Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	canon_n	old_a	testament_n	3,086	5	8.1547	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A02568	The peace of Rome Proclaimed to all the world, by her famous Cardinall Bellarmine, and the no lesse famous casuist Nauarre. Whereof the one acknowledgeth, and numbers vp aboue three hundred differences of opinion, maintained in the popish church. The other confesses neere threescore differences amongst their owne doctors in one onely point of their religion. Gathered faithfully out of their writings in their own words, and diuided into foure bookes, and those into seuerall decads. Whereto is prefixed a serious disswasiue from poperie. By I.H.	Azpilcueta, Martín de, 1492?-1586.; Hall, Joseph, 1574-1656.; Bellarmino, Roberto Francesco Romolo, Saint, 1542-1621. Disputationes de controversiis Christianae fidei. English. Selections.	1609 (1609)	STC 12696; ESTC S106027	106,338	252

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

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

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 Fr●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.

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 parc●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

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