First, Bellarmine against Nic. Lyra, Carthusian, Hugo, and Thomas Cardinals, Sixtus Senensis.

THere haue not wanted some which haue held the seuen last Chap­ters of the booke of Ester, Non defuerunt etiam qui li­brum quidem, &c. 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 [Page 2] Councell of Trent Nicholas Lyra, Those adi­tions to Ester, which we re­iect as Apo­cryphall. Dionysius Carthusi­anus, Hugo, and Thomas de Vio Cardinals, but also since the said Councell Sixtus Senensis in the first and eight booke of his Bibliotheca Sancta.

But that they are sacred and Diuine, is sufficiently proued by all those Decrees of Popes and Councels, and those testimonies of Hebrew, Greeke, and La­tine fathers, which we haue noted formerly in the fourth chapter of this booke, and so those other chap­ters which are not in the Hebrew, &c. Bellarmine in his first booke of the word of God, chapt. 7. (See at large his confutation of Sixtus Senensis in the same place.) pag. 30.

Secondly, Iohn Driedo against Bellarmine.

IOhannes Driedo (a Catholike writer) denies the booke of Baruch to be Canonical, Ex Catholicis, Iohannes Driedo &c. in his first book, the last chapter, at the last argument: But the autho­rity of the Catholicke Church perswades vs the con­trary, which in the Councell of Trent (the fourth sit­ting) numbers the prophet Baruch among the sacred bookes. Bellarmine the same booke, chap. 8. pag. 41.

Thirdly, Erasmus and Iohannes Driedo against Bellarmine.

NOt onely Heretickes, Nec solum hae­retici Pagani & Judaei, &c. Pagans, Iewes, but of Ca­tholicke Christians Iulius Africanus of olde, and [Page 3] of late, Iohannes Driedo in his first booke de Script. &c. chap. last, and of semi-Christians Erasmus in his Scholees vpon Hieroms praeface to Daniel, haue reiect­ed the story of Susanna as new, and foisted into the Canon. But notwithstanding it is certaine that all these parts of Daniel are truely Canonicall. Bellarm. the same booke chap. 9. pag. 43.

Fourthly, Caietane a Cardinall, and some other namelesse against Bellarmine.

SOme obiect that the Church receiues those books that Saint Hierome receiues, Ecclesia eosli­bros recipit quos B. Hieron. and refuseth those which he reiecteth, as it appeares Distinct. 15. Canon. Sancta Romana. But Hierome flatly affirmes all these fiue bookes not to be Canonicall: so reasoneth Caie­tane, otherwise a Catholicke & a holy Doctor. Some answere, that Hierome saith onely that these are not Canonicall among the Iewes; but that cannot be, for he mentioneth also the booke of the Pastor, which was accounted to the new Testament. But I admit that Hierome was of that opinion, because no generall Councell as yet had defined of these books; except onely of the booke of Iudith, which Hierome also afterwards receiued: That therefore which Ge­lasius saith in the Distinct aboue cited, is to be vnder­stood of the bookes of the Doctors of the Church, Origin, Ruffin, and the like; not of the bookes of Scripture. Bellarm. ibid. chap. 10. pag. 53.

Fiftly, Bellarmine against Erasmus, Caietanus.

Nostris tempo­ribus Erasmus.IN our times Erasmus in the end of his notes vpon this Epistle: and Caietane in the beginning of his Commentaries vpon this Epistle haue reuiued and renewed a question, that hath long slept in silence, concerning the Author and authority of the Epistle to the Hebrewes. Bellarmine vndertakes to confute their seuerall reasons, drawne, First, From Hebr. 1.5. compared with 2. Sam. 7.14. Secondly, From Hebr. 9.4. compared with 1 Kings 8.9. Thirdly, From Heb. 9.20. compared with Exod. 24.8. Bellarm. ibid. chap. 17. pag. 77.

Sixtly, Beda, Lyranus, Driedo, Mercator, Sulpitius, Gene­brard, Benedictus, Bellarmine dissenting.

Duae sunt sen­tentie principa­les, &c.THere are two principall opinions about the sto­rie of Iudith: Some would haue that storie to haue happened after the Babilonish captiuity, eyther in Cambyses time, so Beda, Lyranus, Io. Driedo; or vnder Darius Hystaspes, as Gerardus Mercator; Seuerus Sulpi­tius refers it to Artaxerxes Ochus: some others hold it to haue beene after the captiuity; either in Sedecias times, as Gil. Genebrardus; or Iosias, as Iohn Benedictus. But neither of these seemes to me probable enough, saith Bellarmine, who confuting all them, placeth this storie in the raigne of Manasses king of Iuda. Bellarm. same booke, c. 12. p. 58.

Seuenthly, Erasmus and Caietane against Bellarm. and all other true Catholickes.

ERasm. in his notes vpon these epistles affirms, Erasmus in an­notationibus ad has Epistolas, &c. that the Epistle of Iames doth not sauor of an Aposto­licke 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 an­other: 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. Bel­larmine iustly refutes their opinion, ch. 18. pag. 86.

Eightly, Erasmus against all true Catholickes.

ERasmus in the end of his notes vpon the Reuelati­on, Erasmus in fine annotationum. &c. Nec defuerunt olim Catholici qui de huius li­bri authoritate dubitarent. seekes out many doubtfull coniectures, wher­by he would proue this booke of the Reuelation, not to be written by Iohn the Apostle. His three rea­sons are truely answered by Bellarmine, chap. 19. p. 94.

Ninthly, Genebrardus against Bellarmine.

THE fourth booke of Esdras is indeede cyted by Ambrose, in his booke de Bono Mortis; Quartus autem Esdrae, &c. and in his second booke vpon Luke; and in the 21. Epistle to Horatian: but doubtlesse it is not Canonicall: since [Page 6] that it is not by any Councell accounted in the Ca­non; 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 Ca­non; in his Chronology, pag. 90. Bellarm. chap. 20. pag. 99.

Tenthly, Iacobus Christopolitanus, Canus against Bellarmine.

His igitur omis­sis qui Hebrai­co fonti nimiam puritatem falso attribuunt, &c.OMitting 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 prae­face 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.

First, Pagnin, Paulus Forosempron, Eugubius, Io. Miran­dulanus, Driedo, Sixtus Senensis, all together by the eares.

COncerning this vulgar Latine Edition, Non paruae quaestio est, &c. 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 de­fended 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.

Secondly, Bellarmine against some nameles Authors.

COncerning the Translation of the Septuagint, De postrema, &c. though I know some hold it is vtterly lost, yet I hold rather that it is so corrupted, that it seemes an­other. Bellarm. 2. booke, ch. 6. pag. 127.

Thirdly, Valla, Faber, Erasmus, and others against Bellarmine.

THat place Rom. 1.32. not onely Kemnitius, Hunc locum non solum Chemniti­us, sed, &c. but al­so Valla, Erasmus, Iacobus Faber and others would haue to be corrupted in the Latine vulgar. Bellar­mine confutes them, and would shew that their La­tine Translation herein is better then the Greeke o­riginall. Bellarm. same booke, chap. 14. pag. 168.

Fourthly, Card. Caietane against Bellarmine.

THomas Caietanus in his Treatise of the Institut. and authority of the B. of Rome, Thomas Caie­tanus in tract. de Instit. &c. 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 in­cludes the power of order and iurisdiction, and some­what 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.

Fiftly, Ioachim, Raymundus, a namelesse Frenchman against all Catholikes.

THat there are three eternall spirits, Tres esse spiri­tus aeternus, &c. Father, Sonne Holy Ghost essentially differing, was taught by a [Page 9] 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. confu­ted by Bellarmine in his first booke de Christo. cha. 2. pag. 37.

Sixtly, Erasmus confuted by Bellarmine.

BEllarmines disputation against the Transsiluani, Sed ocurrunt Arriani Transsil­uani, & Eras­mus, &c. and Erasmus as their patrone, concerning the Di­uinity of Christ, warranted from diuers places of Scripture. See Bell. l. 1. de Christo. ch. 6. pag. 72.73.

Seuenthly, Bellarmine against Durandus.

THE fourth error is of Durandus in 3. d. 22. q. 3. who taught, Quartus error est Durandi, &c 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.

Eightly, Bonauenture against Thomas

SAint Thomas p. 3. q. 52. Art. 2. teaches, B. Thomas, &c. Docet Christum per realem, &c. that Christ by his reall presence descended but to Limbus Pa­trum, [Page 10] 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.

Ninthly, Bellarmine and all other Papists against Lyranus.

NIcolaus Lyranus is not of so great authority that we should oppose him to all the auncient Fa­thers and Historians, Nic. Lyranus non tantae auto­ritatis est, &c. 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.

Tenthly, Aeneas Syluius confuted by Bellarmine.

Quod ante Nicenum, &c.THat speech of Aeneas Syluius (afterwards Pope) that before the Nicene Councel each man liued to himselfe, and there was small respect had of the [Page 11] 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.

First, Martinus Polonus confuted by Bellarmine.

THE confutation of Martinus Polonus which liued An. 1250. in that storie of Pope Ioane, Quod fabula sit narratio Martini, &c. deliuered from him by Sige­bertus, Marianus Scotus, Platina and o­thers. See Bellarm. l. 3. de Pontif. c. 24. pag. 464.465, &c.

Secondly, Bellarmine against Valla.

THe sixteenth is Pope Celestinus, Decimussextus est Celest. whom Laurenti­us Valla affirmes, to haue been infected with the heresie of Nestorius; in his declamation against the Donation of Constantine. But Valla lyes falsly. Bel­larm. l. 4. de Pont. c. 10. p. 512.

Thirdly, Darandus and Adrian against Pope Gre­gorie and Bellarmine.

SAint Gregorie the first is by Durandus, Gregor. 1. in Epist. 26. ad Johan. Carahta­num. in 4. Di. 7. q. 4. accused of error, for that he permitted vnto presbi­ters to conferre the Sacrament of confirmation; which is onely by right proper to Bishops: By rea­son 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. Bel­larm. l. 4. de Pont. c. 10. p. 517.

Fourthly, Gratian, Gerson, Panormitan answered by Bellarmine.

GRatians speech (36. quaest. 2. can. vlt) that Hieromes authority being defenced by Scripture, crossed a whole generall Councell; and Panormitans, and Ger­sons, Primo ex Gra­tiano. that one priuate mans opinion, if he be furnish­ed 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 re­sist a whole Councell. See confuted, and qualified by Bellar. l. 1. de Concil. cap. 16. p. 72.

Fiftly, Pighius, Turrecremata, Caietane, other Popish Do­ctors against Bellarmine in fiue seuerall opinions.

IN this question, Sunt de hac re quinque opini­ones, &c. whether in case of heresie the Pope may be iudged and deposed, there are fiue different [Page 13] 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 cer­taine, 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 depo­sed, 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 igno­rance or wickednes.

5 That the Pope may not bee deposed by the Church.

[Page 14]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 there­fore that he may be iudged and punished by the Church. Bellarmine 2. b. of 3. Gener. Contro. chap. 30. pag. 317.

Sixtly, Some namelesse Doctors against Bellarmine.

IT is the opinion of some Catholikes, Huc referri po­test opinio quorundam Ca­tholicorum, vt refert Iodoc. Clict. &c. as Iodocus Clictonaeus reporteth, that Mahumet was that Anti­christ 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.

Seuenthly, Bellarmine against Bb. Iansenius.

I Cannot enough maruell what Bishop Iansenius meant, Quo loco non possum satis, &c. 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 Ecclesi­asticus, 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.

Eightly, Dominicus a Soto against Bellarmine.

ONe doubt remaines, Vnum superest dubium, Anne, &c. whether by the cruell per­secution 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 defen­ded. Bellarmine l. 3 chap. 17. pag. 417.

Ninthly, Gerson, Almaine, Pope Adrian, Hosius, Eckius, &c, Pighius, Thomas Waldensis, in three con­tradictory opinions.

COncerning the Popes certainety of iudgement, Quatuor tan­tum remanent diuersae, &c. 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 he­reticke, and teach heresie if he define without a gene­rall Councell, and that it hath so happened. This o­pinion followes Nilus in his booke against the Pri­macy 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 hereti­call, but is erroneous and neare to heresie.

The third in an other extreame, That the Pope [Page 16] cannot by any meanes be an hereticke, nor teach he­resie, 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 he­reticall 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, Ho­sius, Eckius, Io. of Louan, Petrus a Soto, &c. Bellarm. B. 4. of the Pope, ch. 2. pag. 473.

Tenthly, the Sorbonists and some other concealed Do­ctors against Bellarmine.

THat prayer of Christ for Peters faith, that it might not faile, is expounded: Qui locus tri­bus modis expo­ni solet, &c.

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 Pe­ter alone in the grace of God, vntill the end, confu­ted 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 [Page 17] neuer teach any thing against the faith. Bell. b. 4. ch 3. pag. 477.

First, Melchior Canus and others, against Pighius, Hosi­us, Io. Louan, Onuphrius.

NOt only the heretickes, but some Catho­licke Doctors, Nec solum hae­retici. 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 do­ctrine 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, Onu­phrius: Bellarm. B. 4. ch. 11. pag. 519.

Secondly, Alphonsus de Castro against Bellar­mine, Celestin Pope against Innocentius.

ALphonsus de Castro affirmes flatly, Tricesimus ter­tius est Celesti­nus 3. quem Al­phonsus, &c. that Pope Cele­stinus was an hereticke; the first Booke of [Page 18] heres. chap. 4. for that he held Matrimony so dissolued by heresie, that he whose wife was proued hereti­call, 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.

Thirdly, Pope Nicholas against Pope Iohn, Bellarmine a­gainst Turrecremata.

Nicolaus 3. qui in capite Ex [...]st. de verborum significatione in sexto definit.POpe 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 me­ritorious: But Pope Iohn. 20. in his extrauagants teaches this to be false and hereticall: Io. de Turre­cremata 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.

Fourthly, Occam, Adrian, Gerson, Erasmus against Bellarmine.

Iohannes 22. Papa a multis reprehenditur.THat Pope Iohn. 22. was an hereticke in teaching that the soules of the blessed shall not see God [Page 19] 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 part­ly recanted his opinion. Bellarmine same chapter and booke. pag. 548.

Fiftly, Abulensis against Turrecremata.

OF the inward iurisdiction in the Court of con­science; De secunda est quidem aliqua dissensio inter authores, &c. there is some dissention amongst our Authors: for Abulensis Jn-defensorio p. 2. c. 63. holds this power giuen to all Priests immediately from God, when they are or­dained: now that yet notwithstanding this, euery Priest cannot bind or loose whatsoeuer Christians, is therefore ordered, because the Church to take a­way confusion hath diuided Diocesses; and subiected one people to one Bishop, another to another. But Io. de Turrecremata l. 1. Sum. c. 96 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.

Sixtly, Three ranks of Popish Doctors at variance.

HOw Bishops receiue their iurisdiction, Sunt tres de eare Theologorum sententiae. 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 Francis­cus [Page 20] 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 recei­ued 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, Al­bert, Durand. and others. Bellarm. B. 4. c. 22. p. 590.

Seuenthly, Aug. Triumphus, Aluar. Pelagius, Hostiensis, &c. against Henricus, Turrecrem. Pighius, Waldensis, &c.

De qua &c. tres inueniuntur au­ct [...]rum sententiae &c.OF the Popes temporall power, are three opini­ons of authors: First that the Pope hath full po­wer ouer all the world, both in spirituall things and temporall. So teach August. Triumphus, Aluarus Pe­lagius, and many Lawyers, Hostiensis, Siluester, and o­thers not a few: yea Hostiensis goes further, and tea­ches, 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 po­wer, nor can any way rule ouer secular Princes, and depriue them of their Prince-dome, though they de­serue it. So all the heretickes.

[Page 21]The third, which is the meane betwixt both, is the commonest opinion of Catholike Diuines, that the Pope as Pope hath not directly and imme­diately any temporall power, but onely spirituall; yet in respect to his spirituall iurisdiction, that hee hath at least indirectly a certaine power, and that su­preame, 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 po­wer of the Pope, is vncertaine. Bellar. l. 5. c. 1. pag. 600.

Eightly, Onuphrius against Bellarmine and Hostiensis.

ONuphrius writes, Onuphrium in libro de comitijs imperialibus contra commu­nem Histori­corum sententi­am scripsisse &c. that the appointment of the E­lectors of the Romane Empire, was done by Gre­gorie the tenth, but Innocent. 3. which was before Gre­gorie 10. speakes of this Institution, and Hostiensis that was likewise before him, saith, that Innocentius speaks of the seuen Electors: and Aluarus Pelagius, who li­ued in the memorie of Gregorie 10. reports this to haue beene the act of Gregorie 5. Bellarm. l. 5. c. 8. p. 633.

Ninthly, Pighius against Bellarm. Pope Celestine, Coun­cell of Chalcedon.

Hanc autem originem, &c.THE beginning of Councels Albertus Pighius in his 6. B. of the heauenly Hierarchy ch. 1. defends [Page 22] to be altogether humane and deuised by naturall rea­son; 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 Epi­stle to the Councell of Ephesus, and the third Coun­cell 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.

Tenthly, some vn-named Catholickes against Bellarm. Turrecremata, Canus.

SOme Catholickes hold, Secundo abqui Catholici obij, &c. 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 Coun­cell, 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 re­tract that iudgement. So Io. de Turrecremata [ lib. 3. c. 6.3.] and Canus [ lib. 5. c. 5] Bellarm. ibid. ch. 18. p. 81.

First, Bellarmine against some Catholikes namelesse.

THat particular Councels confirmed by the Pope cannot erre in faith, Concilia par­ticularia, &c. and man­ners, there are some Catholickes that de­nie: which as yet are not by the Church condemned for Heretickes: But surely it is rash, er­roneous, and neare to heresie, to affirme that parti­cular Councels confirmed by the Pope may erre. Bellarmine, l. 2. ch. 5. p. 114.

Secondly, Alanus Copus against Bellarmine.

IT is a very vncertaine thing, Rem esse incer­tissimam, &c. what was decreede of Images in the Councell of Francford; for the an­cient 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 one­ly condemned: the Nicene not onely not condem­ned, but confirmed: which opinion I wish to be true, but I suspect it to be false. Bellarmine ibid. chap. 8. pag. 137.

Thirdly, Bellarmine against Vega.

SOme answere, Respondent quidam, vt Ve­ga, &c. 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 De­cree, as of the Councel. Bellarmine same booke, cap. 9. pag. 148.

Fourthly, Parisienses against Caietane: Turrecre­mata and Bellarmine against Canus.

OF generall Councels there are diuers opinions amongst vs. De Concilijs vn­uersalibus, &c. First the Diuines of Paris, and all those which teach, that the Councell is a­boue the Pope, thinke that lawfull generall Coun­cels cannot erre, euen before the confirmation of the Pope. Contrary to these, teach others, as Caietane [in Apolog.] Io. Turrecremata, P. 2. c. 21 [ lib. 3. cap. 32.33, 34.]

[Page 25]But when Councels define something with the consent of the Popes Legates, not hauing had full in­struction: what authority they haue, is stil in contro­uersie. But I thinke such a Councell may erre, be­fore the popes owne confirmation. Canus and others hold the contrary. Bellarm. l. 2. c. 11. p. 153.

Fiftly, Bellarmine against Gratian.

GRatian dist. 19. affirmes, Gratianus dist. &c. that the decretall Epistles of popes ought to be numbred amongst the Ca­nonicall Scriptures, and Di. 20. he saith, that the Canons 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 Coun­cels, 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.

Sixtly, Three rankes of Popish Diuines dissenting.

IN this question, De proposita quaestione tres &c. Whether the pope be aboue the Councell, I finde three opinions of our Do­ctors. 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. Panormi­tanus, [Page 26] and his Master the Cardinall of Florence, and Abulensis in cap. 18. of Matthew, q. 108. This opini­on 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 immoue­ably: And in the defence of this point, these Au­thors 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 in­strumentally 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 sub­iect himselfe vnto the iudgement thereof; if we speake of a coactiue sentence: So al the old Schoole­men hold; Albert, Thomas, Bonauenture, Richard Palu­danus In 4. d. 19., so 3. p. tit. 22. c. 10. Antoninus, L. 2. c. 93. &c Turrecremata, De planctu Ec cle. l. 1. c. 93. Al. Pelagius, Iacobatius, Caietane, Pighius, Turrianus, and Saunders, and many other there mentioned. Bellarmine, l. 2. c. 13. pag. 166.

Seuenthly, Councell of Basill against Eugenius, and Leo, Popes.

THat which the Councell of Basill defined of the authority of the Councell aboue the Pope, Quae autem definiuit. 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. Bel­larm. lib. 2. cap. 19. pag. 186. where Io. Gerson is by him confuted.

Eightly, Driedo against Bellarm. and Canus.

THe Author of the booke de Dog. Eccl. c. 74. openly saith, Author libri de Eccl. that Nouices in Religion dying before their baptisme cannot be saued: but this seemes o­uerhard: 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 vn­derstood of those which neither indeede, nor in de­fire are of the Church. Bellarmine, lib. 3. cap. 3. pag. 159.

Ninthly, Bellarmine against Alphonsus de Castro.

ALphonsus de Castro [in his second booke of the iust punishment of heretickes, Haereticos & A­postatas baptiz. Alphonsus, &c. chap. 34.] teaches that heretickes and Apostates, if once baptized are members and parts of the Church, although they o­penly professe false Doctrine: which opinion, as it is plainely false, so may easily be refuted. Bellarm. l. 3. c. 4. p. 196.

Tenthly, Alphonsus and others against Bellarmine.

Deschismaticis, &c.SOme 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.

First, Catechism. Rom. Waldensis, Turrecremata, &c. against some namelesse Papists.

THat persons excommunicate are not of the church, De excommuni­catis quod in Eccles. &c. is taught by the Catechisme of Rome, by Tho. Waldensis, Io. de Turrecremata, Io. Driedo, and some others. The contrary [Page 29] is defended by others: whose three obiections are answered by Bellarmine. Bellarm. lib. 3. cap. 6. pag. 205.

Secondly, Bellarmine against some not named Papists.

FOr answering of that place of Austen l. 2. against Cresconius, Propter haec loca &c. 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.

Thirdly, Bellarmine against Turrecremata.

THat close Infidels, Restant infideles occulti, &c. 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, So Thomas Waldensis, Io. Driedo, Peter a Soto, Hosius, Canus, & others. but by some of our Catho­likes; 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.

Fourthly, Alexander Alensis, and Turrecremata against Bellarmine.

THere are some Catholike Doctors, Non desunt eti­am Catholici qui dicant, &c. 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 argu­ment from a candle, saith, it is against the faith of the Vniuersall Church to affirme otherwise. For Ruper­tus 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 Abulen­sis, 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.

Fiftly, Caietane, Francisc. Victoria, against other Doctors.

Si nulla extaret &c.IF 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 [Page 31] Councell of Bishops: as Caietane in his treatise of the power of the Pope and Councell, chap. 13. Fran­ciscus Victoria, Relect. 2. q. 2. of the power of the Church: others (as Siluester reports, in the word ex­communication) teach, that it pertaines to the Cler­gy of Rome. Bellarm. in his first booke of the mem­bers of the Church militant. c. 10. p. 52.

Sixtly, Bellarmine against Antonius Delphinus, and Michael Medina.

TO that obiection out of Ierome, Sexta obiectio ex S. Hieronimo in com. &c. 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. Mi­chael 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, Pri­masius, 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.

Seuenthly, Bellarmine against Onuphrius.

THe opinion of Onuphrius concerning the names or titles of Cardinals, Onuphrius in li­bro de Cardina­lium Titulis &c see confuted by Bellarmine in the same booke, c. 16. p. 82.

Eightly, Io. Maior. and Iodoc. Clictonaeus against S. Tho­mas, Caietane, Sotus.

Ac vt a primo incipiamus, Io. Maior, &c. IOhannes 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. Tho­mas [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 dis­pensed with: the same teaches Caietane in opusc. and Sotus in his seuenth booke of Iustice, &c. Bellarm. lib. 1. cap. 18. pag. 92.

Ninthly, Erasmus and Panormitan against the other Popish Doctors.

Praeterea Eras­mus, &c. ERasmus in a declamation of the praise of Matri­monie, holds it profitable, that liberty of mari­age 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 er­rors 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 mar­ried. Bellarm. same booke, c. 19. p. 95.

Tenthly, the Glosse, Innocent. Panormitan, Hostiensis, opposed by all Diuines, and some Canonists.

THe fourth error is of many of the canonists, Quartus error est multorum Canonistarum. which hold, that tithes, euen according to the determi­nation of quantity, stand by the Law of God; and that no other quantity can be set downe by any hu­mane law or custome: So the Glosse, Innocentius, Pa­normitan, Hostiensis; but doubtlesse it is a manifest er­rour, 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. Bel­larm. same booke c. 25. p. 145.

First, Sotus against Syluester, and Nauar, Bellarmine and Aquinas with both.

WHether the Precept of Tithes, Dubium autem est, &c. as it is Po­sitiue and Humane, may by custome bee altered, is doubtfull.

Sotus holdes directly it cannot, [Page 34] 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.

Secondly, Bellarmine against Thomas Waldensis.

THomas Waldensis teaches, Thomas VVald. do [...]et Clericos debere, &c. that Clerkes should ey­ther giue their goods to the poore, or lay them together in common; and proues it by some sen­tences 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.

Thirdly, Marsilius Paduan. Io. de Ianduno. Turrecremata: Canonists, Glosse, Driedonius, Francisc. Victoria, Dominicus a Soto, Couarruuias dissenting.

IN the question concerning the liberty of Ecclesi­asticall persons, Postrema restat quaestio de liber­tate Eccles. are three opinions: First is of ma­ny 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 [Page 35] 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. Tribu­tum: 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 Cano­nists, confutes Cornelius Iansenius, and followes Tosta­tus and Caietane in the exposition of Austen, and lastly, refels Dominicus a Soto, &c. pag. 159.166.167.

Fourthly, Dominicus a Soto and Alphonsus against Saint Thomas and Bonauenture.

IT is a question among Diuines, Quaestionem esse inter Theo­logos, &c. whether dueties commanded by God, doe properly fall within the compasse of our vowes: for some denie it, as Thomas and Bonauenture (in 4. dist. 38.) Others affirme it, as some latter writers Dominicus a Soto, l. 7. de iustit. & iure: Alphonsus a Castro. l. 1. of penall law, &c. c. 10. Bel­larmine Controu. 5. Gener. b. 2. c. 19.1. De membr. Eccles. militant. pag. 278.

Fiftly, Scotus and Albertus, and Bellarmine against Saint Thomas.

Et quamuis, S. Thomas.ALthough Saint Thomas doth not admit an abso­lute vow of virginity, in the blessed Virgin, be­fore her espousal, yet Scotus doth admit it, in 4. dist. 30 quaest. 2. And before Scotus, Albertus Magnus in his booke of the praises of our Lady, and before Albert the holy Fathers, Nissenus and Augustine. Neyther doe I see, how that vow can preiudice the celebrati­on of her true marriage; if it be supposed (as all Di­uines doe) that it was reuealed to her, that Saint Io­seph should neuer require of her matrimoniall bene­uolence. Bellarm. ibid. c. 22. p. 296.

Sixtly, Scotus, Paludanus, Caietane, against Albertus, Thomas, Bonauenture, Richard, Durand, &c.

WHether after a solemne vow made, Vtrum autem post votum. matrimo­ny be quite dissanulled by the law of God, and of nature; or onely by the law of the Church, is questioned: For Albertus, S. Thomas, S. Bonauenture, Richard, and Durand, in the 4. dist. 38. and Dominicus a Soto in his 7. booke of law and iustice, q. 2. art. 5. will haue the mariage, by the law of God and nature vt­terly void, if it be made after a solemne vow taken: But Scotus and Paludanus in 4. d. 38. and Caietane, and all the whole schoole of Lawyers (as Panormitan re­porteth) affirme, that such mariage is onely voyde by [Page 37] the law of the Church. Bellarm. ibid. c. 34. p. 378.

Seuenthly, Erasmus and Espencaeus, Iustinian and Gregory, Bellarmine and the common sort disagreeing.

OF the fourth are two extreame errors: De quarto duo sunt errores extremi. One of Martin Chemnitius and the M [...]gdeburgenses, who teach, that Matrimony whether ratified and consummate, or ratified only, cannot be dissolued by the profession of a monasteriall life. So also teacheth Erasm. [vpon 7. ch. of 1. Cor.] and to the same iudge­ment inclineth Claudius Espencaeus in his sixt b. ch 4. of Contin. Another errour in the contrary ex­treme, that mariage, thogh fully consummate, is dis­solued by entring into Religion: So decreed Iustini­an G. of Bishops, and this law is related by Gregorie, (b. 9. Epist. 39.) But the iudgement of the Church is in the meane between both, that matrimony ratified onely, is so dissolued, not when it is consummate: So besides many Canons, the Councell of Trent. Sess. 24. Can. 6. Bellarm. ibid. ch. 38. p. 394. &c.

Eightly, Io. of Louan and Bellarm. against George Cassander.

THe third error is of George Cassander [in his b. of the office of a good man] who holdeth that Princes ought to seek a way of reconciliatiō betwixt the catholiks, Tertius error est, &c. Lutherans, Caluininsts, &c. and til they do find it out; that they ought to permit to euery one [Page 38] his own faith; so that they al receiue the scripture and the Creed Apostolike. This is a manifest error, and against him wrote of the Catholike Doctors, Iohn of Louan; of the hereticks Iohn Caluin: and this opinion may easily be confuted. Bellarmine l. 3. c. 19. p. 500.

Ninthly, some namelesse Doctors, also Scotus, Thomas, and Bellarmine in three diuers opinions.

Non defuerunt qui, &c.THere haue beene some which haue denied, that veniall sinne could be remitted after this life, as Saint Thomas reports, [in 4. dist. q. 21. art. 2.] but said, that all veniall sinnes are remitted in the instant of death, by a finall grace: But they are deceiued, for both Scriptures and Fathers teach vs, that small sins are remitted after this life, &c. Others (as Scotus in the 4. dist. 21. q. 1.) say, that sinne after the act is passed, leaues onely a guilt of punishment behind it: and therefore veniall sinne is said to be remitted in Pur­gatorie, because it is there wholly punished; but mortall sinne is not said to be forgiuen after this life, be­cause it is neuer there totally punished. This opinion is also false. Another opinion of the same Scotus is, that venial sinnes are remitted in the first moment of the soules seperation from the body, by the vertue of our fore-going merits: but this pleaseth me not: the opinion of Thomas is truer, that veniall sinnes are remitted in Purgatorie by the act of loue and pa­tience, &c. Bellarm. 6. controu. gener. of Purgat. l. 1. c. 14. p. 84.

Tenthly, some vn-named Papists against Bonauenture, Scotus, Durand, Thomas, &c.

SOme Catholikes, Argumentum tertium quo­rundam Catholi­corum. to proue that (as they hold) soules in Purgatory may merit, argue thus: The soules in Purgatorie haue all things necessarie for merit; for they haue grace, faith, charity, freewill, &c. Also they proue it by the authority of Saint Thomas, in 4. dist. 1. q. 1. art. 3. But I answere to the argument; That the soules in purgatorie cannot merite, because they are not in the state of their passage; for God hath onely decreed, during this life to accept our good workes for merit: and after this life, good workes are the effects of glory: euill the effects of damnation. For Saint Thomas, I answere, that he changed his opinion, for (in q. 7. of euill, art. 11.) he saith directly, that there can be no merit in purgato­rie: so also Bonauenture, Scotus, Durand, and others. Bellarm. ibid. l. 2. c. 3. p. 106.

First, Carthusian, Michael Baij, Gerson, Roffensis against the common opinion of Diuines.

THe third question is, Tertia quaestio nunc, &c. 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 [Page 40] punishments in Purgatorie; whereof the greatest is vncertainty of saluation, with which they say, some soules are only punished. So seemes Dionisius Carthu­sianus to hold, by reason of certaine visions, which he reports; and so teaches Michael Baij in his 2. b. of me­rit of workes, ch. 8. This way seemes to tend the opi­nion of Io. Gerson, lect. 1. of spirituall life, and Io. of Ro­chester against the 32. artic. of Luther. who hold veni­all sinne to be onely vpon the mercy of God: and therefore that it may (if God so will) be eternally pu­nished, &c. But the common opinion of Diuines is, That all soules in purgatory are certaine of their sal­uation. Bellarm. ibid. c. 4. p. 108.

Secondly, Bellarmine warranted by Bede, Carthusian, and Gregorie against the Councell of Florence, and all Diuines.

Quantum ad primum, difficul­tas, &c.IN the first question concerning the number of pla­ces, 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, Quod [...]am qua­si pratum flo­rentissimum lu­cidissimum, odo­ratis, amaenum. that the soules which haue nothing to be purged, are straight taken into heauen: On the other side Beda in his 5. booke c. 13. tels of a very probable vision, which he doubted not to be­leeue; wherein was shewed to a certaine soule which after returned to the body, besides hell, Purgatorie and heauen, a goodly flourishing, pleasant, light-some and sweete Medow, wherein liued those soules which suffred nothing, but onely stayed there because they [Page 41] were not yet fit for heauen; and diuers such visions are brought by Dionysius Cart [...]. & Greg. Mitissimum purgatorium, & quasi carcer quidam Senato­rius, & honora­tus. And it seemes to me not vnprobable that such a place there is to be found, which belongeth to Purgatorie: for though there be no punishment of paine, yet of losse there is. Therefore this place is a milder kind of purgatorie, and as it were a more Gentlemanlike and honorable prison. Bellarm. ibid. c. 7. p. 123.

Thirdly, Alphonsus Ciaconus against Melchior Canus, and Dominicus a Soto.

IF this history of Traian should be defended, Si haec historia, &c. we must say, that Traian was not absolutely condem­ned to hell, but onely punished in hell according to his present demerite, and that the sentence was sus­pended by reason of Gregories prayers foreseene by God; and therfore that he was not immediatly trans­lated from hell to heauen, but first vnited to the body, then baptized, and then that he did penance in this life: and this is the common answere of S. Thomas, Durand, Richard, and others: But I rather incline to the opinion of Melchior Canus, which simply reiects this history as fained: and of Dominicus a Soto, notwith­standing the Apology which Alphonsus Ciaconus hath 3. years agoe published, for this story. Bel. ib. c. 8. p. 124.

Fourthly, Sotus, Abulensis, Thomas, Richardus, and Durandus differing.

OF the damned I say: De damnatis similiter dico, &c. that he that is absolutely damned to eternal punishmēt cannot be recal­led [Page 42] to life; for then the damnatiō of the wicked shold be vncertain. Against this opinion is Abulensis [quaest. 57. in the fourth booke of the Kings:] To the instan­ces brought, Sotus answers, that those Heathens were onely inuincibly ignorant, and therefore in Purga­torie: but I say, that those which were raysed, though they did deserue eternall damnation, yet were not condemned, but that their iudgement was suspen­ded, In 4- sent. di. 45. and that in the meane time they were punisht, according to their present iniustice: So holds Saint Thomas, Richardus, Durand, and others. Bellarm. ibid. c. 8. pag. 133.

Fiftly, Bellarmine against Dominicus a Soto.

BEsides these errours; Praeter hos erro­res, &c. it was the opinion of Domi­nicus a Soto [vpon the 4. sent. dist. 19. q. 3. art. 2.] that no man remaines ten yeares in Purgatorie. Whom see how Bellarmine confutes by reasons, by visions, by the custome of the Church. Bellarmine ibid. c. 9. pag. 133.

Sixtly, Thomas and the Schoolemen against the visions of Bede and Carthusian.

COncerning the third doubt, De tertio Dubio &c. 'it is altogether vn­certaine; for, that the soules in Purgatory are punished neyther by Diuels, nor by Angels, but by fire onely, is taught by the Schoolemen, as Thomas [Page 43] [vpon 4. dist. 20. art. 5.] On the other part, that the soules in Purgatorie are punished by diuels, is taught by many reuelations, as that of S. Fursaeus in Beda, l. 3. hist. c. 19. and others: in Dionysius Carthusian in his book de 4. nouissimis. Bellarm. ibid. c. 13. p. 137.

Seuenthly, Bonauenture against Thomas.

ALthough all men graunt in some sort, Quamuis au­tem aliquo modo &c. that the punishment or paines of Purgatorie are greater then the paines of this life: yet it is doubtfull how this is to be vnderstood; for Saint Thomas teaches two things: first that the paine of losse is the greatest of all paines, whether in Purgatorie, or in this life: Secondly, that the least paine of Purgatorie is greater then all the paines of this life. But Bonauenture, in 4. dist. 20. art. 1. teaches; first that the paine of losse in Purgatory is not greater then euery paine, whether of Purgatory, or of this life: Secondly, he teaches that the paines of Purgatorie are greater then the paines of this life, onely in this sense; because the greatest paine of purgatorie is greater then the greatest paine of this life: although there be found some other punishment in Purgatorie, lesse then some punishment in this life: which opinion plea­seth me best, for &c. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 14. pag. 138.

Eightly, Dominicus a Soto against Petr. Cluniacensis.

NEither ought any man to doubt, Nec vlli dubium esse debet, &c. but that the soules of the departed Saints, which raigne with Christ, doe pray for the soules of the Saints which are in Purgatorie: the contray whereof is rashly affirmed by Dominicus a Soto, b. 4 sent. dist. 45. qu. 3. art. 2. Whom Bellar. confutes by the authority of Petrus Cluniacensis, Saint Austen, and lastly, of the whole church, who in that praier, which begins, God the giuer of Pardons, beseecheth God that by the in­tercession of Saint Mary and all Saints, the soules of the departed may come to the fellowship of eternal happinesse. Bellarm. ibid. c. 15. p. 141.

Ninthly, Saint Thomas against Pet. Damian, and Bellarmine.

THat the dead do good to the liuing, Quod autem mortui, &c. it is manifest: for 2. Macab. 15. we read that Onias and Hieremi­as long before departed, were seene to pray for the people of the Iewes then aliue: Neither is it incre­dible, that euen the soules in Purgatory doe pray for vs, and preuaile, since that the soule of Paschasius and Seuerinus (though in Purgatorie) wrought miracles, as appeares by Gregorie, [B. 4. of Dialog. ch. 40.] and Peter Damian in an Epistle of the miracles of his time: And though Saint Thomas in 2.2. q. 83. art. 3. teach the contrary, yet his reason proueth nothing, [Page 45] &c. But although this be true, yet it seemes superflu­ous for vs, to sue to them that they may pray for vs; because they cannot ordinarily know, what we doe in particular, but onely in common know that we are in many dangers, &c. Bellarm. ibid. c. 15. p. 142.

Tenthly, Dominicus a Soto against many visions and Saint Brigit.

ONe doubt remaines, Vnum hic solun dubium, &c. whether the restitution of a thing detained, profit the dead, and so become a fourth kind of suffrage: for the soules of the depar­ted are said to haue often appeared, and intreated for restitution of those things, which either they had for­gotten, or could not restore: and Saint Brigit in her 6. b. of Reuelations, ch. 66. affirmes, that the soule is so long tormented, till that which was vniustly taken away be restored. Dominicus a Soto [vpon 4. dist. 45. q. 2. art. 3.] holdes, that such restitution, if it be made, auailes nothing, nor hinders nothing, if vn-made; for God punishes not, but for our owne faults commit­ted in our life time.

As to those apparitions, I answere, that perhaps those soules doe not desire restitution, as it is restitu­tion, but as an almes; for although it do not benefite the soule, that he restores, which is bound to restore it, yet it will much profite 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.

First, Sotus against Paludanus.

Qui potest suf­fragijs, &c. IT is the iust man onely, that can helpe soules by his suffrages: for the vniust can­not satisfie for himselfe, much lesse for o­thers. But you will say, What if a iust Prelate commaund his spirituall sonnes, to pray or fast for the departed, and those sonnes be vniust? Paludanus answeres vpon 4. Sent. dist. 45, q. 1. That all those deuotions doe profite the dead: But Sotus vp­pon better grounds denies it, in the same place. quaest 2. art. 2. Bellarm. ibid. c. 17. p. 147.

Secondly, Caietane: some other Diuines, and the common opinion in three differences.

BVt our Diuines dissent about particular suffrages: At dissentiunt de suffragijs [...]ularibus, &c. for Caietane in the first Tome of his Opuscul. (trac. 16. q. 5.) teaches, that all soules indeede may be, and are helpt by the generall suffrages; but that by par­ticular suffrages; those soules onely are helped, which haue particularly deserued to be helped by them, and such he holds to be those, who haue had a speciall deuotion to the Keyes of the Church, and haue beene careful for the soules of others.

Others, whom Saint Thomas cites [vpon 4. dist. [Page 47] 45. q. 2. art. 4.] say, that the suffrages which are made for one, doe not onely profite him, but all others, and not him more then others: as a Candle lighted for the Master, equally giues light to the seruants in the same place. But the common opinion is be­tweene both these; that particular suffrages profite all them, and them onely (as in the nature of satisfa­ction) for whom they are made. Bellarmine ibid. ch. 18. pag. 151.

Thirdly, Thomas and Bellarmine against Guilielm. de Sancto amore.

Guilielmus de Sancto Amore, Quarta expos. &c. would haue that place of Christs speech ( Goe sell all, and giue to the poore, &c.) vnderstood onely of the preparation of the minde, that it should be so disposed, as that it could part with all things; against whom Saint Thomas wrote, opusc. 19. Bellarmine, l. 2. de membr. Eccles. mil. cap. 9. pag. 228.

Fourthly, Gulielm. de Sancto Amore, confuted by Bellarm.

ANother error was, Alter error fuit Gul. &c. that of Gulielmus de Sancto A­more, and after him of Io. Wickliffe, who teach, that Monkes are bound to liue by the worke of their own hands, &c. Bellarm. B. of Monks, cap. 41. pag. 420.

Fiftly, Erasmus, Agrippa, Ferus against all Catholikes.

Eandem haere­sin nostro saeculo, &c. ERasmus, Cornelius Agrippa, Io. Ferus haue in our dayes reuiued that opinion of the Ma­nichees, that warre is not lawfull for Christians, holding herein with the Anabaptists. Bellarm. l. de Laicis. c 14. p. 476.

Sixtly, eight opinions of Papists (and some ancient) concerning Purgatorie.

COncerning the place where Purgatorie is, Quaestio quarta sequitur [...]vbi sit Purgat. there are many opinions: The first, of some who hold that the soule is there purged, where it sinned; and indeede that the soule is in diuers places purged, is probably gathered out of Gregory, l. 4. Dialog. cap. 40. and out of an Epistle of Petrus Damianus. But that all are punisht where they sinned, is not probable.

The second is, That the places of soules are not corporall, so held Austen, but he retracted it.

The third, That the place of punishment for the soule, is this world, &c.

The seuenth is, That not the earth, but the darke ayre, where the Diuels are, is the place of punish­ment.

The eight is, the common opinion of Schoole­men, That Purgatorie is in the bowels of the earth, neare to hell. Bellarm. l. 1. of Purgat. cap. 6. pag. 117.118.

Seuenthly Peter Lombard, Thomas, Bonauenture, Richardus, Marsilius against Thomas himselfe, Caietane, Durand.

THE Schoolemen inquire, Est autem hic notandum scholasticos, &c. whether the glory of the soule after the resurrection shall be greater then before: in two things they all agree: First, that the accidentall glory of the soule shall bee greater both in extention, and intention: Secondly, that the essentiall ioy shall be greater in extention, because it is now in the soule alone, then shall reach vnto the body also. But about the increase of essentiall glo­ry in intention, they doe not agree: for Peter Lom­bard in his 4. of Sent. d. 49. And Saint Thomas vpon the same place: And Saint Bonauenture, and Richar­dus, and Marsilius say, that the essentiall glory shall then be greater in very measure, and degrees of in­tention: But on the contrary, Saint Thomas 1.2. q. 4. art. 5. and Caietane, in the same place, and Durandus say, that the essentiall glory shall not be greater in degrees of intention, but in extent onely. I affirme two things: First, that the first opinion is more ac­cording to Saint Austens meaning, and to Haymons in 6. Reuelat. and Bernards, &c. Secondly, that the second opinion is simply the truer: and therefore that Saint Thomas did well to change his opinion. Bellarmine 7. Controu. Gener. of the Church Triumph, l. 1. c. 5. pag. 58.

Eightly, Bellarmine against Mart. Peresius.

NEyther doth it hinder much, Ne (que) obstat quod esti Patres, &c. that the Fathers haue seldome mentioned ( Dulia seruice) for when they say, that Images and Saints are to be wor­shipped, and not with ( Latria) they shew sufficiently, that they ought to be worshipped with that kind of seruice, which we call Dulia, as Beda cals it vpon Luke 4. and the master of Sent. withal schoolemen, l. 3. Sent. There was no neede therefore that Martinus Pere­sius [in his worke of Traditions, part 3. consid. 7.] should say, that he did not greatly allow, that this name ( Dulia) should be giuen to the worship of the Saints, since Dulia signifies seruice, and we are not the seruants of the Saints, but fellow-seruants, &c. Bellarm. same booke, c. 12. p. 83.

Ninthly, foure disagreeing opinions of Doctors.

How the Saints know what we aske of them, De modo autem quo cognoscunt, &c. there are foure opinions of our Doctors: Some say, they know it by the relatiō of Angels: Others say, that the soules of the saints (as the Angels) by a certain marueilous celerity of nature, are after a sort euery where, and heare the prayers of their suppliants. The one of these is Austens, the other Hieromes, but ney­ther of them is sufficient. Others say, that the Saints see in God all things, from the beginning of their blessednesse, which may in any sort concerne them, [Page 51] and therefore also our prayers, 3. par. q. 10. ar. 2 which are directed to them: so teach Gregorie (B. 12. of his Morals) Saint Thomas, Caietane. Others lastly say, that the Saints doe not from the beginning of their blessednesse see our prayers in God; but that then onely they are re­uealed by God to them, when we vtter them. And of these two latter, the first seemes to me to be sim­ply the more likely: for if the Saints euer needed new reuelations, the Church would not so confi­dently say to all Saints, Orate pro nobis, pray for vs, but rather would desire of God to reueale our prayers to them. Bellarm. ibid. c. 20. p. 129.

Tenthly, Bellarmine against Catharinus and Thomas Caietane.

THE second opinion, Secunda opinio, &c. is of Ambrosius Catharinus in his treatise of Images, where he teaches, that God in the ten Commaundements simply forbids all Images: but that this precept was onely positiue and temporall. But this opinion is not allowed of vs, especially because Saint Irenaeus directly teaches, that the Decalogue is naturall, excepting onely that Precept of the Sabboth; and Tertullian in his booke of Idolatry, holdeth, that this precept is most of all now to be obserued: so Cyprian also, Austen, &c. The third is of Thomas Caietane vpon 20. Exod. which tea­cheth, that not euery Image or Idoll is there forbid­den, but onely that there is forbidden to any man, to make to himselfe any Image, which he will take for [Page 52] 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.

First, Abulensis, Durandus, Peresius against Catharinus, Payua, Saunders, and Bellarmine.

Quarta opinie, &c. THE fourth opinion is Caluins, in the first booke of his institutions, ch. 11. where he saith, it is an abominable sinne to make a visible and bodily Image of the inuisible and incorporeall God. And this opinion of Caluins is also the opinion of some Catholike Doctors, as A­bulensis [vpon 4. Deuteron. quaest. 5.] and Durandus [vpon 3. dist. 9. q. 2.] and Peresius [in his booke of Traditions.] But I affirme three things: First, that it is not so certaine in the Church, that we may make Images of God, or the Trinity, as of Christ and the Saints, for this all Catholikes confesse. Secondly, that Caluins fraude and craft is admirable, who after he hath proued that Images of God are not to be made, digresseth to amplification, and triumphes, as if he had proued that wee may not make, or worship any Image at all. Thirdly, I say, that it is lawfull to paint the Image of God the Father in the forme of [Page 53] an old man; and of the holy spirit in the forme of a Doue, as is taught also by Caietane 3. Part. q. 25. art. 3.. Ambrosius Ca­tharinus Lib. de cultu imaginum, &c., Diegus, Payua, Nicholas Saunders, Thomas Waldensis. Bellarmine ibid. ch. 8. p. 179.

Secondly, Bellarmine against Bartholomaeus Caranza.

BEsides it must be noted, Praeterea notan­dum est Bartol. &c. that Bartholomaeus Caranza erres, who in the summe of the Councels, saith, (Can. 82. of the 6. Synod) that the Image of Christ in the forme of a Lambe, and of the spirit in the forme of a Doue, is there forbidden: Whereas the Coun­cell forbids not these Images, but onely prefers to them the Images of Christ in an humane forme, &c. Besides, the reason of Bartholomaeus seemes to con­clude against himselfe; that the shadowes ceased when the truth came, for these Images were not in vse in the olde Testament, but began onely after Christs comming: but his errour is to be corrected out of the 7. Synod, where this Canon is often en­tirely cyted. Bellarmine same booke, chap. 8. pag. 182.

Thirdly, Payua, Saunders, Alan. Copus and others differing.

PAyua answeres, Ad secundum Payua responder. that the Elebertine Councell forbids onely an Image of God, which is made to represent the shape of GOD: But this seemes [Page 54] not to satisfie. Nicholas Saunders answeres, that the Councell for bad Images in the Churches, because the time and place required it; for then there was danger, least the Gentiles should thinke we worshipt wood and stones; and least that in the persecutions, their Images should haue beene reproachfully hand­led by the persecutors. This answere is good. Ala­nus Copus in B. 5. of Dialog. ch. 16 saith, that Images are here forbidden, because they began to be wor­shipped of those Christians, as Gods: in which sense Saint Ino. takes that Canon in Decret. part. 3. c. 40. But this exposition is not well warranted by the rea­sons of the Canon. Others say, that there is only for­bidden to paint images on the wals, and not in tables and vayles. But howsoeuer it be, that Councell is rather for vs, then against vs. Bellarm. ibid. ch. 9. p. 190.

Fourthly, Three rankes of Popish Writers dissenting.

OF the last question, Venio nunc ad postremam quae­stionem &c. what manner of worshippe Images are worthy of, there are three opinions: First, that the Image is no way in it selfe to be wor­shipped, but only that the thing represented is to be worshipped before the Image: so some hold, whom Catharinus both reports and refutes: the same seemes to be held by Alexander, 3. part. q. 30. art. vlt. as also by Durandus, 3. Sent. di 9. q. 2. And by Alphon­sus a Castro. The second, that the same honour is due to the Image, and the thing expressed by it: and [Page 55] therefore that Christs Image is to bee worshipped with the worship of Latria, Saint Maries with Hyper­dulia, the Saints with Dulia; so Alexander (3. part. q. 30. art. vlt.) Saint Thomas (3. p. q. 25. art 3.) And vpon the same place, Caietane, S. Bonauenture, Marsilius, Almain, Carthusianus, Capreolus, and others; which opinion stands vpon 7 grounds, there specified. The third opinion in the meane, is of them that say, Images in themselues properly should be honoured, but with a lesse honour, then the thing represented; and ther­fore that no Image is to be worshipped with Latria: so holds: Martinus, Peresius, Ambrosius, Catharinus, Ni­cholas Saunders, Gabriell. Bellarm. ibid. c. 20. p. 235.236.237. &c.

What shift Bellarmine makes to reconcile the se­cond opinion; by adoration improperly, and by ac­cident, See the same booke, c. 23. p. 242.

Fiftly, Bellarmine against Peresius and Durandus, &c.

PEresius answers, that it is not true, Peresius respon­det. that we are ca­ried with the same motion of the heart to the I­mage, and the thing represented: since these two are opposites, neither can be knowne, but with a double act of knowledge. Bellarmine confutes him, and shewes, that these two are so opposite, as that one depends vpon another, and that one can neyther be defined nor knowne without the other. Durandus answeres otherwise; for he admits there is one, and the same motion to both, but denies that therefore [Page 56] they haue but one and the same adoration: Others confirme this answer, for that although there be one and the same motion of the minde (that is) of the vn­derstanding towards them both, yet there may be contrary motions of will, &c. But this answere satisfies not. I hold there must be another answere giuen: See his determination at large, that there is the same motion of the vnderstanding and will, to the Image and the thing expressed; but in diuers re­spects, as eyther of them is made the principall, or in­direct obiect. Bellarm. ibid. c. 24. p. 246.

Sixtly, Tho. Waldensis against Abulensis, Iansenius, and others.

Et quidem Tho. VValdensis, THomas Waldensis holds not improbably [in his 3. Tom. Tit. 20. ch. 158.] that the very Wooden Crosse, which is now diuided into many peeces and parc [...]ls, shall then be renewed, and gathered vp to­gether, and shall appeare in heauen. The same seemes to be affirmed by Sibilla and Chrysostome; and the o­ther fathers doe not contradict it. But if this be not admitted, at least the bright Image of the Crosse shal appeare out of the ayre, or fire condensated, as Abu­lensis, Iansenius, and others teach. Bellarm. ib. c. 28. p. 260

Seuenthly, two sorts of Papists dissenting.

Prima quorun­dam recentio­rum, qui &c.SOme of our latter writers thinke, that sacred hou­ses are not properly built, but onely to God, [Page 57] as Sacrifices are offered to him alone, and that they haue their names from Saints, not for that they are built vnto them, but because their memories are in those Temples worshipped, and they called vpon, as Patrons in those places: So they interpret, the Church of Saint Peter, not for that sacrifice is there­in offred to Peter, but because it is offred to God in thankesgiuing, for the glory bestowed on Saint Pe­ter; and he is there cald vppon, as our Patrone and aduocate with God. Another answere admits ho­ly houses, truely and properly built to the Saints, but not in the nature of Temples, Basilicae vel me­moriae. but as royall Monu­ments, or memories of them. Bellarmine lib. 3. cap. 4. pag. 299.

Eightly, Thomas against Scotus, Abulensis, Lyranus.

WE are not bound by any peculiar precept, Non tenemur diebus festis, &c not to sinne on festiuall dayes, or to the acts of contrition, or loue of God. This is Saint Thomas his opinion against Scotus, vpon 3. dist. 27. which saith, on holy dayes men are bound to an internall act of louing God: and against Abulensis and Lyranus, who hold, that sinnes being seruile workes, are forbidden; and therefore that a sinne done on a Holy-day is doubtfull. Bellarm. ibid. c. 10. p. 356.

Ninthly, Gulielm. Occam. against the common opinion.

THe second thing required to a Sacrament of the new law, Secundum est vt hoc, &c. is a sensible signe; for there are some inuisible signes, as the Character imprinted in the soule by the Sacraments: but it is certaine there must be visible signes also: scarce euer any but Guli­elmus Occam. hath held, that though the Sacraments be visible signes, yet that this is not of their essence; for that God might institute a Sacrament in a spiritu­all matter, as if he should appoint that a mental pray­er, or the meditation of Christs passion should giue grace, meerely by the worke wrought. But Occam is deceiued. Bellarm. de Sacrament in genere c. 9. p. 34.

Tenthly, Three diuers opinions of Popish Doctors.

COncerning the definition of a Sacrament, Tres sunt docto­rum sent entiae, &c. there are three opinions of Doctors. Some hold, that a Sacrament cannonot properly be defined, as Occam, Maior, Richardus. Some hold, that it may be defined, at least imperfectly: so Scotus, d. 1. q. 2. and So­tus. Some that it may be properly defined: so Marti­nus Ledesmius in tract. of Sacram. Bellarm. ib. c. 10. p. 40.

First. Bellarmine dissenting from Waldensis, Hugo, Gratian, Lombard.

THE definition of a Sa­crament is so canua­sed by Bellarmine, Sunt enim plu­res definitiones &c. as that he reiecteth two of Augustines, seconded also by Hugo, B. 1. part. 9. ch. 2. Bernard in his Sermon of the Lords Supper: Tho. Waldensis, Tom. 2. ch. 20. as alto­gether [Page 60] imperfect. Also Hugoes definition as too long: Gratians (cyted by him from Gregorie, but in­deed from Isidore) as onely an explication of the word, not the matter; Peter Lombards as wanting somewhat, or rather intricately infolding it, and al­lowes onely the definition of the Councell of Trent, as most accurate; (definitio pulcherrima est) Bellarm. ibid. c. 11. p. 43.44. &c.

Secondly, Albert, Thomas Bonauenture, and others against Thomas, Dominicus a Soto, Ledesmius, &c.

Duae sunt Theo­lugorum senten­tiae.HEre be two opinions of Diuines: the first of the master of Sentences [B. 4. d. 1.] and vpon that place: Albertus, Thomas, Bonauenture, and others, who teach, that no definition can directly and properly agree to the Sacraments of both the olde and newe law, but that they all agree properly to the Sacra­ments of the new; imperfectly and by proportion onely to the Sacraments of the olde. Another opi­nion is, of Saint Thomas 3. part. q. 60. art. 1. (for hee manifestly changed his opinion) as also of Dominicus▪ a Soto, and Martin Ledesmius, who teach, that this definition, The signe of an holy thing, doth directly and vniuocally agree to the Sacraments of both olde and new law: Either sentence partly pleases, and part­ly displeases me. Bellarm. ibid. c. 12. pag. 45.

Thirdly, Dominicus a Soto and Caietan, Thomas, Durand, Adrian, Alexand. Alens. Dominic. a Soto, all opposite.

THere be diuers opinions of Doctors, Sunt igitur va­riae Doctorum sententiae, &c. the first of certaine of our late writers, who hold, that pro­perly the matter and forme in the Sacraments, is not the thing and wordes, but that some sensible thing is the matter, whether it be substance or word, or both: and that the signification is the forme. So Domini­cus a Soto [vpon 4. dist. 1. q. 1. ar. 1.] and Caietane seemes to affirme the same with very little difference. Ano­ther opinion is, of them which teach, that the very Sacrament it selfe, and not onely the materiall part of it, consists of the thinges, as the matter; and words, as the forme: So Saint Thomas 3. part. q. 60. ar. 6. and the auncient Diuines in common. Others a­gaine hold, that all Sacraments doe not consist of things and words, but some onely: so Durandus [vp­pon 4. dist. 1. q. 3.] and Adrianus [quaest. 2. of Baptis­me] Others teach, that all Sacraments of the new law consist of thinges and wordes: so Alexander A­lensis, 4. p. q. 8, &c. and the Diuines commonly. O­thers lastly thinke, that all Sacraments doe consist of things and words, if they be taken in a large sense, else not. So Dominicus a Soto vpon 4. dist. 1. q. 1. art. 6. Bellarm. ibid. c. 18. pag. 84.

Fourthly, Paluda. against Tho. Bellar. against Domin. a Soto.

THat which Paludanus saith, Jta (que) quod Pa­ludanus, &c. [vpon 4. dist. 3. q. 1.] that the Sacrament is not euer made voyde, [Page 62] when a man intends to bring in a new Rite, is true; but not against S. Thomas, as perhaps he thought. But that which Dominicus a Soto sayth, namely, That the Greekes doe truely baptize, with those wordes, Let the seruant of Christ be baptized, because the Church of Rome tolerates that fashion, &c. But if the Church of Rome should detest that Rite, then they should not baptize truely, is not altogether true, &c. Bellarm. ibid. c. 21. p. 118.

Fiftly, Hugo, Pet. Lombard, Alensis, Bonauenture, &c. against the common opinion, and Bellarm.

OVr aduersaries teach these two things: Aduersarij duo quaedam docent, &c. That the Sacraments which they hold onely two, were instituted by Christ: namely, Baptisme and the Lords Supper; and that the rest were not appointed by Christ: so teach Caluin and Chemnitius: and with them (whom they cyte) Cyprian, Hugo, Peter Lombard, who denie, that all Sacraments were instituted by Christ: They might haue added Alexander Alensis, Saint Bonauenture and Marsilius, who say, that the Sacraments of confirmation and penance, were not instituted by Christ, but by his Apostles. Against this errour the Councell of Trent, set downe, Can. 1. Sess. 7. thus: If any man shall say, that all the Sacra­ments of the new Testament, were not instituted by Iesus Christ our Lord, let him be accursed; yea im­mediately instituted by him. Further, that which A­lexander and Bonauenture teach concerning the Sa­crament [Page 63] of confirmation cannot be defended, &c. Bellarm. ibid. c. 23. pag. 127.128, 129. &c.

Sixtly, Bellarmine against Catharinus.

THere is a new heresie arisen in our time; Noua haeresis nostro tempore, &c. 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-Aposto­like, and to the Councell, both which they deride. Bellarm. ibid. c. 27. p. 155.

Note, the same which he condemnes for hereti­call in Catharinus, he graunts to be held by his S ^t. Thomas, in the chapter following, pag. 169.

Seuenthly, Caietane and Ledesmius against Thomas and others.

HEre are two opinions of Diuines: for some, Responderide­bet duas esse Theologorum sententias. as Caietane and Ledesmius teach, that in the Mini­ster 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 ver­tue, 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 [Page 64] 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.

Eightly, Bellarmine against Ambrose Catharinus.

Quartum argu­mentum est Ca­tha. &c.THe fourth argument is of Catharinus, from the authority of Saint Thomas, Chrysostome, and Pope Nicholas. Of Saint Thomas, who saith, that the in­tention 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 o­uerhard, that God should put the saluation of men in the arbitrement of a wicked Minister, and so our iustification should be made vncertaine. This argu­ment is already answered. How he answereth and confuteth this opinion and authorities of Catharinus, See Bellarmine ibid. c. 28. pag. 169.

Ninthly, Bellarmine against Ledesmius, Canus, Bonauenture, Scotus, Durand, Richardus, Occam, Marsilius, Gabriel.

THat the Sacraments are true causes of iustifica­tion; Sacramenta esse ver [...]s causas, &c. but Morall causes, not naturall (as he that [Page 65] commands a murder is the true cause of it, though he touch not the partie murdered) is defended by Ledes­mius and Canus in Relict. de Sacram. And the same seemes to be held by many of the old Schoolemen, Bonauenture, Scotus, Durand, Richardus, Occam, Marsili­us, 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 Sacra­ments 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 attri­butes a true efficiency to the Sacraments. Bellarm. of the effect of the Sacram. l. 2. c. 11. p. 225.

Tenthly, the Master of Sentences against the common opinion.

THere is therefore one question, Vna igitur quae­stio est, &c. whether the olde Sacraments (excepting Circumcision) did iusti­fie 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 Sacra­ments did not iustifie, though they were done neuer so much in faith and charity. The other is the com­mon 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.

First, Alexander, Bonauenture, Scotus, Gabriel, against Thomas, Capreolus, Scotus, Ledesmius, others, &c.

Porro de Cir­cumcisione. OF 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 ar­guments. Where it is yet to be noted, that this opini­on of theirs doth not fauour the heretickes of our time, for the heretickes when they make the olde Sa­craments 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 Capre­olus, 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 pro­bable of the two. Bellarm. ibid. c. 13. p. 236.

Secondly, Durand, Scotus, Gabriel against the other Papists.

Signum aliquod spirituale, &c.THat there is a certaine spirituall stampe imprin­ted in the minde, in some Sacraments, which is [Page 67] called a Character, is the common opinion of Ca­tholiks. 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 Duran­dus 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.

Thirdly, Bellarmine against Durandus and Scotus.

THe Character is not a mere relation, Character non est relatio, &c. but an ab­solute quality: this is a common opinion, excep­ting onely Scotus and Durandus. Durandus in the place forecited, holds, it hath onely a being in con­ceit, &c. Which opinion can scarcely be distinguish­ed 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 wan­ted many, that haue confuted him soundly. Bellarm. ibid. c. 19. pag. 268.

Fourthly, three opinions of Papists.

Alij ponunt simpliciter in sub­stantia.SOme of our Doctors hold this Character to be in the vnderstanding: Others place it in the will, be­cause they thinke it disposeth vs to charity, which is in the will: Others hold it simply to be in the sub­stance of the soule, and this seemes the truer opini­on. Bellarm. ibid. c. 19. p. 270.

Fiftly, Scotus against Thomas.

Nec Circumcisio &c.NEither Circumcision, nor any Sacrament of the olde Lawe did imprint any Character in the soule: So holds Saint Thomas 3. p. q. 63. ar. [...].. Scotus thinkes the contrary concerning Circumcision. But the opini­on of Thomas is truer. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 19. pag. 271.

Sixtly, Bernard, Hugo, Lombard, Pope Nicholas against all other Diuines.

Praeter hos erro­res est opinio, &cBEsides 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 ho­ly Ghost: Beda vpon 10. chap. of Acts: Bernard, Epi. 340. ad Henricum. Hugo de Sancto victore, l. 2. of Sa­craments: Master of sentenc. b. 4. dist. 3. And lastly, [Page 69] Pope Nicholas in his Epist. to the Bulgarians. The two foundations of these Authors opinion are o­uerthrowne by Bellarm. who concludeth. But how­soeuer 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 per­son, without an expresse mention of the rest, as all more graue Diuines teach. Bellarm. in his b. of Bap­tisme, cap. 3. pag. 11.

Seuenthly, two contrary opinions of Doctors.

THat Christ did vse some baptisme before his pas­sion it cannot be denied, but the doubt is, Nota, negari non posse &c. whe­ther that Baptisme were the same Sacrament, which now we haue, or onely a preparation to the Sacra­ment 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. Bel­larm. ibid. c. 5. p. 26.

Eightly, Many opinions of Schoolemen.

NOte, Quo puncto temporis &c. that concerning the time wherein Christ instituted the Sacrament of baptisme, there are [Page 70] 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 S ^t. Thomas and others. Bellarmine in his booke of Baptisme, c. 5. pag. 28.

Ninthly, Dominicus a Soto, Ledesmius, &c. against Thomas, Maior, Gabriel, and others.

Non desunt Theologi vt Dominicus, &c.THere are some Diuines, as Dominicus a Soto, and Martin Ledesmius vpon 4. dist. 3. which teach, that Martyredome doth not giue grace ( ex opere ope­rato) 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 opi­nion, 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 with­out 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 sa­ued. So is expresly taught by S ^t. Thomas, Io. Maior, Gabriel and others. Bellarmine same booke, cap. 6. pag. 33.

Tenthly, Bellarmine and all Papists, with Thomas against Peter Lombard.

THere haue been two opinions amongst Catho­likes, of Iohns Baptisme, Inter Catholicos fuerunt etiam &c. 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 a­ny knowledge of the holy Ghost: These he confes­sed 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 re­baptized.

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 vn­reasonable opinion. Bellarm. ibid. c. 19. p. 113.

First, Master of Sentences, Schoolemen, Thomas against Thomas, Bellarmine, and other Papists.

ANother opinion is, Altera opinio est. 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 Schoole­men: [Page 72] 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.

Secondly, Thomas, Concil. Florentinum, Innocentius, Waldensis, Hugo, Bellarmine dissagreeing.

SOme Schoolemen hold, Prior est aliquo­rum Scholasti­corum &c. that the Apostles did in diuers fashions minister the Sacrament of confir­mation; and that in the first times, because the holy Ghost visibly descended, then they vsed no annoin­ting, but meere imposition of hands: After that, vn­ction came in vse, &c. And if you obiect that the A­postles could not institute the matter of a sacrament, they answere; that they receiued that commaunde­ment from Christ, that they should one while vse im­position 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 Inno­centius, &c But the other answer (me thinks) is more probable of Thomas Waldensis, and Hugo de Sancto vi­ctore; 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. Bel­larmine in his B. of confirmation, c. 9. p. 185.

Thirdly, Caietane, Dominicus a Soto, Franc. Victoria against all the elder Papists.

IT is a question among our Diuines, Respon. Quaesti­onem esse inter Theologos. whether Balme be required in Chrisme, as vpon the neces­sity of the Sacrament, or only on necessity of the pre­cept. 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 necessari­ly to be used by the commandement of God. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 9. pag. 190.

Fourthly, Rich. Armachanus against the common opinion.

OF the Catholikes there is onely Richardus Arma­chanus, which thinkes, Ex Catholicis solus est &c. that the office of confir­ming is common both to Bishops, and Presbiters: and from him Tho. Waldensis thinkes that Wickliffe drew his heresie. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 12. pag. 197.

Fiftly, Bonauenture, Durand, Adrian, against Thomas, Richard. Paludanus, Marsilius.

AMongst our Catholike diuines there is a questi­on, Est quidem in­ter Catholicos quaestio &c. whether at least by dispensation a Presbiter [Page 74] may conferre this Sacrament: for Saint Bonauenture, Durand, Adrian, vpon 4. dist. 7. say, it cannot be com­mitted to Priests. But Saint Tho mas, and all his Schollers, and many other Diuines, as Richardus, Pa­ludanus, 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.

Sixtly, some namelesse Papists against the common opinion.

IT is questioned, Sed existit hes loco, &c. 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, be­cause 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 con­trary. Bellar. of the sacram. of the Eucharist. l. 1. c. 2. p. 28▪

Seuenthly, Gabriel, Cusanus, Caietane, Tapperus, Hesselius, Iansenius against all other Papists.

ALmost all Catholikes will haue the wordes of Iohn 6. vnderstood of the Sacrament of the Eu­charist, Porro Catholici fere omnes, &c. [Page 75] or of the Sacramentall eating of Christs bo­dy 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 Sacramental 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.

Eightly, two sorts of Doctors opposite.

THe Catholikes doe not agree in the manner of explicating, what is properly meant, Nota secundo Catholicos, &c. by this pronoune Hoc or Hic, This, in the words of conse­cration: ( 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 vp­pon 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 [Page 76] these formes is my body, as it was of old expounded by Guitmundus, l. 2. Bellarmine ibid. c. 11. p. 83.

Ninthly, most Papists and Bellarmine against Thomas.

Quidam tamen Catholici, &c.SOme Catholikes hold, that a body may be local­ly in two places at once; for (say they) if one place may hold two bodies, so as neither the places are di­uided, 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 a­mongst 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.

Tenthly, Durand. Occam, Albertus, Thomas, Bonauenture, Richardus, Scotus, dissenting.

Primum est, du­as opiniones fal­sas &c.THere 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 Eu­charist, without magnitude or quantity: and he vsed those arguments to this purpose, which now are ta­ken vp by the Sacramentaries. Another opinion was of some auncient Diuines, which Albertus with­out any name reports, and confutes; which after­wards [Page 77] 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 acci­dents, &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, Bonauen­ture, 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.

First, Bellarmine against Durandus, &c.

AVgustine discoursing of Christs comming into the world, through the wombe of the Virgin still continuing closed, saith, B. Augustinus in Epistola ad Vo­ [...]usianum de vtro (que) isto mira­culo, &c. that in these workes all the reason of the fact, is the power of the doer: The same is held by com­mon consent of other Fathers, Gregor. Nazian. Theo­doret. [Page 78] 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.

Secondly, Bellarmine against Durandus.

Quintum ex­emplum est.THe 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 win­dow, 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.

Thirdly, sundry opinions of Popish Doctors.

DVrandus holdeth, Durandus docu­it partem vnam &c. 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 mis­sing) haue contrarily taught, that the matter of the bread is turned into Christs body, but that the sub­stantiall forme of the bread remaines still the same: This errour S ^t. 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 man­ner, 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.

Fourthly, Bellarmine against Dominicus a Soto, Sanctius, Alanus, &c.

HEnce may be refuted the common error, Hinc refelli po­test, &c. which possesses many of this time, concerning the [Page 80] Author of this heresie: for as Thomas Waldensis wit­nesses, 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, Clau­dius Sanctius, Gul. Alanus, and others. But he was not the first, for the Berengarians were before him; ney­ther 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.

Fiftly, Waldensis and Bellarmine against Iohannes Parisiensis.

THE sixt opinion or heresie rather, Sexta opinio seu potius haeresis, &c. is of one Io­hannes 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.

Sixtly, Durandus against the Councels of Constance, and of Trent, and Bellarmine.

THE third error is of them, Tertius error eorum est, &c. which will haue one­ly 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 contra­ry to the Councell of Lateran: for neyther would that Councel haue said, that there is a transsubstanti­ation made, vnlesse it would haue signified, that the whole substance of the bread is changed, &c. There­fore this opinion of Durandus is hereticall, though he himselfe be not therefore to be called an heretike, be­cause he was ready to yeelde to the iudgement of the Church. Bellarmine lib. 3. c. 13. pag. 351.

Seuenthly, foure diuers opinions of Diuines.

ABout the time of Christs instituting the Sacra­ment, Sunt igitur de praesenti quaesti­one, &c. there are foure opinions: first, of the greeks who hold, that Christ did keepe his passeouer, and in­stitute 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 [Page 82] argument of the Greekes. The third of Paulus Bur­gensis, 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 He­brewes did eate their Passeouer on Friday euening, Christ his on Thursday in the euening. The fourth is, the common opinion of Diuines, that Christ insti­tuted 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.

Eightly, the Popish Doctors disagreeing.

THe Catholike Church hath euer thought it so necessary, Porro Ecclesia Catholica semper &c. 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 o­pinion leanes to the affirmatiue part. Bellarm. lib. 4. cap. 10. pag. 476.

Ninthly, Popish Diuines differing.

Est igitur quaestio hoc loco tra­ctanda, &c.HEre is therefore a question to be handled, whe­ther those onely words ( For this is my body, &c.) pertaine to the forme of the Sacrament: The Catho­like Church affirmes it with great consent, Councell [Page 83] 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 consecra­tion 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.

Tenthly, Io. de Louanio against George Cassander.

IOhan. de Louanio in his booke of the Communion vnder both kinds, Johannes a Lo­uanio vbi prae­cipue &c. 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, some Papists against the Councell of Trent.

FIrst the opinion of some is to be confuted, Breuiter refel­lenda est opinio eorum &c. who hold, that from the words This is my body, is gathered, that whole Christ is vn­der the forme of bread; for they say, that by the word ( Body) is signified a liuing body, and ther­fore a body with a soule, and blood. But this opini­on [Page 84] 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.

Secondly, Alexand. Alensis and Gasper Cassalius against the common opinion.

Nihil spiritualis fructus capitur ex duabus.THere 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 o­pinion, and the common and most probable asserti­on of Diuines, of S ^t. Thomas, S. Bonauenture, Richard, Gabriel, Roffensis, Caietane, &c. And though Richardus seemes to incline the other way: yet he doth it one­ly to reconcile Alexander Alensis vnto the common opinion: for of all the ancients there is onely Alex­ander (in 4. part. Sum. q. 53.) which holdes the contra­rie; and of the new writers Gasper Cassalius cals it in­to doubt and question (in his second booke of the Supper, &c.) Bellarm. ibid. c. 23. p. 554.

Thirdly, Io. of Louan, Cornel. Iansenius opposite.

OF this place are two opinions of Catholickes: De hoc loco duae sunt Catholico­rum sententiae. First of Iohn of Louan, and others, who holde, that the Sacrament of the Eucharist was giuen to [Page 85] the two Disciples in Emmaus, and they bring for them Austen, Chrysost. Bede, Theophilact, Ierome, Isychi­us: The other of Cornelius Iansenius vpon the place, who teaches, that the bread blessed by Christ in Em­maus, was not the Sacrament, but onely a figure of it Bellarm. l. 4. cap. 24. pag. 563.

Fourthly, two sorts of Popish Doctors dissenting.

WE teach, De modo autem loquendi, &c. that the very Sacrament is to be a­dored (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 Sacra­ment of the Eucharist is formally the Species of bread and wine, as they containe Christ, doe teach consequently, that the said Sacrament is materially to be adored. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 29. pag. 607.

Fiftly, Hugo de Sancto victore, Peter Lombard, Thomas, Rabanus, &c. disagreeing.

MAny Catholikes endeauour to shew the word Missa (Masse) to be Hebrew, Plurimi conan­tur, &c. for Deut. 16. there is the word ( [...]) in the same signification: and not the Catholikes only, but Philip Melanchton acknow­ledges this deriuation. Other (and their opinion is more probable) hold it to be Latine; of whom also [Page 86] some hold it to be ( a Mittendo) because our offerings and prayers are sent vp to God. So Hugo de Sancto victore (lib. 2. de Sacram.) Others lesse probably, for that an Angell is sent from God to assist the Sacri­fice, and carry it to God, as the Master of Sent. and Thomas (3. p. q. 83.) But their opinion is most like­ly, which deriue it a missione, seu, dimissione populi: This opinion is Isidores, Rabanus, and Hugo, and o­thers later Diuines admit this Etymology. Bellarm. de Missa, l. 1. c. 1. p. 616.

Sixtly, Bellarmine against a nameles Doctor 1. G. Cassalius.

NEare to this opinion of Melanchton seemes to be a certaine late Doctor, Ab hac Philip­pi sententia non procul. &c. a man otherwise learned and godly, who in his booke of Sacrifice (chap. 5.) teacheth, that euery good worke, which is done, that we may in an holy fellowshippe cleaue to God, is a Sacrifice properly: But this opinion of his is false, and may be confuted with many and manifest argu­ments. Bellarm. ibid. c. 2. p. 621.

Seuenthly, Bellarmine against Arias Montanus.

THis testimony of Malach. 1. cannot be vnder­stood of the sacrifice of the crosse; Hoc testimoni­um non potest &c. nor of any Ie­wish sacrifice, nor of the sacrifices of the heathen Idolaters; wherefore the exposition of Arias Montanus is no way to be suffered; for it doth not onely contradict the opinion of al those Fathers (which we will straight-way cyte) but the Apostle himselfe, and [Page 87] the open truth: for to what end were the blood of so many thousand Martyres shed, for not communi­cating with the Gentiles sacrifices, if those had beene cleane and acceptable to God. Bellarm. 1. b. of Masse, cap. 10. pag. 679.

Eightly, Cassalius confuted by Bellarm.

TO this purpose make all those places of the Fa­thers, Huc faciunt om­nia loca Patrum &c. which teach, that there is one only sacrifice of the church, which succeeded al the multitude of the old sacrifices. Leo, Chrysost. Aug. &c. whence appeares, that the opiniō of Gasper Cassalius in his 1. b. de sacrificio is altogether improbable: who affirms, there are two sacrifices of the Eucharist; one of bread and wine; another of the body and blood of Christ. Bellarm. b. 1. of the Masse, c. 27. pag. 756.

Ninthly, diuers opinions of Popish Doctors.

THe consecration of the Eucharist belongs to the essence of the sacrifice; Consecratio Eucharistiae, &c This sentence thus gene­rally proposed hath many vpholders, for of the greeks Nic. Cabasilas: of the latines Ruardus, Iodocus Tiletanus, Gasper Cassalius, Alanus and others maintain it: But al hold it not a like. Some thinke it to be therefore, be­cause by the consecration there is made a true and re­all change of the bread into Christs body; and a true sacrifice requires such a mutation, whereby the thing ceases to be. But this opinion hath no smal argumēts against it: Others think it to be, because by this conse­cration, [Page 88] Christ is truely (though mystically, and vn­blooodily)ffred. This opinion doth not yet fully satis­fie: Thus therfore it seemes to be set forth. There are three things in a Sacrifice, which are found in the consecration of the Eucharist; first a prophane and earthly thing is made holy: Secondly, that thing, thus made holy, is offered to God: Thirdly, the thing thus offered, is ordained to a true, reall, and ex­ternall mutation, and distinction, &c. This seemes to me the opinion of S ^t. Thomas (in 2.2. q. 85. art. 3.) Bel­larm. ibid. c. 27. p. 759.

Tenthly, one or two Popish Doctors against the Councell of Trent.

Sacrificium Missae &c.THE Sacrifice of the Masse hath not onely, or principally his vertue from the act of him, that offers it: but euen from the worke wrought, which is the common opinion of Diuines, and of the Coun­cell of Trent, (Sess. 22. c. 2.) although there be one or two of our Writers found, that dissent from it. Bellarm. 2. booke of the Masse, c. 4. p. 773.

First, Bellarm. against Platina and Polidor. Virgil.

Praeterea Da­masus in Pon­tificali. DAmasus in his Pontificall, in the life of Soter and Siluester Popes, amongst other holy vessels, makes mention of Censers; wherefore it is false, which Platina in the [Page 89] life of Sixtus 1. and Polidore Virgil in his booke of the Deuisers of things, write, that Leo 3. which liued An. Dom. 800. was the first, that vsed Frankincense in the Masse. Bellarm. 2. b. of Masse, cap. 15. pag. 843.

Secondly, Bellarmine against other Papists.

THat Celestinus 1. was not the first Author of [the Introitus] in the Masse, Conuenit ferè inter authores, &c. see defended by Bellarm. against the consent of their Writers, as himselfe confesses. Bellarm. ibid. c. 16. p. 846.

Thirdly, Bellarmine against many Papists.

THat Anastasius 1. was not the first Author of stan­ding at the Gospell, Quam ceremo­niam non ipse &c. is held by Bellarmine against many of their writers. ibid. c. 16. p. 853.

Fourthly, foure seuerall opinions of Popish Doctors.

SCotus, Occam, and Gabriel (vpon 4. Sent. dist. 14.) place the essence of the Sacrament of Penance, Jta ex Catholi­cis Theologis Scotus, &c. in absolution onely, &c. The question then is, whe­ther there be any thing besides absolution, which be­longs to the nature and essence of this Sacrament. Of this there are foure opinions: the first is, that only absolution makes the essence of this Sacrament. So of our Catholike Diuines, Scotus, Occam, Io. Maior, [Page 90] Iacob. Almaine and others, &c. The last and truest opi­nion is, that the Sacrament of penance consists of two parts, inward, and essentiall to it; the absolution of the Priest, as the forme, and the acts of the peni­tent, as the matter; which was the opinion of many old Diuines: S ^t. Thomas, Richardus, Durandus and o­thers vpon 4. Sent. dist. 14. and is now held by almost all that write of this Sacrament. Bellarm. 1. b. of pe­nance, cap. 15. pag. 92.

Fiftly, Gratian and Bonauenture against the rest.

Deinde attexit varias esse opi­niones Catholi­corum &c. Deni (que) esto, non sit confessio iuris &c.THen Chemnitius addes, that there are diuers opi­nions of our Catholikes, concerning the necessi­ty of confession; and this he proues out of Gratian, and a Glosse of his, & out of Bonauenture: these are all his fathers, &c. But say that confession doth not stand by the law of God, as Kemnitius would proue out of a certaine Glosse, which yet the Catholikes mislike. Bellarm. 1. b. of penance, cap, 11. pag. 79.

Sixtly, Scotus confuted by Bellarmine.

Ne (que) Sco'us sa­tis apte &c.NEyther 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.

Seuenthly, Gropperus reiected by Bellarmine.

Jnprimis null [...]unt Catholico­rum &c.THere 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.

Eightly, Scotists against Thomas, Bonauenture, and others: Vega, Ferrariensis, &c.

THe Scotists obiect, Obijciunt tertio &c. that absolution alone is the cause of grace, for that al the power of the Sacra­ment 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 Sacra­ment in absolution alone, which was once the opini­on of S ^t. Thomas, and Saint Bonauenture, and other an­cients vpon 4. dist. Sent. dist. 18. and of the later, An­dreas Vega, Francis of Ferrara, &c. Farther, it may be answered, that absolution is indeede the princi­pall [Page 92] 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. Bellar­mine ibid. c. 16. p. 103.

Ninthly, Durandus against Thomas and the common opinion.

OF the diuision of Penance into contrition, Sequitur altera partitio, &c. con­fession, satisfaction, there are two questions: One amongst the Catholikes, the other with the Heretickes. The former is not, whether these three be ne­cessary, and absolutely to be vsed, but whether all be the true parts of the Sacrament: For it was the opi­nion 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 to­wards it, and satisfaction the fruit of it. But the com­mon 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 ge­nerall Councels of Florence and Trent, Bellarm. ibid. c. 17. p. 104.

Tenthly, Adrianus refuted by Bellarmine.

Ne (que) proban­dum est quod Hadrianus &c.THat there may be a conditional will (at the least) of things impossible, as well as a desire of a thing [Page 93] lost: see defended against Adrianus, q. 1. de paenitentia by Bellarm. l. 2. of penance, cap. 5. pag. 155.

First, Io. Maior, Iac. Almain, Andr. Vega against Thomas, Scotus, Durand, Albert. Soto, Canus, &c.

BVT in this our Catholike writers doe not agree, Porro Catholici Scriptores in eo &c. whether the purpose of a bet­ter life, and detestation of sinne be expres­ly and formally necessary to true contriti­on, or whether it be sufficient to haue it implicitely or confusedly, and virtually. The old Diuines, as Pe­ter Lombard, Alexander Alensis, S. Thomas, Scotus, Du­randus, 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 di­stinguish 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, Domi­nicus a Soto, Melchior Canus: yet there haue beene some few, that haue disputed against it, and content­ing themselues with a virtual purpose, which is con­cluded in the hatred of their sins, haue denied that o­ther to be necessary. In this ranke were Io. Maior, Iac. Almayne, in. 4. Sent. d. 14. Andr. Vega vpon the Coun­cell of Trent, c. 21. Bellarm. ibid. c. 6. p. 157.

Secondly, Capreolus, Dom. a Soto and others against Peter Lomb. Thomas, Albertus, Bonauenture, &c.

IN this onely doe the Schoolemen seeme here to disagree, Theologi Scho­lastici in eo so­lum &c. That some wil haue the act of penance, as also the act of faith and charity, to be onely a disposi­tion to the remission of sinnes, and not to be any me­rit (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 congrui­ty) of our iustification; which opinion is the Masters of Sent. (b. 2. d. 27.) and S ^t. 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.

Thirdly, one Popish Doctor against the rest.

THe Catholike Doctors with common consent, are wont to teach, [...]quidem Ca­tholici doctores &c. 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 Do­ctor, who not many yeares since in a booke which he wrote of charity, taught against this common o­pinion. Bellarm. ib. c. 13. p. 191.

Fourthly, Armachanus confuted by Bellarmine.

RIchardus Armachanus in l. 9 quaest. Armen. cap. 27. taught it probable, that for some great sinnes, Et Richardus Armachanus docuit, &c. 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 confes­sed 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.

Fiftly, Bellarmine against Richardus.

THat the sinne against the holy Ghost is vnpar­donable, Secunda est Ri­chardi in libello de spiritu blas­phemiae &c. 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.

Sixtly, Rupertus opposed by Bellarmine.

THat feare, Errat enim Ru­pertus Abbas l. 9. &c. 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.

Seuenthly, the Councell of Trent against Petr. Oxoniensis, Erasmus, Rhenamus.

Extitit etiam ante annos &c.THere was about some hundreth yeare since, one Petrus Oxoniensis, which affirmed, that the par­ticular, and speciall confession of our sinnes in seue­rall, 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.

Eightly, Bellarmine against Thomas Waldensis, and others.

I Know that Thomas Waldensis [in 2. Tom. c. 141.] was of this minde, Non ignoro Tho­mam VValden­sem &c. that he thought Nectarius Bi­shop 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 be­leeue, that a false History could be written by him of a matter whereof many liuing in the time, when, [Page 97] and where the thing was done, could conuince him. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 14. pag. 320.

Ninthly, all Doctors against Ru. Tapperus, and perhaps Thomas.

INdeede Ruardus Tapperus a worthy Diuine, Docet quidem Ruardus Tap­perus insignis Theologus &c. teach­eth, that a man may satisfie God for his eternall guilt and punishment, by certaine acts, which in or­der of nature follow the infusion of iustifying grace, and goe before remission of sinnes; and cyteth Tho­mas for his opinion (vpon 4. Sent. dist. 15. qu. 5) Nei­ther is it certaine, whether S ^t. Thomas meant so, or no: It is enough for vs, that all Doctors agree in this, that before this grace receiued, no man can sa­tisfie 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.

Tenthly, Thomas, Durand. Paludan. against Adrian, Caietane and Bellarmine.

ALthough the opinion of Thomas, Durandus, Adde quod licet sententia sit Valde &c. Pa­ludanus and others [vpon 4 Sent. dist. 15.] be ve­ry 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 impro­bable; that we doe satisfie God euen by workes, o­therwise [Page 98] 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.

First, Scotus, Gabriel, and few others against Thomas, Richard, Durand, Paludan, &c.

COncerning satisfaction enioyned by a Priest: Non concedit melior pars The­ologorum &c. the better part of Catholike Di­uines doe not graunt, that the party con­fessing 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, Richar­dus, 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.

Secondly, the better Popish Diuines against the worse.

Deni (que) nemo Catholicorum d [...]cet, &c.NO Catholike Doctor teaches, that workes done in deadly sinne do discharge from death. Indeed [Page 99] some say, that the works done in mortal sinne, are sa­tisfactory, 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) affir­meth; 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.

Thirdly, Ruardus, Iansenius, Dominicus a Soto against Waldensis, and Alphonsus, &c.

OF the place (Mar. 6.13.) we all agree not; De priore non omnes conue­niunt. whe­ther that annointing which the Apostles vsed, were Sacramentall, or onely a figure of this Sacra­ment: those which defend the first opinion are Tho­mas 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.

Fourthly, Dominicus a Soto opposed by Bellarmine and all Diuines.

SOme Catholikes, Quidam Catho­lici inter quos &c. amongst whom is Dominicus a Soto, thinke that bodily health is an absolute and infallible effect of this Sacrament of annoin­ting, &c. But this answere pleaseth mee not, since that all Diuines, and also the [Page 100] 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.

Fiftly, three dissenting opinions of Papists.

THere is yet one question amongst our Diuines: For what be those remainders of sinne, Vna tantum est inter Theologos quaestio &c. which are done away by this anointing? they doe not all a­gree: 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 prone­nesse to sinne, or habit which remaines of sinne; but that is yet more vnlikely. But I say that the rem­nants of sin are double, both which are wip't away by this Sacrament. First are those, which some­times remaine after all other Sacraments, whether they be veniall or mortall sinnes; for a man may af­ter 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.

Sixtly, Waldensis, Dominic. a Soto, Iansen. &c. disagreeing.

HEre is yet one doubt, Vna est tantum hoc in loco dubi­tatio &c. in that Pope Innocentius 1. in his Epistle 1. chap. 8. saith, that not onely [Page 101] 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 mi­nister 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 Mi­nister. Bellarmine in the same booke, cap. 9. pag. 31.

Seuenthly, the Councell of Florence, Thomas, other Diuines at variance.

THere are two vsuall Ceremonies in this Sacra­ment: Duae sunt cere­moniae &c. One, that the Letany and other pray­ers be read before the annointing. The second, that seuen parts of the body be annointed; name­ly, 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: [Page 102] 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 suffi­cient (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 al­so S ^t. Thomas holds) is, That the annointing of the fiue senses onely is enough for the essence of the Sa­crament, 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.

Eightly, olde Schoolemen, and Dominicus a Soto against Petr. a Soto, Caietane, Durand, Paludanus, &c.

Ordinatio [...] Epis­copalis, &c.ORdination 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 Schoole­men too, as Altisidoriensis, Io. Maior, Scotus, Durand, Paludanus: Though Durandus would haue it one and the same Sacrament, with the Sacrament of Priest­hood: and lastly, of all the Canonists almost, vpon Ch. Cleros, dist. 21. Bellarmine in his booke of the Sa­cram. of Orders, cap. 5. pag. 44.

Ninthly, Durandus and Caietane opposed by Bellarmine and other Diuines.

IT is very probable, De diaconis valde probabile est. that the Ordination of Dea­cons 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.

Tenthly, Durandus and Caietane against the rest.

FOr Sub-Deaconship there is not so great cer­taintie as of Deaconship, Jam vero de Subdia conantu &c. for neyther is it menti­oned 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.

First, the old Schoolemen, and some new against Durand.

OF the lesser Orders, Deni (que) de mino­ribus Ordinibus &c. it is lesse probable that they are Sacraments, then of the Sub-dea­conship: yet it is the more probable opi­nion, that holdes them all to be Sacra­ments, [Page 104] then that which denies it: First, because all the olde Schoolemen affirme it, excepting onely Du­randus, and the grauer sort of the new, as Franciscus de victoria, Petrus a Soto, &c. Bellarmine. ibid. cap. 8. pag. 53.

Secondly, Dominicus a Soto, and some others against Petr. a Soto, Ledesmius, Hosius, &c.

THe third Controuersie is, Sequitur tertia Controuersia &c. 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 Priest­hood: 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 one­ly 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 im­position 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.

Thirdly, Durandus against the rest.

OF the Catholike writers there is onely Duran­dus, Ex Catholicis vnus est Duran­dus. who (vpon 4. Dist. 26. qu. 3.) holdeth, that Matrimony cannot be called a Sacrament, saue on­ly 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.

Fourthly, Alphonsus a Castro and Petr. a Soto against the Councell of Florence and Trent.

THere are some Catholikes which hold, Non desunt Ca­tholici qui ad­mittant, &c. that Ma­trimony 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 a­gainst 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.

Fiftly, two opinions of Popish Doctors differing.

De copulâ con­iugali duae sunt &c.COncerning carnall copulation, are two opini­ons of Catholikes: Some teach, that it neither is the Sacrament, nor part of the Sacrament, but on­ly an act or duety of Matrimony; and therefore on­ly accidentall in respect of the Sacrament of Matri­monie: Others would haue it a part of the Sacra­ment, yet not an essentiall part, but integrall; and therefore before copulation the Matrimony is rati­fied, but not consummate. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 5. p. 91.

Sixtly, three different opinions of three rankes of Papists.

SOme hold (as Petrus Paludanus, Respondent ali­qui vt Petrus &c. Io. Capreolus, Io. Ec­kius) that those married persons which are con­uerted to Christianity, ought after their baptisme to be maried together againe, and then that their mar­riage is made a Sacrament: Others, as Tho. de Argen­tina, 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 opi­nion 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 conse­quently a Sacrament. Bellarm. ibid. c. 5. p. 102.

Seuenthly, Canus confuted by Bellarmine.

MElchior Canus while he striues for the defence of his new and singular opinion, Canus autem dum pro sua opinione &c. 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 Ca­nus 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.

Eightly, diuers opinions of their Doctors.

SOme teach, Quidam enim docent, &c. that the Patriarches had but one law­full wife, and the rest were their Concubines. O­thers 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 S ^t. Ierome and Augustine. There is a third opinion common in the Schooles, that the Pa­triarches might by Gods dispensation marry more wiues then one: but of this are diuers conceits, some thinke that the seuerall Patriarches had a pecu­liar [Page 108] inspiration from God for this dispensation: O­thers hold it enough that this dispensation was made knowne by inspiration to the first Patriarches, &c. Bellarm. ibid cap. 11. pag. 136.

Ninthly, Erasmus, Catharinus, Caietanus against the other Popish Doctors.

Eandem senten­tiam &c. ERasmus 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 posses­sed with the same errour: Ambrose Catharinus and Caietanus; for Catharinus concludes in his notes vp­pon 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 forbid­den by diuers Canons, and therefore ought not to be done without the authority of the Church. Bel­larm. ibid. cap. 15. pag. 160.

Tenthly, Bellarmine against Canus.

Et Dominicus &c. DOminicus 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 Sa­crament of Matrimony, are those wordes of the [Page 109] 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.

Diuers opinions of Diuines acknowledged: Canus Confuted.

THat which Canus saith, Quod vero ille dicit, &c. 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 fol­low diuers opinions of the matter of this Sacra­ment, yet of the forme and minister of it, they disa­gree not. See the confutation of Canus at large, Chap. 8. &c. Bellarmine the same booke, cap. 7. pag. 111.

First, Pet. Lombard, Bonauenture, Rich. Dominicus a Soto, against Thomas, Scotus, Duran. Palud. Abulensis, &c.

IT is a question among our Doctors, Quaestio est inter doctores, &c. whether Diuorce so graunted to the Iewes, as that after it they might mar­ry againe, were yeelded to them as lawfull, or as a lesser euill: Master of Sentenc. Dist. 33. Lib. 4. and [Page 110] 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, Ec­kius, Dominicus a Soto. Bellarmine the same booke, cap. 17. pag. 192.

Secondly, Erasmus and Gropperus against the rest.

Primus videtur Erasmus &c. ERasmus 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 Ma­trimony, and the Councell of Trent accurses them which shall hold mariage, without consent of Pa­rents void, or voydable by parents. All the old Di­uines, and amongst them S ^t. 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: In­deed Gropperus denies this Clandestine Matrimony to be a Sacrament, wherein he is manifestly deceiued, and contradicts both S ^t. Thomas and all sounder Di­uines. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 19, & 20. pag. 201.202. &c.

Thirdly, Thomas, Bonauent. Albert. Richard. Durand. Dominicus a Soto, against Scotus, Paludan, Caietane, and all Canonists.

IT is a Controuersie among Catholikes, Quaestio igitur &c. 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 Ecclesia­sticall and positiue: For many, and those graue Di­uines Saint Thomas, Saint Bonauenture, Albertus, Ri­chardus, 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 Inter­preters of the Canon law, as Panormitanus witnes­seth: who thinketh, that this dissolution is onely warranted by the Decree of the Church. Bellarm. ibid. c. 21. pag. 217.

Fourthly, Caietane against the common opinion.

COncerning these foure forbidden degrees, De his quatuor gradibus &c. 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 tea­cheth the contrary. Bellarm. ibid. c. 28. p. 278.

Fiftly, Albertus, Thomas, Bellarmine, and others against Pet. Lombard, Io. Scotus, &c.

Non desunt quidem Theolo­gi.THere 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.

Sixtly, some learned Papists confuted by Bellarmine.

THE State of Adam after his fall, Quare non ma­gis differt, &c. differ'd no o­therwise 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 igno­rant 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 additi­on [Page 113] 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. Bel­larmine in his booke of the grace giuen to our first parents, cap. 5. pag. 21.

Seuenthly, Bellarmine against Eugubinus.

THE Pelagians held, Prior fuit Pela­gianorum &c. 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.

Eightly, Franc. Georgius refuted by Bellarmine.

SOme of the Auncients haue turned all that Hi­storie of Paradise, the Riuers and Trees, Non defuerunt ex veteribus &c into meere Allegories, as Philo, Valentinus Haeresiarcha, Origenes: But in our age Franciscus Georgius, 1. Tom. of Pro­blemes, and in his Harmony of the World, Cant. 1. Tom. 7. chap. 21. hath gone about to receiue and de­fend [Page 114] this opinion, long since condemned by the fa­thers. Bellarm. ibid. c. 10. p. 53.

Ninthly, Aug. Eugubinus, Hier. de Oleastro, Vatablus, Iansenius reiected by Bellarmine.

Quaerta opinio est recentiorum. &c.THe 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.

Tenthly, the later Papists against the auncient.

HOwsoeuer the later writers, which we cyted be­fore; Eugubinus, Et quidem re­centiores illi &c. Iansenius and others, holde the contrary; yet since I neuer read any of the aunci­ent, which haue held the earthly Paradise to be pe­rished, eyther by waters or by any other cause: And I haue found many that affirme it is yet extant, as al­most all the Schoolemen (vpon 2. Sent. d. 17.) and Saint Thomas: besides, Iren. Hierom. Augustine, Theo­doret, Bede, &c. and others: I dare not dissent from so common and receiued an opinion, Bellarm. ibid. cap. 14. pag. 68.

First, Bellarm. against S. Tho. and other Schoolemen.

IT is held by Io. Damas­cenus, Et quidem Jo­hannes Damas­cenus, &c. S ^t. Thomas, and other of the Schoole­men, that men onely, and not brute crea­tures should haue had place in Paradise, if man had not sinned; But the authority of Saint Basill and Saint Austin, which teach the contrary, preuaileth more [Page 116] with me: See the confutation. Bellarmine the same booke, cap. 15. pag. 71.

Secondly, the Schoolemen opposed by Bellarmine.

S ^t. Austin whom the Schoolemen in this doe fol­low, Vna sancti Au­gustini quem Scholastici &c. holdes, that the tree of life was appointed to defend that death, which vseth to ensue vpon olde age: the opinion of many other Fathers, and I thinke very agreeable to Scripture, and reason, is quite o­therwise; namely, that this Tree had this power, that once tasted of, it could giue perfect immortality, such as we shall haue after our resurrection, &c. This I confesse I like better of the two. Bellarmine ibid. c. 18. pag. 74.

Thirdly, Bellarmine against Alphonsus de Castro.

I Maruell what Alphosus de Castro meant, Quocirca valdè mirum est &c. to write that Saint Ierome neuer ascribed this errour of the equalitie of sinnes to Iouinian, for in many pages in his second booke against Iouinian, hee both names him, and answereth his Arguments for this pur­pose. Bellarm. in his first booke of the losse of grace and State of sinne, cap. 4. pag. 97.

Fourthly, Io. Gerson and Io. Rossensis against Lombard and the rest, and Iacob. Almaine.

His omnibus er­roribus contra­ria est sententia Theolog. Ca­tholicorum &c.THe Catholike Diuines in the Master of Sent. 2. B. Dist. 42. and Saint Thomas out of the consent [Page 117] of almost all writers teach, that some sinnes of their owne nature (without all respect to Predestination, or reprobation of the state of the regenerate, or vn­regenerate) are deadly, and others veniall, and that by the first, man is made vnworthy of Gods fauour, and guilty of death; by the other liable onely to some temporall punishment, and fatherly chastisement: Onely Io. Gerson, 3. p. Theol. Tract. 3. and Io. of Roche­ster in his refutation of 32. Art. of Luther, and Iacobus Almaine must be excepted, which differ somewhat herein from the common opinion of Diuines. Bel­larm. ibid. c. 4. p. 102.

Fiftly, Bellarmine and Thomas against Scotus and Bonauenture.

THE common opinion of Catholike Diuines is, that Eues first sinne was pride, At sententiae communis &c. yea S. Thomas holdes, that the first sinne of both our first Parents was pride, 2.2. quaest. 163. S. Bonauenture and Scotus hold, that Adams first sinne was inordinate loue to his wife, not of concupiscence, but of humane kind­nesse. The other opinion is to be receiued rather: See the confutation of Scotus and Bonauenture, cha. 5. Bellarm. 3. booke of the losse of grace, &c. c. 4. p. 278.

Sixtly, different opinions of ancient Fathers, maintained by some Papists.

SOme thinke, that Eue beleeued not, Aliqui docent &c. that death should follow vpon the eating of the forbidden [Page 118] tree, but rather beleeued, that GOD had lyed to them, and vpon enuie forbad that so excellent and wholsome fruit. So teach Cyrill, Chrysostome, Au­gustine, Rupertus, Rabanus, and many others. O­thers thinke, that Eue beleeued that the same fruite was not indeed forbidden by God, and that she and her husband had mistooke the wordes of GOD: This opinion is noted by Augustine booke 11. Gen. ad literam, cap. 30. and by Epiphanius in the here­sie of Cainites. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 6. pag. 290.

Seuenthly, Scotus and some few others against Thomas, Albert, Bonauenture, Richard, Durand.

SOme there are which thinke, that the first sinne of our first Parents might haue beene veniall: Et quidem non desunt. So holdes Scotus (vppon 2. Senten. Dist. 21.) and some fewe others which follow him: But the greater Diuines teach contrarie, as Saint Thomas, Albert, Saint Bonauenture, Richardus, Durandus, Egi­dius, and others, vpon 2. Sent. Dist. 21. and Alexan­der Alensis in Sum. Theol. p. 2. q. 104. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 8. pag 298.

Eightly, Bellarmine against the Schoolemen, with Chrysostome.

Et quidem S. Iohannes Chrys.SAaint Chrysostome directly teacheth, that the sinne of Eue was more haynous then Adams, which o­pinion [Page 119] most of the Schoolemen follow, vpon 2. Sent. Dist. 22. Contrarily, Saint Ambrose by many Arguments, proues, that the man sinned worse then the woman: Saint Austin so speakes, as if he thought the sinnes of both equall: Bellarmine al­lowes Chrysostomes opinion for probable, but yeelds rather to Ambrose, and concludes, that absolutely the man sinned worse then the woman, though in re­spect of some acts, the woman sinned equally to him. Bellarm. ibid. c. 9. p. 299.

Ninthly, three rankes of Popish Doctors dissenting.

COncerning the Traduction of Originall sinne, Explicandus est modus &c. Saint Austin holdes thus: That eyther both Bodie and Soule is corrupted in the deriuation of it, (according to their Opinion, which holde the Soule propagated) or that the Soule is corrupted in the Body, as in an vncleane vessel, according to them which hold the Soule created by God, and onely the corrupted flesh taken from our parents: Further, Au­stin writes, that the flesh is corrupted, because it is begotten in lust; and that it is not Generation but lust, which properly traduceth sinne, as August. in his first booke De peccat. meritis, & 1. B. De nuptijs & concup. But this opinion, if it bee taken as the wordes sound (as it is indeede vnderstood by Peter Lombard, Gregory Ariminensis, and Gabriel) seemes not to bee suffered. Others hold, that the Soule is defiled with the Body, because the [Page 120] flesh destitute of Originall iustice, and growne re­bellious to reason, drawes away the soule, and in­clines it amisse: so thinke Alexander Alensis and S. Bonauenture: but this opinion is confuted by the same arguments. There is another opinion, which I doubt not is the truest, of Saint Anselme, Saint Tho­mas, Scotus, Durandus, and others vpon 2. Sent. dist. 31. That to the traducing of Originall sinne, nothing is required, but that a man be by true generation de­scended from Adam, for in that hee was in Adams loynes when he transgressed, hee did communicate with his sinne. Bellarmines 4. booke of losse of grace, cap. 12 pag. 400.

Tenthly▪ some Popish Doctors against Thomas Aquin▪ and others.

Quod ad prio­rem &c.ALl hold, that no sinne could haue beene tradu­ced to mankinde, if Eue alone had sinned: But in this they differ, that some thinke from Eues sinne a­lone; there would haue growne a necessity of dying to her sonnes, and the other inconueniences that follow mortalitie: Others hold, that neither sinne nor necessity of dying would haue followed: This latter opinion is Saint Thomases, 1.2. q. 81. and with­out doubt very true. Bellarm. ibid. c. 13. p. 402.

First, all Diuines against Thomas Aquin.

THe common opinion is, Communis sen­tentia est si primus, &c. that if the first man had not sinned, whosoeuer else should sinne, his offence should haue bin personall and particular, and therefore could not infect and defile his posterity: but yet S. Thomas seems to hold the contrary in his 5. quaest. of euill, art 4. but perhaps the place is corrupted. Bel­larm. l. 4. c. 13. p. 403.

Secondly, Capreolus, Caietanus and others against the common opinion.

THough some Catholikes hold, Tametsi non desint. inter Ca­tholicos, &c. that opinion to haue some more inclination to the truth, which exempts none but Christ from the state of originall sinne, yet euen those Authors doe not condemne the contrary opinion as erroneous, neyther indeede can, vnlesse they will resist the Decrees of the gene­rall Councell of Trent, and of Sixtus 4. and Pius the 5. Popes, which if they did, they should not be recko­ned for Catholikes; and of this opinion were Ca­preolus, Caietanus and others. Bellarm. l. 4. c. 15. & 16. pag. 409.

Thirdly, Bellarmine against some namelesse Papists.

THere are that hold, the blessed Virgin sinned not in Adam; Non desunt qui existiment. for, they say, that the law of not eating of the tree of the Knowledge of good and e­uill, was giuen to our parents for themselues and their posterity, except the Virgin Marie; which o­pinion seemes to me not safe to be defended. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 16. pag. 418.

Fourthly, Hofmeisterus and Viruesius confuted by Bellar.

Ex nostris Io­ha [...]nes &c.OF our writers Iohn Hofmeisterus, and Alphonsus Viruesius doe scarce acknowledge, there is any difference in this article of Originall sinne, betwixt vs and the heretickes; but if it be well considered, there is a double difference in our doctrine. Bellarm. l. 5. of the losse of grace, cap. 4. p. 460.

Fiftly, the Councell of Trent against Pighius and Catharinus.

Non vnum in omnibus &c.THe Councell of Trent hath defined, that origi­nall sinne is not as one, and the same in all; but that euery man hath his owne proper birth-sinne, a­gainst the false opinion of Pighius and Catharinus. Bellarm. ibid. c. 6. p. 472.

Sixtly, two rankes of Popish Doctors opposed by Bellarm.

THere doe now remaine two incommodious o­pinions of Catholikes to be confuted. Nunc refutan­d [...]e sunt duae &c. Some therefore of our authors, would haue originall sinne to be nothing but concupiscence: that is, a faulty quality in the mind, euermore stirring vp wicked de­sires: so holds Peter Lombard (in 2. Sent. d. 31.) Henricus [b. 2. q. 11.] Gregorius Ariminensis; and of the later Io.Driedo: But this difference is betwixt Henry and Gregorie; that Henry holds, that euill quality of the Soule, to be a pronenesse to all euill: Gregorie restrains it to the inclination vnto that thing, which is carnally delightfull. This opinion (me thinkes) cannot be defended. (And a little after) In all this we agree with Peter Lombard, Henricus, Gregory and the rest: Onely here lies the question, Whether this faultines of nature be a positiue quality, or not: and whether it be properly and formally originall sinne: they affirm both, we deny both. Bellarm. ib. c, 15. p. 548

Seuenthly, Albert Pighius, and Catharinus, and some an­cient confuted by Bellarmine.

LAstly remaines to be confuted, Restat vltimus error. the errour of Al­bertus Pighius, Ambrosius Catharinus, and some of the ancient, as Pet. Lomb. reports; which is, that origi­nal sin is nothing els but the first disobedience of Adam, wherby the precept of God, for not eating of the [Page 124] forbidden tree was broken, &c. but it is false and he­retical, that original sinne is nothing else, besides the first actuall transgression of Adam, &c. Bellarm▪ ibid. cap. 16. pag. 555.

Eightly, foure sorts of Popish Doctors at irreconcile­able variance.

Quin (que) nume­rantur sententiae &c.THere are fiue opinions of the estate and punish­ment of Infants vn-baptized, after this life: first of those which durst promise the Kingdome of hea­uen to them; though they denied not, that they were borne in originall sinne: so held one Vincentius of old, and now lately Zuinglius, and many of the Se­ctaries of these times. The second of them which exclude them from heauen, but yet yeelde them an eternall and naturall blessednesse, free from all sor­row and trouble, out of the Kingdome of the bles­sed, and farre from the prison of the damned: so did the Pelagians hold, as August. b. of heresies, chap. 88. neare to which opinion are Ambrosius Catharinus Albertus Pighius, and Hierome Sauanarola. The third is, that Infants dying without baptisme are damned in hell to eternall death, but yet so punished with want of the vision of God, as that in the meane time they suffer no paine, neither inward nor outward: so teacheth S. Thomas in q. 4. of euill, art. 1.2. &c. and some other Schoole Doctors [vpon 2. Sent. d. 23.] The fourth opinion exempts such infants from the torment of the fire and worme, whereof we reade [Page 125] (Mar. 9.) but not from an inward sorrow, for the losse of their eternall blessednesse. So teaches Pe­ter Lombard (vpon 2. Sent.) and after him some o­thers, as S. Thomas, S. Bonauenture, and Gregory Ari­minensis, and others report. The fift, which is the seuerest opinion, teacheth, that Infants for their ori­ginall sinne, are perpetually tormented in hell, with both sorts of punishment, of losse, and of sense: to which opinion incline Gregorius Ariminensis, Io. Driedo. Bellarm. 6. b. of the losse of grace. c. 1. p. 174▪ 175.

Ninthly, two sorts of Popish Writers opposite.

THe place wherein such Infants doe, Locus in quo paruuli degunt &c. and shall liue, is the prison of hell; a place darke and hor­rible, as almost all the Schoole-Diuines teach, Saint Thomas, S. Bonauenture, Scotus, Durandus, Richardus, Ca­preolus, and others vpon 2. Sent. dist. 33. and besides, Alexander Alensis, and Albertus. This difference on­ly there is betwixt these olde Diuines, that some place Infants in the higher part of hell, which they call Limbum puerorum, the verge of Infants: others say, they haue one common place with the damned. Thus the fathers of the Florentine Councell teach, &c. Bellarm. ibid. c. 2. p. 582.

Tenthly, Durandus, Thomas, Bonauenture, Richardus differing.

SOme of the old Schoolemen haue held, Aliqui veterum Scholasticorum. that those infants shal therfore haue no sorrow, for the losse [Page 126] of blessednes, because they shall not know they haue lost it, which may be done onely by faith: this rea­son is approued by Thomas in qu. 2. de malo, but him­selfe reproues it in 2. Sent. dist. 33. quaest. 2. Durandus vpon the same place defends it. Bonauenture hath deuised another reason: Thomas a third: and Richar­dus vpon the same place, seeing that the foresaid reasons did not giue satisfaction, addes a fourth, and saith: that infants know they are fallen from hap­pinesse, and yet are not sadde, it comes to passe by a singular prouidence of God which remoues sorrow from their minds. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 6. pag. 609.

First, Albert Pighius and Peter Lombard, with Scotus against the rest, &c.

Ad hanc senten­tiam accessit Albertus &c. THat no part of iustice stands in any quali­ty or habite of ours, but all wholly in Gods free acceptation, is held by Caluin, Kemnitius, Heshusius: and to this opinion of the heretikes comes Albertus Pighius (otherwise a Catholike Doctor) but in some questions (as Ruar­dus Tapperus noted before vs) miserably seduced by reading of Caluins bookes: for thus Pighius writes in his fift booke of Freewill: Wee will fetch the di­uers acceptions of grace from the Scriptures, not from the Schooles; for in them commonly they im­magine, [Page 127] that the grace of God is some quality crea­ted in our soules by God, &c. all which I thinke false and feined, and to haue no authority from scrip­ture: thus Pighius. But the common opinion of Diuines constantly teacheth, that a supernaturall habite is infused into vs by God, whereby the soule is garnished and perfited, and so made acceptable to God. For though Peter Lombard in 1. Sent. dist. 17. seeme to say, that charity is not an habite, but the very holy Ghost himselfe, yet it appeares in the same booke dist. 37. he meant, that the spirit of God dwel­leth not in them onely, which know and loue him, but euen in Infants by some habite: wherefore Io. Scotus holds, that Peter Lombards opinion may well be expounded and defended; but S ^t. Thomas and o­ther Diuines reproue his opinion, as if he denied the habite of charity. Bellarm. of grace and freewill, l. 1. cap. 3. pag. 50.

Secondly, foure diuers opinions of Popish Doctors.

WHether the habite of grace be the same with the habite of charity, Vtrum habitus gratiae. there are foure opini­ons of Diuines: for some would haue this iustifying grace ( gratum facientem) to be an habite, in nature and respects different from charity, as S ^t. Thomas, Capreolus, Caietanus, Ferrariensis, Dominicus a Soto. O­thers make not a reall, but a formall distinction be­twixt them, as Albertus Magnus, Alexander Alensis, and perhaps S ^t. Bonauenture vpon 2. Sent. dist. 26 O­thers [Page 128] hold them neither in deede nor formally, but onely in certaine respects different; and this is the iudgement of Alexander Alensis, who belike changed his opinion, Richardus, Scotus, Mayro. Gabriel, Maior, Henry of Gaunt, and Andreas Vega. Others holde, there is no difference at all betwixt them, saue in name onely. So Durandus vpon 2. dist. 26. q. The third opinion seemes to be most probable, and more agreeing to Scripture, Fathers, and Councell of Trent. Bellarm. ibid. c. 6. p. 63.

Thirdly, Thomas and all Diuines against Peter Lombard.

Operae precium esse duximus. &c.VVE thought it meete to confute the opinion of them, which teach, that charity whereby we loue God, is not any created habite, but the ve­ry person of the holy Ghost, which vseth to be ac­counted Lombards opinion. But we must thinke Pet. Lomb. was not grosse, and dull, to thinke the very act of loue, which we our selues produce, is the very ho­ly Ghost: but this was it, that Lombard taught, that the very next immediate cause, or ground of the loue of God, is the spirit of God in vs, and not any created habite, as of faith, hope, and the rest; which opinion all Diuines confute in their Commentaries (on the 1. booke Sent. dist. 17.) especially Saint Thomas (in 2.2. q. 23.) and in his questions, who answereth 24. obiections that might be made for Lombards opini­on. Bellarm. ibid. c. 8. p. 77.

Fourthly, three rankes of Popish Writers at variance.

VVHence grace proueth effectuall, Vnde sumatur efficacia gratiae &c. are three opinions: The first of them, which hold the efficacy of grace to stand in the assent and co-o­peration of mans will: and therefore these hold it in mans power to make grace effectuall, which other­wise in it selfe would be but sufficient. The other of those, which thinke effectuall grace to be the natu­rall action of God, which determines the wil, to will and choose that good, which was inspired to them by exciting grace: This opinion seemes eyther the same with the error of the Caluinists and Lutherans, or very little different; The Abettors of this opini­on like it, because they thinke it is Augustines: but that it was not his, may be shewed by foure argu­ments, &c. The third, is the meane betweene both these extremes. Bellarmine ibid. c. 12. p. 97.98. &c.

Fiftly, Popish Diuines diuided.

MAny Catholike Diuines, and almost all, teach, Theologi Catho­lici quàm plu­rimi &c. that euery man hath sufficient grace giuen him for the place and time, and yet without preuenting grace no man can desire or receiue it. So Alexander Alensis, Albertus Magnus, S. Thomas, Bonauent. Scotus, P. Adrian, Io. Roffensis, &c. Bellarm. l. 2. of grace and freewill, c. 1. p. 116.

Sixtly, Andr▪ Vega against Abulensis, Adrian, Caietane, Roffensis.

Auxilium dei sufficiens &c.ALthough sufficient and necessary ayde to rise from sinne, be not wanting to any man for the time and place, yet it is not present at all times: This proposition is not mine onely, but it is confirmed by Abulensis, Adrianus 6. Caietane, Roffensis, Driedo, Tap­perus. But Andreas Vega saith, that sinners may be at any or euery time conuerted, yet he addes, that they cannot at euery time bring that their possibility to effect: so he partly affirmes, and partly denies it. Bel­larm. l. 2. c. 6. p. 131.

Seuenthly, Thomas, and Caietane, and Bellarmine against other Doctors.

Disputant qui­dem Theologi &c.DIuines indeede dispute, whether predestination belong rather to the vnderstanding, or to the will: But I like the opinion of Cardinal Caietane and S ^t. Thomas, who hold it rather of the vnderstanding; and the rather, because it is Saint Augustines in his booke De bono perseuerant. cap. 17. Bellarm. ib. c. 9. p 154.

Eightly, Ambros. Catharinus and some others confuted by Bellarmine.

Sed explicemus paulo fusius, &c.BVT let vs more at large expound that principal place out of Rom. 9. because Ambros. Catharinus, [Page 131] and some other new Writers take it amisse. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 10. pag. 157.

Ninthly, some namelesse Authors confuted by Bellarm.

THE distinction which some Catholikes make betwixt predestination and election; Propter hoc ar­gumentum non defuerunt &c. that pre­destination is before election; predestination is the meanes, election respects the glory it selfe; predesti­nation is free, election depends on the praeuision of our good works. See by Bellarmine (the same booke, cap. 15. p. 186.) confuted, as disagreeing from Scrip­ture and reason.

Tenthly, eight seuerall opinions of Popish Doctors.

THe first opinion is, Sunt autem de hac re multae Theologorum sententiae &c. That freewill doth consist properly in our act, not in any habite, &c. so tea­cheth Herueus (1. quodlibet. q. 1.) who places freewill in those acts of the vnderstanding and will, which goe before deliberation, or the conclusion of delibe­ration. The second is, Bonauentures opinion, who placeth freewill in a certaine naturall habite, arising from reason and will (vpon 2. Sent. Dist. 23. art. 1.) The third is Albertus opinion, that freewill it is a po­wer of the soule, perfected by a naturall habite. The fourth, that freewill is an vniuersal power, or faculty, conteining vnder it all the powers of the vnderstan­ding and sensitiue soule. This opinion is reported [Page 132] without name by Saint Bonauenture and Saint Tho­mas. The fift is, of Alexander Alensis, which teacheth, that freewill is a particular power or faculty of the soule, and distinct from reason and will (in p. 2. Sum. q. 74. &c.) The sixt is Durandus (vpon 2. Sent. d. 24. q. 3.) who teaches, that freewill is the very power of reason and will, but more especially of reason. The seuenth is the opinion of Henricus and Scotus (in 2. Sent. dist. 25.) who hold, that freewill is but one particular faculty, euen the will it selfe; and that it is so free, that it doth not depend so much as vpon the practicall Iudgement of reason. The eight is the o­pinion of S. Thomas (1. part. Sum. q. 83.) and (in 1.2. q. 13. &c.) Richardus Capreolus, Conradus, Caietanus, and others, which hold, that freewill is indeede one particular faculty, euen the will it selfe (as the former opinion) but they adde, that the roote of this free­dome is in reason, and that the will wholly depends vpon the last iudgement of practicall reason, which opinion seemes to me to be the truest. Bellarm. l. 3. cap. 7. pag. 221.

First, Occam against the common opinion.

Tametsi Gul. Occam in l. 3. Sent. q. 13. ALthough Gul. Occam write, that the obiect of the will is any thing that hath being, whether it be good or euill; so that it can be set vpon euill, as it is euill: yet the [Page 133] common opinion of Diuines is contrary, &c. and a­mongst the rest of Saint Thomas in 1. part, q. 20. art. 1. &c. Bellarm. ibid. c. 12. p. 248.

Secondly, three rankes of Popish Diuines disagreeing.

ABout the obiect of freewill, Tres de hac re sententiae &c. there are three opi­nions; The first of Pet. Lombard, Occam, Gabriel, who hold, that all things which are present, are ne­cessary, and cannot be otherwise; and therefore that future actions alone are in the power of freewill.

The second of Gregorius Ariminensis (vpon 1. Sent. d. 39.) which thinkes, that the entring into an action, euen for the present, may be free, but that some continuance, is altogether necessary.

The third is more common in Schooles, and more true, which is declared and defended by Io. Sco­tus, Capreolus, and Hersubcus: that freewill hath in his power, not onely future, but present actions, and not onely in their entrance, but continuance also. Bellar. ibid. cap. 13. pag. 251.

Thirdly, Scotus and Henric▪ against Thom▪ and Capreolus.

COncerning the first act of the will, Tres enim The­ologorum. whether it be simply free, as Scotus and Henricus hold, or whe­ther it be wrought wholly by God alone, so as the will is but onely passiue, as Capreolus and Saint Tho­mas (by Capreolus report) or whether thirdly, it be ef­ficiently [Page 134] of the will, but yet of God as the author of it: as following vpon that natural inclination, which God hath set in the will, as Caietane, Ferrariensis, and Saint Thomas. See Bellarmine same booke, cap. 14. pag. 256.

Fourthly, Petrus ab Aliaco against Saint Thomas and other Diuines.

Vna solum con­trouersia rema net.ONe Controuersie remains, whether by the light of reason alone, we can know that there is a God, and that he is one. Of our men Petrus ab Ali­aco in 2. Sent. q. 3. writes, that we can know nothing at all of God, without a speciall helpe of grace: but almost all Diuines, and especially Saint Thomas, teach the contrary; who doubt not to call that o­pinion erroneous. Bellarmine in his fourth booke of grace and freewill, c. 2. p. 277.

Fiftly, Durandus against all Diuines: some other namelesse against the rest.

Duo siquidem contrarij errores &c.OF actions naturall, or ciuill, or manuall (with­out consideration of any morall good or euill in them) whether they could be done of vs, by the onely power of nature, there haue beene two con­trary errours: for some haue taught that man as well as other things, can doe his workes without a­ny helpe of God, whether generall or speciall. So [Page 135] Origen seemes to hold, as Saint Thomas noteth: so also the Pelagians, and amongst others Durandus vp­on 2. Sent. dist. 1. quaest. 5. Others haue held in an other extreame, that God doth so immediately and properly worke all things, that the second causes do iust nothing; but in their presence God doth all. Saint Thomas reports this opinion, in quaest▪ de poten­tia art. 7. The true and common opinion of Diuines is betweene both. Bellarmine the fourth booke, cap. 4. pag. 285.

Sixtly, Saint Thomas, Gregorie, Gabriel, Buridan, An­dreas de Castro, Laurent. Valla, in three rankes against one another.

ONe of the maine Controuersies of this matter is, Tertia quaestio quae vna ex principalibus &c. whether man haue freewill in naturall and ciuill actions, whereof are three opinions: First, of well neare all Catholikes, that not onely man is of freewill in the foresaid actions, but that this is eui­dent, both in the light of nature and doctrine of faith, as Saint Thomas (aboue others (in quaest. 6. de malo) and Gregory, Gabriell, and others vpon 2. Sent. d. 25. The second of some Catholikes, which hold it certaine by the doctrine of faith, not by the light of reason, that man hath this freewill. So teach Io. Buri­danus 3. Ethic. q. 1. Andr. de Castro, 1. Sent. d. 45. cyted by Ruardus, &c. The third opinion, or heresie ra­ther, is of Laurentius Valla in his booke of free­will, &c. and Bucer, who teach, that man hath [Page 136] not freewill in any thing, in this state of his corrup­ted nature; no not in things indifferent and ciuill. Bellarm. l. 4. c. 5. p. 289.

Seuenthly, Caietane, Durandus, and another sort vn-na­med against each other, and Bellarm. against all.

Concordiam istam liberi ar­bitrij &c.THE co-operation of Gods prouidence with mans freewill, Caietane thinks cannot be expres­sed: Contrary, Durandus thinkes he hath sufficiently vnfolded it, when he teacheth, that there is no con­course of Gods will with second causes; but that the natures and vertues of themselues are sufficient: and that God as he hath made them, so should pre­serue them. But this opinion is false and contrary to Scriptures, Fathers, and reason. The third sort hold, that God by his concourse determines the acti­on of mans will, and yet that it is absolutely free: and this for many causes I cannot allow. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 14. pag. 318.

Eightly, Greg. Ariminensis, Capreolus, Cassalius against Albert, Bonauenture, Scotus, Richard Durandus, &c

Quidam Theo­gi, &c.SOme Diuines hold, that no morall truth can be knowne by man, in the state of his corrupted na­ture, without the speciall aide of Gods spirit so teach Gregorius Ariminensis, Iohannes, Capreolus, Gaspar Cas­salius. Contrarily, all Diuines almost thinke by the [Page 137] meere power of nature, and by a generall ayde of God, some morall truth may be knowne. So Al­bertus, S. Bonauenture, Scotus, Richardus, Durandus, Do­minicus a Soto, S▪ Thomas, &c. This latter opinion seemes the truest, which we doe the rather defend, because it so much displeaseth our aduersaries, and Io. Caluin especially. Bellarm. 5. booke of grace and freewill, cap. 1. pag. 337.

Ninthly, Scotus, Durandus, Gabriel, Gregor. Ariminen­sis, Capreolus, Marsilius, Alexander, Albert, Thomas Bonauent. opposite to each other.

ALl Catholikes agree, Conueniunt Theologi Catho­lici, &c. that no workes meritori­ous of grace, can be done by the onely power of nature; and secondly, that all our workes before iu­stification are no sinnes: within these bounds some dispute for freewill, perhaps more freely and lauish­ly then were meete, as Scotus, Durandus, Gabriell, vpon 2 Sent. d. 28. Others againe giue lesse to it then they should, as Gregorius [...] Ariminensis, Capreolus vpon 2. Sent d. 28. and Marsilius. We wil follow that, which the greater and grauer sort of Diuines teach, name­ly, Alexander, Albertus, S. Thomas, S. Bonauenture, &c. Bellarm. l. 5. c. 4. p. 351.

Tenthly, two sorts of namelesse Doctors opposed.

PErhaps those authors which say, Fortasse concili­ari possunt. that without the helpe of God no tentation can be ouercome, and [Page 138] those which hold, some may be vanquished with­out it, may be reconciled; yet their opinion and speech is more agreeable to Scriptures and Fathers, which say, no tentation can be ouercome without Gods ayde. Bellarm. ibid. c. 7. p. 363.

First, Bellarmine with Saint Thomas and Bonauenture against some namelesse Doctors.

Dictum iliud commune Scho­larum, &c. FOr the common saying in Schooles (To the man that doth what he can, God denies not grace) I answere, that this is well expoun­ded of S ^t. Thomas in 1. 2. q. 109. and Saint Bonauenture in 2. Sent. dist. 28. grace is not denied to him that doth his vtmost, when a man doth it by working together with Gods grace, whereby he is stirred; not when he worketh only by the power of nature: certainely those which teach that man by doing what he may, is by the onely strength of na­ture prepared to grace; eyther thinke that hee may thereby desire, and aske grace, which is the Pelagians heresie, or hold, that man by his owne strength may keepe all the morall law, &c. and this also is Pelagia­nisme, confuted in the former booke. Bellarm. l. 6. of grace and freewill, c. 6. p. 508.

Secondly, Bellarmine against Dominicus a Soto.

SOme Catholikes, and especially Dominicus a Soto, Aliqui etiam ex Catholicis, &c. 2. b. of nat. and grace, c. 14. denie, that our dispositi­ons towards iustification, can by any reason be cal­led merits, and to be iustified freely, they hold to im­ply a iustification, without any merite whatsoeuer: But I cannot vnderstand, why we should not in that case vse the name of merite (especially with that ad­dition of congruity) when we speake of works done by the preuenting grace of God. Bellarm. of iustifi­cation, l. 1. c. 21. p. 103.

Thirdly, Albertus Pighius and the Diuines of Colen a­gainst the Councell of Trent and Bellarmine.

NOt onely Martin Bucer, In eandem sententiam fiue po­tius, &c. but Albertus Pighius (with some others, as namely the Diuines of Colen) in his second controuersie, held this opinion, or error rather, that there is a double iustice, wherby we are formally iustified, one imperfect, which is in our inherent vertues: the other perfect, which is Christs righteousnes impured, whose opinion is re­iected by the Councell of Trent, Sess. 6. c. 7. Bellarm. l. 2. of Iustification, c. 1. & 2. p. 124.

Fourthly, Gropperus, Catharinus, Saint Thomas, Bona­uenture, Scotus, in three opinions.

OF this matter, De proposita igi­tur quaestione &c. concerning certainty of saluati­on, there are 3. opinions, or rather falshoods: [Page 140] The first, of the heretickes of this time, that the faith­full may haue such knowledge, as that by a sure faith they may know their sinnes forgiuen, &c. The second is, of the Author of the Enchiridion Coloniense, which holds, that a man both may, and ought to be certaine his sinnes are forgiuen, but yet he denies, that he is iustified by faith alone: But this booke is in many other things worthy of the censure of the Church. The third is of Ambrosius Catharinus, who holds, that a man may be certaine of his owne grace, euen by the assurance of faith: Contrary to these errours is the common opinion of almost all Diuines, Saint Thomas, S. Bonauenture, Scotus, Duran­dus, Roffensis, Alphonsus a Castro, Dominicus a Soto, Ru­ardus, &c. Nicholas Saunders, Thomas Stapleton, &c. that no man by any certainty of faith be assured of his iustice, except those which haue speciall reuelati­ons. Bellarm. l. 3. of Iustice, c. 3. p. 206.

Fiftly, the Diuines of Louan and Paris against Catharin.

Nam Parisien­sis & Louanien­sium vero, &c.HOw Bellarmine presseth Catharinus with the au­thoritie of the Vniuersities of Paris and Louan, and the flat wordes of the Councell of Trent; and Catharinus his answeres and elusions of all, See Bellarm. ibid. cap. 3. pag. 208.

Sixtly, Bellarmine against Catharinus.

CAtharinus his exposition of those places of Ec­clesiastes, Ecclesiasticus, Iob for his purpose, see largly confuted by Bellar. Bellar. ib. c. 4. & 5. p. 211.212.

Seuenthly, Catharinus and two rankes of Popish Diuines differing.

I Say there is no Catholike writer holds, Dico nullum Catholicum Scriptorem &c. that a man should euer doubt of his reconciliation with God; for there are three opinions amongst Catholikes: One of Ambrosius Catharinus, which doth not onely exclude all doubt, but addes, that the iust man may haue an assurance of his iustification, by the certain­ty of a Diuine faith. Another goes not so farre, yet holdes, that perfect men are wont to attaine vnto that security, as that they haue no feare of their iusti­fication, as we beleeue without all doubting that there was a Caesar, an Alexander, &c. though we saw them not, but this opinion I confesse, I like not. The third, which is more common in the Church, takes not away all feare, but yet takes away all anxiety, and wauering doubfulnes. Bellar. l. 3. of iustific. c. 11. p. 264

Eightly, Andr. Vega against Thom. and other Catholikes

ANdr. Vega in his 11. booke vpon the Councells, Ab hoc argu­mento &c. c. 20. holds, veniall sin to be properly against the [Page 142] Law: But veniall sinnes (without which we cannot liue) are not simply sinnes, but imperfectly, and in some regards, and are not indeede against the law, but besides it, as S ^t. Thomas teaches well in 1.2. q. 88. Bellarm. l. 4. c. 14. p. 359.

Ninthly Robert Holkot against Saint Thomas and the common opinion.

Quamuis non desint &c.ALthough some haue taught, that freedome of will is not necessary to merite, as Robert Holkot held (witnesse Io. Picus in his Apologie) yet the common opinion of Diuines is contrary, as it ap­peares out of S ^t. Thomas 1.2. quaest. 114. and other Doctors, vpon 1. Sent. d. 17. &c. Bellarm. l. 5. of Iusti­fication, c. 10. p. 432.

Tenthly, a certaine namelesse Author against Pius 5. Peter Lombard, and others.

Fuit opinio cu­iusdam &c.IT was the opinion of a certaine late Author, which was in many points condemned by Pius 5. that e­ternall life is due to good workes, for that they are the true obedience to the law; not for that they are done by a person aduanced by grace, into the state of the Sonne of God; so hee holdes, that meritorious workes may be done by a man not regenerate by Baptisme, &c. The contrary opinion is receiued and allowed in the Schooles of Catholike Diuines: See [Page 143] Pet. Lombard, and the Diuines vpon 2. Sent. dist. 24. Bellarm. l. 5. of iustification, c. 12. p. 438.

First, Guliel. Altisidoriensis against all Popish Doctors.

IT was the singular opinion of Gulielm. Fuit singularis opinio Gulielm. &c. Al­tisidoriensis ( l. 3. Tract. 12. c. 1. &c.) that me­rit doth more principally depend vpon faith, then charity; which opinion of his doth not a little fauour the heretickes of this time: But in truth Scripture is so pregnant against him, that I wonder so worthy a man could be so far de­ceiued. Bellarm. ibid. c. 15. p. 454.

Secondly, Bellarm. against many of their graue Authors.

THough there be some graue Authors which hold, that euery good worke of a iust man, Et quamuis non desint grauissi­mi, &c. and a man indued with charity is meritorious of eternall life: yet I hold it more probable, that there is further required to merite, that the good worke should in the very act of it proceede from charity, and be dire­cted to God, as the supernatural end, &c. Bellarm. l. 5. cap. 15. pag 456.

Thirdly, Thomas Waldensis, Paulus Burgensis, against Durandus, and Gregorius and the common opinion.

Catholici omnes agnoscunt &c.ALL Catholickes acknowledge, that good workes are meritorious of eternall life: but some holde that these wordes (of congruity and condignity) are not to bee vsed: but onely that wee should say absolutely, that good workes by the grace of GOD doe merite eternall life: So teacheth Thomas Waldensis, Tom. 3. of Sa­craments. chap. 7. Paulus Burgensis in Psalme 35. Others will haue them to merite by condignity, in a large manner: So teach Durandus and Grego­rius. The common opinion of Diuines dooth simply admit a merite of condignity. Bellarmine lib. 5. cap. 16. pag. 459 Where note, that Bellar­mine findes Durandus to hold the same in this point with vs. pag. 460. lin. 5.

Fourthly, Bellarmine against some of their acute Distinguishers.

Quod vero qui­dam distinguunt &c.HOw some distinguish nicely betwixt Dignum and Condignum, and their confutation, who will admit a merite of dignity, not of condignity, See Bellarm. l. 5. c. 16. p. 459.

Fiftly, Caietane and Dom. a Soto, Scotus, Andr▪ Vega, Tho. and Bonauenture with Bellarm▪ differing.

SOme hold, that the good workes of the iust me­rite eternall life vpon their very worth, Non desunt qui censeant opera &c. in regard of the worke: though there were no such agree­ment betwixt God and vs: So hold Caietane (in 2.2. quaest. 114.) and Dominicus a Soto (3. booke of Nature and Grace, chap. 7.) Others contrarily, thinke that good workes proceeding from grace, are not meritorious vpon the very worth of the worke, but onely in regard of Gods couenant with vs, and his gratious acceptation: Thus holdes Scotus in 1. Sent. d. 17. q. 2. whom other of the old Schoolemen follow: and of the later Andreas Vega: yet this o­pinion differs far from the heresie of the Lutherans, &c. But to me the meane opinion seemes more pro­bable, which teaches, that good workes are merito­rious of eternall life vpon condignity, in respect of the worke and couenant together, which opinion I doubt not is agreeable to the Councell of Trent, and the chiefe Diuines, as S ^t. Thomas and Bonauent. Bellarm. l. 5, c. 17. p. 464.

Sixtly, Thomas and Bonauent. against Andr. Vega and the Doctor of Louan.

THe last question is, Postrema restat quaestio. &c. whether God reward good works of his meere liberality, aboue their wor­thines: the common opinion constantly affirmes it, as is plaine in Saint Thomas, S. Bonauent. Scotus, Duran­dus, &c. But Andr. Vega, and that Doctor of Louan [Page 146] (many of whose opinions Pius 5. confuted) held the contrary: and this is the fourteenth opinion by him expressed and condemned. Bellarm. l. 5. c. 19. p. 471.

Seuenthly, some Popish Doctors against Chrysostome confuted by Bellarmine.

Vtrum autem operibus. &c.WHether God doe giue punishment to euill workes, beyond the worthines or condigni­ty of them, is not so certaine. S ^t. Chrysostome seemes to patronage the affirmatiue part, but Saint Austin rather tolerates then approues it: some others de­fend the negatiue by foure testimonies of Scripture, answered by Bellarm. lib. 5. cap. 19. pag. 472.

Eightly, Caietane against Dominic. a Soto and Bellarm.

Quamuis Car­dinalis Caieta­nas. &c.THough Cardinall Caietane teach, that those Clerkes and Monkes sinne not deadly, which choose the Romane Breuiary, and neglect that Breui­ary which is proper to their order, and Church: yet that opinion is not so safe and sure, as Dominicus [...] Soto well admonishes, except it be by consent of the Bishop and whole Chapter. Bellarm. of good workes in particular, l. 1. cap. 18. pag. 96.

Ninthly, Bellarmine against Panormitan.

VVE answere, Respondemus iure Diuino &c that Clerkes and Monkes are by Gods law bound to pray and praise God more then others: but vnto this forme of prayer and praises which is now in vse, they are onely tyed by the determination of the Church; as for that which Panormitanus (otherwise a learned Lawyer) holds, that the number of seuen houres for Di­uine seruice is determined by Gods law, when Dauid saith, seuen times a day do I praise thee, it is very sleight, &c. Bellarm. ibid. c. 19. p. 102.

Tenthly, some Popish Doctors opposed by Bellarmine and Pius 5. and Concil. Lateran.

VVHatsoeuer some Doctors haue formerly thought, we say, Quicquid olim Doctores. &c. that now doubtlesse those Clerkes which doe not their Diuine offices, eyther ought to want the fruits of their Benefices, or if they haue receiued them, to restore them againe for com­mon Almes, or reparations of their Churches: and there is a flat Decree for this in the Councell of La­teran, Sess. 9. Statuimus, and in the constitution of Pi­us 5. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 19. p. 103.

First, Bellarmine against Io. Cassianus, and some others vn-named.

A [...]tera sententia est Johannis Cassiani &c. ANother opinion for Lent, is that of Io. Cassianus, who teaches, that in the Primi­tiue Church, the Fast was alike all the yeare long: after, when deuotion grewe cold, it pleased all the Priests to appoint the Fast of Lent, and to establish it in a firme Law. But this o­pinion is built on a false ground. The third opinion is of them, who referre the institution of Lent to Pope Telesphorus &c. But the only true opinion is, that the Lent fast was ordained by the Apostles of Christ: and enioyned to the whole Church. Bellarm. l, 2. of good W. in part, c 14. p. 177.

Secondly, Albertus against Thomas and Bellarmine.

Quamuis au­tem praeceptum elecmosynae &c.THough the precept of Almes belong not pro­perly to the tenne commandements, since ther­in onely are contained precepts of iustice: Yet Di­uines vse to reduce all morall precepts to those ten. And some (as Albertus vpon 4. dist. 15. art. 16.) reduce the precept of Almes to that commandement, Thou shalt not steale, Others as Saint Thomas in 2.2. quaest. 32. &c. Honour thy father and mother: which opinion [Page 149] is more probable. Bellarmine the third booke, cap. 6. pag. 233.

Thirdly, some graue Diuines against S ^t. Thomas, Albertus, Richardus, Paludanus, &c.

ALthough there be graue Diuines that hold the contrary, Quamuis non desint graues Theologi &c. yet I hold that the truer and safer opi­nion, which teaches, that no superfluous riches can be retained in our hands without sinne: whether we meete with extreame necessities of the poore, where­on to bestow them or no, which opinion followes S. Thomas, in 2.2. quaest. 6 [...]. Art. 7. and besides him, Albertus, Richard, Paludanus, and others vpon 4. Sent. dist. 15. In which place S. Thomas writes, that this is the common opinion of Diuines. Bellarm. ibid. c. 7. pag. 236.

Fourthly, the old Schoolemen against the common opinion and Bellarmine.

SOme of the old Schoolemen, Non defuerunt ex Antiquis Theologis &c. though they admit­ted indulgences, yet doubted of the spirituall trea­sure: as Francis Mayro (vpon 4. Sent. d. 19.) makes question of the treasure of the ouerflowing satisfa­ctions of Christ, laid vp in the Church, and Durandus (vpon 4 dist. 20. q. 3.) doubteth, whether the satisfa­ction of Saints pertaine to the treasure. But the com­mon opinion of Diuines both old and new, S ^t. Tho­mas, [Page 150] S. Bonauenture, and others, acknowledge both. Bellarm. l. 1. of Indulgences, c. 2. p. 8.

Fiftly, Pius 5. Gregory, 13. Clem. 6. Leo. 10. against some Diuines of Louan.

Non desuerunt aliqui ex recen­tioribus &c.SOme of the new Writers, especially the Doctors of Louan, haue taught, that the sufferings of Saints are not so by Indulgences applyed, that they become true satisfactions for vs: but that they be motiues only to induce God to apply to vs Christs satisfaction: but this opinion was condemned by Pius 5. Gregory 13. by Clement 6. and Leo 10. Bellarm. l. 1. of Indulg. cap. 4. pag. 32.

Sixtly, Durand, Anthonius, Pope Adrian, Syluester, Tho­mas, Franciscus Mayro, Caietane, Dominicus a Soto, &c. disagreeing.

Non defuere qui indulgentias &c.SOme there haue beene, which would haue par­dons nothing else but a payment, or discharge of punishments, out of the treasure of Christs merites and the Saints, applyed to vs by the Pope: So held Durandus (4 dist. 20.) Saint Anthonius, P. Hadrian 6. Syluester, and S. Thomas as it seemes (vpon 4. d. 20. q. 1.) Contrarily, Francis Mayro in the place forecited, wil haue pardons nothing but a iudiciary absolution: which opinion seemes to be fauoured by the exam­ples of the auncientest Councels. But the late Di­uines [Page 151] haue on better consideration defined, that in Indulgences there is both an Absolution, and a pay­ment, &c. Caietane, Dominicus a Soto, Petrus a Soto, Martinus, Ledesmius, and others. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 5. pag. 34.

Seuenthly, Pope Sixtus 4. and Bellarmine against Petrus Oxoniensis.

WHerefore the opinion of Petrus Oxoniensis was iustly condemned of Pope Sixtus 4. Quaere merit [...] damnata est &c and the Councell Complutense, which held, that the Pope could not pardon to a man liuing vpon earth, his punishment of purgatorie; and that by contrition alone our sinnes are done away: See Alphonsus de Castro his booke of heresies, the word Confession. Bellarm. ibid. cap. 6. pag. 37.

Eightly, Archidiaconus and Syluester, and some others a­gainst Sotus, Nauarrus, and the common opinion.

SOme haue held, Non defuerunt qui negauerint &c. that the pope or other Bishops are not partakers of those pardons, which they giue to others in common: so teaches the Arch-Deacon in chap. of Indulg. and cytes some few o­thers of his iudgement. Syluest. in summa verb. Indulg. But all other Diuines hold contrary (vpon 4. dist. 20) and Sotus d. 21. and the Canonists, with Nauarrus in his Tract of the Iubily. Bellarm. l. 1. c. 6. p. 39.

Ninthly, Caietane and Richardus against Saint Thomas and Bellarmine.

Certe haec re­sponsio probabi­lis visa est Caie­tano &c. CAietane holdes, that the Pope by his Confessor (not by himselfe) may giue pardon to himselfe: and so Richardus (vpon 4. dist. 20.) But it may be bet­ter answered, that the Pope may indirectly be parta­ker of a pardon graunted by himselfe, or his Prede­cessor, without the helpe of a confessor, if he do those things which are required of others, for the obtay­ning of pardon, as Saint Thomas vpon 4. Dist. 20. q. 1. Bellarm. l. 1. c. 6. p. 40.

Tenthly, Petrus Paludanus against the common opinion.

Videtur quidem Petrus &c. PEtrus Paludanus (vpon 4. dist. 20.) seemes to holde, that the faultines of veniall sinnes, though not of mortall, is taken away by pardons: but the common opinion of others is more probable, that nothing is taken away, but the guilt of temporall punish­ments, which remaines after the fault is dischar­ged. Bellarm. l. 1. c. 7. p. 41.

First, Saint Thomas and others against some of the auncient Diuines.

THat Pardons deliuer a man from punish­ment, Indulgentiae li­berant &c. not onely before the Church, but before God, was cenyed by some of the auncient Diuines, whose opinion is rela­ted and confuted by S. Thomas vpon 4. dist. 20. and o­thers: and now at this day is denied by Luther and Caluin. Bellarm. l. 1. c. 7. p. 43.

Secondly, Thomas Elysius against Caietane, Dominicus a Soto, Ledesmius, &c.

WHen in the form of the pardon it is said, Cum in forma Indulgentiae &c that there is graunted remission of the penance inioyned, it is not to be vnderstood of that penance, which the Priest inioynes in the Sacrament of con­fession: against some that hold, all penance to bee meant vnder the name of penance inioyned, as Tho­mas Elysius ( in Clipeo Cathol. q. 44. art. 7.) But almost all learned men teach the Contrary, as Card Caietan, Dominicus a Soto, Ledesmius, Nauarrus, Cordubensis, Syluester, Gabriel, &c. Bellarm. l. 1. c. 7. p. 46.

Thirdly, Alex. Alensis, Durand. Paludan. Adrian Pope, Petr. a Soto, &c. against S. Thomas, Maior, Syluester, Dominicus a Soto &c.

Cum non fit mentio &c.VVHen a Pardon is absolutely graunted with­out mention of penaunce inioyned, it is to be vnderstood, that all penances are pardoned in it: whether already inioyned, or that might be inioy­ned. This proposition is against very graue Authors, Alex. Alensis, in Sum. p. 4. q. 23. Durandus, Paludanus, Adrian the 6. pope: Petrus a Soto, Card. Caietane, who hold, that pardons are neuer giuen but for inioyned penances: But our opinion hath neyther fewer nor lesse worthie patrones, S. Thomas vpon 4. dist. 20. Io. Maior, Syluester, Dominicus a Soto, Michael, Medina, Ledesmius, Anthon. Cordubensis, Nauarrus, Panormitan, Io. Andreas, and Caietane confesses this the common opinion. Bellarm. l. 1. cap. 7. p. 47.

Fourthly, Bellarm. against Caietane, and Dom. a Soto &c.

Porro Caietani definitio &c.THose definitions which Caietane and Domin. a So­to haue made of pardons: see reiected by Bellar. l. 1. cap. 8. pag. 52.

Fiftly, Dom. a Soto against Palud. Adrian, Nauar. &c.

Existit autem hoc loco &c.HEre it is in controuersie: Whether the pardon of so many dayes and yeares in this life, [Page 155] answere to so many in purgatorie: for Dominicus a Soto holds, that one day spent in purgatorie, takes more of the guilt of punishment due to our sinnes, then many yeares in this life, spent in the sharpest penance. But the common opinion holds the con­trary, as it is to be seene in Paludanus, Adrian, Na­uarrus, Cordubensis and others. Bellarm. l. 1. c. 9. p. 54.

Sixtly, Bellarm. against Gerson, and Dominicus a Soto.

THere haue beene some of our Writers, Non desunt qui negent &c. which haue held, that all those pardons which containe the release of many thousand yeares penance, were not giuen by any popes, but onely feined by their pardoners for commodity: So hold Iohn Gerson in his Tract, of Absolut. Sacram. and Dominic. a Soto vp­pon 4. d. 21. The contrary is maintained by Bellarm. l. 1. cap. 9. pag. 56.

Seuenthly, Popish Doctors disagreeing.

WHether hee that receiues a pardon in the point of death, as is supposed, after recoue­ring, An qui indul­gentiam. &c. may receiue it againe, when he comes to the point of death, our Doctors disagree. See Nauar. de Iubil. notab. 30. nu. 3. and Cordubensis q. 39. &c. Bel­larm. l. 1. c. 9. p. 57.

Eightly; Anthonius against Nauarrus and Cordubensis.

Si quis tempore Iubilei. &c.IF a man vpon the hope of a Iubile to come, shall willingly and purposely fall into a sinne reserued; the doubt is, whether he may be absolued from that sinne: some say he cannot, as Anthonius 1. p. Tit. 10. c. 3 but others thinke the contrary, Nauar. in Tract. de Iubil. and Cordubensis, q. 37. de Indulg. Bellarm. l. 1. cap. 10. pag. 60.

Ninthly, Bellarmine and other namelesse against Felinus, Dominicus a Soto, Nauar. Cordub. &c.

De conci [...]io ge­nerali quaeri po­test &c.WHether a generall Councell may grantfull pardons, is questioned: for Felinus, Dominic▪ a Soto, Nauar▪ Cordubensis, affirme it &c. And though I haue not read any that expresly denies, that a gene­rall Councell can doe it, yet all those Authors seeme to hold thus, which write, that this Authority be­longs to the Pope alone, and I thinke this latter o­pinion is most true. Bellarm. l. 1. c. 11. p. 62.

Tenthly, two sorts of Popish Doctors opposite.

Altera dubita [...]io est de iure &c.VPon what law Bishops may giue pardons, it is questioned, for some hold, that they may doe it by Gods law, others denie it. Bellarm. l. 1. c. 11.

First, Angelus, Bartholm. Fumus, Innocentius, Panormi­tan against the common opinion, and Canon law.

ANgelus (in summa) and Bartholomaeus Fu­mus hold, that all Parish-priests, Deni (que) Angelus in summa. or what Priests soeuer may heare confessions, may also in that Sacrament of confessi­on graunt pardons: and they bring for them Inno­centius, in Com. cap. cum ex eo: and Panormitane and o­thers. But the common opinion teacheth the con­trary, that no priests (vnder a Bishop) may giue par­dons, vnlesse by commission from the Pope or Bi­shop: and there is an expresse text in the law for it. Chap. Accedentibus, de excess. praelatorum. Bellar. l. 1. c. 11. pag. 64.

Secondly, Thomas, Durandus, Paludanus, Anthonius Tur­recrem. Syluester, &c. against Bonauenture, Adrian, Caietane, Maior, &c.

FOr the cause of a pardon-giuing, some hold, Ad iustam cau­sam requiri &c. there neede not be any proportion; but that it is en­ough, that the cause be honest and holy: that is, that pardon be not graunted vpon an euill worke inioy­ned, or a worke meerely temporall and vaine, &c. But such a one as pertaines to Gods glory, and the [Page 158] profite of the Church. Thus hold S ^t. Thomas, Du­randus, Paludanus, S. Anthonius, Io. de Turrecremata, Syl­uester, Io. Tabiensis, and our Gregorie de Valentia. O­thers hold, that to make the cause iust, is required some worke, that may be proportionable to the pardon. So teach of the olde Schoolemen, Saint Bonauenture, Richardus; Aug. de Ancona, Io. Gerson, Ga­briel, and of the later, in our age, Pope Adrian, Card. Caietane, Mai [...]r, Ledesmius, Dominicus a Soto, Petrus a Soto, Nauarrus, Cordubensis, to which adde Innocentius and Felinus. Bellarm. l. 1. c. 12. p. 68.

Thirdly, Bellarm. against Io. Gerson, Dominicus a Soto, Vega, &c.

[...]icu [...] [...]roban­ [...]n non est quod &c.AS it is not to be allowed, that some vpon a good zeale, but perhaps ouer-hote, haue spoken with some reproach of pardons graunted vpon sleight causes, as Io. Gerson, Dominic. a Soto, Andreas Vega, &c: So Clement 8. is iustly to be praised, which hath re­ceiued and vrged the Decree of the Lateran Coun­cell, of moderating indiscreet pardons, &c. Bellarm. l. 1. cap. 12. pag. 71.

Fourthly, Caietane, Petrus a Soto &c. against Paludanus, Anthonius, Cordubensis, &c.

An requiratur status gratiae &cFIrst it is questioned, whether the state of grace be required in a man at that time, when the pardon is receiued, or rather when the workes inioyned [Page 159] are done, or when the pardon is first pronounced, or the letters there of deliuered. For Caietane, Petrus a Soto, and others hold, that the state of grace is then required, not onely when the pardon is receiued, but when the worke inioyned is performed, not when it is published, &c. Other very graue Authors, as Petr. Paludanus, S. Anthonius, Anthon. Cordubensis, and o­thers hold contrary. Bellarm. l. 1. cap. 13. pag. 75.

Fiftly, some namelesse Doctors against Anthonius Adrian, Caietane, &c.

IT is thirdly questioned, Tertia quaestio est de confessione whether confession (which commonly is one part of the worke inioyned) be required in deed, or purpose onely. The answere is, That if the forme of the Pardon do flatly set down, confession to be made within so many dayes, then it is to be required in deede, and actually, else not: yea though a man haue mortall sinnes; it is probable, that contrition alone with a purpose of confessing, will serue the turne; so hold Paludanus, Syluester, Pa­normitanus, Felinus. But yet it is more safe and pro­bable, that confession is actually required, and not in purpose onely: when a pardon is graunted vnder the tearmes of rightly penitent and confessed, as teach Saint Anthonius, Adrian, Caietane, Nauarrus and the Glosse. Bellarm. lib. 1. Indulg. cap. 13. pag. 77.

Sixtly, Caietane and Barthol. Fumus against all other Diuines.

Nam Cardinali [...] Caietan. &c.CArd. Caietane teaches, that besides fulfilling of the workes inioyned, he that would receiue par­don, must haue a purpose to satisfie God, by his owne workes, as much as he may: which opinion of his is profitable and godly, but perhaps not true: since it is contrary to the doctrine of others. Ney­ther did I euer read any that followed Caietane in it, but Bartholm. Fumus in Summa. Bellarm. lib. 1. cap. 13. pag. 78.

Seuenthly, Ostiensis and Gabriel against the common opinion.

Ex Catholicis Ostiensis.NOt onely the heretickes, but also amongst the Catholikes Ostiensis (in summa. l. 5. Tit. de remiss.) and Gabriel (lect. 57. in Can. miss.) haue taught, that pardons doe no whit profite the dead. But it is a most certaine thing, and vndoubted among all Ca­tholiks, that by pardons the soules in purgatorie may be helped. Bellar. l. 1. c. 14. p. 80.81.

Eightly, Michael Medina against Bonauenture, Richard. Gabriel, Maior, &c.

De modo quo indul. &c.IT is questioned how pardons may helpe the dead: For Michael Medina, dis. 7. c. 34. holdes, that the [Page 161] soules of the deceased belong to the iurisdiction of the Pope, and that they may receiue pardon from him, by way of absolution. But almost all writers hold the contrary, as S ^t. Bonauenture, Richardus, Ga­briel, Io. Maior, Caietane, Dominicus a Soto, Petrus a Soto, Nauarrus, &c. Cordubensis. Bellarm. lib. 1. cap. 14. pag. 82.

Ninthly, three different opinions of Papists.

HOw pardons doe helpe the dead, Quid significet per modum suf­fragij &c. by way of suf­frage: see controuerted in three opinions, and two of them confuted by Bellarm. l. 1. cap. 14. p. 85.

Tenthly, Dominicus a Soto, and Nauarrus against Caie­tane, Petrus a Soto, Cordubensis.

THe hardest question of all is, Difficillima om­nium ea est &c. whether pardons doe helpe the dead, vpon any iustice and wor­thines, or onely vpon meere fauor of God, and con­gruity: some hold it is in iustice and condignity, as Dominicus a Soto vpon 4. d. 21 Nauarrus de Iubil. not. 22. Others hold it meerely vpon the mercy, and bounty of God, and therfore only of congruity. So Caietane, Petrus a Soto, Cordubensis. Bellarm. l. 1. cap. 14. pag. 86.87.

First, Bellarmine against Caietane.

Requiritur ex sententia Caie­tani &c. CAietane holds, that he that would be helpt in Purgatorie by suffrages, must haue beene not onely in the state of grace, but deuoted to the keyes of the Church, and studious, and carefull to helpe others, while hee was aliue by his suffrages. But this opinion of Ca­ietane, though it be profitable and godly, yet it is not true, and confuted by euery one. Bellarmine, l. 1. cap. 14. pag. 90.

Secondly, Bellarmine against Praepositinus.

Praepositinus quidam &c.THe opinion of one Praepositinus, of the common helpe which suffrages giue to the deceased: See confuted by Bellarm. l. 1. c. 14. pag. 90.

Thirdly, Bellarmine with S. Thomas against himselfe, and Durandus.

Remelius consi­derata &c.WHereas Bellarmine in his 4. booke de Christo, chap. 16. had said: It is probable, that Christs soule went downe to all the places of hell: and had confuted S. Thomas his answere of his descending in effect and vertue: for so (saith he) we might with Du­randus [Page 163] say, that Christ did descend to no place other­wise then in effect: Now vpon better consideration he saith, he holds Thomas his opinion, and some o­ther Schoolemen rather to be followed. Bellarm. Recognitions, pag. 11.

Fourthly, Bellarmine against himselfe and Pighius.

I Approue not, that I said with Albertus Pighius, Non probo quod &c. that Saint Paul appealed to Caesar as to his lawfull prince: The first answere therefore is to be stood in, that S. Paul appealed to him de Facto not de Iure, as the supreame Iudge of Iudea, not as his superior. Bellarm. Recognition, pag. 17.

Fiftly, Bellarmine against some not named.

WHereas we said, Vbi dicimus senten [...]iam &c. that the opinion of those which teach, that infallibility of iudgment is not in the pope, but in the generall Councell, is not altogether hereticall, but erroneous and neare to he­resie: Now it seemes to vs so erroneous, that it may iustly by the Churches iudgement be condemned as hereticall. Bellarm. Recognition, pag. 19.

Sixtly, Durand. against S. Thomas and Bellarm.

I Doe not like that I said, Infidell princes cannot by the Church be depriued of the Dominion, Non approbo quod dixi. &c. [Page 164] they haue ouer the faithfull, except they goe about to turne their subiects from the faith of Christ: for though Durandus, whom I followed (vpon 2. Sent. dist. 44, q. 3,) doe probably dispute this against Saint Thomas, yet the authority of Saint Thomas ought iustly rather to preuaile. Bellarm. recognition, p. 44.

Seuenthly, S ^t. Thomas, Dominicus a Soto, Nauar. opposed by some new Writers.

Docuimus hoc loco, &c.I Wrote, that ciuill power in Kings and Princes is not immediately from God, but mediately from the councell and consent of men: And because this is the common opinion, I did not striue to proue it: But now since of late some haue written, that the ci­uill power of Kings is no lesse immediately from God then the power of the pope: I hold it necessary to adde somewhat of this point: and first I bring forth the author of this opinion, Saint Thomas 2.2. q. 10. art. 10. Dominicus a Soto, of the Canonists Nauar­rus, &c. Bellarm. recognition, p. 57.

Eightly, Suarez against Bellarmine.

Reprehendit vtrum (que) &c.HOw Franciscus Suarez reprehends Bellarmine concerning Rupertus his errour of Impanation, See Bellarmine recognition p. 80.

Ninthly, some namelesse Papists against Bellarmine.

THE exceptions taken by Catholikes against Bellarmine, Dixi conuersio­nem &c. for saying that the conuersion of the bread is adductiue not productiue, and his defence, See Recognition, pag. 81.

Tenthly, Fr. Suarez against Bellarmine and Iohn of Louan.

FRanciscus Suarez, Videtur repre­hendere Io. de Louan & me. disp. 41. de Euchar▪ reprooues Bellarmine and Io. of Louan for teaching that Christ gaue the Sacrament in the forme of bread, in the time of his legall supper, and the wine when Supper was ended, after many other businesses and actions: How Bellarmine cleares himselfe, See Re­cognition pag. 84.

First, Bellarmine against Gropperus.

I Cyted the Enchiridion of Iohn Gropperus which he is said to haue written vnder the name of the Councell of Colen: Posui inter li­bros Catholicos &c. but though Gropperus himselfe were a Catholicke, yet in that booke there are no small errours, as we haue shewed: and therefore it is not without cause put into the number of bookes pro­hibited. [Page 166] An. Dom. 1596. Bellarm. Recognition pag. 87.

Secondly, Bellarmine against Abulensis, Adrian, Caietane, &c.

Allegantur mul­ti authores &c.WE said, that many Authors held, that suffici­ent helpe is not giuen at all times to rise from sinne, but onely in respect of time and place: as Abulensis, Adrianus, Caietan. But we are to note, that these Authors doe not onely say that which we say, but somewhat also which we say not: That vnto some men for the greatnesse or multitude of their sinnes, God in his certaine Decree denies helpe in the rest of their life. So Abulensis quaest. 12. vpon 4. Exod. Adrian quaest. 3. de paenitentia. Caietanus Ienta­culo. 8. q. 1. which three Doctors seeme to be borne out by three holy Fathers: Saint Anselme in Com­ment. vpon 12. Matt. Saint Isidor. lib. 2. de summo bono. Saint Austen. For me, as I dare not reproue so great Authors, so I hold it an holy course, thus to thinke of God in his goodnesse, that there is no men, which while they liue, are not in time and place visited by the regard of his diuine grace. Bellar. Recognit. p. 105.

Thirdly, Popish Doctors disagreeing.

Quia dum haec recognoscer [...]m &c.BEcause while I writ this, there is great contro­uersie amongst our writers about the Kingdome [Page 167] of Christ, I thought good to explaine my selfe further: I hold therefore that heede is to be taken of godly men, least they so vphold Christs tempo­rall Kingdome, that they denie his pouertie. That his Kingdome therefore was not temporall but spirituall, besides the auncient, is well taught by two accurate Interpreters, Cornelius Iansenius, and Ada­mus Sasbout, &c. Bellarm. Recognit. pag. 25.

1. The Glosse and Gratian against Nauarre and the common opinion.

Quamuis. Glos­sa &c. THough the Glosse (1. and 2. in cap. Lachrymae) and Gratian ( de paen. dist. 1.) hold a [...] man excluded from Confes­sion, by his contrition; so as being once throughly contrite, he is not of necessity in due time to confesse, which they proue by diuers Authorities from the [Page 170] Canon law, and from Saint Crysostome, and Saint Austen: yet we must with a sure faith hold, and de­fend, that although by the contrition of the heart alone, without actuall confession, our sinnes are remitted, yet that he to whom they are pardoned, is bound in due time (if opportunity can be had) to confesse them, Nauarrus in his Commentaries vp­pon the seuen distinctions of penance, abridged by Gregorie Sayrus chap. 4. of his Summa Sacram. paeniten­tiae, printed at Venice with Priuiledge. An. 1601. p. 6.

2. Nauarre against some namelesse.

Confess. Sacram. non esse in Pa­radiso &c.THat Sacramentall confession was not instituted in Paradise, nor brought in by the law of nature, see defended against some of their namelesse Wri­ters by Nauar. Sum. paenit. cap. 5. pag. 11.

3. The same Author against other Catholikes.

A nullo puro homine &c.THat confession was not instituted by any meere man, or any humane law, but onely by Christ himselfe, and that it was not instituted by Iosuah to A­chan, against the error of some namelesse Catholikes, is maintained by Nauar. Sum. paenit. c. 5. p. 11.

4. Some namelesse Catholikes confuted by Nauar.

Errasse etiam eos.THe errours of those, which held the Sacrament of Penance was instituted by Saint Iames. [Page 171] chap. 5. see also confuted. Sum. Paenit. cap. 5.

5. The Glosse, Panormitan, Decius, against Durandus, Maior, Nauarre.

FVrther it follows necessarily that the Glosse ( Sum­ma de paen. dist. 5.) erreth, which teacheth, Infertur errasse Glossam &c. that the full confession of sinnes was not instituted by any authority of the olde or new Testament, but onely by the Tradition of the vniuersall Church: which o­pinion is followed by Panormitan and Decius, but is confuted by all, but especially by Durandus and Ma­ior. Sum. paen. cap. 5. pag. 12.

6. Nauar. against Caietane.

IT is further implyed that Caietane erred, Errore Caieta­num. who vpon Iohn 20. teaches, that Sacramentall confession was instituted by Christ, but not commaunded. Sum. paenit. cap. 5. pag. 12.

7. Sixtus the fourth, and others against Petrus ab Osma.

IT is yet inferred further, Etiam Petrum ab Osma errasse &c. that Petrus ab Osma er­red, who in the time of Sixtus the fourth, at Sal­mantica, & other places of Spain taught, that Sacra­mentall confession began by humane institution, and [Page 172] the Tradition of the Church: and that mortal sinnes both for their fault and punishment in another world, might be done away without confession, by the onely contrition of the heart, &c. Al which were condemned by Sixtus 4. Sum. paenit. cap. 5. pag. 12.1.

8. Nauarre against the Canon.

Infertur falli Canonem &c.THe Canon is deceiued, which ( in Relect. de Sa­cram,) teaches, that penance and outward confes­sion was necessary to saluation, not onely vnder the time of the Gospell, but of the law also, and vnder the time of nature, in act, if it might be had, or in desire and purpose, if it might not. Sum. paen. cap. 5.

9. Nauar. and Scotus, &c. against the Glosse.

Errasse GlossamTHe Glosse erreth ( Sum. de paen. dist. 5.) that saith, that Sacramentall confession was not in vse in the Greeke Church, as is largely taught by Scotus 4. d. 17. and the Councell of Colen. Fol. 151. Sum. paenit. cap, 5. pag. 12.2.

10. Nauar. against Caietane.

Tenetur homo &c.A Man is bound to contrition and confession, so oft as any action is to be done, which requires contrition and confession to go before it, such as the [Page 173] Sacrament of the Eucharist. Howsoeuer Caietane teach the contrary in Sum. verb. communio, and vpon 1. Cor. 11 who holds, that he sinnes not deadly which communicates vpon contrition had, before he con­fesse himselfe, though he haue opportunity of con­fession, which opinion is condemned by the Triden­tine Councell. Sum. paenit. c. 6. p. 15.1.

11. Nauar. against Paludanus, &c.

NAuar holdes, Non esse vllum &c. there is no precept that tyes vs vpon paine of sinne, to confesse before any Sacrament, saue the Eucharist. Paluda­nus in 4. d. 7. q. 2. saith, that to the Sacrament of confir­mation, of Orders, of extreame vnction, an actuall confession of our sinnes is necessary. Sum. paenit. cap. 6. fol. 15.2.

12. Paludanus and Anthoninus against Thomas and Nauarre.

HOw oft we commit one and the same sinne, Malè autem ad­dunt Paludanus &c. is ill put by Paludanus and Saint Anthoninus among the circumstances to be confessed: for the second sinne is not the circumstance of the first; whereupon neither Aristotle nor Saint Thomas number (this [Page 174] Quoties) among the Circumstances. Sum. paenit. cap. 7. fol. 16.2.

13. Io. Maior against Thomas, Paludanus, Gabriel, Anthoninus, Adrian, Caietane, Prierias,

Circumstantias quae aggrauant.WEe are not bound to confesse those cir­cumstances, which doe aggrauate the fault, but change it not into another kinde of sinne, as the common opinion teacheth, Saint Thomas, Pa­ludanus, Gabriel, S ^t. Anthoninus, Adrian, Caietan, Pri­erias. The contrary opinion (which is defended by Io. Maior 4. d. q. 3.) makes the conscience full of scru­ples and feare. Sum. paenit. cap. 8. fol. 18.1.

14. Thomas, Scotus, Maior differing.

Difficile est au­tem &c.IT is hard to know, what circumstances changes the action from one kinde into another: whereof are three diuers opinions: One of Saint Thomas 4. d. 16. q. 3. The other of Scotus: The third of Io. Maior in 4. dist. 17. q. 4. Sum. paenit. cap. 8. fol. 20.2.

15. Alensis against Nauar: Nauar against Lyra, Maior, Anthoninus, Adrian.

Non igitur cir­cumstantia tem­poris &c.THe circumstance of time is not necessary to be confessed; as that we haue sinned vpon an Ho­ly-day: [Page 175] whence Alensis is deceiued, which holds, that a mortal sinne vpon an Holy-day is double in respect of the guilt, though single in respect of the act: and Lyra Exod. 20. and Maior 4. d. 17. q. 4. and Anthon. 3. p. art. 17. and Adrian vpon 4. de confess. q. 4. are deceiued, which teach, that in that precept of the Decalogue, onely mortall sinne is fobidden. Sum. paenit. c. 9. f. 24.1.

16. Adrian, Maior, Syluester, &c. against other namelesse Diuines: and Nauar betwixt both.

IT is doubted by our Doctors, Dubium est in­ter Doctores &c whether he that sinnes mortally before other, and yet not with a­ny purpose to giue occasion of sinning to others, be bound to confesse the circumstance of his scandall giuen: for Adrian in 4. de confess. q. 4. and Io. Maior 4. dist. 38. and Syluester, say he must confesse it: Others denie it. Nauarre determines betwixt both. Sum. paenit. cap. 9. fol. 26.2.

17. Nauarre against Adrian.

IT is a great difficulty among our Doctors, Difficultas est inter Doctores &c. whe­ther he that doth any thing that he thinkes he should not do, or with any thing which he doubts whether it be a mortal sin or no, be bound to confesse not only that he hath sinned, but that he hath sinned wittingly, or against his conscience. Adrianus in 4. de confess. quaest. 4. holds, that circumstance must be [Page 174] [...] [Page 175] [...] [Page 174] [...] [Page 175] [...] [Page 176] confessed, &c. But for all that, it is not necessarily to be confessed. Sum. paenit. cap. 10. fol. 27.2.

18. Maior against Thomas.

Neminem tene­ri ad &c.SAint Thomas 4. dist. 17. q. 3. holds, that confession is sometimes to be made by an Interpreter: Io. Maior vpon the same place denies it. Sum. paenit. cap 12. fol. 36.1.

19. Paludanus and Adrian against the common opinion.

Ne (que) confess. ne (que) absolutio­nem fieri posse per procurato­rem.NO confession or absolution can be giuen or ta­ken by a proxie, or messenger, nor by writing: for all Sacraments (except Matrimony) require our owne person, and cannot be done by Deputies: But Paludanus in 4. dist. 17. q. 2. and Adrian in 4. de confess. q. 1. hold such confessions and absolutions as are done by writing to be of force. Sum. paenit. cap. 12. fol. 37.1.

20. Paludanus, Anthoninus, Thomas opposed by other Doctors and Nauarre.

Quamuis in confesso sit, &c.ALl Writers confesse a lye to be euer a sinne, but especially in confession: but they agree not what kind of sinne it is, for Paludanus vpon 4. d. 21. q. 2. saith, it is a mortall sinne to lie in confession: and [Page 177] Saint Anthoninus p. 3. Tit. 13. c. 18. and Saint Thomas 2, 2. q. 69. art. 1. to the same purpose. Others more truely teach, it is not alwaies a mortall sinne to lye in confession. Sum. paenit. cap. 13 fol. 38.2.

21. Scotus, Paludanus, Gabriel, Maior, Caietane, Concil. Florent. Io. Scotus disagreeing.

THis matter concerning the examination of the conscience, is very doubtfull, Res haec satis dubia &c. and controuersiall amongst our Authours: for Scotus (in 4. dist. 17. q. 1.) and Paludanus ( ibid. q. 2. art. 1.) holdes, that such dili­gence is to be required in this businesse, as the peni­tent would vse for the remembring of any other dif­ficult matter. But Gabriel (vpon the said dist. q. 1.) saith, that a man ought onely to confesse all that he can well remember. But Io. Maior ( ibid. q. 3.) will haue a man take such paines to find out and remem­ber all his sinnes, as a Scholler would doe, to get a Latin Oration by heart, which he should vtter a­mongst learned hearers. Caietane (in verbo confess.) holdes, he that beleeues, he hath made sufficient in­quisition for his sinne, though he haue not done so, hath discharged himselfe, and neede not reiterate his confession. The Councell of Florence, onely tea­ches vs to confesse what sinnes are in our memorie, and speakes nothing of any diligence to recall them. [Page 178] Io. Scotus is too rigorous, &c. Sum. paenit. c. 15. fol. 43.2.

22. Gabriels Maior, Syluester, Thomas, Paludan against Innocentius, Hostiensis and the truer opinion.

Quamuis S. Thomas &c.S ^t. Tho. (in 4. d. 16) & Palud (in 4. d. 21. q. 3) wil haue the third person reuealed in confession: as Palud. instan­ceth, that a woman committing incest with her bro­ther, ought to confesse this, although her brother be knowne to the Confessor: which opinion is follo­wed by Gabriel ( ibid. q. 1.) and Maior (qu. 3. ) Arg. 80. and Syluester verb. confess.. 1. q. 24. yet the truer opini­on holdes, that the person and his sinne is to be con­cealed: so teaches Innnocent. in cap. Omnis. Hostiensis ibid. col. 4. yea herein Io. Maior is contrary to himselfe. Sum. paenit. cap. 16. fol. 48.1.

23. Nauar against Io Maior.

Quoad casus reservatos &c.AS for cases reserued, although an Inferiour con­fessor cannot absolue the penitent, yet the peni­tent is bound to confesse all his mortall sinnes to his owne Parish-priest, whether reserued or other. The contrary is held by Io. Maior (in 4. d. 15. q. 5.) Sum. pae­nit. cap. 16. fol. 49.1.

24. Nauar against Adrianus.

Vnde fallitur Adrianus &c.FRom whence it is plaine, that Adrianus is decei­ued, who vpon 4. q. 4. of confess. col. 9. teaches, [Page 179] that the absolution which is giuen by him which re­ceiues onely the confession of sinnes reserued, is not Sacramentall. Sum. paenit. cap. 16. fol. 50.2.

25. Popish Doctors diuided.

TO heale, or aduise him that hath none but mor­tall sinnes lawfully confessed, or veniall sinnes, Ad medican­dum & consu­lendum &c. the Confessor hath no neede of any knowledge or prudence, but onely skill to pronounce the verie wordes of the Sacrament: Because there is neyther contrition necessarily required, nor con­fession indeede necessarily to be made, as it is the opinion of almost all our Doctors, in cap. Omnis de paenit. and Saint Thomas 3. part. quaest. 87. art. 1. Sum. paenit. cap. 17. fol. 54.2.

26. Vrbanus and the Glosse and Paludanus against Innocentius: and Hostiensis and Panormitan betwixt both.

THere is no smal difference amongst our doctors, Non parua inter doctores &c. whether in case our owne Confessor be igno­rant, it be sufficient to aske him leaue to chuse ano­ther, though he graunt it not. Vrbanus 2. in d. c. placuit. and the Glosse 3. in d. 3. flatly say, that in case of igno­rance the consent of our parish-priest is not necessa­ry: and of the same opinion is Palud. in 4. d 16. q 3. and dist. 17. q. 3. But afterward Innocent. 3. (in cap. Omnis) [Page 180] Decreed, it should not be lawfull to confesse to an­other, without the leaue of our owne. So Hostiensis and Panormitan (in d. cap. Omnis) and Adrian (4. de con­fess.) hold, that it is necessary, leaue should be asked of our owne, though not obtained, &c. Sum. paenit. cap. 18. fol. 55.2.

27. Paludanus, Anthoninus, against Nauar, and against Raymundus, Hostiensis, Godofr.

Tertius casus est &c.IN case a Parishioner remooue his dwelling from one Towne to another, or Winter one where, and Summer another: it is questioned to whom his con­fession is to be made. Paludanus in 4. d. 17. q. 3. and S ^t. Anthoninus par. 3. Tit. 17. cap. 9. hold, that his con­fession is to bee made to him, in whose Parish hee dwels when he is shriuen. But it is the truer opini­on, that in such case he may confesse to eyther. Sum. paenit. cap. 18. Hostiensis, Raymundus, Godofredus hold, that he must confesse to his owne former Priest: but they are deceiued. fol. 57.1.

28. Hostiensis and Paludanus and Anthon. against the Glosse and Panormitan.

Parochianus delinquens, &c.A Parishioner sinning in the Parish of another (saith Hostien.) is to confesse to him in whose pa­rish he sinned, not to his owne priest: and the same opinion is held by Paludan. and Anthoninus, but falsly, [Page 181] as the Glosse in cap. placuit. 6. q. 3. and Panormitan in cap. Cum contingit. num. 26. &c. Sum. paen. c. 18. fol. 38.1.

29. Paludanus against Hostiensis.

THat the Sacrament which from the beginning was none, Ratihabitionem retro-trabi. &c. cannot by any after-allowance be­come good and auaileable, see disputed by Paludanus in 4. d. 17. q. 3. against Hostiensis. Sum. paenit. cap. 18. fol. 58.2.

30. Bonauenture, Richardus, Panormitan, Hostiensis, Paludanus, Nauarrus disagreeing.

WHo should be accounted our owne Priest in this businesse of confession, Quid tamen no­mine proprij &c there are manie disagreeing opinions: Saint Bonauenture (in 4. d. 17. art. 5.) and Scotus, and Richardus ( ibid. art. 2. q. 1.) bring three acceptions of this title: Panormitan and others in d. cap. Omnis, and Hostiensis in sum. de paenit. parag [...]cui confit. and Cardin. in Clem. dudum de sepult. and Paludanus (in 4. d. 17. q. 3.) say, that there are more then three to be taken for our owne Priest, and Na­uarrus in that place reckens vp eleuen. Sum. paenit. c. 19. fol. 59.2.

31. The opinion of Doctors, Panormitan, Andr. Sicul. Paludanus, Angelus, Syluester, Gabriel, &c. against the Glosse.

Quicquid Glos­sa &c. HOwsoeuer the Glosse require, that he which is chosen for our Confessor should haue charge of soules, eyther ordinarily, or by Commission; yet the truer opinion of Doctors teach­eth that whosoeuer hath leaue to choose, may take what Confessor he lists, whether he haue charge of soules or not: so teach Panormitan ( in Clem. 1. de Of­fic. deleg) and Andr. Sicul. Paludanus ( in 4. d. 17. qu. 4.) Angelus (verbo confess. 3. Sec. 4. ) Syluester (verb. Con­fessor) Gabriel (in 4. dist. 18. ) Adrianus (in 4. de con­fess. dub. 1. ) Sum. paenit. cap. 20. fol. 62.1.

32. Clement the 8. Anthoninus, and the common opi­nion of Doctors against the Glosse, Io. Andreas, and Panormitan.

Quamuis non nulli olim vt Glossa &c.SOme haue held, that though the Pope, or our own Bishoppe should giue vs leaue to chuse our Con­fessor, yet we might not doe it without the consent of our owne parish-priest: So Glossa 6. and Io. An­dreas, and Panormitanus in part. (vpon cap. Omnis v­triusque) [Page 183] But the truer and commoner opinion of Doctors is contrary, and Saint Anthoninus in 3. par. Tit. 17. cap. 9. sayes, that this opinion of the Glosse, Andreas, and Panormitan was condemned by Clement 4. Sum. paenit. cap. 21.

33. Nauarre against Paludanus and Anthoninus.

THey are deceiued, which hold, Quamuis viato­res &c. that the Bishoppe giuing any manlibertie of pilgrimage, giues him liberty also to be absolued by that Confessor he chu­seth, from cases reserued: yet so held Palud. in 4. dist. 17. q. 4. and Saint Anthoninus 3. p. Tit. 17. Sum. paenit. cap. 21. fol. 67 1.

34. Richardus and Syluester against the common opinion.

Quidam eius opinionis sunt &c.SOme hold that a parish-priest is bound onely vp­on necessity to heare confessions onely at those times, when the parishioner is bound to be shriuen: So teach Richardus (vpon 4. d. 18. art. 2.) and Syluester ( verbo Confessor 1. qu. 1.) that is, once a yeare. But those teach truer, which hold him bound to take the shrift of his people, as oft as any of them will con­fesse. Sum. paenit. cap. 23. fol. 70.1.

35. Io. Maior, Adrian, Caietane, against Richardus and Syluester.

Quoties quis putat se non &c.SOme hold, that so oft as a man thinkes he cannot remember, what mortal sinne he hath committed till Lent, so oft he is bound to confesse it before, as Io. Maior in 4. d. 17. q. 2. Adrianus in 4. De confess. dub. 8. Caietane verbo confess. against Richardus and Syluester vbi supra. Summa paenitentiae cap. 23. fol. 71.1.

36. Felinus against Paludanus and all Diuines &c.

Laicus cui in articulo &c.IF a penitent on his death-bedde confesse him­selfe to a Lay man, though that Lay-man cannot absolue him yet he is bound to conceale his secrets by the seale of confession, sayth Paludanus and all Di­uines vpon 4. dist. 21. The contrary is taught by Felinus (in c. pastoralis. praeterea.) Sum. paenit. cap. 24. & cap. 29. fol. 73.1.

37. Paludanus, Adrianus, Thomas, Nauarre against the Glosse and the Arch-deacon.

Quicquid olim Glossa &c.THE Glosse teaches (1. A. in cap. placuit. de pae­nit. dist. 4.) that men may be tyed to confesse ouer againe those sinnes, which they haue once law­fully confessed: of which opinion also is the Archdea. [Page 185] (ibid. in verb. & consulo.) But they hold truer, which teach, that no humane law can binde a man so to do, without his owne consent, as Gerson (in Lect. 2. vp­on Marc.) Paludanus (in 4. dist. 17. quaest. 5.) Adria­nus (in 4. de confess. q. 5.) S. Thomas (quodlib. 1. ar. 12. ) Sum. paen. 25 fol. 74.1.

38. Io. 22. against Io. Poliacus.

THe three hereticall opinions of Iohannes Poliacus concerning confession, Tria illa diéta &c. were confuted by pope Iohn 22. in Extrauag. vas Elect. Sum. paenit. c. 25. f. 74.1.

39. Io. Maior against the common opinion and Nauar.

IO. Maior ( in 4. d. 17. q. 6.) in defence of the Glosse holdes, Jo. Maior qui maxime con­tendit &c. this second confession of the same sinnes requisite for religious persons, but he dares not af­firme it fit for all the people. Nauar. Sum. paen. cap. 25. fol. 74.

40. Caietane opposed by Nauarre and others.

COncerning the questions to be moued by the Confessor to the penitent before his shrift, Jnterrogatio praeambula &c. see the disagreement betwixt Caietane and Nauar. Sum. paen. c. 26. fol. 78.2.

41. Nauarre against Caietane.

Non sufficit au­tem vt putat Caietan. &c. COncerning the sufficiency of knowledge required in a Confessor: See the diffe­rence betwixt Caietane and others on the one side, which holde it enough in some cases if he know the forme of absolution: and Nauar on the o­ther, who requires somewhat more. Sum. paenit. cap. 28. fol. 88.1.2.

42. Some namelesse Doctors against the rest.

Quicquid aliqui &c.SOme hold, that vnder the seale of Confession wee are bound onely to conceale the very sinne so confessed: But the common opinion of Doctors is, that not onely mortall and veniall sinnes, but all cir­cumstances (which might bring the sin vnto know­ledge) must be also concealed. Sum. paenit. cap. 29. fol. 89.1.

43. Nauarre against Panormitan and Caietane.

Quicquid con­trarium dicat Caietan.COncerning particular cases, how farre we may goe in the reuelation of thinges confessed: See the disagreement of Caietane and Panormitan [Page 187] with P. Nauarrus. Summa Paenitentiae cap. 30.

44. Scotus, Bonauenture, Durand. &c. against Archidiac. both Cardinals, and the Canon &c.

THat the Penitent may giue leaue vnto his Con­fessor to reueale somewhat of his confession, Licentiam hanc dari posse &c. on­ly when it may tend to his owne spirituall good, is held by Scotus in 4. dist. 21. Bonauenture and Durandus, Richardus and Angelus verb. confess. But it is truer that he may giue his Confessor leaue to reueale it for his owne temporall good, or others, as is plaine in cap. Domino Sancto d. 50. and Archidiaconus Domi­nic. and both Cardinals in cap. (ipsi Apostoli) Turre­cremata his shift in this case, see confuted by Nauar. Sum. paen. cap. 32. fol. 95.96.

45. Alexander, Ostiensis, Io. Andreas, Panormitan, Petr. ab Anchor &c. against Thomas, Scotus, Paludan, Bonauenture, Hostiensis, Caietan.

Aliqui saltem in alijs duobus &c.SOme holde, in two cases confession should be re­uealed: first, in a case of heresie, which opinion the Doctors (vpon 4. d. 21.) and Adrianus (in 4. de confess. post. 5.) and Caietane ( Tom. 1. opusc. tract. 21.) haue reiected, and haue condemned that old Latine verse, which maintaines it as pestilent. The second, when a notorious crime to be committed, is confes­sed, as the burning of the City, &c. and the partie [Page 188] confessing will not relent from his ill purpose: In such a case it is held by some that the confession may be reuealed: So teach Alexander in 4. par. qu. 78. mem. 2. Ostiensis, Io. Andreas, Panormitan, Petrus, ab Anchorano, Decius, Angelus, Syluester, which Au­thours grieuously erred in this matter &c. All o­ther therefore, as Saint Thomas, Scotus, Paludanus, Bonauenture in 4. dist. 21. and Hostiensis himselfe, in Summa. paenit. paragraph. in quo. Turrecremata in cap. Sacerdos. Caietane in Tom. 1. Opusc. Tract. 21. teach, it is vtterly vnlawfull to disclose it. Yea Caietane asked by another Cardinall, an­swereth, that a Confessor to whom is reuealed a Treasonable purpose, to kill the King or the pope, may not reueale it. Sum. paenit. cap. 32. fol. 98. and 99.

46. Richardus and Nauarre against Maior and Adrian.

Quid facere debet confessa­rius &c.VVHether a Priest trauelling amongst Theeues into a wood, hearing by one of them now before hand relenting, that they meane to kill him in that wood, be bound to go on into the wood, and die rather then reueale that which was confessed, see disputed betwixt Io. Maior in 4. dist. 21. and Adria­nus in 4. de confess. post. 5. on the one side, which holde, hee may returne and saue himselfe: and Richardus in 4. dist. 21. art. 4. on the o­ther, who holdes, (and Nauarre with him) that [Page 179] he must rather goe into the Wood, and manifestly hazard his life. Sum. paenit. d. 32. fol. 99.2.

47. Nauar against some namelesse.

Confessariū quo ad confitentem &c.THat which some hold, that a Confessor must so behaue himselfe out of Confession toward the Penitent, as if he had neuer heard his confession, See confuted by Nauar. Sum. paenit. cap. 32. fol. 103.1.

48. Nauarre against diuers Confessors.

SIxe seuerall fashions of Absolution, Informa abso­lutionis. vsed by the Confessors of his time, See confuted by Nauar. Sum. Paenit. cap. 33. fol. 105.106. &c.

49. Nauarre against the common practise.

THe imposition of hands vpon euery Penitent, Manus impositio super capite pae­nitentis &c. is not necessary alwaies, nor fit to be vsed, yea som­time euill: See defended by Nauarre, As when the penitent is a woman, and perhaps sweetely beautiful, and delicately attired: according to Paludanus in 4. dist. 22. quaest. 3. Sum. paen. 33. fol. 107.1.

50. Nauarre against Angelus.

Hinc infertur falli Angelum &c.THat a Confessor may absolue his penitent from his sins, and after send him for absolution from his excommunication to his superiour, vnto whom that excommunication is reserued, is falsely taught by Angelus in ver. Confess. parag. 10. saith Nauarrus. Sum. paen. 34. fol. 112.1.

51. Popish Doctors diuided.

Jn hac quaestio­ne difficili &c. IN this difficult question our Doctors agree not: whether a Confessor may absolue a penitent which will not o­bey him; because the penitent followes other Doctors, which hold the contrary opinion to the Confessor. Some hold, that penitent may not be absolued; but their opinion is more probable, which hold he may. Sum. paen. 35. fol. 114.

52. Scotus and the Doctors of Paris against Thomas, Bonauenture, Richardus, Durandus &c.

Quamuis mult. Doctores, &c.ALthough many Doctors thinke, that no sacra­mentall satisfaction done out of charity, auailes [Page 191] any thing to expiate the punishment for sinne, which we owe to God, because God accepts not his workes, that is infected with mortall sinne, and by consequent, is his enemy, for any satisfaction: as S ^t. Thomas, Bonauent. Richard. Durand. vpon 4. d. 15.16. Caietan Tom. 1. Opusc. Tract. 6. q. 1. Yet it is more truely held by Scotus (in 4. d. 15. q. 1.) and the Doctors of Paris in the same place, that he which is in mortall sin may satisfie for his temporall punishment, due to his sinne wip't off by contrition. Sum. Paenit. 37. fol. 120.

53. Nauarre against Caietane.

CAietane holdes ( Tom. 1. Opusc. Tract. 6.) that a sa­cramentall satisfaction takes not the like effect afterward, which it would haue had, Quamuis Caie­tanus &c. if it had beene done in charity: But the contrary is truer, that such satisfaction by the addition of charity afterward, be­comes as perfect as if it should haue beene done in it. Sum. paen. 37. fol. 120.2.

54. Thomas, Paludanus, Maior. Almaine, Roffensis, An­thoninus, against Caietane and the truer opinion.

IN this question so difficult and controuersall a­mongst our Authours, howsoeuer Saint Thomas, In hac quaestione satis difficili &c. Paludanus, and others (vpon 4. dist. 20.) Maior (in 4. dist. 17.) Almaine (in 4. dist. 18.) Roffensis in his 5. [Page 174] Artic. against Luther and S ^t. Anthoninus (3. p. Tit. 14. cap. 19.) hold, that the Penitent is bound vpon com­maund to accept the penance imposed, and hauing once accepted, to performe it: yet the truer opinion is, that the penitent is not bound by precept before he be absolued, to accept the penance inioyned by his Confessor; But that it is free for him to accept or not accept it, and it is enough that he will eyther in this life, or in Purgatorie satisfie for his sinnes. So Caietane (in summa verb. Satisfactio) and Hostiensis (in summa de paenit, & remiss.) saith, that onely the Lords prayer is to be inioyned to the penitent, to be said for penance, rather then he should bee sent away not absolued Sum. paenit. cap. 38. fol. 121.1.2.

55. Nauar against Richard. Anthoninus, Syluester, &c.

RIchardus (in 4. d. 17. art. 2. q. 8 ) Anthoninus (3. p. Tit. 14. cap. 19.) and Syluest. (verbo confessio) are de­ceiued, Vnde falluntur Richard. &c. which hold, that vpon meere omission of doing penance, confession is to be iterated. Sum. paen. cap. 38. fol. 124.2.

56. Two contrary opinions of Popish Doctors.

WHether we are bound to confesse veniall sins, two opinions are reported by Thomas. (q. 6. art. 3. ) Franciscus de Victoria (Sum. Sacram. de con­fessione art. 129.

57. Innocentius, Archidiac. Adrian. Palud. Bonauent. against Saint Thomas, Fr. Vict. and other Doctors.

THat a man is bound presently vpon his sinne committed to confesse, is held by Innocentius (cap. Omnis) Archidiacon (in cap. ille rex.) But Saint Thomas and other Doctors hold the contrary, and Franciscus de victor. ibid. art. 133. who addes Adrianus, Paludan. and Bonauenture, set downe some cases wherin a man is bound presently to confesse: but I beleeue them not. Artic. 136.

58. Fr. Victor. against other Diuines.

THat the pope cannot dispense with the precept of confession: see defended against other their Diuines by Victoria art. 140.

59. Scotus against Pet. Lombard, Thomas, Durandus, Pa­ludan, Richard, Gabriel.

THat we may in an extremity confesse our sinnes to a Lay-man, is held by the Master of Sentences (4. d. 17.) and Saint Thomas (in the same place, and in additionibus q. 8. art. 2.) who cyteth Augustine and Bede) by Durandus, Paludanus, Richardus, Gabriel. But Scotus defends it not safe to be done (in 4. d. 14. art. 2.) who is confuted by Fr. Victoria art. 143.

60. Paludanus, Capreolus, Durandus, against Maior and Fr. Victoria.

THat any Priest may absolue vs in the point of death, stands by the law of God, saith Paludanus (4. d. 20. q. 1) and Capreolus (d. 19. q. vnica) and Durandus. It stands onely by a positiue law, saith Maior and Fr. Victoria. art. 156.

61. Io. Maior, Bernardus de Gauaco, Capreolus and Caie­tane in three different opinions.

WHether an imperfect and informe confes­sion be to be repeated, are three opinions; two extreame, and one meane: the first of Io. Maior (4 d. 17. q. 3.1.) that it must be repeated if it were not entire, or wanted of contriti­on: which Victoria cals an intollerable errour: The second of Bernardus de Gauaco ( in impugnat. Godofredi quodlib. 5) that how imperfect soeuer it be, it is not to be repeated. The third is more likely, of Capreolus (d. 17. q. 2.) and Caietane, which hold, that some im­perfect confession is to be repeated, some not. Victor. art. 157.

62. Fr. Victor. against Durandus.

THat by an imperfect confession, the precept of confession is satisfied, and fulfilled, is denyed in some cases by Durandus (4. dist. 17. quaest. 14 and 15.) affirmed by Fran. Victoria. art. 163.