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
treatise of Images where he teaches that God in the ten Commaundements simply forbids all Images but that this precept was onely positiue and temporall But this opinion is not allowed of vs especially because Saint Irenaeus directly teaches that the Decalogue is naturall excepting onely that Precept of the Sabboth and Tertullian in his booke of Idolatry holdeth that this precept is most of all now to be obserued so Cyprian also Austen c. The third is of Thomas Caietane vpon 20. Exod. which teacheth that not euery Image or Idoll is there forbidden but onely that there is forbidden to any man to make to himselfe any Image which he will take for his God This opinion displeases me onely in the manner of speech for Caietane takes an Image and an Idoll both for one which is false c. Bellarm. l. 2. contr 7. gener c. 7. That is De Imaginibus sanctorum l. 2. c. 7. p. 176. DECAD X. First Abulensis Durandus Peresius against Catharinus Payua Saunders and Bellarmine THE fourth opinion is Caluins in the first booke of his institutions ch 11. where he saith it is an abominable sinne to make a visible and bodily Image of the inuisible and incorporeall God And this opinion of Caluins is also the opinion of some Catholike Doctors as Abulensis vpon 4. Deuteron quaest 5. and Durandus vpon 3. dist 9. q. 2. and Peresius in his booke of Traditions But I affirme three things First that it is not so certaine in the Church that we may make Images of God or the Trinity as of Christ and the Saints for this all Catholikes confesse Secondly that Caluins fraude and craft is admirable who after he hath proued that Images of God are not to be made digresseth to amplification and triumphes as if he had proued that wee may not make or worship any Image at all Thirdly I say that it is lawfull to paint the Image of God the Father in the forme of an old man and of the holy spirit in the forme of a Doue as is taught also by Caietane Ambrosius Catharinus Diegus Payua Nicholas Saunders Thomas Waldensis Bellarmine ibid. ch 8. p. 179. Secondly Bellarmine against Bartholomaeus Caranza BEsides it must be noted that Bartholomaeus Caranza erres who in the summe of the Councels saith Can. 82. of the 6. Synod that the Image of Christ in the forme of a Lambe and of the spirit in the forme of a Doue is there forbidden Whereas the Councell forbids not these Images but onely prefers to them the Images of Christ in an humane forme c. Besides the reason of Bartholomaeus seemes to conclude against himselfe that the shadowes ceased when the truth came for these Images were not in vse in the olde Testament but began onely after Christs comming but his errour is to be corrected out of the 7. Synod where this Canon is often entirely cyted Bellarmine same booke chap. 8. pag. 182. Thirdly Payua Saunders Alan Copus and others differing PAyua answeres that the Elebertine Councell forbids onely an Image of God which is made to represent the shape of GOD But this seemes not to satisfie Nicholas Saunders answeres that the Councell for bad Images in the Churches because the time and place required it for then there was danger least the Gentiles should thinke we worshipt wood and stones and least that in the persecutions their Images should haue beene reproachfully handled by the persecutors This answere is good Alanus Copus in B. 5. of Dialog ch 16 saith that Images are here forbidden because they began to be worshipped of those Christians as Gods in which sense Saint Ino. takes that Canon in Decret part 3. c. 40. But this exposition is not well warranted by the reasons of the Canon Others say that there is only forbidden to paint images on the wals and not in tables and vayles But howsoeuer it be that Councell is rather for vs then against vs. Bellarm. ibid. ch 9. p. 190. Fourthly Three rankes of Popish Writers dissenting OF the last question what manner of worshippe Images are worthy of there are three opinions First that the Image is no way in it selfe to be worshipped but only that the thing represented is to be worshipped before the Image so some hold whom Catharinus both reports and refutes the same seemes to be held by Alexander 3. part q. 30. art vlt. as also by Durandus 3. Sent. di 9. q. 2. And by Alphonsus a Castro The second that the same honour is due to the Image and the thing expressed by it and therefore that Christs Image is to bee worshipped with the worship of Latria Saint Maries with Hyperdulia the Saints with Dulia so Alexander 3. part q. 30. art vlt. Saint Thomas 3. p. q. 25. art 3. And vpon the same place Caietane S. Bonauenture Marsilius Almain Carthusianus Capreolus and others which opinion stands vpon 7 grounds there specified The third opinion in the meane is of them that say Images in themselues properly should be honoured but with a lesse honour then the thing represented and therfore that no Image is to be worshipped with Latria so holds Martinus Peresius Ambrosius Catharinus Nicholas Saunders Gabriell Bellarm. ibid. c. 20. p. 235.236.237 c. What shift Bellarmine makes to reconcile the second opinion by adoration improperly and by accident See the same booke c. 23. p. 242. Fiftly Bellarmine against Peresius and Durandus c. PEresius answers that it is not true that we are caried with the same motion of the heart to the Image and the thing represented since these two are opposites neither can be knowne but with a double act of knowledge Bellarmine confutes him and shewes that these two are so opposite as that one depends vpon another and that one can neyther be defined nor knowne without the other Durandus answeres otherwise for he admits there is one and the same motion to both but denies that therefore they haue but one and the same adoration Others confirme this answer for that although there be one and the same motion of the minde that is of the vnderstanding towards them both yet there may be contrary motions of will c. But this answere satisfies not I hold there must be another answere giuen See his determination at large that there is the same motion of the vnderstanding and will to the Image and the thing expressed but in diuers respects as eyther of them is made the principall or indirect obiect Bellarm. ibid. c. 24. p. 246. Sixtly Tho. Waldensis against Abulensis Iansenius and others THomas Waldensis holds not improbably in his 3. Tom. Tit. 20. ch 158. that the very Wooden Crosse which is now diuided into many peeces and parcâ—ls shall then be renewed and gathered vp together and shall appeare in heauen The same seemes to be affirmed by Sibilla and Chrysostome and the other fathers doe not contradict it But if this be not admitted at least the bright Image
to looke towards our Doctrine the noueltie of our Religion you say hath discouraged you theirs hath drawne you with the reuerence of her age It is a free challenge betwixt vs let the elder haue vs both if there be any point of our Religion yonger then the Patriarkes and Prophets Christ and his Apostles the Fathers and Doctors of the Primitiue Church let it be accursed and condemned for an vpstart shew vs euidence of more credite and age and carrie it The Church of Rome hath beene auncient not the errors neither doe we in ought differ from it wherein it is not departed from it selfe If I did not more feare your wearines then my owne forgetting the measure of a Praeface I would passe through euerie point of difference betwixt vs and let you see in all particulars which is the old way and make you know that your Popish Religion doth but put on a borrowed visor of grauitie vpon this Stage to out-face true antiquitie Yet least you should complaine of words let me without your tediousnes haue leaue but to instance in the first of all Controuersies betwixt vs offering the same proofe in al which you shall see performed in one I compare the iudgement of the ancient Church with yours see therefore and be ashamed of your noueltie First our question is Whether all those bookes which in our Bibles are stiled Apocryphall and are put after the rest by themselues are to be receiued as the true Scriptures of God Heare first the voice of the old Church To let passe that cleare and pregnant testimonie of Melito Sardensis in his Epistle to Onesimus cited by Eusebius Let Cyprian or Ruffinus rather speake in the name of all Of the olde Testament saith he first were written the fiue bookes of Moses Genesis Exodus Leuiticus Numbers Deuteronomie after these the booke of Ioshua the son of Nun and that of the Iudges together with Ruth after which were the foure bookes of the Kings which the Hebrues reckon but two of the Chronicles which is called the booke of Dayes and of Ezra are two bookes which of them are accounted but single and the booke of Esther Of the Prophets there is Esay Hieremie Ezekiel and Daniel and besides one booke which containes the twelue smaller Prophets Also Iob and the Psalmes of Dauid are single bookes of Salomon there are three books deliuered to the Church the Prouerbes Ecclesiastes Song of songs In these they haue shut vp the number of the bookes of the olde Testament Of the new there are foure Gospels of Matthew Marke Luke and Iohn the Acts of the Apostles written by Luke of Paul the Apostle fourteene Epistles of the Apostle Peter two Epistles of Iames the Lords brother and Apostle one of Iude one of Iohn three Lastly the Reuelation of Iohn These are they which the Fathers haue accounted within the Canon by which they would haue the assertions of our faith made good But we must know there are other bookes which are called of the Ancients not Canonicall but Ecclesiastical as the Wisedome of Salomon and another booke of Wisedome which is called of Iesus the sonne of Sirach which booke of the Latines is termed by a generall name Ecclesiasticus of the same ranke is the booke of Toby and Iudith and the bookes of the Maccabees Thus farre that Father so Hierome after that he hath reckoned vp the same number of bookes with vs in their order hath these words This Prologue of mine saith he may serue as a well defenced entrance to all the bookes which I haue turned out of Hebrew into latine that we may know that whatsoeuer is besides these is Apocryphall therefore that booke which is intituled Salomons Wisedome and the booke of Iesus the son of Sirach and Iudith Tobias Pastor are not Canonical the first book of the Macabees I haue found in Hebrew the second is Greeke which booke saith he indeed the Church readeth but receiueth not as Canonicall The same reckoning is made by Origen in Eusebius word for word The same by Epiphanius by Cyrill by Athanasius Gregory Nazianzen Damascen yea by Lyranus both Hugoes Caietan Carthusian and Montanus himselfe c. All of them with full consent reiecting these same Apocryphall bookes with vs. Now heare the present Church of Rome in her owne words thus The holy Synode of Trent hath thought good to set downe with this Decree a iust Catalogue of the bookes of holy Scripture least any man should make doubt which they be which are receiued by the Synode And they are these vnder-written Of the old Testament fiue bookes of Moses then Ioshua the Iudges Ruth foure bookes of the Kings two of the Chronicles two of Esdras the first and the second which is called Nehemias Tobias Iudith Ester Iob the Psalter of Dauid containing one hundreth and fiftie Psalmes the Prouerbes of Salomon Ecclesiastes the Song of Songs the booke of Wisedome Ecclesiasticus Esay Hieremy c. two bookes of the Macabees the first and the second And if any man shall not receiue these whole bookes with al the parts of them as they are wont to be read in the Catholick Church as they are had in the old vulgar latine Edition for holy and Canonicall let him be accursed Thus shee Iudge you now of our age and say whether the opinion of the ancient Church that is ours be not a direct enemy to Poperie and flatly accursed by the Romish Passe on yet a little further Our question is whether the Hebrew and Greeke Originals be corrupted and whether those first Copies of Scriptures be not to be followed aboue all Translations Heare first the ancient Church with vs But saith Saint Augustine howsoeuer it be taken whether it be beleeued to be so done or not beleeued or lastly whether it were so or not so I hold it a right course that when any thing is found different in eyther bookes the Hebrew and Septuagint since for the certainty of things done there can be but one truth that tongue should rather bee beleeued from whence the Translation is made into another language Vppon which words Ludouicus Viues yet a Papist saith thus the same saith he doth Ierome proclayme euery where and reason it selfe teacheth it and there is none of sound iudgement that will gaine say it but in vaine doth the consent of all good wits teach this for the stubburne blockishnes of men opposeth against it Let Ierome himselfe then a greater linguist be heard speake And if there be any man saith he that will say the Hebrew bookes were afterwards corrupted of the Iewes let him heare Origen what he answeres in the eight Volume of his explanations of Esay to this question that the Lord and his Apostles which reproue other faults in the Scribs and Pharisees would neuer haue beene silent in this which were the greatest crime that could be But if they say that the Hebrewes falsified them
Heare first the voyce of the old religion to omit the direct charges of Gregory Nissen and Ambrose thus hath Ierome vpon the Psalmes The Lord will declare and how will he declare Not by word but by writing In whose writing In the writing of his people c. Our Lord and Sauiour therefore tels vs and speaketh in the scriptures of his Princes Our Lord will declare it to vs in the scriptures of his people in the holy scriptures which scripture is read to all the people that is so read as that all may vnderstand not that a few may vnderstand but all What faithfull man saith Augustine though he be but a Nouice before he be baptized and haue receiued the holy Ghost doth not with an equall minde reade and heare all things which after the ascension of our Lord are written in Canonicall truth and authority although as yet he vnderstands them not as he ought But of all other Saint Chrysostome is euery where most vehement and direct in this point Amongst infinite places heare what he saith in one of his Homilies of Lazarus I doe alwaies exhort and will neuer cease to exhort you saith he that you will not here onely attend to those things which are spoken but when you are at home you continually busie your selues in reading of the holy Scriptures which practise also I haue not ceased to driue into them which come priuately to me for let no man say Tush they are but idle words and many of them such as should bee contemned Alas I am taken vp with lawe causes I am employed in publique affaires I follow my trade I maintaine a wife and children and haue a great charge to looke to It is not for me to read the Scriptures but for them which haue cast off the world which haue taken vp the solitary toppes of Mountaines for their dwellings which liue this contemplatiue kinde of life continually What sayest thou O man Is it not for thee to turne ouer the Scriptures because thou art distracted with infinite cares Nay then it is for thee more then for them for they doe not so much neede the helpe of the Scriptures as you that are tost in the midst of the waues of worldly busines And soone after Neyther can it be possible that any man should without great fruit be perpetually conuersant in this spirituall exercise of reading and straight Let vs not neglect to buy our selues bookes least we receiue a wound in our vitall parts and after he hath compared the bookes of Scripture to gold he addeth But what say they if we vnderstand not those things which are contained in those bookes What gaine we then Yes surely though thou dost not vnderstand those things which are there laid vp yet by the very reading much holinesse is got Although it cannot be that thou shouldest be alike ignorant of all thou readest for therefore hath the spirit of God so dispenced this word that Publicanes Fishers Tent-makers Shepheards Goat-beards plaine vnlettered men may be saued by these bookes least any of the simpler sort should pretend this excuse That all things which are said should be easie to discerne and that the workeman the seruant the poore widdow and the most vnlearned of all other by hearing of the word read might get some gaine and profit And the same Father elsewhere I beseech you saith he that you come speedily hither and harken diligently to the reading of the holy Scriptures and not onely when you come hither but also at home take the Bible into your hands and by your diligent care reape the profite contained in it Lastly in his Homilies vpon the Epistle to the Colossians he cries out Heare I beseech you O all ye secular men prouide you Bibles which are the medicines for the soule At least get the new Testament Now on the contrary let the new Religion of Rome speake first by her Rhemish Iesuites thus We may not thinke that the Translated Bibles into vulgar tongues were in the hands of euery Husbandman Artificer Prentise Boyes Girles Mistresse Maide Man that they were sung played alledged of euery Tinker Tauerner Rimer Minstrell The like words of scorn and disgrace are vsed by Hosius and by Eckius and by Bellarmine de verbo l. 2. c. 15. The wise will not here regard say our Rhemists what some wilfull people doe mutter that the Scriptures are made for all men c. And soone after they compare the scriptures to fire water candles kniues swords which are indeede needfull c. but would marre all if they were at the guiding of other then wise men All the Heretickes of this time saith Bellarmine agree that the scriptures should be permitted to all and deliuered in their owne mother tongue But the Catholike Church forbids the reading of the Scriptures by all without choice or the publique reading or singing of them in vulgar tongues as it is decreed in the Councell of Trent Ses. 22 c. 8. and can 9. If you thinke saith Duraeus that Christ had all Christians to search the Scriptures you are in a grosse errour For how shall rude and ignorant men search the Scriptures c. And so he concludes that the Scriptures were not giuen to the common multitude of beleeuers Iudge now what either we say or these Papists condemne besides the ancient iudgement of the Fathers and if euer either Caluin or Luther haue beene more peremptory in this matter then Saint Chrysostome I vow to be a Papist If ours be not in this the old Religion be not you ours Yet this one passage further and then no more least I weary you Our question is Whether the Scriptures depend vpon the authority of the Church or rather the Church vpon the authoritie of Scriptures Heare first the ancient Church with and for vs The question is saith Saint Austen betwixt vs and the Donatists where the Church is what shall we do then shall we seeke her in our owne words or in the words of her head the Lord Iesus Christ I suppose we ought to seeke her rather in his words which is the truth and knowes best his owne body for the Lord knowes who are his we will not haue the Church sought in our words And in the same booke Whether the Donatists hold the Church saith the same Father let them not shew but by the Canonicall bookes of Diuine scriptures for neyther do we therefore say they should beleeue vs that wee are in the Church of Christ because Optatus or Ambrose hath commended this Church vnto vs which we now hold or because it is acknowledged by the Councels of our fellow-teachers or because so great miracles are done in it it is not therefore manifested to be true and Catholicke but the LORD Iesus himselfe iudged that his Disciples should rather be confirmed by the testimonies of the Law and the Prophets These are the rules of our cause these
pretious blood J speake not of some rude ignorants your very booke of holy Ceremonies shall teach you what your holy fathers doe and haue done That tells you first with great allowance and applause that Pope Vrban the fift sent three Agnos Dei to the Greeke Emperour with these verses Balsame pure Wax and Chrismes-liquor cleare Make vp this precious Lamb I send thee here All lightning it dispels and each ill spri'ght Remedies sinne and makes the heart contrite Euen as the blood that Christ for vs did shed It helps the child-beds paines giues good speed Vnto the birth Great gifts it still doth win To all that weare it and that worthy bin It quels the rage of fire and cleanely bore It brings from shipwracke safely to the shore And least you should plead this to be the conceit of some one phantasticall Pope heare and be ashamed out of the same booke what by prescription euery Pope vseth to pray in the blessing of the water which serues for that Agnus Dei If you know not thus he prayeth That it would please thee O God to blesse those things which we purpose to poure into this vessell of water prepared to the glory of thy name so as by the worship and honour of them we thy seruants may haue our heynous offences done away the blemishes of our sinnes wip't off and there by we may obtaine pardon and receiue grace from thee so that at the last with thy Saints and elect Children we may merite to obtaine euerlasting life Amen How could you choose but be in loue with this superstition Magicke blasphemy practised and maintained by the heads of your Church 2 A Religion that allowes iugling Equiuocations reserued senses euen in very oathes Besids all that hath beene shamelesly written by our Iesuites to this purpose Heare what Franciscus Victoria an ingenuous Papist and a learned reader of Diuinity in Salmantica writes in the name of all But what shall a Confessor do saith he if he be askt of a sinne that he hath heard in Confession May he say that he knowes not of it I answere according to all our Doctors that he may But what if he be compelled to sweare I say that he may and ought to sweare that he knowes it not for that it is vnderstood that he knowes it not besides confession and so he sweares true But say that the Iudge or Prelate shal malitiously require of him vpon his oath whether he know it in confession or no I answere that a man thus vrged may still sweare that he knowes it not in confession for that it is vnderstood he knowes it not to reueale it or so as he may tell Who teach and do thus in anothers case iudge what they would doe in their owne O wise cunning and holy periuries vnknowne to our forefathers A Religion that allowes the buying and selling of sinnes of pardons of soules so as now Purgatory can haue no rich men in it but fooles and friendlesse Diuels are tormenters there as themselues hold from many reuelations of Bede Bernard Carthusian yet men can commaund diuels and money can command men A Religion that relies wholly vpon the infallibility of those whom yet they grant haue been and may be monstrous in their liues and dispositions How many of those heyres of Peter by confession of their owne records by bribes by Whores by Diuels haue climed vp into that chaire Yet to say that those men which are confessed to haue giuen their soules to the diuell that they might be Popes can erre while they are Popes is heresie worthy of a stake and of hell A Religion that hood-winkes the poore Laity in forced ignorance least they should knowe Gods will or any way to heauen but theirs so as millions of soules liue no lesse without Scriptures then if there were none that forbids spirituall food as poyson and fetches Gods booke into the Inquisition A Religion that teaches men to worshippe stockes and stones with the same honour that is due to their Creator which practise least it should appeare to her simple Clyents how palpably opposite it is to the second commaundement they haue discreetly left out those words of GODS Law as a needelesse illustration in their Catechismes and Prayer bookes of the vulgar A Religion that vtterly ouerthrowes the true humanity of Christ while they giue vnto it tenne thousand places at once and yet no place flesh and no flesh seuerall members without distinction a substance without quantitie and other accidents or substance and accidents that cannot be seene felt perceiued so they make either a monster of their Sauiour or nothing A Religion that vtterly ouerthrowes the perfection of Christs satisfaction If all be not paid how hath he satisfied If temporall punishments in purgatory be yet due how is all paid and if these must be paid by vs how are they satisfied by him A Religion that makes more scripture then euer God and his ancient Church and those which it doth make so imperiously obtrudes vpon the world as if God himselfe should speak from heauen and while it thunders out curses against all that will not adde these bookes to Gods regards not Gods curse If any man shall adde vnto these things God shall adde vnto him the plagues that are written in this booke A Religion whose patrons disgrace the true Scriptures of God with reproachfull tearmes odious comparisons imputations of corruption and imperfection and in fine pin their whole authority vpon the sleeues of men A Religion that erects a throne in the Conscience to a meere man and giues him absolute power to make a sinne to dispense with it to create new Articles of faith and to impose them vppon necessity of saluation A Religion that baffoules all temporall Princes making them stand bare-foote at their great Bishops gate lye at his foote hold his stirrup yea their owne Crownes at his Curtesie exempting all their Ecclesiasticall Subiects from their iurisdiction and when they list al the rest from their allegeance A Religion that hath made wicked men Saints and Saints Gods Euen by the confession of Papists lewd and vndeseruing men haue leapt into their Calender Whence it is that the Pope before his Canonization of any Saint makes solemne protestation that he entends not in that businesse to doe ought preiudiciall to the glory of God or to the Catholicke faith and Church And once Sainted they haue the honour of Altars Temples Inuocations and some of them in a stile fit onely for their maker I know not whither that blessed Virgin receiue more indignity from her enemies that denie her or these her flatterers that deifie her A Religion that robs the Christian heart of all sound comfort whiles it teacheth vs that we neither can nor ought to be assured of the remission of our sinnes and of present grace and future saluation That we can neuer know whether we haue receiued the true Sacraments of
broken pits that can hold no water what shall be the issue Et tu Domine deduces eos in puteum interitus Thou O God shalt bring them downe into the pit of destruction If you wil thus wilfully leaue God there I must leaue you But if you had not rather die returne and saue one returne to God returne to his truth returne to his Church your blood be vpon my head if you perish ADVERTISEMENTS to the Reader VNDERSTAND good reader that in all these passages following I haue brought in C. Bellarm. speaking in his owne words except in some few plaine references where I mention him in the third person 2 That the edition of C. Bellarmine which I haue followed and quoted in euery page is that in octauo the commonest I thinke set forth at Ingolstadt from the presse of Adam Sartorius in the yeare M.D.XCIX 3 That all those Authors which thou seest named ouer the head of euery Section are Papists of note whose quarrels C. Bellarmine confesseth 4 That such great Doctors could not be singular in their iudgements but must needes in all probability which yet is not confessed be attended with many followers in euery point of variance euery Master hath the fauour of his owne schoole the sides taken by their Scholers is not more secret then likely 5 That one Doctor Pappus a learned German hath vndertaken the like taske but somewhat vnperfectly for of my 303 contradictions he hath noted but 237. the edition followed by him was not the same and therefore his trust could not be so helpfull to mee Besides that two or three of Card. Bellarmines workes are since published 6 That I haue willingly omitted diuers small differences which if I had regarded number might haue caused the Sum to swell yet higher 7 That thou mayest not looke to finde all these acknowledged differences maine and essentiall All Religion consists not of so many stones in her foundation it is enough that deepe and material dissensions are intermingled with the rest and that scarce any point is free from some 8 That Card. Bellarmine acknowledges those dissensions only which fall into the compasse of his owne Controuersies if all those omitting all others For instance of all those sixtie and two differences in the matter of penance which I haue here gathered out of Nauarre and Frâ—a Victoria he hath not confessed aboue fiue or sixe So that by the same proportion wheras three hundred and three Contradictions are acknowledged there cannot but be many hundreds wittingly by him concealed GEN. 11.7 Venite igitur descendamus confundamus ibi linguam eorum vt non audiat vnus quis que vocem proximi sui atque ita diuisit eos Dominus ex illo loco in vniuersas terras cessauerunt aedificare ciuitatem idcirco vocatum est nomen eius Babel c. THE PEACE OF ROME LIB I. FIRST CENTVRY of Dissentions DECAD I. First Bellarmine against Nic. Lyra Carthusian Hugo and Thomas Cardinals Sixtus Senensis THere haue not wanted some which haue held the seuen last Chapters of the booke of Ester because they are not in the Hebrewe Text spurious and counterfet In which opinion was S. Hierom as is gathered out of his praeface and following him not onely before the Councell of Trent Nicholas Lyra Dionysius Carthusianus Hugo and Thomas de Vio Cardinals but also since the said Councell Sixtus Senensis in the first and eight booke of his Bibliotheca Sancta But that they are sacred and Diuine is sufficiently proued by all those Decrees of Popes and Councels and those testimonies of Hebrew Greeke and Latine fathers which we haue noted formerly in the fourth chapter of this booke and so those other chapters which are not in the Hebrew c. Bellarmine in his first booke of the word of God chapt 7. See at large his confutation of Sixtus Senensis in the same place pag. 30. Secondly Iohn Driedo against Bellarmine IOhannes Driedo a Catholike writer denies the booke of Baruch to be Canonical in his first book the last chapter at the last argument But the authority of the Catholicke Church perswades vs the contrary which in the Councell of Trent the fourth sitting numbers the prophet Baruch among the sacred bookes Bellarmine the same booke chap. 8. pag. 41. Thirdly Erasmus and Iohannes Driedo against Bellarmine NOt onely Heretickes Pagans Iewes but of Catholicke Christians Iulius Africanus of olde and of late Iohannes Driedo in his first booke de Script c. chap. last and of semi-Christians Erasmus in his Scholees vpon Hieroms praeface to Daniel haue reiected the story of Susanna as new and foisted into the Canon But notwithstanding it is certaine that all these parts of Daniel are truely Canonicall Bellarm. the same booke chap. 9. pag. 43. Fourthly Caietane a Cardinall and some other namelesse against Bellarmine SOme obiect that the Church receiues those books that Saint Hierome receiues and refuseth those which he reiecteth as it appeares Distinct. 15. Canon Sancta Romana But Hierome flatly affirmes all these fiue bookes not to be Canonicall so reasoneth Caietane otherwise a Catholicke a holy Doctor Some answere that Hierome saith onely that these are not Canonicall among the Iewes but that cannot be for he mentioneth also the booke of the Pastor which was accounted to the new Testament But I admit that Hierome was of that opinion because no generall Councell as yet had defined of these books except onely of the booke of Iudith which Hierome also afterwards receiued That therefore which Gelasius saith in the Distinct aboue cited is to be vnderstood of the bookes of the Doctors of the Church Origin Ruffin and the like not of the bookes of Scripture Bellarm. ibid. chap. 10. pag. 53. Fiftly Bellarmine against Erasmus Caietanus IN our times Erasmus in the end of his notes vpon this Epistle and Caietane in the beginning of his Commentaries vpon this Epistle haue reuiued and renewed a question that hath long slept in silence concerning the Author and authority of the Epistle to the Hebrewes Bellarmine vndertakes to confute their seuerall reasons drawne First From Hebr. 1.5 compared with 2. Sam. 7.14 Secondly From Hebr. 9.4 compared with 1 Kings 8.9 Thirdly From Heb. 9.20 compared with Exod. 24.8 Bellarm. ibid. chap. 17. pag. 77. Sixtly Beda Lyranus Driedo Mercator Sulpitius Genebrard Benedictus Bellarmine dissenting THere are two principall opinions about the storie of Iudith Some would haue that storie to haue happened after the Babilonish captiuity eyther in Cambyses time so Beda Lyranus Io. Driedo or vnder Darius Hystaspes as Gerardus Mercator Seuerus Sulpitius refers it to Artaxerxes Ochus some others hold it to haue beene after the captiuity either in Sedecias times as Gil. Genebrardus or Iosias as Iohn Benedictus But neither of these seemes to me probable enough saith Bellarmine who confuting all them placeth this storie in the raigne of Manasses king of Iuda Bellarm. same booke c. 12.
there are no other receptacles beside the foure mentioned and the Councell of Florence Ses. vlt. defines that the soules which haue nothing to be purged are straight taken into heauen On the other side Beda in his 5. booke c. 13. tels of a very probable vision which he doubted not to beleeue wherein was shewed to a certaine soule which after returned to the body besides hell Purgatorie and heauen a goodly flourishing pleasant light-some and sweete Medow wherein liued those soules which suffred nothing but onely stayed there because they were not yet fit for heauen and diuers such visions are brought by Dionysius Cart◠Greg. And it seemes to me not vnprobable that such a place there is to be found which belongeth to Purgatorie for though there be no punishment of paine yet of losse there is Therefore this place is a milder kind of purgatorie and as it were a more Gentlemanlike and honorable prison Bellarm. ibid. c. 7. p. 123. Thirdly Alphonsus Ciaconus against Melchior Canus and Dominicus a Soto IF this history of Traian should be defended we must say that Traian was not absolutely condemned to hell but onely punished in hell according to his present demerite and that the sentence was suspended by reason of Gregories prayers foreseene by God and therfore that he was not immediatly translated from hell to heauen but first vnited to the body then baptized and then that he did penance in this life and this is the common answere of S. Thomas Durand Richard and others But I rather incline to the opinion of Melchior Canus which simply reiects this history as fained and of Dominicus a Soto notwithstanding the Apology which Alphonsus Ciaconus hath 3. years agoe published for this story Bel. ib. c. 8. p. 124. Fourthly Sotus Abulensis Thomas Richardus and Durandus differing OF the damned I say that he that is absolutely damned to eternal punishmēt cannot be recalled to life for then the damnatiō of the wicked shold be vncertain Against this opinion is Abulensis quaest 57. in the fourth booke of the Kings To the instances brought Sotus answers that those Heathens were onely inuincibly ignorant and therefore in Purgatorie but I say that those which were raysed though they did deserue eternall damnation yet were not condemned but that their iudgement was suspended and that in the meane time they were punisht according to their present iniustice So holds Saint Thomas Richardus Durand and others Bellarm. ibid. c. 8. pag. 133. Fiftly Bellarmine against Dominicus a Soto BEsides these errours it was the opinion of Dominicus a Soto vpon the 4. sent dist 19. q. 3. art 2. that no man remaines ten yeares in Purgatorie Whom see how Bellarmine confutes by reasons by visions by the custome of the Church Bellarmine ibid. c. 9. pag. 133. Sixtly Thomas and the Schoolemen against the visions of Bede and Carthusian COncerning the third doubt ' it is altogether vncertaine for that the soules in Purgatory are punished neyther by Diuels nor by Angels but by fire onely is taught by the Schoolemen as Thomas vpon 4. dist 20. art 5. On the other part that the soules in Purgatorie are punished by diuels is taught by many reuelations as that of S. Fursaeus in Beda l. 3. hist. c. 19. and others in Dionysius Carthusian in his book de 4. nouissimis Bellarm. ibid. c. 13. p. 137. Seuenthly Bonauenture against Thomas ALthough all men graunt in some sort that the punishment or paines of Purgatorie are greater then the paines of this life yet it is doubtfull how this is to be vnderstood for Saint Thomas teaches two things first that the paine of losse is the greatest of all paines whether in Purgatorie or in this life Secondly that the least paine of Purgatorie is greater then all the paines of this life But Bonauenture in 4. dist 20. art 1. teaches first that the paine of losse in Purgatory is not greater then euery paine whether of Purgatory or of this life Secondly he teaches that the paines of Purgatorie are greater then the paines of this life onely in this sense because the greatest paine of purgatorie is greater then the greatest paine of this life although there be found some other punishment in Purgatorie lesse then some punishment in this life which opinion pleaseth me best for c. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 14. pag. 138. Eightly Dominicus a Soto against Petr. Cluniacensis NEither ought any man to doubt but that the soules of the departed Saints which raigne with Christ doe pray for the soules of the Saints which are in Purgatorie the contray whereof is rashly affirmed by Dominicus a Soto b. 4 sent dist 45. qu. 3. art 2. Whom Bellar. confutes by the authority of Petrus Cluniacensis Saint Austen and lastly of the whole church who in that praier which begins God the giuer of Pardons beseecheth God that by the intercession of Saint Mary and all Saints the soules of the departed may come to the fellowship of eternal happinesse Bellarm. ibid. c. 15. p. 141. Ninthly Saint Thomas against Pet. Damian and Bellarmine THat the dead do good to the liuing it is manifest for 2. Macab 15. we read that Onias and Hieremias long before departed were seene to pray for the people of the Iewes then aliue Neither is it incredible that euen the soules in Purgatory doe pray for vs and preuaile since that the soule of Paschasius and Seuerinus though in Purgatorie wrought miracles as appeares by Gregorie B. 4. of Dialog ch 40. and Peter Damian in an Epistle of the miracles of his time And though Saint Thomas in 2.2 q. 83. art 3. teach the contrary yet his reason proueth nothing c. But although this be true yet it seemes superfluous for vs to sue to them that they may pray for vs because they cannot ordinarily know what we doe in particular but onely in common know that we are in many dangers c. Bellarm. ibid. c. 15. p. 142. Tenthly Dominicus a Soto against many visions and Saint Brigit ONe doubt remaines whether the restitution of a thing detained profit the dead and so become a fourth kind of suffrage for the soules of the departed are said to haue often appeared and intreated for restitution of those things which either they had forgotten or could not restore and Saint Brigit in her 6. b. of Reuelations ch 66. affirmes that the soule is so long tormented till that which was vniustly taken away be restored Dominicus a Soto vpon 4. dist 45. q. 2. art 3. holdes that such restitution if it be made auailes nothing nor hinders nothing if vn-made for God punishes not but for our owne faults committed in our life time As to those apparitions I answere that perhaps those soules doe not desire restitution as it is restitution but as an almes for although it do not benefite the soule that he restores which is bound to restore it yet it will much profite
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
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
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