BOOK I. Peter Lombard in his 4. of sent. dist. 49. and Saint Thomas upon the same place, and Saint Bonaventure, and Richardus, and Marsilius say, that the essential glory shall then be greater in very measure and degrees of intention. But on the contrary, Saint Thomas I. d. 2. q. 4. art. 5. and Cajetan, in the same place, and Durandus say, that the essential glory shall not be greater in degrees. of intention, but in extent only. I affirm two things: First, that the first opinion is more according to Saint Austin's meaning, and to Haymon's in Rev. vi., and Bernard's, &c. Secondly, that the second opinion is simply the truer: and therefore that Saint Thomas did well to change his opinion. Bellarm. 7. Controv. Gener. de Sanct. Beat. 1. i. c. 5. p. 58. Neque obstat, quod isti Patres, &c. De modo cognoscunt, &c. Eighthly, Bellarmin against Mart. Peresius. NEITHER doth it hinder much, that the Fathers have seldom mentioned Dulia, service. For when they say, that Images and Saints are to be worshipped, and not with Latria, they shew sufficiently, that they ought to be worshipped with that kind of service, which we call Dulia; as Beda calls it upon Luke iv. and the master of Sent. with all schoolmen, sent. l. iii. There was no need therefore that Martinus Peresius, in his work of Traditions, part 3. consid. 7, should say, that he did not greatly allow that this name Dulia should be given to the worship of the Saints, since Dulia signifies service, and we are not the servants of the Saints, but fellow-servants, &c. Bellarm. same book, chap. 12. p. 83. Ninthly, four disagreeing opinions of Doctors. How the Saints know what we ask of them, there are autem quo four opinions of our Doctors. Some say, they know it by the relation of Angels: others say, that the souls of the saints (as the Angels) by a certain marvellous celerity of nature, are after a sort every where, and hear the prayers of their suppliants. The one of these is Austin's, the other Jerome's; but neither of them is sufficient. Others say, that the Saints see in God all things, from the beginning of their blessedness, which may in any sort concern them, and therefore also our prayers, which are directed to them: so teach Gregory (book xii. of his Morals, part iii. q. 10. art. 2.), St. Thomas, Cajetan. Others, lastly, say, that the Saints do not from the beginning of their blessedness see our prayers in God; but that then only they are revealed by God to them, when we utter them. And of these two latter, the first seems to me to be simply the BOOK I. more likely for if the Saints ever needed new revelations, the Church would not so confidently say to all Saints, Orate pro nobis, pray for us; but rather would desire of God to reveal our prayers to them. Bellarm. ibid. c. 20. p. 129. Tenthly, Bellarmin against Catharinus and Thomas Cajetan. THE second opinion is of Ambrosius Catharinus in his Secunda treatise of Images, where he teaches, that God in the Ten opinio, &c. Commandments simply forbids all Images; but that this precept was only positive and temporal... But this opinion is not allowed of us, especially because Saint Irenæus directly teaches, that the Decalogue is natural, excepting only that precept of the Sabbath: and Tertullian in his book of Idolatry, holdeth, that this precept is most of all now to be observed: so Cyprian also, Austin, &c... The third is of Thomas Cajetan upon Exod. xx. which teacheth, that not every Image or Idol is there forbidden, but only that there is forbidden to any man, to make to himself any Image, which he will take for his God. This opinion displeases me only in the manner of speech; for Cajetan takes an Image and an Idol both for one, which is false, &c. Bellarm. 7. Controv. Gener. 1. ii. c. 7, that is, De Imaginibus Sanctorum, l. ii. c. 7. p. 176. DECADE X. First, Abulensis, Durandus, Peresius, against Catharinus, THE fourth opinion is Calvin's, in the first book of his Quarta Institutions, chap. 11, where he saith, It is an abominable "pinio, &c. sin to make a visible and bodily Image of the invisible and incorporeal God... And this opinion of Calvin's is also the opinion of some Catholic Doctors, as Abulensis upon Deut. iv. quæst. 5, and Durandus upon 3. dist. 9. q. 2, and Peresius in his book of Traditions. But I affirm three things: First, that it is not so certain in the Church, that we may make Images of God, or the Trinity, as of Christ and the Saints; for this all Catholics confess. BOOK I. Secondly, that Calvin's fraud and craft is admirable, who, after he hath proved that Images of God are not to be made, digresseth to amplification, and triumphs as if he had proved that we may not make or worship any Image at all. Thirdly, I say, that it is lawful to paint the Image of God the Father in the form of an old man, and of the Holy Spirit in the form of a Dove, as is taught also by Cajetan, part iii. q. 25. art. 3, by Ambrosius Catharinus, Lib. de Cultu Imaginum, &c., by Diegus Payva, Nicholas Sanders, Thomas Waldensis. Bellarmin, ibid. c. 8. p. 179. Præterea notandum est, Barthol. &c. Ad secun Secondly, Bellarmin against Bartholomæus Caranza. BESIDES it must be noted, that Bartholomæus Caranza errs, who, in the sum of the Councils, saith, (Can. 82. of the sixth Synod) that the Image of Christ in the form of a Lamb, and of the Spirit in the form of a Dove, is there forbidden: whereas the Council forbids not these Images, but only prefers to them the Images of Christ in an human form, &c. Besides, the reason of Bartholomæus seems to conclude against himself; that the shadows ceased when the truth came: for these Images were not in use in the Old Testament, but began only after Christ's coming. But his error is to be corrected out of the seventh Synod, where this Canon is often entirely cited. Bellarmin, same book, chap. 8. p. 182. (tom. 2. col. 769. Paris. 1613.) Thirdly, Payva, Sanders, Alan. Copus and others differing. PAYVA answers, that the Elibertine Council forbids dum Payra only an Image of God, which is made to represent the respondet. shape of GOD: But this seems not to satisfy.... Nicholas Sanders answers, that the Council forbad Images in the Churches, because the time and place required it; for then there was danger, lest the Gentiles should think we worshipped wood and stones; and lest that in the persecutions, their Images should have been reproachfully handled by the persecutors. This answer is good.... Alanus Copus in book v. of Dialog. chap. 16. saith, that Images are here forbidden, because they began to be worshipped of those Christians, as Gods: in which sense Saint Ivo takes that Canon in Decret. part iii. c. 40. But this exposition is not well warranted by the reasons of the Canon. Others say, that there is only forbidden to paint images on the walls, and not in tables and veils. But howsoever it be, that Council is rather for us, than BOOK I. against us. Bellarm. ibid. c. 9. p. 190. Fourthly, Three ranks of Popish Writers dissenting. mam stionem, &c. Or the last question, what manner of worship Images Venio nunc are worthy of, there are three opinions. First, that the ad postreImage is no way in itself to be worshipped, but only that qu the thing represented is to be worshipped before the Image: so some hold, whom Catharinus both reports and refutes the same seems to be held by Alexander, part iii. q. 30. art. ult. as also by Durandus, Sent. 3. dist. 9. q. 2. And by Alphonsus à Castro.... The second, that the same honour is due to the Image, and the thing expressed by it: and therefore that Christ's Image is to be worshipped with the worship of Latria, Saint Mary's with Hyperdulia, the Saints' with Dulia; so Alexander, part iii. q. 30. art. ult.; Saint Thomas, part iii. q. 25. art. 3; and upon the same place, Cajetan, St. Bonaventure, Marsilius, Almain, Carthusianus, Capreolus, and others which opinion stands upon seven grounds, there specified. The third opinion, in the mean, is of them that say, Images in themselves properly should be honoured, but with a less honour, than the thing represented; and therefore that no Image is to be worshipped with Latria: so holds Martinus Peresius, Ambrosius Catharinus, Nicholas Sanders, Gabriel. Bellarm. ibid. c. 20. p. 235, 236, 237, &c. : What shift Bellarmin makes to reconcile the second opinion, by adoration improperly, and by accident, see the same book, chap. 23. p. 242. Fifthly, Bellarmin against Peresius and Durandus, &c. PERESIUS answers, that it is not true, that we are car- Peresius reried with the same motion of the heart to the Image, and spondet. the thing represented: since these two are opposites, neither can be known, but with a double act of knowledge. Bellarmin confutes him, and shews, that these two are so opposite, as that one depends upon another, and that one can neither be defined nor known without the other. Durandus answers otherwise; for he admits there is one and the same motion to both, but denies that therefore they have but one and the same adoration. Others confirm this answer, for that although there be one and the same motion of the mind, that is, of the understanding, towards them both, yet there may be contrary motions of will, &c. But this answer satisfies not. BOOK I. I hold there must be another answer given. See his determination at large, that there is the same motion of the understanding and will to the Image and the thing expressed; but in divers respects, as either of them is made the principal, or indirect, object. Bellarmin, ibid. c. 24. p. 246. Et quidem Tho. Wal densis. Prima quo centiorum, qui &c. Sixthly, Tho. Waldensis against Abulensis, Jansenius, and others. THOMAS Waldensis holds not improbably, in his third tom. tit. 20. chap. 158, that the very wooden Cross, which is now divided into many pieces and parcels, shall then be renewed, and gathered up together, and shall appear in heaven. The same seems to be affirmed by Sibylla and Chrysostom; and the other Fathers do not contradict it. But if this be not admitted, at least the bright Image of the Cross shall appear out of the air, or fire condensated, as Abulensis, Jansenius, and others teach. Bellarm. ibid. c. 28. p. 260. Seventhly, two sorts of Papists dissenting. SOME of our latter writers think, that sacred houses rundam re- are not properly built, but only to God, as sacrifices are offered to him alone; and that they have their names from Saints, not for that they are built unto them, but because their memories are in those Temples worshipped, and they called upon as Patrons in those places. So they interpret the Church of Saint Peter, not for that sacrifice is therein offered to Peter, but because it is offered to God in thanksgiving, for the glory bestowed on Saint Peter; and he is there called upon, as our Patron and advocate with God. Another answer admits holy houses, truly and properly built to the Saints, but not in the naBasilica vel ture of Temples, but as royal Monuments, or memories of them. Bellarmin de Cultu Sanct. 1. iii. c. 4. p. 299. (tom. 2. col. 847. Paris, 1613.) memoria. Non tene Eighthly, Thomas against Scotus, Abulensis, Lyranus. WE are not bound by any peculiar precept, not to sin mur diebus on festival days, or to the acts of contrition, or love of festis, &c. God. This is Saint Thomas's opinion against Scotus, upon 3. dist. 27, which saith, On holidays men are bound to an internal act of loving God: and against Abulensis and Lyranus, who hold, that sins, being servile works, are forbidden; and therefore that a sin done on a |