are the foundations these are the confirmations And vpon the Psalmes Least thou shouldst erre saith the same Augustine in thy iudgement of the Church least any man should say to thee this is Christ which is not Christ or this is the Church which is not the Church for many c. Heare the voyce of the Shepheard himselfe which is cloathed in flesh c. He shewes himselfe to thee handle him and see He shewes his Church least any man should deceiue thee vnder the name of the Church c. yet Chrysostome more directly thus He that would know which is the true Church of Christ whence may he know it in the similitude of so great confusion but onely by the scriptures Now the working of miracles is altogether ceased yea they are rather found to be fainedly wrought of them which are but false Christians Whence then shall he know it but onely by the scriptures The Lord Jesus therfore knowing what great confusion of things would be in the last dayes therefore commands that those which are Christians and would receiue confirmation of their true faith should flye to nothing but to the Scriptures Otherwise if they flie to any other helpe they shall be offended and perish not vnderstanding which is the true Church This is the old faith Now heare the new contradicting it and vs. The scripture saith Eckius a Popish Doctor is not authenticall without the authority of the Church for the Canonicall writers are members of the Church Whereupon let it be obiected to an Hereticke that will striue against the Decrees of the Church by what weapons he will fight against the Church he will say by the Canonicall scriptures of the foure Gospels and Pauls Epistles Let it be straight obiected to him how he knowes these to be Canonicall but by the Church And a while after The scripture saith he defined in a Councell it seemed good to the holy Ghost and to vs that you abstaine from things offered to Idolls and blood and strangled the Church by her authority altred a thing so clearely defined and expressed for it vseth both strangled and blood Behold the power of the Church is aboue the scripture thus Eckius And besides Cusanus Bellarmine saith thus If we take away the authority of the present Church and of the present Councell of Trent all the Decrees of all other Councells and the whole Christian faith may be called into doubt and in the same place a little after The strength of all ancient Councels and the certainety of all opinions depends on the authority of the present Church You haue heard both speake say now with whom is true antiquity and on Gods name detest the newer of both It were as easie to bring the same if not greater euidence for the perfection and all-sufficiency of Scripture and so to deliuer all the body of our Religion by the tongues and pens of the fathers that eyther you must be forced to hold them Nouelists with vs or your selues such against them How honest and ingenuous is that confession of your Erasmus who in his Epistle to the Bishop and Cardinall of Ments could say It is plainely found that many things in Luthers bookes are condemned for Hereticall which in the bookes of Bernard and Austen are read for holy and Orthodox This is too much for a tast if your appetite stand to it I dare promise you full dishes Let me therefore appeale to you if light and darkenesse be more contrary then these points of your religion to true Antiquity No no Let your authors glose as they list Popery is but a yong faction corruptly raysed out of auncient grounds And if it haue as we grant some ancient errors falshood cannot be bettered with age there is no prescription against God and truth What wee can proue to be erroneous we neede not proue new some hundreths of yeares is an idle plea against the ancient of dayes What can you plead yet more for your change Their numbers perhaps and our handfuls You heard all the world was theirs scarce any corner ours How could you but suspect a few These are but idle brags we dare and can share equally with them in Christendome And if we could not this rule will teach you to aduance Turcisme aboue Christianity and Paganisme aboue that the world aboue the Church hell aboue heauen If any proofe can be drawne from numbers He that knowes all sayes the best are fewest What then could stir you Our diuisions and their vnity If this my following labour doe not make it good to all the world that their peace is lesse then ours their dissension more by the confession of their owne mouthes be you theirs still and let me follow you I stand not vpon the scoldings of Priests and Iesuites nor the late Venetian iarres nor the pragmaticall differences now on foote in the view of all Christendome betwixt their owne Cardinals in their sacred Conclaue and all their Clergy concerning the Popes temporall power Neither doe I call any friend to be our aduocate none but Bellarmine and Nauarrus shall be my Orators and if these plead not this cause enough let it fall See here dangerous rifts and flawes not in the outward barke onely but in the very heart and pithe of your religion and if so many be confessed by one or two what might be gathered out of all and if so many be acknowledged thinke how many there are that lurke in secret and will not be confessed How loath would we be after all exclamations that your busie Iesuites could rake out so many confessed quarrels out of all our authors as I haue here found in two of yours We want onely their cunning secrecy in the carriage of our quarrels Our few and sleight differences are blazoned a broad with infamy and offence their hundreds are craftily smothered in silence Let your owne eyes satisfie you in this not my pen see now what you would neuer beleeue What is it then that could thus bewitch you to forsake the comely and heauenly truth of God and to dote vpon this beastly strumpet to change your Religion for a ridiculous sensuall cruell irreligious faction A Religion if we must call it so that made sport to our playne fore fathers with the remembrance of her grauest deuotions How oft haue you seene them laugh at themselues whiles they haue told of their creeping crouch kissing the pax offering their candles signing with ashes partiall shrifts merry pilgrimages ridiculous miracles and a thousand such May-games which now you begin after this long hissing at to looke vpon soberly and with admiration A Religion whose fooleries very boyes may shout and laugh at if for no more but this that it teaches men to put confidence in beades medals roses hallowed swords spels of the Gospell Agnus Dei and such like idle bables ascribing vnto them Diuine vertue yea so much as is due to the sonne of God himselfe and his
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
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
latter opinion seemes the truest which we doe the rather defend because it so much displeaseth our aduersaries and Io. Caluin especially Bellarm. 5. booke of grace and freewill cap. 1. pag. 337. Ninthly Scotus Durandus Gabriel Gregor Ariminensis Capreolus Marsilius Alexander Albert Thomas Bonauent opposite to each other ALl Catholikes agree that no workes meritorious of grace can be done by the onely power of nature and secondly that all our workes before iustification are no sinnes within these bounds some dispute for freewill perhaps more freely and lauishly then were meete as Scotus Durandus Gabriell vpon 2 Sent. d. 28. Others againe giue lesse to it then they should as Gregorius â— Ariminensis Capreolus vpon 2. Sent d. 28. and Marsilius We wil follow that which the greater and grauer sort of Diuines teach namely Alexander Albertus S. Thomas S. Bonauenture c. Bellarm. l. 5. c. 4. p. 351. Tenthly two sorts of namelesse Doctors opposed PErhaps those authors which say that without the helpe of God no tentation can be ouercome and those which hold some may be vanquished without it may be reconciled yet their opinion and speech is more agreeable to Scriptures and Fathers which say no tentation can be ouercome without Gods ayde Bellarm. ibid. c. 7. p. 363. DECAD V. First Bellarmine with Saint Thomas and Bonauenture against some namelesse Doctors FOr the common saying in Schooles To the man that doth what he can God denies not grace I answere that this is well expounded of St. Thomas in 1. 2. q. 109. and Saint Bonauenture in 2. Sent. dist 28. grace is not denied to him that doth his vtmost when a man doth it by working together with Gods grace whereby he is stirred not when he worketh only by the power of nature certainely those which teach that man by doing what he may is by the onely strength of nature prepared to grace eyther thinke that hee may thereby desire and aske grace which is the Pelagians heresie or hold that man by his owne strength may keepe all the morall law c. and this also is Pelagianisme confuted in the former booke Bellarm. l. 6. of grace and freewill c. 6. p. 508. Secondly Bellarmine against Dominicus a Soto SOme Catholikes and especially Dominicus a Soto 2. b. of nat and grace c. 14. denie that our dispositions towards iustification can by any reason be called merits and to be iustified freely they hold to imply a iustification without any merite whatsoeuer But I cannot vnderstand why we should not in that case vse the name of merite especially with that addition of congruity when we speake of works done by the preuenting grace of God Bellarm. of iustification l. 1. c. 21. p. 103. Thirdly Albertus Pighius and the Diuines of Colen against the Councell of Trent and Bellarmine NOt onely Martin Bucer but Albertus Pighius with some others as namely the Diuines of Colen in his second controuersie held this opinion or error rather that there is a double iustice wherby we are formally iustified one imperfect which is in our inherent vertues the other perfect which is Christs righteousnes impured whose opinion is reiected by the Councell of Trent Sess. 6. c. 7. Bellarm. l. 2. of Iustification c. 1. 2. p. 124. Fourthly Gropperus Catharinus Saint Thomas Bonauenture Scotus in three opinions OF this matter concerning certainty of saluation there are 3. opinions or rather falshoods The first of the heretickes of this time that the faithfull may haue such knowledge as that by a sure faith they may know their sinnes forgiuen c. The second is of the Author of the Enchiridion Coloniense which holds that a man both may and ought to be certaine his sinnes are forgiuen but yet he denies that he is iustified by faith alone But this booke is in many other things worthy of the censure of the Church The third is of Ambrosius Catharinus who holds that a man may be certaine of his owne grace euen by the assurance of faith Contrary to these errours is the common opinion of almost all Diuines Saint Thomas S. Bonauenture Scotus Durandus Roffensis Alphonsus a Castro Dominicus a Soto Ruardus c. Nicholas Saunders Thomas Stapleton c. that no man by any certainty of faith be assured of his iustice except those which haue speciall reuelations Bellarm. l. 3. of Iustice c. 3. p. 206. Fiftly the Diuines of Louan and Paris against Catharin HOw Bellarmine presseth Catharinus with the authoritie of the Vniuersities of Paris and Louan and the flat wordes of the Councell of Trent and Catharinus his answeres and elusions of all See Bellarm. ibid. cap. 3. pag. 208. Sixtly Bellarmine against Catharinus CAtharinus his exposition of those places of Ecclesiastes Ecclesiasticus Iob for his purpose see largly confuted by Bellar. Bellar. ib. c. 4. 5. p. 211.212 Seuenthly Catharinus and two rankes of Popish Diuines differing I Say there is no Catholike writer holds that a man should euer doubt of his reconciliation with God for there are three opinions amongst Catholikes One of Ambrosius Catharinus which doth not onely exclude all doubt but addes that the iust man may haue an assurance of his iustification by the certainty of a Diuine faith Another goes not so farre yet holdes that perfect men are wont to attaine vnto that security as that they haue no feare of their iustification as we beleeue without all doubting that there was a Caesar an Alexander c. though we saw them not but this opinion I confesse I like not The third which is more common in the Church takes not away all feare but yet takes away all anxiety and wauering doubfulnes Bellar. l. 3. of iustific c. 11. p. 264 Eightly Andr. Vega against Thom. and other Catholikes ANdr Vega in his 11. booke vpon the Councells c. 20. holds veniall sin to be properly against the Law But veniall sinnes without which we cannot liue are not simply sinnes but imperfectly and in some regards and are not indeede against the law but besides it as St. Thomas teaches well in 1.2 q. 88. Bellarm. l. 4. c. 14. p. 359. Ninthly Robert Holkot against Saint Thomas and the common opinion ALthough some haue taught that freedome of will is not necessary to merite as Robert Holkot held witnesse Io. Picus in his Apologie yet the common opinion of Diuines is contrary as it appeares out of St. Thomas 1.2 quaest 114. and other Doctors vpon 1. Sent. d. 17. c. Bellarm. l. 5. of Iustification c. 10. p. 432. Tenthly a certaine namelesse Author against Pius 5. Peter Lombard and others IT was the opinion of a certaine late Author which was in many points condemned by Pius 5. that eternall life is due to good workes for that they are the true obedience to the law not for that they are done by a person aduanced by grace into the state of the Sonne of God so hee holdes that meritorious workes may be
done by a man not regenerate by Baptisme c. The contrary opinion is receiued and allowed in the Schooles of Catholike Diuines See Pet. Lombard and the Diuines vpon 2. Sent. dist 24. Bellarm. l. 5. of iustification c. 12. p. 438. DECAD VI. First Guliel Altisidoriensis against all Popish Doctors IT was the singular opinion of Gulielm Altisidoriensis l. 3. Tract 12. c. 1. c. that merit doth more principally depend vpon faith then charity which opinion of his doth not a little fauour the heretickes of this time But in truth Scripture is so pregnant against him that I wonder so worthy a man could be so far deceiued Bellarm. ibid. c. 15. p. 454. Secondly Bellarm. against many of their graue Authors THough there be some graue Authors which hold that euery good worke of a iust man and a man indued with charity is meritorious of eternall life yet I hold it more probable that there is further required to merite that the good worke should in the very act of it proceede from charity and be directed to God as the supernatural end c. Bellarm. l. 5. cap. 15. pag 456. Thirdly Thomas Waldensis Paulus Burgensis against Durandus and Gregorius and the common opinion ALL Catholickes acknowledge that good workes are meritorious of eternall life but some holde that these wordes of congruity and condignity are not to bee vsed but onely that wee should say absolutely that good workes by the grace of GOD doe merite eternall life So teacheth Thomas Waldensis Tom. 3. of Sacraments chap. 7. Paulus Burgensis in Psalme 35. Others will haue them to merite by condignity in a large manner So teach Durandus and Gregorius The common opinion of Diuines dooth simply admit a merite of condignity Bellarmine lib. 5. cap. 16. pag. 459 Where note that Bellarmine findes Durandus to hold the same in this point with vs. pag. 460. lin 5. Fourthly Bellarmine against some of their acute Distinguishers HOw some distinguish nicely betwixt Dignum and Condignum and their confutation who will admit a merite of dignity not of condignity See Bellarm. l. 5. c. 16. p. 459. Fiftly Caietane and Dom. a Soto Scotus Andr Vega Tho. and Bonauenture with Bellarm differing SOme hold that the good workes of the iust merite eternall life vpon their very worth in regard of the worke though there were no such agreement betwixt God and vs So hold Caietane in 2.2 quaest 114. and Dominicus a Soto 3. booke of Nature and Grace chap. 7. Others contrarily thinke that good workes proceeding from grace are not meritorious vpon the very worth of the worke but onely in regard of Gods couenant with vs and his gratious acceptation Thus holdes Scotus in 1. Sent. d. 17. q. 2. whom other of the old Schoolemen follow and of the later Andreas Vega yet this opinion differs far from the heresie of the Lutherans c. But to me the meane opinion seemes more probable which teaches that good workes are meritorious of eternall life vpon condignity in respect of the worke and couenant together which opinion I doubt not is agreeable to the Councell of Trent and the chiefe Diuines as St. Thomas and Bonauent Bellarm. l. 5 c. 17. p. 464. Sixtly Thomas and Bonauent against Andr. Vega and the Doctor of Louan THe last question is whether God reward good works of his meere liberality aboue their worthines the common opinion constantly affirmes it as is plaine in Saint Thomas S. Bonauent Scotus Durandus c. But Andr. Vega and that Doctor of Louan many of whose opinions Pius 5. confuted held the contrary and this is the fourteenth opinion by him expressed and condemned Bellarm. l. 5. c. 19. p. 471. Seuenthly some Popish Doctors against Chrysostome confuted by Bellarmine WHether God doe giue punishment to euill workes beyond the worthines or condignity of them is not so certaine St. Chrysostome seemes to patronage the affirmatiue part but Saint Austin rather tolerates then approues it some others defend the negatiue by foure testimonies of Scripture answered by Bellarm. lib. 5. cap. 19. pag. 472. Eightly Caietane against Dominic a Soto and Bellarm. THough Cardinall Caietane teach that those Clerkes and Monkes sinne not deadly which choose the Romane Breuiary and neglect that Breuiary which is proper to their order and Church yet that opinion is not so safe and sure as Dominicus â— Soto well admonishes except it be by consent of the Bishop and whole Chapter Bellarm. of good workes in particular l. 1. cap. 18. pag. 96. Ninthly Bellarmine against Panormitan VVE answere that Clerkes and Monkes are by Gods law bound to pray and praise God more then others but vnto this forme of prayer and praises which is now in vse they are onely tyed by the determination of the Church as for that which Panormitanus otherwise a learned Lawyer holds that the number of seuen houres for Diuine seruice is determined by Gods law when Dauid saith seuen times a day do I praise thee it is very sleight c. Bellarm. ibid. c. 19. p. 102. Tenthly some Popish Doctors opposed by Bellarmine and Pius 5. and Concil Lateran VVHatsoeuer some Doctors haue formerly thought we say that now doubtlesse those Clerkes which doe not their Diuine offices eyther ought to want the fruits of their Benefices or if they haue receiued them to restore them againe for common Almes or reparations of their Churches and there is a flat Decree for this in the Councell of Lateran Sess. 9. Statuimus and in the constitution of Pius 5. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 19. p. 103. DECAD VII First Bellarmine against Io. Cassianus and some others vn-named ANother opinion for Lent is that of Io. Cassianus who teaches that in the Primitiue Church the Fast was alike all the yeare long after when deuotion grewe cold it pleased all the Priests to appoint the Fast of Lent and to establish it in a firme Law But this opinion is built on a false ground The third opinion is of them who referre the institution of Lent to Pope Telesphorus c. But the only true opinion is that the Lent fast was ordained by the Apostles of Christ and enioyned to the whole Church Bellarm. l 2. of good W. in part c 14. p. 177. Secondly Albertus against Thomas and Bellarmine THough the precept of Almes belong not properly to the tenne commandements since therin onely are contained precepts of iustice Yet Diuines vse to reduce all morall precepts to those ten And some as Albertus vpon 4. dist 15. art 16. reduce the precept of Almes to that commandement Thou shalt not steale Others as Saint Thomas in 2.2 quaest 32. c. Honour thy father and mother which opinion is more probable Bellarmine the third booke cap. 6. pag. 233. Thirdly some graue Diuines against St. Thomas Albertus Richardus Paludanus c. ALthough there be graue Diuines that hold the contrary yet I hold that the truer and safer opinion
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.
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
immediately instituted by him Further that which Alexander and Bonauenture teach concerning the Sacrament of confirmation cannot be defended c. Bellarm. ibid. c. 23. pag. 127.128 129. c. Sixtly Bellarmine against Catharinus THere is a new heresie arisen in our time that the intention of the Minister is not necessarie in the Sacrament To this opinion of the heretikes Ambrosius Catharinus commeth very neare neyther can I see wherein he differs from the opinion of Kemnitius and other heretikes sauing that in the end of his worke he subiects himselfe to the Sea-Apostolike and to the Councell both which they deride Bellarm. ibid. c. 27. p. 155. Note the same which he condemnes for hereticall in Catharinus he graunts to be held by his St. Thomas in the chapter following pag. 169. Seuenthly Caietane and Ledesmius against Thomas and others HEre are two opinions of Diuines for some as Caietane and Ledesmius teach that in the Minister there is no operatiue vertue as an efficient and instrumentall cause as there is in the Sacrament for in the words of the sacrament there is operatiue vertue but by dependance on the Minister for then the wordes haue vertue when they are conioyned with the vertue which is in the Minister Others holde that the Minister hath in himselfe no efficient power in respect of iustification but that is onely in the Sacrament so Thomas is thought to hold 3. part qu. 64. art 1. And that the Minister concurres onely by applying the Sacrament Bellarm. same booke c. 27. pag. 163. Eightly Bellarmine against Ambrose Catharinus THe fourth argument is of Catharinus from the authority of Saint Thomas Chrysostome and Pope Nicholas Of Saint Thomas who saith that the intention of the Church expressed in the very forme of wordes is sufficient to make a perfect Sacrament neyther is any other intention required on the part of the Minister c. And Catharinus addes a reason that it seemes ouerhard that God should put the saluation of men in the arbitrement of a wicked Minister and so our iustification should be made vncertaine This argument is already answered How he answereth and confuteth this opinion and authorities of Catharinus See Bellarmine ibid. c. 28. pag. 169. Ninthly Bellarmine against Ledesmius Canus Bonauenture Scotus Durand Richardus Occam Marsilius Gabriel THat the Sacraments are true causes of iustification but Morall causes not naturall as he that commands a murder is the true cause of it though he touch not the partie murdered is defended by Ledesmius and Canus in Relict de Sacram. And the same seemes to be held by many of the old Schoolemen Bonauenture Scotus Durand Richardus Occam Marsilius Gabriel who hold that the Sacraments doe truely iustifie but yet that God only doth worke that grace at the presence of the Sacraments so as the Sacraments are not naturall causes but such as without which this effect would not follow But I hold that the more probable and safe opinion which attributes a true efficiency to the Sacraments Bellarm. of the effect of the Sacram. l. 2. c. 11. p. 225. Tenthly the Master of Sentences against the common opinion THere is therefore one question whether the olde Sacraments excepting Circumcision did iustifie actually by the very worke wrought and there are two opinions One of the Master of Sent. in 4. dist 1 which denies it for he saith that those Sacraments did not iustifie though they were done neuer so much in faith and charity The other is the common opinion of Diuines that all those Sacraments did iustifie ex opere operantis that is vpon the faith and deuotion of the receiuers and this opinion is most true Bellarm. ibid. c. 13. pag. 239. DECAD II. First Alexander Bonauenture Scotus Gabriel against Thomas Capreolus Scotus Ledesmius others c. OF Circumcision there are two opinions One of Alexander and Bonauenture Scotus and Gabriel that Circumcision did confer iustification ex opere operato vpon the very act done which opinion is disproued by many arguments Where it is yet to be noted that this opinion of theirs doth not fauour the heretickes of our time for the heretickes when they make the olde Sacraments equall to ours doe not extoll the olde but debase ours But this opinion doth not abase ours but extoll the ancient The other opinion is of Saint Thomas and Capreolus Scotus Ledesmius and others that Circumcision did by it owne power iustifie but yet iustified onely as it was a protestation of our faith and as it applyed faith to vs. This opinion is doubtlesse the more probable of the two Bellarm. ibid. c. 13. p. 236. Secondly Durand Scotus Gabriel against the other Papists THat there is a certaine spirituall stampe imprinted in the minde in some Sacraments which is called a Character is the common opinion of Catholiks But it is to be noted that some of our diuines as Durand Scotus Gabriel do indeed admit this stampe or Character but yet teach something which seemes to make for Kemnitius and the heretickes for Durandus holdes that the Character is not any reall thing distinguished from the soule but is onely a matter to be conceiued in the minde and which hath his being onely in conceit But all others confesse that the Character is a reall matter distinct from the soule Bellarm. ibid. c. 19. pag. 267. Thirdly Bellarmine against Durandus and Scotus THe Character is not a mere relation but an absolute quality this is a common opinion excepting onely Scotus and Durandus Durandus in the place forecited holds it hath onely a being in conceit c. Which opinion can scarcely be distinguished from the heresie of this time and seemes expresly condemned by Councels which if Durandus had seene doubtlesse he would haue taught otherwise and surely the Councell of Trent in her curse of this opinion intends it against those which denie a reall Character Scotus would haue it a reall relation but that can scarce be defended and there haue not wanted many that haue confuted him soundly Bellarm. ibid. c. 19. pag. 268. Fourthly three opinions of Papists SOme of our Doctors hold this Character to be in the vnderstanding Others place it in the will because they thinke it disposeth vs to charity which is in the will Others hold it simply to be in the substance of the soule and this seemes the truer opinion Bellarm. ibid. c. 19. p. 270. Fiftly Scotus against Thomas NEither Circumcision nor any Sacrament of the olde Lawe did imprint any Character in the soule So holds Saint Thomas Scotus thinkes the contrary concerning Circumcision But the opinion of Thomas is truer Bellarm. ibid. cap. 19. pag. 271. Sixtly Bernard Hugo Lombard Pope Nicholas against all other Diuines BEsides these errors there is a very incommodious opinion of many Catholikes who haue thought that the inuocation of one person in the Trinity and especially of Christ is sufficient to Baptisme so seemes to hold S.
Ambrose in his first booke of the holy Ghost Beda vpon 10. chap. of Acts Bernard Epi. 340. ad Henricum Hugo de Sancto victore l. 2. of Sacraments Master of sentenc b. 4. dist 3. And lastly Pope Nicholas in his Epist. to the Bulgarians The two foundations of these Authors opinion are ouerthrowne by Bellarm. who concludeth But howsoeuer it be it is certaine that baptisme is eyther absolutely or with condition to be repeated if it be administred in the name of Christ or any other person without an expresse mention of the rest as all more graue Diuines teach Bellarm. in his b. of Baptisme cap. 3. pag. 11. Seuenthly two contrary opinions of Doctors THat Christ did vse some baptisme before his passion it cannot be denied but the doubt is whether that Baptisme were the same Sacrament which now we haue or onely a preparation to the Sacrament of Baptisme afterwards to be instituted as the baptisme of Iohn was Chrysost. Theophilact and Pope Leo hold with this latter c. But the other which we haue said is more probable which is professedly taught by Augustine tract 13. and 15. vpon Iohn by Cyrill 2. B. vpon Iohn c. 57. Hugo de Sancto victore b. 2. of Sacraments and this is the commoner opinion of Diuines with the Master of Senten b. 4. dist 3. Bellarm ibid. c. 5. p. 26. Eightly Many opinions of Schoolemen NOte that concerning the time wherein Christ instituted the Sacrament of baptisme there are very many opinions among the Schoolemen but the more common and probable opinion is that which we follow which also the Catechisme of the Councell of Trent receiues and the Master of Sent. with St. Thomas and others Bellarmine in his booke of Baptisme c. 5. pag. 28. Ninthly Dominicus a Soto Ledesmius c. against Thomas Maior Gabriel and others THere are some Diuines as Dominicus a Soto and Martin Ledesmius vpon 4. dist 3. which teach that Martyredome doth not giue grace ex opere operato by the very worke wrought but onely ex opere operantis by the worke of the sufferer and giues no degree of grace but that which answers to the merit of the martyres charity But it is a more probable opinion that Martyredome by the very worke wrought doth giue the first grace So that if a man being yet in his sinnes shall come to Martyredome yet without an affection to any sinne and with faith and loue in part begun c By the vertue of Martyredome he shall vpon the worke wrought be iustified and saued So is expresly taught by St. Thomas Io. Maior Gabriel and others Bellarmine same booke cap. 6. pag. 33. Tenthly Bellarmine and all Papists with Thomas against Peter Lombard THere haue been two opinions amongst Catholikes of Iohns Baptisme whereof one is thought erroneous the other very improbable The first was Peter Lombards who distinguishes those which were baptized of Iohn into two kinds one was of them which were so baptized of Iohn that they did put their hope and trust in that baptisme and had not any knowledge of the holy Ghost These he confessed were to be baptised with Christs baptisme The other of those who were baptized of Iohn but did not relie vpon that baptisme and had knowledge of the holy Ghost These were not necessarily to be rebaptized Bellarmine confutes him by himselfe and consent of all Catholikes and concludes wherefore Saint Thomas 3. p. q. 38. ar vlt writes that this is a very vnreasonable opinion Bellarm. ibid. c. 19. p. 113. DECAD III. First Master of Sentences Schoolemen Thomas against Thomas Bellarmine and other Papists ANother opinion is That the baptisme of Iohn was as a certain Sacrament of the old law so taught the Master of Sent. in the place forecited and many of the Schoolemen and Saint Thomas himselfe but he did iustly afterwards recant and teach the contrary 3. part q. 38 art 1. Whereupon Saint Thomas well saith that the baptisme of Iohn pertained not to the old law but to the new rather as a certaine preparation to Christs baptisme Bellarm. ibid. c. 19. p. 113. Secondly Thomas Concil Florentinum Innocentius Waldensis Hugo Bellarmine dissagreeing SOme Schoolemen hold that the Apostles did in diuers fashions minister the Sacrament of confirmation and that in the first times because the holy Ghost visibly descended then they vsed no annointing but meere imposition of hands After that vnction came in vse c. And if you obiect that the Apostles could not institute the matter of a sacrament they answere that they receiued that commaundement from Christ that they should one while vse imposition of hands another while Chrisme as they should thinke most conuenient This answere is not vnlikely and Saint Thomas is not fare off from it 3. p q. 72. art 1. and perhaps hither might be drawne the testimonies of the Florentine Councell and of Innocentius c But the other answer me thinks is more probable of Thomas Waldensis and Hugo de Sancto victore who say that the annointing with Chrisme and laying on of hands is all one for he that anoints layes on his hand This answere is the likelier Bellarmine in his B. of confirmation c. 9. p. 185. Thirdly Caietane Dominicus a Soto Franc. Victoria against all the elder Papists IT is a question among our Diuines whether Balme be required in Chrisme as vpon the necessity of the Sacrament or only on necessity of the precept All the old Diuines and Lawyers hold Balme required vpon the necessity of the Sacrament so as the Sacrament is voyde if it be administred without it But the latter Diuines Caietane Dominicus a Soto Franc. a Victoria c. hold that balme is not required as to the essence of the Sacrament but yet necessarily to be used by the commandement of God Bellarm. ibid. cap. 9. pag. 190. Fourthly Rich. Armachanus against the common opinion OF the Catholikes there is onely Richardus Armachanus which thinkes that the office of confirming is common both to Bishops and Presbiters and from him Tho. Waldensis thinkes that Wickliffe drew his heresie Bellarm. ibid. cap. 12. pag. 197. Fiftly Bonauenture Durand Adrian against Thomas Richard Paludanus Marsilius AMongst our Catholike diuines there is a question whether at least by dispensation a Presbiter may conferre this Sacrament for Saint Bonauenture Durand Adrian vpon 4. dist 7. say it cannot be committed to Priests But Saint Tho mas and all his Schollers and many other Diuines as Richardus Paludanus Marsilius and others and all Canonists teach the contrary and indeede it is the truer that these last affirme Bellarm. ibid. c. 17. p. 197. Sixtly some namelesse Papists against the common opinion IT is questioned whether those things which are spoken of Christ in the forme of bread and wine be spoken of him truly and properly or by some Trope Some thinke them truely and properly spoken as the same thing should be truely and properly spoken
a man be by true generation descended from Adam for in that hee was in Adams loynes when he transgressed hee did communicate with his sinne Bellarmines 4. booke of losse of grace cap. 12 pag. 400. Tenthly some Popish Doctors against Thomas Aquin and others ALl hold that no sinne could haue beene traduced to mankinde if Eue alone had sinned But in this they differ that some thinke from Eues sinne alone there would haue growne a necessity of dying to her sonnes and the other inconueniences that follow mortalitie Others hold that neither sinne nor necessity of dying would haue followed This latter opinion is Saint Thomases 1.2 q. 81. and without doubt very true Bellarm. ibid. c. 13. p. 402. DECAD II. First all Diuines against Thomas Aquin. THe common opinion is that if the first man had not sinned whosoeuer else should sinne his offence should haue bin personall and particular and therefore could not infect and defile his posterity but yet S. Thomas seems to hold the contrary in his 5. quaest of euill art 4. but perhaps the place is corrupted Bellarm l. 4. c. 13. p. 403. Secondly Capreolus Caietanus and others against the common opinion THough some Catholikes hold that opinion to haue some more inclination to the truth which exempts none but Christ from the state of originall sinne yet euen those Authors doe not condemne the contrary opinion as erroneous neyther indeede can vnlesse they will resist the Decrees of the generall Councell of Trent and of Sixtus 4. and Pius the 5. Popes which if they did they should not be reckoned for Catholikes and of this opinion were Capreolus Caietanus and others Bellarm. l. 4. c. 15. 16. pag. 409. Thirdly Bellarmine against some namelesse Papists THere are that hold the blessed Virgin sinned not in Adam for they say that the law of not eating of the tree of the Knowledge of good and euill was giuen to our parents for themselues and their posterity except the Virgin Marie which opinion seemes to me not safe to be defended Bellarm. ibid. cap. 16. pag. 418. Fourthly Hofmeisterus and Viruesius confuted by Bellar. OF our writers Iohn Hofmeisterus and Alphonsus Viruesius doe scarce acknowledge there is any difference in this article of Originall sinne betwixt vs and the heretickes but if it be well considered there is a double difference in our doctrine Bellarm. l. 5. of the losse of grace cap. 4. p. 460. Fiftly the Councell of Trent against Pighius and Catharinus THe Councell of Trent hath defined that originall sinne is not as one and the same in all but that euery man hath his owne proper birth-sinne against the false opinion of Pighius and Catharinus Bellarm. ibid. c. 6. p. 472. Sixtly two rankes of Popish Doctors opposed by Bellarm. THere doe now remaine two incommodious opinions of Catholikes to be confuted Some therefore of our authors would haue originall sinne to be nothing but concupiscence that is a faulty quality in the mind euermore stirring vp wicked desires so holds Peter Lombard in 2. Sent. d. 31. Henricus b. 2. q. 11. Gregorius Ariminensis and of the later Io. Driedo But this difference is betwixt Henry and Gregorie that Henry holds that euill quality of the Soule to be a pronenesse to all euill Gregorie restrains it to the inclination vnto that thing which is carnally delightfull This opinion me thinkes cannot be defended And a little after In all this we agree with Peter Lombard Henricus Gregory and the rest Onely here lies the question Whether this faultines of nature be a positiue quality or not and whether it be properly and formally originall sinne they affirm both we deny both Bellarm. ib. c 15. p. 548 Seuenthly Albert Pighius and Catharinus and some ancient confuted by Bellarmine LAstly remaines to be confuted the errour of Albertus Pighius Ambrosius Catharinus and some of the ancient as Pet. Lomb. reports which is that original sin is nothing els but the first disobedience of Adam wherby the precept of God for not eating of the forbidden tree was broken c. but it is false and heretical that original sinne is nothing else besides the first actuall transgression of Adam c. Bellarm ibid. cap. 16. pag. 555. Eightly foure sorts of Popish Doctors at irreconcileable variance THere are fiue opinions of the estate and punishment of Infants vn-baptized after this life first of those which durst promise the Kingdome of heauen to them though they denied not that they were borne in originall sinne so held one Vincentius of old and now lately Zuinglius and many of the Sectaries of these times The second of them which exclude them from heauen but yet yeelde them an eternall and naturall blessednesse free from all sorrow and trouble out of the Kingdome of the blessed and farre from the prison of the damned so did the Pelagians hold as August b. of heresies chap. 88. neare to which opinion are Ambrosius Catharinus Albertus Pighius and Hierome Sauanarola The third is that Infants dying without baptisme are damned in hell to eternall death but yet so punished with want of the vision of God as that in the meane time they suffer no paine neither inward nor outward so teacheth S. Thomas in q. 4. of euill art 1.2 c. and some other Schoole Doctors vpon 2. Sent. d. 23. The fourth opinion exempts such infants from the torment of the fire and worme whereof we reade Mar. 9. but not from an inward sorrow for the losse of their eternall blessednesse So teaches Peter Lombard vpon 2. Sent. and after him some others as S. Thomas S. Bonauenture and Gregory Ariminensis and others report The fift which is the seuerest opinion teacheth that Infants for their originall sinne are perpetually tormented in hell with both sorts of punishment of losse and of sense to which opinion incline Gregorius Ariminensis Io. Driedo Bellarm. 6. b. of the losse of grace c. 1. p. 174 175. Ninthly two sorts of Popish Writers opposite THe place wherein such Infants doe and shall liue is the prison of hell a place darke and horrible as almost all the Schoole-Diuines teach Saint Thomas S. Bonauenture Scotus Durandus Richardus Capreolus and others vpon 2. Sent. dist 33. and besides Alexander Alensis and Albertus This difference only there is betwixt these olde Diuines that some place Infants in the higher part of hell which they call Limbum puerorum the verge of Infants others say they haue one common place with the damned Thus the fathers of the Florentine Councell teach c. Bellarm. ibid. c. 2. p. 582. Tenthly Durandus Thomas Bonauenture Richardus differing SOme of the old Schoolemen haue held that those infants shal therfore haue no sorrow for the losse of blessednes because they shall not know they haue lost it which may be done onely by faith this reason is approued by Thomas in qu. 2. de malo but himselfe reproues it in 2. Sent.
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
to looke towards our Doctrine the noueltie of our Religion you say hath discouraged you theirs hath drawne you with the reuerence of her age It is a free challenge betwixt vs let the elder haue vs both if there be any point of our Religion yonger then the Patriarkes and Prophets Christ and his Apostles the Fathers and Doctors of the Primitiue Church let it be accursed and condemned for an vpstart shew vs euidence of more credite and age and carrie it The Church of Rome hath beene auncient not the errors neither doe we in ought differ from it wherein it is not departed from it selfe If I did not more feare your wearines then my owne forgetting the measure of a Praeface I would passe through euerie point of difference betwixt vs and let you see in all particulars which is the old way and make you know that your Popish Religion doth but put on a borrowed visor of grauitie vpon this Stage to out-face true antiquitie Yet least you should complaine of words let me without your tediousnes haue leaue but to instance in the first of all Controuersies betwixt vs offering the same proofe in al which you shall see performed in one I compare the iudgement of the ancient Church with yours see therefore and be ashamed of your noueltie First our question is Whether all those bookes which in our Bibles are stiled Apocryphall and are put after the rest by themselues are to be receiued as the true Scriptures of God Heare first the voice of the old Church To let passe that cleare and pregnant testimonie of Melito Sardensis in his Epistle to Onesimus cited by Eusebius Let Cyprian or Ruffinus rather speake in the name of all Of the olde Testament saith he first were written the fiue bookes of Moses Genesis Exodus Leuiticus Numbers Deuteronomie after these the booke of Ioshua the son of Nun and that of the Iudges together with Ruth after which were the foure bookes of the Kings which the Hebrues reckon but two of the Chronicles which is called the booke of Dayes and of Ezra are two bookes which of them are accounted but single and the booke of Esther Of the Prophets there is Esay Hieremie Ezekiel and Daniel and besides one booke which containes the twelue smaller Prophets Also Iob and the Psalmes of Dauid are single bookes of Salomon there are three books deliuered to the Church the Prouerbes Ecclesiastes Song of songs In these they haue shut vp the number of the bookes of the olde Testament Of the new there are foure Gospels of Matthew Marke Luke and Iohn the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke of Paul the Apostle fourteene Epistles of the Apostle Peter two Epistles of Iames the Lords brother and Apostle one of Iude one of Iohn three Lastly the Reuelation of Iohn These are they which the Fathers haue accounted within the Canon by which they would haue the assertions of our faith made good But we must know there are other bookes which are called of the Ancients not Canonicall but Ecclesiastical as the Wisedome of Salomon and another booke of Wisedome which is called of Iesus the sonne of Sirach which booke of the Latines is termed by a generall name Ecclesiasticus of the same ranke is the booke of Toby and Iudith and the bookes of the Maccabees Thus farre that Father so Hierome after that he hath reckoned vp the same number of bookes with vs in their order hath these words This Prologue of mine saith he may serue as a well defenced entrance to all the bookes which I haue turned out of Hebrew into latine that we may know that whatsoeuer is besides these is Apocryphall therefore that booke which is intituled Salomons Wisedome and the booke of Iesus the son of Sirach and Iudith Tobias Pastor are not Canonical the first book of the Macabees I haue found in Hebrew the second is Greeke which booke saith he indeed the Church readeth but receiueth not as Canonicall The same reckoning is made by Origen in Eusebius word for word The same by Epiphanius by Cyrill by Athanasius Gregory Nazianzen Damascen yea by Lyranus both Hugoes Caietan Carthusian and Montanus himselfe c. All of them with full consent reiecting these same Apocryphall bookes with vs. Now heare the present Church of Rome in her owne words thus The holy Synode of Trent hath thought good to set downe with this Decree a iust Catalogue of the bookes of holy Scripture least any man should make doubt which they be which are receiued by the Synode And they are these vnder-written Of the old Testament fiue bookes of Moses then Ioshua the Iudges Ruth foure bookes of the Kings two of the Chronicles two of Esdras the first and the second which is called Nehemias Tobias Iudith Ester Iob the Psalter of Dauid containing one hundreth and fiftie Psalmes the Prouerbes of Salomon Ecclesiastes the Song of Songs the booke of Wisedome Ecclesiasticus Esay Hieremy c. two bookes of the Macabees the first and the second And if any man shall not receiue these whole bookes with al the parts of them as they are wont to be read in the Catholick Church as they are had in the old vulgar latine Edition for holy and Canonicall let him be accursed Thus shee Iudge you now of our age and say whether the opinion of the ancient Church that is ours be not a direct enemy to Poperie and flatly accursed by the Romish Passe on yet a little further Our question is whether the Hebrew and Greeke Originals be corrupted and whether those first Copies of Scriptures be not to be followed aboue all Translations Heare first the ancient Church with vs But saith Saint Augustine howsoeuer it be taken whether it be beleeued to be so done or not beleeued or lastly whether it were so or not so I hold it a right course that when any thing is found different in eyther bookes the Hebrew and Septuagint since for the certainty of things done there can be but one truth that tongue should rather bee beleeued from whence the Translation is made into another language Vppon which words Ludouicus Viues yet a Papist saith thus the same saith he doth Ierome proclayme euery where and reason it selfe teacheth it and there is none of sound iudgement that will gaine say it but in vaine doth the consent of all good wits teach this for the stubburne blockishnes of men opposeth against it Let Ierome himselfe then a greater linguist be heard speake And if there be any man saith he that will say the Hebrew bookes were afterwards corrupted of the Iewes let him heare Origen what he answeres in the eight Volume of his explanations of Esay to this question that the Lord and his Apostles which reproue other faults in the Scribs and Pharisees would neuer haue beene silent in this which were the greatest crime that could be But if they say that the Hebrewes falsified them
after the comming of Christ and preaching of the Apostles I cannot hold from laughter that our Sauiour and the Euangelists and Apostles should so cite testimonies of Scripture as the Jews would afterwards depraue them Thus Ierome And the Canon law it selfe hath this determination that the truth and credite of the books of the old Testament should be examined by the Hebrew Volumes of the new by the Greeke And Pope Innocentius as he is cyted by Gratian could say Haue recourse to the diuine Scriptures in their Original Greek The same lastly by Bellarmines owne confession the Fathers teach euery where As Ierome in his booke against Heluidius and in his Epistle to Marcella that the latine Edition of the Gospels is to be called back to the Greek fountaines and the latine Edition of the olde Testament is to be amended by the Hebrew in his Comment vpon Zachary chap. 8. The very same hath Austen in his second booke of Christian doctrine chap. 11.12 15. and Epist. 19. and elsewhere This was the old Religion and ours now heare the new The present Church of Rome hath thus The holy Synode decreeth that the old vulgar latine Edition in all Lectures Disputations Sermons Expositions be held for Authenticall saith the counsell of Trent And her Champion Bellarmine hath these words That the fountaine of the Originals in many places run muddy and impure we haue formerly shewed and indeed it can scarce be doubted but that as the latine Church hath beene more constant in keeping the faith then the Greeke so it hath been more vigilant in defending her bookes from corruption Yea some of the Popish Doctors mainetaine that the Iewes in hatred of the Christian faith did on purpose corrupt many places of scripture so holds Gregory de Valentia Iacobus Christopolitanus in his Praeface to the Psalmes Canus in the second booke of his common places But in stead of all Bellarmine shal shut vp all with these wordes The Heretickes of this time in hatred of the vulgar Edition giue too much to the Hebrew Edition as Caluin Chemnitius Georgius Maior All which would haue euery thing examined and amended by the Hebrew text which they commonly call a most pure fountain See now whether that which Bellarmine confesses to haue beene the iudgement of Hierome Austen and all the auncient Fathers be not here condemned by him as the opinion of the Heretickes Ours was theirs and theirs is condemned vnder our names Iudge whether in this also Popery be not an vpstart Yet one step more Our question is whether the Scripture be easie or most obscure and whether in all essentiall points it doe not interpret it selfe so as what is hard in one place is openly layd forth in another Heare the iudgement of the old Church and ours All things are cleare and plaine and nothing contrary in the Scriptures saith Epiphanius Those things which seeme doubtfully and obscurely spoken in some places of Scripture are expounded by them which in other places are open and plaine saith Basil What could Caluin or Luther say more There is no so great hardnesse in the Scriptures to come to those things which are necessary to saluation saith Austen In those things which are openly layd downe in Scripture are found all those things which containe our faith and rules for our life saith the same Father who yet againe also saith thus The spirit of God hath Royally and wholsomely tempered the holy Scriptures so as both by the plaine places he might preuent our hunger and by the obscure hee might auoyd our nice slouthfulnesse for there is scarce any thing that can be fetch 't out of those obscurities which is not found most plainely spoken elsewhere And because Bellarmine takes exception at this Feré Scarce compare this place with the former and with that which he hath in his third Epistle thus The manner of speech in which the Scripture is contriued is easie to be commed to of al although to be throughly attained by few Those things which it containeth plaine and easie it speakes like a familiar friend without guile to the heart of the learned and vnlearned c. But it inuites all men with an humble manner of speech whom it dooth not onely feede with manifest truth but exercise with secret hauing the same in readinesse which it hath in secrecy Thus Austen To omit Iraeneus and Origen Chrysostome whom Bellarmine saith we alledge alone for vs besides many other playne places writeth thus Who is there to whom all is not manifest which is written in the Gospel who that shall heare Blessed are the meeke Blessed are the mercifull Blessed are the pure in heart the rest wold desire a teacher to learne any of these things which are here spoken As also the signes miracles histories are not they knowne and manifest to euery man This pretence and excuse is but the cloake of our slothfulnesse thou vnderstandest not those things which are written how shouldest thou vnderstand them which wilt not so much as sleightly looke into them take the booke into thy hand read all the history and what thou knowest remember and what is obscure runne often ouer it So Chrysostome yea he makes this difference betwixt the Philosophers and Apostles the Philosophers speake obscurely But the Apostles and Prophets saith he contrarily make all things deliuered by them cleare and manifest and as the common teachers of the world haue so expounded all things that euery man may of himselfe by bare reading learne those things which are spoken yea lastly so far he goes in this point as that he asketh Wherefore needeth a preacher all things are cleare and plaine in the Diuine Scriptures but because ye are delicate hearers and seeke delight in hearing therefore ye seeke for Preachers You haue heard the old Religion now heare the new Bellarmine hath these wordes It must needes be confessed that the Scriptures are most obscure Here therefore saith he Luther hath deuised two euasions One that the Scripture though it be obscure in one place yet that it doth clearely propound the same thing in another The second is that though the Scripture be cleare of it selfe yet to the proud and vnbeleeuers it is hard by reason of their blindnes and euill affections so the Lutherans saith Eckius contend that the Scriptures are cleare and plaine so Duraeus against VVhitakers so the Rhemists in their annotations and generally all Papists Iudge now if all these forenamed Fathers and so the Auncient Church were not Lutherans in this point or rather we theirs and yeeld that this their old opinion by the new Church of Rome is condemned for hereticall and in al these say vpon your soule whether is the elder Let me draw you on yet a little further Our question is whether it be necessary or fit that all men euen of the Laiety should haue liberty to heare and read the Scriptures in a language which they vnderstand
indeede for neyther Scripture nor Austen euer mention more then one Bellarm. l. 3. c. 9. p. 229. Thirdly Bellarmine against Turrecremata THat close Infidels that haue neyther faith nor any other Christian vertue yet externally for some temporall commodity professe the Catholike faith belong not to the true Church is taught not onely by the Caluinists but by some of our Catholikes amongst whom is Io. de Turrecremata l. 4. de Eccles. But we follow their phrase of speech which say that those who by an externall profession onely are ioyned to the faithfull are true parts of the body of the Church though drie and dead Bellarm. l. 3. c. 10. pag. 232. Fourthly Alexander Alensis and Turrecremata against Bellarmine THere are some Catholike Doctors which teach in the passion of our Lord there remained true faith in none but the blessed Virgin alone and that they hold to be signified by that one candle which alone is kept light in the third night before Easter So holds Alexander Alensis 3. p. q. vlt. art 2. and Iohn de Turrecremata l. 1. de Eccles. c. 30. But I wonder at Turrecremata who for so slight an argument from a candle saith it is against the faith of the Vniuersall Church to affirme otherwise For Rupertus in his 5. booke of Diuine offices chap. 26. sayeth that in his time the last candle also had wont to bee quenched It may be answered rather with Abulensis that by this candle is signified that onely in the blessed Virgin there was for those three dayes an explicit faith of the resurrection Bellarmine l. 3. c. 17. pag. 27. Fiftly Caietane Francisc. Victoria against other Doctors IF there were no constitution for the choice of the Pope and all the Cardinals should perish at once the question is in whom should be the right of the Election Some hold that the right of the choyce setting aside the positiue law should belong to the Councell of Bishops as Caietane in his treatise of the power of the Pope and Councell chap. 13. Franciscus Victoria Relect. 2. q. 2. of the power of the Church others as Siluester reports in the word excommunication teach that it pertaines to the Clergy of Rome Bellarm. in his first booke of the members of the Church militant c. 10. p. 52. Sixtly Bellarmine against Antonius Delphinus and Michael Medina TO that obiection out of Ierome who saith vpon the first to Titus that a presbiter is the same with a Bishop is answered by Antonius Delphinus l. 2. of the Church that in the beginning of the church all Presbiters were Bishops But this satisfies not Michael Medina in his first booke de sacr hom Origine affirmes that S. Ierome held the same opinion with the Aerian heretickes and that not onely Ierome was in this heresie but also Ambrose Austen Sedulius Primasius Chrisostom Theodoret Oecumenius Theophilact The opinion of these men was condemned first in Aerius then in the Waldenses and after in Wickliffe But this opinion of Medina is very inconsiderate Bellarm. same booke c. 15. p. 75. Seuenthly Bellarmine against Onuphrius THe opinion of Onuphrius concerning the names or titles of Cardinals see confuted by Bellarmine in the same booke c. 16. p. 82. Eightly Io. Maior and Iodoc. Clictonaeus against S. Thomas Caietane Sotus IOhannes Maior holds that the vow of single life of Priests stands by the law of God and therefore cannot be dispensed with So also Iod. Clictonaeus in his booke de Contin Sacerd. who there defends two opinions which cannot hold together but S. Thomas in 2.2 q. 88. art 11. saith plainely that the vow of continency is onely by the decree of the Church annexed to holy orders and therefore may be dispensed with the same teaches Caietane in opusc and Sotus in his seuenth booke of Iustice c. Bellarm. lib. 1. cap. 18. pag. 92. Ninthly Erasmus and Panormitan against the other Popish Doctors ERasmus in a declamation of the praise of Matrimonie holds it profitable that liberty of mariage should be granted to Priests and the same is taught by Card. Panormitan a Catholike and learned Doctor in the Chapt. Cum olim Against these errors we are to proue that the vow of continency is so annexed to holy orders that they neyther may marry nor conuerse with their wiues formerly married Bellarm. same booke c. 19. p. 95. Tenthly the Glosse Innocent Panormitan Hostiensis opposed by all Diuines and some Canonists THe fourth error is of many of the canonists which hold that tithes euen according to the determination of quantity stand by the Law of God and that no other quantity can be set downe by any humane law or custome So the Glosse Innocentius Panormitan Hostiensis but doubtlesse it is a manifest errour as not onely all Diuines but some Canonists also teach as Syluester in the word Decima quaest 4. and Nauar. cap. 21. And herein many of the Canonists offend double once in that they defend a falshood Twise in that they doe almost condemne all those Diuines as heretickes which hold the contrary Bellarm same booke c. 25. p. 145. DECAD VII First Sotus against Syluester and Nauar Bellarmine and Aquinas with both WHether the Precept of Tithes as it is Positiue and Humane may by custome bee altered is doubtfull Sotus holdes directly it cannot booke 9. quaest 4. art 1. and thinkes that this is the iudgement of Aquinaes But I thinke with Siluester and Nauarre that it may and I doubt not but this is the opinion of Aquinas Bellarm. ibid. p. 148. Secondly Bellarmine against Thomas Waldensis THomas Waldensis teaches that Clerkes should eyther giue their goods to the poore or lay them together in common and proues it by some sentences of Fathers Origen Hierome Bernard But it is certaine that Clerkes are not by their profession tyed to put away their patrimony Bellarmine same booke c. 27. p. 156. Thirdly Marsilius Paduan Io. de Ianduno Turrecremata Canonists Glosse Driedonius Francisc. Victoria Dominicus a Soto Couarruuias dissenting IN the question concerning the liberty of Ecclesiasticall persons are three opinions First is of many heretickes that Clerkes are and should be subiect to secular powers both in payment of tributes and in iudgements especially not Ecclesiasticall So also Marsilius of Padua and Io. de Ianduno teach that Christ himselfe was not free from paying tribute and that he did it not voluntarily but of necessity as is reported by Turrecremata The second opinion in another extreame is of many Canonists who hold that by the Law of God Clerkes and their goods are free from the power of secular Princes so teaehes the Glosse in Can. Tributum and of this minde seemes Io. Driedonius to be in his booke of Christian liberty ch 9. The third in the meane is of many Diuines that clerkes are free partly by the law of God partly by the law of men and partly neyther way so thinkes Franciscus Victoria Dominicus a
it if another restore it which is not bound for this is a kind of almes and therefore satisfactory Bellarmine ibid. chap. 16. pag. 146. DECAD IX First Sotus against Paludanus IT is the iust man onely that can helpe soules by his suffrages for the vniust cannot satisfie for himselfe much lesse for others But you will say What if a iust Prelate commaund his spirituall sonnes to pray or fast for the departed and those sonnes be vniust Paludanus answeres vpon 4. Sent. dist 45 q. 1. That all those deuotions doe profite the dead But Sotus vppon better grounds denies it in the same place quaest 2. art 2. Bellarm. ibid. c. 17. p. 147. Secondly Caietane some other Diuines and the common opinion in three differences BVt our Diuines dissent about particular suffrages for Caietane in the first Tome of his Opuscul trac 16. q. 5. teaches that all soules indeede may be and are helpt by the generall suffrages but that by particular suffrages those soules onely are helped which haue particularly deserued to be helped by them and such he holds to be those who haue had a speciall deuotion to the Keyes of the Church and haue beene careful for the soules of others Others whom Saint Thomas cites vpon 4. dist 45. q. 2. art 4. say that the suffrages which are made for one doe not onely profite him but all others and not him more then others as a Candle lighted for the Master equally giues light to the seruants in the same place But the common opinion is betweene both these that particular suffrages profite all them and them onely as in the nature of satisfaction for whom they are made Bellarmine ibid. ch 18. pag. 151. Thirdly Thomas and Bellarmine against Guilielm de Sancto amore Guilielmus de Sancto Amore would haue that place of Christs speech Goe sell all and giue to the poore c. vnderstood onely of the preparation of the minde that it should be so disposed as that it could part with all things against whom Saint Thomas wrote opusc 19. Bellarmine l. 2. de membr Eccles. mil. cap. 9. pag. 228. Fourthly Gulielm de Sancto Amore confuted by Bellarm. ANother error was that of Gulielmus de Sancto Amore and after him of Io. Wickliffe who teach that Monkes are bound to liue by the worke of their own hands c. Bellarm. B. of Monks cap. 41. pag. 420. Fiftly Erasmus Agrippa Ferus against all Catholikes ERasmus Cornelius Agrippa Io. Ferus haue in our dayes reuiued that opinion of the Manichees that warre is not lawfull for Christians holding herein with the Anabaptists Bellarm. l. de Laicis c 14. p. 476. Sixtly eight opinions of Papists and some ancient concerning Purgatorie COncerning the place where Purgatorie is there are many opinions The first of some who hold that the soule is there purged where it sinned and indeede that the soule is in diuers places purged is probably gathered out of Gregory l. 4. Dialog cap. 40. and out of an Epistle of Petrus Damianus But that all are punisht where they sinned is not probable The second is That the places of soules are not corporall so held Austen but he retracted it The third That the place of punishment for the soule is this world c. The seuenth is That not the earth but the darke ayre where the Diuels are is the place of punishment The eight is the common opinion of Schoolemen That Purgatorie is in the bowels of the earth neare to hell Bellarm. l. 1. of Purgat cap. 6. pag. 117.118 Seuenthly Peter Lombard Thomas Bonauenture Richardus Marsilius against Thomas himselfe Caietane Durand THE Schoolemen inquire whether the glory of the soule after the resurrection shall be greater then before in two things they all agree First that the accidentall glory of the soule shall bee greater both in extention and intention Secondly that the essentiall ioy shall be greater in extention because it is now in the soule alone then shall reach vnto the body also But about the increase of essentiall glory in intention they doe not agree for Peter Lombard in his 4. of Sent. d. 49. And Saint Thomas vpon the same place And Saint Bonauenture and Richardus and Marsilius say that the essentiall glory shall then be greater in very measure and degrees of intention But on the contrary Saint Thomas 1.2 q. 4. art 5. and Caietane in the same place and Durandus say that the essentiall glory shall not be greater in degrees of intention but in extent onely I affirme two things First that the first opinion is more according to Saint Austens meaning and to Haymons in 6. Reuelat. and Bernards c. Secondly that the second opinion is simply the truer and therefore that Saint Thomas did well to change his opinion Bellarmine 7. Controu Gener. of the Church Triumph l. 1. c. 5. pag. 58. Eightly Bellarmine against Mart. Peresius NEyther doth it hinder much that the Fathers haue seldome mentioned Dulia seruice for when they say that Images and Saints are to be worshipped and not with Latria they shew sufficiently that they ought to be worshipped with that kind of seruice which we call Dulia as Beda cals it vpon Luke 4. and the master of Sent. withal schoolemen l. 3. Sent. There was no neede therefore that Martinus Peresius in his worke of Traditions part 3. consid 7. should say that he did not greatly allow that this name Dulia should be giuen to the worship of the Saints since Dulia signifies seruice and we are not the seruants of the Saints but fellow-seruants c. Bellarm. same booke c. 12. p. 83. Ninthly foure disagreeing opinions of Doctors How the Saints know what we aske of them there are foure opinions of our Doctors Some say they know it by the relatiō of Angels Others say that the soules of the saints as the Angels by a certain marueilous celerity of nature are after a sort euery where and heare the prayers of their suppliants The one of these is Austens the other Hieromes but neyther of them is sufficient Others say that the Saints see in God all things from the beginning of their blessednesse which may in any sort concerne them and therefore also our prayers which are directed to them so teach Gregorie B. 12. of his Morals Saint Thomas Caietane Others lastly say that the Saints doe not from the beginning of their blessednesse see our prayers in God but that then onely they are reuealed by God to them when we vtter them And of these two latter the first seemes to me to be simply the more likely for if the Saints euer needed new reuelations the Church would not so confidently say to all Saints Orate pro nobis pray for vs but rather would desire of God to reueale our prayers to them Bellarm. ibid. c. 20. p. 129. Tenthly Bellarmine against Catharinus and Thomas Caietane THE second opinion is of Ambrosius Catharinus in his
of the Crosse shal appeare out of the ayre or fire condensated as Abulensis Iansenius and others teach Bellarm. ib. c. 28. p. 260 Seuenthly two sorts of Papists dissenting SOme of our latter writers thinke that sacred houses are not properly built but onely to God as Sacrifices are offered to him alone and that they haue their names from Saints not for that they are built vnto them but because their memories are in those Temples worshipped and they called vpon as Patrons in those places So they interpret the Church of Saint Peter not for that sacrifice is therein offred to Peter but because it is offred to God in thankesgiuing for the glory bestowed on Saint Peter and he is there cald vppon as our Patrone and aduocate with God Another answere admits holy houses truely and properly built to the Saints but not in the nature of Temples but as royall Monuments or memories of them Bellarmine lib. 3. cap. 4. pag. 299. Eightly Thomas against Scotus Abulensis Lyranus WE are not bound by any peculiar precept not to sinne on festiuall dayes or to the acts of contrition or loue of God This is Saint Thomas his opinion against Scotus vpon 3. dist 27. which saith on holy dayes men are bound to an internall act of louing God and against Abulensis and Lyranus who hold that sinnes being seruile workes are forbidden and therefore that a sinne done on a Holy-day is doubtfull Bellarm. ibid. c. 10. p. 356. Ninthly Gulielm Occam against the common opinion THe second thing required to a Sacrament of the new law is a sensible signe for there are some inuisible signes as the Character imprinted in the soule by the Sacraments but it is certaine there must be visible signes also scarce euer any but Gulielmus Occam hath held that though the Sacraments be visible signes yet that this is not of their essence for that God might institute a Sacrament in a spirituall matter as if he should appoint that a mental prayer or the meditation of Christs passion should giue grace meerely by the worke wrought But Occam is deceiued Bellarm. de Sacrament in genere c. 9. p. 34. Tenthly Three diuers opinions of Popish Doctors COncerning the definition of a Sacrament there are three opinions of Doctors Some hold that a Sacrament cannonot properly be defined as Occam Maior Richardus Some hold that it may be defined at least imperfectly so Scotus d. 1. q. 2. and Sotus Some that it may be properly defined so Martinus Ledesmius in tract of Sacram. Bellarm. ib. c. 10. p. 40. THE PEACE OF ROME THE SECOND BOOKE OR CENTVRY DECAD I. First Bellarmine dissenting from Waldensis Hugo Gratian Lombard THE definition of a Sacrament is so canuased by Bellarmine as that he reiecteth two of Augustines seconded also by Hugo B. 1. part 9. ch 2. Bernard in his Sermon of the Lords Supper Tho. Waldensis Tom. 2. ch 20. as altogether imperfect Also Hugoes definition as too long Gratians cyted by him from Gregorie but indeed from Isidore as onely an explication of the word not the matter Peter Lombards as wanting somewhat or rather intricately infolding it and allowes onely the definition of the Councell of Trent as most accurate definitio pulcherrima est Bellarm. ibid. c. 11. p. 43.44 c. Secondly Albert Thomas Bonauenture and others against Thomas Dominicus a Soto Ledesmius c. HEre be two opinions of Diuines the first of the master of Sentences B. 4. d. 1. and vpon that place Albertus Thomas Bonauenture and others who teach that no definition can directly and properly agree to the Sacraments of both the olde and newe law but that they all agree properly to the Sacraments of the new imperfectly and by proportion onely to the Sacraments of the olde Another opinion is of Saint Thomas 3. part q. 60. art 1. for hee manifestly changed his opinion as also of Dominicus a Soto and Martin Ledesmius who teach that this definition The signe of an holy thing doth directly and vniuocally agree to the Sacraments of both olde and new law Either sentence partly pleases and partly displeases me Bellarm. ibid. c. 12. pag. 45. Thirdly Dominicus a Soto and Caietan Thomas Durand Adrian Alexand. Alens Dominic a Soto all opposite THere be diuers opinions of Doctors the first of certaine of our late writers who hold that properly the matter and forme in the Sacraments is not the thing and wordes but that some sensible thing is the matter whether it be substance or word or both and that the signification is the forme So Dominicus a Soto vpon 4. dist 1. q. 1. ar 1. and Caietane seemes to affirme the same with very little difference Another opinion is of them which teach that the very Sacrament it selfe and not onely the materiall part of it consists of the thinges as the matter and words as the forme So Saint Thomas 3. part q. 60. ar 6. and the auncient Diuines in common Others againe hold that all Sacraments doe not consist of things and words but some onely so Durandus vppon 4. dist 1. q. 3. and Adrianus quaest 2. of Baptisme Others teach that all Sacraments of the new law consist of thinges and wordes so Alexander Alensis 4. p. q. 8 c. and the Diuines commonly Others lastly thinke that all Sacraments doe consist of things and words if they be taken in a large sense else not So Dominicus a Soto vpon 4. dist 1. q. 1. art 6. Bellarm. ibid. c. 18. pag. 84. Fourthly Paluda against Tho. Bellar. against Domin a Soto THat which Paludanus saith vpon 4. dist 3. q. 1. that the Sacrament is not euer made voyde when a man intends to bring in a new Rite is true but not against S. Thomas as perhaps he thought But that which Dominicus a Soto sayth namely That the Greekes doe truely baptize with those wordes Let the seruant of Christ be baptized because the Church of Rome tolerates that fashion c. But if the Church of Rome should detest that Rite then they should not baptize truely is not altogether true c. Bellarm. ibid. c. 21. p. 118. Fiftly Hugo Pet. Lombard Alensis Bonauenture c. against the common opinion and Bellarm. OVr aduersaries teach these two things That the Sacraments which they hold onely two were instituted by Christ namely Baptisme and the Lords Supper and that the rest were not appointed by Christ so teach Caluin and Chemnitius and with them whom they cyte Cyprian Hugo Peter Lombard who denie that all Sacraments were instituted by Christ They might haue added Alexander Alensis Saint Bonauenture and Marsilius who say that the Sacraments of confirmation and penance were not instituted by Christ but by his Apostles Against this errour the Councell of Trent set downe Can. 1. Sess. 7. thus If any man shall say that all the Sacraments of the new Testament were not instituted by Iesus Christ our Lord let him be accursed yea
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
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
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
which teaches that no superfluous riches can be retained in our hands without sinne whether we meete with extreame necessities of the poore whereon to bestow them or no which opinion followes S. Thomas in 2.2 quaest 6â— Art 7. and besides him Albertus Richard Paludanus and others vpon 4. Sent. dist 15. In which place S. Thomas writes that this is the common opinion of Diuines Bellarm. ibid. c. 7. pag. 236. Fourthly the old Schoolemen against the common opinion and Bellarmine SOme of the old Schoolemen though they admitted indulgences yet doubted of the spirituall treasure as Francis Mayro vpon 4. Sent. d. 19. makes question of the treasure of the ouerflowing satisfactions of Christ laid vp in the Church and Durandus vpon 4 dist 20. q. 3. doubteth whether the satisfaction of Saints pertaine to the treasure But the common opinion of Diuines both old and new St. Thomas S. Bonauenture and others acknowledge both Bellarm. l. 1. of Indulgences c. 2. p. 8. Fiftly Pius 5. Gregory 13. Clem. 6. Leo. 10. against some Diuines of Louan SOme of the new Writers especially the Doctors of Louan haue taught that the sufferings of Saints are not so by Indulgences applyed that they become true satisfactions for vs but that they be motiues only to induce God to apply to vs Christs satisfaction but this opinion was condemned by Pius 5. Gregory 13. by Clement 6. and Leo 10. Bellarm. l. 1. of Indulg cap. 4. pag. 32. Sixtly Durand Anthonius Pope Adrian Syluester Thomas Franciscus Mayro Caietane Dominicus a Soto c. disagreeing SOme there haue beene which would haue pardons nothing else but a payment or discharge of punishments out of the treasure of Christs merites and the Saints applyed to vs by the Pope So held Durandus 4 dist 20. Saint Anthonius P. Hadrian 6. Syluester and S. Thomas as it seemes vpon 4. d. 20. q. 1. Contrarily Francis Mayro in the place forecited wil haue pardons nothing but a iudiciary absolution which opinion seemes to be fauoured by the examples of the auncientest Councels But the late Diuines haue on better consideration defined that in Indulgences there is both an Absolution and a payment c. Caietane Dominicus a Soto Petrus a Soto Martinus Ledesmius and others Bellarm. ibid. cap. 5. pag. 34. Seuenthly Pope Sixtus 4. and Bellarmine against Petrus Oxoniensis WHerefore the opinion of Petrus Oxoniensis was iustly condemned of Pope Sixtus 4. and the Councell Complutense which held that the Pope could not pardon to a man liuing vpon earth his punishment of purgatorie and that by contrition alone our sinnes are done away See Alphonsus de Castro his booke of heresies the word Confession Bellarm. ibid. cap. 6. pag. 37. Eightly Archidiaconus and Syluester and some others against Sotus Nauarrus and the common opinion SOme haue held that the pope or other Bishops are not partakers of those pardons which they giue to others in common so teaches the Arch-Deacon in chap. of Indulg and cytes some few others of his iudgement Syluest in summa verb. Indulg But all other Diuines hold contrary vpon 4. dist 20 and Sotus d. 21. and the Canonists with Nauarrus in his Tract of the Iubily Bellarm. l. 1. c. 6. p. 39. Ninthly Caietane and Richardus against Saint Thomas and Bellarmine CAietane holdes that the Pope by his Confessor not by himselfe may giue pardon to himselfe and so Richardus vpon 4. dist 20. But it may be better answered that the Pope may indirectly be partaker of a pardon graunted by himselfe or his Predecessor without the helpe of a confessor if he do those things which are required of others for the obtayning of pardon as Saint Thomas vpon 4. Dist. 20. q. 1. Bellarm. l. 1. c. 6. p. 40. Tenthly Petrus Paludanus against the common opinion PEtrus Paludanus vpon 4. dist 20. seemes to holde that the faultines of veniall sinnes though not of mortall is taken away by pardons but the common opinion of others is more probable that nothing is taken away but the guilt of temporall punishments which remaines after the fault is discharged Bellarm. l. 1. c. 7. p. 41. DECAD VIII First Saint Thomas and others against some of the auncient Diuines THat Pardons deliuer a man from punishment not onely before the Church but before God was cenyed by some of the auncient Diuines whose opinion is related and confuted by S. Thomas vpon 4. dist 20. and others and now at this day is denied by Luther and Caluin Bellarm. l. 1. c. 7. p. 43. Secondly Thomas Elysius against Caietane Dominicus a Soto Ledesmius c. WHen in the form of the pardon it is said that there is graunted remission of the penance inioyned it is not to be vnderstood of that penance which the Priest inioynes in the Sacrament of confession against some that hold all penance to bee meant vnder the name of penance inioyned as Thomas Elysius in Clipeo Cathol q. 44. art 7. But almost all learned men teach the Contrary as Card Caietan Dominicus a Soto Ledesmius Nauarrus Cordubensis Syluester Gabriel c. Bellarm. l. 1. c. 7. p. 46. Thirdly Alex. Alensis Durand Paludan Adrian Pope Petr. a Soto c. against S. Thomas Maior Syluester Dominicus a Soto c. VVHen a Pardon is absolutely graunted without mention of penaunce inioyned it is to be vnderstood that all penances are pardoned in it whether already inioyned or that might be inioyned This proposition is against very graue Authors Alex. Alensis in Sum. p. 4. q. 23. Durandus Paludanus Adrian the 6. pope Petrus a Soto Card. Caietane who hold that pardons are neuer giuen but for inioyned penances But our opinion hath neyther fewer nor lesse worthie patrones S. Thomas vpon 4. dist 20. Io. Maior Syluester Dominicus a Soto Michael Medina Ledesmius Anthon. Cordubensis Nauarrus Panormitan Io. Andreas and Caietane confesses this the common opinion Bellarm. l. 1. cap. 7. p. 47. Fourthly Bellarm. against Caietane and Dom. a Soto c. THose definitions which Caietane and Domin a Soto haue made of pardons see reiected by Bellar. l. 1. cap. 8. pag. 52. Fiftly Dom. a Soto against Palud Adrian Nauar. c. HEre it is in controuersie Whether the pardon of so many dayes and yeares in this life answere to so many in purgatorie for Dominicus a Soto holds that one day spent in purgatorie takes more of the guilt of punishment due to our sinnes then many yeares in this life spent in the sharpest penance But the common opinion holds the contrary as it is to be seene in Paludanus Adrian Nauarrus Cordubensis and others Bellarm. l. 1. c. 9. p. 54. Sixtly Bellarm. against Gerson and Dominicus a Soto THere haue beene some of our Writers which haue held that all those pardons which containe the release of many thousand yeares penance were not giuen by any popes but onely feined by their pardoners for commodity So hold Iohn Gerson in his Tract of Absolut Sacram.
some hold it is in iustice and condignity as Dominicus a Soto vpon 4. d. 21 Nauarrus de Iubil not 22. Others hold it meerely vpon the mercy and bounty of God and therfore only of congruity So Caietane Petrus a Soto Cordubensis Bellarm. l. 1. cap. 14. pag. 86.87 DECAD X. First Bellarmine against Caietane CAietane holds that he that would be helpt in Purgatorie by suffrages must haue beene not onely in the state of grace but deuoted to the keyes of the Church and studious and carefull to helpe others while hee was aliue by his suffrages But this opinion of Caietane though it be profitable and godly yet it is not true and confuted by euery one Bellarmine l. 1. cap. 14. pag. 90. Secondly Bellarmine against Praepositinus THe opinion of one Praepositinus of the common helpe which suffrages giue to the deceased See confuted by Bellarm. l. 1. c. 14. pag. 90. Thirdly Bellarmine with S. Thomas against himselfe and Durandus WHereas Bellarmine in his 4. booke de Christo chap. 16. had said It is probable that Christs soule went downe to all the places of hell and had confuted S. Thomas his answere of his descending in effect and vertue for so saith he we might with Durandus say that Christ did descend to no place otherwise then in effect Now vpon better consideration he saith he holds Thomas his opinion and some other Schoolemen rather to be followed Bellarm. Recognitions pag. 11. Fourthly Bellarmine against himselfe and Pighius I Approue not that I said with Albertus Pighius that Saint Paul appealed to Caesar as to his lawfull prince The first answere therefore is to be stood in that S. Paul appealed to him de Facto not de Iure as the supreame Iudge of Iudea not as his superior Bellarm. Recognition pag. 17. Fiftly Bellarmine against some not named WHereas we said that the opinion of those which teach that infallibility of iudgment is not in the pope but in the generall Councell is not altogether hereticall but erroneous and neare to heresie Now it seemes to vs so erroneous that it may iustly by the Churches iudgement be condemned as hereticall Bellarm. Recognition pag. 19. Sixtly Durand against S. Thomas and Bellarm. I Doe not like that I said Infidell princes cannot by the Church be depriued of the Dominion they haue ouer the faithfull except they goe about to turne their subiects from the faith of Christ for though Durandus whom I followed vpon 2. Sent. dist 44 q. 3 doe probably dispute this against Saint Thomas yet the authority of Saint Thomas ought iustly rather to preuaile Bellarm. recognition p. 44. Seuenthly St. Thomas Dominicus a Soto Nauar. opposed by some new Writers I Wrote that ciuill power in Kings and Princes is not immediately from God but mediately from the councell and consent of men And because this is the common opinion I did not striue to proue it But now since of late some haue written that the ciuill power of Kings is no lesse immediately from God then the power of the pope I hold it necessary to adde somewhat of this point and first I bring forth the author of this opinion Saint Thomas 2.2 q. 10. art 10. Dominicus a Soto of the Canonists Nauarrus c. Bellarm. recognition p. 57. Eightly Suarez against Bellarmine HOw Franciscus Suarez reprehends Bellarmine concerning Rupertus his errour of Impanation See Bellarmine recognition p. 80. Ninthly some namelesse Papists against Bellarmine THE exceptions taken by Catholikes against Bellarmine for saying that the conuersion of the bread is adductiue not productiue and his defence See Recognition pag. 81. Tenthly Fr. Suarez against Bellarmine and Iohn of Louan FRanciscus Suarez disp 41. de Euchar reprooues Bellarmine and Io. of Louan for teaching that Christ gaue the Sacrament in the forme of bread in the time of his legall supper and the wine when Supper was ended after many other businesses and actions How Bellarmine cleares himselfe See Recognition pag. 84. First Bellarmine against Gropperus I Cyted the Enchiridion of Iohn Gropperus which he is said to haue written vnder the name of the Councell of Colen but though Gropperus himselfe were a Catholicke yet in that booke there are no small errours as we haue shewed and therefore it is not without cause put into the number of bookes prohibited An. Dom. 1596. Bellarm. Recognition pag. 87. Secondly Bellarmine against Abulensis Adrian Caietane c. WE said that many Authors held that sufficient helpe is not giuen at all times to rise from sinne but onely in respect of time and place as Abulensis Adrianus Caietan But we are to note that these Authors doe not onely say that which we say but somewhat also which we say not That vnto some men for the greatnesse or multitude of their sinnes God in his certaine Decree denies helpe in the rest of their life So Abulensis quaest 12. vpon 4. Exod. Adrian quaest 3. de paenitentia Caietanus Ientaculo 8. q. 1. which three Doctors seeme to be borne out by three holy Fathers Saint Anselme in Comment vpon 12. Matt. Saint Isidor lib. 2. de summo bono Saint Austen For me as I dare not reproue so great Authors so I hold it an holy course thus to thinke of God in his goodnesse that there is no men which while they liue are not in time and place visited by the regard of his diuine grace Bellar. Recognit p. 105. Thirdly Popish Doctors disagreeing BEcause while I writ this there is great controuersie amongst our writers about the Kingdome of Christ I thought good to explaine my selfe further I hold therefore that heede is to be taken of godly men least they so vphold Christs temporall Kingdome that they denie his pouertie That his Kingdome therefore was not temporall but spirituall besides the auncient is well taught by two accurate Interpreters Cornelius Iansenius and Adamus Sasbout c. Bellarm. Recognit pag. 25. THE PEACE OF ROME THE FOVRTH BOOKE CONTAINING ABOVE THREE-SCORE different opinions of Papists in that one point of Confession all sauing 5. or 6. of the last confessed by Nauarrus DECAD I. 1. The Glosse and Gratian against Nauarre and the common opinion THough the Glosse 1. and 2. in cap. Lachrymae and Gratian de paen dist 1. hold aâ— man excluded from Confession by his contrition so as being once throughly contrite he is not of necessity in due time to confesse which they proue by diuers Authorities from the Canon law and from Saint Crysostome and Saint Austen yet we must with a sure faith hold and defend that although by the contrition of the heart alone without actuall confession our sinnes are remitted yet that he to whom they are pardoned is bound in due time if opportunity can be had to confesse them Nauarrus in his Commentaries vppon the seuen distinctions of penance abridged by Gregorie Sayrus chap. 4. of his Summa Sacram. paenitentiae printed at Venice with
Priuiledge An. 1601. p. 6. 2. Nauarre against some namelesse THat Sacramentall confession was not instituted in Paradise nor brought in by the law of nature see defended against some of their namelesse Writers by Nauar. Sum. paenit cap. 5. pag. 11. 3. The same Author against other Catholikes THat confession was not instituted by any meere man or any humane law but onely by Christ himselfe and that it was not instituted by Iosuah to Achan against the error of some namelesse Catholikes is maintained by Nauar. Sum. paenit c. 5. p. 11. 4. Some namelesse Catholikes confuted by Nauar. THe errours of those which held the Sacrament of Penance was instituted by Saint Iames. chap. 5. see also confuted Sum. Paenit cap. 5. 5. The Glosse Panormitan Decius against Durandus Maior Nauarre FVrther it follows necessarily that the Glosse Summa de paen dist 5. erreth which teacheth that the full confession of sinnes was not instituted by any authority of the olde or new Testament but onely by the Tradition of the vniuersall Church which opinion is followed by Panormitan and Decius but is confuted by all but especially by Durandus and Maior Sum. paen cap. 5. pag. 12. 6. Nauar. against Caietane IT is further implyed that Caietane erred who vpon Iohn 20. teaches that Sacramentall confession was instituted by Christ but not commaunded Sum. paenit cap. 5. pag. 12. 7. Sixtus the fourth and others against Petrus ab Osma IT is yet inferred further that Petrus ab Osma erred who in the time of Sixtus the fourth at Salmantica other places of Spain taught that Sacramentall confession began by humane institution and the Tradition of the Church and that mortal sinnes both for their fault and punishment in another world might be done away without confession by the onely contrition of the heart c. Al which were condemned by Sixtus 4. Sum. paenit cap. 5. pag. 12.1 8. Nauarre against the Canon THe Canon is deceiued which in Relect. de Sacram teaches that penance and outward confession was necessary to saluation not onely vnder the time of the Gospell but of the law also and vnder the time of nature in act if it might be had or in desire and purpose if it might not Sum. paen cap. 5. 9. Nauar. and Scotus c. against the Glosse THe Glosse erreth Sum. de paen dist 5. that saith that Sacramentall confession was not in vse in the Greeke Church as is largely taught by Scotus 4. d. 17. and the Councell of Colen Fol. 151. Sum. paenit cap 5. pag. 12.2 10. Nauar. against Caietane A Man is bound to contrition and confession so oft as any action is to be done which requires contrition and confession to go before it such as the Sacrament of the Eucharist Howsoeuer Caietane teach the contrary in Sum. verb. communio and vpon 1. Cor. 11 who holds that he sinnes not deadly which communicates vpon contrition had before he confesse himselfe though he haue opportunity of confession which opinion is condemned by the Tridentine Councell Sum. paenit c. 6. p. 15.1 DECAD II. 11. Nauar. against Paludanus c. NAuar holdes there is no precept that tyes vs vpon paine of sinne to confesse before any Sacrament saue the Eucharist Paludanus in 4. d. 7. q. 2. saith that to the Sacrament of confirmation of Orders of extreame vnction an actuall confession of our sinnes is necessary Sum. paenit cap. 6. fol. 15.2 12. Paludanus and Anthoninus against Thomas and Nauarre HOw oft we commit one and the same sinne is ill put by Paludanus and Saint Anthoninus among the circumstances to be confessed for the second sinne is not the circumstance of the first whereupon neither Aristotle nor Saint Thomas number this Quoties among the Circumstances Sum. paenit cap. 7. fol. 16.2 13. Io. Maior against Thomas Paludanus Gabriel Anthoninus Adrian Caietane Prierias WEe are not bound to confesse those circumstances which doe aggrauate the fault but change it not into another kinde of sinne as the common opinion teacheth Saint Thomas Paludanus Gabriel St. Anthoninus Adrian Caietan Prierias The contrary opinion which is defended by Io. Maior 4. d. q. 3. makes the conscience full of scruples and feare Sum. paenit cap. 8. fol. 18.1 14. Thomas Scotus Maior differing IT is hard to know what circumstances changes the action from one kinde into another whereof are three diuers opinions One of Saint Thomas 4. d. 16. q. 3. The other of Scotus The third of Io. Maior in 4. dist 17. q. 4. Sum. paenit cap. 8. fol. 20.2 15. Alensis against Nauar Nauar against Lyra Maior Anthoninus Adrian THe circumstance of time is not necessary to be confessed as that we haue sinned vpon an Holy-day whence Alensis is deceiued which holds that a mortal sinne vpon an Holy-day is double in respect of the guilt though single in respect of the act and Lyra Exod. 20. and Maior 4. d. 17. q. 4. and Anthon. 3. p. art 17. and Adrian vpon 4. de confess q. 4. are deceiued which teach that in that precept of the Decalogue onely mortall sinne is fobidden Sum. paenit c. 9. f. 24.1 16. Adrian Maior Syluester c. against other namelesse Diuines and Nauar betwixt both IT is doubted by our Doctors whether he that sinnes mortally before other and yet not with any purpose to giue occasion of sinning to others be bound to confesse the circumstance of his scandall giuen for Adrian in 4. de confess q. 4. and Io. Maior 4. dist 38. and Syluester say he must confesse it Others denie it Nauarre determines betwixt both Sum. paenit cap. 9. fol. 26.2 17. Nauarre against Adrian IT is a great difficulty among our Doctors whether he that doth any thing that he thinkes he should not do or with any thing which he doubts whether it be a mortal sin or no be bound to confesse not only that he hath sinned but that he hath sinned wittingly or against his conscience Adrianus in 4. de confess quaest 4. holds that circumstance must be confessed c. But for all that it is not necessarily to be confessed Sum. paenit cap. 10. fol. 27.2 18. Maior against Thomas SAint Thomas 4. dist 17. q. 3. holds that confession is sometimes to be made by an Interpreter Io. Maior vpon the same place denies it Sum. paenit cap 12. fol. 36.1 19. Paludanus and Adrian against the common opinion NO confession or absolution can be giuen or taken by a proxie or messenger nor by writing for all Sacraments except Matrimony require our owne person and cannot be done by Deputies But Paludanus in 4. dist 17. q. 2. and Adrian in 4. de confess q. 1. hold such confessions and absolutions as are done by writing to be of force Sum. paenit cap. 12. fol. 37.1 20. Paludanus Anthoninus Thomas opposed by other Doctors and Nauarre ALl Writers confesse a lye to be