and the bookes of the Maccabees Thus farre that Father so Hierome after that he hath reckoned vp the same number of bookes with vs in their order hath these words This Prologue of mine saith he may serue as a well defenced entrance to all the bookes which I haue turned out of Hebrew into latine that we may know that whatsoeuer is besides these is Apocryphall therefore that booke which is intituled Salomons Wisedome and the booke of Iesus the son of Sirach and Iudith Tobias Pastor are not Canonical the first book of the Macabees I haue found in Hebrew the second is Greeke which booke saith he indeed the Church readeth but receiueth not as Canonicall The same reckoning is made by Origen in Eusebius word for word The same by Epiphanius by Cyrill by Athanasius Gregory Nazianzen Damascen yea by Lyranus both Hugoes Caietan Carthusian and Montanus himselfe c. All of them with full consent reiecting these same Apocryphall bookes with vs. Now heare the present Church of Rome in her owne words thus The holy Synode of Trent hath thought good to set downe with this Decree a iust Catalogue of the bookes of holy Scripture least any man should make doubt which they be which are receiued by the Synode And they are these vnder-written Of the old Testament fiue bookes of Moses then Ioshua the Iudges Ruth foure bookes of the Kings two of the Chronicles two of Esdras the first and the second which is called Nehemias Tobias Iudith Ester Iob the Psalter of Dauid containing one hundreth and fiftie Psalmes the Prouerbes of Salomon Ecclesiastes the Song of Songs the booke of Wisedome Ecclesiasticus Esay Hieremy c. two bookes of the Macabees the first and the second And if any man shall not receiue these whole bookes with al the parts of them as they are wont to be read in the Catholick Church as they are had in the old vulgar latine Edition for holy and Canonicall let him be accursed Thus shee Iudge you now of our age and say whether the opinion of the ancient Church that is ours be not a direct enemy to Poperie and flatly accursed by the Romish Passe on yet a little further Our question is whether the Hebrew and Greeke Originals be corrupted and whether those first Copies of Scriptures be not to be followed aboue all Translations Heare first the ancient Church with vs But saith Saint Augustine howsoeuer it be taken whether it be beleeued to be so done or not beleeued or lastly whether it were so or not so I hold it a right course that when any thing is found different in eyther bookes the Hebrew and Septuagint since for the certainty of things done there can be but one truth that tongue should rather bee beleeued from whence the Translation is made into another language Vppon which words Ludouicus Viues yet a Papist saith thus the same saith he doth Ierome proclayme euery where and reason it selfe teacheth it and there is none of sound iudgement that will gaine say it but in vaine doth the consent of all good wits teach this for the stubburne blockishnes of men opposeth against it Let Ierome himselfe then a greater linguist be heard speake And if there be any man saith he that will say the Hebrew bookes were afterwards corrupted of the Iewes let him heare Origen what he answeres in the eight Volume of his explanations of Esay to this question that the Lord and his Apostles which reproue other faults in the Scribs and Pharisees would neuer haue beene silent in this which were the greatest crime that could be But if they say that the Hebrewes falsified them
Heare first the voyce of the old religion to omit the direct charges of Gregory Nissen and Ambrose thus hath Ierome vpon the Psalmes The Lord will declare and how will he declare Not by word but by writing In whose writing In the writing of his people c. Our Lord and Sauiour therefore tels vs and speaketh in the scriptures of his Princes Our Lord will declare it to vs in the scriptures of his people in the holy scriptures which scripture is read to all the people that is so read as that all may vnderstand not that a few may vnderstand but all What faithfull man saith Augustine though he be but a Nouice before he be baptized and haue receiued the holy Ghost doth not with an equall minde reade and heare all things which after the ascension of our Lord are written in Canonicall truth and authority although as yet he vnderstands them not as he ought But of all other Saint Chrysostome is euery where most vehement and direct in this point Amongst infinite places heare what he saith in one of his Homilies of Lazarus I doe alwaies exhort and will neuer cease to exhort you saith he that you will not here onely attend to those things which are spoken but when you are at home you continually busie your selues in reading of the holy Scriptures which practise also I haue not ceased to driue into them which come priuately to me for let no man say Tush they are but idle words and many of them such as should bee contemned Alas I am taken vp with lawe causes I am employed in publique affaires I follow my trade I maintaine a wife and children and haue a great charge to looke to It is not for me to read the Scriptures but for them which haue cast off the world which haue taken vp the solitary toppes of Mountaines for their dwellings which liue this contemplatiue kinde of life continually What sayest thou O man Is it not for thee to turne ouer the Scriptures because thou art distracted with infinite cares Nay then it is for thee more then for them for they doe not so much neede the helpe of the Scriptures as you that are tost in the midst of the waues of worldly busines And soone after Neyther can it be possible that any man should without great fruit be perpetually conuersant in this spirituall exercise of reading and straight Let vs not neglect to buy our selues bookes least we receiue a wound in our vitall parts and after he hath compared the bookes of Scripture to gold he addeth But what say they if we vnderstand not those things which are contained in those bookes What gaine we then Yes surely though thou dost not vnderstand those things which are there laid vp yet by the very reading much holinesse is got Although it cannot be that thou shouldest be alike ignorant of all thou readest for therefore hath the spirit of God so dispenced this word that Publicanes Fishers Tent-makers Shepheards Goat-beards plaine vnlettered men may be saued by these bookes least any of the simpler sort should pretend this excuse That all things which are said should be easie to discerne and that the workeman the seruant the poore widdow and the most vnlearned of all other by hearing of the word read might get some gaine and profit And the same Father elsewhere I beseech you saith he that you come speedily hither and harken diligently to the reading of the holy Scriptures and not onely when you come hither but also at home take the Bible into your hands and by your diligent care reape the profite contained in it Lastly in his Homilies vpon the Epistle to the Colossians he cries out Heare I beseech you O all ye secular men prouide you Bibles which are the medicines for the soule At least get the new Testament Now on the contrary let the new Religion of Rome speake first by her Rhemish Iesuites thus We may not thinke that the Translated Bibles into vulgar tongues were in the hands of euery Husbandman Artificer Prentise Boyes Girles Mistresse Maide Man that they were sung played alledged of euery Tinker Tauerner Rimer Minstrell The like words of scorn and disgrace are vsed by Hosius and by Eckius and by Bellarmine de verbo l. 2. c. 15. The wise will not here regard say our Rhemists what some wilfull people doe mutter that the Scriptures are made for all men c. And soone after they compare the scriptures to fire water candles kniues swords which are indeede needfull c. but would marre all if they were at the guiding of other then wise men All the Heretickes of this time saith Bellarmine agree that the scriptures should be permitted to all and deliuered in their owne mother tongue But the Catholike Church forbids the reading of the Scriptures by all without choice or the publique reading or singing of them in vulgar tongues as it is decreed in the Councell of Trent Ses. 22 c. 8. and can 9. If you thinke saith Duraeus that Christ had all Christians to search the Scriptures you are in a grosse errour For how shall rude and ignorant men search the Scriptures c. And so he concludes that the Scriptures were not giuen to the common multitude of beleeuers Iudge now what either we say or these Papists condemne besides the ancient iudgement of the Fathers and if euer either Caluin or Luther haue beene more peremptory in this matter then Saint Chrysostome I vow to be a Papist If ours be not in this the old Religion be not you ours Yet this one passage further and then no more least I weary you Our question is Whether the Scriptures depend vpon the authority of the Church or rather the Church vpon the authoritie of Scriptures Heare first the ancient Church with and for vs The question is saith Saint Austen betwixt vs and the Donatists where the Church is what shall we do then shall we seeke her in our owne words or in the words of her head the Lord Iesus Christ I suppose we ought to seeke her rather in his words which is the truth and knowes best his owne body for the Lord knowes who are his we will not haue the Church sought in our words And in the same booke Whether the Donatists hold the Church saith the same Father let them not shew but by the Canonicall bookes of Diuine scriptures for neyther do we therefore say they should beleeue vs that wee are in the Church of Christ because Optatus or Ambrose hath commended this Church vnto vs which we now hold or because it is acknowledged by the Councels of our fellow-teachers or because so great miracles are done in it it is not therefore manifested to be true and Catholicke but the LORD Iesus himselfe iudged that his Disciples should rather be confirmed by the testimonies of the Law and the Prophets These are the rules of our cause these
after the comming of Christ and preaching of the Apostles I cannot hold from laughter that our Sauiour and the Euangelists and Apostles should so cite testimonies of Scripture as the Jews would afterwards depraue them Thus Ierome And the Canon law it selfe hath this determination that the truth and credite of the books of the old Testament should be examined by the Hebrew Volumes of the new by the Greeke And Pope Innocentius as he is cyted by Gratian could say Haue recourse to the diuine Scriptures in their Original Greek The same lastly by Bellarmines owne confession the Fathers teach euery where As Ierome in his booke against Heluidius and in his Epistle to Marcella that the latine Edition of the Gospels is to be called back to the Greek fountaines and the latine Edition of the olde Testament is to be amended by the Hebrew in his Comment vpon Zachary chap. 8. The very same hath Austen in his second booke of Christian doctrine chap. 11.12 15. and Epist. 19. and elsewhere This was the old Religion and ours now heare the new The present Church of Rome hath thus The holy Synode decreeth that the old vulgar latine Edition in all Lectures Disputations Sermons Expositions be held for Authenticall saith the counsell of Trent And her Champion Bellarmine hath these words That the fountaine of the Originals in many places run muddy and impure we haue formerly shewed and indeed it can scarce be doubted but that as the latine Church hath beene more constant in keeping the faith then the Greeke so it hath been more vigilant in defending her bookes from corruption Yea some of the Popish Doctors mainetaine that the Iewes in hatred of the Christian faith did on purpose corrupt many places of scripture so holds Gregory de Valentia Iacobus Christopolitanus in his Praeface to the Psalmes Canus in the second booke of his common places But in stead of all Bellarmine shal shut vp all with these wordes The Heretickes of this time in hatred of the vulgar Edition giue too much to the Hebrew Edition as Caluin Chemnitius Georgius Maior All which would haue euery thing examined and amended by the Hebrew text which they commonly call a most pure fountain See now whether that which Bellarmine confesses to haue beene the iudgement of Hierome Austen and all the auncient Fathers be not here condemned by him as the opinion of the Heretickes Ours was theirs and theirs is condemned vnder our names Iudge whether in this also Popery be not an vpstart Yet one step more Our question is whether the Scripture be easie or most obscure and whether in all essentiall points it doe not interpret it selfe so as what is hard in one place is openly layd forth in another Heare the iudgement of the old Church and ours All things are cleare and plaine and nothing contrary in the Scriptures saith Epiphanius Those things which seeme doubtfully and obscurely spoken in some places of Scripture are expounded by them which in other places are open and plaine saith Basil What could Caluin or Luther say more There is no so great hardnesse in the Scriptures to come to those things which are necessary to saluation saith Austen In those things which are openly layd downe in Scripture are found all those things which containe our faith and rules for our life saith the same Father who yet againe also saith thus The spirit of God hath Royally and wholsomely tempered the holy Scriptures so as both by the plaine places he might preuent our hunger and by the obscure hee might auoyd our nice slouthfulnesse for there is scarce any thing that can be fetch 't out of those obscurities which is not found most plainely spoken elsewhere And because Bellarmine takes exception at this Feré Scarce compare this place with the former and with that which he hath in his third Epistle thus The manner of speech in which the Scripture is contriued is easie to be commed to of al although to be throughly attained by few Those things which it containeth plaine and easie it speakes like a familiar friend without guile to the heart of the learned and vnlearned c. But it inuites all men with an humble manner of speech whom it dooth not onely feede with manifest truth but exercise with secret hauing the same in readinesse which it hath in secrecy Thus Austen To omit Iraeneus and Origen Chrysostome whom Bellarmine saith we alledge alone for vs besides many other playne places writeth thus Who is there to whom all is not manifest which is written in the Gospel who that shall heare Blessed are the meeke Blessed are the mercifull Blessed are the pure in heart the rest wold desire a teacher to learne any of these things which are here spoken As also the signes miracles histories are not they knowne and manifest to euery man This pretence and excuse is but the cloake of our slothfulnesse thou vnderstandest not those things which are written how shouldest thou vnderstand them which wilt not so much as sleightly looke into them take the booke into thy hand read all the history and what thou knowest remember and what is obscure runne often ouer it So Chrysostome yea he makes this difference betwixt the Philosophers and Apostles the Philosophers speake obscurely But the Apostles and Prophets saith he contrarily make all things deliuered by them cleare and manifest and as the common teachers of the world haue so expounded all things that euery man may of himselfe by bare reading learne those things which are spoken yea lastly so far he goes in this point as that he asketh Wherefore needeth a preacher all things are cleare and plaine in the Diuine Scriptures but because ye are delicate hearers and seeke delight in hearing therefore ye seeke for Preachers You haue heard the old Religion now heare the new Bellarmine hath these wordes It must needes be confessed that the Scriptures are most obscure Here therefore saith he Luther hath deuised two euasions One that the Scripture though it be obscure in one place yet that it doth clearely propound the same thing in another The second is that though the Scripture be cleare of it selfe yet to the proud and vnbeleeuers it is hard by reason of their blindnes and euill affections so the Lutherans saith Eckius contend that the Scriptures are cleare and plaine so Duraeus against VVhitakers so the Rhemists in their annotations and generally all Papists Iudge now if all these forenamed Fathers and so the Auncient Church were not Lutherans in this point or rather we theirs and yeeld that this their old opinion by the new Church of Rome is condemned for hereticall and in al these say vpon your soule whether is the elder Let me draw you on yet a little further Our question is whether it be necessary or fit that all men euen of the Laiety should haue liberty to heare and read the Scriptures in a language which they vnderstand
p. 58. Seuenthly Erasmus and Caietane against Bellarm. and all other true Catholickes ERasm in his notes vpon these epistles affirms that the Epistle of Iames doth not sauor of an Apostolicke grauitie hee doubts of the second Epistle of Peter he affirmes the second and third Epistles of Iohn were not written by Iohn the Apostle but by another of Iudes Epistle hee saith nothing Caietane doubts of the Authors of the Epistle of Iames of Iude of the second and third of Iohn and therefore will haue them to be of lesse authority then the rest Bellarmine iustly refutes their opinion ch 18. pag. 86. Eightly Erasmus against all true Catholickes ERasmus in the end of his notes vpon the Reuelation seekes out many doubtfull coniectures wherby he would proue this booke of the Reuelation not to be written by Iohn the Apostle His three reasons are truely answered by Bellarmine chap. 19. p. 94. Ninthly Genebrardus against Bellarmine THE fourth booke of Esdras is indeede cyted by Ambrose in his booke de Bono Mortis and in his second booke vpon Luke and in the 21. Epistle to Horatian but doubtlesse it is not Canonicall since that it is not by any Councell accounted in the Canon and is not found eyther in Hebrew or Greeke and contains in the sixt chapter very fabulous toyes I wonder therfore what came into Genebrards minde that he would haue this booke pertaine to the Canon in his Chronology pag. 90. Bellarm. chap. 20. pag. 99. Tenthly Iacobus Christopolitanus Canus against Bellarmine OMitting those therefore which falsly attribute too much purity vnto the Hebrew text we are to meete with others which in a good zeale but I know not whether according to knowledge defend that the Iewes in hatred of the Christian Religion haue purposely depraued many places of Scripture so teaches Iacob Bishop of Christopolis in his praeface to the Psalmes and Canus in his second booke and thirteenth chapter of common places These Bellarmine confutes by most weighty arguments as he cals them and shewes that by this defence the vulgar Edition should be most corrupt in 2. booke of the word of God chap. 2. pag. 108. DECAD II. First Pagnin Paulus Forosempron Eugubius Io. Mirandulanus Driedo Sixtus Senensis all together by the eares COncerning this vulgar Latine Edition there is no small question That it is not Ieromes is held by Sanctus Pagninus in the praeface of his interpretation of the Bible to Clement the eight and Paulus Bishop of Forosempronium in his second booke first chapter of the day of Christs passion Contrarily that it is Ieromes is defended by Augustine Eugubinus and Iohannes Picus Mirandulanus in bookes set out to that purpose and by some others But that it is mixt both of the new and old is maintained by Io. Driedo in his second booke ch 1. and Sixtus Senensis in his 8. booke of the holy Library and the end Bellarm. 2. booke chap. 9. pag. 135. Secondly Bellarmine against some nameles Authors COncerning the Translation of the Septuagint though I know some hold it is vtterly lost yet I hold rather that it is so corrupted that it seemes another Bellarm. 2. booke ch 6. pag. 127. Thirdly Valla Faber Erasmus and others against Bellarmine THat place Rom. 1.32 not onely Kemnitius but also Valla Erasmus Iacobus Faber and others would haue to be corrupted in the Latine vulgar Bellarmine confutes them and would shew that their Latine Translation herein is better then the Greeke originall Bellarm. same booke chap. 14. pag. 168. Fourthly Card. Caietane against Bellarmine THomas Caietanus in his Treatise of the Institut and authority of the B. of Rome chap. 5. teacheth that the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heauen are not the same with the power of binding and loosing for that the keyes of the Kingdome of Heauen includes the power of order and iurisdiction and somewhat more But this doctrine seemes to vs more subtile then true for it was neuer heard of that the Church had any other keyes besides those of order and iurisdiction Bellarm. 1. booke of the Pope ch 12. pag. 101. Fiftly Ioachim Raymundus a namelesse Frenchman against all Catholikes THat there are three eternall spirits Father Sonne Holy Ghost essentially differing was taught by a certaine Frenchman in Anselmes time and the same seemes to be held by Ioachim the Abbot in the yeare 1190. and Raymundus Lullius in the yeare 1270. confuted by Bellarmine in his first booke de Christo. cha 2. pag. 37. Sixtly Erasmus confuted by Bellarmine BEllarmines disputation against the Transsiluani and Erasmus as their patrone concerning the Diuinity of Christ warranted from diuers places of Scripture See Bell. l. 1. de Christo. ch 6. pag. 72.73 Seuenthly Bellarmine against Durandus THE fourth error is of Durandus in 3. d. 22. q. 3. who taught that Christs soule descended not to hell in substance but only in certaine effects because it did illuminate those holy Fathers which were in Limbo which opinion to be erroneous and yet not so ill as Caluins is proued by foure arguments and all his obiections answered by Bellarm. l. 4. de Christo ch 15. pag. 391.392 c. Eightly Bonauenture against Thomas SAint Thomas p. 3. q. 52. Art 2. teaches that Christ by his reall presence descended but to Limbus Patrum and in effect onely to the other places of hell but it is probable that his soule discended to all Secondly Saint Thomas seemes to say p. 3. q. 52. ar 1. that it was some punishment to Christ to be in hel according to his soule c. And Caietane in act 2. saith that the sorrowes of Christs death continued in him til his resurrection in regard of three penalties whereof the second is that the soule remained in hell a place not conuenient for it But Bonauent in 3. d. 22. q. 4. saith that Christs soule while it was in hell was in the place of punishment indeede but without punishment which seemes to me more agreeable to the Fathers Bellarm. l. 4 de Christo. c. 16. p. 396.397 c. Ninthly Bellarmine and all other Papists against Lyranus NIcolaus Lyranus is not of so great authority that we should oppose him to all the auncient Fathers and Historians which say that Peter was slaine at Rome not as Lyranus at Hierusalem Bellarm. l. 2. of the Pope of Rome ch 10. pag. 210. Tenthly Aeneas Syluius confuted by Bellarmine THat speech of Aeneas Syluius afterwards Pope that before the Nicene Councel each man liued to himselfe and there was small respect had of the Bishop of Rome is partly true and partly false It is true that the power of the Popes was somewhat in those times hindred but it is not true that there was so little respect giuen him Bellarm. l. 2. de Pontif. c. 17. pag 252. DECAD III. First Martinus Polonus confuted by Bellarmine THE confutation of Martinus Polonus which liued An. 1250. in that storie
in faith and manners there are some Catholickes that denie which as yet are not by the Church condemned for Heretickes But surely it is rash erroneous and neare to heresie to affirme that particular Councels confirmed by the Pope may erre Bellarmine l. 2. ch 5. p. 114. Secondly Alanus Copus against Bellarmine IT is a very vncertaine thing what was decreede of Images in the Councell of Francford for the ancient authors agree not with themselues by reason of this confusion Alanus Copus in his fourth and fift Dialogue teaches that in that Synod of Francford the hereticall Councell of Constantinople was onely condemned the Nicene not onely not condemned but confirmed which opinion I wish to be true but I suspect it to be false Bellarmine ibid. chap. 8. pag. 137. Thirdly Bellarmine against Vega. SOme answere as Vega in the Councell of Trent b. 3. c. 39. that any Councell is lawfull if held by the faithfull not for that Historians witnes so but because the Councell it selfe defineth so of it selfe for they vse euer in the beginning of their act so to determine their meeting lawfull and in the Holy Ghost But sure this answere is not found for first the auncient Councels had not wont to witnesse so of themselues Secondly eyther it appeares to vs that the Councell is a lawfull one or it appeares not if it do appeare such a Decree is in vaine if it doe not appeare we shall as well doubt of that Decree as of the Councel Bellarmine same booke cap. 9. pag. 148. Fourthly Parisienses against Caietane Turrecremata and Bellarmine against Canus OF generall Councels there are diuers opinions amongst vs. First the Diuines of Paris and all those which teach that the Councell is aboue the Pope thinke that lawfull generall Councels cannot erre euen before the confirmation of the Pope Contrary to these teach others as Caietane in Apolog. Io. Turrecremata lib. 3. cap. 32.33 34. But when Councels define something with the consent of the Popes Legates not hauing had full instruction what authority they haue is stil in controuersie But I thinke such a Councell may erre before the popes owne confirmation Canus and others hold the contrary Bellarm. l. 2. c. 11. p. 153. Fiftly Bellarmine against Gratian. GRatian dist 19. affirmes that the decretall Epistles of popes ought to be numbred amongst the Canonicall Scriptures and Di. 20. he saith that the Canons of Councels are of the same authority with Decretall Epistles and pope Gregorie in his first B. Epist. 24. saith he reuerences the foure first Councels as the foure Euangelists I answere first that Gratian was deceiued by a depraued copy which he followed c. As for Gregorie I answere that his As doth not signifie equality but similitude Bellarm. l. 2. c. 12. pag. 161. Sixtly Three rankes of Popish Diuines dissenting IN this question Whether the pope be aboue the Councell I finde three opinions of our Doctors First that the Councell is aboue the pope so affirm al the hereticks of this time and the same is taught by Card. Cameracensis Io. Gerson Iacob Almaine and some others Also Nicol. Cusanus Card. Panormitanus and his Master the Cardinall of Florence and Abulensis in cap. 18. of Matthew q. 108. This opinion hath two grounds 1 That the Pope is not properly the head of the whole Church gathered together 2 That the supreame power of the Church is as well in the Councell as in the Pope but in the Councell principally immediately and immoueably And in the defence of this point these Authors againe differ from themselues whiles some hold this power formally and subiectiuely in the Pope and finally in the Church Others will haue it formally and principally in the Church and instrumentally in the Pope Second opinion is of some Canonists which will haue the Pope aboue the Councell and that he cannot vpon constraint be iudged by any but that he may subiect himselfe if he will to the Councell So teacheth the Glosse in Canon Nossi c. The third is the more common opinion That the Pope is so aboue the Councell that he cannot subiect himselfe vnto the iudgement thereof if we speake of a coactiue sentence So al the old Schoolemen hold Albert Thomas Bonauenture Richard Paludanus so Antoninus Turrecremata Al. Pelagius Iacobatius Caietane Pighius Turrianus and Saunders and many other there mentioned Bellarmine l. 2. c. 13. pag. 166. Seuenthly Councell of Basill against Eugenius and Leo Popes THat which the Councell of Basill defined of the authority of the Councell aboue the Pope was neuer by any Pope allowed Pope Eugenius first did professedly reiect it then Pope Leo the tenth in the last Councell of Lateran Sess. 11. as also the whole Church which euer held Eugenius who by the councell of Basill was deposed for the true Pope Bellarm lib. 2. cap. 19. pag. 186. where Io. Gerson is by him confuted Eightly Driedo against Bellarm. and Canus THe Author of the booke de Dog Eccl. c. 74. openly saith that Nouices in Religion dying before their baptisme cannot be saued but this seemes ouerhard Melchior Canus holds they may be saued because though they be not of the christian Church yet they are of that Church that comprehends all faithfull ones from Abel to the end of the world But this satisfies not I answere that this rule No man without the Church can be saued is to be vnderstood of those which neither indeede nor in defire are of the Church Bellarmine lib. 3. cap. 3. pag. 159. Ninthly Bellarmine against Alphonsus de Castro ALphonsus de Castro in his second booke of the iust punishment of heretickes chap. 34. teaches that heretickes and Apostates if once baptized are members and parts of the Church although they openly professe false Doctrine which opinion as it is plainely false so may easily be refuted Bellarm. l. 3. c. 4. p. 196. Tenthly Alphonsus and others against Bellarmine SOme Catholiks doubt concerning Schismaticks whether they be of the Church yea Alphonsus de Castro flatly affirmes them to be of the Church but it is easie to shew the contrary out of Scriptures and traditions of the Fathers Bellarmine l. 3. c. 5. where also he holds the definition which pope Nicholas giues of the church to be imperfect p. 200.203 DECAD VI. First Catechism Rom. Waldensis Turrecremata c. against some namelesse Papists THat persons excommunicate are not of the church is taught by the Catechisme of Rome by Tho. Waldensis Io. de Turrecremata Io. Driedo and some others The contrary is defended by others whose three obiections are answered by Bellarmine Bellarm. lib. 3. cap. 6. pag. 205. Secondly Bellarmine against some not named Papists FOr answering of that place of Austen l. 2. against Cresconius that notorious wicked men are not of the Church not only Brentius and Caluin heretikes but some Catholikes faine two Churches and they doe but faine them
indeede for neyther Scripture nor Austen euer mention more then one Bellarm. l. 3. c. 9. p. 229. Thirdly Bellarmine against Turrecremata THat close Infidels that haue neyther faith nor any other Christian vertue yet externally for some temporall commodity professe the Catholike faith belong not to the true Church is taught not onely by the Caluinists but by some of our Catholikes amongst whom is Io. de Turrecremata l. 4. de Eccles. But we follow their phrase of speech which say that those who by an externall profession onely are ioyned to the faithfull are true parts of the body of the Church though drie and dead Bellarm. l. 3. c. 10. pag. 232. Fourthly Alexander Alensis and Turrecremata against Bellarmine THere are some Catholike Doctors which teach in the passion of our Lord there remained true faith in none but the blessed Virgin alone and that they hold to be signified by that one candle which alone is kept light in the third night before Easter So holds Alexander Alensis 3. p. q. vlt. art 2. and Iohn de Turrecremata l. 1. de Eccles. c. 30. But I wonder at Turrecremata who for so slight an argument from a candle saith it is against the faith of the Vniuersall Church to affirme otherwise For Rupertus in his 5. booke of Diuine offices chap. 26. sayeth that in his time the last candle also had wont to bee quenched It may be answered rather with Abulensis that by this candle is signified that onely in the blessed Virgin there was for those three dayes an explicit faith of the resurrection Bellarmine l. 3. c. 17. pag. 27. Fiftly Caietane Francisc. Victoria against other Doctors IF there were no constitution for the choice of the Pope and all the Cardinals should perish at once the question is in whom should be the right of the Election Some hold that the right of the choyce setting aside the positiue law should belong to the Councell of Bishops as Caietane in his treatise of the power of the Pope and Councell chap. 13. Franciscus Victoria Relect. 2. q. 2. of the power of the Church others as Siluester reports in the word excommunication teach that it pertaines to the Clergy of Rome Bellarm. in his first booke of the members of the Church militant c. 10. p. 52. Sixtly Bellarmine against Antonius Delphinus and Michael Medina TO that obiection out of Ierome who saith vpon the first to Titus that a presbiter is the same with a Bishop is answered by Antonius Delphinus l. 2. of the Church that in the beginning of the church all Presbiters were Bishops But this satisfies not Michael Medina in his first booke de sacr hom Origine affirmes that S. Ierome held the same opinion with the Aerian heretickes and that not onely Ierome was in this heresie but also Ambrose Austen Sedulius Primasius Chrisostom Theodoret Oecumenius Theophilact The opinion of these men was condemned first in Aerius then in the Waldenses and after in Wickliffe But this opinion of Medina is very inconsiderate Bellarm. same booke c. 15. p. 75. Seuenthly Bellarmine against Onuphrius THe opinion of Onuphrius concerning the names or titles of Cardinals see confuted by Bellarmine in the same booke c. 16. p. 82. Eightly Io. Maior and Iodoc. Clictonaeus against S. Thomas Caietane Sotus IOhannes Maior holds that the vow of single life of Priests stands by the law of God and therefore cannot be dispensed with So also Iod. Clictonaeus in his booke de Contin Sacerd. who there defends two opinions which cannot hold together but S. Thomas in 2.2 q. 88. art 11. saith plainely that the vow of continency is onely by the decree of the Church annexed to holy orders and therefore may be dispensed with the same teaches Caietane in opusc and Sotus in his seuenth booke of Iustice c. Bellarm. lib. 1. cap. 18. pag. 92. Ninthly Erasmus and Panormitan against the other Popish Doctors ERasmus in a declamation of the praise of Matrimonie holds it profitable that liberty of mariage should be granted to Priests and the same is taught by Card. Panormitan a Catholike and learned Doctor in the Chapt. Cum olim Against these errors we are to proue that the vow of continency is so annexed to holy orders that they neyther may marry nor conuerse with their wiues formerly married Bellarm. same booke c. 19. p. 95. Tenthly the Glosse Innocent Panormitan Hostiensis opposed by all Diuines and some Canonists THe fourth error is of many of the canonists which hold that tithes euen according to the determination of quantity stand by the Law of God and that no other quantity can be set downe by any humane law or custome So the Glosse Innocentius Panormitan Hostiensis but doubtlesse it is a manifest errour as not onely all Diuines but some Canonists also teach as Syluester in the word Decima quaest 4. and Nauar. cap. 21. And herein many of the Canonists offend double once in that they defend a falshood Twise in that they doe almost condemne all those Diuines as heretickes which hold the contrary Bellarm same booke c. 25. p. 145. DECAD VII First Sotus against Syluester and Nauar Bellarmine and Aquinas with both WHether the Precept of Tithes as it is Positiue and Humane may by custome bee altered is doubtfull Sotus holdes directly it cannot booke 9. quaest 4. art 1. and thinkes that this is the iudgement of Aquinaes But I thinke with Siluester and Nauarre that it may and I doubt not but this is the opinion of Aquinas Bellarm. ibid. p. 148. Secondly Bellarmine against Thomas Waldensis THomas Waldensis teaches that Clerkes should eyther giue their goods to the poore or lay them together in common and proues it by some sentences of Fathers Origen Hierome Bernard But it is certaine that Clerkes are not by their profession tyed to put away their patrimony Bellarmine same booke c. 27. p. 156. Thirdly Marsilius Paduan Io. de Ianduno Turrecremata Canonists Glosse Driedonius Francisc. Victoria Dominicus a Soto Couarruuias dissenting IN the question concerning the liberty of Ecclesiasticall persons are three opinions First is of many heretickes that Clerkes are and should be subiect to secular powers both in payment of tributes and in iudgements especially not Ecclesiasticall So also Marsilius of Padua and Io. de Ianduno teach that Christ himselfe was not free from paying tribute and that he did it not voluntarily but of necessity as is reported by Turrecremata The second opinion in another extreame is of many Canonists who hold that by the Law of God Clerkes and their goods are free from the power of secular Princes so teaehes the Glosse in Can. Tributum and of this minde seemes Io. Driedonius to be in his booke of Christian liberty ch 9. The third in the meane is of many Diuines that clerkes are free partly by the law of God partly by the law of men and partly neyther way so thinkes Franciscus Victoria Dominicus a
treatise of Images where he teaches that God in the ten Commaundements simply forbids all Images but that this precept was onely positiue and temporall But this opinion is not allowed of vs especially because Saint Irenaeus directly teaches that the Decalogue is naturall excepting onely that Precept of the Sabboth and Tertullian in his booke of Idolatry holdeth that this precept is most of all now to be obserued so Cyprian also Austen c. The third is of Thomas Caietane vpon 20. Exod. which teacheth that not euery Image or Idoll is there forbidden but onely that there is forbidden to any man to make to himselfe any Image which he will take for his God This opinion displeases me onely in the manner of speech for Caietane takes an Image and an Idoll both for one which is false c. Bellarm. l. 2. contr 7. gener c. 7. That is De Imaginibus sanctorum l. 2. c. 7. p. 176. DECAD X. First Abulensis Durandus Peresius against Catharinus Payua Saunders and Bellarmine THE fourth opinion is Caluins in the first booke of his institutions ch 11. where he saith it is an abominable sinne to make a visible and bodily Image of the inuisible and incorporeall God And this opinion of Caluins is also the opinion of some Catholike Doctors as Abulensis vpon 4. Deuteron quaest 5. and Durandus vpon 3. dist 9. q. 2. and Peresius in his booke of Traditions But I affirme three things First that it is not so certaine in the Church that we may make Images of God or the Trinity as of Christ and the Saints for this all Catholikes confesse Secondly that Caluins fraude and craft is admirable who after he hath proued that Images of God are not to be made digresseth to amplification and triumphes as if he had proued that wee may not make or worship any Image at all Thirdly I say that it is lawfull to paint the Image of God the Father in the forme of an old man and of the holy spirit in the forme of a Doue as is taught also by Caietane Ambrosius Catharinus Diegus Payua Nicholas Saunders Thomas Waldensis Bellarmine ibid. ch 8. p. 179. Secondly Bellarmine against Bartholomaeus Caranza BEsides it must be noted that Bartholomaeus Caranza erres who in the summe of the Councels saith Can. 82. of the 6. Synod that the Image of Christ in the forme of a Lambe and of the spirit in the forme of a Doue is there forbidden Whereas the Councell forbids not these Images but onely prefers to them the Images of Christ in an humane forme c. Besides the reason of Bartholomaeus seemes to conclude against himselfe that the shadowes ceased when the truth came for these Images were not in vse in the olde Testament but began onely after Christs comming but his errour is to be corrected out of the 7. Synod where this Canon is often entirely cyted Bellarmine same booke chap. 8. pag. 182. Thirdly Payua Saunders Alan Copus and others differing PAyua answeres that the Elebertine Councell forbids onely an Image of God which is made to represent the shape of GOD But this seemes not to satisfie Nicholas Saunders answeres that the Councell for bad Images in the Churches because the time and place required it for then there was danger least the Gentiles should thinke we worshipt wood and stones and least that in the persecutions their Images should haue beene reproachfully handled by the persecutors This answere is good Alanus Copus in B. 5. of Dialog ch 16 saith that Images are here forbidden because they began to be worshipped of those Christians as Gods in which sense Saint Ino. takes that Canon in Decret part 3. c. 40. But this exposition is not well warranted by the reasons of the Canon Others say that there is only forbidden to paint images on the wals and not in tables and vayles But howsoeuer it be that Councell is rather for vs then against vs. Bellarm. ibid. ch 9. p. 190. Fourthly Three rankes of Popish Writers dissenting OF the last question what manner of worshippe Images are worthy of there are three opinions First that the Image is no way in it selfe to be worshipped but only that the thing represented is to be worshipped before the Image so some hold whom Catharinus both reports and refutes the same seemes to be held by Alexander 3. part q. 30. art vlt. as also by Durandus 3. Sent. di 9. q. 2. And by Alphonsus a Castro The second that the same honour is due to the Image and the thing expressed by it and therefore that Christs Image is to bee worshipped with the worship of Latria Saint Maries with Hyperdulia the Saints with Dulia so Alexander 3. part q. 30. art vlt. Saint Thomas 3. p. q. 25. art 3. And vpon the same place Caietane S. Bonauenture Marsilius Almain Carthusianus Capreolus and others which opinion stands vpon 7 grounds there specified The third opinion in the meane is of them that say Images in themselues properly should be honoured but with a lesse honour then the thing represented and therfore that no Image is to be worshipped with Latria so holds Martinus Peresius Ambrosius Catharinus Nicholas Saunders Gabriell Bellarm. ibid. c. 20. p. 235.236.237 c. What shift Bellarmine makes to reconcile the second opinion by adoration improperly and by accident See the same booke c. 23. p. 242. Fiftly Bellarmine against Peresius and Durandus c. PEresius answers that it is not true that we are caried with the same motion of the heart to the Image and the thing represented since these two are opposites neither can be knowne but with a double act of knowledge Bellarmine confutes him and shewes that these two are so opposite as that one depends vpon another and that one can neyther be defined nor knowne without the other Durandus answeres otherwise for he admits there is one and the same motion to both but denies that therefore they haue but one and the same adoration Others confirme this answer for that although there be one and the same motion of the minde that is of the vnderstanding towards them both yet there may be contrary motions of will c. But this answere satisfies not I hold there must be another answere giuen See his determination at large that there is the same motion of the vnderstanding and will to the Image and the thing expressed but in diuers respects as eyther of them is made the principall or indirect obiect Bellarm. ibid. c. 24. p. 246. Sixtly Tho. Waldensis against Abulensis Iansenius and others THomas Waldensis holds not improbably in his 3. Tom. Tit. 20. ch 158. that the very Wooden Crosse which is now diuided into many peeces and parcâ—ls shall then be renewed and gathered vp together and shall appeare in heauen The same seemes to be affirmed by Sibilla and Chrysostome and the other fathers doe not contradict it But if this be not admitted at least the bright Image
immediately instituted by him Further that which Alexander and Bonauenture teach concerning the Sacrament of confirmation cannot be defended c. Bellarm. ibid. c. 23. pag. 127.128 129. c. Sixtly Bellarmine against Catharinus THere is a new heresie arisen in our time that the intention of the Minister is not necessarie in the Sacrament To this opinion of the heretikes Ambrosius Catharinus commeth very neare neyther can I see wherein he differs from the opinion of Kemnitius and other heretikes sauing that in the end of his worke he subiects himselfe to the Sea-Apostolike and to the Councell both which they deride Bellarm. ibid. c. 27. p. 155. Note the same which he condemnes for hereticall in Catharinus he graunts to be held by his St. Thomas in the chapter following pag. 169. Seuenthly Caietane and Ledesmius against Thomas and others HEre are two opinions of Diuines for some as Caietane and Ledesmius teach that in the Minister there is no operatiue vertue as an efficient and instrumentall cause as there is in the Sacrament for in the words of the sacrament there is operatiue vertue but by dependance on the Minister for then the wordes haue vertue when they are conioyned with the vertue which is in the Minister Others holde that the Minister hath in himselfe no efficient power in respect of iustification but that is onely in the Sacrament so Thomas is thought to hold 3. part qu. 64. art 1. And that the Minister concurres onely by applying the Sacrament Bellarm. same booke c. 27. pag. 163. Eightly Bellarmine against Ambrose Catharinus THe fourth argument is of Catharinus from the authority of Saint Thomas Chrysostome and Pope Nicholas Of Saint Thomas who saith that the intention of the Church expressed in the very forme of wordes is sufficient to make a perfect Sacrament neyther is any other intention required on the part of the Minister c. And Catharinus addes a reason that it seemes ouerhard that God should put the saluation of men in the arbitrement of a wicked Minister and so our iustification should be made vncertaine This argument is already answered How he answereth and confuteth this opinion and authorities of Catharinus See Bellarmine ibid. c. 28. pag. 169. Ninthly Bellarmine against Ledesmius Canus Bonauenture Scotus Durand Richardus Occam Marsilius Gabriel THat the Sacraments are true causes of iustification but Morall causes not naturall as he that commands a murder is the true cause of it though he touch not the partie murdered is defended by Ledesmius and Canus in Relict de Sacram. And the same seemes to be held by many of the old Schoolemen Bonauenture Scotus Durand Richardus Occam Marsilius Gabriel who hold that the Sacraments doe truely iustifie but yet that God only doth worke that grace at the presence of the Sacraments so as the Sacraments are not naturall causes but such as without which this effect would not follow But I hold that the more probable and safe opinion which attributes a true efficiency to the Sacraments Bellarm. of the effect of the Sacram. l. 2. c. 11. p. 225. Tenthly the Master of Sentences against the common opinion THere is therefore one question whether the olde Sacraments excepting Circumcision did iustifie actually by the very worke wrought and there are two opinions One of the Master of Sent. in 4. dist 1 which denies it for he saith that those Sacraments did not iustifie though they were done neuer so much in faith and charity The other is the common opinion of Diuines that all those Sacraments did iustifie ex opere operantis that is vpon the faith and deuotion of the receiuers and this opinion is most true Bellarm. ibid. c. 13. pag. 239. DECAD II. First Alexander Bonauenture Scotus Gabriel against Thomas Capreolus Scotus Ledesmius others c. OF Circumcision there are two opinions One of Alexander and Bonauenture Scotus and Gabriel that Circumcision did confer iustification ex opere operato vpon the very act done which opinion is disproued by many arguments Where it is yet to be noted that this opinion of theirs doth not fauour the heretickes of our time for the heretickes when they make the olde Sacraments equall to ours doe not extoll the olde but debase ours But this opinion doth not abase ours but extoll the ancient The other opinion is of Saint Thomas and Capreolus Scotus Ledesmius and others that Circumcision did by it owne power iustifie but yet iustified onely as it was a protestation of our faith and as it applyed faith to vs. This opinion is doubtlesse the more probable of the two Bellarm. ibid. c. 13. p. 236. Secondly Durand Scotus Gabriel against the other Papists THat there is a certaine spirituall stampe imprinted in the minde in some Sacraments which is called a Character is the common opinion of Catholiks But it is to be noted that some of our diuines as Durand Scotus Gabriel do indeed admit this stampe or Character but yet teach something which seemes to make for Kemnitius and the heretickes for Durandus holdes that the Character is not any reall thing distinguished from the soule but is onely a matter to be conceiued in the minde and which hath his being onely in conceit But all others confesse that the Character is a reall matter distinct from the soule Bellarm. ibid. c. 19. pag. 267. Thirdly Bellarmine against Durandus and Scotus THe Character is not a mere relation but an absolute quality this is a common opinion excepting onely Scotus and Durandus Durandus in the place forecited holds it hath onely a being in conceit c. Which opinion can scarcely be distinguished from the heresie of this time and seemes expresly condemned by Councels which if Durandus had seene doubtlesse he would haue taught otherwise and surely the Councell of Trent in her curse of this opinion intends it against those which denie a reall Character Scotus would haue it a reall relation but that can scarce be defended and there haue not wanted many that haue confuted him soundly Bellarm. ibid. c. 19. pag. 268. Fourthly three opinions of Papists SOme of our Doctors hold this Character to be in the vnderstanding Others place it in the will because they thinke it disposeth vs to charity which is in the will Others hold it simply to be in the substance of the soule and this seemes the truer opinion Bellarm. ibid. c. 19. p. 270. Fiftly Scotus against Thomas NEither Circumcision nor any Sacrament of the olde Lawe did imprint any Character in the soule So holds Saint Thomas Scotus thinkes the contrary concerning Circumcision But the opinion of Thomas is truer Bellarm. ibid. cap. 19. pag. 271. Sixtly Bernard Hugo Lombard Pope Nicholas against all other Diuines BEsides these errors there is a very incommodious opinion of many Catholikes who haue thought that the inuocation of one person in the Trinity and especially of Christ is sufficient to Baptisme so seemes to hold S.
receiue and defend this opinion long since condemned by the fathers Bellarm. ibid. c. 10. p. 53. Ninthly Aug. Eugubinus Hier. de Oleastro Vatablus Iansenius reiected by Bellarmine THe fourth opinion is of some later Writers Augustine Eugubinus Hierome de Oleastro Francis Vatablus Cornelius Iansenius that hold Paradise was in Mesopotamia but that in the time of the Deluge the beauty and pleasure of it so faded that there was no shew of a Paradise and therefore now there is no more guard of the Angell or flaming sword But for many causes I cannot like this opinion Bellarm. ibid. cap. 12. pag. 62. Tenthly the later Papists against the auncient HOwsoeuer the later writers which we cyted before Eugubinus Iansenius and others holde the contrary yet since I neuer read any of the auncient which haue held the earthly Paradise to be perished eyther by waters or by any other cause And I haue found many that affirme it is yet extant as almost all the Schoolemen vpon 2. Sent. d. 17. and Saint Thomas besides Iren. Hierom. Augustine Theodoret Bede c. and others I dare not dissent from so common and receiued an opinion Bellarm. ibid. cap. 14. pag. 68. THE PEACE OF ROME THE THIRD BOOKE OR CENTVRY DECAD I. First Bellarm. against S. Tho. and other Schoolemen IT is held by Io. Damascenus St. Thomas and other of the Schoolemen that men onely and not brute creatures should haue had place in Paradise if man had not sinned But the authority of Saint Basill and Saint Austin which teach the contrary preuaileth more with me See the confutation Bellarmine the same booke cap. 15. pag. 71. Secondly the Schoolemen opposed by Bellarmine St. Austin whom the Schoolemen in this doe follow holdes that the tree of life was appointed to defend that death which vseth to ensue vpon olde age the opinion of many other Fathers and I thinke very agreeable to Scripture and reason is quite otherwise namely that this Tree had this power that once tasted of it could giue perfect immortality such as we shall haue after our resurrection c. This I confesse I like better of the two Bellarmine ibid. c. 18. pag. 74. Thirdly Bellarmine against Alphonsus de Castro I Maruell what Alphosus de Castro meant to write that Saint Ierome neuer ascribed this errour of the equalitie of sinnes to Iouinian for in many pages in his second booke against Iouinian hee both names him and answereth his Arguments for this purpose Bellarm. in his first booke of the losse of grace and State of sinne cap. 4. pag. 97. Fourthly Io. Gerson and Io. Rossensis against Lombard and the rest and Iacob Almaine THe Catholike Diuines in the Master of Sent. 2. B. Dist. 42. and Saint Thomas out of the consent of almost all writers teach that some sinnes of their owne nature without all respect to Predestination or reprobation of the state of the regenerate or vnregenerate are deadly and others veniall and that by the first man is made vnworthy of Gods fauour and guilty of death by the other liable onely to some temporall punishment and fatherly chastisement Onely Io. Gerson 3. p. Theol. Tract 3. and Io. of Rochester in his refutation of 32. Art of Luther and Iacobus Almaine must be excepted which differ somewhat herein from the common opinion of Diuines Bellarm ibid. c. 4. p. 102. Fiftly Bellarmine and Thomas against Scotus and Bonauenture THE common opinion of Catholike Diuines is that Eues first sinne was pride yea S. Thomas holdes that the first sinne of both our first Parents was pride 2.2 quaest 163. S. Bonauenture and Scotus hold that Adams first sinne was inordinate loue to his wife not of concupiscence but of humane kindnesse The other opinion is to be receiued rather See the confutation of Scotus and Bonauenture cha 5. Bellarm. 3. booke of the losse of grace c. c. 4. p. 278. Sixtly different opinions of ancient Fathers maintained by some Papists SOme thinke that Eue beleeued not that death should follow vpon the eating of the forbidden tree but rather beleeued that GOD had lyed to them and vpon enuie forbad that so excellent and wholsome fruit So teach Cyrill Chrysostome Augustine Rupertus Rabanus and many others Others thinke that Eue beleeued that the same fruite was not indeed forbidden by God and that she and her husband had mistooke the wordes of GOD This opinion is noted by Augustine booke 11. Gen. ad literam cap. 30. and by Epiphanius in the heresie of Cainites Bellarm. ibid. cap. 6. pag. 290. Seuenthly Scotus and some few others against Thomas Albert Bonauenture Richard Durand SOme there are which thinke that the first sinne of our first Parents might haue beene veniall So holdes Scotus vppon 2. Senten Dist. 21. and some fewe others which follow him But the greater Diuines teach contrarie as Saint Thomas Albert Saint Bonauenture Richardus Durandus Egidius and others vpon 2. Sent. Dist. 21. and Alexander Alensis in Sum. Theol. p. 2. q. 104. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 8. pag 298. Eightly Bellarmine against the Schoolemen with Chrysostome SAaint Chrysostome directly teacheth that the sinne of Eue was more haynous then Adams which opinion most of the Schoolemen follow vpon 2. Sent. Dist. 22. Contrarily Saint Ambrose by many Arguments proues that the man sinned worse then the woman Saint Austin so speakes as if he thought the sinnes of both equall Bellarmine allowes Chrysostomes opinion for probable but yeelds rather to Ambrose and concludes that absolutely the man sinned worse then the woman though in respect of some acts the woman sinned equally to him Bellarm. ibid. c. 9. p. 299. Ninthly three rankes of Popish Doctors dissenting COncerning the Traduction of Originall sinne Saint Austin holdes thus That eyther both Bodie and Soule is corrupted in the deriuation of it according to their Opinion which holde the Soule propagated or that the Soule is corrupted in the Body as in an vncleane vessel according to them which hold the Soule created by God and onely the corrupted flesh taken from our parents Further Austin writes that the flesh is corrupted because it is begotten in lust and that it is not Generation but lust which properly traduceth sinne as August in his first booke De peccat meritis 1. B. De nuptijs concup But this opinion if it bee taken as the wordes sound as it is indeede vnderstood by Peter Lombard Gregory Ariminensis and Gabriel seemes not to bee suffered Others hold that the Soule is defiled with the Body because the flesh destitute of Originall iustice and growne rebellious to reason drawes away the soule and inclines it amisse so thinke Alexander Alensis and S. Bonauenture but this opinion is confuted by the same arguments There is another opinion which I doubt not is the truest of Saint Anselme Saint Thomas Scotus Durandus and others vpon 2. Sent. dist 31. That to the traducing of Originall sinne nothing is required but that
latter opinion seemes the truest which we doe the rather defend because it so much displeaseth our aduersaries and Io. Caluin especially Bellarm. 5. booke of grace and freewill cap. 1. pag. 337. Ninthly Scotus Durandus Gabriel Gregor Ariminensis Capreolus Marsilius Alexander Albert Thomas Bonauent opposite to each other ALl Catholikes agree that no workes meritorious of grace can be done by the onely power of nature and secondly that all our workes before iustification are no sinnes within these bounds some dispute for freewill perhaps more freely and lauishly then were meete as Scotus Durandus Gabriell vpon 2 Sent. d. 28. Others againe giue lesse to it then they should as Gregorius â— Ariminensis Capreolus vpon 2. Sent d. 28. and Marsilius We wil follow that which the greater and grauer sort of Diuines teach namely Alexander Albertus S. Thomas S. Bonauenture c. Bellarm. l. 5. c. 4. p. 351. Tenthly two sorts of namelesse Doctors opposed PErhaps those authors which say that without the helpe of God no tentation can be ouercome and those which hold some may be vanquished without it may be reconciled yet their opinion and speech is more agreeable to Scriptures and Fathers which say no tentation can be ouercome without Gods ayde Bellarm. ibid. c. 7. p. 363. DECAD V. First Bellarmine with Saint Thomas and Bonauenture against some namelesse Doctors FOr the common saying in Schooles To the man that doth what he can God denies not grace I answere that this is well expounded of St. Thomas in 1. 2. q. 109. and Saint Bonauenture in 2. Sent. dist 28. grace is not denied to him that doth his vtmost when a man doth it by working together with Gods grace whereby he is stirred not when he worketh only by the power of nature certainely those which teach that man by doing what he may is by the onely strength of nature prepared to grace eyther thinke that hee may thereby desire and aske grace which is the Pelagians heresie or hold that man by his owne strength may keepe all the morall law c. and this also is Pelagianisme confuted in the former booke Bellarm. l. 6. of grace and freewill c. 6. p. 508. Secondly Bellarmine against Dominicus a Soto SOme Catholikes and especially Dominicus a Soto 2. b. of nat and grace c. 14. denie that our dispositions towards iustification can by any reason be called merits and to be iustified freely they hold to imply a iustification without any merite whatsoeuer But I cannot vnderstand why we should not in that case vse the name of merite especially with that addition of congruity when we speake of works done by the preuenting grace of God Bellarm. of iustification l. 1. c. 21. p. 103. Thirdly Albertus Pighius and the Diuines of Colen against the Councell of Trent and Bellarmine NOt onely Martin Bucer but Albertus Pighius with some others as namely the Diuines of Colen in his second controuersie held this opinion or error rather that there is a double iustice wherby we are formally iustified one imperfect which is in our inherent vertues the other perfect which is Christs righteousnes impured whose opinion is reiected by the Councell of Trent Sess. 6. c. 7. Bellarm. l. 2. of Iustification c. 1. 2. p. 124. Fourthly Gropperus Catharinus Saint Thomas Bonauenture Scotus in three opinions OF this matter concerning certainty of saluation there are 3. opinions or rather falshoods The first of the heretickes of this time that the faithfull may haue such knowledge as that by a sure faith they may know their sinnes forgiuen c. The second is of the Author of the Enchiridion Coloniense which holds that a man both may and ought to be certaine his sinnes are forgiuen but yet he denies that he is iustified by faith alone But this booke is in many other things worthy of the censure of the Church The third is of Ambrosius Catharinus who holds that a man may be certaine of his owne grace euen by the assurance of faith Contrary to these errours is the common opinion of almost all Diuines Saint Thomas S. Bonauenture Scotus Durandus Roffensis Alphonsus a Castro Dominicus a Soto Ruardus c. Nicholas Saunders Thomas Stapleton c. that no man by any certainty of faith be assured of his iustice except those which haue speciall reuelations Bellarm. l. 3. of Iustice c. 3. p. 206. Fiftly the Diuines of Louan and Paris against Catharin HOw Bellarmine presseth Catharinus with the authoritie of the Vniuersities of Paris and Louan and the flat wordes of the Councell of Trent and Catharinus his answeres and elusions of all See Bellarm. ibid. cap. 3. pag. 208. Sixtly Bellarmine against Catharinus CAtharinus his exposition of those places of Ecclesiastes Ecclesiasticus Iob for his purpose see largly confuted by Bellar. Bellar. ib. c. 4. 5. p. 211.212 Seuenthly Catharinus and two rankes of Popish Diuines differing I Say there is no Catholike writer holds that a man should euer doubt of his reconciliation with God for there are three opinions amongst Catholikes One of Ambrosius Catharinus which doth not onely exclude all doubt but addes that the iust man may haue an assurance of his iustification by the certainty of a Diuine faith Another goes not so farre yet holdes that perfect men are wont to attaine vnto that security as that they haue no feare of their iustification as we beleeue without all doubting that there was a Caesar an Alexander c. though we saw them not but this opinion I confesse I like not The third which is more common in the Church takes not away all feare but yet takes away all anxiety and wauering doubfulnes Bellar. l. 3. of iustific c. 11. p. 264 Eightly Andr. Vega against Thom. and other Catholikes ANdr Vega in his 11. booke vpon the Councells c. 20. holds veniall sin to be properly against the Law But veniall sinnes without which we cannot liue are not simply sinnes but imperfectly and in some regards and are not indeede against the law but besides it as St. Thomas teaches well in 1.2 q. 88. Bellarm. l. 4. c. 14. p. 359. Ninthly Robert Holkot against Saint Thomas and the common opinion ALthough some haue taught that freedome of will is not necessary to merite as Robert Holkot held witnesse Io. Picus in his Apologie yet the common opinion of Diuines is contrary as it appeares out of St. Thomas 1.2 quaest 114. and other Doctors vpon 1. Sent. d. 17. c. Bellarm. l. 5. of Iustification c. 10. p. 432. Tenthly a certaine namelesse Author against Pius 5. Peter Lombard and others IT was the opinion of a certaine late Author which was in many points condemned by Pius 5. that eternall life is due to good workes for that they are the true obedience to the law not for that they are done by a person aduanced by grace into the state of the Sonne of God so hee holdes that meritorious workes may be