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
pretious blood J speake not of some rude ignorants your very booke of holy Ceremonies shall teach you what your holy fathers doe and haue done That tells you first with great allowance and applause that Pope Vrban the fift sent three Agnos Dei to the Greeke Emperour with these verses Balsame pure Wax and Chrismes-liquor cleare Make vp this precious Lamb I send thee here All lightning it dispels and each ill spri'ght Remedies sinne and makes the heart contrite Euen as the blood that Christ for vs did shed It helps the child-beds paines giues good speed Vnto the birth Great gifts it still doth win To all that weare it and that worthy bin It quels the rage of fire and cleanely bore It brings from shipwracke safely to the shore And least you should plead this to be the conceit of some one phantasticall Pope heare and be ashamed out of the same booke what by prescription euery Pope vseth to pray in the blessing of the water which serues for that Agnus Dei If you know not thus he prayeth That it would please thee O God to blesse those things which we purpose to poure into this vessell of water prepared to the glory of thy name so as by the worship and honour of them we thy seruants may haue our heynous offences done away the blemishes of our sinnes wip't off and there by we may obtaine pardon and receiue grace from thee so that at the last with thy Saints and elect Children we may merite to obtaine euerlasting life Amen How could you choose but be in loue with this superstition Magicke blasphemy practised and maintained by the heads of your Church 2 A Religion that allowes iugling Equiuocations reserued senses euen in very oathes Besids all that hath beene shamelesly written by our Iesuites to this purpose Heare what Franciscus Victoria an ingenuous Papist and a learned reader of Diuinity in Salmantica writes in the name of all But what shall a Confessor do saith he if he be askt of a sinne that he hath heard in Confession May he say that he knowes not of it I answere according to all our Doctors that he may But what if he be compelled to sweare I say that he may and ought to sweare that he knowes it not for that it is vnderstood that he knowes it not besides confession and so he sweares true But say that the Iudge or Prelate shal malitiously require of him vpon his oath whether he know it in confession or no I answere that a man thus vrged may still sweare that he knowes it not in confession for that it is vnderstood he knowes it not to reueale it or so as he may tell Who teach and do thus in anothers case iudge what they would doe in their owne O wise cunning and holy periuries vnknowne to our forefathers A Religion that allowes the buying and selling of sinnes of pardons of soules so as now Purgatory can haue no rich men in it but fooles and friendlesse Diuels are tormenters there as themselues hold from many reuelations of Bede Bernard Carthusian yet men can commaund diuels and money can command men A Religion that relies wholly vpon the infallibility of those whom yet they grant haue been and may be monstrous in their liues and dispositions How many of those heyres of Peter by confession of their owne records by bribes by Whores by Diuels haue climed vp into that chaire Yet to say that those men which are confessed to haue giuen their soules to the diuell that they might be Popes can erre while they are Popes is heresie worthy of a stake and of hell A Religion that hood-winkes the poore Laity in forced ignorance least they should knowe Gods will or any way to heauen but theirs so as millions of soules liue no lesse without Scriptures then if there were none that forbids spirituall food as poyson and fetches Gods booke into the Inquisition A Religion that teaches men to worshippe stockes and stones with the same honour that is due to their Creator which practise least it should appeare to her simple Clyents how palpably opposite it is to the second commaundement they haue discreetly left out those words of GODS Law as a needelesse illustration in their Catechismes and Prayer bookes of the vulgar A Religion that vtterly ouerthrowes the true humanity of Christ while they giue vnto it tenne thousand places at once and yet no place flesh and no flesh seuerall members without distinction a substance without quantitie and other accidents or substance and accidents that cannot be seene felt perceiued so they make either a monster of their Sauiour or nothing A Religion that vtterly ouerthrowes the perfection of Christs satisfaction If all be not paid how hath he satisfied If temporall punishments in purgatory be yet due how is all paid and if these must be paid by vs how are they satisfied by him A Religion that makes more scripture then euer God and his ancient Church and those which it doth make so imperiously obtrudes vpon the world as if God himselfe should speak from heauen and while it thunders out curses against all that will not adde these bookes to Gods regards not Gods curse If any man shall adde vnto these things God shall adde vnto him the plagues that are written in this booke A Religion whose patrons disgrace the true Scriptures of God with reproachfull tearmes odious comparisons imputations of corruption and imperfection and in fine pin their whole authority vpon the sleeues of men A Religion that erects a throne in the Conscience to a meere man and giues him absolute power to make a sinne to dispense with it to create new Articles of faith and to impose them vppon necessity of saluation A Religion that baffoules all temporall Princes making them stand bare-foote at their great Bishops gate lye at his foote hold his stirrup yea their owne Crownes at his Curtesie exempting all their Ecclesiasticall Subiects from their iurisdiction and when they list al the rest from their allegeance A Religion that hath made wicked men Saints and Saints Gods Euen by the confession of Papists lewd and vndeseruing men haue leapt into their Calender Whence it is that the Pope before his Canonization of any Saint makes solemne protestation that he entends not in that businesse to doe ought preiudiciall to the glory of God or to the Catholicke faith and Church And once Sainted they haue the honour of Altars Temples Inuocations and some of them in a stile fit onely for their maker I know not whither that blessed Virgin receiue more indignity from her enemies that denie her or these her flatterers that deifie her A Religion that robs the Christian heart of all sound comfort whiles it teacheth vs that we neither can nor ought to be assured of the remission of our sinnes and of present grace and future saluation That we can neuer know whether we haue receiued the true Sacraments of
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.
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
of Pope Ioane deliuered from him by Sigebertus Marianus Scotus Platina and others See Bellarm. l. 3. de Pontif. c. 24. pag. 464.465 c. Secondly Bellarmine against Valla. THe sixteenth is Pope Celestinus whom Laurentius Valla affirmes to haue been infected with the heresie of Nestorius in his declamation against the Donation of Constantine But Valla lyes falsly Bellarm l. 4. de Pont. c. 10. p. 512. Thirdly Darandus and Adrian against Pope Gregorie and Bellarmine SAint Gregorie the first is by Durandus in 4. Di. 7. q. 4. accused of error for that he permitted vnto presbiters to conferre the Sacrament of confirmation which is onely by right proper to Bishops By reason of which place of Gregorie Adrian in quest of confirmation art vlt. affirmeth that the Pope may erre in defining points of Faith but in truth not S. Gregorie erreth herein but Durandus and Adrian Bellarm l. 4. de Pont. c. 10. p. 517. Fourthly Gratian Gerson Panormitan answered by Bellarmine GRatians speech 36. quaest 2. can vlt that Hieromes authority being defenced by Scripture crossed a whole generall Councell and Panormitans and Gersons that one priuate mans opinion if he be furnished with better authorities from Scripture is to bee preferred to the opinion of the Pope and that any one learned man may and ought in some cases to resist a whole Councell See confuted and qualified by Bellar. l. 1. de Concil cap. 16. p. 72. Fiftly Pighius Turrecremata Caietane other Popish Doctors against Bellarmine in fiue seuerall opinions IN this question whether in case of heresie the Pope may be iudged and deposed there are fiue different opinions The first of Albertus Pighius 4. booke of Eccles. Hierarchy ch 8. who holds that the Pope can not be an Hereticke and therefore can in no case be deposed which is a probable opinion but not certaine and is contrary to the common opinion The second of Io. de Turrecremata 4. B. part 2. c. 20. that the Pope in that he fals into an heresie though inward and secret is without the Church and deposed of God and therefore that he may be iudged that is declared to be deposed de facto if hee yet refuse to yeelde But this opinion I cannot allow The third is in another extreame that the Pope neyther for secret nor manifest heresie is or can be deposed This Io. Turrecremata in the place forecited confuteth and indeed it is an opinion very improbable The fourth is Caietanes in his Tract of the authority of the Pope and the Councel ch 20. and 21. That a Pope which is manifestly hereticall is not ipso facto deposed but may and ought to be deposed by the Church which opinion in my iudgement cannot be defended Here therefore Bellarmine defends these positions against Caietane 1 That euery manifest hereticke is ipso facto deposed out of Tit. 3. 2 That a manifest hereticke cannot be the Pope 3 That an hereticke loosing faith and retaining the Character still is yet without the Chuch 4 That the Pope cannot be deposed for ignorance or wickednes 5 That the Pope may not bee deposed by the Church The fift opinion is true that the Pope being a manifest hereticke ceases of himselfe to be Pope and head of the Church as of himselfe he ceases to be a Christian and member of the Church and therefore that he may be iudged and punished by the Church Bellarmine 2. b. of 3. Gener. Contro chap. 30. pag. 317. Sixtly Some namelesse Doctors against Bellarmine IT is the opinion of some Catholikes as Iodocus Clictonaeus reporteth that Mahumet was that Antichrist properly called because he came about the yeare 666. as Iohn foretold But this reason of theirs is friuolous Bellarm. third booke of the Pope chap. 3. pag. 346. Seuenthly Bellarmine against Bb. Iansenius I Cannot enough maruell what Bishop Iansenius meant in that he wrote that although it be the opinion of all the auncient that Elias shall come yet that it is not conuinced out of that place in Ecclesiasticus chap. 48.10 for if it be so as Iansenius saith it followes that Ecclesiasticus both is and hath written false Bellarm. in 3. b. c. 6. pag. 357. Eightly Dominicus a Soto against Bellarmine ONe doubt remaines whether by the cruell persecution of Antichrist the Christian faith and Religion shall be vtterly extinguished Dominicus a Soto defends it in 4. booke of sentences d. 46. q. 1. art 1. But this opinion in my iudgement cannot be defended Bellarmine l. 3 chap. 17. pag. 417. Ninthly Gerson Almaine Pope Adrian Hosius Eckius c Pighius Thomas Waldensis in three contradictory opinions COncerning the Popes certainety of iudgement there are foure diuers opinions The first is that the Pope as Pope may be an hereticke in himselfe and may teach others heresie although he define something euen with a generall Councell This is the opinion of all the heretickes of this time Luther Caluin c. The second that the Pope as Pope may be an hereticke and teach heresie if he define without a generall Councell and that it hath so happened This opinion followes Nilus in his booke against the Primacy of the Pope Io. Gerson and Almaine Alphonsus de Castro and Pope Adrian the sixt in the quaest of confirmation which opinion is not meerely hereticall but is erroneous and neare to heresie The third in an other extreame That the Pope cannot by any meanes be an hereticke nor teach heresie publiquely though he should alone determine any matter So holds Albert Pighius B. 4. of Eccles. Hierar c. 8. The fourth That the Pope whether he may be an heretick or no cannot by any meanes define any hereticall point to be beleeued of the whole Church This which is the commonest opinion holds Thomas 22. quaest 1. art 10. Tho. Waldensis l. 2. of the Doctr. of faith ch 47. Io. de Turrecremata Io. Driedo Caietane Hosius Eckius Io. of Louan Petrus a Soto c. Bellarm. B. 4. of the Pope ch 2. pag. 473. Tenthly the Sorbonists and some other concealed Doctors against Bellarmine THat prayer of Christ for Peters faith that it might not faile is expounded 1 By the Parisian Diuines That the Lord prayed for his vniuersall Church or for Peter as he bore the figure of the whole Church which exposition is false 2 Others that liue at this day teach That the Lord in this place prayed for the perseuerance of Peter alone in the grace of God vntill the end confuted by foure arguments 3 The third exposition is true That the Lord obtained for Peter two priuiledges One that hee should neuer loose the true faith though neuer so much tempted The other that he as Pope should neuer teach any thing against the faith Bell. b. 4. ch 3. pag. 477. DECAD IIII. First Melchior Canus and others against Pighius Hosius Io. Louan Onuphrius NOt only the heretickes but some Catholicke Doctors haue held Pope
c. 11. p. 347. Fourthly Bellarmine against Dominicus a Soto Sanctius Alanus c. HEnce may be refuted the common error which possesses many of this time concerning the Author of this heresie for as Thomas Waldensis witnesses there was an olde booke of Diuine offices without any name of the Author wherein Wickliffe did marueilously triumph and vexed the Catholikes with it boasting it one while to be Ambroses another while Isidores another while Fulgentius At last the Catholickes suspected that Walramus or Valeramus was the Author of it So write Dominicus a Soto Claudius Sanctius Gul. Alanus and others But he was not the first for the Berengarians were before him neyther was Walramus the Author hereof but Rupertus Tuitiensis from whose bookes this opinion is to be fetch 't which Dominicus a Soto idlely expoundeth vpon 4. dist 9. q. 2. Bellarm. l. 3. c. 11. p. 348. Fiftly Waldensis and Bellarmine against Iohannes Parisiensis THE sixt opinion or heresie rather is of one Iohannes Parisiensis which as Waldensis reporteth openly opugned that other heresie and brought in a new for he taught that the bread is assumed by the Sonne but by meanes of the body of Christ as the body is taken for part of his manhood not for the whole and hee said as part not as whole least hee should be constrained to admit that God is bread Bellarm. l. 3. c. 11. confuted l. 3. c. 16. pag. 348. Sixtly Durandus against the Councels of Constance and of Trent and Bellarmine THE third error is of them which will haue onely the matter of bread to remaine which doth expresly contradict the Councell of Trent Sess. 13. cha 4. and Can. 2. And the Councell of Constance Sess. 8. Yea also this opinion of Durandus is contrary to the Councell of Lateran for neyther would that Councel haue said that there is a transsubstantiation made vnlesse it would haue signified that the whole substance of the bread is changed c. Therefore this opinion of Durandus is hereticall though he himselfe be not therefore to be called an heretike because he was ready to yeelde to the iudgement of the Church Bellarmine lib. 3. c. 13. pag. 351. Seuenthly foure diuers opinions of Diuines ABout the time of Christs instituting the Sacrament there are foure opinions first of the greeks who hold that Christ did keepe his passeouer and institute his Sacrament the thiteenth day of the first moneth The second of Rupertus who teaches that the Hebrewes were neuer wont to celebrate two feast dayes together and therefore when the feast of vnleauened bread fell the sixt day it was wont to be deferred to the Saboth following This opinion of Rupertus both is false and doth not satisfie that maine argument of the Greekes The third of Paulus Burgensis who holds that both the feast of vnleauened bread and of the Passeouer might be deferred vpon the Tradition of the Elders to the day following and that in the yeare wherein Christ suffred the Hebrewes did eate their Passeouer on Friday euening Christ his on Thursday in the euening The fourth is the common opinion of Diuines that Christ instituted his Sacrament in that time wherein according to the law and custome of the Iewes all leauen was cast away which was the 14. day c. This opinion is onely true c. Bellarm. l. 4. c. 7. p. 455. Eightly the Popish Doctors disagreeing THe Catholike Church hath euer thought it so necessary that water should be mixed with wine in the Chalice that it cannot without a grieuous sin be omitted But whether the Sacrament can consist without water it is not so certaine the common opinion leanes to the affirmatiue part Bellarm. lib. 4. cap. 10. pag. 476. Ninthly Popish Diuines differing HEre is therefore a question to be handled whether those onely words For this is my body c. pertaine to the forme of the Sacrament The Catholike Church affirmes it with great consent Councell Florent Catech. of Concil Trident Diuines with the Master of Sent. Lawyers For although Diuines dispute and cannot agree whether all the seuerall words which are had in the forme of the consecration of the Chalice in the Latine Masse-bookes be of the essence of the forme thereof yet all agree that they are of the integrity and perfection of the forme so as no one of them can without sinne be omitted and their consent in this point is sufficient Bellarm. l. 4. c. 12. p. 486. Tenthly Io. de Louanio against George Cassander IOhan de Louanio in his booke of the Communion vnder both kinds chiefely confutes a B. of a certain Aduiser who without any name set forth a B. of this quest perswading to this vse but after it was known that the B. was George Cassanders Bellar. l. 4. c. 20. p. 538. DECAD V. First some Papists against the Councell of Trent FIrst the opinion of some is to be confuted who hold that from the words This is my body is gathered that whole Christ is vnder the forme of bread for they say that by the word Body is signified a liuing body and therfore a body with a soule and blood But this opinion is flatly contrary to the Councell of Trent Sess. 13. ca. 3. who teaches that by the power of the wordes onely the body is there vnder the forme of bread the soule the Diuinity and blood onely by a Concomitance Bellarm. ibid. c. 21. p. 540. Secondly Alexand. Alensis and Gasper Cassalius against the common opinion THere is no spirituall fruit receiued by both kinds which is not receiued by one this proposition is not so certaine as the former for our Diuines are of diuers iudgements concerning it But it is my opinion and the common and most probable assertion of Diuines of St. Thomas S. Bonauenture Richard Gabriel Roffensis Caietane c. And though Richardus seemes to incline the other way yet he doth it onely to reconcile Alexander Alensis vnto the common opinion for of all the ancients there is onely Alexander in 4. part Sum. q. 53. which holdes the contrarie and of the new writers Gasper Cassalius cals it into doubt and question in his second booke of the Supper c. Bellarm. ibid. c. 23. p. 554. Thirdly Io. of Louan Cornel. Iansenius opposite OF this place are two opinions of Catholickes First of Iohn of Louan and others who holde that the Sacrament of the Eucharist was giuen to the two Disciples in Emmaus and they bring for them Austen Chrysost. Bede Theophilact Ierome Isychius The other of Cornelius Iansenius vpon the place who teaches that the bread blessed by Christ in Emmaus was not the Sacrament but onely a figure of it Bellarm. l. 4. cap. 24. pag. 563. Fourthly two sorts of Popish Doctors dissenting WE teach that the very Sacrament is to be adored as the Councell of Trent speaketh but this maner of speech is taken two wayes Those that thinke the Sacrament of the
Eucharist to bee formally the body of Christ as he is vnder those formes doe graunt that the Sacrament is iustly said to be formally adored But those that say the Sacrament of the Eucharist is formally the Species of bread and wine as they containe Christ doe teach consequently that the said Sacrament is materially to be adored Bellarm. ibid. cap. 29. pag. 607. Fiftly Hugo de Sancto victore Peter Lombard Thomas Rabanus c. disagreeing MAny Catholikes endeauour to shew the word Missa Masse to be Hebrew for Deut. 16. there is the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the same signification and not the Catholikes only but Philip Melanchton acknowledges this deriuation Other and their opinion is more probable hold it to be Latine of whom also some hold it to be a Mittendo because our offerings and prayers are sent vp to God So Hugo de Sancto victore lib. 2. de Sacram. Others lesse probably for that an Angell is sent from God to assist the Sacrifice and carry it to God as the Master of Sent. and Thomas 3. p. q. 83. But their opinion is most likely which deriue it a missione seu dimissione populi This opinion is Isidores Rabanus and Hugo and others later Diuines admit this Etymology Bellarm. de Missa l. 1. c. 1. p. 616. Sixtly Bellarmine against a nameles Doctor 1. G. Cassalius NEare to this opinion of Melanchton seemes to be a certaine late Doctor a man otherwise learned and godly who in his booke of Sacrifice chap. 5. teacheth that euery good worke which is done that we may in an holy fellowshippe cleaue to God is a Sacrifice properly But this opinion of his is false and may be confuted with many and manifest arguments Bellarm. ibid. c. 2. p. 621. Seuenthly Bellarmine against Arias Montanus THis testimony of Malach. 1. cannot be vnderstood of the sacrifice of the crosse nor of any Iewish sacrifice nor of the sacrifices of the heathen Idolaters wherefore the exposition of Arias Montanus is no way to be suffered for it doth not onely contradict the opinion of al those Fathers which we will straight-way cyte but the Apostle himselfe and the open truth for to what end were the blood of so many thousand Martyres shed for not communicating with the Gentiles sacrifices if those had beene cleane and acceptable to God Bellarm. 1. b. of Masse cap. 10. pag. 679. Eightly Cassalius confuted by Bellarm. TO this purpose make all those places of the Fathers which teach that there is one only sacrifice of the church which succeeded al the multitude of the old sacrifices Leo Chrysost. Aug. c. whence appeares that the opiniō of Gasper Cassalius in his 1. b. de sacrificio is altogether improbable who affirms there are two sacrifices of the Eucharist one of bread and wine another of the body and blood of Christ. Bellarm. b. 1. of the Masse c. 27. pag. 756. Ninthly diuers opinions of Popish Doctors THe consecration of the Eucharist belongs to the essence of the sacrifice This sentence thus generally proposed hath many vpholders for of the greeks Nic. Cabasilas of the latines Ruardus Iodocus Tiletanus Gasper Cassalius Alanus and others maintain it But al hold it not a like Some thinke it to be therefore because by the consecration there is made a true and reall change of the bread into Christs body and a true sacrifice requires such a mutation whereby the thing ceases to be But this opinion hath no smal argumēts against it Others think it to be because by this consecration Christ is truely though mystically and vnblooodily ffred This opinion doth not yet fully satisfie Thus therfore it seemes to be set forth There are three things in a Sacrifice which are found in the consecration of the Eucharist first a prophane and earthly thing is made holy Secondly that thing thus made holy is offered to God Thirdly the thing thus offered is ordained to a true reall and externall mutation and distinction c. This seemes to me the opinion of St. Thomas in 2.2 q. 85. art 3. Bellarm ibid. c. 27. p. 759. Tenthly one or two Popish Doctors against the Councell of Trent THE Sacrifice of the Masse hath not onely or principally his vertue from the act of him that offers it but euen from the worke wrought which is the common opinion of Diuines and of the Councell of Trent Sess. 22. c. 2. although there be one or two of our Writers found that dissent from it Bellarm. 2. booke of the Masse c. 4. p. 773. DECAD VI. First Bellarm. against Platina and Polidor Virgil. DAmasus in his Pontificall in the life of Soter and Siluester Popes amongst other holy vessels makes mention of Censers wherefore it is false which Platina in the life of Sixtus 1. and Polidore Virgil in his booke of the Deuisers of things write that Leo 3. which liued An. Dom. 800. was the first that vsed Frankincense in the Masse Bellarm. 2. b. of Masse cap. 15. pag. 843. Secondly Bellarmine against other Papists THat Celestinus 1. was not the first Author of the Introitus in the Masse see defended by Bellarm. against the consent of their Writers as himselfe confesses Bellarm. ibid. c. 16. p. 846. Thirdly Bellarmine against many Papists THat Anastasius 1. was not the first Author of standing at the Gospell is held by Bellarmine against many of their writers ibid. c. 16. p. 853. Fourthly foure seuerall opinions of Popish Doctors SCotus Occam and Gabriel vpon 4. Sent. dist 14. place the essence of the Sacrament of Penance in absolution onely c. The question then is whether there be any thing besides absolution which belongs to the nature and essence of this Sacrament Of this there are foure opinions the first is that only absolution makes the essence of this Sacrament So of our Catholike Diuines Scotus Occam Io. Maior Iacob Almaine and others c. The last and truest opinion is that the Sacrament of penance consists of two parts inward and essentiall to it the absolution of the Priest as the forme and the acts of the penitent as the matter which was the opinion of many old Diuines St. Thomas Richardus Durandus and others vpon 4. Sent. dist 14. and is now held by almost all that write of this Sacrament Bellarm. 1. b. of penance cap. 15. pag. 92. Fiftly Gratian and Bonauenture against the rest THen Chemnitius addes that there are diuers opinions of our Catholikes concerning the necessity of confession and this he proues out of Gratian and a Glosse of his out of Bonauenture these are all his fathers c. But say that confession doth not stand by the law of God as Kemnitius would proue out of a certaine Glosse which yet the Catholikes mislike Bellarm. 1. b. of penance cap 11. pag. 79. Sixtly Scotus confuted by Bellarmine NEyther is that aptly and well said by Scotus that penance is the absolution of the penitent
done in a set forme of words c. For penance is the act of the penitent not of the Priest and absolution is an act of the Priest not of the penitent Bellarm. ibid. c. 15. p. 96. Seuenthly Gropperus reiected by Bellarmine THere is no Catholike writer which makes the matter of this Sacrament to be onely the action of the Priest pronouncing absolution in a set forme saue onely Gropperus or whosoeuer was the Author of the Enchiridion Coloniense which sometimes seemes to speake very vnheedely For Diuines would eyther haue it consist in absolution alone or else they assigne the matter to be on the behalfe of the penitent the forme from the Priest which indeede is the commonest opinion of almost all Bellarmine 1. b. of pen. cap. 16. p. 98. Eightly Scotists against Thomas Bonauenture and others Vega Ferrariensis c. THe Scotists obiect that absolution alone is the cause of grace for that al the power of the Sacrament rests in the keyes which are the Priests not the penitents I answer first by denying the consequent the sacrament may consist of two parts yet worke only by one as a man consists of body soule yet vnderstands onely by his soule and this answere is followed by them who place the vertue of the Sacrament in absolution alone which was once the opinion of St. Thomas and Saint Bonauenture and other ancients vpon 4. dist Sent. dist 18. and of the later Andreas Vega Francis of Ferrara c. Farther it may be answered that absolution is indeede the principall cause of iustification not the onely cause but that is partly in the keyes of the Absoluer partly in the act of the penitent So holds Saint Thomas who recanted his former opinion 3 part q. 86. art 6. Bellarmine ibid. c. 16. p. 103. Ninthly Durandus against Thomas and the common opinion OF the diuision of Penance into contrition confession satisfaction there are two questions One amongst the Catholikes the other with the Heretickes The former is not whether these three be necessary and absolutely to be vsed but whether all be the true parts of the Sacrament For it was the opinion of Durandus vpon 4. dist 16. q. 1. that onely confession is the materiall part of this Sacrament of penance and that contrition is the disposition towards it and satisfaction the fruit of it But the common opinion of Diuines and of Saint Thomas 3. p. q. 90. is that all three of them are the true materiall parts of the Sacrament of Penance neither can now be doubted of since it is flatly set downe by two generall Councels of Florence and Trent Bellarm. ibid. c. 17. p. 104. Tenthly Adrianus refuted by Bellarmine THat there may be a conditional will at the least of things impossible as well as a desire of a thing lost see defended against Adrianus q. 1. de paenitentia by Bellarm. l. 2. of penance cap. 5. pag. 155. DECAD VII First Io. Maior Iac. Almain Andr. Vega against Thomas Scotus Durand Albert. Soto Canus c. BVT in this our Catholike writers doe not agree whether the purpose of a better life and detestation of sinne be expresly and formally necessary to true contrition or whether it be sufficient to haue it implicitely or confusedly and virtually The old Diuines as Peter Lombard Alexander Alensis S. Thomas Scotus Durandus Albertus and others simply teach that it is of the very essence of contrition to detest our sinne and to purpose amendement and though they distinguish not betwixt a formal and vertuall purpose yet they plainely shew they meane a direct formall purpose which was after more plainely taught by Pope Adrian 6. in 5. quodl art 3. Tho. Caietanus Dominicus a Soto Melchior Canus yet there haue beene some few that haue disputed against it and contenting themselues with a virtual purpose which is concluded in the hatred of their sins haue denied that other to be necessary In this ranke were Io. Maior Iac. Almayne in 4. Sent. d. 14. Andr. Vega vpon the Councell of Trent c. 21. Bellarm. ibid. c. 6. p. 157. Secondly Capreolus Dom. a Soto and others against Peter Lomb. Thomas Albertus Bonauenture c. IN this onely doe the Schoolemen seeme here to disagree That some wil haue the act of penance as also the act of faith and charity to be onely a disposition to the remission of sinnes and not to be any merit either of worke or congruity of the forgiuenesse of them Of this opinion is Io. Capreolus vpon 2. Sent d. 4. q. 1. Dominicus a Soto 2. b. of Nature and Grace c. 4. But other and the most hold those acts to be not onely a disposition towards but a merit by congruity of our iustification which opinion is the Masters of Sent. b. 2. d. 27. and St. Thomas vpon 2. d. 27. of Albertus S. Bonauenture Besides of Scotus Durandus Gabriel and others vpon 2. dist 28. And of the later Writers Andreas Vega 8 b. vpon the Councell of Trent Bellarm. ibid. c. 12. p. 185. Thirdly one Popish Doctor against the rest THe Catholike Doctors with common consent are wont to teach that contrition if it be perfect and haue the desire and vow of the Sacrament of Baptisme or Absolution reconciles a man to God and remits sinne before the Sacrament of Penance be performed But there was of late a Catholike Doctor who not many yeares since in a booke which he wrote of charity taught against this common opinion Bellarm. ib. c. 13. p. 191. Fourthly Armachanus confuted by Bellarmine RIchardus Armachanus in l. 9 quaest Armen cap. 27. taught it probable that for some great sinnes pardon could not be had though the sinner should doe whatsoeuer he could for obtaining it But this we affirm not as probable but as certain and confessed of Catholikes that no multitude or haynousnes of sinne can be such as may not be done away by true repentance Bellarm. ibid. c. 15. p. 209. Fiftly Bellarmine against Richardus THat the sinne against the holy Ghost is vnpardonable Richardus teacheth to be not in respect of the fault but of the punishment because if a man repent not of it none of his temporall punishment required to satisfaction shall be forgiuen Bellarm. ibid. c. 16. Confuted by Bellarmine by 3. arguments pag. 219. Sixtly Rupertus opposed by Bellarmine THat feare which is one of the foure passions of the minde is not in it selfe euill See defended against Rupertus the Abbat l. 9. de operibus spiritus by Bellarm. ibid. c. 17. p. 223. Seuenthly the Councell of Trent against Petr. Oxoniensis Erasmus Rhenamus THere was about some hundreth yeare since one Petrus Oxoniensis which affirmed that the particular and speciall confession of our sinnes in seuerall is not required by any law of God but onely by some Decree of the vniuersall Church In our age haue held the same errour Erasmus Roterodamus and Beatus Rhenanus who hold that
seuerall Patriarches had a peculiar inspiration from God for this dispensation Others hold it enough that this dispensation was made knowne by inspiration to the first Patriarches c. Bellarm. ibid cap. 11. pag. 136. Ninthly Erasmus Catharinus Caietanus against the other Popish Doctors ERasmus in his notes vpon 1. Cor. 7. goes about largely to shew that in case of fornication the Innocent partie may marry againe And these notes were set forth by Erasmus in the yeare of our Lord 1515. two yeares before Luthers faction arose And there are two other Catholikes which are possessed with the same errour Ambrose Catharinus and Caietanus for Catharinus concludes in his notes vppon Caietane as from him That from the Gospell it cannot be gathered that in case of fornication it is not lawfull to marry againe but that this is forbidden by diuers Canons and therefore ought not to be done without the authority of the Church Bellarm ibid. cap. 15. pag. 160. Tenthly Bellarmine against Canus DOminicus a Soto vpon 4. Sent. Dist. 26. quaest 2. affirmes that in his time there were some which began to defend that the essentiall forme of this Sacrament of Matrimony are those wordes of the Priest I ioyne you together but yet that there was none which durst commit this Opinion to Writing whence it followes that the Opinion of Canus is newe and singular c. Bellarmine in his first Booke of Matrimonie cap. 7. pag. 110. Diuers opinions of Diuines acknowledged Canus Confuted THat which Canus saith that our Diuines write no certainety of this Sacrament that they are distracted into diuers opinions helpeth his cause nothing at all for though our Diuines follow diuers opinions of the matter of this Sacrament yet of the forme and minister of it they disagree not See the confutation of Canus at large Chap. 8. c. Bellarmine the same booke cap. 7. pag. 111. DECAD X. First Pet. Lombard Bonauenture Rich. Dominicus a Soto against Thomas Scotus Duran Palud Abulensis c. IT is a question among our Doctors whether Diuorce so graunted to the Iewes as that after it they might marry againe were yeelded to them as lawfull or as a lesser euill Master of Sentenc Dist. 33. Lib. 4. and Bonauentura Richardus Dominicus a Soto and others hold it was euer vnlawfull but onely tolerated with impunity for the auoiding of a greater euill But the contrary opinion I must confesse euer seemed to me most probable which is defended by Saint Thomas Scotus Durandus Paludanus Abulensis Eckius Dominicus a Soto Bellarmine the same booke cap. 17. pag. 192. Secondly Erasmus and Gropperus against the rest ERasmus was the first that called this matter into Controuersie Whether the consent of Parents be required to the essence of Matrimonie but the Catholike Doctors are so farre from doubting of this point as that they neuer number the want of Parents consent amongst the impediments of Matrimony and the Councell of Trent accurses them which shall hold mariage without consent of Parents void or voydable by parents All the old Diuines and amongst them St. Tho. in 4. d. 28. and the most of the learned new writers as Ruard Petr. and Dominic a Soto and others teach that Matrimonie without consent and knowledge of parents is not onely true marriage but also a true Sacrament Indeed Gropperus denies this Clandestine Matrimony to be a Sacrament wherein he is manifestly deceiued and contradicts both St. Thomas and all sounder Diuines Bellarm. ibid. cap. 19 20. pag. 201.202 c. Thirdly Thomas Bonauent Albert. Richard Durand Dominicus a Soto against Scotus Paludan Caietane and all Canonists IT is a Controuersie among Catholikes by what Law a solemne vow dissolueth that Matrimonie which is contracted after the saide vow whether by the Law naturall and Diuine or onely Ecclesiasticall and positiue For many and those graue Diuines Saint Thomas Saint Bonauenture Albertus Richardus Durandus and Dominicus a Soto hold that a solemne vow dissolues Matrimony by the Lawe of GOD and nature but many denie their grounds as Scotus Paludanus and Caietane and all the Interpreters of the Canon law as Panormitanus witnesseth who thinketh that this dissolution is onely warranted by the Decree of the Church Bellarm. ibid. c. 21. pag. 217. Fourthly Caietane against the common opinion COncerning these foure forbidden degrees some Doctors haue denied that they are forbidden by the law of nature amongst whom is Caietane in 2.2 q. 154. But yet the commoner and truer opinion teacheth the contrary Bellarm. ibid. c. 28. p. 278. Fiftly Albertus Thomas Bellarmine and others against Pet. Lombard Io. Scotus c. THere be some of our Diuines which seperate Originall iustice giuen to our first Parent in his Creation from that Grace which wee call Gratum facientem and which teach that Adam receiued indeede at first a certaine habite which subiected the inferiour part of the soule to the superiour but not this sauing Grace which makes vs the Sonnes and friends of GOD and is necessary to the earning of eternall life Of which opinion were Peter Lombard 2. Sent. Dist. 24. and after him Io. Scotus and certaine other We follow Albertus Magnus Saint Thomas and others which conioyne Originall iustice with the said Grace c. Bellarmine in his booke of the grace giuen to our first Parents cap. 3. pag. 9. Sixtly some learned Papists confuted by Bellarmine THE State of Adam after his fall differ'd no otherwise from his estate in his pure naturalles then a stripped man from a naked neyther is mans nature euer a whit the worse if you onely take away his Originall fault neyther is more ignorant and weake then it would haue beene in his meere naturals therefore the corruption of nature is not of the want of any naturall gift or the addition of any ill quality but onely from the losse of his supernaturall gift from Adams sinne which is the common opinion of Schoolemen both olde and new neyther did wee learne this which wee teach from Dominicus a Soto onely neyther hath Saint Thomas and other approued Authors written the contrary as some otherwise very learned men doe hold but as I said this is the commoner Opinion as shall appeare by the testimonies following Bellarmine in his booke of the grace giuen to our first parents cap. 5. pag. 21. Seuenthly Bellarmine against Eugubinus THE Pelagians held that man should haue died though hee had not sinned to which errour Augustinus Eugubinus comes very neare in his notes vpon Genes 2. Bellarmine in the same booke of the grace giuen to mankinde in our first Parent cap. 8. pag. 46. Eightly Franc. Georgius refuted by Bellarmine SOme of the Auncients haue turned all that Historie of Paradise the Riuers and Trees into meere Allegories as Philo Valentinus Haeresiarcha Origenes But in our age Franciscus Georgius 1. Tom. of Problemes and in his Harmony of the World Cant. 1. Tom. 7. chap. 21. hath gone about to
dist 33. quaest 2. Durandus vpon the same place defends it Bonauenture hath deuised another reason Thomas a third and Richardus vpon the same place seeing that the foresaid reasons did not giue satisfaction addes a fourth and saith that infants know they are fallen from happinesse and yet are not sadde it comes to passe by a singular prouidence of God which remoues sorrow from their minds Bellarm. ibid. cap. 6. pag. 609. DECAD III. First Albert Pighius and Peter Lombard with Scotus against the rest c. THat no part of iustice stands in any quality or habite of ours but all wholly in Gods free acceptation is held by Caluin Kemnitius Heshusius and to this opinion of the heretikes comes Albertus Pighius otherwise a Catholike Doctor but in some questions as Ruardus Tapperus noted before vs miserably seduced by reading of Caluins bookes for thus Pighius writes in his fift booke of Freewill Wee will fetch the diuers acceptions of grace from the Scriptures not from the Schooles for in them commonly they immagine that the grace of God is some quality created in our soules by God c. all which I thinke false and feined and to haue no authority from scripture thus Pighius But the common opinion of Diuines constantly teacheth that a supernaturall habite is infused into vs by God whereby the soule is garnished and perfited and so made acceptable to God For though Peter Lombard in 1. Sent. dist 17. seeme to say that charity is not an habite but the very holy Ghost himselfe yet it appeares in the same booke dist 37. he meant that the spirit of God dwelleth not in them onely which know and loue him but euen in Infants by some habite wherefore Io. Scotus holds that Peter Lombards opinion may well be expounded and defended but St. Thomas and other Diuines reproue his opinion as if he denied the habite of charity Bellarm. of grace and freewill l. 1. cap. 3. pag. 50. Secondly foure diuers opinions of Popish Doctors WHether the habite of grace be the same with the habite of charity there are foure opinions of Diuines for some would haue this iustifying grace gratum facientem to be an habite in nature and respects different from charity as St. Thomas Capreolus Caietanus Ferrariensis Dominicus a Soto Others make not a reall but a formall distinction betwixt them as Albertus Magnus Alexander Alensis and perhaps St. Bonauenture vpon 2. Sent. dist 26 Others hold them neither in deede nor formally but onely in certaine respects different and this is the iudgement of Alexander Alensis who belike changed his opinion Richardus Scotus Mayro Gabriel Maior Henry of Gaunt and Andreas Vega. Others holde there is no difference at all betwixt them saue in name onely So Durandus vpon 2. dist 26. q. The third opinion seemes to be most probable and more agreeing to Scripture Fathers and Councell of Trent Bellarm. ibid. c. 6. p. 63. Thirdly Thomas and all Diuines against Peter Lombard VVE thought it meete to confute the opinion of them which teach that charity whereby we loue God is not any created habite but the very person of the holy Ghost which vseth to be accounted Lombards opinion But we must thinke Pet. Lomb. was not grosse and dull to thinke the very act of loue which we our selues produce is the very holy Ghost but this was it that Lombard taught that the very next immediate cause or ground of the loue of God is the spirit of God in vs and not any created habite as of faith hope and the rest which opinion all Diuines confute in their Commentaries on the 1. booke Sent. dist 17. especially Saint Thomas in 2.2 q. 23. and in his questions who answereth 24. obiections that might be made for Lombards opinion Bellarm. ibid. c. 8. p. 77. Fourthly three rankes of Popish Writers at variance VVHence grace proueth effectuall are three opinions The first of them which hold the efficacy of grace to stand in the assent and co-operation of mans will and therefore these hold it in mans power to make grace effectuall which otherwise in it selfe would be but sufficient The other of those which thinke effectuall grace to be the naturall action of God which determines the wil to will and choose that good which was inspired to them by exciting grace This opinion seemes eyther the same with the error of the Caluinists and Lutherans or very little different The Abettors of this opinion like it because they thinke it is Augustines but that it was not his may be shewed by foure arguments c. The third is the meane betweene both these extremes Bellarmine ibid. c. 12. p. 97.98 c. Fiftly Popish Diuines diuided MAny Catholike Diuines and almost all teach that euery man hath sufficient grace giuen him for the place and time and yet without preuenting grace no man can desire or receiue it So Alexander Alensis Albertus Magnus S. Thomas Bonauent Scotus P. Adrian Io. Roffensis c. Bellarm. l. 2. of grace and freewill c. 1. p. 116. Sixtly Andr Vega against Abulensis Adrian Caietane Roffensis ALthough sufficient and necessary ayde to rise from sinne be not wanting to any man for the time and place yet it is not present at all times This proposition is not mine onely but it is confirmed by Abulensis Adrianus 6. Caietane Roffensis Driedo Tapperus But Andreas Vega saith that sinners may be at any or euery time conuerted yet he addes that they cannot at euery time bring that their possibility to effect so he partly affirmes and partly denies it Bellarm l. 2. c. 6. p. 131. Seuenthly Thomas and Caietane and Bellarmine against other Doctors DIuines indeede dispute whether predestination belong rather to the vnderstanding or to the will But I like the opinion of Cardinal Caietane and St. Thomas who hold it rather of the vnderstanding and the rather because it is Saint Augustines in his booke De bono perseuerant cap. 17. Bellarm. ib. c. 9. p 154. Eightly Ambros. Catharinus and some others confuted by Bellarmine BVT let vs more at large expound that principal place out of Rom. 9. because Ambros. Catharinus and some other new Writers take it amisse Bellarm. ibid. cap. 10. pag. 157. Ninthly some namelesse Authors confuted by Bellarm. THE distinction which some Catholikes make betwixt predestination and election that predestination is before election predestination is the meanes election respects the glory it selfe predestination is free election depends on the praeuision of our good works See by Bellarmine the same booke cap. 15. p. 186. confuted as disagreeing from Scripture and reason Tenthly eight seuerall opinions of Popish Doctors THe first opinion is That freewill doth consist properly in our act not in any habite c. so teacheth Herueus 1. quodlibet q. 1. who places freewill in those acts of the vnderstanding and will which goe before deliberation or the conclusion of deliberation The second is Bonauentures opinion who