Selected quad for the lemma: work_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
work_n	good_a	merit_n	merit_v	6,691	5	10.7705	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

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

Soto Couarruuias in his booke of practicall quaestions Bellarmine same booke cap. 28. where he disputes against the Canonists confutes Cornelius Iansenius and followes Tostatus and Caietane in the exposition of Austen and lastly refels Dominicus a Soto c. pag. 159.166.167 Fourthly Dominicus a Soto and Alphonsus against Saint Thomas and Bonauenture IT is a question among Diuines whether dueties commanded by God doe properly fall within the compasse of our vowes for some denie it as Thomas and Bonauenture in 4. dist 38. Others affirme it as some latter writers Dominicus a Soto l. 7. de iustit iure Alphonsus a Castro l. 1. of penall law c. c. 10. Bellarmine Controu 5. Gener. b. 2. c. 19.1 De membr Eccles. militant pag. 278. Fiftly Scotus and Albertus and Bellarmine against Saint Thomas ALthough Saint Thomas doth not admit an absolute vow of virginity in the blessed Virgin before her espousal yet Scotus doth admit it in 4. dist 30 quaest 2. And before Scotus Albertus Magnus in his booke of the praises of our Lady and before Albert the holy Fathers Nissenus and Augustine Neyther doe I see how that vow can preiudice the celebration of her true marriage if it be supposed as all Diuines doe that it was reuealed to her that Saint Ioseph should neuer require of her matrimoniall beneuolence Bellarm. ibid. c. 22. p. 296. Sixtly Scotus Paludanus Caietane against Albertus Thomas Bonauenture Richard Durand c. WHether after a solemne vow made matrimony be quite dissanulled by the law of God and of nature or onely by the law of the Church is questioned For Albertus S. Thomas S. Bonauenture Richard and Durand in the 4. dist 38. and Dominicus a Soto in his 7. booke of law and iustice q. 2. art 5. will haue the mariage by the law of God and nature vtterly void if it be made after a solemne vow taken But Scotus and Paludanus in 4. d. 38. and Caietane and all the whole schoole of Lawyers as Panormitan reporteth affirme that such mariage is onely voyde by the law of the Church Bellarm. ibid. c. 34. p. 378. Seuenthly Erasmus and Espencaeus Iustinian and Gregory Bellarmine and the common sort disagreeing OF the fourth are two extreame errors One of Martin Chemnitius and the M●gdeburgenses who teach that Matrimony whether ratified and consummate or ratified only cannot be dissolued by the profession of a monasteriall life So also teacheth Erasm. vpon 7. ch of 1. Cor. and to the same iudgement inclineth Claudius Espencaeus in his sixt b. ch 4. of Contin Another errour in the contrary extreme that mariage thogh fully consummate is dissolued by entring into Religion So decreed Iustinian G. of Bishops and this law is related by Gregorie b. 9. Epist. 39. But the iudgement of the Church is in the meane between both that matrimony ratified onely is so dissolued not when it is consummate So besides many Canons the Councell of Trent Sess. 24. Can. 6. Bellarm. ibid. ch 38. p. 394. c. Eightly Io. of Louan and Bellarm. against George Cassander THe third error is of George Cassander in his b. of the office of a good man who holdeth that Princes ought to seek a way of reconciliatiō betwixt the catholiks Lutherans Caluininsts c. and til they do find it out that they ought to permit to euery one his own faith so that they al receiue the scripture and the Creed Apostolike This is a manifest error and against him wrote of the Catholike Doctors Iohn of Louan of the hereticks Iohn Caluin and this opinion may easily be confuted Bellarmine l. 3. c. 19. p. 500. Ninthly some namelesse Doctors also Scotus Thomas and Bellarmine in three diuers opinions THere haue beene some which haue denied that veniall sinne could be remitted after this life as Saint Thomas reports in 4. dist q. 21. art 2. but said that all veniall sinnes are remitted in the instant of death by a finall grace But they are deceiued for both Scriptures and Fathers teach vs that small sins are remitted after this life c. Others as Scotus in the 4. dist 21. q. 1. say that sinne after the act is passed leaues onely a guilt of punishment behind it and therefore veniall sinne is said to be remitted in Purgatorie because it is there wholly punished but mortall sinne is not said to be forgiuen after this life because it is neuer there totally punished This opinion is also false Another opinion of the same Scotus is that venial sinnes are remitted in the first moment of the soules seperation from the body by the vertue of our fore-going merits but this pleaseth me not the opinion of Thomas is truer that veniall sinnes are remitted in Purgatorie by the act of loue and patience c. Bellarm. 6. controu gener of Purgat l. 1. c. 14. p. 84. Tenthly some vn-named Papists against Bonauenture Scotus Durand Thomas c. SOme Catholikes to proue that as they hold soules in Purgatory may merit argue thus The soules in Purgatorie haue all things necessarie for merit for they haue grace faith charity freewill c. Also they proue it by the authority of Saint Thomas in 4. dist 1. q. 1. art 3. But I answere to the argument That the soules in purgatorie cannot merite because they are not in the state of their passage for God hath onely decreed during this life to accept our good workes for merit and after this life good workes are the effects of glory euill the effects of damnation For Saint Thomas I answere that he changed his opinion for in q. 7. of euill art 11. he saith directly that there can be no merit in purgatorie so also Bonauenture Scotus Durand and others Bellarm. ibid. l. 2. c. 3. p. 106. DECAD VIII First Carthusian Michael Baij Gerson Roffensis against the common opinion of Diuines THe third question is whether the soules in purgatorie be certaine of their saluation or no Some Catholikes teach that they are not who hold that there be sundrie punishments in Purgatorie whereof the greatest is vncertainty of saluation with which they say some soules are only punished So seemes Dionisius Carthusianus to hold by reason of certaine visions which he reports and so teaches Michael Baij in his 2. b. of merit of workes ch 8. This way seemes to tend the opinion of Io. Gerson lect 1. of spirituall life and Io. of Rochester against the 32. artic of Luther who hold veniall sinne to be onely vpon the mercy of God and therefore that it may if God so will be eternally punished c. But the common opinion of Diuines is That all soules in purgatory are certaine of their saluation Bellarm. ibid. c. 4. p. 108. Secondly Bellarmine warranted by Bede Carthusian and Gregorie against the Councell of Florence and all Diuines IN the first question concerning the number of places there is great difficultie for on the one side all Diuines teach that

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 ● 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

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

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

placeth freewill in a certaine naturall habite arising from reason and will vpon 2. Sent. Dist. 23. art 1. The third is Albertus opinion that freewill it is a power of the soule perfected by a naturall habite The fourth that freewill is an vniuersal power or faculty conteining vnder it all the powers of the vnderstanding and sensitiue soule This opinion is reported without name by Saint Bonauenture and Saint Thomas The fift is of Alexander Alensis which teacheth that freewill is a particular power or faculty of the soule and distinct from reason and will in p. 2. Sum. q. 74. c. The sixt is Durandus vpon 2. Sent. d. 24. q. 3. who teaches that freewill is the very power of reason and will but more especially of reason The seuenth is the opinion of Henricus and Scotus in 2. Sent. dist 25. who hold that freewill is but one particular faculty euen the will it selfe and that it is so free that it doth not depend so much as vpon the practicall Iudgement of reason The eight is the opinion of S. Thomas 1. part Sum. q. 83. and in 1.2 q. 13. c. Richardus Capreolus Conradus Caietanus and others which hold that freewill is indeede one particular faculty euen the will it selfe as the former opinion but they adde that the roote of this freedome is in reason and that the will wholly depends vpon the last iudgement of practicall reason which opinion seemes to me to be the truest Bellarm. l. 3. cap. 7. pag. 221. DECAD IIII. First Occam against the common opinion ALthough Gul. Occam write that the obiect of the will is any thing that hath being whether it be good or euill so that it can be set vpon euill as it is euill yet the common opinion of Diuines is contrary c. and amongst the rest of Saint Thomas in 1. part q. 20. art 1. c. Bellarm. ibid. c. 12. p. 248. Secondly three rankes of Popish Diuines disagreeing ABout the obiect of freewill there are three opinions The first of Pet. Lombard Occam Gabriel who hold that all things which are present are necessary and cannot be otherwise and therefore that future actions alone are in the power of freewill The second of Gregorius Ariminensis vpon 1. Sent. d. 39. which thinkes that the entring into an action euen for the present may be free but that some continuance is altogether necessary The third is more common in Schooles and more true which is declared and defended by Io. Scotus Capreolus and Hersubcus that freewill hath in his power not onely future but present actions and not onely in their entrance but continuance also Bellar. ibid. cap. 13. pag. 251. Thirdly Scotus and Henric against Thom and Capreolus COncerning the first act of the will whether it be simply free as Scotus and Henricus hold or whether it be wrought wholly by God alone so as the will is but onely passiue as Capreolus and Saint Thomas by Capreolus report or whether thirdly it be efficiently of the will but yet of God as the author of it as following vpon that natural inclination which God hath set in the will as Caietane Ferrariensis and Saint Thomas See Bellarmine same booke cap. 14. pag. 256. Fourthly Petrus ab Aliaco against Saint Thomas and other Diuines ONe Controuersie remains whether by the light of reason alone we can know that there is a God and that he is one Of our men Petrus ab Aliaco in 2. Sent. q. 3. writes that we can know nothing at all of God without a speciall helpe of grace but almost all Diuines and especially Saint Thomas teach the contrary who doubt not to call that opinion erroneous Bellarmine in his fourth booke of grace and freewill c. 2. p. 277. Fiftly Durandus against all Diuines some other namelesse against the rest OF actions naturall or ciuill or manuall without consideration of any morall good or euill in them whether they could be done of vs by the onely power of nature there haue beene two contrary errours for some haue taught that man as well as other things can doe his workes without any helpe of God whether generall or speciall So Origen seemes to hold as Saint Thomas noteth so also the Pelagians and amongst others Durandus vpon 2. Sent. dist 1. quaest 5. Others haue held in an other extreame that God doth so immediately and properly worke all things that the second causes do iust nothing but in their presence God doth all Saint Thomas reports this opinion in quaest de potentia art 7. The true and common opinion of Diuines is betweene both Bellarmine the fourth booke cap. 4. pag. 285. Sixtly Saint Thomas Gregorie Gabriel Buridan Andreas de Castro Laurent Valla in three rankes against one another ONe of the maine Controuersies of this matter is whether man haue freewill in naturall and ciuill actions whereof are three opinions First of well neare all Catholikes that not onely man is of freewill in the foresaid actions but that this is euident both in the light of nature and doctrine of faith as Saint Thomas aboue others in quaest 6. de malo and Gregory Gabriell and others vpon 2. Sent. d. 25. The second of some Catholikes which hold it certaine by the doctrine of faith not by the light of reason that man hath this freewill So teach Io. Buridanus 3. Ethic. q. 1. Andr. de Castro 1. Sent. d. 45. cyted by Ruardus c. The third opinion or heresie rather is of Laurentius Valla in his booke of free-will c. and Bucer who teach that man hath not freewill in any thing in this state of his corrupted nature no not in things indifferent and ciuill Bellarm. l. 4. c. 5. p. 289. Seuenthly Caietane Durandus and another sort vn-named against each other and Bellarm. against all THE co-operation of Gods prouidence with mans freewill Caietane thinks cannot be expressed Contrary Durandus thinkes he hath sufficiently vnfolded it when he teacheth that there is no concourse of Gods will with second causes but that the natures and vertues of themselues are sufficient and that God as he hath made them so should preserue them But this opinion is false and contrary to Scriptures Fathers and reason The third sort hold that God by his concourse determines the action of mans will and yet that it is absolutely free and this for many causes I cannot allow Bellarm. ibid. cap. 14. pag. 318. Eightly Greg. Ariminensis Capreolus Cassalius against Albert Bonauenture Scotus Richard Durandus c SOme Diuines hold that no morall truth can be knowne by man in the state of his corrupted nature without the speciall aide of Gods spirit so teach Gregorius Ariminensis Iohannes Capreolus Gaspar Cassalius Contrarily all Diuines almost thinke by the meere power of nature and by a generall ayde of God some morall truth may be knowne So Albertus S. Bonauenture Scotus Richardus Durandus Dominicus a Soto S Thomas c. This

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 ● 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