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
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
Honorius to haue been an hereticke so doth Melchior Canus from the two Epistles of Honorius himselfe to Sergius wherein he approoues the doctrine of the Monothelites from the 6. Synod Act. 13. seuenth Synod Act. last eighth Synod Act. 7. From the Epistle of Pope Agatho from the Epistle of Pope Leo 2. from Tharasius Theodorus Epiphanius the Deacon Bede c. But in the behalfe of Honorius haue written Albert Pighius Hosius Io. of Louan Onuphrius Bellarm. B. 4. ch 11. pag. 519. Secondly Alphonsus de Castro against Bellarmine Celestin Pope against Innocentius ALphonsus de Castro affirmes flatly that Pope Celestinus was an hereticke the first Booke of heres chap. 4. for that he held Matrimony so dissolued by heresie that he whose wife was proued hereticall might marry againe Contrary to which is taught by Pope Innocentius 3. ch Quanto of diuorces and the same is defined in the Councell of Trent Sess. 4. Canon 5. But I answer that neither Celestinus nor Innocentius determine any certainty of that matter Bellarm. l. 4. c. 14. pag. 545. Thirdly Pope Nicholas against Pope Iohn Bellarmine against Turrecremata POpe Nicholas the third defines that Christ by his word and example taught perfect pouerty which consists in the abdication of all our substance no power of it being left to a man either in particular or common and that such pouerty is holy and meritorious But Pope Iohn 20. in his extrauagants teaches this to be false and hereticall Io. de Turrecremata goes about wholly to reconcile these two Popes but in truth if I be not much deceiued they cannot be in all things reconciled Bellarm. b. 4. chap. 14. pag. 546. Fourthly Occam Adrian Gerson Erasmus against Bellarmine THat Pope Iohn 22. was an hereticke in teaching that the soules of the blessed shall not see God till the resurrection is affirmed by Gul. Occam Adrian Erasmus Io. Gerson He thought so indeede but then it was not heresie so to thinke because no Councell had defined the question and Io. Villanus reports that the day before his death he partly explaned and partly recanted his opinion Bellarmine same chapter and booke pag. 548. Fiftly Abulensis against Turrecremata OF the inward iurisdiction in the Court of conscience there is some dissention amongst our Authors for Abulensis holds this power giuen to all Priests immediately from God when they are ordained now that yet notwithstanding this euery Priest cannot bind or loose whatsoeuer Christians is therefore ordered because the Church to take away confusion hath diuided Diocesses and subiected one people to one Bishop another to another But Io. de Turrecremata teaches that this power is not giuen of God by the force of ordination but by man vpon his meere iniunction Bellarm. B. 4. c. 22. p. 589. Sixtly Three ranks of Popish Doctors at variance HOw Bishops receiue their iurisdiction there are three opinions amongst our Diuines The first that as well Apostles as other Bishops did and doe receiue it immediatly from God So teach Franciscus Victoria and Alphonsus de Castro The second of those that hold the Apostles not to haue receiued their iurisdiction from Christ but from Peter and Bishops not from Christ but Peters successor So Io. de Turrecremata and Dominicus Iacobatius The third of them which teach that the Apostles indeed receiued all their authority immediately from Christ but other Bishops receiued it not from Christ but from the Pope so holds Caietane Dominicus a Soto Franciscus Vargas Herbaeus Gabriell Bonauenture Albert Durand and others Bellarm. B. 4. c. 22. p. 590. Seuenthly Aug. Triumphus Aluar. Pelagius Hostiensis c. against Henricus Turrecrem Pighius Waldensis c. OF the Popes temporall power are three opinions of authors First that the Pope hath full power ouer all the world both in spirituall things and temporall So teach August Triumphus Aluarus Pelagius and many Lawyers Hostiensis Siluester and others not a few yea Hostiensis goes further and teaches that all dominion of Infidell Princes is by Christs comming translated to the Church and rests in the Pope The second in another extreame that the Pope as Pope and by the law of God hath no temporall power nor can any way rule ouer secular Princes and depriue them of their Prince-dome though they deserue it So all the heretickes The third which is the meane betwixt both is the commonest opinion of Catholike Diuines that the Pope as Pope hath not directly and immediately any temporall power but onely spirituall yet in respect to his spirituall iurisdiction that hee hath at least indirectly a certaine power and that supreame euen in temporall things So teach Hugo Halensis Durandus Henricus Driedo Turrecremata Pighius Waldensis Petrus de Palude Caietane Francis Victoria Dominicus a Soto Nicholas Saunders c. What Thom. Aquinas thinkes of this temporall power of the Pope is vncertaine Bellar. l. 5. c. 1. pag. 600. Eightly Onuphrius against Bellarmine and Hostiensis ONuphrius writes that the appointment of the Electors of the Romane Empire was done by Gregorie the tenth but Innocent 3. which was before Gregorie 10. speakes of this Institution and Hostiensis that was likewise before him saith that Innocentius speaks of the seuen Electors and Aluarus Pelagius who liued in the memorie of Gregorie 10. reports this to haue beene the act of Gregorie 5. Bellarm. l. 5. c. 8. p. 633. Ninthly Pighius against Bellarm. Pope Celestine Councell of Chalcedon THE beginning of Councels Albertus Pighius in his 6. B. of the heauenly Hierarchy ch 1. defends to be altogether humane and deuised by naturall reason But it is more probable that it is Diuine for the Councell of Chalcedon in an Epistle to Leo and the sixt Synod Act. 17 and Pope Celestine in an Epistle to the Councell of Ephesus and the third Councell of Toledo teach that Councels are imported in those words of Christ Matth. 18. Wheresoeuer two or three c. Bellarm. de concil Eccles. milit lib. 1. c. 3. pag. 25. Tenthly some vn-named Catholickes against Bellarm. Turrecremata Canus SOme Catholickes hold that all Bishops are not Iudges in Councels for then say they the Pope should be bound who is president in the Councell to follow the greater part of Bishops but this is false as appeares in the practises of Damasus and Leo. I answere first that perhaps it neuer fell so out that the Pope should follow the lesser part in the Councell when they haue giuen their voices without all fraud Secondly I say that the President of the Councell as President must follow the greater part of the voyces but the Pope not as President but as the chiefe Prince of the Church may recall and retract that iudgement So Io. de Turrecremata lib. 3. c. 6.3 and Canus lib. 5. c. 5 Bellarm. ibid. ch 18. p. 81. DECAD V. First Bellarmine against some Catholikes namelesse THat particular Councels confirmed by the Pope cannot erre
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
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
secret confession of our seueral sinnes both was neuer instituted and commaunded by any law of God and besides was neuer in vse with the auncient Church Against all these mentioned errors the Councell of Trent hath determined Sess. 14. c. 5. and Can. 7.8 Bellarm. 3. b. of Penance cap. 1. pag. 238. Eightly Bellarmine against Thomas Waldensis and others I Know that Thomas Waldensis in 2. Tom. c. 141. was of this minde that he thought Nectarius Bishop of Constantinople did simply abrogate the vse of confession and therein greatly offended But I would not easily yeelde to that And I know that some haue thought this whole History feigned and deuised by Socrates But I cannot be brought to beleeue that a false History could be written by him of a matter whereof many liuing in the time when and where the thing was done could conuince him Bellarm. ibid. cap. 14. pag. 320. Ninthly all Doctors against Ru. Tapperus and perhaps Thomas INdeede Ruardus Tapperus a worthy Diuine teacheth that a man may satisfie God for his eternall guilt and punishment by certaine acts which in order of nature follow the infusion of iustifying grace and goe before remission of sinnes and cyteth Thomas for his opinion vpon 4. Sent. dist 15. qu. 5 Neither is it certaine whether St. Thomas meant so or no It is enough for vs that all Doctors agree in this that before this grace receiued no man can satisfie God Bellarm. l. 4. of Penance c. 1. p. 341. Where also he endeuours to reconcile Andreas Vega in his opinion of our satisfaction to God for the fault and offence of sinne Tenthly Thomas Durand Paludan against Adrian Caietane and Bellarmine ALthough the opinion of Thomas Durandus Paludanus and others vpon 4 Sent. dist 15. be very likely that satisfaction is not rightly made to God by workes which are otherwise due to be done yet the opinion of Adrianus and Caietanus is not improbable that we doe satisfie God euen by workes otherwise due to him since the satisfaction we giue to God doth not belong to iustice onely but to friendshippe also Bellarmine l. 4. cap. 13. pag. 402. DECAD VIII First Scotus Gabriel and few others against Thomas Richard Durand Paludan c. COncerning satisfaction enioyned by a Priest the better part of Catholike Diuines doe not graunt that the party confessing may without sinne refuse such a satisfaction for although Scotus and Gabriel and some few others teach thus yet the Master of Sent. S. Thomas Richardus Durandus Paludanus and many others vpon 4. dist 16. hold as we teach That a Priest hath the keyes whereby he may not onely absolue from guilt and offence but as a Iudge may in Gods steed binde vnto punishment which the penitent cannot refuse vnlesse he resist the Iudge set ouer him from heauen and by consequent God himselfe Bellarm. li. 4. c. 13. pag. 402. Secondly the better Popish Diuines against the worse NO Catholike Doctor teaches that workes done in deadly sinne do discharge from death Indeed some say that the works done in mortal sinne are satisfactory if he which did the works returne againe to the grace of God But that they are so whiles he continues in deadly sinne no man that I know affirmeth yea our better Diuines hold that those works which are done in deadly sinne neither are nor euer can be satisfactorie Bellarmine lib. 4. cap. 14. pag. 406. Thirdly Ruardus Iansenius Dominicus a Soto against Waldensis and Alphonsus c. OF the place Mar. 6.13 we all agree not whether that annointing which the Apostles vsed were Sacramentall or onely a figure of this Sacrament those which defend the first opinion are Thomas Waldensis and Alphonsus de Castro but the later is surely the more probable which is the opinion of Ruardus Iansenius and Dominicus a Soto and others Bellarmine in his booke of extreme Vnction cap. 2. pag. 6. Fourthly Dominicus a Soto opposed by Bellarmine and all Diuines SOme Catholikes amongst whom is Dominicus a Soto thinke that bodily health is an absolute and infallible effect of this Sacrament of annointing c. But this answere pleaseth mee not since that all Diuines and also the very Councels of Florence and Trent directly say that bodily health is promised in this Sacrament onely conditionally if it may be expedient for the good of the soule Bellarm. ibid. c. 6. p. 21. Fiftly three dissenting opinions of Papists THere is yet one question amongst our Diuines For what be those remainders of sinne which are done away by this anointing they doe not all agree Some would haue them veniall sinnes but improbably for they may be wip't away without any Sacrament Others would haue it to be that pronenesse to sinne or habit which remaines of sinne but that is yet more vnlikely But I say that the remnants of sin are double both which are wip't away by this Sacrament First are those which sometimes remaine after all other Sacraments whether they be veniall or mortall sinnes for a man may after confession and communion fall into a mortall sinne and not know it c. Secondly vnder the name of these remnants are vnderstood that dulnesse heauinesse anxietie which vses to be left of sinne and which may vexe a man neare his death c. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 8. p. 29. 30. Sixtly Waldensis Dominic a Soto Iansen c. disagreeing HEre is yet one doubt in that Pope Innocentius 1. in his Epistle 1. chap. 8. saith that not onely Priests but Lay-men in cases of their own and others necessities may anoile which opinion Beda vpon Mar. 6. recytes in so many wordes and the Councell of Wormes Can. 72. though Waldensis answeres that Innocentius his wordes are to be vnderstood of that time and place where there are no Priests and that then and there it is lawfull for Layickes to minister this Sacrament But this exposition is iustly confuted of all Diuines Dominicus a Soto vnderstands Innocentius to speake of the vse of Oyle for healing of diseases besides and out of the businesse of the Sacrament But that seemes to bee against the vse and practise of the Church Others more truely as Iansenius say that Innocentius speaketh of the partie to be annointed not of the Minister Bellarmine in the same booke cap. 9. pag. 31. Seuenthly the Councell of Florence Thomas other Diuines at variance THere are two vsuall Ceremonies in this Sacrament One that the Letany and other prayers be read before the annointing The second that seuen parts of the body be annointed namely the Eyes Eares Nostrils Mouth handes because of the fiue senses Then the Reynes which are the seats of lust and lastly the feete which haue the power of motion and execution So is it prescribed by the Councell of Florence But some thinke that none of all these annointings is of the essense of the Sacrament but that it is sufficient for that if the sicke man be annointed anie
where the rest to be but for Rite and solemnitie But others hold that all those seuerall annointings are essentiall But the common opinion which also St. Thomas holds is That the annointing of the fiue senses onely is enough for the essence of the Sacrament and indeede respect of honestie seemes to require we should forbeare the annointing of the Reines in women c. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 10. p. 32. Eightly olde Schoolemen and Dominicus a Soto against Petr. a Soto Caietane Durand Paludanus c. ORdination of Bishops is a Sacrament truely and properly so called This opinion though it be denyed of some old Schoolemen and amongst the new by Dominicus a Soto lib. 10. de Instit. yet is affirmed by the auncient Fathers and of the late by Petrus a Soto Caietane and of some olde Schoolemen too as Altisidoriensis Io. Maior Scotus Durand Paludanus Though Durandus would haue it one and the same Sacrament with the Sacrament of Priesthood and lastly of all the Canonists almost vpon Ch. Cleros dist 21. Bellarmine in his booke of the Sacram of Orders cap. 5. pag. 44. Ninthly Durandus and Caietane opposed by Bellarmine and other Diuines IT is very probable that the Ordination of Deacons is a Sacrament though it be not certaiâ—e as a matter of faith that it is very probable appears first because it is approued by the common opinion of Diuines Onely Durandus there is which holds that onely Priest-hood is the Sacrament of Orders and with him Caietanus Tom. 1. Opusc. Tract 11. Bellarm. ibid. c. 6. p. 48. Tenthly Durandus and Caietane against the rest FOr Sub-Deaconship there is not so great certaintie as of Deaconship for neyther is it mentioned in Scripture neyther hath the Ordination thereof any imposition of hands as appeares by the fourth Councell of Carthage Can. 5. c. But yet it is verie probable that this Order is a Sacrament also Onely Durandus and Caietanus denie it Bellarm. ibid. cap. 7. pag. 52. DECAD IX First the old Schoolemen and some new against Durand OF the lesser Orders it is lesse probable that they are Sacraments then of the Sub-deaconship yet it is the more probable opinion that holdes them all to be Sacraments then that which denies it First because all the olde Schoolemen affirme it excepting onely Durandus and the grauer sort of the new as Franciscus de victoria Petrus a Soto c. Bellarmine ibid. cap. 8. pag. 53. Secondly Dominicus a Soto and some others against Petr. a Soto Ledesmius Hosius c. THe third Controuersie is of the matter and form of this Sacrament for wheras in the Ordination of the Priest and Deacon there are two externall signes imposition of hands and reaching forth of an Instrument as of the Chalice Patin in the Priesthood The booke of the Gospels in the Deaconship The question is whether of these two signes are the essentiall matter of this Sacrament Some thinke that imposition of hands is onely accidentall and that the reaching foorth of the Instruments is onely essentiall So holdes Dominicus a Soto Dist. 24. quaest 1. art 4. and some others But the more probable and true opinion is That not onely the reaching out of the Instruments but the imposition of hands also is the essentiall matter of this Sacrament So affirmes Petrus a Soto Martinus Ledesmius Cardinall Hosius c. Bellarmine ibid. cap. 9. pag. 54. Thirdly Durandus against the rest OF the Catholike writers there is onely Durandus who vpon 4. Dist. 26. qu. 3. holdeth that Matrimony cannot be called a Sacrament saue only Equiuocally whom Chemnitius brings for his part forgetting that by Durandus owne confession all our Diuines teach the contrary Bellarmine of the Sacram. of Matrimony c. 1. p. 66. Fourthly Alphonsus a Castro and Petr. a Soto against the Councell of Florence and Trent THere are some Catholikes which hold that Matrimony is not properly a Sacrament of the new Law but that it was so in the old Law amongst the Iewes and so not instituted but onely confirmed by Christ So teaches Alphonsus a Castro 11. booke against Heres Petrus a Soto Lect. 2. of Matrimony and some others But I see not how that can be safely defended for the Councell of Florence reckons vp Matrimony amongst the Sacraments of the newe Law and the Councell of Trent Sess. 24. Can. 1. in flat wordes saith that the Sacrament of Matrimony was instituted by Christ in the new Law Bellarm. ibid. cap. 5. pag. 85. Fiftly two opinions of Popish Doctors differing COncerning carnall copulation are two opinions of Catholikes Some teach that it neither is the Sacrament nor part of the Sacrament but only an act or duety of Matrimony and therefore only accidentall in respect of the Sacrament of Matrimonie Others would haue it a part of the Sacrament yet not an essentiall part but integrall and therefore before copulation the Matrimony is ratified but not consummate Bellarm. ibid. cap. 5. p. 91. Sixtly three different opinions of three rankes of Papists SOme hold as Petrus Paludanus Io. Capreolus Io. Eckius that those married persons which are conuerted to Christianity ought after their baptisme to be maried together againe and then that their marriage is made a Sacrament Others as Tho. de Argentina and Paludanus c. say that without any new contract that Matrimony which before Baptisme was no Sacrament straight after baptisme become a Sacrament But how euer it be the common opinion of Diuines is that the mariage of Infidels may be true and lawfull but not ratified nor indissoluble but if both be conuerted and baptized their mariage becomes both ratified and indissoluble and consequently a Sacrament Bellarm. ibid. c. 5. p. 102. Seuenthly Canus confuted by Bellarmine MElchior Canus while he striues for the defence of his new and singular opinion vnwisely vseth those arguments whereby the Heretickes of our time might vexe the Church for in his 8. booke of Theolog. places chap. 5. he affirmes that not euery mariage lawfully contracted betwixt Christians is a Sacrament but that onely which is celebrated by an Ecclesiasticall Minister in set and solemne words See his opinion sharply confuted by Bellarmine ibid. cap 6. 7. which he concludes thus That Canus goes about so much as in him lies to proue that there is no true sacrament of Matrimony in the Church pag. 103.104 c. Eightly diuers opinions of their Doctors SOme teach that the Patriarches had but one lawfull wife and the rest were their Concubines Others not onely teach that those women were the true and lawfull wiues of the Patriarches but also hold that this was not forbidden saue onely by the positiue law of the Gospell which they would haue the opinion of St. Ierome and Augustine There is a third opinion common in the Schooles that the Patriarches might by Gods dispensation marry more wiues then one but of this are diuers conceits some thinke that the