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.
THE definition of a Sa∣crament is so canua∣sed by Bellarmine,* 1.1 as that he reiecteth two of Augustines, seconded also by Hugo, B. 1. part. 9. ch. 2. Bernard in his Sermon of the Lords Supper: Tho. Waldensis, Tom. 2. ch. 20. as alto∣gether
imperfect. Also Hugoes definition as too long: Gratians (cyted by him from Gregorie, but in∣deed from Isidore) as onely an explication of the word, not the matter; Peter Lombards as wanting somewhat, or rather intricately infolding it, and al∣lowes onely the definition of the Councell of Trent, as most accurate; (definitio pulcherrima est) Bellarm. ibid. c. 11. p. 43.44. &c.
* 1.2HEre be two opinions of Diuines: the first of the master of Sentences [B. 4. d. 1.] and vpon that place: Albertus, Thomas, Bonauenture, and others, who teach, that no definition can directly and properly agree to the Sacraments of both the olde and newe law, but that they all agree properly to the Sacra∣ments of the new; imperfectly and by proportion onely to the Sacraments of the olde. Another opi∣nion is, of Saint Thomas 3. part. q. 60. art. 1. (for hee manifestly changed his opinion) as also of Dominicus▪ a Soto, and Martin Ledesmius, who teach, that this definition, The signe of an holy thing, doth directly and vniuocally agree to the Sacraments of both olde and new law: Either sentence partly pleases, and part∣ly displeases me. Bellarm. ibid. c. 12. pag. 45.
THere be diuers opinions of Doctors,* 1.3 the first of certaine of our late writers, who hold, that pro∣perly the matter and forme in the Sacraments, is not the thing and wordes, but that some sensible thing is the matter, whether it be substance or word, or both: and that the signification is the forme. So Domini∣cus a Soto [vpon 4. dist. 1. q. 1. ar. 1.] and Caietane seemes to affirme the same with very little difference. Ano∣ther opinion is, of them which teach, that the very Sacrament it selfe, and not onely the materiall part of it, consists of the thinges, as the matter; and words, as the forme: So Saint Thomas 3. part. q. 60. ar. 6. and the auncient Diuines in common. Others a∣gaine hold, that all Sacraments doe not consist of things and words, but some onely: so Durandus [vp∣pon 4. dist. 1. q. 3.] and Adrianus [quaest. 2. of Baptis∣me] Others teach, that all Sacraments of the new law consist of thinges and wordes: so Alexander A∣lensis, 4. p. q. 8, &c. and the Diuines commonly. O∣thers lastly thinke, that all Sacraments doe consist of things and words, if they be taken in a large sense, else not. So Dominicus a Soto vpon 4. dist. 1. q. 1. art. 6. Bellarm. ibid. c. 18. pag. 84.
THat which Paludanus saith,* 1.4 [vpon 4. dist. 3. q. 1.] that the Sacrament is not euer made voyde,
when a man intends to bring in a new Rite, is true; but not against S. Thomas, as perhaps he thought. But that which Dominicus a Soto sayth, namely, That the Greekes doe truely baptize, with those wordes, Let the seruant of Christ be baptized, because the Church of Rome tolerates that fashion, &c. But if the Church of Rome should detest that Rite, then they should not baptize truely, is not altogether true, &c. Bellarm. ibid. c. 21. p. 118.
OVr aduersaries teach these two things:* 1.5 That the Sacraments which they hold onely two, were instituted by Christ: namely, Baptisme and the Lords Supper; and that the rest were not appointed by Christ: so teach Caluin and Chemnitius: and with them (whom they cyte) Cyprian, Hugo, Peter Lombard, who denie, that all Sacraments were instituted by Christ: They might haue added Alexander Alensis, Saint Bonauenture and Marsilius, who say, that the Sacraments of confirmation and penance, were not instituted by Christ, but by his Apostles. Against this errour the Councell of Trent, set downe, Can. 1. Sess. 7. thus: If any man shall say, that all the Sacra∣ments of the new Testament, were not instituted by Iesus Christ our Lord, let him be accursed; yea im∣mediately instituted by him. Further, that which A∣lexander and Bonauenture teach concerning the Sa∣crament
of confirmation cannot be defended, &c. Bellarm. ibid. c. 23. pag. 127.128, 129. &c.
THere is a new heresie arisen in our time;* 1.6 that the intention of the Minister is not necessarie in the Sacrament. To this opinion of the heretikes Ambrosius Catharinus commeth very neare: neyther can I see, wherein he differs from the opinion of Kemnitius and other heretikes, sauing that in the end of his worke, he subiects himselfe to the Sea-Aposto∣like, and to the Councell, both which they deride. Bellarm. ibid. c. 27. p. 155.
Note, the same which he condemnes for hereti∣call in Catharinus, he graunts to be held by his St. Thomas, in the chapter following, pag. 169.
HEre are two opinions of Diuines: for some,* 1.7 as Caietane and Ledesmius teach, that in the Mini∣ster there is no operatiue vertue, as an efficient and instrumentall cause, as there is in the Sacrament: for in the words of the sacrament there is operatiue ver∣tue, but by dependance on the Minister; for then the wordes haue vertue, when they are conioyned with the vertue, which is in the Minister. Others holde
that the Minister hath in himselfe no efficient power, in respect of iustification, but that is onely in the Sacrament: so Thomas is thought to hold, 3. part. qu. 64. art 1. And that the Minister concurres onely by applying the Sacrament. Bellarm. same booke, c. 27. pag. 163.
* 1.8THe fourth argument is of Catharinus, from the authority of Saint Thomas, Chrysostome, and Pope Nicholas. Of Saint Thomas, who saith, that the in∣tention of the Church expressed in the very forme of wordes, is sufficient to make a perfect Sacrament, neyther is any other intention required on the part of the Minister &c.
And Catharinus addes a reason, that it seemes o∣uerhard, that God should put the saluation of men in the arbitrement of a wicked Minister, and so our iustification should be made vncertaine. This argu∣ment is already answered. How he answereth and confuteth this opinion and authorities of Catharinus, See Bellarmine ibid. c. 28. pag. 169.
THat the Sacraments are true causes of iustifica∣tion;* 1.9 but Morall causes, not naturall (as he that
commands a murder is the true cause of it, though he touch not the partie murdered) is defended by Ledes∣mius and Canus in Relict. de Sacram. And the same seemes to be held by many of the old Schoolemen, Bonauenture, Scotus, Durand, Richardus, Occam, Marsili∣us, Gabriel, who hold, that the Sacraments doe truely iustifie, but yet, that God only doth worke that grace at the presence of the Sacraments, so as the Sacra∣ments are not naturall causes, but such as without which, this effect would not follow. But I hold that the more probable and safe opinion, which attri∣butes a true efficiency to the Sacraments. Bellarm. of the effect of the Sacram. l. 2. c. 11. p. 225.
THere is therefore one question,* 1.10 whether the olde Sacraments (excepting Circumcision) did iusti∣fie actually by the very worke wrought: and there are two opinions: One of the Master of Sent. [in 4. dist. 1] which denies it, for he saith, that those Sacra∣ments did not iustifie, though they were done neuer so much in faith and charity. The other is the com∣mon opinion of Diuines, that all those Sacraments did iustifie, ex opere operantis, that is, vpon the faith and deuotion of the receiuers; and this opinion is most true. Bellarm. ibid. c. 13. pag. 239.
* 1.11OF Circumcision there are two opinions: One of Alexander, and Bonauenture, Scotus, and Gabriel, that Circumcision did confer iustification, ex opere operato, vpon the very act done: which opinion is disproued by many ar∣guments. Where it is yet to be noted, that this opini∣on of theirs doth not fauour the heretickes of our time, for the heretickes when they make the olde Sa∣craments equall to ours, doe not extoll the olde, but debase ours: But this opinion doth not abase ours, but extoll the ancient.
The other opinion, is of Saint Thomas and Capre∣olus, Scotus, Ledesmius, and others; that Circumcision did by it owne power iustifie, but yet iustified onely as it was a protestation of our faith, and as it applyed faith to vs. This opinion is doubtlesse the more pro∣bable of the two. Bellarm. ibid. c. 13. p. 236.
* 1.12THat there is a certaine spirituall stampe imprin∣ted in the minde, in some Sacraments, which is
called a Character, is the common opinion of Ca∣tholiks. But it is to be noted that some of our diuines, as Durand, Scotus, Gabriel, do indeed admit this stampe or Character, but yet teach something which seemes to make for Kemnitius and the heretickes: for Duran∣dus holdes, that the Character is not any reall thing distinguished from the soule, but is onely a matter to be conceiued in the minde, and which hath his being onely in conceit. But all others confesse, that the Character is a reall matter distinct from the soule. Bellarm. ibid. c. 19. pag. 267.
THe Character is not a mere relation,* 1.13 but an ab∣solute quality: this is a common opinion, excep∣ting onely Scotus and Durandus. Durandus in the place forecited, holds, it hath onely a being in con∣ceit, &c. Which opinion can scarcely be distinguish∣ed from the heresie of this time, and seemes expresly condemned by Councels: which if Durandus had seene, doubtlesse he would haue taught otherwise; and surely the Councell of Trent, in her curse of this opinion, intends it against those which denie a reall Character. Scotus would haue it a reall relation, but that can scarce be defended: and there haue not wan∣ted many, that haue confuted him soundly. Bellarm. ibid. c. 19. pag. 268.
* 1.14SOme of our Doctors hold this Character to be in the vnderstanding: Others place it in the will, be∣cause they thinke it disposeth vs to charity, which is in the will: Others hold it simply to be in the sub∣stance of the soule, and this seemes the truer opini∣on. Bellarm. ibid. c. 19. p. 270.
* 1.15NEither Circumcision, nor any Sacrament of the olde Lawe did imprint any Character in the soule: So holds Saint Thomas * 1.16. Scotus thinkes the contrary concerning Circumcision. But the opini∣on of Thomas is truer. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 19. pag. 271.
* 1.17BEsides these errors, there is a very incommodious opinion of many Catholikes, who haue thought, that the inuocation of one person in the Trinity, and especially of Christ, is sufficient to Baptisme: so seemes to hold S. Ambrose in his first booke of the ho∣ly Ghost: Beda vpon 10. chap. of Acts: Bernard, Epi. 340. ad Henricum. Hugo de Sancto victore, l. 2. of Sa∣craments: Master of sentenc. b. 4. dist. 3. And lastly,
Pope Nicholas in his Epist. to the Bulgarians. The two foundations of these Authors opinion are o∣uerthrowne by Bellarm. who concludeth. But how∣soeuer it be, it is certaine that baptisme is eyther absolutely, or with condition to be repeated, if it be administred in the name of Christ, or any other per∣son, without an expresse mention of the rest, as all more graue Diuines teach. Bellarm. in his b. of Bap∣tisme, cap. 3. pag. 11.
THat Christ did vse some baptisme before his pas∣sion it cannot be denied, but the doubt is,* 1.18 whe∣ther that Baptisme were the same Sacrament, which now we haue, or onely a preparation to the Sacra∣ment of Baptisme afterwards to be instituted, as the baptisme of Iohn was: Chrysost. Theophilact, and Pope Leo hold with this latter, &c. But the other which we haue said, is more probable, which is professedly taught by Augustine, tract. 13. and 15. vpon Iohn: by Cyrill 2. B. vpon Iohn, c. 57. Hugo de Sancto victore, b. 2. of Sacraments: and this is the commoner opinion of Diuines, with the Master of Senten. b. 4. dist. 3. Bel∣larm. ibid. c. 5. p. 26.
NOte,* 1.19 that concerning the time wherein Christ instituted the Sacrament of baptisme, there are
very many opinions, among the Schoolemen; but the more common and probable opinion, is that which we follow, which also the Catechisme of the Councell of Trent receiues, and the Master of Sent. with St. Thomas and others. Bellarmine in his booke of Baptisme, c. 5. pag. 28.
* 1.20THere are some Diuines, as Dominicus a Soto, and Martin Ledesmius vpon 4. dist. 3. which teach, that Martyredome doth not giue grace (ex opere ope∣rato) by the very worke wrought▪ but onely ex opere operantis, by the worke of the sufferer: and giues no degree of grace, but that which answers to the merit of the martyres charity. But it is a more probable opi∣nion, that Martyredome by the very worke wrought doth giue the first grace; So that if a man being yet in his sinnes, shall come to Martyredome, yet with∣out an affection to any sinne, and with faith and loue in part begun, &c: By the vertue of Martyredome he shall vpon the worke wrought be iustified and sa∣ued. So is expresly taught by St. Thomas, Io. Maior, Gabriel and others. Bellarmine same booke, cap. 6. pag. 33.
THere haue been two opinions amongst Catho∣likes, of Iohns Baptisme,* 1.21 whereof one is thought erroneous, the other very improbable. The first was Peter Lombards, who distinguishes those which were baptized of Iohn, into two kinds: one was of them which were so baptized of Iohn, that they did put their hope and trust in that baptisme, and had not a∣ny knowledge of the holy Ghost: These he confes∣sed were to be baptised with Christs baptisme. The other of those, who were baptized of Iohn, but did not relie vpon that baptisme, and had knowledge of the holy Ghost: These were not necessarily to be re∣baptized.
Bellarmine confutes him by himselfe, and consent of all Catholikes, and concludes; wherefore Saint Thomas [3. p. q. 38. ar. vlt] writes, that this is a very vn∣reasonable opinion. Bellarm. ibid. c. 19. p. 113.
ANother opinion is,* 1.22 That the baptisme of Iohn was as a certain Sacrament of the old law: so taught the Master of Sent. in the place forecited, and many of the Schoole∣men:
and Saint Thomas himselfe; but he did iustly afterwards recant, and teach the contrary, 3. part q. 38 art. 1. Whereupon Saint Thomas well saith that the baptisme of Iohn pertained not to the old law, but to the new rather, as a certaine preparation to Christs baptisme. Bellarm. ibid. c. 19. p. 113.
SOme Schoolemen hold,* 1.23 that the Apostles did in diuers fashions minister the Sacrament of confir∣mation; and that in the first times, because the holy Ghost visibly descended, then they vsed no annoin∣ting, but meere imposition of hands: After that, vn∣ction came in vse, &c. And if you obiect that the A∣postles could not institute the matter of a sacrament, they answere; that they receiued that commaunde∣ment from Christ, that they should one while vse im∣position of hands, another while Chrisme, as they should thinke most conuenient: This answere is not vnlikely: and Saint Thomas is not fare off from it [3. p q. 72. art. 1.] and perhaps hither might be drawne the testimonies of the Florentine Councell, and of Inno∣centius, &c But the other answer (me thinks) is more probable of Thomas Waldensis, and Hugo de Sancto vi∣ctore; who say, that the annointing with Chrisme, and laying on of hands, is all one; for he that anoints, layes on his hand. This answere is the likelier. Bel∣larmine in his B. of confirmation, c. 9. p. 185.
IT is a question among our Diuines,* 1.24 whether Balme be required in Chrisme, as vpon the neces∣sity of the Sacrament, or only on necessity of the pre∣cept. All the old Diuines and Lawyers, hold Balme required vpon the necessity of the Sacrament; so as the Sacrament is voyde, if it be administred without it: But the latter Diuines Caietane, Dominicus a Soto, Franc. a Victoria, &c. hold, that balme is not required as to the essence of the Sacrament, but yet necessari∣ly to be used by the commandement of God. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 9. pag. 190.
OF the Catholikes there is onely Richardus Arma∣chanus, which thinkes,* 1.25 that the office of confir∣ming is common both to Bishops, and Presbiters: and from him Tho. Waldensis thinkes that Wickliffe drew his heresie. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 12. pag. 197.
AMongst our Catholike diuines there is a questi∣on,* 1.26 whether at least by dispensation a Presbiter
may conferre this Sacrament: for Saint Bonauenture, Durand, Adrian, vpon 4. dist. 7. say, it cannot be com∣mitted to Priests. But Saint Tho mas, and all his Schollers, and many other Diuines, as Richardus, Pa∣ludanus, Marsilius, and others; and all Canonists teach the contrary: and indeede it is the truer, that these last affirme. Bellarm. ibid. c. 17. p. 197.
IT is questioned,* 1.27 whether those things which are spoken of Christ, in the forme of bread and wine be spoken of him truly, and properly, or by some Trope: Some thinke them truely and properly spoken, as the same thing should be truely and properly spoken of the bread, if bread were there. Their reason is, be∣cause they thinke that the Vnion of Christ with the accidents of bread, is eyther personall, or very like to it; and therefore that there is a communication of properties betwixt Christ, and those accidents, &c. But the common opinion of Diuines teach the con∣trary. Bellar. of the sacram. of the Eucharist. l. 1. c. 2. p. 28▪
ALmost all Catholikes will haue the wordes of Iohn 6. vnderstood of the Sacrament of the Eu∣charist,* 1.28
or of the Sacramentall eating of Christs bo∣dy in the Eucharist: but there are some few, who (the better to disproue the Hussites and Lutherans) hold, that this Chapter medleth not with any Sacra¦mental eating of Christs body, or drinking his blood, of which sort are Gabriel, Nicholas, Cusanus, Thomas Caietanus, Ruardus Tapper, Iohannes Hesselius, and Cornelius Iansenius. All other Catholikes (whom Nicholas Saunders in his booke of the sixth of Iohn citeth) with great consent teach, that this Chapter intreateth of the Sacramentall eating of Christ: which doubtlesse is most true. Bellarmine ibid. cap. 5. pag. 41.
THe Catholikes doe not agree in the manner of explicating, what is properly meant,* 1.29 by this pronoune Hoc or Hic, This, in the words of conse∣cration: (This is my body) And there are two more famous opinions: One, that this pronoune (Hoc, This) signifies the body of Christ, confuted in this place of Bellarmine by two arguments. The other opinion is of Saint Thomas [3. p.d. 78. art. 2.] and vp∣pon 1. Cor. 11. that the pronoune (Hoc, This) doth not precisely signifie the bread, or the body, but in common, that substance which is vnder these forms; yet so as the signification doth properly pertaine to the formes; that so the sense should be, Not, This, that is, These formes are my body: but thus, vnder
these formes is my body, as it was of old expounded by Guitmundus, l. 2. Bellarmine ibid. c. 11. p. 83.
* 1.30SOme Catholikes hold, that a body may be local∣ly in two places at once; for (say they) if one place may hold two bodies, so as neither the places are di∣uided, nor the bodies confounded (as it was done in Christs comming forth of the graue) then one body may fill two places, &c. But some others, and a∣mongst them Saint Thomas thinkes that one body cannot be totally in two places. His reason, by the leaue of so great a Doctor, is not found. Bellarm. l. 3 of the Eucharist, c. 3. p. 291.
* 1.31THere were two particular opinions, and both false and erroneous, deuised in the Schooles, for the vnfolding the greatnesse of this mystery: One of Durandus [vpon 4. dist. 10. &c.] who held it probable, that the substance of the body of Christ is in the Eu∣charist, without magnitude or quantity: and he vsed those arguments to this purpose, which now are ta∣ken vp by the Sacramentaries. Another opinion was of some auncient Diuines, which Albertus with∣out any name reports, and confutes; which after∣wards
Occam [vpon 4. q. 4.] followed; who say, that there is in the Sacrament, the very magnitude or quantity of the body of Christ, which yet, they thinke cannot be distinguished from the substance: but they adde, that all parts doe so runne into other, that there is no shape in the body of Christ nor any distinction and order of the parts of the body.
But the common opinion of the Schooles and Church is, that in the Eucharist there is whole Christ with his magnitude and bignesse, and all other acci∣dents, &c. And besides, that the parts and members of Christs body, doe not one runne into another, but are so distinguished, and disposed among themselues, as they haue both order and shape agreeable to an humane body: so teach Albertus, S. Thomas, Bonauen∣ture, Richardus, Scotus, and others vpon (4. dist. 10. or 13.) and Alexander (3. p. q. 10. in 7.) &c. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 5. pag. 301.
AVgustine discoursing of Christs comming into the world, through the wombe of the Virgin still continuing closed, saith,* 1.32 that in these workes all the reason of the fact, is the power of the doer: The same is held by com∣mon consent of other Fathers, Gregor. Nazian. Theo∣doret.
Hierome, &c. But I am ashamed to say what Durandus and Beza answere to this, &c. That which Durand saith; that her Virginity might, and did still remaine inuiolable, and yet that the passages were somewhat dilated; according to the best Physitians, implies a contradiction: for Io. Fernclius teacheth, that the losse of Virginity doth not consist in the breaking of any filme, but onely in the dilatation of the parts. Bellarm. ibid. c. 6. p. 309.
* 1.33THe fift example is, of the ascension of Christ, and the Saints into heauen; for we beleeue that Christ ascended aboue all heauens, and likewise that the bodies of the Saints after their resurrection shall ascend But there is no doore in heauen, no win∣dow, no gappe through which they may ascend; for as Iob, 47. The heauens are solide as brasse, therefore there must needes be more bodies in one place. To this Durandus answeres, that by the power of GOD the heauens may be diuided, when the bodies of the Saints shall ascend: But if the heauen be in it owne nature solide, and incorruptible, as all Diuines and Philosophers teach, surely it is not probable there should be so many holes made in heauen, as there are bodies of the Saints to ascend, &c. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 6. pag. 311.
DVrandus holdeth,* 1.34 that one essentiall part of the bread namely, the forme, is turned, but that the other part, which is the matter, is not turned [vpon 4. dist. 11.] Others (that there might no errour be mis∣sing) haue contrarily taught, that the matter of the bread is turned into Christs body, but that the sub∣stantiall forme of the bread remaines still the same: This errour St. Thomas reports without the name of the Author [3. p q. 25. art. 6.] A fift opinion is, that of Rupertus the Abbot, which was some fortie yeares after Guitmundus: which Rupertus taught, that the bread of the Sacrament, is personally assumed by the second person in the Trinity, in the very same man∣ner, that the humane nature was assumed by the same word, as appeares in his sixt booke vpon Iohn. This errour is noted, and confuted by Algerus [in 1. B. of Sacraments, chap. 6.] where he saith, that this is a new and most absurd heresie: this Algerus liued in the same time with Rupertus, about the yeare 1124. as witnes Trithemius and Petrus Cluniacensis, who notes, that Algerus did most accurately confute the errours of some moderne Writers, concerning the body of our Lord. Bellarm. l. 3. c. 11. p. 347.
HEnce may be refuted the common error,* 1.35 which possesses many of this time, concerning the
Author of this heresie: for as Thomas Waldensis wit∣nesses, there was an olde booke of Diuine offices, without any name of the Author, wherein Wickliffe did marueilously triumph, and vexed the Catholikes with it; boasting it one while to be Ambroses, another while Isidores, another while Fulgentius: At last the Catholickes suspected that Walramus or Valeramus was the Author of it; So write Dominicus a Soto, Clau∣dius Sanctius, Gul. Alanus, and others. But he was not the first, for the Berengarians were before him; ney∣ther was Walramus the Author hereof, but Rupertus Tuitiensis, from whose bookes this opinion is to be fetch't, which Dominicus a Soto idlely expoundeth (vpon 4. dist. 9. q. 2.) Bellarm. l. 3. c. 11. p. 348.
THE sixt opinion or heresie rather,* 1.36 is of one Io∣hannes Parisiensis, which (as Waldensis reporteth) openly opugned that other heresie, and brought in a new; for he taught, that the bread is assumed by the Sonne, but by meanes of the body of Christ; as the body is taken for part of his manhood, not for the whole: and hee said, as part, not as whole, least hee should be constrained to admit, that God is bread. Bellarm. l. 3. c. 11. confuted, l. 3. c. 16. pag. 348.
THE third error is of them,* 1.37 which will haue one∣ly the matter of bread to remaine, which doth expresly contradict the Councell of Trent [Sess. 13. cha. 4. and Can. 2.] And the Councell of Constance, [Sess. 8.] Yea also this opinion of Durandus is contra∣ry to the Councell of Lateran: for neyther would that Councel haue said, that there is a transsubstanti∣ation made, vnlesse it would haue signified, that the whole substance of the bread is changed, &c. There∣fore this opinion of Durandus is hereticall, though he himselfe be not therefore to be called an heretike, be∣cause he was ready to yeelde to the iudgement of the Church. Bellarmine lib. 3. c. 13. pag. 351.
ABout the time of Christs instituting the Sacra∣ment,* 1.38 there are foure opinions: first, of the greeks who hold, that Christ did keepe his passeouer, and in∣stitute his Sacrament, the thiteenth day of the first moneth: The second of Rupertus, who teaches, that the Hebrewes were neuer wont to celebrate two feast dayes together; and therefore when the feast of vnleauened bread fell the sixt day, it was wont to be deferred to the Saboth following. This opinion of Rupertus both is false, and doth not satisfie that maine
argument of the Greekes. The third of Paulus Bur∣gensis, who holds, that both the feast of vnleauened bread, and of the Passeouer, might be deferred vpon the Tradition of the Elders, to the day following: and that in the yeare wherein Christ suffred, the He∣brewes did eate their Passeouer on Friday euening, Christ his on Thursday in the euening. The fourth is, the common opinion of Diuines, that Christ insti∣tuted his Sacrament in that time, wherein according to the law, and custome of the Iewes, all leauen was cast away, which was the 14. day, &c. This opinion is onely true, &c. Bellarm. l. 4. c. 7. p. 455.
THe Catholike Church hath euer thought it so necessary,* 1.39 that water should be mixed with wine in the Chalice, that it cannot without a grieuous sin be omitted: But whether the Sacrament can consist without water, it is not so certaine: the common o∣pinion leanes to the affirmatiue part. Bellarm. lib. 4. cap. 10. pag. 476.
* 1.40HEre is therefore a question to be handled, whe∣ther those onely words (For this is my body, &c.) pertaine to the forme of the Sacrament: The Catho∣like Church affirmes it with great consent, Councell
Florent. Catech. of Concil. Trident, Diuines with the Master of Sent. Lawyers: For although Diuines dispute, and cannot agree, whether all the seuerall words, which are had in the forme of the consecra∣tion of the Chalice, in the Latine Masse-bookes, be of the essence of the forme thereof, yet all agree that they are of the integrity, and perfection of the forme; so as no one of them can without sinne be omitted: and their consent in this point is sufficient. Bellarm. l. 4. c. 12. p. 486.
IOhan. de Louanio in his booke of the Communion vnder both kinds,* 1.41 chiefely confutes a B. of a certain Aduiser, who without any name set forth a B. of this quest. perswading to this vse: but after, it was known that the B. was George Cassanders. Bellar. l. 4. c. 20. p. 538.
FIrst the opinion of some is to be confuted,* 1.42 who hold, that from the words This is my body, is gathered, that whole Christ is vn∣der the forme of bread; for they say, that by the word (Body) is signified a liuing body, and ther∣fore a body with a soule, and blood. But this opini∣on
is flatly contrary to the Councell of Trent (Sess. 13. ca. 3.) who teaches, that by the power of the wordes, onely the body is there vnder the forme of bread; the soule, the Diuinity, and blood, onely by a Concomitance. Bellarm. ibid. c. 21. p. 540.
* 1.43THere is no spirituall fruit receiued by both kinds, which is not receiued by one; this proposition is not so certaine as the former: for our Diuines are of diuers iudgements concerning it: But it is my o∣pinion, and the common and most probable asserti∣on of Diuines, of St. Thomas, S. Bonauenture, Richard, Gabriel, Roffensis, Caietane, &c. And though Richardus seemes to incline the other way: yet he doth it one∣ly to reconcile Alexander Alensis vnto the common opinion: for of all the ancients there is onely Alex∣ander (in 4. part. Sum. q. 53.) which holdes the contra∣rie; and of the new writers Gasper Cassalius cals it in∣to doubt and question (in his second booke of the Supper, &c.) Bellarm. ibid. c. 23. p. 554.
OF this place are two opinions of Catholickes:* 1.44 First of Iohn of Louan, and others, who holde, that the Sacrament of the Eucharist was giuen to
the two Disciples in Emmaus, and they bring for them Austen, Chrysost. Bede, Theophilact, Ierome, Isychi∣us: The other of Cornelius Iansenius vpon the place, who teaches, that the bread blessed by Christ in Em∣maus, was not the Sacrament, but onely a figure of it Bellarm. l. 4. cap. 24. pag. 563.
WE teach,* 1.45 that the very Sacrament is to be a∣dored (as the Councell of Trent speaketh) but this maner of speech is taken two wayes: Those that thinke the Sacrament of the Eucharist to bee formally the body of Christ, as he is vnder those formes; doe graunt, that the Sacrament is iustly said to be formally adored: But those that say, the Sacra∣ment 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.
MAny Catholikes endeauour to shew the word Missa (Masse) to be Hebrew,* 1.46 for Deut. 16. there is the word (〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉) in the same signification: and not the Catholikes only, but Philip Melanchton acknow∣ledges 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 Sacri∣fice, and carry it to God, as the Master of Sent. and Thomas (3. p. q. 83.) But their opinion is most like∣ly, which deriue it a missione, seu, dimissione populi: This opinion is Isidores, Rabanus, and Hugo, and o∣thers later Diuines admit this Etymology. Bellarm. de Missa, l. 1. c. 1. p. 616.
NEare to this opinion of Melanchton seemes to be a certaine late Doctor,* 1.47 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 argu∣ments. Bellarm. ibid. c. 2. p. 621.
THis testimony of Malach. 1. cannot be vnder∣stood of the sacrifice of the crosse;* 1.48 nor of any Ie∣wish sacrifice, nor of the sacrifices of the heathen I¦dolaters; wherefore the exposition of Arias Monta¦nus 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 communi∣cating with the Gentiles sacrifices, if those had beene cleane and acceptable to God. Bellarm. 1. b. of Masse, cap. 10. pag. 679.
TO this purpose make all those places of the Fa∣thers,* 1.49 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.
THe consecration of the Eucharist belongs to the essence of the sacrifice;* 1.50 This sentence thus gene∣rally 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, be∣cause by the consecration there is made a true and re∣all 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 conse∣cration,
Christ is truely (though mystically, and vn∣blooodily)ffred. This opinion doth not yet fully satis∣fie: 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 ex∣ternall mutation, and distinction, &c. This seemes to me the opinion of St. Thomas (in 2.2. q. 85. art. 3.) Bel∣larm. ibid. c. 27. p. 759.
* 1.51THE 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 Coun∣cell 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.
* 1.52DAmasus 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.
THat Celestinus 1. was not the first Author of [the Introitus] in the Masse,* 1.53 see defended by Bellarm. against the consent of their Writers, as himselfe confesses. Bellarm. ibid. c. 16. p. 846.
THat Anastasius 1. was not the first Author of stan∣ding at the Gospell,* 1.54 is held by Bellarmine against many of their writers. ibid. c. 16. p. 853.
SCotus, Occam, and Gabriel (vpon 4. Sent. dist. 14.) place the essence of the Sacrament of Penance,* 1.55 in absolution onely, &c. The question then is, whe∣ther there be any thing besides absolution, which be∣longs 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 opi∣nion 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 peni∣tent, as the matter; which was the opinion of many old Diuines: St. Thomas, Richardus, Durandus and o∣thers vpon 4. Sent. dist. 14. and is now held by almost all that write of this Sacrament. Bellarm. 1. b. of pe∣nance, cap. 15. pag. 92.
* 1.56THen Chemnitius addes, that there are diuers opi∣nions of our Catholikes, concerning the necessi∣ty 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.
* 1.57NEyther is that aptly and well said by Scotus, that penance is the absolution of the penitent, done in a set forme of words, &c. For penance is the act of the penitent, not of the Priest, and absolution is an act of the Priest, not of the penitent. Bellarm. ibid. c. 15. p. 96.
* 1.58THere is no Catholike writer which makes the matter of this Sacrament to be onely the action of the Priest, pronouncing absolution in a set forme; saue onely Gropperus, or whosoeuer was the Author of the Enchiridion Coloniense; which sometimes seemes to speake very vnheedely. For Diuines would eyther haue it consist in absolution alone, or else they assigne the matter to be on the behalfe of the penitent; the forme from the Priest: which indeede is the commonest opinion of almost all. Bellarmine 1. b. of pen. cap. 16. p. 98.
THe Scotists obiect,* 1.59 that absolution alone is the cause of grace, for that al the power of the Sacra∣ment rests in the keyes; which are the Priests, not the penitents: I answer first, by denying the consequent: the sacrament may consist of two parts, & yet worke only by one: as a man consists of body & soule, & yet vnderstands onely by his soule: and this answere is followed by them, who place the vertue of the Sacra∣ment in absolution alone, which was once the opini∣on of St. Thomas, and Saint Bonauenture, and other an∣cients vpon 4. dist. Sent. dist. 18. and of the later, An∣dreas Vega, Francis of Ferrara, &c. Farther, it may be answered, that absolution is indeede the princi∣pall
cause of iustification, not the onely cause; but that is partly in the keyes of the Absoluer, partly in the act of the penitent: So holds Saint Thomas (who recanted his former opinion) 3 part q. 86. art. 6. Bellar∣mine ibid. c. 16. p. 103.
OF the diuision of Penance into contrition,* 1.60 con∣fession, satisfaction, there are two questions: One amongst the Catholikes, the other with the Here¦tickes. The former is not, whether these three be ne∣cessary, and absolutely to be vsed, but whether all be the true parts of the Sacrament: For it was the opi∣nion of Durandus (vpon 4. dist. 16. q. 1.) that onely confession is the materiall part of this Sacrament of penance, and that contrition is the disposition to∣wards it, and satisfaction the fruit of it. But the com∣mon opinion of Diuines, and of Saint Thomas (3. p. q. 90.) is, that all three of them▪ are the true materiall parts of the Sacrament of Penance: neither can now be doubted of, since it is flatly set downe by two ge∣nerall Councels of Florence and Trent, Bellarm. ibid. c. 17. p. 104.
* 1.61THat there may be a conditional will (at the least) of things impossible, as well as a desire of a thing
lost: see defended against Adrianus, q. 1. de paenitentia by Bellarm. l. 2. of penance, cap. 5. pag. 155.
BVT in this our Catholike writers doe not agree,* 1.62 whether the purpose of a bet∣ter life, and detestation of sinne be expres∣ly and formally necessary to true contriti∣on, or whether it be sufficient to haue it implicitely or confusedly, and virtually. The old Diuines, as Pe∣ter Lombard, Alexander Alensis, S. Thomas, Scotus, Du∣randus, Albertus, and others, simply teach, that it is of the very essence of contrition, to detest our sinne, and to purpose amendement: and though they di∣stinguish not betwixt a formal and vertuall purpose, yet they plainely shew, they meane a direct, formall purpose; which was after more plainely taught by Pope Adrian. 6. in 5. quodl. art. 3. Tho. Caietanus, Domi∣nicus a Soto, Melchior Canus: yet there haue beene some few, that haue disputed against it, and content∣ing themselues with a virtual purpose, which is con∣cluded in the hatred of their sins, haue denied that o∣ther to be necessary. In this ranke were Io. Maior, Iac. Almayne, in. 4. Sent. d. 14. Andr. Vega vpon the Coun∣cell of Trent, c. 21. Bellarm. ibid. c. 6. p. 157.
IN this onely doe the Schoolemen seeme here to disagree,* 1.63 That some wil haue the act of penance, as also the act of faith and charity, to be onely a disposi∣tion to the remission of sinnes, and not to be any me∣rit (either of worke or congruity) of the forgiuenesse of them: Of this opinion is Io. Capreolus (vpon 2. Sent d. 4. q. 1.) Dominicus a Soto (2. b. of Nature and Grace, c. 4.) But other, and the most, hold those acts to be not onely a disposition towards, but a merit (by congrui∣ty) of our iustification; which opinion is the Masters of Sent. (b. 2. d. 27.) and St. Thomas (vpon 2. d. 27.) of Albertus, S. Bonauenture: Besides, of Scotus, Durandus, Gabriel, and others vpon 2. dist 28. And of the later Writers Andreas Vega (8 b. vpon the Councell of Trent.) Bellarm. ibid. c. 12. p. 185.
THe Catholike Doctors with common consent, are wont to teach,* 1.64 that contrition if it be perfect, and haue the desire and vow of the Sacrament of Baptisme, or Absolution, reconciles a man to God, and remits sinne before the Sacrament of Penance be performed. But there was of late a Catholike Do∣ctor, who not many yeares since in a booke which he wrote of charity, taught against this common o∣pinion. Bellarm. ib. c. 13. p. 191.
RIchardus Armachanus in l. 9 quaest. Armen. cap. 27. taught it probable, that for some great sinnes,* 1.65 pardon could not be had, though the sinner should doe whatsoeuer he could, for obtaining it. But this we affirm, not as probable, but as certain, and confes∣sed of Catholikes, that no multitude or haynousnes of sinne can be such, as may not be done away by true repentance. Bellarm. ibid. c. 15. p. 209.
THat the sinne against the holy Ghost is vnpar∣donable,* 1.66 Richardus teacheth to be, not in respect of the fault, but of the punishment; because if a man repent not of it, none of his temporall punishment (required to satisfaction) shall be forgiuen. Bellarm. ibid. c. 16. Confuted by Bellarmine by 3. arguments, pag. 219.
THat feare,* 1.67 which is one of the foure passions of the minde, is not in it selfe euill: See defended against Rupertus the Abbat, l. 9. de operibus spiritus, by Bellarm. ibid. c. 17. p. 223.
* 1.68THere was about some hundreth yeare since, one Petrus Oxoniensis, which affirmed, that the par∣ticular, and speciall confession of our sinnes in seue∣rall, is not required by any law of God, but onely by some Decree of the vniuersall Church. In our age haue held the same errour Erasmus Roterodamus, and Beatus Rhenanus, who hold, that secret confession of our seueral sinnes, both, was neuer instituted, and commaunded by any law of God, and besides, was neuer in vse with the auncient Church: Against all these mentioned errors, the Councell of Trent hath determined. Sess. 14. c. 5. and Can. 7.8. Bellarm. 3. b. of Penance, cap. 1. pag. 238.
I Know that Thomas Waldensis [in 2. Tom. c. 141.] was of this minde,* 1.69 that he thought Nectarius Bi∣shop of Constantinople, did simply abrogate the vse of confession; and therein greatly offended: But I would not easily yeelde to that: And I know that some haue thought this whole History feigned, and deuised by Socrates; But I cannot be brought to be∣leeue, that a false History could be written by him of a matter whereof many liuing in the time, when,
and where the thing was done, could conuince him. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 14. pag. 320.
INdeede Ruardus Tapperus a worthy Diuine,* 1.70 teach∣eth, that a man may satisfie God for his eternall guilt and punishment, by certaine acts, which in or∣der of nature follow the infusion of iustifying grace, and goe before remission of sinnes; and cyteth Tho∣mas for his opinion (vpon 4. Sent. dist. 15. qu. 5) Nei∣ther is it certaine, whether St. Thomas meant so, or no: It is enough for vs, that all Doctors agree in this, that before this grace receiued, no man can sa∣tisfie God. Bellarm. l. 4. of Penance, c. 1. p. 341. Where also he endeuours to reconcile Andreas Vega, in his opinion of our satisfaction to God, for the fault and offence of sinne.
ALthough the opinion of Thomas, Durandus,* 1.71 Pa∣ludanus and others [vpon 4 Sent. dist. 15.] be ve∣ry likely, that satisfaction is not rightly made to God by workes, which are otherwise due to be done, yet the opinion of Adrianus and Caietanus is not impro∣bable; that we doe satisfie God euen by workes, o∣therwise
due to him; since the satisfaction we giue to God doth not belong to iustice onely, but to friendshippe also. Bellarmine l. 4. cap. 13. pag. 402.
COncerning satisfaction enioyned by a Priest:* 1.72 the better part of Catholike Di∣uines doe not graunt, that the party con∣fessing may without sinne refuse such a satisfaction: for although Scotus and Gabriel, and some few others teach thus, yet the Master of Sent. S. Thomas, Richar∣dus, Durandus, Paludanus and many others (vpon 4. dist. 16.) hold, as we teach, That a Priest hath the keyes, whereby he may not onely absolue from guilt and offence, but as a Iudge, may in Gods steed binde vnto punishment, which the penitent cannot refuse, vnlesse he resist the Iudge set ouer him from heauen, and by consequent God himselfe, Bellarm. li. 4. c. 13. pag. 402.
* 1.73NO Catholike Doctor teaches, that workes done in deadly sinne do discharge from death. Indeed
some say, that the works done in mortal sinne, are sa∣tisfactory, if he which did the works, returne againe to the grace of God: But that they are so, whiles he continues in deadly sinne, no man (that I know) affir∣meth; yea our better Diuines hold, that those works which are done in deadly sinne, neither are, nor euer can be satisfactorie. Bellarmine lib. 4. cap. 14. pag. 406.
OF the place (Mar. 6.13.) we all agree not;* 1.74 whe∣ther that annointing which the Apostles vsed, were Sacramentall, or onely a figure of this Sacra∣ment: those which defend the first opinion are Tho∣mas Waldensis, and Alphonsus de Castro; but the later is surely the more probable, which is the opinion of Ruardus, Iansenius, and Dominicus a Soto, and others. Bellarmine in his booke of extreme Vnction, cap. 2. pag. 6.
SOme Catholikes,* 1.75 amongst whom is Dominicus a Soto, thinke that bodily health is an absolute and infallible effect of this Sacrament of annoin∣ting, &c. But this answere pleaseth mee not, since that all Diuines, and also the
very Councels of Florence and Trent directly say, that bodily health is promised in this Sacrament, onely conditionally, if it may be expedient for the good of the soule. Bellarm. ibid. c. 6. p. 21.
THere is yet one question amongst our Diuines: For what be those remainders of sinne,* 1.76 which are done away by this anointing? they doe not all a∣gree: Some would haue them veniall sinnes, but improbably, for they may be wip't away without any Sacrament. Others would haue it to be, that prone∣nesse to sinne, or habit which remaines of sinne; but that is yet more vnlikely. But I say that the rem∣nants of sin are double, both which are wip't away by this Sacrament. First are those, which some∣times remaine after all other Sacraments, whether they be veniall or mortall sinnes; for a man may af∣ter confession and communion fall into a mortall sinne, and not know it, &c.
Secondly, vnder the name of these remnants are vnderstood that dulnesse, heauinesse, anxietie which vses to be left of sinne, and which may vexe a man neare his death, &c. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 8. p. 29. & 30.
HEre is yet one doubt,* 1.77 in that Pope Innocentius 1. in his Epistle 1. chap. 8. saith, that not onely
Priests but Lay-men in cases of their own, and others necessities, may anoile: which opinion Beda vpon Mar. 6. recytes in so many wordes, and the Councell of Wormes, Can. 72. though Waldensis answeres, that Innocentius his wordes are to be vnderstood of that time, and place where there are no Priests, and that then, and there, it is lawfull for Layickes to mi∣nister this Sacrament: But this exposition is iustly confuted of all Diuines.
Dominicus a Soto vnderstands Innocentius to speake of the vse of Oyle, for healing of diseases, besides, and out of the businesse of the Sacrament: But that seemes to bee against the vse and practise of the Church: Others, more truely (as Iansenius) say, that Innocentius speaketh of the partie to be annointed, not of the Mi∣nister. Bellarmine in the same booke, cap. 9. pag. 31.
THere are two vsuall Ceremonies in this Sacra∣ment:* 1.78 One, that the Letany and other pray∣ers be read before the annointing. The second, that seuen parts of the body be annointed; name∣ly, the Eyes, Eares, Nostrils, Mouth, handes, because of the fiue senses; Then the Reynes, which are the seats of lust; and lastly the feete, which haue the power of motion and execution:
So is it prescribed by the Councell of Florence. But some thinke that none of all these annointings, is of the essense of the Sacrament, but that it is suffi∣cient (for that) if the sicke man be annointed anie where; the rest to be but for Rite and solemnitie: But others hold, that all those seuerall annointings are essentiall: But the common opinion (which al∣so St. Thomas holds) is, That the annointing of the fiue senses onely is enough for the essence of the Sa∣crament, and indeede respect of honestie seemes to require we should forbeare the annointing of the Reines in women, &c. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 10. p. 32.
* 1.79ORdination of Bishops is a Sacrament, truely and properly so called: This opinion, though it be denyed of some old Schoolemen, and amongst the new, by Dominicus a Soto (lib. 10. de Instit.) yet is affirmed by the auncient Fathers, and of the late, by Petrus a Soto, Caietane; and of some olde Schoole∣men too, as Altisidoriensis, Io. Maior, Scotus, Durand, Paludanus: Though Durandus would haue it one and the same Sacrament, with the Sacrament of Priest∣hood: and lastly, of all the Canonists almost, vpon Ch. Cleros, dist. 21. Bellarmine in his booke of the Sa∣cram. of Orders, cap. 5. pag. 44.
IT is very probable,* 1.80 that the Ordination of Dea∣cons is a Sacrament, though it be not certai••e, as a matter of faith: that it is very probable, appears, first because it is approued by the common opinion of Diuines: Onely Durandus there is, which holds, that onely Priest-hood is the Sacrament of Orders, and with him Caietanus, Tom. 1. Opusc. Tract. 11. Bellarm. ibid. c. 6. p. 48.
FOr Sub-Deaconship there is not so great cer∣taintie as of Deaconship,* 1.81 for neyther is it menti∣oned in Scripture, neyther hath the Ordination thereof any imposition of hands, as appeares by the fourth Councell of Carthage, Can. 5. &c. But yet it is verie probable, that this Order is a Sacrament also: Onely Durandus and Caietanus denie it. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 7. pag. 52.
OF the lesser Orders,* 1.82 it is lesse probable that they are Sacraments, then of the Sub-dea∣conship: yet it is the more probable opi∣nion, that holdes them all to be Sacra∣ments,
then that which denies it: First, because all the olde Schoolemen affirme it, excepting onely Du∣randus, and the grauer sort of the new, as Franciscus de victoria, Petrus a Soto, &c. Bellarmine. ibid. cap. 8. pag. 53.
THe third Controuersie is,* 1.83 of the matter and form of this Sacrament: for wheras in the Ordination of the Priest and Deacon, there are two externall signes, imposition of hands, and reaching forth of an Instrument, as of the Chalice & Patin in the Priest∣hood: The booke of the Gospels in the Deaconship. The question is, whether of these two signes are the essentiall matter of this Sacrament. Some thinke, that imposition of hands is onely accidentall, and that the reaching foorth of the Instruments is one∣ly essentiall. So holdes Dominicus a Soto (Dist. 24. quaest. 1. art. 4.) and some others: But the more probable and true opinion is, That not onely the reaching out of the Instruments, but the im∣position of hands also, is the essentiall matter of this Sacrament: So affirmes Petrus a Soto, Martinus Ledesmius, Cardinall Hosius, &c. Bellarmine ibid. cap. 9. pag. 54.
OF the Catholike writers there is onely Duran∣dus,* 1.84 who (vpon 4. Dist. 26. qu. 3.) holdeth, that Matrimony cannot be called a Sacrament, saue on∣ly Equiuocally: whom Chemnitius brings for his part; forgetting, that by Durandus owne confession, all our Diuines teach the contrary. Bellarmine of the Sacram. of Matrimony, c. 1. p. 66.
THere are some Catholikes which hold,* 1.85 that Ma∣trimony is not properly a Sacrament of the new Law, but that it was so in the old Law amongst the Iewes, and so not instituted, but onely confirmed by Christ: So teaches Alphonsus a Castro 11. booke a∣gainst Heres. Petrus a Soto Lect. 2. of Matrimony, and some others. But I see not how that can be safely defended; for the Councell of Florence reckons vp Matrimony amongst the Sacraments of the newe Law; and the Councell of Trent Sess. 24. Can. 1. in flat wordes, saith, that the Sacrament of Matrimony was instituted by Christ in the new Law. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 5. pag. 85.
* 1.86COncerning carnall copulation, are two opini∣ons of Catholikes: Some teach, that it neither is the Sacrament, nor part of the Sacrament, but on∣ly an act or duety of Matrimony; and therefore on∣ly accidentall in respect of the Sacrament of Matri∣monie: Others would haue it a part of the Sacra∣ment, yet not an essentiall part, but integrall; and therefore before copulation the Matrimony is rati∣fied, but not consummate. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 5. p. 91.
SOme hold (as Petrus Paludanus,* 1.87 Io. Capreolus, Io. Ec∣kius) that those married persons which are con∣uerted to Christianity, ought after their baptisme to be maried together againe, and then that their mar∣riage is made a Sacrament: Others, as Tho. de Argen∣tina, and Paludanus, &c. say, that without any new contract, that Matrimony which before Baptisme was no Sacrament, straight after baptisme become a Sacrament. But how euer it be, the common opi∣nion of Diuines is, that the mariage of Infidels may be true and lawfull, but not ratified nor indissoluble: but if both be conuerted, and baptized, their mariage becomes both ratified, and indissoluble, and conse∣quently a Sacrament. Bellarm. ibid. c. 5. p. 102.
MElchior Canus while he striues for the defence of his new and singular opinion,* 1.88 vnwisely vseth those arguments, whereby the Heretickes of our time might vexe the Church; for in his 8. booke of Theolog. places, chap. 5. he affirmes, that not euery mariage lawfully contracted betwixt Christians, is a Sacrament, but that onely, which is celebrated by an Ecclesiasticall Minister in set and solemne words. See his opinion sharply confuted by Bellarmine, ibid. cap 6. & 7. which he concludes thus: That Ca∣nus goes about, so much as in him lies, to proue that there is no true sacrament of Matrimony in the Church. pag. 103.104 &c.
SOme teach,* 1.89 that the Patriarches had but one law∣full wife, and the rest were their Concubines. O∣thers not onely teach, that those women were the true and lawfull wiues of the Patriarches, but also hold, that this was not forbidden, saue onely by the positiue law of the Gospell, which they would haue the opinion of St. Ierome and Augustine. There is a third opinion common in the Schooles, that the Pa∣triarches might by Gods dispensation marry more wiues then one: but of this are diuers conceits, some thinke that the seuerall Patriarches had a pecu∣liar
inspiration from God for this dispensation: O∣thers hold it enough that this dispensation was made knowne by inspiration to the first Patriarches, &c. Bellarm. ibid cap. 11. pag. 136.
* 1.90ERasmus in his notes vpon 1. Cor. 7. goes about largely to shew, that in case of fornication the Innocent partie may marry againe: And these notes were set forth by Erasmus in the yeare of our Lord 1515. two yeares before Luthers faction arose. And there are two other Catholikes, which are posses∣sed with the same errour: Ambrose Catharinus and Caietanus; for Catharinus concludes in his notes vp∣pon Caietane, as from him; That from the Gospell it cannot be gathered, that in case of fornication it is not lawfull to marry againe; but that this is forbid∣den by diuers Canons, and therefore ought not to be done without the authority of the Church. Bel∣larm. ibid. cap. 15. pag. 160.
* 1.91DOminicus a Soto vpon 4. Sent. Dist. 26. quaest. 2. affirmes, that in his time there were some which began to defend, that the essentiall forme of this Sa∣crament of Matrimony, are those wordes of the
Priest, I ioyne you together, but yet that there was none, which durst commit this Opinion to Writing; whence it followes, that the Opinion of Canus is newe and singular, &c. Bellarmine in his first Booke of Matrimonie, cap. 7. pag. 110.
THat which Canus saith,* 1.92 that our Diuines write no certainety of this Sacrament, that they are distracted into diuers opinions, helpeth his cause nothing at all; for though our Diuines fol∣low diuers opinions of the matter of this Sacra∣ment, yet of the forme and minister of it, they disa∣gree not. See the confutation of Canus at large, Chap. 8. &c. Bellarmine the same booke, cap. 7. pag. 111.
IT is a question among our Doctors,* 1.93 whether Diuorce so graunted to the Iewes, as that after it they might mar∣ry againe, were yeelded to them as lawfull, or as a lesser euill: Master of Sentenc. Dist. 33. Lib. 4. and
Bonauentura, Richardus, Dominicus a Soto, and others hold it was euer vnlawfull, but onely tolerated with impunity, for the auoiding of a greater euill: But the contrary opinion (I must confesse) euer seemed to me most probable, which is defended by Saint Thomas, Scotus, Durandus, Paludanus, Abulensis, Ec∣kius, Dominicus a Soto. Bellarmine the same booke, cap. 17. pag. 192.
* 1.94ERasmus was the first that called this matter into Controuersie: Whether the consent of Parents be required to the essence of Matrimonie; but the Catholike Doctors are so farre from doubting of this point, as that they neuer number the want of Parents consent, amongst the impediments of Ma∣trimony, and the Councell of Trent accurses them which shall hold mariage, without consent of Pa∣rents void, or voydable by parents. All the old Di∣uines, and amongst them St. Tho. in 4. d. 28. and the most of the learned new writers, as Ruard. Petr. and Dominic. a Soto, and others, teach, that Matrimonie without consent and knowledge of parents, is not onely true marriage, but also a true Sacrament: In∣deed Gropperus denies this Clandestine Matrimony to be a Sacrament, wherein he is manifestly deceiued, and contradicts both St. Thomas and all sounder Di∣uines. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 19, & 20. pag. 201.202. &c.
IT is a Controuersie among Catholikes,* 1.95 by what Law a solemne vow dissolueth that Matrimonie, which is contracted after the saide vow; whether by the Law naturall and Diuine, or onely Ecclesia∣sticall and positiue: For many, and those graue Di∣uines Saint Thomas, Saint Bonauenture, Albertus, Ri∣chardus, Durandus, and Dominicus a Soto hold, that a solemne vow dissolues Matrimony by the Lawe of GOD and nature: but many denie their grounds, as Scotus, Paludanus, and Caietane, and all the Inter∣preters of the Canon law, as Panormitanus witnes∣seth: who thinketh, that this dissolution is onely warranted by the Decree of the Church. Bellarm. ibid. c. 21. pag. 217.
COncerning these foure forbidden degrees,* 1.96 some Doctors haue denied, that they are forbidden by the law of nature, amongst whom is Caietane, in 2.2. q. 154. But yet the commoner and truer opinion tea∣cheth the contrary. Bellarm. ibid. c. 28. p. 278.
* 1.97THere be some of our Diuines, which seperate Originall iustice giuen to our first Parent, in his Creation, from that Grace which wee call (Gratum facientem) and which teach, that Adam receiued indeede at first a certaine habite, which subiected the inferiour part of the soule to the superiour; but not this sauing Grace, which makes vs the Sonnes and friends of GOD, and is necessary to the earning of eternall life; Of which opinion were Peter Lombard, 2. Sent. Dist. 24. and after him Io. Scotus and certaine other. We follow Albertus Magnus, Saint Thomas and others, which conioyne Originall iustice with the said Grace, &c. Bellarmine in his booke of the grace giuen to our first Parents, cap. 3. pag. 9.
THE State of Adam after his fall,* 1.98 differ'd no o∣therwise from his estate in his pure naturalles, then a stripped man from a naked, neyther is mans nature euer a whit the worse, if you onely take away his Originall fault; neyther is more igno∣rant and weake, then it would haue beene in his meere naturals: therefore the corruption of nature is not of the want of any naturall gift, or the additi∣on
of any ill quality, but onely from the losse of his supernaturall gift, from Adams sinne, which is the common opinion of Schoolemen, both olde and new: neyther did wee learne this which wee teach from Dominicus a Soto onely: neyther hath Saint Thomas and other approued Authors written the contrary (as some otherwise very learned men doe hold) but as I said, this is the commoner Opinion, as shall appeare by the testimonies following. Bel∣larmine in his booke of the grace giuen to our first parents, cap. 5. pag. 21.
THE Pelagians held,* 1.99 that man should haue died though hee had not sinned: to which errour Augustinus Eugubinus comes very neare in his notes vpon Genes. 2. Bellarmine in the same booke of the grace giuen to mankinde in our first Parent, cap. 8. pag. 46.
SOme of the Auncients haue turned all that Hi∣storie of Paradise, the Riuers and Trees,* 1.100 into meere Allegories, as Philo, Valentinus Haeresiarcha, Origenes: But in our age Franciscus Georgius, 1. Tom. of Pro∣blemes, and in his Harmony of the World, Cant. 1. Tom. 7. chap. 21. hath gone about to receiue and de∣fend
this opinion, long since condemned by the fa∣thers. Bellarm. ibid. c. 10. p. 53.
* 1.101THe fourth opinion is, of some later Writers, Augustine Eugubinus, Hierome de Oleastro, Francis Vatablus, Cornelius Iansenius that hold, Paradise was in Mesopotamia, but that in the time of the Deluge, the beauty and pleasure of it so faded, that there was no shew of a Paradise, and therefore now there is no more guard of the Angell, or flaming sword: But for many causes I cannot like this opinion. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 12. pag. 62.
HOwsoeuer the later writers, which we cyted be∣fore; Eugubinus,* 1.102 Iansenius and others, holde the contrary; yet since I neuer read any of the aunci∣ent, which haue held the earthly Paradise to be pe∣rished, eyther by waters or by any other cause: And I haue found many that affirme it is yet extant, as al∣most all the Schoolemen (vpon 2. Sent. d. 17.) and Saint Thomas: besides, Iren. Hierom. Augustine, Theo∣doret, Bede, &c. and others: I dare not dissent from so common and receiued an opinion, Bellarm. ibid. cap. 14. pag. 68.
Sunt enim plu∣res definitiones &c.
Duae sunt Theo∣lugorum senten∣tiae.
Sunt igitur va∣riae Doctorum sententiae, &c.
Jta{que} quod Pa∣ludanus, &c.
Aduersarij duo quaedam docent, &c.
Noua haeresis nostro tempore, &c.
Responderide∣bet duas esse Theologorum sententias.
Quartum argu∣mentum est Ca∣tha. &c.
Sacramenta esse ver••s causas, &c.
Vna igitur quae∣stio est, &c.
Porro de Cir∣cumcisione.
Signum aliquod spirituale, &c.
Character non est relatio, &c.
Alij ponunt sim¦pliciter in sub∣stantia.
Nec Circumcisio &c.
3. p. q. 63. ar. ••.
Praeter hos erro∣res est opinio, &c
Nota, negari non posse &c.
Quo puncto temporis &c.
Non desunt Theologi vt Dominicus, &c.
Inter Catholicos fuerunt etiam &c.
Altera opinio est.
Prior est aliquo∣rum Scholasti∣corum &c.
Respon. Quaesti∣onem esse inter Theologos.
Ex Catholicis solus est &c.
Est quidem in∣ter Catholicos quaestio &c.
Sed existit hes loco, &c.
Porro Catholici fere omnes, &c.
Nota secundo Catholicos, &c.
Quidam tamen Catholici, &c.
Primum est, du∣as opiniones fal∣sas &c.
B. Augustinus in Epistola ad Vo∣••usianum de vtro{que} isto mira∣culo, &c.
Quintum ex∣emplum est.
Durandus docu∣it partem vnam &c.
Hinc refelli po∣test, &c.
Sexta opinio seu potius haeresis, &c.
Tertius error eorum est, &c.
Sunt igitur de praesenti quaesti∣one, &c.
Porro Ecclesia Catholica semper &c.
Est igitur quaestio hoc loco tra∣ctanda, &c.
Johannes a Lo∣uanio vbi prae∣cipue &c.
Breuiter refel∣lenda est opinio eorum &c.
Nihil spiritualis fructus capitur ex duabus.
De hoc loco duae sunt Catholico∣rum sententiae.
De modo autem loquendi, &c.
Plurimi conan∣tur, &c.
Ab hac Philip∣pi sententia non procul. &c.
Hoc testimoni∣um non potest &c.
Huc faciunt om∣nia loca Patrum &c.
Consecratio Eucharistiae, &c
Sacrificium Missae &c.
Praeterea Da∣masus in Pon∣tificali.
Conuenit ferè inter authores, &c.
Quam ceremo∣niam non ipse &c.
Jta ex Catholi∣cis Theologis Scotus, &c.
Deinde attexit varias esse opi∣niones Catholi∣corum &c.
Deni{que} esto, non sit confessio iuris &c.
Ne{que} Sco'us sa∣tis apte &c.
Jnprimis null ••unt Catholico∣rum &c.
Obijciunt tertio &c.
Sequitur altera partitio, &c.
Ne{que} proban∣dum est quod Hadrianus &c.
Porro Catholici Scriptores in eo &c.
Theologi Scho∣lastici in eo so∣lum &c.
••••quidem Ca∣tholici doctores &c.
Et Richardus Armachanus docuit, &c.
Secunda est Ri∣chardi in libello de spiritu blas∣phemiae &c.
Errat enim Ru∣pertus Abbas l. 9. &c.
Extitit etiam ante annos &c.
Non ignoro Tho∣mam VValden∣sem &c.
Docet quidem Ruardus Tap∣perus insignis Theologus &c.
Adde quod licet sententia sit Valde &c.
Non concedit melior pars The∣ologorum &c.
Deni{que} nemo Catholicorum d••cet, &c.
De priore non omnes conue∣niunt.
Quidam Catho∣lici inter quos &c.
Vna tantum est inter Theologos quaestio &c.
Vna est tantum hoc in loco dubi∣tatio &c.
Duae sunt cere∣moniae &c.
Ordinatio •• Epis∣copalis, &c.
De diaconis valde probabile est.
Jam vero de Subdia conantu &c.
Deni{que} de mino∣ribus Ordinibus &c.
Sequitur tertia Controuersia &c.
Ex Catholicis vnus est Duran∣dus.
Non desunt Ca∣tholici qui ad∣mittant, &c.
De copulâ con∣iugali duae sunt &c.
Respondent ali∣qui vt Petrus &c.
Canus autem dum pro sua opinione &c.
Quidam enim docent, &c.
Eandem senten∣tiam &c.
Et Dominicus &c.
Quod vero ille dicit, &c.
Quaestio est inter doctores, &c.
Primus videtur Erasmus &c.
Quaestio igitur &c.
De his quatuor gradibus &c.
Non desunt quidem Theolo∣gi.
Quare non ma∣gis differt, &c.
Prior fuit Pela∣gianorum &c.
Non defuerunt ex veteribus &c
Quaerta opinio est recentiorum. &c.
Et quidem re∣centiores illi &c.