To the extent possible under law, the Text Creation Partnership has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above, according to the terms of the CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). This waiver does not extend to any page images or other supplementary files associated with this work, which may be protected by copyright or other license restrictions. Please go to http://www.textcreationpartnership.org/ for more information.
THere haue not wanted some which haue held the seuen last Chap∣ters of the booke of Ester,* 1.1 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,* 1.2 Dionysius Carthusi∣anus, 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 La∣tine fathers, which we haue noted formerly in the fourth chapter of this booke, and so those other chap∣ters 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.
IOhannes Driedo (a Catholike writer) denies the booke of Baruch to be Canonical,* 1.3 in his first book, the last chapter, at the last argument: But the autho∣rity of the Catholicke Church perswades vs the con∣trary, which in the Councell of Trent (the fourth sit∣ting) numbers the prophet Baruch among the sacred bookes. Bellarmine the same booke, chap. 8. pag. 41.
NOt onely Heretickes,* 1.4 Pagans, Iewes, but of Ca∣tholicke 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 reiect∣ed 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.
SOme obiect that the Church receiues those books that Saint Hierome receiues,* 1.5 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 Caie∣tane, 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 Ge∣lasius saith in the Distinct aboue cited, is to be vnder∣stood 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.
* 1.6IN 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.
* 1.7THere are two principall opinions about the sto∣rie 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 Sulpi∣tius refers it to Artaxerxes Ochus: some others hold it to haue beene after the captiuity; either in Sedecias times, as Gil. Genebrardus; or Iosias, as Iohn Benedictus. But neither of these seemes to me probable enough, saith Bellarmine, who confuting all them, placeth this storie in the raigne of Manasses king of Iuda. Bellarm. same booke, c. 12. p. 58.
ERasm. in his notes vpon these epistles affirms,* 1.8 that the Epistle of Iames doth not sauor of an Aposto∣licke grauitie: hee doubts of the second Epistle of Peter. he affirmes the second and third Epistles of Iohn were not written by Iohn the Apostle, but by an∣other: of Iudes Epistle hee saith nothing. Caietane doubts of the Authors of the Epistle of Iames, of Iude, of the second and third of Iohn, and therefore will haue them to be of lesse authority then the rest. Bel∣larmine iustly refutes their opinion, ch. 18. pag. 86.
ERasmus in the end of his notes vpon the Reuelati∣on,* 1.9 seekes out many doubtfull coniectures, wher∣by he would proue this booke of the Reuelation, not to be written by Iohn the Apostle. His three rea∣sons are truely answered by Bellarmine, chap. 19. p. 94.
THE fourth booke of Esdras is indeede cyted by Ambrose, in his booke de Bono Mortis;* 1.10 and in his second booke vpon Luke; and in the 21. Epistle to Horatian: but doubtlesse it is not Canonicall: since
that it is not by any Councell accounted in the Ca∣non; and is not found eyther in Hebrew or Greeke, and contains in the sixt chapter very fabulous toyes. I wonder therfore what came into Genebrards minde, that he would haue this booke pertaine to the Ca∣non; in his Chronology, pag. 90. Bellarm. chap. 20. pag. 99.
* 1.11OMitting those therefore which falsly attribute too much purity vnto the Hebrew text, we are to meete with others, which in a good zeale, but I know not whether according to knowledge, defend that the Iewes in hatred of the Christian Religion haue purposely depraued many places of Scripture; so teaches Iacob Bishop of Christopolis in his prae∣face to the Psalmes, and Canus in his second booke and thirteenth chapter of common places. These Bellarmine confutes by most weighty arguments, as he cals them, and shewes that by this defence the vulgar Edition should be most corrupt, in 2. booke of the word of God, chap. 2. pag. 108.
COncerning this vulgar Latine Edition,* 1.12 there is no small question. That it is not Ieromes, is held by Sanctus Pagninus, in the praeface of his interpretation of the Bible to Clement the eight, and Paulus Bishop of Forosempronium, in his second booke, first chapter of the day of Christs passion. Contrarily, that it is Ieromes is de∣fended by Augustine Eugubinus, and Iohannes Picus Mirandulanus in bookes set out to that purpose, and by some others. But that it is mixt both of the new and old, is maintained by Io. Driedo in his second booke, ch. 1. and Sixtus Senensis in his 8. booke of the holy Library, and the end. Bellarm. 2. booke, chap. 9. pag. 135.
COncerning the Translation of the Septuagint,* 1.13 though I know some hold it is vtterly lost, yet I hold rather that it is so corrupted, that it seemes an∣other. Bellarm. 2. booke, ch. 6. pag. 127.
THat place Rom. 1.32. not onely Kemnitius,* 1.14 but al∣so Valla, Erasmus, Iacobus Faber and others would haue to be corrupted in the Latine vulgar. Bellar∣mine confutes them, and would shew that their La∣tine Translation herein is better then the Greeke o∣riginall. Bellarm. same booke, chap. 14. pag. 168.
THomas Caietanus in his Treatise of the Institut. and authority of the B. of Rome,* 1.15 chap. 5. teacheth, that the Keyes of the Kingdome of Heauen are not the same with the power of binding and loosing; for that the keyes of the Kingdome of Heauen in∣cludes the power of order and iurisdiction, and some∣what more: But this doctrine seemes to vs more subtile then true; for it was neuer heard of, that the Church had any other keyes besides those of order, and iurisdiction. Bellarm. 1. booke of the Pope, ch. 12. pag. 101.
THat there are three eternall spirits,* 1.16 Father, Sonne Holy Ghost essentially differing, was taught by a
certaine Frenchman in Anselmes time; and the same seemes to be held by Ioachim the Abbot, in the yeare 1190. and Raymundus Lullius, in the yeare 1270. confu∣ted by Bellarmine in his first booke de Christo. cha. 2. pag. 37.
BEllarmines disputation against the Transsiluani,* 1.17 and Erasmus as their patrone, concerning the Di∣uinity of Christ, warranted from diuers places of Scripture. See Bell. l. 1. de Christo. ch. 6. pag. 72.73.
THE fourth error is of Durandus in 3. d. 22. q. 3. who taught,* 1.18 that Christs soule descended not to hell in substance, but only in certaine effects, because it did illuminate those holy Fathers, which were in Limbo: which opinion to be erroneous (and yet not so ill as Caluins) is proued by foure arguments; and all his obiections answered by Bellarm. l. 4. de Christo ch. 15. pag. 391.392, &c.
SAint Thomas p. 3. q. 52. Art. 2. teaches,* 1.19 that Christ by his reall presence descended but to Limbus Pa∣trum,
and in effect onely to the other places of hell: but it is probable that his soule discended to all.
Secondly, Saint Thomas seemes to say (p. 3. q. 52. ar. 1.) that it was some punishment to Christ to be in hel according to his soule, &c. And Caietane (in act. 2.) saith that the sorrowes of Christs death continued in him, til his resurrection, in regard of three penalties, whereof the second is, that the soule remained in hell, a place not conuenient for it.
But Bonauent. in 3. d. 22. q. 4. saith, that Christs soule while it was in hell, was in the place of punishment indeede, but without punishment, which seemes to me more agreeable to the Fathers. Bellarm. l. 4 de Christo. c. 16. p. 396.397, &c.
NIcolaus Lyranus is not of so great authority that we should oppose him to all the auncient Fa∣thers and Historians,* 1.20 which say, that Peter was slaine at Rome (not as Lyranus at Hierusalem.) Bellarm. l. 2. of the Pope of Rome, ch. 10. pag. 210.
* 1.21THat speech of Aeneas Syluius (afterwards Pope) that before the Nicene Councel each man liued to himselfe, and there was small respect had of the
Bishop of Rome is partly true, and partly false: It is true that the power of the Popes was somewhat in those times hindred; but it is not true that there was so little respect giuen him. Bellarm. l. 2. de Pontif. c. 17. pag: 252.
THE confutation of Martinus Polonus which liued An. 1250. in that storie of Pope Ioane,* 1.22 deliuered from him by Sige∣bertus, Marianus Scotus, Platina and o∣thers. See Bellarm. l. 3. de Pontif. c. 24. pag. 464.465, &c.
THe sixteenth is Pope Celestinus,* 1.23 whom Laurenti∣us Valla affirmes, to haue been infected with the heresie of Nestorius; in his declamation against the Donation of Constantine. But Valla lyes falsly. Bel∣larm. l. 4. de Pont. c. 10. p. 512.
SAint Gregorie the first is by Durandus,* 1.24 in 4. Di. 7. q. 4. accused of error, for that he permitted vnto presbi∣ters to conferre the Sacrament of confirmation; which is onely by right proper to Bishops: By rea∣son of which place of Gregorie, Adrian in quest, of confirmation, art. vlt. affirmeth, that the Pope may erre in defining points of Faith, but in truth, not S. Gregorie erreth herein, but Durandus and Adrian. Bel∣larm. l. 4. de Pont. c. 10. p. 517.
GRatians speech (36. quaest. 2. can. vlt) that Hieromes authority being defenced by Scripture, crossed a whole generall Councell; and Panormitans, and Ger∣sons,* 1.25 that one priuate mans opinion, if he be furnish∣ed with better authorities from Scripture, is to bee preferred to the opinion of the Pope: and that any one learned man may, and ought in some cases to re∣sist a whole Councell. See confuted, and qualified by Bellar. l. 1. de Concil. cap. 16. p. 72.
IN this question,* 1.26 whether in case of heresie the Pope may be iudged and deposed, there are fiue different
opinions. The first of Albertus Pighius, 4. booke of Eccles. Hierarchy, ch. 8. who holds that the Pope can not be an Hereticke, and therefore can in no case be deposed: which is a probable opinion, but not cer∣taine, and is contrary to the common opinion. The second of Io. de Turrecremata, 4. B. part 2. c. 20. that the Pope, in that he fals into an heresie, though inward and secret, is without the Church and deposed of God; and therefore that he may be iudged, that is declared to be deposed (de facto) if hee yet refuse to yeelde. But this opinion I cannot allow. The third is in another extreame, that the Pope neyther for secret nor manifest heresie is, or can be deposed: This Io. Turrecremata in the place forecited confuteth; and indeed it is an opinion very improbable. The fourth is Caietanes in his Tract of the authority of the Pope and the Councel, ch. 20. and 21. That a Pope which is manifestly hereticall, is not (ipso facto) deposed, but may and ought to be deposed by the Church: which opinion in my iudgement cannot be defended. Here therefore Bellarmine defends these positions against Caietane.
1 That euery manifest hereticke is ipso facto depo∣sed, out of Tit. 3.
2 That a manifest hereticke cannot be the Pope.
3 That an hereticke loosing faith, and retaining the Character still, is yet without the Chuch.
4 That the Pope cannot be deposed for igno∣rance or wickednes.
5 That the Pope may not bee deposed by the Church.
The fift opinion is true, that the Pope being a manifest hereticke, ceases of himselfe to be Pope and head of the Church: as of himselfe he ceases to be a Christian and member of the Church; and there∣fore that he may be iudged and punished by the Church. Bellarmine 2. b. of 3. Gener. Contro. chap. 30. pag. 317.
IT is the opinion of some Catholikes,* 1.27 as Iodocus Clictonaeus reporteth, that Mahumet was that Anti∣christ properly called, because he came about the yeare 666. as Iohn foretold. But this reason of theirs is friuolous, Bellarm. third booke of the Pope, chap. 3. pag. 346.
I Cannot enough maruell what Bishop Iansenius meant,* 1.28 in that he wrote that although it be the opinion of all the auncient, that Elias shall come, yet that it is not conuinced out of that place in Ecclesi∣asticus, chap. 48.10. for if it be so as Iansenius saith, it followes that Ecclesiasticus both is, and hath written false. Bellarm. in 3. b. c. 6. pag. 357.
ONe doubt remaines,* 1.29 whether by the cruell per∣secution of Antichrist, the Christian faith and Religion shall be vtterly extinguished: Dominicus a Soto defends it in 4. booke of sentences, d. 46. q. 1. art. 1. But this opinion in my iudgement cannot be defen∣ded. Bellarmine l. 3 chap. 17. pag. 417.
COncerning the Popes certainety of iudgement,* 1.30 there are foure diuers opinions. The first is, that the Pope as Pope may be an hereticke in himselfe, and may teach others heresie, although he define something euen with a generall Councell: This is the opinion of all the heretickes of this time, Luther, Caluin, &c.
The second that the Pope as Pope may be an he∣reticke, and teach heresie if he define without a gene∣rall Councell, and that it hath so happened. This o∣pinion followes Nilus in his booke against the Pri∣macy of the Pope. Io. Gerson, and Almaine: Alphonsus de Castro, and Pope Adrian the sixt, in the quaest. of confirmation: which opinion is not meerely hereti∣call, but is erroneous and neare to heresie.
The third in an other extreame, That the Pope
cannot by any meanes be an hereticke, nor teach he∣resie, publiquely, though he should alone determine any matter. So holds Albert Pighius B. 4. of Eccles. Hierar. c. 8.
The fourth, That the Pope whether he may be an heretick or no, cannot by any meanes define any he∣reticall point to be beleeued of the whole Church. This, which is the commonest opinion, holds Thomas 22. quaest. 1. art. 10. Tho. Waldensis, l. 2. of the Doctr. of faith, ch. 47. Io. de Turrecremata, Io. Driedo, Caietane, Ho∣sius, Eckius, Io. of Louan, Petrus a Soto, &c. Bellarm. B. 4. of the Pope, ch. 2. pag. 473.
THat prayer of Christ for Peters faith, that it might not faile, is expounded:* 1.31
1 By the Parisian Diuines, That the Lord prayed for his vniuersall Church, or for Peter as he bore the figure of the whole Church, which exposition is false.
2 Others that liue at this day teach; That the Lord in this place prayed for the perseuerance of Pe∣ter alone in the grace of God, vntill the end, confu∣ted by foure arguments.
3 The third exposition is true; That the Lord obtained for Peter two priuiledges: One, that hee should neuer loose the true faith, though neuer so much tempted; The other, that he as Pope should
neuer teach any thing against the faith. Bell. b. 4. ch 3. pag. 477.
NOt only the heretickes, but some Catho∣licke Doctors,* 1.32 haue held Pope Honorius to haue been an hereticke, so doth Melchior Canus from the two Epistles of Honorius himselfe to Sergius, wherein he approoues the do∣ctrine of the Monothelites: from the 6. Synod, Act. 13. seuenth Synod. Act. last, eighth Synod, Act. 7. From the Epistle of Pope Agatho, from the Epistle of Pope Leo 2. from Tharasius, Theodorus, Epiphanius the Deacon, Bede, &c. But in the behalfe of Honorius haue written Albert Pighius, Hosius, Io. of Louan, Onu∣phrius: Bellarm. B. 4. ch. 11. pag. 519.
ALphonsus de Castro affirmes flatly,* 1.33 that Pope Cele∣stinus was an hereticke; the first Booke of
heres. chap. 4. for that he held Matrimony so dissolued by heresie, that he whose wife was proued hereti∣call, might marry againe: Contrary to which is taught by Pope Innocentius [3. ch. Quanto. of diuorces] and the same is defined in the Councell of Trent [Sess. 4. Canon. 5.] But I answer that neither Celestinus nor Innocentius determine any certainty of that matter. Bellarm. l. 4. c. 14. pag. 545.
* 1.34POpe Nicholas the third defines, that Christ by his word and example taught perfect pouerty, which consists in the abdication of all our substance; no power of it being left to a man, either in particular or common; and that such pouerty is holy and me∣ritorious: But Pope Iohn. 20. in his extrauagants teaches this to be false and hereticall: Io. de Turre∣cremata goes about wholly to reconcile these two Popes: but in truth, if I be not much deceiued, they cannot be in all things reconciled. Bellarm. b. 4. chap. 14. pag. 546.
* 1.35THat Pope Iohn. 22. was an hereticke in teaching that the soules of the blessed shall not see God
till the resurrection, is affirmed by Gul. Occam. Adrian, Erasmus, Io. Gerson. He thought so indeede, but then it was not heresie, so to thinke, because no Councell had defined the question, and Io. Villanus reports, that the day before his death, he partly explaned, and part∣ly recanted his opinion. Bellarmine same chapter and booke. pag. 548.
OF the inward iurisdiction in the Court of con∣science;* 1.36 there is some dissention amongst our Authors: for Abulensis * 1.37 holds this power giuen to all Priests immediately from God, when they are or∣dained: now that yet notwithstanding this, euery Priest cannot bind or loose whatsoeuer Christians, is therefore ordered, because the Church to take a∣way confusion hath diuided Diocesses; and subiected one people to one Bishop, another to another. But Io. de Turrecremata ❀ 1.38 teaches that this power is not giuen of God by the force of ordination, but by man vpon his meere iniunction. Bellarm. B. 4. c. 22. p. 589.
HOw Bishops receiue their iurisdiction,* 1.39 there are three opinions amongst our Diuines. The first, that as well Apostles as other Bishops, did, and doe receiue it immediatly from God. So teach Francis∣cus
Victoria, and Alphonsus de Castro. The second of those that hold, the Apostles not to haue receiued their iurisdiction from Christ, but from Peter; and Bishops not from Christ, but Peters successor. So Io. de Turrecremata and Dominicus Iacobatius. The third of them, which teach, that the Apostles indeed recei∣ued all their authority immediately from Christ; but other Bishops receiued it not from Christ, but from the Pope: so holds Caietane, Dominicus a Soto, Franciscus Vargas, Herbaeus, Gabriell, Bonauenture, Al∣bert, Durand. and others. Bellarm. B. 4. c. 22. p. 590.
* 1.40OF the Popes temporall power, are three opini∣ons of authors: First that the Pope hath full po∣wer ouer all the world, both in spirituall things and temporall. So teach August. Triumphus, Aluarus Pe∣lagius, and many Lawyers, Hostiensis, Siluester, and o∣thers not a few: yea Hostiensis goes further, and tea∣ches, that all dominion of Infidell Princes, is by Christs comming translated to the Church, and rests in the Pope.
The second in another extreame, that the Pope as Pope and by the law of God hath no temporall po∣wer, nor can any way rule ouer secular Princes, and depriue them of their Prince-dome, though they de∣serue it. So all the heretickes.
The third, which is the meane betwixt both, is the commonest opinion of Catholike Diuines, that the Pope as Pope hath not directly and imme∣diately any temporall power, but onely spirituall; yet in respect to his spirituall iurisdiction, that hee hath at least indirectly a certaine power, and that su∣preame, euen in temporall things. So teach Hugo, Halensis, Durandus, Henricus, Driedo, Turrecremata, Pighius, Waldensis, Petrus de Palude, Caietane, Francis Victoria, Dominicus a Soto, Nicholas Saunders, &c. What Thom. Aquinas thinkes of this temporall po∣wer of the Pope, is vncertaine. Bellar. l. 5. c. 1. pag. 600.
ONuphrius writes,* 1.41 that the appointment of the E∣lectors of the Romane Empire, was done by Gre∣gorie the tenth, but Innocent. 3. which was before Gre∣gorie 10. speakes of this Institution, and Hostiensis that was likewise before him, saith, that Innocentius speaks of the seuen Electors: and Aluarus Pelagius, who li∣ued in the memorie of Gregorie 10. reports this to haue beene the act of Gregorie 5. Bellarm. l. 5. c. 8. p. 633.
* 1.42THE beginning of Councels Albertus Pighius in his 6. B. of the heauenly Hierarchy ch. 1. defends
to be altogether humane and deuised by naturall rea∣son; But it is more probable that it is Diuine, for the Councell of Chalcedon in an Epistle to Leo, and the sixt Synod, Act. 17 and Pope Celestine in an Epi∣stle to the Councell of Ephesus, and the third Coun∣cell of Toledo, teach that Councels are imported in those words of Christ, Matth. 18. Wheresoeuer two or three, &c. Bellarm. de concil. & Eccles. milit. lib. 1. c. 3. pag. 25.
SOme Catholickes hold,* 1.43 that all Bishops are not Iudges in Councels, for then (say they) the Pope should be bound, who is president in the Councell, to follow the greater part of Bishops; but this is false, as appeares in the practises of Damasus and Leo.
I answere first, that perhaps it neuer fell so out, that the Pope should follow the lesser part in the Coun∣cell, when they haue giuen their voices without all fraud. Secondly I say, that the President of the Councell, as President, must follow the greater part of the voyces; but the Pope not as President, but as the chiefe Prince of the Church, may recall and re∣tract that iudgement. So Io. de Turrecremata [lib. 3. c. 6.3.] and Canus [lib. 5. c. 5] Bellarm. ibid. ch. 18. p. 81.
THat particular Councels confirmed by the Pope cannot erre in faith,* 1.44 and man∣ners, there are some Catholickes that de∣nie: which as yet are not by the Church condemned for Heretickes: But surely it is rash, er∣roneous, and neare to heresie, to affirme that parti∣cular Councels confirmed by the Pope may erre. Bellarmine, l. 2. ch. 5. p. 114.
IT is a very vncertaine thing,* 1.45 what was decreede of Images in the Councell of Francford; for the an∣cient authors agree not with themselues: by reason of this confusion, Alanus Copus in his fourth and fift Dialogue, teaches, that in that Synod of Francford the hereticall Councell of Constantinople was one∣ly condemned: the Nicene not onely not condem∣ned, but confirmed: which opinion I wish to be true, but I suspect it to be false. Bellarmine ibid. chap. 8. pag. 137.
SOme answere,* 1.46 as Vega in the Councell of Trent [b. 3. c. 39.] that any Councell is lawfull, if held by the faithfull, not for that Historians witnes so, but because the Councell it selfe defineth so of it selfe; for they vse euer in the beginning of their act, so to determine their meeting lawfull, and in the Holy Ghost. But sure this answere is not found; for first the auncient Councels had not wont to witnesse so of themselues. Secondly, eyther it appeares to vs, that the Councell is a lawfull one; or it appeares not: if it do appeare, such a Decree is in vaine, if it doe not appeare, we shall as well doubt of that De∣cree, as of the Councel. Bellarmine same booke, cap. 9. pag. 148.
OF generall Councels there are diuers opinions amongst vs.* 1.47 First the Diuines of Paris, and all those which teach, that the Councell is a∣boue the Pope, thinke that lawfull generall Coun∣cels cannot erre, euen before the confirmation of the Pope. Contrary to these, teach others, as Caietane [in Apolog.] Io. Turrecremata,* 1.48 [lib. 3. cap. 32.33, 34.]
But when Councels define something with the consent of the Popes Legates, not hauing had full in∣struction: what authority they haue, is stil in contro∣uersie. But I thinke such a Councell may erre, be∣fore the popes owne confirmation. Canus and others hold the contrary. Bellarm. l. 2. c. 11. p. 153.
GRatian dist. 19. affirmes,* 1.49 that the decretall Epistles of popes ought to be numbred amongst the Ca∣nonicall Scriptures, and Di. 20. he saith, that the Ca¦nons of Councels are of the same authority with Decretall Epistles; and pope Gregorie in his first B. Epist. 24. saith, he reuerences the foure first Coun∣cels, as the foure Euangelists. I answere first, that Gratian was deceiued by a depraued copy, which he followed, &c. As for Gregorie, I answere that his (As) doth not signifie equality, but similitude. Bellarm. l. 2. c. 12. pag. 161.
IN this question,* 1.50 Whether the pope be aboue the Councell, I finde three opinions of our Do∣ctors. First, that the Councell is aboue the pope: so affirm al the hereticks of this time: and the same is taught by Card. Cameracensis, Io. Gerson, Iacob. Almaine, and some others: Also Nicol. Cusanus, Card. Panormi∣tanus,
and his Master the Cardinall of Florence, and Abulensis in cap. 18. of Matthew, q. 108. This opini∣on hath two grounds.
1 That the Pope is not properly the head of the whole Church, gathered together.
2 That the supreame power of the Church is as well in the Councell, as in the Pope; but in the Councell principally, immediately, and immoue∣ably: And in the defence of this point, these Au∣thors againe differ from themselues, whiles some hold this power formally and subiectiuely in the Pope; and finally in the Church. Others will haue it formally and principally in the Church; and in∣strumentally in the Pope.
Second opinion is of some Canonists, which will haue the Pope aboue the Councell, and that he cannot vpon constraint be iudged by any; but that he may subiect himselfe (if he will) to the Councell. So teacheth the Glosse. in Canon. Nossi, &c.
The third is the more common opinion, That the Pope is so aboue the Councell, that he cannot sub∣iect himselfe vnto the iudgement thereof; if we speake of a coactiue sentence: So al the old Schoole∣men hold; Albert, Thomas, Bonauenture, Richard Palu∣danusa 1.51, so b 1.52 Antoninus,c 1.53 Turrecremata, d 1.54 Al. Pelagius, Iacobatius, Caietane, Pighius, Turrianus, and Saunders, and many other there mentioned. Bellarmine, l. 2. c. 13. pag. 166.
THat which the Councell of Basill defined of the authority of the Councell aboue the Pope,* 1.55 was neuer by any Pope allowed. Pope Eugenius first did professedly reiect it: then Pope Leo the tenth, in the last Councell of Lateran. Sess. 11. as also the whole Church, which euer held Eugenius (who by the councell of Basill was deposed) for the true Pope. Bel∣larm. lib. 2. cap. 19. pag. 186. where Io. Gerson is by him confuted.
THe Author of the booke de Dog. Eccl. c. 74. openly saith,* 1.56 that Nouices in Religion dying before their baptisme cannot be saued: but this seemes o∣uerhard: Melchior Canus holds they may be saued; because though they be not of the christian Church, yet they are of that Church, that comprehends all faithfull ones, from Abel to the end of the world. But this satisfies not: I answere, that this rule, No man without the Church can be saued, is to be vn∣derstood of those which neither indeede, nor in de∣fire are of the Church. Bellarmine, lib. 3. cap. 3. pag. 159.
ALphonsus de Castro [in his second booke of the iust punishment of heretickes,* 1.57 chap. 34.] teaches that heretickes and Apostates, if once baptized are members and parts of the Church, although they o∣penly professe false Doctrine: which opinion, as it is plainely false, so may easily be refuted. Bellarm. l. 3. c. 4. p. 196.
* 1.58SOme Catholiks doubt concerning Schismaticks, whether they be of the Church: yea Alphonsus de Castro flatly affirmes them to be of the Church; but it is easie to shew the contrary out of Scriptures and traditions of the Fathers. Bellarmine, l. 3. c. 5. where also he holds the definition which pope Nicholas giues of the church to be imperfect. p. 200.203.
THat persons excommunicate are not of the church,* 1.59 is taught by the Catechisme of Rome, by Tho. Waldensis, Io. de Turrecremata, Io. Driedo, and some others. The contrary
is defended by others: whose three obiections are answered by Bellarmine. Bellarm. lib. 3. cap. 6. pag. 205.
FOr answering of that place of Austen l. 2. against Cresconius,* 1.60 that notorious wicked men are not of the Church; not only Brentius and Caluin heretikes, but some Catholikes, faine two Churches, and they doe but faine them indeede; for neyther Scripture nor Austen euer mention more then one. Bellarm. l. 3. c. 9. p. 229.
THat close Infidels,* 1.61 that haue neyther faith nor any other Christian vertue, yet externally for some temporall commodity, professe the Catholike faith, belong not to the true Church, is taught, not onely by the Caluinists,* 1.62 but by some of our Catho∣likes; amongst whom is Io. de Turrecremata, l. 4. de Eccles. But we follow their phrase of speech, which say, that those, who by an externall profession onely are ioyned to the faithfull, are true parts of the body of the Church, though drie and dead. Bellarm. l. 3. c. 10. pag. 232.
THere are some Catholike Doctors,* 1.63 which teach, in the passion of our Lord, there remained true faith in none, but the blessed Virgin alone: and that they hold to be signified by that one candle, which alone is kept light in the third night before Easter. So holds Alexander Alensis [3. p. q. vlt. art. 2.] and Iohn de Turrecremata [l. 1. de Eccles. c. 30.] But I wonder at Turrecremata, who for so slight an argu∣ment from a candle, saith, it is against the faith of the Vniuersall Church to affirme otherwise. For Ruper∣tus in his 5. booke of Diuine offices, chap. 26. sayeth, that in his time, the last candle also had wont to bee quenched. It may be answered rather with Abulen∣sis, that by this candle is signified, that onely in the blessed Virgin; there was for those three dayes an explicit faith of the resurrection. Bellarmine l. 3. c. 17. pag. 27.
* 1.64IF there were no constitution for the choice of the Pope, and all the Cardinals should perish at once: the question is, in whom should be the right of the Election. Some hold, that the right of the choyce (setting aside the positiue law) should belong to the
Councell of Bishops: as Caietane in his treatise of the power of the Pope and Councell, chap. 13. Fran∣ciscus Victoria, Relect. 2. q. 2. of the power of the Church: others (as Siluester reports, in the word ex∣communication) teach, that it pertaines to the Cler∣gy of Rome. Bellarm. in his first booke of the mem∣bers of the Church militant. c. 10. p. 52.
TO that obiection out of Ierome,* 1.65 who saith vpon the first to Titus, that a presbiter is the same with a Bishop; is answered by Antonius Delphinus (l. 2. of the Church) that in the beginning of the church all Presbiters were Bishops. But this satisfies not. Mi∣chael Medina [in his first booke de sacr. hom. Origine] affirmes, that S. Ierome held the same opinion with the Aerian heretickes, and that not onely Ierome was in this heresie, but also Ambrose, Austen, Sedulius, Pri∣masius, Chrisostom. Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophilact. The opinion of these men was condemned, first in Aerius, then in the Waldenses, and after in Wickliffe. But this opinion of Medina is very inconsiderate. Bellarm. same booke, c. 15. p. 75.
THe opinion of Onuphrius concerning the names or titles of Cardinals,* 1.66 see confuted by Bellarmine in the same booke, c. 16. p. 82.
* 1.67IOhannes Maior holds, that the vow of single life of Priests, stands by the law of God, and therefore cannot be dispensed with: So also Iod. Clictonaeus [in his booke de Contin. Sacerd.] who there defends two opinions which cannot hold together: but S. Tho∣mas [in 2.2. q. 88. art. 11.] saith plainely, that the vow of continency, is onely by the decree of the Church, annexed to holy orders, and therefore may be dis∣pensed with: the same teaches Caietane in opusc. and Sotus in his seuenth booke of Iustice, &c. Bellarm. lib. 1. cap. 18. pag. 92.
* 1.68ERasmus in a declamation of the praise of Matri∣monie, holds it profitable, that liberty of mari∣age should be granted to Priests: and the same is taught by Card. Panormitan, a Catholike and learned Doctor (in the Chapt. Cum olim.) Against these er∣rors we are to proue, that the vow of continency is so annexed to holy orders, that they neyther may marry, nor conuerse with their wiues formerly mar∣ried. Bellarm. same booke, c. 19. p. 95.
THe fourth error is of many of the canonists,* 1.69 which hold, that tithes, euen according to the determi∣nation of quantity, stand by the Law of God; and that no other quantity can be set downe by any hu∣mane law or custome: So the Glosse, Innocentius, Pa∣normitan, Hostiensis; but doubtlesse it is a manifest er∣rour, as not onely all Diuines, but some Canonists also teach, as Syluester in the word Decima, quaest. 4. and Nauar. cap. 21. And herein many of the Canonists offend double: once, in that they defend a falshood; Twise, in that they doe almost condemne all those Diuines as heretickes, which hold the contrary. Bel∣larm. same booke c. 25. p. 145.
WHether the Precept of Tithes,* 1.70 as it is Po∣sitiue and Humane, may by custome bee altered, is doubtfull.
Sotus holdes directly it cannot,
booke 9. quaest. 4. art. 1. and thinkes that this is the iudgement of Aquinaes. But I thinke with Siluester and Nauarre, that it may, and I doubt not, but this is the opinion of Aquinas. Bellarm. ibid. p. 148.
THomas Waldensis teaches,* 1.71 that Clerkes should ey∣ther giue their goods to the poore, or lay them together in common; and proues it by some sen∣tences of Fathers, Origen, Hierome, Bernard. But it is certaine that Clerkes are not by their profession, tyed to put away their patrimony. Bellarmine same booke, c. 27. p. 156.
IN the question concerning the liberty of Ecclesi∣asticall persons,* 1.72 are three opinions: First is of ma∣ny heretickes, that Clerkes are and should be subiect to secular powers, both in payment of tributes, and in iudgements, especially not Ecclesiasticall: So also Marsilius of Padua, and Io. de Ianduno teach, that Christ himselfe was not free from paying tribute, and that he did it not voluntarily, but of necessity, as is reported by Turrecremata.
The second opinion in another extreame, is of
many Canonists, who hold that by the Law of God, Clerkes and their goods are free from the power of secular Princes: so teaehes the Glosse, in Can. Tribu∣tum: and of this minde seemes Io. Driedonius to be in his booke of Christian liberty, ch. 9.
The third in the meane, is of many Diuines, that clerkes are free partly by the law of God, partly by the law of men, and partly neyther way: so thinkes Franciscus Victoria, Dominicus a Soto, Couarruuias in his booke of practicall quaestions. Bellarmine same booke cap. 28. where he disputes against the Cano∣nists, confutes Cornelius Iansenius, and followes Tosta∣tus and Caietane in the exposition of Austen, and lastly, refels Dominicus a Soto, &c. pag. 159.166.167.
IT is a question among Diuines,* 1.73 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. Bel∣larmine Controu. 5. Gener. b. 2. c. 19.1. De membr. Eccles. militant. pag. 278.
* 1.74ALthough Saint Thomas doth not admit an abso∣lute vow of virginity, in the blessed Virgin, be∣fore 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 celebrati∣on of her true marriage; if it be supposed (as all Di∣uines doe) that it was reuealed to her, that Saint Io∣seph should neuer require of her matrimoniall bene∣uolence. Bellarm. ibid. c. 22. p. 296.
WHether after a solemne vow made,* 1.75 matrimo∣ny 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 vt∣terly 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 re∣porteth) affirme, that such mariage is onely voyde by
the law of the Church. Bellarm. ibid. c. 34. p. 378.
OF the fourth are two extreame errors:* 1.76 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 iudge∣ment inclineth Claudius Espencaeus in his sixt b. ch 4. of Contin. Another errour in the contrary ex∣treme, that mariage, thogh fully consummate, is dis∣solued by entring into Religion: So decreed Iustini∣an 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.
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,* 1.77 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.
* 1.78THere 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 Pur∣gatorie, because it is there wholly punished; but mor¦tall sinne is not said to be forgiuen after this life, be∣cause 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 pa∣tience, &c. Bellarm. 6. controu. gener. of Purgat. l. 1. c. 14. p. 84.
SOme Catholikes,* 1.79 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 purgato∣rie: so also Bonauenture, Scotus, Durand, and others. Bellarm. ibid. l. 2. c. 3. p. 106.
THe third question is,* 1.80 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 Carthu∣sianus to hold, by reason of certaine visions, which he reports; and so teaches Michael Baij in his 2. b. of me∣rit of workes, ch. 8. This way seemes to tend the opi∣nion of Io. Gerson, lect. 1. of spirituall life, and Io. of Ro∣chester against the 32. artic. of Luther. who hold veni∣all sinne to be onely vpon the mercy of God: and therefore that it may (if God so will) be eternally pu∣nished, &c. But the common opinion of Diuines is, That all soules in purgatory are certaine of their sal∣uation. Bellarm. ibid. c. 4. p. 108.
* 1.81IN the first question concerning the number of pla∣ces, there is great difficultie; for on the one side all Diuines teach, that there are no other receptacles beside the foure mentioned; and the Councell of Florence (Ses. vlt.) defines,* 1.82 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 be∣leeue; 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.* 1.83 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.
IF this history of Traian should be defended,* 1.84 we must say, that Traian was not absolutely condem∣ned to hell, but onely punished in hell according to his present demerite, and that the sentence was sus∣pended by reason of Gregories prayers foreseene by God; and therfore that he was not immediatly trans∣lated 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, notwith∣standing the Apology which Alphonsus Ciaconus hath 3. years agoe published, for this story. Bel. ib. c. 8. p. 124.
OF the damned I say:* 1.85 that he that is absolutely damned to eternal punishmēt cannot be recal∣led
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 instan∣ces brought, Sotus answers, that those Heathens were onely inuincibly ignorant, and therefore in Purga∣torie: but I say, that those which were raysed, though they did deserue eternall damnation, yet were not condemned, but that their iudgement was suspen∣ded,* 1.86 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.
BEsides these errours;* 1.87 it was the opinion of Domi∣nicus 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.
COncerning the third doubt,* 1.88 'it is altogether vn∣certaine; 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.
ALthough all men graunt in some sort,* 1.89 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 plea∣seth me best, for &c. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 14. pag. 138.
NEither ought any man to doubt,* 1.90 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 in∣tercession 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.
THat the dead do good to the liuing,* 1.91 it is manifest: for 2. Macab. 15. we read that Onias and Hieremi∣as long before departed, were seene to pray for the people of the Iewes then aliue: Neither is it incre∣dible, 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 superflu∣ous 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.
ONe doubt remaines,* 1.92 whether the restitution of a thing detained, profit the dead, and so become a fourth kind of suffrage: for the soules of the depar∣ted are said to haue often appeared, and intreated for restitution of those things, which either they had for∣gotten, 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 commit∣ted in our life time.
As to those apparitions, I answere, that perhaps those soules doe not desire restitution, as it is restitu∣tion, 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 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.
* 1.93IT is the iust man onely, that can helpe soules by his suffrages: for the vniust can∣not satisfie for himselfe, much lesse for o∣thers. 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 vp∣pon better grounds denies it, in the same place. quaest 2. art. 2. Bellarm. ibid. c. 17. p. 147.
BVt our Diuines dissent about particular suffrages:* 1.94 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 par∣ticular 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 be∣tweene both these; that particular suffrages profite all them, and them onely (as in the nature of satisfa∣ction) for whom they are made. Bellarmine ibid. ch. 18. pag. 151.
Guilielmus de Sancto Amore,* 1.95 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.
ANother error was,* 1.96 that of Gulielmus de Sancto A∣more, 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.
* 1.97ERasmus, Cornelius Agrippa, Io. Ferus haue in our dayes reuiued that opinion of the Ma∣nichees, that warre is not lawfull for Christians, holding herein with the Anabaptists. Bellarm. l. de Laicis. c 14. p. 476.
COncerning the place where Purgatorie is,* 1.98 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 punish∣ment.
The eight is, the common opinion of Schoole∣men, That Purgatorie is in the bowels of the earth, neare to hell. Bellarm. l. 1. of Purgat. cap. 6. pag. 117.118.
THE Schoolemen inquire,* 1.99 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 glo∣ry in intention, they doe not agree: for Peter Lom∣bard in his 4. of Sent. d. 49. And Saint Thomas vpon the same place: And Saint Bonauenture, and Richar∣dus, and Marsilius say, that the essentiall glory shall then be greater in very measure, and degrees of in∣tention: 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 ac∣cording 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.
NEyther doth it hinder much,* 1.100 that the Fathers haue seldome mentioned (Dulia seruice) for when they say, that Images and Saints are to be wor∣shipped, 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 Pere∣sius [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.
How the Saints know what we aske of them,* 1.101 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 ney∣ther 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,* 1.102 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 re∣uealed by God to them, when we vtter them. And of these two latter, the first seemes to me to be sim∣ply the more likely: for if the Saints euer needed new reuelations, the Church would not so confi∣dently 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.
THE second opinion,* 1.103 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 tea∣cheth, that not euery Image or Idoll is there forbid∣den, 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.
* 1.104THE 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 A∣bulensis [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 * 1.105. Ambrosius Ca∣tharinus ❀ 1.106, Diegus, Payua, Nicholas Saunders, Thomas Waldensis. Bellarmine ibid. ch. 8. p. 179.
BEsides it must be noted,* 1.107 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 Coun∣cell 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 con∣clude 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 en∣tirely cyted. Bellarmine same booke, chap. 8. pag. 182.
PAyua answeres,* 1.108 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 hand∣led by the persecutors. This answere is good. Ala∣nus Copus in B. 5. of Dialog. ch. 16 saith, that Images are here forbidden, because they began to be wor∣shipped 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 rea∣sons of the Canon. Others say, that there is only for∣bidden 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.
OF the last question,* 1.109 what manner of worshippe Images are worthy of, there are three opinions: First, that the Image is no way in it selfe to be wor∣shipped, 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 Alphon∣sus 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 Hyper∣dulia, 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 o¦pinion 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 ther∣fore that no Image is to be worshipped with Latria: so holds: Martinus, Peresius, Ambrosius, Catharinus, Ni∣cholas Saunders, Gabriell. Bellarm. ibid. c. 20. p. 235.236.237. &c.
What shift Bellarmine makes to reconcile the se∣cond opinion; by adoration improperly, and by ac∣cident, See the same booke, c. 23. p. 242.
PEresius answers, that it is not true,* 1.110 that we are ca∣ried with the same motion of the heart to the I∣mage, 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 vn∣derstanding 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 re∣spects, as eyther of them is made the principall, or in∣direct obiect. Bellarm. ibid. c. 24. p. 246.
* 1.111THomas 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 parc••ls, shall then be renewed, and gathered vp to∣gether, and shall appeare in heauen. The same seemes to be affirmed by Sibilla and Chrysostome; and the o∣ther fathers doe not contradict it. But if this be not admitted, at least the bright Image of the Crosse shal appeare out of the ayre, or fire condensated, as Abu∣lensis, Iansenius, and others teach. Bellarm. ib. c. 28. p. 260
* 1.112SOme of our latter writers thinke, that sacred hou∣ses 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 there∣in offred to Peter, but because it is offred to God in thankesgiuing, for the glory bestowed on Saint Pe∣ter; and he is there cald vppon, as our Patrone and aduocate with God. Another answere admits ho∣ly houses, truely and properly built to the Saints, but not in the nature of Temples,* 1.113 but as royall Monu∣ments, or memories of them. Bellarmine lib. 3. cap. 4. pag. 299.
WE are not bound by any peculiar precept,* 1.114 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.
THe second thing required to a Sacrament of the new law,* 1.115 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 Guli∣elmus 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 spiritu∣all matter, as if he should appoint that a mental pray∣er, 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.
COncerning the definition of a Sacrament,* 1.116 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 So∣tus. Some that it may be properly defined: so Marti∣nus Ledesmius in tract. of Sacram. Bellarm. ib. c. 10. p. 40.
Non defuerunt etiam qui li∣brum quidem, &c.
Those adi∣tions to Ester, which we re∣iect as Apo∣cryphall.
Ex Catholicis, Iohannes Driedo &c.
Nec solum hae∣retici Pagani & Judaei, &c.
Ecclesia eosli∣bros recipit quos B. Hieron.
Nostris tempo∣ribus Erasmus.
Duae sunt sen∣tentie principa∣les, &c.
Erasmus in an∣notationibus ad has Epistolas, &c.
Erasmus in fine annotationum. &c.
Nec defuerunt olim Catholici qui de huius li∣bri authoritate dubitarent.
Quartus autem Esdrae, &c.
His igitur omis∣sis qui Hebrai∣co fonti nimiam puritatem falso attribuunt, &c.
Non paruae quaestio est, &c.
De postrema, &c.
Hunc locum non solum Chemniti∣us, sed, &c.
Thomas Caie∣tanus in tract. de Instit. &c.
Tres esse spiri∣tus aeternus, &c.
Sed ocurrunt Arriani Transsil∣uani, & Eras∣mus, &c.
Quartus error est Durandi, &c
B. Thomas, &c. Docet Christum per realem, &c.
Nic. Lyranus non tantae auto∣ritatis est, &c.
Quod ante Nicenum, &c.
Quod fabula sit narratio Martini, &c.
Decimussextus est Celest.
Gregor. 1. in Epist. 26. ad Johan. Carahta∣num.
Primo ex Gra∣tiano.
Sunt de hac re quinque opini∣ones, &c.
Huc referri po∣test opinio quorundam Ca∣tholicorum, vt refert Iodoc. Clict. &c.
Quo loco non possum satis, &c.
Vnum superest dubium, Anne, &c.
Quatuor tan∣tum remanent diuersae, &c.
Qui locus tri∣bus modis expo∣ni solet, &c.
Nec solum hae∣retici.
Tricesimus ter∣tius est Celesti∣nus 3. quem Al∣phonsus, &c.
Nicolaus 3. qui in capite Ex••st. de verborum significatione in sexto definit.
Iohannes 22. Papa a multis reprehenditur.
De secunda est quidem aliqua dissensio inter authores, &c.
Jn-defensorio p. 2. c. 63.
l. 1. Sum. c. 96
Sunt tres de ea¦re Theologorum sententiae.
De qua &c. tres inueniuntur au∣ct••rum sententiae &c.
Onuphrium in libro de comitijs imperialibus contra commu∣nem Histori∣corum sententi∣am scripsisse &c.
Hanc autem originem, &c.
Secundo abqui Catholici obij, &c.
Concilia par∣ticularia, &c.
Rem esse incer∣tissimam, &c.
Respondent quidam, vt Ve∣ga, &c.
De Concilijs vn∣uersalibus, &c.
P. 2. c. 21
Gratianus dist. &c.
De proposita quaestione tres &c.
In 4. d. 19.
3. p. tit. 22. c. 10.
L. 2. c. 93. &c
De planctu Ec cle. l. 1. c. 93.
Quae autem definiuit.
Author libri de Eccl.
Haereticos & A∣postatas baptiz. Alphonsus, &c.
Deschismaticis, &c.
De excommuni∣catis quod in Eccles. &c.
Propter haec loca &c.
Restant infideles occulti, &c.
So Thomas Waldensis, Io. Driedo, Peter a Soto, Hosius, Canus, & others.
Non desunt eti∣am Catholici qui dicant, &c.
Si nulla extaret &c.
Sexta obiectio ex S. Hieronimo in com. &c.
Onuphrius in li∣bro de Cardina∣lium Titulis &c
Ac vt a primo incipiamus, Io. Maior, &c.
Praeterea Eras∣mus, &c.
Quartus error est multorum Canonistarum.
Dubium autem est, &c.
Thomas VVald. do••et Clericos debere, &c.
Postrema restat quaestio de liber∣tate Eccles.
Quaestionem esse inter Theo∣logos, &c.
Et quamuis, S. Thomas.
Vtrum autem post votum.
De quarto duo sunt errores extremi.
Tertius error est, &c.
Non defuerunt qui, &c.
Argumentum tertium quo∣rundam Catholi∣corum.
Tertia quaestio nunc, &c.
Quantum ad primum, difficul∣tas, &c.
Quod ••am qua∣si pratum flo∣rentissimum lu∣cidissimum, odo∣ratis, amaenum.
Mitissimum purgatorium, & quasi carcer quidam Senato∣rius, & honora∣tus.
Si haec historia, &c.
De damnatis similiter dico, &c.
In 4-sent. di. 45.
Praeter hos erro∣res, &c.
De tertio Dubio &c.
Quamuis au∣tem aliquo modo &c.
Nec vlli dubium esse debet, &c.
Quod autem mortui, &c.
Vnum hic solun dubium, &c.
Qui potest suf∣fragijs, &c.
At dissentiunt de suffragijs ••••••••••••ularibus, &c.
Quarta expos. &c.
Alter error fuit Gul. &c.
Eandem haere∣sin nostro saeculo, &c.
Quaestio quarta sequitur ••vbi sit Purgat.
Est autem hic notandum scholasticos, &c.
Ne{que} obstat quod esti Patres, &c.
De modo autem quo cognoscunt, &c.
3. par. q. 10. ar. 2
Secunda opinio, &c.
Quarta opinie, &c.
3. Part. q. 25. art. 3.
Lib. de cultu imaginum, &c.
Praeterea notan∣dum est Bartol. &c.
Ad secundum Payua responder.
Venio nunc ad postremam quae∣stionem &c.
Peresius respon∣det.
Et quidem Tho. VValdensis,
Prima quorun∣dam recentio∣rum, qui &c.
Basilicae vel me∣moriae.
Non tenemur diebus festis, &c
Secundum est vt hoc, &c.
Tres sunt docto∣rum sent entiae, &c.